Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for October, 2004

October 31st 2004

The "Hedgefox" President

On the eve of the election, the LA Times has admitted on page one that their candidate, Sen. John Flip Kerry, is such a liability that they want to turn voters’s attention away from him. The lead article in Real Clear Politics today appears above the fold in today’s Times, and boldly deflects attention from Kerry with the headline, “Why ‘This Is About Bush.’” Ronald Brownstein’s piece is based on Isaiah Berlin’s categorization of “intellectuals and artists into two categories: the fox, who is clever, creative, committed to many goals; and the hedgehog, a creature by a single, unwavering conviction.”

Let’s quickly score one for Bush. For Brownstein to move forward on his thesis, he has to accept Bush as either an intellectual or an artist; I’m guessing he hasn’t analyzed Bush’s brush stroke.

One supposes Brownstein positions Kerry as the fox, although the article’s focus on Bush does not leave much room for Brownstein to categorize Kerry at all. Is Kerry “clever, creative, committed to many goals?” Absolutely not. His 20 year Senate record shows a narrowly focused Liberal, a hedgehog if ever there was one. His campaign rhetoric shows a mockingbird, not a fox. See the post on Kyoto below (“Kerry disses Kyoto … no, wait”). Kerry’s only hedgehoggyness is his focus on achieving the presidency, apparently for no other reason than he thinks its his turn. He has not been able to articlulate a vision, and he has never said anything much about his plans except that he has them.

Is Bush a hedgehog? Brownstein avoids some multi-goal attributes, like across-the-board tax cuts and the No Child Left Behind Act, and states his hedgehog argument as follows:

With his repeated tax cuts, his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and the war in Iraq, Bush has consistently pursued goals that generate strong support among Republicans and conservatives, but at the price of provoking antipathy among Democrats and liberals.

In his policies, Bush has sought to advance his ideas mainly by holding to sharply defined positions — and attempting to shift the debate in his direction almost by magnetic force.

In his political strategy, he has sought more to deepen his support among groups that lean in his direction than to broaden his appeal among groups that have resisted him.

So it gets down to tax cuts (not exactly a winner for mainstream Dems, since so many of them benefitted from the cuts), gay marriage (a loser for the Dems) and Iraq. In other words, it gets down to Iraq.

I’m tempted to say, “Then bring in the hedgehogs!” when it comes to Iraq. I want a leader with a ruthless, focused, singular commitment to hunting down and killing terrorists, and that’s definitely Bush, not Kerry. But Brownstein has set up a false argument. A hedgehog would still be burrowing around in Tora Bora looking for ObL. Bush quickly realized a broad, multi-front battle was necessary, as he laid out in his 2002 State of the Union address, and he has pursued it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Warsaw, Damascus, in banking centers, with NATO and the UN, on land, air and sea, from satellites and electronic bugs, using the FBI, CIA, NSA and all other resources and avenues at his disposal.

This is a hedgehog election, but Brownstein has it wrong. It’s a If%20It/102-8667080-8589729′>one issue campaign, not a one-issue campaigner. It’s all about the War on Terrorism, and that’s why Bush is going to win on Tuesday. He is both the hedgehog and the fox on this one.


1 Comment »

October 30th 2004

Dem-Spin Losing Its Grip

The tone of this morning’s LA Times article on the bin Laden tape was gloomy, with a permiating theme that the tape favored Bush. Still, the Times gave the Dems plenty of room to spin the bin Laden tape, but there was no traction. Watch out for flying gravel; here comes the spin. First, Kerry senior strategist Joe Lockhart:

“It’s offensive and shameful for this president to play politics the way he did today with this issue.”

That’ll work! No one’s noticed that Kerry & Crew have been playing politics with our service personnel in harms way since the start of the campaign.

Here’s what the candidate himself had to say:

“I regret that when George Bush had the opportunity in Afghanistan and Tora Bora, he didn’t choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden,” Kerry said in a satellite interview with the ABC affiliate in Milwaukee. Later, … in West Palm Beach, Fla., Kerry [said], “Let me just make it clear — crystal clear…. As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.”

We’ll paraphrase that as, “We’re absolutely united … but the President is inept.” Or am I too harsh? Maybe a better paraphrase would be, “We’re absolutely united and forget the fact that everything I’ve said about Tora Bora is divisive and has been shown to be untrue, in the spirit if unity, I’m going to say it again.”

And finally:

“My own personal view is that this is at least going to be a wash, and possibly helpful to Sen. Kerry,” said Michael Greenberger, the director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland.”It falls within his thesis that we are bogged down in Iraq and we are fighting the wrong enemy, and here is this person taking full credit for 9/11, being videotaped and quite safe from any danger.”

Greenberger is spinning in a vacuum. Weren’t the American people focused all week on the massive weapons caches in Iraq? Obviously, “the wrong enemy” isn’t going to play this week like it played two weeks ago. And as for “here is this person taking full credit for 9/11″ — is if we didn’t know it was bin Laden! Has Greenberger been camped out with Moore, Daschle, Dean and the other loonies, thinking it was Bush earlier? That’ll convince the masses.


1 Comment »

October 29th 2004

Oh The Times, It Is A’Stranglin’

A nine-paragraph story in today’s New York Post no doubt brings a warm glow to the hearts of Hugh and MSM critics everywhere. Funny, Times spokespersons didn’t attribute the paper’s 6.3 percent Sunday circulation drop on the fact that they’ve PO’d every Conservative subscriber (or former subscriber).



October 29, 2004 —
Tribune Co.’s two largest papers, the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, disclosed steep circulation declines the same day the company reported lackluster quarterly results. …

At The Times, daily circulation fell 5.6 percent and 6.3 percent on Sunday for the six-month period ended September.

The paper blamed the decline on the national Do-Not-Call list and a “deliberate decision” to reduce less profitable sales programs, such as discounted bulk papers delivered to homes and sold on newsstands.

Surprise! The LA Times buried the story in its Business Sections’ In Brief column. Surprise, surprise! Circulation figures weren’t mentioned.


No Comments yet »

October 29th 2004

What Osama Proves

The bin Laden tape, on the heels of the “blood in the street” al Qaeda tape released earlier this week, is more confirming than chilling. Here’s what it tells us:

  1. al Qaeda’s got nothing. If they really wanted to disrupt our election, they woud attack us with something more powerful than videotapes. Talk is cheap, and cheap is all they’ve got. The fact that the two tapes were released independently so close to each other indicates that there is no communication between the various factions. As a communications strategist, I know you don’t dilute the big message by releasing a lesser message just days earlier. And that leads to:
  2. Bush’s strategy is working. The killing and jailing of al Qaeda leadership, the driving of them further underground, the attack on their finances, the diversion of their resources by the Iraq war — these combine to create the situation where al Qaeda’s got no power to attack, no communication, no plan other than survival. And in time the Bush strategy will take care of that last point, crushing them.
  3. The Left has lost its message. The message-drivers of the Dems are unequivocally proven to be deceitful, liars or paranoid (multiple answers allowed). Bush is holding bin Laden for a pre-election announcement? No. Bush was behind 9/11? No. It’s all about oil? No. Tonight, Alan Combs was reduced to shouting at Peggy Noonan the tired Tora Bora “outsource” argument, which has been thoroughly discredited by Tommy Franks. Noonan looked like she wanted to slug him. I sure did.
  4. Kerry’s got nothing to say. Since bin Laden pointedly says it doesn’t matter whether Kerry or Bush is elected, Kerry’s left with nothing to say but the vague promise that he would fight the war better. Better enough to merit changing horses in the middle of this particular stream?
  5. Bin Laden confirms that our only viable tactic is a preemptive one. The bearded Hitler says it’s OK for Jihadists to attack offensively, but any defensive response is a crime against humanity. Arab terrorists kill Israeli children, women and men from Lebanon and it’s OK, but responding is a transgression against humanity. They fly airplanes into buildings and it’s heroic, but responding isn’t justified. Given the option bin Laden leaves us — we attack, you cower — preemption is fully justified.

So all in all, the tape is good news for Bush, who the public broadly perceives as the better war time leader.

But I have to admit, I was hoping bin Laden had been reduced to broken strands of DNA by our military, and it’s disappointing that he’s proved that wrong.



October 28th 2004

Michael Moore vs. My Daughter

I’m so proud of my 18-year-old daughter, an acorn that didn’t fall far from the tree if ever there was one!

A couple days ago, she was walking across the Saddleback College campus and found a poster advertising screenings of Fahrenheit 9/11 on campus. She’s not much of a speller, so unlike me, she sees no value in the film; I value it for teaching many Americans how to spell Fahrenheit. She found the screening was sponsored by the college’s Dem club and vowed to show up with handouts documenting the films errors.

So last night she, my wife and I sat through the film; the first time any of us had seen it. We were amazed at how sophomoric the deceit is — no firm connections; just illusions, hints and paranoid conjecture. We were astonished to learn on viewing the film that Moore was afraid to show the actual 9/11 event, knowing it would remind viewers that we truly are fighting for something here. If you (wisely) have not seen the film, be aware that the screen is black during that portion; you hear only the sounds of the vicious attack on America. What a coward.

Today, my daughter ran out 100 copies of a four-page criticism of the film, and went to the campus to hand them out at two screenings.

She just got home and reported that only about 40 people showed up, and after the showing, she was invited to a discussion group, as the sole Republican in a room of Dems and Anarchists. She calmly and forcefully stood her ground, made her points and made a good impression for our cause. Only one ranter attacked her, calling her a Nazi. She responded, “And you are a Communist.” Quite a gal! Could a dad be more proud?

Links to her resources:

New York Times Magazine

BBC News

CNN News


1 Comment »

October 28th 2004

Objectivity? Schmogjectivity!

Today’s Washington Post article by Jo Becker on U.S. District Court Susan J. Dlott’s ruling yesterday that effectively stopped GOP efforts to challenge voter eligibility in Ohio is a textbook study in liberal media bias. Ojectivity requires only balance, not fairness, but Becker’s story didn’t even get to objectivity. Here’s an objective analysis:

  • Becker appropriately lets the winner have first say, giving Dem strategist David Sullivan the opportunity to draw some blood: “The Republican assault on tens of thousands of Ohio voters was an unprecedented effort to intimidate voters, especially minorities, but it has backfired.”

    But in paragraph four, no such courtesy is given the GOP; instead, there’s only a dry paraphrase, and a rather cold and threatening one at that: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, said yesterday’s ruling does not prevent the party from going forward with plans to place 3,400 monitors in polling places, particularly in heavily Democratic urban areas.

  • Nowhere in the 20-paragraph story does Becker explain the basis for the GOP challenge. You learn in Journalism 101 to do that, but you apparently learn in Washington Post 101 to give no quarter.
  • Instead of explaining the nature of the GOP challenge in Ohio, Becker lays out a litany of GOP challenges in other states:

    In Nevada, another battleground, Clark County election officials rejected an attempt this month by the former executive director of that state’s GOP to challenge 17,000 voters in the Las Vegas area.

    In Florida, the GOP has filed plans to place poll watchers at 5,000 polling places, spokeswoman Mindy Tucker Fletcher said.

    In Denver, election officials said the Republican Party told them it plans to have 350 poll watchers to challenge voters there. “This is a very organized, very intense effort,” said Alan McBeth of the Denver Election Commission. “If it becomes abusive, we may have to step in and say this is out of hand.”

    Any copy about Dem activities you ask? Not a word, not a single, solitary word.

  • Then there’s this openly biased sequence masquerading as objectivity:

    Tom Josefiak, the Bush campaign’s general counsel, said in a recent interview that challenges would be conducted in a non-intimidating manner that would not disrupt voting.

    Democrats, however, argue that the real aim of the challenge program is to keep voters likely to support Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), particularly minorities, from casting ballots.

    Bob Bauer, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, said Democrats will also have large numbers of poll watchers. But, he said, “our watchers will be there to help voters, not to hinder them, to answer their questions, not to question them.”

    Again, the quote goes to the Dem, the ominous paraphrase to the Republican. Two paragraphs of Dem response and allegation to one paragraph of negatively paraphrased, question-raising GOP-speak.

  • And finally, what exercise in Kerry-supporting “objective” journalism would be complete without laying down the race card?

    In Florida, Republican poll watchers will be disproportionately concentrated in minority precincts, according to a Democratic Party analysis of census data and GOP plans filed in five counties. In Miami-Dade, 59 percent of predominately black precincts will have at least one GOP poll watcher, compared with 37 percent of white precincts.

    Although Fletcher did not dispute those numbers, she said that the party will not single out black neighborhoods, but rather heavily Democratic ones. “Those are the places most likely for the Democrats . . . to try to steal the election,” she said.

    Obviously, GOP watchers will watch heavily DEM districts, and just as obviously, many of those districts will be minority districts. To cloak it as a race issue is so outrageous it begs the question: Is it true that the Democrats are disproportionately concentrating their efforts in white precincts? Of course they are.

  • Nowhere in the article, nowhere, is there one mention of the many, very real DEM efforts to challenge, cheat, and intimidate and manipulate voters in this election, although there’s plenty to report on that subject.


1 Comment »

October 27th 2004

350 Tons of Thoughts

  1. If John Kerry had been elected four years ago, would the “Missing Weapons” story ever seen the light of day? Answer: No, because with the exception of 9/11, none of what happened in the last four years would have happened. No liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, no strong message to terrorists, and even less would be known about the weapons than we know now.
  2. How can anyone say Bush was wrong in not trusting the UN inspection process, when that process led to nothing more than tagging weapons … not destroying them?
  3. Why didn’t CBS learn anything from Rathergate? Why weren’t they scared to launch a highly questionable anti-Bush story just 36 hours or so before the election?
  4. Why is CBS immune? They are so obviously partisan, yet they use the public airwaves without fear.
  5. Why did the New York Times bury the controversy about its story today (on pg. 10, with no link on their online edition)?
  6. Will anyone lose their job at the NY Times over this? Answer: No.
  7. Why didn’t the LA Times cover the controversy about the New York Times story today?
  8. Has any member of any crowd that Kerry shilled on this topic today not read or heard about the controversy?
  9. When will we find out that the Kerry campaign was approached by the same anonymous source (no doubt someone from the U.N.) that took the story to the NY Times and CBS?
  10. How does Kerry balance “terrorism isn’t a real threat/wrong war, wrong time, wrong place” with “missing 350 tons of weapons?” Answer: Easy; he’s got a lot of practice.
  11. Could I feel any more nausiated than I did when I heard of the tape ABC’s holding? These people are so sick that there is no alternative but all-out assault.
  12. How can anyone vote for Kerry in light of the obvious answers to questions 1-10 above?

1 Comment »

October 26th 2004

Kerry Disses Kyoto … No, Wait …

An interesting tidbit from the very interesting Greenie Watch blog:

This can be seen in the Kerry campaign’s schizophrenic approach to the global warming issue. On Friday 19 August, the campaign issued a document aimed at keeping the West Virginian coal industry open. It included the words, “John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem.”

But on 24 August, The Journal Times of Racine, Wisconsin, published an account of John Edwards’ visit to the town the day before. According to the paper, Edwards “lamented” America’s failure to join the Kyoto treaty. It seems the Kerry-Edwards campaign opposes Kyoto when coal miners’ votes are at stake but supports it in other areas.


No Comments yet »

October 26th 2004

Close-Minded Christians?

We hear it all the time from the Left: Christians, particularly conservative Christians, are close-minded and intolerant. How does this perception jibe with this data regarding the conservative Christian students of Vanguard University, an Assemblies of God liberal arts college in Costa Mesa, California? It certainly appears to counter the Liberal perspective with facts (not the first time that’s happened!):


-33% of Vanguard students took a Women’s Studies course (vs. 16% for religious colleges, 22% for national sample).

-42% had a roommate of different race/ethnicity (vs. 33% of national sample).

-68% socialized with someone of different ethnicity (vs. 49% of national sample).


No Comments yet »

October 25th 2004

When Kerry Loses

Things are looking worse for John Kerry, as the polling trends run against him in the critical closing days of the campaign. If all the Dems have for an October surprise is missing munitions in Iraq, it’s not an election-winner because it begs this question: If Kerry had been president during the last term, would we have even been in Iraq to protect the munitions? Yes or no, the fact that it is a legitimate question is evidence enough that he would not be a trustworthy Commander in Chief in time of war.

So let’s assume things will continue as they are, and Bush will win popular and electoral victories significant enough to accomplish what Hugh outlined in “If It’s Not Close, The Can’t Cheat.” What can they do to reposition their party after neither a sitting Vice President or a Vietnam War veteran (did you know Kerry served in Vietnam?) can’t beat a candidate they discount as deeply as the do George Bush?

It gets down to this: They will have to learn how to win two wars.

The first war, of course, is the foreign policy war. The Bush Doctrine will have prevailed over the Internationalist doctrine, and if they’re honest, the Dems will see that this happened for good reason. Germany and France have done nothing to endear themselves to mainstream America over the last three years, and will further alienate us in the four years ahead. Much is written in MSM about how Bush has alienated them, but precious little has been written about how they have alienated us. The U.N. botched Sudan, has not supported Iraqi elections and is hamstrung on Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons. The price of the failure of the Internationalists to move a post-9/11 agenda forward will become very real to the Dems on November 3 — and it’s more than Patriot Fries and boycotts of French wine. It is the profound and possibly permanent diminishment of authority of Old Europe and the U.N.

To rebuild themselves, the Dems will have to stake out ground that begins to step away from the U.N. and Global Tests, but can they afford to embrace the Bush Doctrine? It seems their only two options are to try to stake out some definable middle ground, or to move to the right of Bush with an Old School Democrat, an interventionalist like Roosevelt, who in his day shook up isolationist Republicans. Either will be a challenge.

The second war is the moral war here at home. This spring, when Missouri put a ballot measure on its primary ballot that would forbid gay marriage, more people voted on the initiative than voted for governor, and it went down to flaming defeat. Read: Trouble for Dems, because moral issues turn out Republicans. This is likely to repeat in Ohio on November 2, where a gay marriage initiative will appear along with the Bush/Kerry choice.

If the Dems are looking at an Ohio loss on November and considering the role gay marriage had in their defeat, they will have to reconsider the value of their allegiance to their gay and lesbian constiuents. In many ways, this will be a harder battle for them than Iraq because what Josh McDowell termed “the new tolerance” has them in a bit of a sticky wicket. Old tolerance meant “I’ll respect you and treat you decently even if I don’t agree with you.” The new tolerance force you to agree with those you don’t agree with, or be a bigot. Tolerance, more specfically New Tolerance, is the religion of the Left, so much of the Democratic electorate will not show up for this war; they would rather have their party fail than fail the tolerance test.

There is no leader in the Democratic Party who seems capable of leading it through genuine change of this magnitude. But I’m a Christian, so I believe that God uses times of crisis and pain to strengthen us and move us in new directions. This model worked for America in the transition from the Great Depression to World War II, and it could work for the Democrats too. Out of the shambles of a Gore loss followed by a Kerry loss, both at the hands of the bumbler from Texas, they just might gain the strength, insight and commitment to reform themselves.

Or they could give birth to a Hitler.


No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook