travisab1
03-05-2004, 11:59 AM
:( I thought you'd want to know...
Some fine reading, get your glasses out...
Just who <SPAN class=char5_5>is</SPAN> John Forbes Kerry, the presumed Democrat presidential nominee? His answer, of course, depends on who is asking. Like so many Leftists, John Kerry is a case study in hypocrisy.
Kerry, the meticulously coiffed inheritance-welfare playboy, professes to be an Everyday Joe, a populist man of the people. Kerry, the Vietnam "war hero" who shamelessly surrounds himself with a "band of brothers" at every campaign stop, once cuddled with Hanoi Jane Fonda and has since opposed nearly every defense- and intelligence-spending program during his Senate tenure. Kerry, the self-described moderate whose rise to political power began under the tutelage of Teddy Kennedy, was recently named "Most Liberal Senator" by the National Journal, with a composite score of 96.5. All told, John Kerry's representation of his record -- his life, in fact -- leaves one longing for a Democrat candidate with the unimpeachable honesty of Bill Clinton. Indeed, Friend of <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> James Taranto recently dubbed Senator Kerry "Dukakis without the integrity."
As<SPAN class=char5_5> Federalist </SPAN>No. 04-04<SPAN class=char5_5> </SPAN>noted, "Kerry, whose campaign appeared moribund just three weeks ago, is now the new-and-improved front-runner of the Demo pack. At first blush, he appears to be a "package" candidate for Demo voters -- the military veteran who was, and remains, an Ivy-league anti-war protestor; the consummate insider who's acting like an outsider; the Senate's wealthiest member (he married well and his middle name is "Forbes" after all) who's acting like a homeless advocate; and the terrorism dove who's taunting our wartime president to "bring it on." Basically, Kerry is running against his own record -- he's against NAFTA but voted for it, he's against the USA Patriot Act but voted for it, he's against Operation Iraqi Freedom but voted for it, etc."
The Kerry campaign insists on keeping his Vietnam record front-and-center. According to his website, "When John Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he joined his fellow veterans in vowing never to abandon future veterans of America's wars. Kerry's commitment to veterans has never wavered and stands strong to this day."
Is <SPAN class=char5_5>that</SPAN> right!
John Kerry may have served with distinction in Vietnam. He did receive a Silver Star after beaching his Swift Boat and chasing a loin-clothed young boy (who was thought to possess a rocket launcher) around the corner of a hut and killing him. (If nothing else, this serves to remind us that war is indeed an ugly business -- and that enemy combatants aren't always attired in combat fatigues.) He also collected three Purple Hearts (though today there is little or no evidence of his wounds received).
Upon his return home, however, Kerry abandoned each and every one of his fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines on the ground in Vietnam -- not to mention the people of South Vietnam -- by fomenting wartime discord. In his now infamous 1971 testimony before Congress, Kerry said American soldiers were war criminals, claiming they "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs ... poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
Kerry went on: "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground, and all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."
Kerry's protests and testimony did little more than aid and abet the Viet Cong, and his support for Communists did not end in 1971. In fact, it was Kerry who, years later, founded the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs with the objective of normalizing relations and trade with the Vietnamese government and ending speculation about MIAs that were captive in Vietnam long after the cease-fire accord. As recently as 2002, Kerry even blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act from coming to a vote.
And the rest of Kerry's congressional voting record is no better.
Massachusetts's most liberal senator -- check that, <SPAN class=char5_5>America's</SPAN> most liberal senator -- has, over the years, voted against defense-appropriations bills funding weapons that have proved essential to U.S. national security, including the Patriot Missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber. Kerry's voting record also shows his support for cutting funding or altogether canceling existing weapons systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Apache helicopter, B-1 Bomber, F-14, F-15, F-16 and AV-8B Harrier. Kerry also voted against the Navy's Aegis Air Defense Cruiser and Trident Missile System for U.S. submarines.
The Center for Security Policy, a conservative Washington-based think tank committed to "promoting international peace through American strength," has rated Kerry among the worst on Capitol Hill when it comes to national security and defense. In 1995, the Center gave Kerry a score of five out of a possible 100 points. Two years later, Kerry earned a mind-blowing score of exactly <SPAN class=char5_5>zero</SPAN>.
It stands to reason, then, that Kerry has voted against the strategic missile-defense shield, as well as U.S. withdrawal from the antiquated Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: But while these votes have clearly inhibited U.S. security, Kerry has cast two votes in the past ten years to loosen restrictions on the export of dual-use technology -- the sort of technology that enemies of the United States can convert into weapons and turn against us.
So much for the Massachusetts senator's commitment to the war on terrorism.
True to his Vietnam-era sympathies, John Kerry became one of President Ronald Reagan's most outspoken opponents regarding the policy of militarily suppressing Communist inroads in Latin America. His opposition culminated in a controversial April, 1985, visit to Nicaragua and its Sandinista regime.
Following the Cold War, Kerry's doveliness continued unabated. Following Iraq's seizure of Kuwait in 1990, Kerry voted against authorization for the use of force -- which was more than could be said for Saddam Hussein. In 1995, Kerry was among 29 other senators who voted against ending the arms embargo against the Bosnians, even as Slobodan Milosevic escalated his reign of terror.
Concerning the authorization for the use of force against Iraq last year, however, Senator Kerry had this to say on 23 January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."
Kerry now says he believes the war was a mistake, and that he voted to authorize the <SPAN class=char5_5>threat</SPAN> of force, but not the actual use of it. (We at <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> can't help but wonder about the seriousness of a post-9/11 presidential candidate so loath to make good on a threat. Kerry's approach won't strike fear into the heart of a schoolyard bully, much less that of a brutal dictator or a murderous band of Jihadist thugs.)
More recently, we note the senator's whiny, thin-skinned response to questions raised over his defense voting record by Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss -- questions utterly appropriate to anyone aspiring to be commander-in-chief: "[The President has] decided once again to take the low road of American politics. ... Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation...." And again, when responding to similar queries: "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did." Wait a minute -- you mean John Kerry <SPAN class=char5_5>actually served in Vietnam</SPAN>? Who knew?
Finally, earlier this week Kerry breathed life into the conspiracy theory of a U.S.-led coup against erstwhile Leftist darling and Haitian president/autocrat Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resigned and fled to Africa early last Sunday morning. Following Aristide's departure, Kerry remarked, "I think there should be some investigation of it. I have a very close friend in Massachusetts who talked directly to people who made that allegation [of a U.S.-led coup]. I don?t know the truth of it. I really don?t. But I think it needs to be explored and we need to know the truth of what happened."
So let's get this straight: Kerry admits he doesn't "know the truth of it," yet he's calling for an investigation because he's got a friend back home who talked to someone who says that the President of the United States ordered the kidnapping of a foreign leader.
This is the best the Democrat Party can offer for President?
<SPAN class=char6_8>Quote of the week... </SPAN>
"They don't know John Kerry's record. ... He is the Olympic gold medalist when it comes to special-interest money. ... I also think that he is very vulnerable on the issues of national security. If you look at his voting record, it is terrible as far as it comes to national defense and helping fund a good intelligence unit." --Senator Zell Miller, the Georgia Democrat who's campaigning <SPAN class=char5_5>against</SPAN> Kerry for a second Bush term
<SPAN class=char6_8>Open query for Kerry...</SPAN>
"Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase 'special interest'? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?... Is the National Rifle Association a 'special interest'? Is 'special' a synonym for 'conservative'? ... When you denounce 'lobbyists' do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is 'liberal lobbyist' an oxymoron?... On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning 'the theory of deterrence.' Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression? The next day you said, 'I do not believe our nation is prepared for war.' How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? ... On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote 'I share your concerns' and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, 'I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis.' Did you have a third position?... You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counter-terrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?" --George Will, "A Few Questions for John Kerry"
<SPAN class=char6_8>Snap shots...</SPAN>
"I think it is entirely possible [the extramarital affair by Clinton] was a distraction that kept him from performing his duty as president." --John Kerry, September 2001
"If anything, there may now be a greater appreciation for the trouble you can get into for certain behavior. More parents are teaching their children about lying, about humiliation, about family hurt, about public responsibility, than before we ever heard the name of Monica Lewinsky." --John Kerry, February, 1999
"The country does not believe the fiber of our nation is unraveling over the President's egregious behavior, because most people have a sense of proportion about the case that seems totally lacking in the House managers' presentation. No parent or school in America is teaching kids that lying or abusing the justice system is now OK....Democrats were very sophisticated in making a distinction between the policies and personal behavior of President Clinton." --John Kerry during the Clinton impeachment proceedings
<DIV class=FedNormalBold>From the Bush campaign journal...
</DIV>
<DIV class=Normal>
Not to be completely overshadowed by the events of Super Tuesday, President Bush stole away part of the limelight with an address on national security on the first anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security. (As <SPAN class=char5_5>briefly</SPAN> mentioned above, national security isn't exactly Candidate Kerry's strong suit.)
"Life in America in many ways has returned to normal, and that's positive. It means that we're doing our job," Mr. Bush told Homeland Security employees, citing the nation's good fortune in having gone 29 months without a subsequent terrorist attack, "but life will really never return to normal so long as there is an enemy that lurks in the shadows, that aims to destroy and kill. Our enemies are wounded but they are not broken. They still have a desire to strike America again. That's the reality with which we live."
One year ago, President Bush took the momentous step of forming the new department, which merged 27 existing agencies and 180,000 federal employees. His goal in doing so was to strengthen our national security through enhanced interagency cooperation, an unambiguous chain of command and simplified bureaucracy. Mr. Bush also took the opportunity to call again for renewal of key portions of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> supports. Parts of the Act are set to expire this year.
"We are relentless," the President continued, highlighting successes in the capture or killing of two-thirds of al-Qa'ida's senior leadership. "We are strong. We refuse to yield. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck. We're after them. We will not relent. We will bring these killers to justice."
Speaking on behalf of the Kerry campaign, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland bemoaned, "It's a very serious situation when we have a failure of the president and this administration to fund adequately and organize adequately the Homeland Security Department. In so many ways, it is really duct tape and plastic, all smoke and mirrors, all hat and no cattle."
Oddly enough, the FY 2005 budget increases the department's funding by $3.6 billion, which doubles overall funding since 2001.
Oddly, too, especially given Sen. Cleland's lament, Mr. Kerry himself voted <SPAN class=char5_5>against</SPAN> the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on <SPAN class=char5_5>six</SPAN> separate occasions.
<SPAN class=char6_8>This week's "Alpha Jackass" award:</SPAN>
"As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation?s history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do." --Sen. John Kerry in a recent letter to Leftmedia parrots, ostensibly addressed to President Bush
<SPAN class=char5_5>Ironically, when President Bush called Kerry to congratulate him on the results of this week's Super Tuesday primaries, Kerry said he looked forward to the contest and hoped they could "stick to the issues." When does Candidate Kerry plan to begin?</SPAN>
<SPAN class=char6_8>This week's "Braying Jackass" award:</SPAN>
Taking note of President Bush's resolute "We are strong. We refuse to yield" language above, compare this to Ketchup Kerry's less-than-stirring response to a reporter's query about the rightness of America's cause -- and whether he thinks God is on our side in the war on terrorism: "Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard, And God has been on our side through most of our existence."
<SPAN class=char6_8>From the DEMO-lition derby...</SPAN>
This week's Super Tuesday primary races in 10 states cinched the deal for John Kerry, while knocking North Carolina Sen. John Edwards out of contention for the Democrat presidential nomination. Kerry won nine of the ten states at stake, while Vermont went to "un-candidate" Howard Dean, its former governor.
For his part, Edwards' message of "two Americas," one for the rich and one for the poor, didn't gain the necessary traction with voters. Given this week's warm and cuddly exchanges between Kerry and Edwards, though, <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> continues to believe that the tax-loophole-exploiting multimillionaire personal injury lawyer remains the Demos' top pick for the VP slot. How better for a hard-Leftist Massachusetts senator to have a snowball's chance in South, if not with Edwards' mollifying smile and soft charm to bring the Secessionist States into electoral contention?
</DIV>
<DIV class=Body_Text_2><SPAN class=char0_12>Not so fast. First, let's recall the National Journal's above-mentioned "Most Liberal Senator" rankings, wherein John Kerry placed first and worst. Second, let's reflect on how former Candidate Edwards tirelessly positioned himself as the middle-of-the-road alternative to Kerry's liberal excess. Well, much to the chagrin of Demo strategists drooling over a Kerry-Edwards ticket, "moderate" Senator Edwards placed a decidedly non-Southern fourth.</SPAN>
</DIV>
<DIV class=Normal>
(In case you're wondering, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland ranked second and third, respectively.)
<SPAN class=char6_8>The BIG lie...</SPAN>
"Our Constitution, a sacred document -- you know, our forefathers knew what they were doing. This wasn't a rough draft. And let's not try to continually do amendments to it as we move forward. I would like the states to make the decisions on what they think is right in their individual state. It shouldn't be up to the federal government." --DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, professing his newfound love for our Constitution -- and states' rights...
<SPAN class=char6_8>STOP AND TAKE ACTION NOW!</SPAN>
While the proposed Marriage Amendment to our Constitution is well intended, it will accomplish <SPAN class=char5_5>nothing</SPAN> if the national courts interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. The Democrat Party knows that its real power lies in the judiciary, and thus, they have used their Leftjudicial minions on the federal bench to amend the Constitution by judicial diktat (divining the "spirit of the Constitution") rather than follow the Constitution's plan for amendment. That is why we ask you to take one minute to help us restore the integrity of our Constitution by joining a campaign entreating the President and Congress to support <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment." </SPAN>
As for the lawlessness of these from-the-bench legislators and the elected representatives who are obligated to keep them in check, they all disregard the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. <SPAN class=char5_5>At its heart, such judicial activism is patently unconstitutional, for it operates in open defiance to the prescription for amendment explicated in Article V.</SPAN> For this reason, we ask you to support an amendment to the Constitution which will mandate that it be construed in the national courts according to its "original intent" -- with regard for the dictates of Article V, and calls on the House of Representatives to remove from office any judge who is not in compliance.
Please join fellow Patriots on the front lines in defense of our Constitution by supporting the <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment."</SPAN>
Link to -- target=_blank>http://PatriotPetitions.US/Amendment28 (http://patriotpetitions.us/Amendment28)
(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: sign- target=_blank>Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US (http://us.f104.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US) Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)
<SPAN class=char6_8>On cross-examination...</SPAN>
"I do not know what he expected, but surely he could not have anticipated that I would be an ideological clone. He knew me better than that." --Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing of his relationship with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. (Blackmun's papers were released to the Library of Congress this week.)
"Ideological clone"? As noted in the <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment"</SPAN> referenced above, our Founders did not intend for the Supreme (or any of the national) Court(s) to be forums for judicial ideology. Blackmun's assertion exposes precisely the contempt judicial activists hold for the law and our Constitution original intent.
<SPAN class=char6_8>News from the Swamp...</SPAN>
In the Senate, finally, folks defending a restoration of properly honored constitutional rights are getting smart. Defenders of the Second Amendment this week declined to swallow killer amendments attached to the otherwise laudable S.1805, "A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others," sponsored by Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig. This, of course, is a worthy goal -- to shield gun makers and sellers from nuisance lawsuits targeted against perfectly functional products -- and the bill had bipartisan support, even from Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
But the Demo-led mischief began late last week, with an addition requiring that "child-proof safety locks" be sold with every handgun. Make no mistake, these bad add-ons came with the complicity of RINO Republicans, who continually fail to comprehend the Constitution's Second Amendment. Then, this week, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pushed to incorporate a renewal of the ban on some misnamed "assault weapons." Next, Arizona turncoat John McCain followed with his amendment touted as "closing the gun-show loophole" (which actually intrudes into firearms sales by private citizens). The key vote occurred on Super Tuesday, but both John Edwards and John Kerry forsook the campaign trail to hustle back to the Swamp and cast their anti-Second Amendment votes. Having seen quite enough, Sen. Craig pronounced the amended bill unworthy of support with its Demo-cum-RINO deformations -- and it went down to defeat, 90-8.
For his part, President Bush had asked for a stripped-down bill without amendments, because the House of Representatives would pass nothing else. Historically, the weak-kneed Senators have tended to suck up whatever odious gun-control legislation the Demos force-feed them. In this case, however, no bill is better than a bad bill!
Also in the upper chamber, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has announced his intention to propose a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment giving the states the explicit right of whether to recognize homosexual marriage. Hatch's amendment, unlike those already under consideration (namely, Musgrave-Allard), would not incorporate a definition of marriage into the Constitution. The bill is cosponsored by Republican Senators Jim Talent of Missouri and Gordon Smith of Oregon.
<SPAN class=char6_8>Regarding the redistribution of your income... </SPAN>
Lest we forget, the trade-off for the past three years of tax cuts is that they're all set to expire within this decade. Here's the expiration breakdown: Child Tax Credit decreases -- 31 December 2004; Marriage Penalty increases -- 31 December 2004; Dividend Tax increases -- 31 December 2008; Gap Gains Tax increases -- 31 December 2008; All Bush Tax Cuts expire -- 31 December 2010. And you thought the Grinch stole Christmas.
<SPAN class=char6_8>Around the world...</SPAN>
In the early hours of Monday morning, the Iraqi Governing Council agreed to an interim constitution, set to be signed by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator Paul Bremer today. Last minute contentions, however, delayed the signing indefinitely. An interim government is scheduled to take power June 30, and the new constitution, which envisions Iraq as a federalist state, calls for general elections late this year or in early 2005.
<SPAN class=char6_8>And last...</SPAN>
Have you done your Constitutional duty yet? It takes but one minute, and it's a minute well worth taking! Please join your fellow Patriots on the front lines in defense of our Constitution by supporting the <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment."</SPAN>
Link to -- target=_blank>http://PatriotPetitions.US/Amendment28 (http://patriotpetitions.us/Amendment28)
(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: sign- target=_blank>Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US (http://us.f104.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US) Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)
</DIV>
<DIV class=par14>Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray on this day, and every day, for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.)<SPAN class=char6_8> </SPAN>
</DIV>
<DIV class=FedHeaderLinks>
<SPAN class=char6_8>*Printer-friendly format </SPAN>
Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/current2004/1.asp (http://federalist.com/current2004/1.asp)
</DIV>
<DIV class=Normal>-- PUBLIUS --
</DIV>
<DIV class=FedHeaderLinks>
<SPAN class=char6_8>Support Operation Shields of Strength!</SPAN> To sponsor Shields of Strength for military personnel, or to purchase them for yourself, please link to -- <SPAN class=char6_9>target=_blank>http://federalist.com/news/sos.asp (http://federalist.com/news/sos.asp) </SPAN>
</DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter>
<SPAN class=char6_8>SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! </SPAN>Get your own subscription to <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN>!
Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/subscribe/ (http://federalist.com/subscribe/)
or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: <fedlist-subscribe@thefed.com>
(Friday's <SPAN class=char5_5>Federalist</SPAN> Digest is available in print for $245/year. For more information, send a message to <hardcopy@Federalist.com>)
<SPAN class=char6_8>TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS:</SPAN> Send <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> to your friends and associates!
Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/addmultiple.asp (http://federalist.com/addmultiple.asp) (Privacy Notice<SPAN class=char6_8>:</SPAN> We do NOT release ANY information on our users or subscribers under any circumstances, nor do we accept any advertising.)
<SPAN class=char6_8>UNSUBSCRIBE:</SPAN> Click on the "Manage your subscription" link at the top of this edition, or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to <fedlist-unsubscribe@thefed.com>
<SPAN class=char6_8>REPRINT AND FORWARD POLICY:</SPAN> Subscribers may reprint or forward The Federalist, in whole or part. If reprinting to another publication, please include the appropriate citation <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>(Federalist.com) in accordance with "fair use" rules, and our Subscriber/User Disclaimer. (For questions, contact our legal department at: <Legal@Federalist.com>.
PATRIOT PETITIONS: Link to -- target=_blank>http://PatriotPetitions.US/ (http://patriotpetitions.us/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<SPAN class=char3_18>SUPPORT </SPAN><SPAN class=char3_19>The Federalist's</SPAN><SPAN class=char3_18> 2004 Patriot Sustaining Fund</SPAN><SPAN class=char5_4>: target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/support.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com (http://federalist.com/support.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com)</SPAN>
<SPAN class=char3_18>SUPPORT BY MAIL</SPAN><SPAN class=char5_4>:</SPAN> Make your check payable to "<SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN>" and please note your e-mail address on your check so our publisher can thank you. Suggested support levels: Family Defender -- $20, Frontline Patriot -- $35, Company Command -- $50, Battalion Command -- $75, Regiment Command -- $100, Division Command -- $150, Corps Command -- $250. (Family or Frontline donors are critical to our success.) For more information on joining <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> Founder's Circle of major donors, contact <Founders@Federalist.com>
<SPAN class=char6_8>Send your contribution to: </SPAN>
Federalist 2004 Patriot Fund
P.O. Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0507
Help drive traffic in the "right" direction! Include a self-addressed stamped (SASE) #10 (10" business) envelope with your donation, and we will send you our trademark slogans "Veritas vos Liberabit" (the truth will set you free), "Annoy a Leftist," and other stickers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
COMMENTS: Our servers automatically delete "Reply" messages to this e-mail. To read or submit comments for publication, link to -- <SPAN class=char3_22>target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/comments.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com (http://federalist.com/comments.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com) </SPAN>
Please hold your comments to 75 words if you want them posted. For other comments, e-mail <Letters@Federalist.com> Questions about <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>may be directed to Executive Editor, Mark Alexander, Senior Editor Cassandra Cornell, Research Editor John Machen, Feature Editors Jonah Walton and Brett Anthony, Legal Editor Michael Coleman, Technical Directors Jeffrey Thomas and Joshua Murray, Advisory Committee liaison Faith Long, or Subscriptions Manager Michele Hope by e-mail <Editors@Federalist.com> (Regarding editing mistakes, we put at least one error in every issue -- just to see if you are paying attention!)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<SPAN class=char6_8>ABOUT </SPAN><SPAN class=char3_24>THE FEDERALIST</SPAN><SPAN class=char6_8>:</SPAN> Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/main/about.asp (http://federalist.com/main/about.asp)
Subscribers agree to the terms of the Subscriber/User Disclaimer at: target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/disclaimer.asp (http://federalist.com/disclaimer.asp)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
E-mail President Bush, link to -- target=_blank>http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail (http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail)
Contact your Senator -- target=_blank>http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm (http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm)
Contact your Representative -- target=_blank>http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html)
White House switchboard: (202) 456-1414
House and Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Links to Central Government Agencies -- target=_blank>http://www.firstgov.gov/ (http://www.firstgov.gov/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Visit the most comprehensive tribute to Ronald Reagan on the Internet and read the definitive conservative platform for the next century -- target=_blank>http://www.Reagan2020.com/ (http://www.reagan2020.com/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF LIBERTY" <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> is an advocate of individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God and established in the governmental context framed by our nation's Founders in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate guidance, our Republic's Constitution, as explicated by <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist Papers</SPAN>. Our mission is to provide Constitutional Conservatives with a quick-reading e-journal digesting a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations -- a brief, timely, informative and entertaining survey and analysis of the week's most significant news, policy and opinion as anecdotal rebuttal to political, social and media Leftists. <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>is protected speech pursuant to the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Statement of Allegiance as subscribed by <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist's</SPAN> National Advisory Committee, Staff and Associates: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God."
<SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> is a publication of Publius Press, Inc.
Copyright ? 1981-2004 Publius Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
<SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>is a Town Hall Citizen Organization
In God we trust. ><></DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter></DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter>Travis
</DIV>
Some fine reading, get your glasses out...
Just who <SPAN class=char5_5>is</SPAN> John Forbes Kerry, the presumed Democrat presidential nominee? His answer, of course, depends on who is asking. Like so many Leftists, John Kerry is a case study in hypocrisy.
Kerry, the meticulously coiffed inheritance-welfare playboy, professes to be an Everyday Joe, a populist man of the people. Kerry, the Vietnam "war hero" who shamelessly surrounds himself with a "band of brothers" at every campaign stop, once cuddled with Hanoi Jane Fonda and has since opposed nearly every defense- and intelligence-spending program during his Senate tenure. Kerry, the self-described moderate whose rise to political power began under the tutelage of Teddy Kennedy, was recently named "Most Liberal Senator" by the National Journal, with a composite score of 96.5. All told, John Kerry's representation of his record -- his life, in fact -- leaves one longing for a Democrat candidate with the unimpeachable honesty of Bill Clinton. Indeed, Friend of <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> James Taranto recently dubbed Senator Kerry "Dukakis without the integrity."
As<SPAN class=char5_5> Federalist </SPAN>No. 04-04<SPAN class=char5_5> </SPAN>noted, "Kerry, whose campaign appeared moribund just three weeks ago, is now the new-and-improved front-runner of the Demo pack. At first blush, he appears to be a "package" candidate for Demo voters -- the military veteran who was, and remains, an Ivy-league anti-war protestor; the consummate insider who's acting like an outsider; the Senate's wealthiest member (he married well and his middle name is "Forbes" after all) who's acting like a homeless advocate; and the terrorism dove who's taunting our wartime president to "bring it on." Basically, Kerry is running against his own record -- he's against NAFTA but voted for it, he's against the USA Patriot Act but voted for it, he's against Operation Iraqi Freedom but voted for it, etc."
The Kerry campaign insists on keeping his Vietnam record front-and-center. According to his website, "When John Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he joined his fellow veterans in vowing never to abandon future veterans of America's wars. Kerry's commitment to veterans has never wavered and stands strong to this day."
Is <SPAN class=char5_5>that</SPAN> right!
John Kerry may have served with distinction in Vietnam. He did receive a Silver Star after beaching his Swift Boat and chasing a loin-clothed young boy (who was thought to possess a rocket launcher) around the corner of a hut and killing him. (If nothing else, this serves to remind us that war is indeed an ugly business -- and that enemy combatants aren't always attired in combat fatigues.) He also collected three Purple Hearts (though today there is little or no evidence of his wounds received).
Upon his return home, however, Kerry abandoned each and every one of his fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines on the ground in Vietnam -- not to mention the people of South Vietnam -- by fomenting wartime discord. In his now infamous 1971 testimony before Congress, Kerry said American soldiers were war criminals, claiming they "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs ... poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
Kerry went on: "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground, and all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty."
Kerry's protests and testimony did little more than aid and abet the Viet Cong, and his support for Communists did not end in 1971. In fact, it was Kerry who, years later, founded the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs with the objective of normalizing relations and trade with the Vietnamese government and ending speculation about MIAs that were captive in Vietnam long after the cease-fire accord. As recently as 2002, Kerry even blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act from coming to a vote.
And the rest of Kerry's congressional voting record is no better.
Massachusetts's most liberal senator -- check that, <SPAN class=char5_5>America's</SPAN> most liberal senator -- has, over the years, voted against defense-appropriations bills funding weapons that have proved essential to U.S. national security, including the Patriot Missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber. Kerry's voting record also shows his support for cutting funding or altogether canceling existing weapons systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Apache helicopter, B-1 Bomber, F-14, F-15, F-16 and AV-8B Harrier. Kerry also voted against the Navy's Aegis Air Defense Cruiser and Trident Missile System for U.S. submarines.
The Center for Security Policy, a conservative Washington-based think tank committed to "promoting international peace through American strength," has rated Kerry among the worst on Capitol Hill when it comes to national security and defense. In 1995, the Center gave Kerry a score of five out of a possible 100 points. Two years later, Kerry earned a mind-blowing score of exactly <SPAN class=char5_5>zero</SPAN>.
It stands to reason, then, that Kerry has voted against the strategic missile-defense shield, as well as U.S. withdrawal from the antiquated Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: But while these votes have clearly inhibited U.S. security, Kerry has cast two votes in the past ten years to loosen restrictions on the export of dual-use technology -- the sort of technology that enemies of the United States can convert into weapons and turn against us.
So much for the Massachusetts senator's commitment to the war on terrorism.
True to his Vietnam-era sympathies, John Kerry became one of President Ronald Reagan's most outspoken opponents regarding the policy of militarily suppressing Communist inroads in Latin America. His opposition culminated in a controversial April, 1985, visit to Nicaragua and its Sandinista regime.
Following the Cold War, Kerry's doveliness continued unabated. Following Iraq's seizure of Kuwait in 1990, Kerry voted against authorization for the use of force -- which was more than could be said for Saddam Hussein. In 1995, Kerry was among 29 other senators who voted against ending the arms embargo against the Bosnians, even as Slobodan Milosevic escalated his reign of terror.
Concerning the authorization for the use of force against Iraq last year, however, Senator Kerry had this to say on 23 January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."
Kerry now says he believes the war was a mistake, and that he voted to authorize the <SPAN class=char5_5>threat</SPAN> of force, but not the actual use of it. (We at <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> can't help but wonder about the seriousness of a post-9/11 presidential candidate so loath to make good on a threat. Kerry's approach won't strike fear into the heart of a schoolyard bully, much less that of a brutal dictator or a murderous band of Jihadist thugs.)
More recently, we note the senator's whiny, thin-skinned response to questions raised over his defense voting record by Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss -- questions utterly appropriate to anyone aspiring to be commander-in-chief: "[The President has] decided once again to take the low road of American politics. ... Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation...." And again, when responding to similar queries: "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did." Wait a minute -- you mean John Kerry <SPAN class=char5_5>actually served in Vietnam</SPAN>? Who knew?
Finally, earlier this week Kerry breathed life into the conspiracy theory of a U.S.-led coup against erstwhile Leftist darling and Haitian president/autocrat Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resigned and fled to Africa early last Sunday morning. Following Aristide's departure, Kerry remarked, "I think there should be some investigation of it. I have a very close friend in Massachusetts who talked directly to people who made that allegation [of a U.S.-led coup]. I don?t know the truth of it. I really don?t. But I think it needs to be explored and we need to know the truth of what happened."
So let's get this straight: Kerry admits he doesn't "know the truth of it," yet he's calling for an investigation because he's got a friend back home who talked to someone who says that the President of the United States ordered the kidnapping of a foreign leader.
This is the best the Democrat Party can offer for President?
<SPAN class=char6_8>Quote of the week... </SPAN>
"They don't know John Kerry's record. ... He is the Olympic gold medalist when it comes to special-interest money. ... I also think that he is very vulnerable on the issues of national security. If you look at his voting record, it is terrible as far as it comes to national defense and helping fund a good intelligence unit." --Senator Zell Miller, the Georgia Democrat who's campaigning <SPAN class=char5_5>against</SPAN> Kerry for a second Bush term
<SPAN class=char6_8>Open query for Kerry...</SPAN>
"Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase 'special interest'? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?... Is the National Rifle Association a 'special interest'? Is 'special' a synonym for 'conservative'? ... When you denounce 'lobbyists' do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is 'liberal lobbyist' an oxymoron?... On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning 'the theory of deterrence.' Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression? The next day you said, 'I do not believe our nation is prepared for war.' How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? ... On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote 'I share your concerns' and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, 'I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis.' Did you have a third position?... You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counter-terrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?" --George Will, "A Few Questions for John Kerry"
<SPAN class=char6_8>Snap shots...</SPAN>
"I think it is entirely possible [the extramarital affair by Clinton] was a distraction that kept him from performing his duty as president." --John Kerry, September 2001
"If anything, there may now be a greater appreciation for the trouble you can get into for certain behavior. More parents are teaching their children about lying, about humiliation, about family hurt, about public responsibility, than before we ever heard the name of Monica Lewinsky." --John Kerry, February, 1999
"The country does not believe the fiber of our nation is unraveling over the President's egregious behavior, because most people have a sense of proportion about the case that seems totally lacking in the House managers' presentation. No parent or school in America is teaching kids that lying or abusing the justice system is now OK....Democrats were very sophisticated in making a distinction between the policies and personal behavior of President Clinton." --John Kerry during the Clinton impeachment proceedings
<DIV class=FedNormalBold>From the Bush campaign journal...
</DIV>
<DIV class=Normal>
Not to be completely overshadowed by the events of Super Tuesday, President Bush stole away part of the limelight with an address on national security on the first anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security. (As <SPAN class=char5_5>briefly</SPAN> mentioned above, national security isn't exactly Candidate Kerry's strong suit.)
"Life in America in many ways has returned to normal, and that's positive. It means that we're doing our job," Mr. Bush told Homeland Security employees, citing the nation's good fortune in having gone 29 months without a subsequent terrorist attack, "but life will really never return to normal so long as there is an enemy that lurks in the shadows, that aims to destroy and kill. Our enemies are wounded but they are not broken. They still have a desire to strike America again. That's the reality with which we live."
One year ago, President Bush took the momentous step of forming the new department, which merged 27 existing agencies and 180,000 federal employees. His goal in doing so was to strengthen our national security through enhanced interagency cooperation, an unambiguous chain of command and simplified bureaucracy. Mr. Bush also took the opportunity to call again for renewal of key portions of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> supports. Parts of the Act are set to expire this year.
"We are relentless," the President continued, highlighting successes in the capture or killing of two-thirds of al-Qa'ida's senior leadership. "We are strong. We refuse to yield. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck. We're after them. We will not relent. We will bring these killers to justice."
Speaking on behalf of the Kerry campaign, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland bemoaned, "It's a very serious situation when we have a failure of the president and this administration to fund adequately and organize adequately the Homeland Security Department. In so many ways, it is really duct tape and plastic, all smoke and mirrors, all hat and no cattle."
Oddly enough, the FY 2005 budget increases the department's funding by $3.6 billion, which doubles overall funding since 2001.
Oddly, too, especially given Sen. Cleland's lament, Mr. Kerry himself voted <SPAN class=char5_5>against</SPAN> the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on <SPAN class=char5_5>six</SPAN> separate occasions.
<SPAN class=char6_8>This week's "Alpha Jackass" award:</SPAN>
"As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation?s history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do." --Sen. John Kerry in a recent letter to Leftmedia parrots, ostensibly addressed to President Bush
<SPAN class=char5_5>Ironically, when President Bush called Kerry to congratulate him on the results of this week's Super Tuesday primaries, Kerry said he looked forward to the contest and hoped they could "stick to the issues." When does Candidate Kerry plan to begin?</SPAN>
<SPAN class=char6_8>This week's "Braying Jackass" award:</SPAN>
Taking note of President Bush's resolute "We are strong. We refuse to yield" language above, compare this to Ketchup Kerry's less-than-stirring response to a reporter's query about the rightness of America's cause -- and whether he thinks God is on our side in the war on terrorism: "Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard, And God has been on our side through most of our existence."
<SPAN class=char6_8>From the DEMO-lition derby...</SPAN>
This week's Super Tuesday primary races in 10 states cinched the deal for John Kerry, while knocking North Carolina Sen. John Edwards out of contention for the Democrat presidential nomination. Kerry won nine of the ten states at stake, while Vermont went to "un-candidate" Howard Dean, its former governor.
For his part, Edwards' message of "two Americas," one for the rich and one for the poor, didn't gain the necessary traction with voters. Given this week's warm and cuddly exchanges between Kerry and Edwards, though, <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> continues to believe that the tax-loophole-exploiting multimillionaire personal injury lawyer remains the Demos' top pick for the VP slot. How better for a hard-Leftist Massachusetts senator to have a snowball's chance in South, if not with Edwards' mollifying smile and soft charm to bring the Secessionist States into electoral contention?
</DIV>
<DIV class=Body_Text_2><SPAN class=char0_12>Not so fast. First, let's recall the National Journal's above-mentioned "Most Liberal Senator" rankings, wherein John Kerry placed first and worst. Second, let's reflect on how former Candidate Edwards tirelessly positioned himself as the middle-of-the-road alternative to Kerry's liberal excess. Well, much to the chagrin of Demo strategists drooling over a Kerry-Edwards ticket, "moderate" Senator Edwards placed a decidedly non-Southern fourth.</SPAN>
</DIV>
<DIV class=Normal>
(In case you're wondering, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland ranked second and third, respectively.)
<SPAN class=char6_8>The BIG lie...</SPAN>
"Our Constitution, a sacred document -- you know, our forefathers knew what they were doing. This wasn't a rough draft. And let's not try to continually do amendments to it as we move forward. I would like the states to make the decisions on what they think is right in their individual state. It shouldn't be up to the federal government." --DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, professing his newfound love for our Constitution -- and states' rights...
<SPAN class=char6_8>STOP AND TAKE ACTION NOW!</SPAN>
While the proposed Marriage Amendment to our Constitution is well intended, it will accomplish <SPAN class=char5_5>nothing</SPAN> if the national courts interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. The Democrat Party knows that its real power lies in the judiciary, and thus, they have used their Leftjudicial minions on the federal bench to amend the Constitution by judicial diktat (divining the "spirit of the Constitution") rather than follow the Constitution's plan for amendment. That is why we ask you to take one minute to help us restore the integrity of our Constitution by joining a campaign entreating the President and Congress to support <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment." </SPAN>
As for the lawlessness of these from-the-bench legislators and the elected representatives who are obligated to keep them in check, they all disregard the Constitution they have sworn to uphold. <SPAN class=char5_5>At its heart, such judicial activism is patently unconstitutional, for it operates in open defiance to the prescription for amendment explicated in Article V.</SPAN> For this reason, we ask you to support an amendment to the Constitution which will mandate that it be construed in the national courts according to its "original intent" -- with regard for the dictates of Article V, and calls on the House of Representatives to remove from office any judge who is not in compliance.
Please join fellow Patriots on the front lines in defense of our Constitution by supporting the <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment."</SPAN>
Link to -- target=_blank>http://PatriotPetitions.US/Amendment28 (http://patriotpetitions.us/Amendment28)
(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: sign- target=_blank>Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US (http://us.f104.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US) Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)
<SPAN class=char6_8>On cross-examination...</SPAN>
"I do not know what he expected, but surely he could not have anticipated that I would be an ideological clone. He knew me better than that." --Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing of his relationship with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. (Blackmun's papers were released to the Library of Congress this week.)
"Ideological clone"? As noted in the <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment"</SPAN> referenced above, our Founders did not intend for the Supreme (or any of the national) Court(s) to be forums for judicial ideology. Blackmun's assertion exposes precisely the contempt judicial activists hold for the law and our Constitution original intent.
<SPAN class=char6_8>News from the Swamp...</SPAN>
In the Senate, finally, folks defending a restoration of properly honored constitutional rights are getting smart. Defenders of the Second Amendment this week declined to swallow killer amendments attached to the otherwise laudable S.1805, "A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others," sponsored by Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig. This, of course, is a worthy goal -- to shield gun makers and sellers from nuisance lawsuits targeted against perfectly functional products -- and the bill had bipartisan support, even from Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
But the Demo-led mischief began late last week, with an addition requiring that "child-proof safety locks" be sold with every handgun. Make no mistake, these bad add-ons came with the complicity of RINO Republicans, who continually fail to comprehend the Constitution's Second Amendment. Then, this week, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pushed to incorporate a renewal of the ban on some misnamed "assault weapons." Next, Arizona turncoat John McCain followed with his amendment touted as "closing the gun-show loophole" (which actually intrudes into firearms sales by private citizens). The key vote occurred on Super Tuesday, but both John Edwards and John Kerry forsook the campaign trail to hustle back to the Swamp and cast their anti-Second Amendment votes. Having seen quite enough, Sen. Craig pronounced the amended bill unworthy of support with its Demo-cum-RINO deformations -- and it went down to defeat, 90-8.
For his part, President Bush had asked for a stripped-down bill without amendments, because the House of Representatives would pass nothing else. Historically, the weak-kneed Senators have tended to suck up whatever odious gun-control legislation the Demos force-feed them. In this case, however, no bill is better than a bad bill!
Also in the upper chamber, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch has announced his intention to propose a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment giving the states the explicit right of whether to recognize homosexual marriage. Hatch's amendment, unlike those already under consideration (namely, Musgrave-Allard), would not incorporate a definition of marriage into the Constitution. The bill is cosponsored by Republican Senators Jim Talent of Missouri and Gordon Smith of Oregon.
<SPAN class=char6_8>Regarding the redistribution of your income... </SPAN>
Lest we forget, the trade-off for the past three years of tax cuts is that they're all set to expire within this decade. Here's the expiration breakdown: Child Tax Credit decreases -- 31 December 2004; Marriage Penalty increases -- 31 December 2004; Dividend Tax increases -- 31 December 2008; Gap Gains Tax increases -- 31 December 2008; All Bush Tax Cuts expire -- 31 December 2010. And you thought the Grinch stole Christmas.
<SPAN class=char6_8>Around the world...</SPAN>
In the early hours of Monday morning, the Iraqi Governing Council agreed to an interim constitution, set to be signed by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator Paul Bremer today. Last minute contentions, however, delayed the signing indefinitely. An interim government is scheduled to take power June 30, and the new constitution, which envisions Iraq as a federalist state, calls for general elections late this year or in early 2005.
<SPAN class=char6_8>And last...</SPAN>
Have you done your Constitutional duty yet? It takes but one minute, and it's a minute well worth taking! Please join your fellow Patriots on the front lines in defense of our Constitution by supporting the <SPAN class=char6_8>"The Enumerated Powers Amendment."</SPAN>
Link to -- target=_blank>http://PatriotPetitions.US/Amendment28 (http://patriotpetitions.us/Amendment28)
(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: sign- target=_blank>Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US (http://us.f104.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Amendment28@PatriotPetitions.US) Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)
</DIV>
<DIV class=par14>Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray on this day, and every day, for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.)<SPAN class=char6_8> </SPAN>
</DIV>
<DIV class=FedHeaderLinks>
<SPAN class=char6_8>*Printer-friendly format </SPAN>
Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/current2004/1.asp (http://federalist.com/current2004/1.asp)
</DIV>
<DIV class=Normal>-- PUBLIUS --
</DIV>
<DIV class=FedHeaderLinks>
<SPAN class=char6_8>Support Operation Shields of Strength!</SPAN> To sponsor Shields of Strength for military personnel, or to purchase them for yourself, please link to -- <SPAN class=char6_9>target=_blank>http://federalist.com/news/sos.asp (http://federalist.com/news/sos.asp) </SPAN>
</DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter>
<SPAN class=char6_8>SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! </SPAN>Get your own subscription to <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN>!
Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/subscribe/ (http://federalist.com/subscribe/)
or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: <fedlist-subscribe@thefed.com>
(Friday's <SPAN class=char5_5>Federalist</SPAN> Digest is available in print for $245/year. For more information, send a message to <hardcopy@Federalist.com>)
<SPAN class=char6_8>TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS:</SPAN> Send <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> to your friends and associates!
Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/addmultiple.asp (http://federalist.com/addmultiple.asp) (Privacy Notice<SPAN class=char6_8>:</SPAN> We do NOT release ANY information on our users or subscribers under any circumstances, nor do we accept any advertising.)
<SPAN class=char6_8>UNSUBSCRIBE:</SPAN> Click on the "Manage your subscription" link at the top of this edition, or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to <fedlist-unsubscribe@thefed.com>
<SPAN class=char6_8>REPRINT AND FORWARD POLICY:</SPAN> Subscribers may reprint or forward The Federalist, in whole or part. If reprinting to another publication, please include the appropriate citation <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>(Federalist.com) in accordance with "fair use" rules, and our Subscriber/User Disclaimer. (For questions, contact our legal department at: <Legal@Federalist.com>.
PATRIOT PETITIONS: Link to -- target=_blank>http://PatriotPetitions.US/ (http://patriotpetitions.us/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<SPAN class=char3_18>SUPPORT </SPAN><SPAN class=char3_19>The Federalist's</SPAN><SPAN class=char3_18> 2004 Patriot Sustaining Fund</SPAN><SPAN class=char5_4>: target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/support.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com (http://federalist.com/support.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com)</SPAN>
<SPAN class=char3_18>SUPPORT BY MAIL</SPAN><SPAN class=char5_4>:</SPAN> Make your check payable to "<SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN>" and please note your e-mail address on your check so our publisher can thank you. Suggested support levels: Family Defender -- $20, Frontline Patriot -- $35, Company Command -- $50, Battalion Command -- $75, Regiment Command -- $100, Division Command -- $150, Corps Command -- $250. (Family or Frontline donors are critical to our success.) For more information on joining <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> Founder's Circle of major donors, contact <Founders@Federalist.com>
<SPAN class=char6_8>Send your contribution to: </SPAN>
Federalist 2004 Patriot Fund
P.O. Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0507
Help drive traffic in the "right" direction! Include a self-addressed stamped (SASE) #10 (10" business) envelope with your donation, and we will send you our trademark slogans "Veritas vos Liberabit" (the truth will set you free), "Annoy a Leftist," and other stickers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
COMMENTS: Our servers automatically delete "Reply" messages to this e-mail. To read or submit comments for publication, link to -- <SPAN class=char3_22>target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/comments.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com (http://federalist.com/comments.asp?e=travisab1@yahoo.com) </SPAN>
Please hold your comments to 75 words if you want them posted. For other comments, e-mail <Letters@Federalist.com> Questions about <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>may be directed to Executive Editor, Mark Alexander, Senior Editor Cassandra Cornell, Research Editor John Machen, Feature Editors Jonah Walton and Brett Anthony, Legal Editor Michael Coleman, Technical Directors Jeffrey Thomas and Joshua Murray, Advisory Committee liaison Faith Long, or Subscriptions Manager Michele Hope by e-mail <Editors@Federalist.com> (Regarding editing mistakes, we put at least one error in every issue -- just to see if you are paying attention!)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<SPAN class=char6_8>ABOUT </SPAN><SPAN class=char3_24>THE FEDERALIST</SPAN><SPAN class=char6_8>:</SPAN> Link to -- target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/main/about.asp (http://federalist.com/main/about.asp)
Subscribers agree to the terms of the Subscriber/User Disclaimer at: target=_blank>http://Federalist.com/disclaimer.asp (http://federalist.com/disclaimer.asp)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
E-mail President Bush, link to -- target=_blank>http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail (http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail)
Contact your Senator -- target=_blank>http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm (http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm)
Contact your Representative -- target=_blank>http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html)
White House switchboard: (202) 456-1414
House and Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Links to Central Government Agencies -- target=_blank>http://www.firstgov.gov/ (http://www.firstgov.gov/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Visit the most comprehensive tribute to Ronald Reagan on the Internet and read the definitive conservative platform for the next century -- target=_blank>http://www.Reagan2020.com/ (http://www.reagan2020.com/)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF LIBERTY" <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> is an advocate of individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God and established in the governmental context framed by our nation's Founders in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate guidance, our Republic's Constitution, as explicated by <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist Papers</SPAN>. Our mission is to provide Constitutional Conservatives with a quick-reading e-journal digesting a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations -- a brief, timely, informative and entertaining survey and analysis of the week's most significant news, policy and opinion as anecdotal rebuttal to political, social and media Leftists. <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>is protected speech pursuant to the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Statement of Allegiance as subscribed by <SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist's</SPAN> National Advisory Committee, Staff and Associates: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God."
<SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist</SPAN> is a publication of Publius Press, Inc.
Copyright ? 1981-2004 Publius Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
<SPAN class=char5_5>The Federalist </SPAN>is a Town Hall Citizen Organization
In God we trust. ><></DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter></DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV class=FedFooter>Travis
</DIV>