The Washington Times has a story titled, "Jewish vote to remain with Dems" - a bit disturbing if you ask me, so I will proudly say "Not this Jew!"

which says,

Three out of four Jewish voters in the United States will vote for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in November, a poll released Monday indicated.

The survey by the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Solomon Project found despite Republican attempts to win over Jewish voters, respondents chose Kerry over President Bush 75 percent to 22 percent. This is largely unchanged from the results during the 2000 election, when 76 percent of Jewish Americans voted for former Vice President Al Gore vs. 21 percent for Bush.

It's unfortunate so many of my Jewish brothers and sisters still think the Democrat party best serves their interests, but in time they will be free from the bondage of Democrats and have a mass exodus into the promised land of the Republican Party.

Perhaps it will take chosen one, a Deliverer, who can stand up to the Democrat leaders and demand "Let my people go!"

10 Democrat plagues would follow, including tax cuts, conservative judges, a strong military, amongst others... The final Democrat plague would be 'life for unborn'... driving them over edge... and my fellow Jews would realize how the Democrats don't hold the same values as they do. These plagues, while devestating the Democrats will bring a spark of hope in my brother and sister Jews, and the rest of America, opening themselves up to a land of security and propserity...

Perhaps I will be that Jew.

Via Drudge, to be published in GQ, Kerry offers advice on seeking women:

"Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. ... It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. ... And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging."

Which is Kerry-speak for:

"Look for a really, really, really rich woman. Then marry her."

For those of you who have noticed a slight change in my activity here (both in posting blog entries and participating in the comment threads) I wanted to let you know I'm dong my best to make time, but it wa getting a bit difficult after the DNC started.

For those of you who do not know, I will be one of the credentialed bloggers at the Republican National Convention. I have been invited to represent my other site Blogs For Bush. I received my official invitiation the week of the Democrat's convention and since then I've been dong a lot to be prepared for it. The two weeks following my official invite saw a number of interviews with local papers, online publications, radio programs in Atlanta, GA and Spokane, WA. It's been pretty overwhelming.

While I will do my best to keep blogging regular, but I am assuming my participation in the comment threads here will be fairly minimal.

I will keep you informed of the situation as more information is apparent.

Earlier today I announced on Blogs For Bush that the famed Blogroll For Bush had passed 800 blogs!

This is quite an amazing accomplishment. Remember Howard Dean... Mr. Internet? He had only 90 blogs on his blogroll. John Kerry? He had only 55.

So much for the liberal blogosphere huh?

Some things piss you off...

Other things restore your faith:

Citing concerns about terrorists crossing the nation's land borders, the Department of Homeland Security announced today that it planned to give border patrol agents sweeping new powers to deport illegal aliens from the frontiers abutting Mexico and Canada without providing the aliens the opportunity to make their case before an immigration judge.

BRING. IT. ON!

John Kerry Still Would Have Voted For The War, Before He Voted Against Funding For Our Troops

Does it get any stranger than that?

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

So there you have it, Kerry, with the benefit of hindsight said he'd have voted to give President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq.

But what does that say about his vote against funding our troops who are currently serving in Iraq?

I find this disturbing because John Kerry still voted against funding our troops who are fighting in Iraq.

John Kerry, who seems to be getting a free pass on this particular issue opted to "challenge" Bush to answer some questions, including "why he rushed to war," "why he used faulty intelligence," "why he mislead Americans about how he would go to war" and "why he had not brought other countries to the table."

I'd like to know why John Kerry thinks that we "rushed to war" when he spent 14 years in the Senate warning our country about Saddam Hussein.

I'd like to know why in hindsight he can still say he'd vote for the use of force against Iraq and yet criticize Bush acting on the findings of the intelligence given to him.

I'd like to know why Kerry, who spent eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, can criticize President Bush for acting on "faulty intelligence" when Kerry has made a habit of voting to cut intelligence funding – even after the WTC bombings of 1993.

I'd like to know why after 14 years of warning us about Saddam Hussein's regime why Bush was "rushing" rather than John Kerry was "stalling" on Iraq.

I'd like to know why a coalition of nearly 50 countries is unilateral without the permission of France, Germany, and Russia.

John Kerry may have given an answer, but his answer only brings up a lot more questions.

UPDATE: I got ahead of myself and didn't realize that Kerry actually did NOT answer the question Bush challenged him to answer. Details at Blogs For Bush.

John Kerry never ceases to remind us of his service in Vietnam... he even likes to highlight that he "volunteered" to go, as we can see on his website:

As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam - because, as he later said, "it was the right thing to do." He believed that because he had had a lot of privileges in life - for example, attending a great university like Yale - he had a responsibility to give something back to his country.

Fellow RNC credentialed blogger, Scott of Slant Point has brought my attention to a Kerry quote from 1986 in the Boston Globe, discussing his "volunteering" to serve:

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

So here we have presidential candidate Kerry saying "he had a responsibility to give something back to his country," and freshmen senator Kerry saying "I didn't really want to get involved in the war." Interesting contrast isn't it?

So which do you think is the more genuine sentiment?

This is my interview on the Stephanie Sandlin Show (KSBN - Spokane, WA) on August 4, 2004.

What is this all about????

When 13 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress asked United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send election monitors to the U.S. this fall, the move outraged many Republicans and other proponents of national sovereignty.

When those same 13 Democratic members of Congress were turned down by Annan, they took their request to Secretary of State Colin Powell – again to the shock of many Republicans and those who warn about foreign entanglements.

This is bull sh*t.

You hear often accusations from the left that Republicans and George W. Bush "wrap themselves in the flag" or something along those lines, most recently we hear it from John Kerry:

[John Kerry] accused Bush and his team of “wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth,” declaring: “We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.”

This kind of stupidity by Kerry and the Democrats is really annoying. You know why? During the entire Democrat primary season we got bombarded with various messages implying that removing Bush was a form of patriotism. To this day, liberals continue pushing that theme. I've seen bumpers like "Vote Patriotic, Dump Bush" or some variation of that.

So it's okay for liberal/Democrat to wrap himself in the flag but not for a Republican?

Today, I was reminded of this hypocrisy by a Letter to the Editor in a local paper, titled "True Patriots Will Vote For Kerry", which was concluded with this paragraph:

I love our country, honor those who serve it, and accept it as true that the most patriotic thing Americans can do is deny Bush four more years in office.

Liberals do not own the flag any more than Republicans. It is nevertheless curious to me how liberals are so desperate to wrap themselves (and their causes) with the flag - the same flag they are hell bent on having the right to burn.

John Kerry in speech today at the 2004 UNITY Conference gave us a picture of what kind of a war on terror he would "fight."

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Sensitive? Does Kerry not want to offend our enemies? The same enemies that want to destroy us? Does Kerry want to be more mindful of the desires of France, Germany and Russia before we consider our national security? What kind of a war on terror is that? John Kerry may want to fight a politically correct war on terror, but I want to win the war on terror, and so does George W. Bush. You don't defeat your enemies by appeasing them. You can't defend your country only after getting a permission slip from your "allies."

George W. Bush understands that. John Kerry doesn't.

Support the war on terror and donate to the Bush campaign today.

WorldNetDaily reports:

Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign have faxed a letter to television station managers warning them not to broadcast an ad by Kerry's Vietnam colleagues which asserts the candidate is lying about his service during the war.

The letter, posted by Human Events Online [Requires PDF viewer], tells the managers if they decide to air the ad they are "responsible for the false and libelous charges" made by the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Yeah, of course it's "false and libelous" according to the Kerry campaign.. It's probably "attacking his patriotism" too... or some other excuse.

If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aren't telling the truth, then hey, let John Kerry prove it. I have to say John Kerry wouldn't have to defend his Vietnam service if he didn't make his Vietnam service his entire platform.

Matthew Dowd has once again provided us with some fantastic insight into this campaign. His latest revelation, "Kerry is the first candidate since George McGovern to receive a negative bounce -- and no challenger has ever been elected without opening a large lead over the incumbent after their convention."

Kerry’s performance in Gallup's post-convention poll is even worse than George McGovern’s in 1972, making it the worst convention bounce in Gallup’s history of presidential campaign polling.

Click here for the graph.

After you're done laughing give a little to the Bush campaign...

As always on Blogs For Bush...

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that after Kerry picked his running mate and accepted the nomination at the Democrat's convention that he we'd like see Kerry "anywhere from eight to twelve points up."

Matthew Dowd, Chief Strategist of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign said historical analysis suggested "Kerry should have a leard of more than 15 points coming out the convention."

They were both wrong.

The bounce was a whopping 4 points, according to Newsweek.

Kerry’s four-point “bounce” is the smallest in the history of the NEWSWEEK poll. There are several factors that may have contributed to the limited surge, including the timing of the poll. On Thursday, Kerry had just a two-point lead over Bush (47 percent to 45 percent), suggesting that his Friday night speech had a significant impact. Additionally, Kerry’s decision to announce his vice-presidential choice of John Edwards three weeks before the convention may have blunted the gathering’s impact. And limited coverage by the three major networks also may have hurt Kerry.

With the constant attacks against Bush the past few months, including a number of books and Michael Moore's propaganda film Fahrenheit 911, Kerry's current standing is quite weak. During the month of August the Bush campaign will rise up and go on the offensive, not only deflating the Kerry bounce, but also sending the Kerry-Edwards campaign into freefall.

Be afraid Kerry, be very afraid.

At the DNC tonight:

Hillary and Sean "Puff Daddy/P. Diddy" Combs...

There's a campaign poster for ya...

I just found this story on CNN:

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins.

The three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the deal between Joel McKiernan and Ivonne Ferguson -- in which McKiernan donated his sperm and would not be obligated to pay any support -- was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles."

Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.

"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,"' wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.

I'm sorry, but this is bull. This guy helps a woman out by giving her a chance to have children, signs a contrac and everything... This is a woman who intentionally went about having children while apparently single, or unable to care for the children on her own.

This just goes to show you how the courts hate fathers and blindly side with mothers.

I know, big shocker right?

The Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee is officially urging its members to work for the election of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

"Kerry was hardly the first choice of our members," said Frank Llewellyn, national director of the DSA. "Most supported Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean in the Democratic primary elections and would be very critical of Senator Kerry's voting record on trade issues, as well as his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; but the most important concern of our members now is to defeat Bush."

I wonder if the Kerry campaign is going to have t-shirts made.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

In the last three years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption.

I guess supporting Kerry can "moderate its image" a little.

Maybe not.

From the Boston Globe:

The Democratic National Convention hasn't started yet, but the partisan gamesmanship is already underway in Boston. The Republican National Committee yesterday released a poll it commissioned that says nearly half of Massachusetts voters believe John F. Kerry should resign from the Senate as he runs for president.

In a survey of 500 Bay State voters conducted last Sunday and Monday, 59 percent said they ''are concerned" that Kerry ''missed 70 percent of the votes in the Senate over the last two years" and 45 percent say he should resign his Senate seat, according to an RNC spokeswoman, Christine Iverson.

The survey by Public Opinion Strategies also said: By a ratio of 51 percent to 31 percent, Massachusetts voters believe President Bush is ''more decisive" than Kerry; 53 percent say he is ''not a serious legislator" and more concerned about raising his national profile; and by a better-than-3-to-1 ratio think he would raise taxes if elected president.

Who knows how accurate the poll is, but it's tough to cook a poll using Massachusetts voters...