Sharpton to deliver on campaign promises immediately
Boca Raton, FL – In the worst case scenario of worst case scenarios voting machines across the country have returned preliminary results declaring that the next President of the United States will be Rev. Al Sharpton.
Sharpton, who briefly ran for the Democratic Party Nomination earlier in 2004 was shocked by the news, but reportedly “thrilled” at the prospect of running a country. “They told me that you couldn’t run on a platform of ‘Chicken and Biscuits for Everybody’, boy I showed them,” said the Reverend via cell phone. “It just goes to show, everybody likes a big piece of chicken.”
The news that the results were only temporary did nothing to deter Sharpton’s enthusiasm. Already, both incumbent George W. Bush, and Democratic Nominee John Kerry were filing papers with the Supreme Court that challenged the legitimacy of the results. Court papers obtained for this report cited numerous reasons for the preliminary outcome to be thrown out, among them that (1) “the Reverend Sharpton is not actually even on the ballot”, (2) “evidence of voter fraud was found at the many polling booths, namely that several machines were installed upside down”, and (3) “the millions disenfranchised white people's faith in partisan politics will be lost for ever”.
The situation is made more chaotic by the recent health problems of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. If and when these challenges go to trial, all nine Supreme Court Justices must preside. A panel of eight Justices could very well end up divided, so an odd number is required. Matters were complicated by the announcement of Justice Clarence Thomas who is already on the record saying that “there ain’t no way ya’ll are making me sit this one out.”
While the legal wranglers sort out the details Al Sharpton, or “Reverend 44” as he is asking to be called now, continued to comment on the situation via cell phone. “Didn’t ya’ll learn from ‘The Terminator’? These electronic voting booths is too complicated. Now, if they looked more like slot machines, and instead of George Bush you got to pick out the double cherry or something, now that would be easier.” Sharpton predicted, “Technology is going to be the death of white people. Ha Ha!”
While the nation sat in stunned silence, representatives from the Sharpton camp began to plan for the future. The Reverend was late to a hastily thrown together victory press conference because “he was getting his hair did”, but he did send on a message of hope through his press secretary and second cousin Willy. “Keep hope alive America”, the statement read. “The chicken is in the mail!”
Reason #1: Feel Better About The Result. No matter who you vote for, and no matter the result of the election-day poll, George W. Bush will be named president. If for some reason the election itself doesn’t do this, then the Supreme Court will. >>> Reason #2: Make The World Even Safer The world is a safer place since George W. Bush came to power. Anyone can see that. Sure there was 9/11, and this did happen on George W. Bush’s watch, but remember there were terrorist threats during the Clinton administration too. >>>
Reason #3: Be Richer, or At Least Look It Yes, under George W. Bush many of us have got to be much richer than before. Tax laws have reduced taxes for some, and restraints on big business have made some investments soar. >>>
Reason #4: Leave Some Children Behind The Democrats keep harking on about the “No Child Left Behind” program leaving kids behind. They have promised to fix the program, but do you really want them to? >>>
Reason #5: More Jobs For The Poor In the bad old days of the Clinton administration analysts and media watchers used to analyse the US employment statistics alone to decide whether the government was doing it’s job. In an era of global economies and overseas investments this was narrow minded and dumb. >>>
Reason #6: Media Leaves You Feeling Good. With a Republican owned and dominated media, Democrat administrations can be confusing. Every time the government does something the media feel obliged to offer and independent critique and point out the possible negative aspects of the governments latest actions.>>>
Reason #7: Get Better Movies. There have been some great films during the Bush years. We’ve had Michael Moore’s bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11 all directly criticizing the Bush administration.>>>
Reason #8: Daily Terror Alert Levels. Can anyone remember life before the daily Terror Alert Level? Can anyone remember when the weather forcast was followed by nothing but pollution levels? Remember how dull it was, leaving the house for work without your daily dose of terror?>>>
BIGfib says, "Vote Bush or stay at home"
Always independent, always objective and truthful, BIGfib isn’t in the habit of telling it’s readers which way to vote, but this once, we’ve made an exception. Why? We hate to tell you this, but the world is on the brink of disaster and we’re the only ones who can save it.
Never before have the people, and the pets, and the Democrats of the USA been faced with such a stark choice. Vote for a fundamentalist Christian state in a permanent state of war against the dark forces of evil, or go back to the old boring hypocrisy of “getting on with anyone”.
Vote for a country made to measure so that American big business can get bigger and bigger and rule the world, or go back to the sad old days of monopolies commissions and boring moderation. There are hundreds of fabulous reasons to vote for George W. Bush and a hundred more not to vote for that dreadful liberal John Kerry. This issue contains just some of them, please read.
And if you don’t agree, well don’t worry. You don’t even need to bother voting. The polls, the media, and past experience consistently show that no matter what happens on Nov 2nd, John Kerry cannot win. Democrats can save themselves the pain of participating in a pointless ballot by staying at home and watching George W. Bush win on T.V. BIGfib is Bush's friend, BIGfib says, Vote Bush or don't vote at all.>>>
ELECTION 2004
ELECTION 2004
Reason #9: George W. Is Better Looking It’s clear that George. W. Bush Is better looking than John Kerry, especially once he’s had his makeup done. He doesn’t look bad even now, but when he was younger Bush was positively sexy. >>>
Reason #10: Get To Carry On Hating The French Under Bush things remain clear. Tony Blair is our ally. The rest of the world is our enemy, especially the French. It’s easy to grasp and choosing holiday destinations is much, much easier. >>>
tolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.
This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.
Sinclair, the nation's largest television station group, reaching about a quarter of United States television households, backed down this week and announced that it would use only excerpts from the 42-minute film as part of an hourlong news program about political use of the media, "A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.'' That's too bad: what is most enlightening about this film is not the depiction of Mr. Kerry as a traitor; it is the testimony of the former P.O.W.'s describing the torture they endured in captivity and the shock they felt when celebrities like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden visited their prisons in North Vietnam and sided with the enemy.
The former prisoners - now old and graying - are not just talking about their sense of betrayal by fellow Americans. They also seize the Kerry candidacy as a chance to recall their experiences: the kinds of torture they endured and the ruses they invented like tap-code communication between cells to boost morale. Illustrated with black-and-white film clips of prisoners in the "Hanoi Hilton" and sepia-toned re-enactments of starving men being led through dank, dark prison corridors, those recollections resemble the slow-paced, detailed documentaries that fill the History Channel.
But the History Channel tends to focus on the heroic moments of World Wars I and II. The Vietnam War is almost always revisited through its moral and strategic ambiguities and its effect on American society in the 1960's and 70's.
This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous antiwar activists, Mr. Kerry, the one who got credit for serving with distinction in combat, then, through the eyes of the veterans in this film, went home to discredit the men left behind. The film begins with dirgelike music and a scary black-and-white montage of stark images of soldiers and prisoners as a deep voice sorrowfully intones, "In other wars, when captured soldiers were subjected to the hell of enemy prisons, they were considered heroes." The narrator adds, "In Vietnam they were betrayed."
The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry's early 1970's meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry "met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat." Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a former investigative reporter and a Vietnam veteran, gives his own testimony, explaining that even though he has uncovered all kinds of misdeeds in his career, the history of Mr. Kerry's antiwar activism is "a lot more personal.'' He recalls listening to Mr. Kerry's testimony in 1971, saying, "I felt an inner hurt no surgeon's scalpel could remove.''
That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99. One former P.O.W., John Warner, lashes out at Mr. Kerry for having coaxed Mr. Warner's mother to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation, where disgruntled veterans testified to war crimes they committed. Calling it a "contemptible act," Mr. Warner, who spent more than five years as a prisoner, tells the camera that Mr. Kerry was the kind of man who preyed on a mother's grief "purely for the promotion of your own political agenda."
The documentary shows Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, in which he famously reported that fellow soldiers had "cut off ears," among other atrocities. But the filmmakers were not able to dig up more indicting material from homemade movies or news clips from the era. The picture from an antiwar demonstration, where Mr. Kerry stood a few rows behind Ms. Fonda, is blown up portentously, but there are no shots of them together. The only candid shot of Mr. Kerry gathering material for the Winter Soldier hearings shows him solicitously asking a veteran why he felt the need to speak.
Instead, the film shows lesser-known young, long-haired antiwar activists preparing witnesses to testify to war crimes. In the film these men seem to be prompting a fellow veteran to describe a massacre he did not witness. But one of the veterans, Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify.
Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.
Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal
Excerpts from this program will be shown on various stations, but not in the New York metropolitan area; elsewhere check local listings. The entire program can be seen on the Internet on a pay-for-view basis and its audio can be downloaded online, both at www.stolenhonor.com.
Carlton Sherwood, producer. A Red White and Blue Productions Inc.
All the good things they never tell you about today's Iraq
The other day, the BBC interviewed Kofi Annan. Don't ask me why. But, in the course of the programme, the United Nations Secretary-General said that the liberation of Iraq did not conform to the UN Charter and therefore was "illegal".
The best response to that comes from George W Bush, after Gerhard Schroder made a similar point last year: "International law?" said the President. "I better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me."
As the Australian Prime Minister John Howard (not to be confused with Michael Howard, ever) observed, the problem with the UN is that it's "paralysed", and that paralysis favours the bad guys, whether in Iraq or Iran, where perpetual International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring seems to be barely a hindrance to the full-steam-ahead nuclear programme.
In Sudan, the civilised world is (so far) doing everything to conform with the UN charter, which means waiting till everyone's been killed and then issuing a strong statement expressing grave concern.
As for Iraq, the UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan's office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome.
He's not the only voice from the lost world of September 10, 2001 weighing in.
John Kerry, the doomed Democrat, has abandoned any talk of "victory" - in Iraq, I mean; he's still hopeful of holding New Jersey. But instead he is promising to let America's troops "come home", which is another way of saying "surrender".
Then there are the naysayers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who, as we now know, were claiming before the war that nothing could be done, nothing would go right, patently absurd to think Iraq can ever be a democracy, old boy. Topple Saddam, install his replacement, and pretty soon Iraq would be reverting to type. "Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interests. With time he could acquire WMD."
I have no problem with that. If the best-case scenario is that Iraq winds up as agreeable as my beloved New Hampshire, the worst case was laid out by yours truly in this space three years ago, on September 27, 2001, when I acknowledged that a post-Saddam Iraq might wind up merely with "a thug who's marginally less bloody.
But a new thug is still better than letting the old thug stick around to cock snooks at you. If Saddam had been toppled, the nutter du jour would have come to power in the shadow of the cautionary tale of his predecessor".
That's still the bottom line. It is the stability of the Middle East - the stability of the Ba'athists, Ayatollahs, Sauds, the Arafats and Mubaraks - that has enabled it to export its toxins. At a bare minimum, we need a kind of Sam Goldwyn Doctrine: I'm sick of the old dictators-for-life. Bring me some new dictators-for-life.
But in Iraq we are already way beyond that. After the predictions of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and a mass refugee crisis and a humanitarian catastrophe and wall-to-wall cholera and dysentery all failed to pan out, the naysayers fell back on predictions of imminent civil war. But the civil war's as mythical as the universal dysentery.
There is a problem in the Sunni Triangle and in certain Baghdad suburbs. If you look at the figures for August, over half the 71 US fatalities that month died in one province - al-Anbar, which covers much of the Sunni Triangle.
Most of the remainder were killed dispatching young Sadr's goons in Najaf or in operations against other Sunni Triangulators in Samarra, with a couple of isolated incidents in Mosul and Kirkuk. In 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces, not a single US soldier died.
Do you remember that moment of Fallujah-like depravity in Ulster a few years ago? Two soldiers were yanked from a cab in the wrong part of town and torn apart by a Republican mob. A terrible, shaming episode in the wretched annals of Northern Irish nationalists. But in the rest of the United Kingdom - in Bristol, in Coventry, Newcastle, Aberdeen - life went on, very pleasantly.
That's the way it is in Iraq. In two-thirds of the country, municipal government has been rebuilt, business is good, restaurants are open, life is as jolly as it has been in living memory. This summer the Shia province of Dhi Qar, south-east of Baghdad, held the first free elections in its history, electing secular independents and non-religious parties to its town councils.
The Kurdish North, which would be agitating for secession if real civil war were looming, is for the moment content to be Scotland. The Sunni Triangle, meanwhile, looks like being the fledgling Iraqi federation's Northern Ireland for a while to come.
That's a pity. But, if you can quarantine it, the difference between it and the rest of the country will become starker, month by month.
The "insurgents", meanwhile, so admired by Michael Moore, John Pilger and Tariq Ali, are rather short of supporters closer to home, which isn't surprising given that they are killing many more Iraqis than Americans.
But the beauty of handing over "sovereignty" to Ayad Allawi is that the new Prime Minister has more freedom of manoeuvre than Paul Bremer ever had, and, as he doesn't have to give press conferences on CNN every morning, there will be fewer questions afterwards.
What I find odd about the gloom'n'doom crowd at the FCO is that, for all the condescending cracks about how these blundering Yanks haven't a clue about this colonialism business, it is the Foreign Office wallahs who seem to have lost their collective imperial memory.
The Malayan "emergency", to take one example, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and at the end of it Britain midwifed what can reasonably claim to be one of the least worst Islamic states in the world. The nellies briefing Jack Straw seem to have lost all historical perspective.
That is not to say there are not serious questions about both short-term tactics (Fallujah, Najaf) and long-term goals (a democratic Iraq). But neither the newly parochial post-internationalist Left, unable to get past its "BLAIR LIED!!! PEOPLE DIED!!!!!" nursery rhymes, nor the snob Right - the Max Hastings/Douglas Hurd/Crispin Tickell crowd - has any useful contribution to make to this debate.
Instead, all the discussion is within factions of the American Right - between the "neocons", with their plans to democratise the Middle East, and the more traditional "assertive nationalists", whose hopes for a foetid region are a little less ambitious. That's worth arguing over, but it is not an argument you can enter if you have got no useful proposals of your own.
And, in the end, the reality is this. A few weeks ago, Prof Bernard Lewis, the great historian of the Muslim world, told Die Welt that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century". That seems demographically unavoidable.
Given that much of what we now know as the civilised world will be Muslim, it seems prudent to ensure that what is already the Muslim world is civilised. And, for those who say that Islam is incompatible with democracy, we might as well try to buck that in Iraq today than in France, Scandinavia and Britain the day after tomorrow.
This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq
As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years. Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.
Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion
P.S.
From www.snopes.com I found this response to the letter.
In regards to the question of authorship, it is true that SFC Ray Reynolds, a firefighter in civilian life, is a National Guardsman whose 234th Signal Battalion unit was called up to active duty, and that he wrote this piece. As Sgt. Reynolds responded to inquiries about his message: I did write it and I am in Kuwait now on my way home. I wrote it while at home because I felt that too many people were exploiting the violence in Iraq to sell papers and gain votes. Sometimes the silent majority need to be awakened to respond to the bad things in our world. I am passionate about our President's decision and support this rebuilding whole heartedly...Yes legit..I am a fire fighter in Denison, Iowa and to verify, call Mike McKinnon of the Denison Iowa fire department
"Now a pro-Bush 527 is launching an ad that reminds the American voter of how the President acted in the aftermath of 9/11. A pro-Kerry 527 is running a despicable ad arguing that blacks will have their votes suppressed as in the days of the civil rights movement, and uses a picture of a fire-hose turned on blacks. Voters can see the choice between Bush and Kerry in the choice between these two ads."
Hugh Hewitt, October 19, at www.hughhewitt.com
"John Kerry wasn't nominated because of his sparkling personality. He wasn't nominated because of his selfless commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated because he's a fighter. At the end of every campaign he comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on Bush. So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the campaign. ... The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions."
David Brooks, New York Times, October 19.
Just for the record, I agree with David Brooks. I am utterly confident that the American people are quite capable of figuring out when a candidate is dishing out dirt; when an office seeker is substituting character assassination for a defense of his own position; and when a politician, cornered by his own inadequacies, is lashing out blindly.
I've watched electoral politics since 1960. In all the tumultuous years since the razor-edge victory of John Kennedy over Richard Nixon, I have never seen the "mainstream media" so blatantly in one candidate's corner. And, when you think about it, that's quite a mouthful.
In contrast to Kerry's no-dirt-left-unslung approach, I want to talk about something that appears in a book review that ran in today's Washington Times. Ronald Reagan's pollster, Dick Wirthlin, has written a new book titled, "The Greatest Communicator: What Ronald Reagan Taught Me about Politics, Leadership, and Life." It sounds like a delightful look back at one of the three greatest Presidents of the 20th century, and I fully intend to read it ASAP.
There's a line in the review, written by Robert M. Smalley that really snapped me to attention. Smalley observed, "Mr. Reagan put long hours and meticulous care into the writing, wording and preparation of his major speeches. He never lost touch with his own guideline: Persuade through reason and motivate through emotion."
I would add that there are emotions and there are emotions. A major part of Ronald Reagan's greatness, and the primary reason he was such an incredible communicator, was that the President unwaveringly appealed to our nobler emotions. And what makes this even more significant is that Mr. Reagan did so not as an expression of unbridled personal ambition, but in service to the nation he loved so dearly.
Which leads me to what is among the most maddening features of how this election is being covered: the inability, or unwillingness, of most reporters to make elementary distinctions. The unfortunate result is to embolden Kerry and Edwards in their campaign of smears and vilification.
How do reporters hide the sleaziness of Kerry's campaign? With the exception of a few writers, such as Brooks, by indulging in moral equivalency with a vengeance.
For example, they take after Mr. Bush for supposedly harping unduly on this or that quality of Sen. Kerry. And if both sides are guilty....
Consider what is going on. If Bush talks about Kerry as a flip-flopper or a liberal, we are told that this is no different than implying--or stating outright--that Bush is (in no particular order) a liar, a racist, a closet Nazi, and a man whose core supporters (evangelical Christians) are the ideological soul mates of the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers and who behead helpless victims in Iraq. (This latter accusation is courtesy of a vicious hatchet job in last Sunday's New York Times magazine.)
On a much higher plane, the quote from Hugh Hewitt that begins this column refers to a television ad that began running today. Paid for by The Progress for America Voter Fund, it tells the true, unembellished story of Ashley Faulkner's remarkable encounter with President Bush.
To quote USA Today, "The ad was inspired by a photo of Bush hugging Ashley Faulkner, who is now 16, while campaigning in Lebanon, Ohio, on May 4. The photo, taken by the girl's father, Lynn Faulkner, was widely circulated on the Internet." Ashley's mother died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
I will not spoil the power of this meeting by going into any further detail. You can see the ad for yourself online at www.ashleysstory.com.
When you see it, you will understand precisely why there are so many stories circulating that underscore President Bush's deep reservoir of compassion and caring. The next time you hear the President's character assassinated, remember that Americans have in the White House not a phony-baloney who manipulates the emotions of others for his own benefit, but a man who is genuinely able to feel the pain of others.
Again, the site is www.ashleysstory.com. View it and please pass the web address along to all your friends.
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor October 14, 2004
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In an editorial column on Friday, Fr. Michael Reilly, a NewsMax.com opinion writer, says he spotted a contradiction in Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's use of his Catholic faith vis-a-vis public policy.
When it comes to issues like abortion, John Kerry has said he can't use his Catholic faith to legislate policy against abortion. As a result, he has voted six times against a ban on partial-birth abortion and 25 times during his twenty year Senate tenure in favor of using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.
During Wednesday night's debate in Arizona, Kerry said, "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith."
"What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," Kerry added.
However, during his closing remarks in the debate, Kerry said, "My faith affects everything that I do."
"And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith," Kerry said.
Kerry said his faith guides him to "fight against poverty," "to clean up the environment and protect this earth" and to "fight for equality and justice."
"All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith," Kerry concluded.
In his NewsMax.com column, Father Reilly noticed the contradiction in the two statements.
"So for Kerry, it's not appropriate for faith to influence his views on abortion ... but it's the driving force behind his positions on poverty and the environment," Reilly wrote.
Father Reilly said science should show Kerry the obvious point that life begins at conception.
"The truth is, for Sen. Kerry, neither faith nor science has much to do with his position on abortion," Father Reilly wrote.
Reilly said Kerry votes the way he does because he is beholden to special interests in the Democratic Party, namely abortion advocates. Kerry has the endorsement of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the NewsMax.com writer said.
"In short, while claiming a Catholic heritage, he has used every opportunity to undermine Catholic values," Reilly concluded.
His lust for power knows no bounds. Kerry is tryin' ter slap senior citizens wiv lies about their Social Security benefits. Over the bloomin' weekend, Kerry told seniors that President Bush 'ad a "January surprise" ter privatize Social security.
Kerry also claims current senior benefits will be reduced 30% ter 45%. The democrats even put out a new television ad wiv the bloomin' same false claims.
Here's wot "factCheck.org" 'as ter say about Kerry's new ad: "A Kerry ad claims "Bush 'as a plan ter cut Social Security benefits by 30 ter 45 percent."
That's false. Right. Bush 'as proposed no such plan, and the bloody proposal Kerry refers ter would only slow dahn the bloomin' growff of benefits, and only for future retirees. It were one of free possible "reform models" detailed by a bipartisan commission in 2001."
"The chuffin' plan the Kerry ad refers ter don't affect benefits for current retirees at all, right, and Bush 'as said consistently that wotever plan 'e proposes won't cut benefits for them now drorin' them, or them nearin' retirement. Statin' that Bush plans ter "cut Social Security benefits" will be 'eard by many seniors as a plan ter cut their benefits, wich ain't true."
President Bush, right, from 'is speech at the Republican National Convention: ""We will always keep the bloomin' promise of Social Security for us older workers. Wiv the bloomin' huge Baby Boom generation approachin' retirement, many of us children and grandchildren understandably worry weffer Social Security will be there wen they need it. We must strengffen Social Security by allowin' yunger workers ter Chas'n'Dave some of their taxes in a personal account--a nest egg yer can call yor own, right, and government can never take oray."
Kerry should be tellin' America wot 'is PLAN is for Social Security. Durin' debate free Kerry 'ad this ter say: "I will not privatize it. I will not cut the benefits. And we're gonna be fiscally responsible. And we will take care of Social Security." Kerry tells us nuffink about 'OW 'e will "take care of Social Security." The bleedin' folks at FactCheck.org 'ave this ter say about Kerry:
" Kerry, on the bloody uvver 'and, hasn't said 'ow 'e would preserve the current system. Social Security's finances are unstable, and its trustees stated in the bloody most recent annual report that by the year 2078 it will require a payroll tax increase of nearly 50% ter maintain the currently scheduled rise in benefit levels, right? If taxes ain't increased and no uvver changes are made, benefits would 'ave ter be cut 32% that year."
Kerry and the democrats should be ashamed of this "let's-scare-ffe-seniors- so-they-will-vote-for-us" tactic. Unfortunately, this is so common wiv democrats because they 'ave no core beliefs, right, no moral auffority, and no new ideas ter take America forward.
In a population that loves sports as much as most Americans do, it's only natural that metaphors from football, basketball, baseball, and the like work their way into political analyses. The shorthand question that holds the most potential for being both the most useful and the most idiotic is, "What does Candidate `X' have to do to win?"
The competing paradigms are "getting your base out" [those who are already in your camp] and "appealing to swing [undecided] voters." The CW [Conventional Wisdom] is that while both candidates have used the three debates to reassure their respective bases, Kerry more than Bush reached out to voters still making up their minds.
I would argue that this is wrong, both in general, and as relates to our concerns specifically. In continuing to demonstrate that he is the pro-life champion, the man most dedicated to and most supportive of creating a "culture of life," President Bush has done a far superior job of reaching out to people who are still calibrating how much this issue will affect their vote. Let me explain why.
Given the dynamics, which change slightly from election to election, the lens through which the public sees the candidates on the life issues this year is tax-paying funding of abortion, parental notification, and partial-birth abortion, on the one hand, and the [abuse of] embryonic stem cells, on the other hand. We'll talk about abortion today and embryonic stem cells tomorrow.
As we've discussed this week, the normally sure-footed Mr. Kerry stumbled on abortion. This is hardly surprising for he had to defend very unpopular positions, beginning, in the second debate, with his long support for using tax money to pay for abortions-- which even the Supreme Court says is not required.
His clumsy and incoherent response is that if he fails to make you and me pay for abortion, somehow that would be imposing an "article of his faith" on the public, as if only Catholics opposed subsidizing the killing of the unborn. Advantage Mr. Bush, not just with pro-lifers, but with 70%+ of the American people.
Likewise on parental notification, Kerry found himself trying to explain to the average American why parents shouldn't be told when their minor daughter is contemplating a life-and-death decision. His strategy?
Flagrantly lie about how such laws are written. Pretend that there are not provisions written into that allow the minor to go to a judge when there is suspected abuse at home.
Mr. Bush refused to be diverted, to chase down a diversionary rabbit trail. He cut right to the chase: "My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion." Advantage President Bush.
A couple of times Kerry found himself backed into a very uncomfortable corner-those six votes in favor of the brutal partial-birth abortion technique. After listening to Kerry's convoluted don't-hold-me-responsible answer, Bush replied, "Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no? And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality." Big Advantage Bush.
In last night's third and final debate, moderator Bob Schieffer asked Mr. Kerry "about unnamed Catholic archbishops who are telling people it's a sin for them to vote for candidates like Kerry because of their support for abortion rights and embryonic-stem-cell research," as Mark Brumley described it at www.nationalreview.com this morning. After rambling around, Kerry finally said, "What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."
But "What article of faith was Kerry talking about?," asks Brumley. "That abortion kills an innocent human being? That's not a peculiarly Catholic belief or `article of faith.' Plenty of people who aren't Catholics think abortion entails taking an innocent human life. President Bush does, and he's a Methodist, not a Catholic. So too many Lutherans, Baptists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians agree with faithful Catholics and President Bush. Then there are non-Christians, including many Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, for whom abortion is the killing an innocent human being. Indeed, some people with no religion at all or who deny God's existence take the same position."
Last night's concluding debate, and the response to it, reaffirms two truisms.
First, this will be a very, very close election. Second, Mr. Bush continues to be seen as the far more likeable candidate. This is an indispensable asset in a race that will be decided by the equivalent of a handful of votes in every precinct in America.
A large part of that sentiment is because he is a genuine human being. Another reason is that most people instinctively recoil when Sen. Kerry uses gutter tactics, as he did again last night.
The cynical cruelty he employed didn't work last night, as the responses of a number of focus groups revealed. It won't on November 2 either.
Jim McCrea is one of my favorite bloggers, google his name for many other great topics.
Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own." (John 15:18, 19).
The "world" here is not the world as created "good" by God, but is, rather, the Biblical concept for that which exalts sheer power, pleasures for their own sake, and material goods above all spiritual realities, and which is opposed to the spirit of Christ, His charity, humility, and self-sacrifice. Alas, it would appear that some particularly hate Catholic Christianity and exercise a vehement form of persecution towards it, as is evident to any with eyes and ears in our time.
For example, there have always been scandals of exceptional human weakness or even wickedness in organizations which consist of human beings . But of all the things that a myriad of other organizations or religions might do wrong, we mainly hear about those in the Catholic Church in the mainstream media. We don't often hear of scandal in Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or but, rather, much respect is given to them by the mainstream media. It is mainly the Catholic Church that is presented as unreasonable - whether they report something done wrong in Her name, or simply present a half truth which puts something out of context. When the media notes that the Church differs with the zeitgeist on a particular issue, often it is framed as "Catholic Church is furious..., " "Church mad as Hell..."
These are tricks which are both ancient and new and are used when someone wants to demonize an 'other'.
We turn now to events more recent. Sexual abuse happens in all denominations, but it has been almost exclusively reported as happening in the Catholic Church in recent times. (Insurance companies know differently). This was done deliberately to give the general public the impression that abuse is a problem particular to Catholic priests. It is a strategy that has worked well, since so many have swallowed that lie (not lying in saying the abuse happened, but lying in giving the impression that it is mainly Catholic priests who are abusers by the emphasis given). One can hardly be blamed for not knwowing that far more teachers in the United States sexually abuse children than clergy. The mainstream media highlights what it wishes and downplays what it wishes. This fact suggests the agenda.
The reason why the mainstream media, along with liberal elites in general, wish to discredit the Catholic Church is that only the Catholic Church hits the bull's eye of Truth. To accept this Truth requires a deep humility where pride and concupiscence must be mortified. No other religion makes as great a demand on the deepest center of man as Catholicism. That is why other religions are much more tolerated by the movers and shakers in society. The mainstream media has much more tolerance for harsh legalistic religions than for the benign authority of the Catholic Church. When a Catholic falls, he falls from the highest principle of his religion. The Truth does not fall. And a fall says nothing against the Truth.
It is true that most other religions encourage virtue and have commandments against vice, but there are some concessions to fallen human nature within all religions except Catholicism. For example, Protestantism does the right thing in exhorting one to live by the ten Commandments and to accept Christ as one's Lord and Savior. However, Protestantism in its essence concedes to man's proud independent nature. It prefers private judgement and will not recognize Christ's authority in the the successor of Peter and in the bishops united to the him (the Magisterium).
Hinduism is perhaps well-tolerated for a similar reason. In Hinduism (especially corrupted forms of it in the west), the transcendent moral law does not exist in the same way that it does in Christianity. In Christianity, we submit to a God who is "totally other" and who is completely independent of the ego. In Hinduism, on the other hand, we attain to a pleasant harmony with "what is" through "enlightenment" and discover that God is our deepest self. This sometimes give generous room to subtle pride and sensuality, leading the devotee to think that these are the motions of the divine within----at witness western pop versions of Hinduism. If a person is his own standard, then it is possible to justify anything. If we are "one with the cosmos," then the cosmos may be the ego inflated to infinity. That would appeal to modern secular man, and the world would love rather than hate such a concept. That would appeal to fallen man's desire to be God.
Of course, Evangelical Protestantism is despised by the liberal elites, right behind Catholicism. This is because "the world" and Christianity have two diametrically opposed goals for human life. The aim of life for the non-spiritual is to conform all things to one's pleasure and to the padding of one's ego. For the Christian, the goal is to conform oneself to Christ. This Christian way may require that one accept all sorts of things that are unpleasant to the self. For the unbeliever, the goal of life is to inflate the self, and all other things and people may be a means to that. For the Christian, the goal of life is to conform oneself to the "other" - to find salvation in a Savior who is Other, who is Christ, rather than being one's own savior and pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps, as "the world" does.
One of the highest phases of this spiritual process, of being conformed to Christ, as it appears in the writings of the saints and the true Catholic sages, is in the acceptance at times of many difficulties (even unfair attacks) which are hard to bear. This is one of the hardest things for human nature to bear, and it is that which a person apart from Christ strives to avoid at all costs. However, the humiliations that God allows in His providence go to the deepest root of our pride and effect a radical purification of our soul, according to the saints. This radical purification is necessary because only when one has been purified, can one enter heaven (see Rev 21:27). Because of this, our cooperation with purification is the work of a life-time. It is the highest wisdom to "turn the other cheek" and accept such non-violence (see Matt 5:38-42), for that is love, and the shortest route to perfection and to heaven (one resists only when some principle or positive value is a stake, never when it is only one's ego at stake -- be glad to have an opportunity to have the ego killed). Such purification is the route to true happiness and peace even in this life, for it is precisely the impurity of sin that makes people unhappy and destroys peace.
It is the Cross, particularly the cross of humiliation, that the world does not comprehend. Many Catholics experience that their non-christian acquaintances find the idea of mortification and self-denial baffling and irrational. To the fervent Catholic, such a thing is a means to make the 'old' man of sin die, in order that Christ rise within him or her. To the unspiritual, on the other hand, mortification and self-denial contradict the "evident" purpose of life which is to make all things conform to one's own pleasure.
It would seem that most persons unconcerned about spiritual realities are not consciously aware of the metaphysical roots of their antipathy to Christianity and to Catholic Christianity in particular--that it is the values of Christianity, registering mainly on the subconscious level of the unbeliever, which provoke such a negative reaction. Often this reaction can be seen in human interactions in day to day life. Much communication takes place on the subconscious level. We "click" with some people and not so easily with others - and usually we don't know why. At every moment we are broadcasting our perspective of reality and personal values with many elements of communication per minute. And we communicate in a multi-dimensional way with others in our social environment, and most of this takes place below the threshold of our conscious understanding. There is a whole series of expressions, body language elements, comments, tones of voice by which information is exchanged between people. Most of this is transferred from the subconscious of one person to the subconscious of another.
What we are mainly aware of on the conscious level is whether we are comfortable or uncomfortable with the person with whom we are interacting. It is these elements of communication that help determine whether we have something in common with the other person or not. Often a Christian will "click" with a Christian, the unspirutal with the unspiritual, but a Christian will often not click with the unspiriual in the same way as with the spiritual, precisely because of their deeper affiliation with Christ Whom they want to share. When we are with some people, the words flow with great ease and pleasure, and we feel validated. With others, we feel that there is a sad wall, and we may experience some kind of loss of energy and / or self-esteem.
There is a fundamental reason why some groupings of people "click" and others do not. It is their basic ethical stance towards reality. Whether people get along or not may largely depend on whether they have a Christian or a worldly stance towards life. Although people sometimes talk about whether they are Christian or anti-Christian, that is often communicated on the subconscious level as discussed.
What is it that is being communicated that makes the difference between the "world" and the Christian Comunity? What does each type of person broadcast and accept or reject on mainly the subconscious level? Even when the Christian is not talking about Christ and Christianity in particular, they communicate on topics of the good and the true. They communicate the objectively important or what is important in itself, and communicate their reverence towards things other and higher than themselves. Even when Christ is not being discussed explicitly, He is being communicated implicitly because Christ is the supreme Good and True to which all goodness and truth point. Christ is the "other" and the "higher" to whom the true Christian is reverent, and this reverence is reflected in the Christian's attitude to being in general. They do this both in explicit topics of conversation and on the subconscious level.
The non-spiritual person on the other hand communicates elements pertaining to the satisfaction of self. In other words, their communications pertain to the subjectively satisfying. In subtle ways, the person of the world communicates his love of the fulfillment of pride and concupiscence. While the Christian looks up to things in reverence, the unbeliever tends to look down on things in haughtiness. While Christian conversation tends to lift things up, worldly conversation tends to tear things down.
Even a marked difference in humor can be seen between the two. The worldly person engages in mocking "humor" which---because it is a mocking--- Reflates higher realities - especially often traditional virtues and values. The Christian, by contrast, engages in a true humor reflecting the incongruous, or their laughter may be an overflow of joy. The true humor of the incongruous is a reflection of the divine because it is a manifestation of what I will call a suprageometric order which transcends that order normally proper to this world. The joy of honest laughter is a foretaste of heaven.
As a result of this, the Christian and those unconcerned with spiritual things may have little in common. So they must begin to find common ground and build on it. Often when someone converts to Christianity, he finds that he can no longer relate to his former friends and he loses them. There is a strong temptation to go back because he is often made to feel that "something is wrong with" him. Something is out of joint. For a while, he may be in a no-man's land until he feels comfortable with his new state, when Providence allows him to fit into a whole new set of people and situations which seem far more satisfying than before his conversion. Then he may seek to invite others more freely to the process of awakening to the message of the Good News.
As mentioned at the beginning, the mainstream media persecutes Christianity, and particularly Catholic Christianity. This is because those in the mainstream media who determine editorial policy, are mainly "of the world" as Jesus said (statistics show that those who work in positions of authority in the mainstream media have a low level of church attendance). Christians can also persecuted by others on a personal level. As previously stated, even when the Christian does not explicitly discuss Christ and Christianity, we are constantly broadcasting the values of Christ and His Kingdom in expressions, body language, comments, tones of voice, without even realizing it. Those who still "are of the world" pick it up on the subconscious level and may react to it with animosity. As Our Lord said:
"If you find that the world hates you, know it has hated me before you. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own; the reason it hates you is that you do not belong to the world. But I choose you out of the world" (John 15:18-19)
But the good news is, this broadcasting of one's state, on the subconscious level of being a Christian, is a form of evangelization in itself. Without realizing it, the true Christian may powerfully draw people to Christ, simply by being. If others are of good will and are open, they will be attracted to this. Instinctively the conversation may turn to Christ and Christianity in particular (we should never force a discussion of Christ when that is not appropriate, a mistake often made by fundamentalists). When the discussion of Christ is appropriate, and when the discussion of the fullness of Christianity which exists in the Catholic Church is appropriate, the true Catholic has a duty to share the Gospel. For the light of Catholic Christianity is like a fire which first warms others and then makes those others catch Fire of the Spirit themselves. As Catholics, we must always be ready to do our duty to back our actions with an explicit explanation of what we have within us. As St. Peter says:
"Venerate the Lord, that is, Christ in your hearts. Should anyone ask you the reason for this hope of yours, be ever ready to reply... (1 Peter 3:15)
ON EMBRYONIC RESEARCH, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, and PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR ABORTION
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AND HUMAN CLONING
In response to question regarding the merits of using adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells in research, Kerry said, "Now I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem cell research. We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that. They're from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen."
NRLC's disagreement with Kerry's support for federal funding of research that requires killing human embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF), and our agreement with President Bush's policy, are set forth in detail elsewhere, click here. We make here this additional key point: When Kerry says "embryonic stem cell research," he does NOT mean ONLY using human embryos who were frozen after being created by IVF to produce pregnancies.
On July 13, 2004, Kerry also cosponsored S. 303, a bill to promote the creation of human embryos by cloning for use in stem cell research. The bill specifically provides that these human embryos must not be allowed to develop past 14 days, which is why pro-life opponents refer to it as a "clone and kill" bill. This bill has NOTHING to do with research using embryos created by in vitro fertilization. Rather, it would advance the establishment of what President Bush has aptly referred to as "human embryo farms." For further explanation of this bill, the blatantly conflicting statements by the Kerry campaign about the bill, and two recent public opinion polls on the issue of using cloning to produce human embryos for research, see this memo: http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/kerry doubletalk082404.html" title="http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/kerry doubletalk082404.html" target="_blank"http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_E...
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
Senator Kerry said, "I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."
First of all, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has (and has always had) an explicit exception to allow the method to be used if it were ever necessary to save the life of a mother. (This is a point that Senator John Edwards directly misrepresented in a press release the day the bill was signed into law by President Bush, on November 5, 2003.)
John Kerry repeatedly voted for "substitute amendments" that would have wiped out the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and substituted "phony bans" that would have (1) allowed partial-birth abortions with NO restrictions in the fifth and sixth months, which is when the vast majority are performed, AND ALSO (2) allowed partial-birth abortion even in the seventh month and later either for "health" reasons -- a term that legally includes mental and emotional "well being" (for example, Feinstein Substitute, May 15, 1997, roll call no. 288, failed 28-72), OR, in another approach, allowed post-viability abortions for any degree whatever of "risk" of serious physical health damage -- a standard that a leading practitioner of late abortions said would apply to every pregnancy (Daschle Substitute, May 15, 1997, roll call no. 70, failed 36-64; and Durbin Substitute, October 20, 1999, roll call no. 335, tabled 61-38).
After these killer substitutes were rejected, Kerry voted against passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act every chance he got -- six times.
In response to a statement by President Bush that Sen. Kerry opposes requiring parental notification for abortion, Kerry replied: "Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe."
Kerry's answer completely misrepresented his voting record on parental notification requirements. Kerry has repeatedly voted AGAINST parental notification require ments even though they incorporated provisions, as required by the Supreme Court, to permit any minor to go before a judge to waive parental notification, and/or that simply allowed the minor herself to foreclose notification by informing the abortion provider that she is the victim of rape, incest, or sexual abuse.
Moreover, in a statement issued by his campaign on July 15, 2004, Kerry offered far most expansive objections to parental notification requirements, including what he sees as the danger that such requirements put teenagers at "risk" of "unwanted childbirth." The July 15 statement went on, "And that's why Kerry voted for common-sense parental consent measures that encourage young woman to talk to their parents about options surrounding an unwanted pregnancy, BUT still make sure that the young woman's welfare and safety is protected by including BROAD EXEMPTIONS for grandparents, aunts, and uncles to provide consent, [OR] the young woman's doctor to indicate that a medical emergency exists, [OR] a court determines that an abortion would be in the young woman's best interest, OR a licensed or certified professional certifies that parental notification could put the young woman at risk." [capitals added for emphasis]
Regarding Kerry's votes against parental notification, we cite here just two examples.
In 1998 Kerry voted to block the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion in order to evade a home-state parental notification law -- but the bill applied ONLY to the state parental notification laws that had passed federal court approval, all of which include the judicial bypass provisions required by the Supreme Court. (Unsuccessful attempt to invoke cloture on S. 1645, Sept. 22, 1998, roll call no. 282).
In 1991, Kerry voted against multiple genuine parental notification amendments, supporting instead various proposals to codify parental circumvention. For example, Kerry opposed the Coats Amendment (July 16, 1991, Coats Amendment to S. 303). The Coats Amendment would have required organizations that receive certain federal funds to notify one parent before performing an abortion on a minor, but it contained a number of broad exemptions, covering any cases in which the minor "declares" that the pregnancy resulted from incest with a parent OR "declares" that she had been subjected to OR was at "risk" (degree of risk unspecified) of "sexual abuse" OR "child abuse" OR "child neglect." In addition, the Coats Amendment contained a medical emergency exception. Kerry voted against it. Here is the full text of the Coats Amendment, electroni cally copied from the Congressional Record, but with capitals added for clarity:
[No notification need occur if] (2) The physician with principal responsibility for making the decision to perform the abortion certifies in the minor's medical record that she is suffering from a physical disorder or disease making the abortion necessary to prevent her death and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice. [OR] (3) THE MINOR DECLARES that the pregnancy resulted from incest with a parent or guardian of the minor OR that she has been subjected to OR is at RISK of sexual abuse, child abuse, OR child neglect by a parent or guardian, as defined by the applicable State law, provided that in any such case the physician notifies the authorities specified by such State law to receive reports of child abuse or neglect of the known or suspected abuse or neglect before the abortion is performed.
This is a commentary is regarding statements made by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) during the second presidential candidates' debate on October 8, 2004. For further information, send email to legfederal@aol.com.
The statements below may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AND HUMAN CLONING
In response to question regarding the merits of using adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells in research, Kerry said, "Now I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem cell research. We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that. They're from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen."
NRLC's disagreement with Kerry's support for federal funding of research that requires killing human embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF), and our agreement with President Bush's policy, are set forth in detail elsewhere, click here. We make here this additional key point: When Kerry says "embryonic stem cell research," he does NOT mean ONLY using human embryos who were frozen after being created by IVF to produce pregnancies.
On July 13, 2004, Kerry also cosponsored S. 303, a bill to promote the creation of human embryos by cloning for use in stem cell research. The bill specifically provides that these human embryos must not be allowed to develop past 14 days, which is why pro-life opponents refer to it as a "clone and kill" bill. This bill has NOTHING to do with research using embryos created by in vitro fertilization. Rather, it would advance the establishment of what President Bush has aptly referred to as "human embryo farms." For further explanation of this bill, the blatantly conflicting statements by the Kerry campaign about the bill, and two recent public opinion polls on the issue of using cloning to produce human embryos for research, see this memo: http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/kerry doubletalk082404.html" title="http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/kerry doubletalk082404.html" target="_blank"http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_E...
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
Senator Kerry said, "I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."
First of all, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has (and has always had) an explicit exception to allow the method to be used if it were ever necessary to save the life of a mother. (This is a point that Senator John Edwards directly misrepresented in a press release the day the bill was signed into law by President Bush, on November 5, 2003.)
John Kerry repeatedly voted for "substitute amendments" that would have wiped out the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and substituted "phony bans" that would have (1) allowed partial-birth abortions with NO restrictions in the fifth and sixth months, which is when the vast majority are performed, AND ALSO (2) allowed partial-birth abortion even in the seventh month and later either for "health" reasons -- a term that legally includes mental and emotional "well being" (for example, Feinstein Substitute, May 15, 1997, roll call no. 288, failed 28-72), OR, in another approach, allowed post-viability abortions for any degree whatever of "risk" of serious physical health damage -- a standard that a leading practitioner of late abortions said would apply to every pregnancy (Daschle Substitute, May 15, 1997, roll call no. 70, failed 36-64; and Durbin Substitute, October 20, 1999, roll call no. 335, tabled 61-38).
After these killer substitutes were rejected, Kerry voted against passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act every chance he got -- six times.
In response to a statement by President Bush that Sen. Kerry opposes requiring parental notification for abortion, Kerry replied: "Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16- or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe."
Kerry's answer completely misrepresented his voting record on parental notification requirements. Kerry has repeatedly voted AGAINST parental notification require ments even though they incorporated provisions, as required by the Supreme Court, to permit any minor to go before a judge to waive parental notification, and/or that simply allowed the minor herself to foreclose notification by informing the abortion provider that she is the victim of rape, incest, or sexual abuse.
Moreover, in a statement issued by his campaign on July 15, 2004, Kerry offered far most expansive objections to parental notification requirements, including what he sees as the danger that such requirements put teenagers at "risk" of "unwanted childbirth." The July 15 statement went on, "And that's why Kerry voted for common-sense parental consent measures that encourage young woman to talk to their parents about options surrounding an unwanted pregnancy, BUT still make sure that the young woman's welfare and safety is protected by including BROAD EXEMPTIONS for grandparents, aunts, and uncles to provide consent, [OR] the young woman's doctor to indicate that a medical emergency exists, [OR] a court determines that an abortion would be in the young woman's best interest, OR a licensed or certified professional certifies that parental notification could put the young woman at risk." [capitals added for emphasis]
Regarding Kerry's votes against parental notification, we cite here just two examples.
In 1998 Kerry voted to block the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill would make it a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion in order to evade a home-state parental notification law -- but the bill applied ONLY to the state parental notification laws that had passed federal court approval, all of which include the judicial bypass provisions required by the Supreme Court. (Unsuccessful attempt to invoke cloture on S. 1645, Sept. 22, 1998, roll call no. 282).
In 1991, Kerry voted against multiple genuine parental notification amendments, supporting instead various proposals to codify parental circumvention. For example, Kerry opposed the Coats Amendment (July 16, 1991, Coats Amendment to S. 303). The Coats Amendment would have required organizations that receive certain federal funds to notify one parent before performing an abortion on a minor, but it contained a number of broad exemptions, covering any cases in which the minor "declares" that the pregnancy resulted from incest with a parent OR "declares" that she had been subjected to OR was at "risk" (degree of risk unspecified) of "sexual abuse" OR "child abuse" OR "child neglect." In addition, the Coats Amendment contained a medical emergency exception. Kerry voted against it. Here is the full text of the Coats Amendment, electroni cally copied from the Congressional Record, but with capitals added for clarity:
[No notification need occur if] (2) The physician with principal responsibility for making the decision to perform the abortion certifies in the minor's medical record that she is suffering from a physical disorder or disease making the abortion necessary to prevent her death and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice. [OR] (3) THE MINOR DECLARES that the pregnancy resulted from incest with a parent or guardian of the minor OR that she has been subjected to OR is at RISK of sexual abuse, child abuse, OR child neglect by a parent or guardian, as defined by the applicable State law, provided that in any such case the physician notifies the authorities specified by such State law to receive reports of child abuse or neglect of the known or suspected abuse or neglect before the abortion is performed.
Reuters News Service Editor Stirs Controversy With Angry E-Mail About Unborn and President Bush; Reuters “Pipe Bomb” Story Also Questioned
WASHINGTON (Sept. 5, 2004) – When a news editor for a major wire service read a National Right to Life press release about partial-birth abortion, he was outraged, and he decided it was time to express himself.
The release, issued by NRLC on August 26, commented on a federal court ruling that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act cannot be enforced because it conflicts with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on partial-birth abortion.
Among the hundreds of journalists who received the release by e-mail was Todd Eastham, North American news editor for Reuters Limited, a major national and international news service. On the morning of August 27, Eastham hit his e-mail “reply” button and sent his thoughts back to National Right to Life. In total, these were his words:
What’s your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, who wrote the press release and who directs the department that received Eastham’s reply, said that Eastham’s angry message came “out of the blue.”
“As far as we can tell, we had never before received any communication from Mr. Eastham – he was on an e-mail list for press releases only because he was listed by the Reuters Washington bureau as a news editor,” Johnson said. “After receiving his provocative e-mail, we did a little research and found that Mr. Eastham was listed as Reuters’ North American news editor. We also found that he both edited political stories and had reported under his own byline on many different subjects, including political stories and stories about the Catholic Church.”
Regarding the substance of Eastham’s comments, Johnson commented, “It appeared that Mr. Eastham felt very strongly that abortion is necessary to prevent the birth of children who will otherwise snatch some bread from his mouth. I have four children, three of them adopted. Two of the four already pay taxes, and so far none of the four seems headed for prison.”
(A collection of other comments on Eastham’s e-mail appears here.)
Later on August 27, Eastham’s e-mail was reported on the popular website nationalreview.com by Romesh Ponnuru. Soon it was being reproduced, and commented on, by many other publications and websites, including a large number of the so-called “blogs.” “Blogs” are websites, usually maintained by private individuals (“bloggers”), that feature frequent journal-like commentaries on current events.
On August 30, Howard Kurtz, who covers the news media for the Washington Post, reproduced Eastham’s e-mail in his widely read “Media Notes” column.
Kurtz quoted Johnson as saying it was “sad” to see “such blatant hostility” toward the Bush administration and unborn children. He quoted Reuters spokesman Stephen Naru as saying it was “unfortunate” that an editor “chose to offer his personal opinion.”
Kurtz also reported, “But Eastham, saying he doesn't usually edit stories involving abortion, responds that he read the release ‘as a personal political solicitation and was not responding in my capacity as an editor. I didn’t intend this as a professional communication.’”
Johnson commented to NRL News, “Since Eastham sent the e-mail from his official Reuters e-mail account, I wonder how we are supposed to distinguish between a news editor in his ‘professional communication’ mode and the same editor in his ‘unprofessional communication’ mode.”
Johnson dismissed as “ludicrous on its face” Eastham’s claim that the press release – which was headed, ‘Statement by National Right to Lifeon the future of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act’ – was “a personal political solicitation.”
Eastham’s e-mail was reported in many venues as well, including The Weekly Standard, christianitytoday.com, Family News in Focus, and LifeNews.com. On August 30, Cybercast News Service ran a story which was picked up by the popular website www.drudgereport.com. On August 31, Fox News Network Washington bureau chief Brit Hume reported on Eastham’s e-mail in his daily “Political Grapevine” feature.
On the same day, the Reuters e-mail was the subject of a critical commentary by James Taranto in his “Best of the Web Today,” a popular feature on www.opinionjournal.com, a website associated with the Wall Street Journal.
Two days later, on September 2, Taranto reported, “Our item Tuesday about Reuters editor Todd Eastham’s angry e-mail to the National Right to Life Committee prompted an e-mail from Reuters spokesman Steve Naru, who relayed a statement from David Schlesinger, the ‘news’ service’s global managing editor, which reads in part: ‘I personally was appalled by the incident and I can assure you it has been handled robustly through our internal disciplinary process.’ We wrote back to ask what ‘handled robustly through our internal disciplinary process,’ means, and Naru replied that this information is confidential. He did reveal, however, that Eastham ‘is not employed in the same capacity. We are making appropriate adjustments to his duties.’”
On September 3, Schlesinger also sent an e-mail to Johnson, in which he said, “I was personally appalled by Mr. Eastham’s lapse; it has been handled through our disciplinary process and he understands the seriousness of what happened.”
Schlesinger did not explain the nature of the “disciplinary process,” but he wrote, “Freedom from bias is integral to all that Reuters represents, and I intend to keep it that way.”
Johnson said that Schlesinger’s statements were welcome, but added, “I have to wonder about the culture of a newsroom in which such sentiments would be so casually conveyed by an editor, whose job presumably includes reviewing reporters’ stories for bias and distortions.”
Johnson also sharply questioned Reuters coverage of a pipe bomb that exploded in a biotech laboratory near Boston on August 26. No one was hurt, but the lab suffered an estimated $250,000 in damage.
A Reuters dispatch the next dayleft the clear impression that the attack might have something to do with opponents of embryonic stem cell research. But reporters for other news outlets who actually checked the facts quickly ascertained that Amaranth has nothing at all to do with embryo-based research. Indeed, the firm is engaged in adult stem-cell research, a type of research that is constantly applauded and promoted by virtually all people who oppose embryo-destructive research.
For example, The Scientist Daily News reported on August 31, “Police in Watertown, Mass., said yesterday that they don't believe that the unknown person who blew up a pipe bomb in a biotech laboratory there last Thursday (August 26) was protesting stem cell research, as has been broadly suggested, because the company uses only adult cells in its research -- not controversial embryonic cells.”
That story and others said that authorities were focusing on a former employee of another firm in the same building. who was out on bail while awaiting trial for allegedly trying to burn down the same building in 2003.
On August 31, that individual was arrested for the bombing. On September 1, Reuters sent out a new dispatch, which ran in many newspapers across the nation, that actually compounded its original error.
The lead sentence for the September 1 storywas, “PoliceWednesday arrested a man in connection with last week’s pipe bomb explosion at a Boston-area laboratory specializing in stem-cell research,” without distinguishing between research that requires killing human embryos and other types of stem cell research. Fully one-third of the story was devoted to references to a “national debate” over “stem cell research,” references to restrictions adopted by President Bush, and the concluding observation, “Democratic candidate John Kerry has said he would reverse Bush’s actions.”
NRLC’s Johnson commented, “Reuters never told its readers that the lab was in fact engaged only in precisely the sort of ethical stem cell research that is strongly supported by President Bush and other opponents of embryo-destroying research, and it strongly implied just the opposite. The reader could leave the story only with the strong impression that the crime probably had something to do with opposition to embryonic stem cell research – why else devote a third of the story to that subject? Yet, the contrary facts were easily ascertainable and were reported by many other news outlets.”
Johnson concluded, “The Reuters dispatches on the bombing were laden with misinformation that was inserted without any evident effort to check the facts, apparently on the basis of sheer assumption -- which is a textbook symptom of journalistic bias.”
An individual member of the species homo sapiens who is fully expelled from his or her mother, and who is breathing or shows other signs of life, is properly referred to as:
a. a baby
b. an infant
c. a newborn
d. a neonate
e. a fetus
According to the editors at the Associated Press Washington Bureau, the correct answer is "e."
Reason #9: George W. Is Better Looking
tolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television. 
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In an editorial column on Friday, Fr. Michael Reilly, a NewsMax.com opinion writer, says he spotted a contradiction in Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's use of his Catholic faith vis-a-vis public policy.