BitsBit: An Open Letter to Canada; Five Reasons I’m Voting for President Bush

Howard Dean was in Montreal last night, claiming to speak for Americans when he apologized to Canadians for the President’s actions. That demands a response, which I posted as this week’s BitsBit:An Open Letter to Canada

Westfield, NY–As this is written, I’m about 45 miles south west of Buffalo, pretty much along both Interstate 90, and the shore of Lake Erie. I’m also along the “Twin Raceways” of CSX and Norfolk Southern Railways. I’m writing while I wait for some train photo ops. Usually, I don’t have long to wait on this stretch; it’s quite busy, as a rule; among the most busy in the country, with around 200 trains per day going by here. Hmmm. Here comes one, now.

Westfield, as a matter of history, is an interesting town. An action taken by little girl by the name of Grace Bedell right here in Westfield, likely decided the outcome of the American Civil War.

That action? Why, posting a letter. That’s right; a letter changed the outcome of the war, and likely the future of the entire western world. An unlikely way to start a political column, perhaps, but that’s the point; Small matters have major consequences, sometimes.

Lincoln had, as you may remember, entered public life without a beard.  Grace Bedell, thinking this was an electoral problem, wrote the future president:

Hon A B Lincoln

Oct. 15, 1860

Dear Sir

My father has just home from the fair and brought home your picture and Mr. Hamlin’s. I am a little girl only eleven years old, but want you should be President of the United States very much so I hope you wont think me very bold to write to such a great man as you are. Have you any little girls about as large as I am if so give them my love and tell her to write to me if you cannot answer this letter. I have got 4 brother’s and part of them will vote for you any way and if you let your whiskers grow I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you you would look a great deal better for your face is so thin. All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husband’s to vote for you and then you would be President. My father is a going to vote for you and if I was a man I would vote for you to but I will try and get every one to vote for you that I can I think that rail fence around your picture makes it look very pretty I have got a little baby sister she is nine weeks old and is just as cunning as can be. When you direct your letter direct to Grace Bedell Westfield Chatauque County New York

I must not write any more answer this letter right off Good bye

Grace Bedell

Now, old Abe, when he wrote back was less than fully happy about the idea, having resisted such advice from members of his own Party…. who also urged him to wear a high collar, a beard…. anything to take the edge off those very angular facial features of his. Lincoln wrote back to Grace, saying;

Springfield, Ill., Oct. 19, 1860

Miss Grace Bedell

My dear little Miss,

Your very agreeable letter of the 15th is received.

I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughters. I have three sons–one seventeen, one nine, and one seven, years of age. They, with their mother, constitute my whole family. As to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affection if I were to begin it now?

Your very sincere well-wisher,

A. Lincoln

However, despite the apparent initial resistance to the idea, Lincoln grew that beard. It did, as was suggested, soften his rather angular features somewhat, and changed his appearance rather dramatically.  It is suggested that it made the man more electable, thereby making him the next president of the United States.

Lincoln passed over this very roadbed on February 19, 1861, on his inaugural journey to Washington, D.C, stopping at the station in Westfield, to among other things, meet and greet Grace Bedell, and thank her for her suggestion, which he said helped him toward the White House.

History abounds along this line….It was just back up the track at Girard PA, where Lincoln met Horace Greely for the first time, that same day, and years later, his funeral train went again down these same tracks, as he was taken home.

As I sit here, amidst all this history (and, just now, diesel smoke and brake dust) I find myself wondering…. How the Civil war would have turned out had Grace Bidell not sent that letter, had Lincoln not won the election? How would the state of America be now, and the state of the world, for that matter?

The moral to take away from this, for this discussion, as I’ve already told you, is that small things can affect an election, particularly where how the candidate appears to the voters. And in turn, that great issues are decided by the smaller things.

With this in as a backdrop, we turn to the events of today.

Former Vermont Govenor and failed presidential candidate and all around nutball Howard “The Duck” Dean took his roadshow to Montreal the other day, claiming to speak for 49% of America. Rest assured, the picture he paints of America is not accurate, nor is it even realistic.

It does, however, require a response, from the well over 51% of these United States that Howard Dean does NOT represent; someone to answer the question “Why would someone in the United States support the Presidency of George W. Bush?”

Well, that’s easy.

First, let me pass along a quote I stumbled over yesterday in the Washington Post, from Abu Jalal

“”American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together.  We’ve got to work to change the election, and we’ve done so. With our strikes, we’ve dragged Bush into the mud.” 

Now, let me give you the words of Mohammad Amin Bashar, a member of the Muslim Scholars Association:

“”If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people”

Finally, let me quote for you, from that same article, Mowafaq Al-Tai, who, the paper says:

“….is a London-educated architect and intellectual, said different types of resistance fighters have different views of the U.S. election.
The most pro-Kerry, he said, are the former Saddam Hussein loyalists — Ba’ath Party members and others who think Washington might scale back its ambitions for Iraq if Mr. Kerry wins, allowing them to re-enter civic life. “

DO you fully understand what he’s saying, here? They’re all saying they’re for John Kerry obtaining the White House because they see it as the best chance for the Baathists and the other terrorists to regain power.

So, this, then is the first reason… The terrorists support John Kerry’s bid for the White House because they see him as being their best hope toward regaining their illicit power, whereas, (Reason Number Two) the terrorists fear George W. Bush. Bush has vowed to destroy them, and they know he means what he says, he tells the truth. And Terrorists, as you may know, tend to not like being destroyed if they have the option of getting wrist slap instead. Which, of course, John Kerry would certainly provide.

Now, I’ve used the Washington Post’s quotes here among all the many articles I read here daily, because the is a paper Canadians almost never see quoted in their domestic media, for political reasons. But you may want to read the article I’ve linked. You’ll find truth you’ve not seen in your own press, in places such as the Toronto Star, for example; A brain-dead idiot with a Ouijia board and a Scrabble set could do a better job describing events stateside than most of what I’ve seen the Star try to pass off as news… and I won’t even attempt the CBC anymore!!

Now, it’s not that we don’t have such ‘biased press’ problems here in the States… considering CBS and the New York Times, we certainly do have such problems… but at least here in the last few years other voices are getting heard. I am hard pressed to find any news sources in Canada who are teling the real story, down here. And certainly, you’re not going to get the real story from Howard “Duck” Dean.

I bring up the biased press because the leftist press in this country is the best friend the terrorists could have possibly found… Useful Idiots, Mona Charen calls them.  And of course, the leftist press doesn’t like George W. Bush. They’ve been so often wrong so rabidly anti-America, that I can’t imagine that their choice is in support of the America that I know, or that you know.

So, that’s reason number three.

Reason number four is best termed a matter of trust. After watching President Bush for the last decade, I trust the man. He means what he says, and keeps his promises. And he’s a man with a firm foundation… and isn’t likely to ‘say anything’ to get himself elected as Mr. Kerry has so often and so glaringly revealed himself to be.

Reason number five; Like my inability to imagine a world where Grace Bedell didn’t give Abe Lincoln the advice needed to get into the White House, thereby changing the history of the world for the better, I cannot in my worst nightmare imagine voting for someone whom the terrorists so openly support,and who in fact has supported America’s enemies in the past.

And that bears on Canadians, and all the free peoples of the world, in this way; Neville Chaimberlain learned the hard way; Feeding the monster, doesn’t mean he won’t eat YOU subsequently, when you’ve thus become the easiest target.

Ronald Reagan correctly pointed out, as did Abe Lincoln before him, “You cannot make the weak, strong, by making the strong, weak”. Those who are wishing and working for a weaker America, here in the west, are doing so because they feel they’ll come out of the deal stronger.  I warn you; what will instead happen with a Kerry Presidency is a weaker Canada, ripe for attack by those who have no truck with western values.

Ask yourself; once the United States is brought to its knees, who is left to defend the rest of the world, Canada included, from these terrorists?

Edited 102704122432

Kaus points out a transcript of John Kerry that raises some interesting questions.

“I have no doubt, I’ve never had any doubt — and I’ve said this publicly — about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]

Kaus goes on to ask… rather incredulously, I think:

“Wait–I thought shifting the focus to Saddam was a “diversion” and distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda! Not, apparently, when Kerry saw an opportunity to score political points by advocating it. [But would he have rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace!-ed. Maybe not. But, given Kerry’s recent he-took-his-eye-off-the-ball rhetoric, it’s embarrassing that he brought up pivoting to Iraq “now” long before the Afghan campaign was over–indeed, when the Tora Bora battle against bin Laden’s men had barely begun.]”

And so now we must question as a matter of logic, why the reversal. Occam dictates that Kerry’s reversal is pure political opportunism.

Boortz has an update this morning, regarding those missing explosives… the ones that John Kerry’s been trying to make an issue out of.

“Last night we get a report on NBC news that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003.  The last time the IAEA saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003.  There is no way to know just when the explosives were removed.  Sometime after the IAEA saw them in January and before American troops got there in April.  Obviously this isn’t a case of Bush failing to “guard” the explosives.  By the time our troops got there they weren’t there to guard.  In other words, nobody failed to guard anything and there was nothing we could have done about it.  They were gone when we got there.

Well .. .hold on.  There is something we could have done about it.  We could have invaded earlier!  Get in there before the Iraqis had a chance to hide the explosives!  Is that what the Kerry supporters are saying we should have done?

This was a “get Bush” story from the beginning.  There have been some problems between the Bush White House and the head of the IAEA.  This was supposed to be the “October Surprise.”  Drudge is reporting this morning that CBS was hoping to run with this story on Sunday’s 60 Minutes … two days before the election.  The New York Times beat them to the punch … and, unfortunately for the designs of the leftist press, in time for the truth to come out. “

And that tells the whole story…. but it doesn’t. Captain Ed has more… and has had since yesterday.

“So let’s keep in mind that when we’re talking about 380 tons of ammunition, it represents 0.019% of the estimated amount of explosives and munitions that confronted the US at the beginning of the invasion.

So, here’s the thing. Even assuming that the story was a legit one, we’re talking about an amount that is covered in a rounding error. Dangerous, certainly. But the perspective was blown out of proportion. Again, this is assuming the story was a legit one.

It is decidedly not.  And it’s not without some degree of irony that I note NBC being embedded with the troops who were first on the scene is the undoing of yet another Kerry Lie.

Update 102604104632; OTB has an interesting discussion going on this topic.

Son of Update 102604115847; Others hitting this hard are Kerry Spot, Drudge, (even!) Josh Marshall , Say Anything, Belmont Club, and of course Ed, at CQ.

…with the truth and the information to defeat the Democrats!

Don’t let the Dems and their efforts to prevent the public from seeing the powerful documentary Stolen Honor stop you from seeing the full documentary.

While looking at the Rott, I discovered that Stolen Honor is available for viewing on line.

Take a look and see why Kerry and his band of Dumbocrats are fighting to prevent you from seeing this film.

What is so damaging that they are fighting the constitutional rights of the film makers, the public and the television stations!?!?!

Spread the truth and these links!!!!!!

(Stolen from SlagleRock’s Slaughterhouse, in an effort to spread the word.)

Update, 102504084530: I’ve watched this myself. Damning in the extreme. No wonder Kerry wants it quashed.

As it happens, I was listening to 1210/WPHT in Philly this morning, as I drove into work. They come in pretty well up here most overnights, and are just fading at around 8am this time of year.  Mike Smerconish was on, as usual,(Here’s his personal site) and somehow, he’d managed to get Carlton Sherwood on, the day after the Kerry/Clinton Cabal came dancing through Philly.

Sherwood is well spoken, and credible in the extreme. More than ever, as a result of Mike’s efforts do I reccomend you view the film, presented here.

A word of advise; save it to your local disk. The server’s getting hammered, and may not be up to streaming the vid. It’s only about 12 megs.

Billy Beck makes note of the latest lipsync scandal.

And I do tend to agree with Billy that for the most part there’s no reason for it, I can think of one such ‘scandal’ that had a bit more reason behind it, and so was a bit more of a borderline case;

Jeff Lynne’s Electric Light Orch a few years ago. Some bright guy figured out a few of the layers in that concert tour were on tape.

Lynne was a production genius; I’ve always said so. So complex were his recordings, though, that reproducing that complex sound in a live situation without a few layers being on tape were nigh on impossible.

Oh, sure, bands like Boston who had equally stringent demands on the recorded sound did a fair job of making those same sounds in concert.  And certainly the Beatles before that were multi-tracking, and ping-ponging tape tracks to get their sound. But Boston never did much that couldn’t be duplicated in a concert setting, and thus were their concerts easier to do.

The Beatles, neatly avoided this issue, when their recordings started getting more complex and layed, by simply not doing concerts. (I know, I doubt that was the reason too, but it certainly worked out for them. Imagine trying to accomplish a live performance of Sgt Pepper!)

Lynne’s problem was bigger. How, for example, could one cello, and one violin, come out soundling like a whole classical orchestra, even assuming harmonizers and doublers and whatnot?

Still, that doesn’t figure into the Simpson bit Billy’s talking about.

The other thing that occurrs to me is the demands of a stage show vs a recording session, and their respective effects on the singer’s voice. Are stage shows getting too aggressive for the ability of the singer?  Most pop singing acts of the day, particularly females, for some reason, tend to get into dance routines that would make even olymians wince.

If I’m singing, I can (almost) carry a tune. But if I’m doing rather heavy gymnastics, hang it up;l it ain’t happening. I can’t imagine that pop singers of today don’t run into at least some of that.

That’s not a reflection on the singer, as much as it is on the management and the showcrafting ability of those entrusted with it.

Sadly, whoever’s fault it is, it’s the talent ends up paying the price.

TheBostonChannel.com: reports today:

“SHANGHAI, China — It could be an eye-opening experience as the Hooters restaurant chain opens its first outlet amid the conservative, almost prudish society of China.”

While personally, I’ve always considered Chinese women among the most beautiful in the world as a rule, (I even dated one for a while, years ago… a real cutie) it could fairly be said that, also as a rule, Chinese women are not noted for being well endowed in the area of what the Resturant is named for.

(shrug)

Just sayin’….

–

Drudge puts up today something I’ve already confirmed…

EDWARDS WIFE: NO RIOTS IF WE WIN

The wife of Dem vice presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday there will be no riots around the election — if Kerry/Edwards wins!

C-SPAN cameras captured spouse Elizabeth Edwards making the startling comments to a supporter during a Kerry Campaign Town Hall Meeting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Supporter: Kerry’s going to take PA.

Liz Edwards: I know that.

Supporter: I’m just worried there’s going to be riots afterwards.

Liz Edwards: Uh…..well…not if we win.

DRUDGE presents an audio clip of the exchange.

(It’s an MP3, gang.. worth the download.)

So, let me understand this. We’ve been dealing with violent behavior from Democrats for months now. We have BC04 offices all over the country being stormed by union nutbags, and so on and so on…. and now, purely on the basis of this behavior these nutbag Democrats are demanding to be put in the White House, so the violence will stop?

I dunno about you, but that sounds to ME, rather oddly like the position being taken by the Islamic Terrorists we’re fighting, doesn’t it?

Is there anyone who doesn’t understand what a desperate move it is, for Kamp LKerry to be hauling Bill Clinton out of the hospital to make appearences supposedly supporting John Kerry?

Remember, Gang… Clinton doesn’t WANT Kerry in the White House; it prevents Hillary from EVER making a run it it herself.

And let’s also remember; Clinton isn’t exactly known as a truth-teller, which is what Kerry’s trying to pitch the Democrats as these days.

The Weekly Standard has some interesting points up this morning:

Says the Standard’s Michial Goldfarb:

“JOHN KERRY, in his grand effort to be all things to all people, has spent the last few weeks trying to convince people that he, too, is a sports junkie, a hardcore Red Sox fan, and devotee of the NFL.”
…
On October 25, 1986, the Boston Red Sox were facing off against the New York Mets in the sixth game of the World Series. With a three games to two lead over the Mets, the Sox had an opportunity, at long last, to bring a championship to a city which hadn’t known victory since 1918. After blowing a two-run lead in the bottom of the 10th inning, first-baseman Bill Buckner let a ground-ball skip through his legs, and thus allowed the Mets Ray Knight to score the game’s winning run. This infamous error was witnessed by none other than John Kerry, who on numerous occasions has claimed to have been seated at Shea Stadium that night, at a distance of no more than 30 yards from Brukner.”

Problem, if course for Kerry now is it’s been revealed he wasn’t there, as the story goes on to relate.

This, after claiming that Eddie Yost was his favorite Red Sox Player. You guessed it, Yost never played for the Red Sox.

Kerry tried to pitch himself as a truth teller… A most honest individual.
Perhaps with these revelations, we now have a better idea of how it is we have Bill Clinton stumping for Kerry… Clinton, you’ll recall told us he’d not had sex with ‘that woman’, and told us he remembered churches being burned, etc, etc, etc.

It gets better.

Boortz points out something this morning that Fox was all over earlier this weekend….

“Remember Christmas in Cambodia?  The ribbons and the medals?  The Kennedy conversation with de Gaulle I just told you about?  Well now we have another classic from The Poodle, but this time we have witnesses.  Since you won’t hear much about this from the mainstream media, I’ll regale you with the latest whopper from The Soufflé.

In the second presidential debate, Senator Kerry said about Iraq: “This president hasn’t listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.”  Boy, that Kerry is really on the case…going to the UN and all.  But wait!

John Kerry never went to the United Nations in the week before he voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  In fact, an investigation by the Washington Times reveals that of the 5 ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002, four said they have never met The Poodle.  On top of that, a couple say they remember the time well, and would have remembered meeting Kerry.  In other words, he lied.  John Kerry made it up.  Once again, the compulsive liar has lied again to try and impress the voters. “

Does John Kerry EVER tell the truth?

Update: Joel Mowbray in this morning’s WaTi confirms the Security Council bit:

“U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred. “

Turns out, that the only Security Council members Kerry DID meet with, were, not suprisingly, the French Ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, and Jeremy Greenstock of the UK. Grenstock, for those not up on politics in the UK is not exactly considered a Tony Blair supporter.

She said “Yes”. Great news from Tom Alday. Stop by and drop a congrats on the boy…

John HAwkins over at Right Wing News has the results of a Blogger Poll conducted within the last week. I think you may find the results interesting.

BOSTON (AP) – The death of a college student from a pepper-spray-filled projectile sparked anger and questions Friday about whether police used too much force to break up rowdy Red Sox revelers outside Fenway Park.

In all of the hand-wringing, though, I’ve not heard the question asked; Why didn’t this happen in St. Louis?  No, it’s not for lack of drinking, as Boston’s Mayor proposed the other day…

Is it possible that the values taught by parents in each location may be the difference?

Is it also possible that the locals in St. Louis know that instead of hand-wringing like Boston’s doing now, St. Louis cops will simply come in, and kick butt in these situations, and that, therefore, people in St Louis tend not to get involved in such behavior which would require that kind of police action in the first place?

Instead of blaming the Boston cops for a death in a riot situation, should we perhaps look a bit deeper?

The reason we don’t is rather simple;

Boston, the hometown of John Kerry, is a far-leftist town.

St. Louis isn’t.

That’s the only real difference, here between these two bergs. Both their teams went to the World Series through a seven- game funnel… Both haven’t made it to the big dance in years….

And so, the reason those questions don’t get asked by those hand-wringing in Boston this morning, is because the answer would show the root cause of such riots, as having a direct connection with a leftist worldview, and the cause of not solving that problem is the desire to keep people from blaming that worldview.

If you doubt this, look at the places were such riots following championship games, have occurred. Do the math yourself.

For those who didn’t know, Someone tried to pie Ann Coulter last night. They missed. They’re currently in the slam. Check out the two morons here. Ann’s comment was typical; “That far away and they can’t even hit me?”

One of the suspects told police they wen’t throwing the pies at HER but at her ideas.
I figure the two just couldn’t deal with strong women.

Apparently it was shortly thereafter that John Hawkins scored a second interview. It’s a great read.

Go for it.

Doctor Charles Krauthammer has written a piece which I’m sure will be getting hits for weeks… even after the election. He says Kerry….

“….really does want to end America’s isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel. “

Sadly, I think he’s right, as he usually is. This is yet another reason John Kerry cannot be allowed to enter the White House.