The Pendragon's Hall

John McCain may be a Democrat in Republican clothing but he does have schlockumentary-maker Michael Moore-on correctly pegged: the senator described him to the RNC last night as "a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace." That's putting it mildly. The delegates of course loved it sending up a round chorus of boos for the Idiot-in-Chief who gestured rudely back. The feeling seems to be electric in New York City, despite the party pooper tactics of the anarchist, communists and the closet anarchists and communists in the Democratic Party. After months of enduring the relentless mudslinging of the Left, the lies and the hate, the Republican Party is fighting back. And the tide appears to be turning. For the first time this year Pennsylvania and Wisconsin moved into the lean-Bush category in the polls and for the moment Bush leads in every poll. This is not to urge faith in these polls--they can change with the wind. But it is heartening that even after Kerry's speech he didn't get a surge like Bush has already gotten before he has made his speech. I only hope the tide continues to run this way, all the way to November 2nd. The battle has only beginning.

So what's the big deal about an Israeli spy? The same media that tried to gloss over the Felon-In-Chief selling top secrets to our old enemy China is all up in arms about the possibility that someone in the Pentagon slipped secrets about an enemy (Iran) to one of our friends (Israel). And incidentally, why are we so worried that Israel will attack Iran? I wish they would. Israel mopped up an Arab coalition in six days; I think Iran would not be a great problem. Israel does not need the US to militarily protect it so much as they need us to let them go. Let Israel attack Iran and let us stand aside and keep Russia and the EU from interfering. It won't take long and number two of three evil nations will bite the dust again.

It's amazing how objective the media can be when describing the actions of terrorists vis-a-vis those of the United States armed forces. As the Taliban surfaces again to disrupt the hugely-successful experiment in democracy currently in place there, the media mentions in passing that two bombings in Afghanistan killed nine school children--four kids and five teens. Instead of making this the focal point of the story, as they did with, say, the Iraqi prison abuse scandal, this is just one detail--oh yeah, they killed some kids. To me, this just signifies the kind of creatures we are up against. These are not human beings with justified grievances; they are subhuman trash, completely given over to hate and murder. They deserve what they get and those press people who hide this fact away while centerplacing stories of incidental civilian casualties from US forces ought to go out there and join them.

I always wondered why Theresa Heinz-Kerry accepted John Kerry...other than the blatantly obvious reason that probably once her first husband died no one else wanted to look at her, much less marry her. I mean, why would she marry someone who obviously just wanted her money? Well, contrary to a popular misconception, at least among some, how widespread it is I don't know, Heinz is not her maiden name. She was married previously to Senator Heinz. Only when he died in a plane crash, did she take up with Kerry. Presumably only then did she become so unhinged. Meanwhile, she squanders the family fortune trying to elect the richest president in history...who just happens to be her husband. But back to the original question: why did she marry John Kerry, when since she had neither looks nor charm, it could only be her money and her insanity he was in love with? Well, she did it first. There's no other reason a leftist lunatic like herself would marry a Republican senator like Heinz. Well, that and he was kind of cute. He must be rolling over in his grave now.

What's the matter, Senator Kerry? Does it hurt your feelings to be treated the way your people treat the President? Aww. Poor Kerry. Run home now to Theresa and have a good cry. Just try not to look at her for too long. It'll give you nightmares. Oh give me a break! Why is it only Republicans have to ever grow up in this world? Kerry is fuming because average, every day people don't want him to be president. Having himself given the wink to Moveon and other such treason-oriented groups to blast Bush, he complains when a Bush lawyer also advises the Swift Boat Veterans, to the extent that said lawyer has resigned from the campaign. Bush's military service is trotted out for examination again and again and again and Bush is just supposed to give in and release his records for public consumption. Kerry's military record, which will probably not be all that impressive when the truth finally comes out, is supposed to be above and beyond question and anyone who dares bring it up is considered ungentlemanly, I guess. I can't figure out any other reason why free speech about a Democrat ought to be suppressed. It really ought to be manifestly obvious to everyone with half a mind that the only real Kerry supporters are the most rapid of the anti-Bush crowd and not even all of them. No sooner was Kerry named the nominee, then people were crawling out of the woodwork all over the place to say, "We don't want this man to be our president." You don't have this with Bush. You have multimillionaire perverts like Michael Moore-on and George Soros attacking him, but no real person who knows him is coming out against him. Ought to make you wonder: Kerry was a war-hero...to the North Vietnamese; he's also a great president...to the French.

Wherever he is now, Harry Truman must be thanking his Maker he was born to a different time than George Bush. As nasty as the media was to Truman at times, it was child's play compared to what Bush must deal with. The media continues to toss around the question, "What did he know and when did he know it?" about the Iraqi War of Liberation. Truman would have been skewered alive. Following his decision to drop the bomb on Japan, Truman was blamed for, of all things, not paying attention to intelligence. In retrospect, the war might have been won without it. I'm sure I wish it had been. But the question, for Bush as for Truman, is not, "What do we know post factum?" but "What did we know beforehand?" The intelligence Truman had before dropping the bomb certainly made it seem like it was the best alternative. Bush must be exonerated in the same way. Whether or not, intelligence bears out afterwards, a commander-in-chief can only be praised or blamed on the basis of what he did with what he had. Both Bush and Truman are to be commended, not condemned, for their decisive action.

Recently in Missouri, in what may be a precurser to this Fall's election, an amendment to the state constitution expanding gambling in certain areas of the state was struck down by a hefty majority to everyone's astonishment. The more so, because proponents of the gambling amendment outspent its opponents 10 to 1.

I am reminded of a scene from an old movie about the life of Martin Luther. When the nobles of Germany were commanded by the emperor to return to catholicism and back his defense of Vienna, the nobles refused. Incensed, the emperor shouted, "I command your allegiance!" To which the nobles replied, "You cannot command our conscience!" The big wigs in Missouri are learning this the hard way. To me it was heartening. Nowadays, money is seen as the end-all--with money you can do anything, regardless of conscience. Missouri has disproved that. Conscience can still trump money, the love of which is indeed the root of all evil. The money that Theresa Heinz Kerry and her liberal action groups are throwing into the fray, or for that matter the money spent by the Bush campaign as well, are insignificant gnats in the great scheme of things. The battle is about conscience, about heart and soul. Victory will be won, not by dollars spent, but by people rising up to fight for what they believe in. It happened in Missouri and I believe it can happen nationwide as well. Money is trumped by what really matters: heart. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

The top news today is that a Nebraska Republican who initially supported the War for Iraqi Liberation (that's my new name for it--has a nice ring, don't you think? Makes more sense than The War for Southern Independence or the War for Soviet Domination, aka the Civil War and World War II but I digress.) now claims it was "a mistake". Congressman Doug Bereuter apparently has sent a letter to constituents who called him to account for supporting the war, admitting he now believes it was unjustified.

Well, that's nice. That's his right. Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinions about one the most just (I was going to say "justest" but didn't want to sound the intellectual equal of Hillary Clinton) wars in history. A threat was removed to our country and millions of people liberated from the rule of a dictator the equivalent of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin and this is unjustified. Bereuter claims that the whole war has deteriorated into "a costly mess." He believes now we needed a plan. Maybe we needed a plan like we had for Germany--divide it up between four hostile powers and take forty-five years to get the country back on its feet. Going solo, we rebuilt Japan in five years. I think history is on our side. Even if you disagree, and you too are entitled to your wrong opinions, isn't it the slightest bit interesting that the press is busy burying the fact that a US senator from Georgia who is a lifelong Democrat supported, and still supports, the war in Iraq? Or that even the likes of Joseph Liebermann remain adamant that it was justified? Why is it only dissident Republicans who get any air time? Sounds suspiciously like bias to me.

John Kerry is out in Ohio, again trying to impress people with his conservative values, telling crowds today that NATO will shoulder the burden of protecting the world, and their tax dollars will not fund "the lion's share" of the work under him. He claims it is not fair for the US to be paying and doing all the work of liberating and defending the world. Well, no kidding, Sherlock. Real Americans have been saying that for years. The thing is, NATO only wants to be consulted on when another member goes to war. Once they've given their consent, the US gets to pay for and run the risks in any operation since the end of the Second World War. John Kerry's "firm belief" that we must consult with allies (thereby proving he doesn't even know the meaning of the word "allies"--look it up in a dictionary and tell me how that means "people who hate your country"--aka France and Germany) will only bring us further into debt. France is not willing to shoulder the burden of warfare. France would rather surrender. And Germany is only willing to take on wars where they are the agressor against tiny, helpless nations. And the Arab world is full of terrorists anyway. Tell me, how are these nations going to suddenly decide they want to help the US rid the world of people like them? I like the Bush doctrine better--If the US is going to pay for the wars, the US had better benefit.

John Kerry is out in Ohio, again trying to impress people with his conservative values, telling crowds today that NATO will shoulder the burden of protecting the world, and their tax dollars will not fund "the lion's share" of the work under him. He claims it is not fair for the US to be paying and doing all the work of liberating and defending the world. Well, no kidding, Sherlock. Real Americans have been saying that for years. The thing is, NATO only wants to be consulted on when another member goes to war. Once they've given their consent, the US gets to pay for and run the risks in any operation since the end of the Second World War. John Kerry's "firm belief" that we must consult with allies (thereby proving he doesn't even know the meaning of the word "allies"--look it up in a dictionary and tell me how that means "people who hate your country"--aka France and Germany) will only bring us further into debt. France is not willing to shoulder the burden of warfare. France would rather surrender. And Germany is only willing to take on wars where they are the agressor against tiny, helpless nations. And the Arab world is full of terrorists anyway. Tell me, how are these nations going to suddenly decide they want to help the US rid the world of people like them? I like the Bush doctrine better--If the US is going to pay for the wars, the US had better benefit.

You won't read me badmouthing fellow conservatives much but Newsmax magazine is beginning to get on my nerves. They seem to enjoy embodying the archetype of the whiny conservative (as opposed to whiny leftists inhabiting the editorial boards of every other major newspaper). Now they have sent around an email complaining that Arnold Schwarzenegger has "praised Kerry" and "limited campaigning for Bush." As a Bush supporter, I read the headline and thought the Terminator had betrayed his party. But reading the story I find he has done nothing more than express that he has no personal animosity for Kerry (calling him a "terrific human being" which is stretching it but you know how Hollywood is) and his limited campaigning is only limited in the sense that he wishes to remain in California. Considering California is the only state Scharzenegger could give Bush in November anyway, this is probably a good idea. In all this, I find nothing to suggest that Arnold is selling out the Bush campaign or giving Kerry any groundwork. He claims only to differ from Kerry on issues, not on personality or lifestyle (hey, you can't everything, right? Even if Schwarzenegger did marry his money) but this is what political campaigns are supposed to be about and I say he is doing the right thing.

The hypocrisy on the Left is just unbelievable sometimes. In fact, one can't even point out their hypocrisy anymore without being accused of...you guessed it, hypocrisy.

Take the whole "F'word" business. The media, except a few right-wing publications, completely ignored John F. Kerry's use of the word when describing Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. When Cheney, in a fit of anger, used the word against a Democratic senator, who can only be described in profane terms anyway, it was front page news. Nobody dared to point this out, however, because the media was quick to cry, "Hypocrite!" if anyone suggested Kerry should be censored, at least as much as Cheney. The idea was conservatives are hypocrites because they would excuse Cheney for something they condemn Kerry for. But they in the meantime can excuse Kerry and condemn Cheney. And no one can say anything without being called a hypocrite. See how it is with these people? The only thing a Republican official can do to please them is get assassinated.

Their latest merry-go-round centers on conservative Alan Keyes' decision to seek a senate seat in Illinois despite being from Maryland himself. The parallels to Hillary's 2000 run are pretty obvious...even to reporters. But instead it's front page news that Keyes blasted Hillary for doing the same thing he's doing...by reporters who cheered Hillary and now condemn Keyes. But no one accuses them of hypocrisy. Takes one to know one, I suppose.

You know, I'm starting to like Arnold Schwarzenegger, despite him being a "moderate"--being translated, a liberal. Apparently on the Jay Leno's TV show he recently referred to Democratic legislators as "girly men." Bully for Arnie! And when challenged about it, he told Dems to deal with it. I like to see a Republican with spirit enough to stand up to the media and do whatever he wants, regardless. More Republicans should be like that. "Girly men." It's kind of funny actually. So agrees 80% of AOL's opinion poll on the subject...and why not? It has more than a bit of the truth in it. Look at their presidential ticket--both men have preoccupation with their hair, and can't seem to keep their hands off each other when together. Now granted, I can understand how someone married to the likes of the horrifically ugly Theresa Heinz-Kerry might begin to look at men a little differently than a normal person would, but still.... I say, Go, Terminator!

When will John McCain realize he's in the wrong party? Now he attacks the anti-Kerry ad run by men who served with him in Vietnam. The media loves that. McCain, himself a decorated "war hero", claims this is what was done to him in 2000. Well, no wonder McCain synpathizes with Kerry. He doesn't want it aired abroad that he divorced his wife, largely responsible for getting him released from prison, as soon as he was free. Good grief, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? It's amazing how weak the Kerry campaign is. Braced up by Hollywood, the entire media, and some big rock musicians, Kerry still continues to sink in the polls. Wonder why? Listen to him speak.

The trend continues. Recently a communist friend of mine sent me a Kerry-Edwards advertisement as a joke, and it was carbon-copied to a lot of people, including one other communist. All in good fun, I replied, pointing out that Edwards must be a real socialist since said communist was a Deaniac who originally told me he wasn't planning on voting for Kerry. The other communist was furious and sent me a very rude email with words like "ignorant" thrown around and then (pauses for laughter break) tells me to read "The Nation" to get real, objective news. ::doubles over, shrieking with laughter:: You can imagine if I told him to read "National Review" to get objective news. The same old story: Liberals can't laugh; they can only sneer.