Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Finally, VDare.com has extensively studied the historical test scores of the two primary presidential candidates and extrapolated their IQ's:
Bush - 123
Kerry - 120
Read This Just In—Kerry's IQ Likely Lower than Bush's.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
By Donald Lambro
The Washington Times
John Kerry promised in the second presidential debate not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year, but critics of his revenue-raising plan said yesterday that it would hit people who earn less and further complicate the income tax code.
One critic notes that the Democratic candidate's promised tax increases probably would fall on many of his supporters "who believe they are middle class."
Mr. Kerry's campaign Web site states that he would "restore [sic] the top two tax brackets to their levels under President Clinton," which were set at 39.6 percent and 36 percent respectively until President Bush cut all the marginal tax rates in 2001 — lowering the two highest to 35 percent and 33 percent.
The lower of these two top tax brackets applies to single people who earn at least $143,500 and married couples filing jointly who have a combined income of $174,700 or more. Thus, a two-earner married couple filing jointly, each making $87,350 a year, could be taxed under the higher tax rate that Mr. Kerry proposes if he applied it to the income brackets that are currently in the income tax schedule used by the Internal Revenue Service.
Read the rest of the story.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Along with recently calling interim Iraqi president Allawi a liar and delusional, labeling the rest of the coalition "window dressing," and insulting Italian coalition troops fighting in Iraq -- saying that the Iraqi military was so bad that even the Italians could have defeated them -- John Kerry is demonstrating to America his idea of "diplomacy," an area in which he so regularly criticizes Bush as being incompetent. With the recent promise of the French and Germans that they would not be sending troops to Iraq regardless of who is or will be president, Kerry's claims of superior diplomatic talent are falling very, very flat.
Remember this is the same diplomacy giant that secretly met with North Vietnamese officials in Paris -- while the war was still going on -- then lobbied Congress for the terms the Communists gave him.
We need a president whose diplomatic efforts have American interests in mind, not those of our enemies. In other words:
"Traitors Need Not Apply"
Friday, October 15, 2004
Check out SixHertz House of Pain
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
After being tossed a softball by an audience member asking Kerry to look into the camera and pledge not to raise taxes on everyone making under $200,000 (wow, where did that number come from!), Kerry babbled on and on about child-care credits, tuition credits, health care, the energy bill, etc.
Then after promising to raise taxes for everyone making over $200,000, Kerry said:
How typical a Kerryism. There are ultimately four ways to get rich: earn it, inherit it, steal it, and marry into it. Kerry falls into the last category. I suppose someone who's never worked a real job in his life, but sits in luxury after two marriages to extremely wealthy woman, is an expert at spotting those who are earning their wealth? Did John Kerry really think of that entire audience as incapable of success? How would he possibly know there were no rich folks in the room?
And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too (FoxNews.com).
He didn't. You see, John Kerry and the Democrats have found a weakness in the American people: class warfare. The simple-minded thrive on the notion that the wealthy never earned their way, that the only reason that everyone isn't rich is because of some vast conspiracy by the rich to keep them down. Kerry and the Democrats play into that. And it earns them a lot of votes.
Think about it. Why would Kerry care what 1% of the country thinks? He doesn't need their votes. The other 99% is much more attractive. Simple statistics. Appeal to the largest demographics, and if you can create some sort of battle-bond among them and pit them against that other minority, you're bound to win.
Remember that Kerry doesn't need to appeal to all rich people to raise significant campaign funds. He only needs that small portion of the guilty, socialist rich -- people like George Soros, who can funnel hundreds of $millions into the political race through web sites, newspaper ads, and tv ads. One Soros is worth ten Ken Lays.
Is this the kind of president we want? A man who can't even conceive how common Americans could ever get rich? With his planned tax hikes, it's not surprising. How American is it to raise taxes only for the successful? Hasn't Kerry heard the old saying about taxing those activities you wish to discourage and not taxing those activities you wish to encourage? Kerry's tax plan is the parental equivalent of only giving a weekly allowance to a child that gets bad grades and doesn't do his chores.
The final debate is tonight. You better believe I'll be watching closely for more elitist screw-ups.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Totals: Bush (274) - Kerry (260)
Strong: Bush (148) - Kerry (91)
Weak: Kerry (91) - Bush (70)
Barely: Kerry (74) - Bush (56)
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) reported recently that 51% of 18 to 29-year-olds believes this rumor, compared to only 8% of those thinking the same about Kerry, and 7% thinking both will! 1
Both Kerry and Bush have repeatedly denied any intention of bringing back a draft, most recently in the Oct. 8, 2004 debate at Washington Univ. in St. Louis. "I hear there's rumors on the Internets (sic) that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period...Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president," remarked Bush during the debate. 2
How did we get to this point? A little history...
House of RepresentativesOn January 7, 2003, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced H.R. 163, named "Universal National Service Act of 2003." Its official title was "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
The cosponsors were all Democrats: Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rep Corrine Brown (FL), Rep Donna Christensen (VI), Rep Wm. Lacy Clay (MO), Rep John Conyers (MI), Rep Elijah Cummings (MD), Rep Alcee Hastings (FL), Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL), Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Rep John Lewis (GA), Rep Jim McDermott (WA), Rep James Moran (VA), Rep Pete Stark (CA), Rep Nydia Velazquez (NY), Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) (withdrawn - 6/21/2004). The bill failed on October 5, 2004 by a vote of 402-2. The only representatives who voted for the bill to bring back the draft: Pete Stark (D-CA) and John Murtha (D-PA). 3
SenateAlso on January 7, 2003, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) submitted S.89, comparably named "Universal National Service Act of 2003" and officially titled "A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." The bill had no cosponsors. It's currently still awaiting approval in the Committee on Armed Services before it can be voted on in the Senate. 4
Both the Senate and House versions of the bill were introduced by Democrats, not because they wanted to reinstate the draft, but to make an anti-war statement. This is obviously a terrible use of taxpayer dollars. Senators and Representatives should never introduce bills with the intention of voting against them, just to make a political statement. This is juvenile and unprofessional. You are encouraged to send emails or letters to the Senator and Representatives mentioned to voice your disgust with such selfish, partisan, political tactics.
Email HoaxThe introduction of these two bogus bills triggered a slew of email hoaxes convincing people a draft was eminent. These emails were obviously intended to scare voters into opposing President Bush, going so far as to claim the fictitious draft was set to "begin as early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election" and the Bush Administration "is quietly trying to get these bills passed now." 5,6
This is, of course, false, but it doesn't stop gullible internet newbies from propagating a lie. You know the type. They've only found the internet in the past 5 years. They receive these email hoaxes all the time, but instead of deleting them like the rest of us, they read them carefully and believe them. These things look official. They're written like official news stories. They are formatted perfectly and have no editing or spelling errors. They even have references to some web links, most of which don't exist. But it doesn't matter. The lie is out there.
Even as recently as October 8, CNSNews.com reports that Democrat Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe is repeating this lie, "'I know it's controversial to say it, but don't think for one second that if George Bush gets re-elected and we have another conflict in some other theater of the world, we're going to have to reinstitute the draft.'" 7
An official response debunking the hoax can be found on the U.S. Selective Service System web site.
Sources1 NAES 04 Press Release: October 8, 2004, National Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
2 Transcript & Video: Debate #2, FoxNews.com.
3 H.R. 163, Library of Congress.
4 S.89, Library of Congress.
5 Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Draft Fear), Snopes.com.
6 Urban Legends and Folklore: Congress Is Planning to Reinstate the Military Draft, UrbanLegends.About.com.
7 McAuliffe to College Dems: Bush Will Reinstitute Draft, CNSNews.com.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Learning Math on TV
Christmas in Cambodia
M16/Chinese Assault Rifle
"I've been consistent on the war since the beginning."
How many on-the-spot lies does that make for the Johns? I'm losing count.