01 October 2004 Federalist Patriot No. 04-39 Friday Digest Make a down payment on the future of liberty! Support The Federalist -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/support.asp
*Manage Subscription: To change your e-mail address, select editions and formats, view recent archives, send comments or to unsubscribe, Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/services.asp To defeat Kerry-Edwards in '04, Link to -- http://Kerry-04.org/ Visit the Patriot Shop: Link to -- http://PatriotShop.us/ ______----********O********----______ THE FOUNDATION "It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson ______----********O********----______ THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE Top of the fold -- "We will not waiver..." Beginning with the first televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and the original JFK 44 years ago, style has often trumped substance in presidential campaigns. Aided by a set of questions authored by PBS's Jim Lehrer, which played directly into the hands of John Kerry and left President George Bush playing defense, the first presidential debate of 2004 was no exception. While the candidates' style points were close -- much closer than many expected -- it is substance, not style, which provides for the national-security interests of the United States. While taking stage right to President Bush in last night's debate, Senator Kerry's stand -- or stands, shall we say -- on issues of national security placed him at far, far stage left. Style notwithstanding, the substance of Kerry's exchange on national security was anything but reassuring. "My position on Iraq has been consistent." Sen. Kerry repeated those same words some half dozen times over the course of the 90-minute debate, so we just can't resist saying it: "Methinks he doth protest too much." (Of some mention, Kerry referenced his Vietnam "service" about half a dozen times, too.) Highlighting the "consistency" of his position, over the course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq was a "colossal error of judgment" on the part of the President and referred to the war as a "distraction" from "the real war on terror," but he managed to add that he believed Saddam was a threat when he voted to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved to be free, and that he could "win the peace," while beginning to withdraw U.S. forces within six months, making our "bribed and coerced" allies, whose contributions he "respects," pick up the slack. He also implied he'd build a real coalition for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open reconstruction contracts to those nations -- the very ones who profited most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from Saddam's rule, and who have both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part of any such coalition, even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. Consistent eh? On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "I understand what the president is talking about because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, 'Is it worth the cost?,' reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before." More to the point, who was the one perpetuating that confusion? Was Kerry criticizing the war when he testified before Congress in 1971 of war crimes by U.S. forces in Vietnam? NO! -- Kerry was accusing U.S. troops in the field of countless atrocities, playing directly into the hands of the Communist North. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements." General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by Kerry and his ilk, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered. Kerry can't have it both ways. His undermining of U.S. resolve, and that of our allies, in the war against terrorism, specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan, is a direct assault on Americans fighting in Iraq. American and Allied Forces, and countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting -- not unlike the American casualties Kerry's 1971 protests caused in Vietnam. Back to the war at hand, Kerry relentlessly attacked President Bush, saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Then, when asked about the most dangerous security threat in the world today, Kerry didn't hesitate to reply, "Nuclear proliferation," to which President Bush added, "in the hands of terrorists." Though we can -- and have -- laid bare Kerry's national-security credentials, President Bush said it best, last night: "To say there's only one focus in the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror...the front of this war is in more than one place." Though he recognizes nuclear proliferation to be the imminent threat to our nation's security interests, Kerry seems not to grasp -- dare we say it -- the "nuances" of dealing with such a threat. The Senator apparently thinks he can publicly ridicule Russian President Vladmir Putin as a tyrant one minute, then vow to secure all fissile materiel in the former Soviet bloc within four years the next minute. Does Kerry really believe we can do this apart from Russian cooperation? Who's the brazen unilateralist now? To wit, Kerry's debate performance on these other fronts was equally disastrous. On the subject of Iran, Kerry was obviously confused on the whole issue of nuclear technology, as well as the historical facts concerning the sanctions against Iran. The man who thought he spent Christmas in Cambodia first said we needed sanctions against Iran, then, when confronted with the fact that there are sanctions against Iran -- and you can't sanction them again -- Kerry blamed the President for the "unilateral" nature of those sanctions, to which Mr. Bush corrected, again, that those sanctions were in place "long before I came to Washington." Indeed, 29 October 1987, for the first set of sanctions, under President Reagan. 16 March 1995, under President Clinton, for a second set. 19 August 1997 for another set of sanctions, again under then President Clinton. Again, consistent? By way of contrast, on the subject of North Korean nuclear armament, Kerry bemoaned the President's decision to abandon bilateral talks with dictator Kim Jung Il in favor of multilateral pressure -- a coalition, some might say -- involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. For some reason, when President Bush employs multilateral diplomacy it's a bad idea; Kerry would return to Clinton's tried-and-failed diplomacy of appeasement -- the same diplomacy under which North Korea was able to advance its nuclear program in secret, even adding enriched uranium to its plutonium-based weapons development. And that's just how "consistent" Kerry can be in 90 minutes; let's not even think about four years. Perhaps the key moment of the debate, as well as the point most clearly delineating just how stage left Kerry is on national security, was his comment, "No president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test [original emphasis] where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Mr. Bush replied, "I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the 'global test.' You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people." This tells all. The foreign-policy difference between Kerry and Bush is not multilateralism versus unilateralism. Both are, at times, legitimate tools of foreign policy, but not policies themselves. The difference, rather, is one of globalism versus national sovereignty in the promotion and defense of U.S. interests abroad. Kerry's globalist agenda, by his own admission, would sacrifice U.S. protection of her citizens and soldiers abroad to the caprices of the International Criminal Court. Kerry would seek UN approval for "preemptively" defending the United States -- approval of the same agency that so effectively issued no fewer than 17 resolutions against Saddam's Iraq and refused to enforce any of them, with Kofi Annan recently declaring the resolutions' enforcement "illegal." With an approving reference to Charles DeGaulle, the French president who abandoned the U.S.-led coalition in the defense of the free world at a crucial moment of the Cold War, Kerry said he would restore our "credibility" with such leaders around the world. The Patriot unapologetically replies: It's time for these foreign leaders -- the likes of France and Germany, who have continued unhesitatingly to obstruct U.S. interests abroad and security around the globe -- to restore their credibility with us. National security is not for the faint of heart, and John Kerry's feints of heart prove that the Senator from Massachusetts, replete with his history of foreign policy waffling and betrayal of the national trust, is simply not up to the task. On the eve of our assault on al-Qa'ida and other Jihadistan forces in Afghanistan, President Bush addressed the nation, and closed with these words: "We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." Indeed! Quote of the week... "If America shows uncertainly or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen so long as I'm your president. ... We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over America's national-security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to build those alliances." --President George W. Bush _________________________________________________ To DEFEND the legacy of our FOUNDERS Support The Patriot Fund -- http://FederalistPatriot.com/support.asp _________________________________________________ Open query... "My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq. Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: 'Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'" --President George W. Bush On cross-examination... "Senator Kerry has taken so many different positions on the issues facing the country that we thought he would benefit from the overview of the most interesting debate -- the one John Kerry is having with himself. He's been for the war, against the war and for it and against it again. Last week, he became an anti-war candidate again. This is a fatal flaw and the American people see through it. John Kerry is not able to take a principled position and is the wrong choice to guide America through this critical time." --Rudy Giuliani Kerry Waivers... Here are a few more of Kerry's "Flips" in previous statements and "Flops" in the debate last night. On Iraq as a source for terrorist WMD... Flip: "Saddam Hussein has already used these [WMD] and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That...is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." Flop: Now Kerry says Iraq posed no terrorist threat, but then flips again in the middle of the debate, saying, "I have always agreed on that, and from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat." On support for American forces in combat... Flip: Kerry voted against $87 billion in funding to equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with essential supplies like ammunition and body armor even though he said before the vote, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to ' to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." He explained later, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Flop: Now Kerry now says, "My message to the troops is...help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today." On "lies"... Flip: Kerry accused President Bush of lying: "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us." Flop: Kerry now says to the moderator, "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word ["lie"] as you just did." Memo to "undecided" voters: If Thursday night's debate left you wondering who really has the right stuff to be president, link to -- http://kerry-04.org/right_wrong.php The BIG lie... "Iraq has been a constant perilous distraction from the real war on terrorism. Our preoccupation with Iraq has given al-Qa'ida more than two full years to regroup and plan murderous new attacks on us. ... The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely." --Sen. Ted Kennedy, taking election-year scare tactics to a whole new level >From the JFK DEMO-lition derby... The pre-debate positioning and challenging was fascinating to watch. "You cannot expect to lead this world if you try to take both sides of every position," President Bush challenged Kerry earlier in the week. And Mr. Bush joshed of Kerry's multi-positioned nuances, "It's been a little tough to prepare [for the debate] because he [John Kerry] keeps changing positions on the war on the terror. He voted for the use of force in Iraq and then didn't vote to fund the troops. He complained that we're not spending enough money to help in reconstruction in Iraq and now he's saying we're spending too much. He said it was the right decision to go into Iraq and now he calls it the wrong war. He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself." Vice President Dick Cheney also took up the theme, saying, "The idea that somehow we could pull back and simply sit behind our oceans and not aggressively be going after the terrorists and those who sponsor terrorists, I think misreads the situation completely. ...I'm waiting to see what he will say Thursday night. It'll be interesting." Meanwhile, Kerry shot back, attempting to find his footing, "I'm looking forward to tomorrow night for an opportunity to share with Americans the truth, not the sound bites, not the advertisements, the truth." The truth? Well, the central political "truth" for Campaign Kerry is that his support is eroding. The announcement that the Rev. Je$$e Jack$on is joining up came just as polling showed that black voters are not inclined to pull the lever for the John-John ticket. Moreover, Kerry is losing female voters' support, too. And the three key battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, recently counted safely within the Demo column, are now trending toward Bush country. No wonder Kerry climbed aboard the national-security bandwagon this week, tacking toward the steady Bush take on Iraq with this: "Look, we have to succeed. There are more terrorists in Iraq today then there were before, and you can't allow it to become an unstable regime that's a haven for terrorism." John Edwards kept up the attack, softly though, saying, "The truth is they're [Team Bush] trying to exploit one of our nation's greatest tragedies for personal gain. It is immoral, and it is wrong. This isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic [sic] issue." So, Edward is charging that when Bush campaigners address national security, it's out of bounds. But when he and his cadre want to advance the topic... On Wednesday, Edwards further claimed, "Umm...it [extending the war with Jihadistan into Iraq] certainly made us more vulnerable to the possibility of a nuclear attack. What I know is true is that Iran and North Korea have moved forward with their nuclear-weapons program [sic]. This President has basically ceded the responsibility for dealing with Iran to the Europeans and with the North Koreans to the Chinese -- which is a huge mistake because they create such a threat to America that it creates a much more serious nuclear threat to America." What? _________________________________________________ There are only FIVE weeks left before the election. Let 'em know where you stand! We have great items at our Patriot Shop -- http://patriotshop.us/catalog/index.php and if you can distribute our high-quality "Flush the Johns!" and "I'm not FONDA Kerry" stickers to your group or organization, we will send them to you for only $.10 each (minimum of 500), free shipping. You can buy enough to post them all over, or give them away to friends and associates. Send your request with a shipping address and phone number to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _________________________________________________ >From the "Tell a BIG lie often enough" files... Last week, The Patriot noted that John Kerry launched a new line of assault to undermine support for President Bush's policy in Iraq. Rather than risk further erosion of his diminishing veteran support for badmouthing troops in combat (see his 1971 Congressional testimony), he has set about to scare parents and college kids with this claim: "If George Bush were to be re-elected...it is possible that he [would re-instate the draft]. I will tell you this: I will not reinstate the draft." As The Patriot also noted last week, "There really is legislation currently pending in both chambers of Congress to reinstate the draft in the spring of 2005. But SS-89 and HR-163 are sponsored by Sen. Ernest Hollings and Rep. Charles Rangel, respectively -- BOTH lefty Democrats and BOTH supporters of our very own John F. Kerry." Apparently See-BS's Dan Rather didn't read his copy of last week's Patriot. On Tuesday night, just one week after apologizing (sort of) for conspiring with the DNC's Terry McAuliffe to promote fabricated documents ostensibly related to George Bush's performance as a Texas Air National Guard fighter pilot, Rather and his understudy, Richard Schlesinger, were promoting Kerry's thoroughly debunked line about the draft. Rather and Schlesinger's "report" focused on a Philadelphia woman who said she was "sick to my stomach" that her two sons might be drafted. See-BS claimed the woman was a Republican when, in fact, she is a Leftist who heads a group called People Against the Draft -- a group which advocates a "peaceful, rational foreign policy." Not surprisingly, this tiny detail -- this oh-so tiny detail about the abject partisanship of their primary source -- was not mentioned in Rather's report. Memo to Dan (and potential TV news advertisers): Just a note to let you know that last month, Fox News beat ABC, CBS and NBC news in the ratings game -- and, according to Nielsen Media Research in primetime during the third quarter of 2004, Fox also beat CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and Headline News combined. This week's "Alpha Jackass" award: "If Mr. Bush is not willing to concede that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, can he be trusted to make the decisions necessary to change the situation? If he insists on continuing to pretend it is 'mission accomplished,' can he accomplish the mission? And if the Bush administration has been so thoroughly wrong on absolutely everything it predicted about Iraq, with the horrible consequences that have followed, should it be trusted with another four years?" --Albert Arnold Gore with a few words of debate wisdom for JFK This week's "Braying Jackass" award: "It was just a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those inarticulate moments. But it reflects the truth of the position. ... I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest." --John Kerry, ever the protester but still not so articulate, blaming the rich folks while defending/explaining/excusing why he voted in favor of additional funding for the war in Iraq before voting against it DEMO-gogue campaign quotes... "The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run." --JFK Has Kerry ever admitted -- or even fully understood -- that the UN was so hopelessly enmeshed in corruption in Iraq (through the graft-laden "Oil for Food" program) that the organization could never have been honest or effective in oversight of the country? "[Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet] basic international requirements." --Jimmy Carter, our best ex-president But judging from Jimmy's recent certification of the Venezuelan election and his past attempt to help save Danny Ortega's hide in Nicaragua, we fervently hope that Florida's "voting arrangements" haven't sunk to the "international" level. News from the Swamp... Despite how optimistically Demo-strategists see their prospects for reclaiming the Senate in November, it appears less likely that they can overcome the 51-48 Republican majority. In fact, Republicans have a good shot at expanding their majority come 2 November. The Democrats are defending 19 seats this year, five of which are open in the South, which leans more Republican all the time. Strong Republican challengers like Pete Coors of Colorado and Mel Martinez of Florida emerged victorious from primary fights. While these men, as well as incumbent Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, face tough battles against politically seasoned opponents, Democrats would have to sweep all seven toss-up states to take back the upper chamber. It's an unlikely possibility, to say the least. We can't stress enough, though, how important it is for the Republicans to increase their ranks in the Senate. Thanks to the filibustering antics of Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and their ilk, simple majorities just don't cut it any more. If any real work is to be accomplished in a second Bush term, Republicans will need to pull 60 filibuster-breaking votes to confirm the many fine judicial appointments that remain in limbo. More Republican seats in the Senate would also mean preventing a roll back of President Bush's tax cuts and his agenda for forcing accountability on the federal bureaucracy. The administration has been working to reform outdated rules for contracting and hiring in the federal government and has met with resistance at every turn from the Demo-labor alliance. This week, for instance, House Republicans buckled to Demo pressure and removed a provision from their draft of the 9/11 bill that would have allowed the president to exclude unions from the Homeland Security Department. (Imagine an election year HSD strike!) Also on the Hill this week, Republicans admitted it is unlikely that the $300-billion six-year transportation bill will see the light of day before mid-November, or even next year. Haggling over just which projects deserve priority and how the money will be distributed has kept the bill tied up in debate for months. On the National Security front... After several weeks of stressing the differences between the Senate's 9/11 legislation and their own, the House signaled this week an interest in working with the other chamber to restructure the nation's intelligence community this fall. Both House and Senate approaches to intelligence reform call for a national intelligence director and a counter-terrorism center for the collection and proper dissemination of data, two key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But that is pretty much where the hand-holding ends. The Senate version would give the NID more authority over spending and personnel, which the White House openly supported this week. The House is reluctant to shift budgetary powers from the Pentagon, which controls 80% of intelligence spending. The House bill would also make it easier for federal agents to deport aliens suspected of terrorist activities and track terror suspects with methods that make civil liberties groups nervous. But, then again, every method of law enforcement makes civil liberties groups nervous. On the Homeland Security front... Administration officials this week sounded additional concern about a possible terrorist strike prior to the election. Given new threat information and the potential reality of a Madrid-style attack meant to affect the election, AG John Ashcroft has issued a security alert to the nation's 56 Joint Terrorism Task Forces, directing the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Marshals Service, and other local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies to step up preventive measures. Tighter scrutiny of foreign student visas, stepped-up polling site security, and increased analysis of audio chatter are among the actions being taken. In the memo accompanying the alert, AG Ashcroft wrote, "This will ensure that during this heightened threat period, all department law-enforcement resources are effectively deployed in support of the department's overall mission: to prevent terrorism and the loss of innocent life." Demos would have us believe that this is all a ploy by the Bush administration to scare people away from voting for John Kerry and making the Massachusetts liberal look soft on terrorism. But he's done that all by himself. The Patriot believes that voters will be acting on their common sense, not their fiear, when they re-elect President Bush in November. Meanwhile, what could lend even more credence to our heightened security status? Seeking to take advantage of the Swiss cheese that is our country's southern border, top al-Qai'da leaders have been contacting South American gangs in the hopes of exploiting the gangs' experience at penetrating U.S. borders in order to execute further attacks on U.S. soil. In July, Jihadi leader Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, who has a $5-million U.S. bounty on his head and was in Canada last year looking for radioactive materials for a 'dirty bomb,' was seen in Honduras meeting with leaders of El Salvador's Mara Salvatrucha gang. This gang is well known for smuggling drugs, weapons, and illegal aliens into the U.S., as well as committing numerous other crimes and atrocities across the country, including mutilating the hands of a 16-year-old in Alexandria, Virginia. At least 3,000 of the Mara gang are in the Washington area alone. This unsettling Jihadi/gang linkage comes at the same time Asa Hutchinson, the Homeland Security Undersecretary and the nation's "border czar," is stating that it is "not realistic" to think that the U.S. can fully enforce its border and immigration laws, nor does he feel that America even "has the will" to do so. "I don't think you want to have a strategy of a Border Patrol agent every 50 yards," Mr. Hutchinson stated. Memo to Asa: If it's additional Border Patrol agents versus a million Americans disappearing under a mushroom cloud, we'll opt for the former. >From the warfront with Jihadistan... Politicians predictably tell us that every coming election is the most important election ever. Which it often is -- for them. But many Americans, liberal and conservative, believe that this is the most important Presidential election of their lives. Perhaps so, or perhaps in the post-9/11 world, every election will be "the most important election" until the World War on Islamist Terrorism is won. Regardless, every election has meaning. Every election makes a statement. It's also election season in the Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Kingdom. 10.9 million citizens of Afghanistan are registered to vote in their country's presidential election on 9 October. But this election is about more than merely selecting a president; it's about the very acts of registration and voting, which are unmistakable symbols of defiance. In effect, these 10.9 million Afghanis are spitting in the face of tyranny and terrorism. To be sure, most of Afghanistan will be ruled, if not represented, by warlords the day after the election. The rule of weapons, not law, will prevail for some time there, for it took centuries to spread from Runnymede, where rebellious barons forced a King to sign a Great Charter (Magna Carta, 1215), to the whole of England. Likewise, it will take a while for anything resembling democracy to spread from Kabul to the whole of Afghanistan. Secretary of State Colin Powell seeks an international conference in October to help Iraq's electoral process. If the G8 nations, permanent UN Security Council members and key neighbors, including Iran, ironically, talk up the election and agree to not interfere, the election gains international legitimacy. The election in Iraq is about the transfer of absolute power more than representative government. Dr. Allawi will run this conference, not the U.S. Likewise, Dr. Allawi, if elected, will establish a central rule of power over all of Iraq. Just this week, the former U.S. favorite for Iraqi strongman, Ahmed Chalabi, was acquitted of counterfeiting charges by an Iraqi court. The murder investigation against his nephew, Salem Chalabi, is still proceeding. Like the X-files, what happens why and to whom in Iraqi courts is a truth that is out there -- somewhere. At this point, it's an exercise of power, not law. Alternatively, Prime Minister Blair tried to win back support at his Labor Party meeting with the admission that he was wrong about WMD in Iraq, but right to topple Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, Maheti Obeidi, former director of projects for Iraq's entire military-industrial complex, published an op-ed this week in nothing less than the New York Times, to explain how the perception of WMD was real. Here again, the truth is still out there. President Bush has said elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are important because "Muslims want to be free." True that. But the definition of 'free' is far more varied than the definition of 'is' is. These elections will bring more freedom, relatively, but they shouldn't be hyped as direct descendants of the Revolution of 1776. Judicial Benchmarks... On the subject of the unconstitutional tyranny of the judiciary, among the most far-reaching consequences of this November's election will be the changing composition of the Supreme Court. There has not been a new appointment since 1994, and all nine justices plan to serve throughout the 2004-2005 term. This is an astonishing stasis, for if every justice served approximately 18 years, there would be, on average, a vacancy every two years. Nine justices serving for 11 terms without a change amounts to 99 consecutive terms. With most of the justices in their 70s or 80s, some vacancies appear inevitable in the next four years. Retirements are less likely to shift the court's direction than deaths because justices are more likely to retire when a candidate with similar views will succeed them. Another factor that may slow turnover is the rule requiring a minimum of eight justices to decide a case. In light of the contentious confirmation process, speculation holds that only one justice will retire in any given year to ensure the eight-justice quorum. The Senate's role in confirming judges renders the Court's future dependent on not only the winner of the presidential race, but also the margin of victory. Even more critical are the results of Senate races themselves. If the contest next month produces a substantial margin of victory for the President, and if his coattails lead to the addition of several GOP Senate seats, President Bush will have significantly more leverage to select constitutional conservatives to the Court and surmount the heretofore unprecedented Democrat filibustering. Several issues will almost certainly turn on November's results, and the consequent shape of judicial appointments. Our prosecution of the War on Terror will continue to face lawsuits, whether concerning the disposition of prisoners or the gathering of intelligence. Only this week the Federal District Court in Manhattan struck down an important surveillance provision of the USA Patriot Act, dealing a serious blow to our nation's ability to pre-empt terrorist insurgents. More traditional legal controversies will continue to come before the Court. Justice Kennedy has already signaled his dissatisfaction with constitutionalizing partial-birth abortions and has apparently come to regret his decision to maintain Roe v. Wade. The Court will also come to consider more cases on homosexuality, including the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act (which protects states from having to recognize "Massachusetts marriages" against their will) and the constitutional right of the Boy Scouts to free association -- a right that is constantly under attack in Blue America. Perhaps the deepest gulf between the parties concerns whether American sovereignty should be incrementally forfeited to the EU and UN regarding foreign-policy decisions. Several major Supreme Court decisions in recent years have cited European law on subjects like the death penalty, reverse discrimination and homosexuality. These cases cite European norms and rules to justify dismantling American ones, elevating European protocols above the United States Constitution. Many on the Left find this strategy more effective than persuading the American electorate of their views. And so, perhaps more than in any other year, the upcoming election will determine how our Constitution is interpreted in the future. >From the "Village Academic Curriculum" File... This week's Bolshoi-Academe REDistribution Award goes to the administration in the Ivory Tower at the University of Florida, who next month will be feting our favorite documentarian [read with extreme sarcasm], Michael Moore. The university brass in Gainesville graciously offered the opportunity to students free of charge <cough, cough>, but upon further review it was revealed that Moore has been contracted for a TAXPAYER-FUNDED speaking fee of a whopping $47,000. Thus, Florida Patriots, whether you're a student, parent or tax-paying citizen, you're paying Michael Moore to disseminate his Bush-hating, anti-American drivel. To help prevent these sorts of academic abuses, please visit -- AND GENEROUSLY SUPPORT -- The Collegiate Patriot at http://collegiatepatriot.us. Around the world... Even though Demo presidential candidate John Kerry has pledged to get talks with North Korea "back on track," it is now uncertain whether the talks will continue at all. North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the United States have been party to discussions about North Korean nuclear disarmament. Talks were stalled, however, when it was reported that South Korea had experimented with the raw materials needed to produce nuclear weapons. North Koreans cried foul -- from their standpoint, talks can move forward if the U.S. drops its "double standard." For the record, South Korea is neither an oppressive Communist regime led by a bourbon-guzzling megalomaniacal dictator, nor a menacing threat to its neighbors. North Korea, on the other hand ... let's just say that American and Japanese officials report troop movement centered upon missile test sites in North Korea. And last... On Monday, more than a few political observers noted that, at some point last weekend, John Kerry miraculously turned orange. Some claim it was the result of a bad dye batch in his tanning lotion. Others suggested that orange, which is the product of red and yellow, may be his true color. His campaign claims Kerry turned orange because he was frolicking in the sun. He must have been at the "Carrot Top" resort. We suspect he is trying to pander to some constituency group like Vitamin C poppers, citrus-Americans or (fill in your own joke here). We suppose if Bill Clinton was "the first black president," it's ok for Kerry to want to be the first orange president. Maybe the "F" stands for Ferrigno? No, Hulk turned green. 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.) *Printer-friendly format Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp -- PUBLIUS -- Support Operation Shields of Strength! The Federalist Patriot is receiving new requests from military chaplains in Iraq serving Army and Marine units which have recently been deployed on rotation. If you're able to support Operation SoS and can help provide Shields of Strength to ground forces on the frontlines with Jihadistan, please link to http://FederalistPatriot.US/news/sos.asp SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! Get your own subscription to The Federalist Patriot! Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/ or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Friday's Federalist Digest is available in print for $245/year. For more information, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS: Send The Federalist Patriot to your friends and associates! Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/addmultiple.asp (Privacy Notice: We do NOT release ANY information on our users or subscribers under any circumstances, nor do we accept any advertising.) UNSUBSCRIBE: Click on the "Manage Subscription" link at the top of this edition, or if you don't have Web access, send a blank e-mail to <fedlist- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> REPRINT AND FORWARD POLICY: Subscribers may reprint or forward The Federalist Patriot, in whole or part. If reprinting to another publication, please include the appropriate citation The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US) in accordance with "fair use" rules, and our Subscriber/User Disclaimer. (For questions, contact our legal department at: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.) PATRIOT PETITIONS: Link to -- http://PatriotPetitions.US/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SUPPORT The Federalist's 2004 Patriot Sustaining Fund: http://FederalistPatriot.US/support.asp For more information on joining The Federalist Founder's Circle of major donors, contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SUPPORT BY MAIL: Make your check payable to "The Federalist" 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.) Send your contribution to: 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 -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/comments.asp Please hold your comments to 75 words if you want them posted. Questions or comments NOT for publication can be submitted to Executive Editor, Mark Alexander, Senior Feature Editor Cassandra Cornell, Senior Content Editor John Machen, Senior Research Editor Pete Parker, 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 at. Note the name of the person you are writing on the subject line of in an e-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Regarding editing errors, we put at least one error in every issue -- just to see if you are paying attention!) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FOUNDERS QUOTE DAILY: Start your day with words of wisdom from a Founding Patriot. Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/FQD.asp +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ABOUT THE FEDERALIST PATRIOT: Link to -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/main/about.asp Subscribers agree to the terms of the Subscriber/User Disclaimer at: http://FederalistPatriot.US/disclaimer.asp +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ E-mail President Bush, link to -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail Contact your Senator -- http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm Contact your Representative -- 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 -- http://www.firstgov.gov/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Visit the Patriot Shop: http://PatriotShop.us/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Visit the most comprehensive tribute to Ronald Reagan on the Internet and read the definitive conservative platform for the next century -- http://www.Reagan2020.com/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF LIBERTY" The Federalist Patriot 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 The Federalist Papers. 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. The Federalist Patriot 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 The Federalist's 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." The Federalist Patriot is a publication of Publius Press, Inc. Copyright (C) 1981-2004 Publius Press, Inc. All rights reserved. The Federalist Patriot is a Town Hall Citizen Organization In God we trust. ><>
