God Bless The USA

Google News
Matt Drudge
World Net Daily
Message Boards
contact me at aft_lizard01@yahoo.com
Hitler was a Liberal(socialist)
Choices Video

product of dinah.k
Powered by Blogger

The Quizical Prophecy [views and thoughts from some kansas folks ]


Main Stream Media Bias Guide

A short list to help you point out the evident or not so evident bias in a article or newscast.
  1. Story tone: If you noticed the difference in tone between a story based on a Republican or vice versa a story based on a Democrat there may be bias evident. For instance if the newsreport concentrates how a Republicans taxcut hurts the poor yet his/her opponents opposition to it is painted to be protective of the poor, then there is bias. To be fair the report should provide the negatives and positives in equal weight for BOTH sides.
  2. Party Dropping: If a story about fraud or malfeasance leaves out the party of the offender or mentions the accusers party affiliation but fails to mention the party of the accused, this is a very subtle sign of bias. For instance recently there was a newsreport on a company that was accused of tearing up voter registration application, they mentioned that they were hired by republicans, failed to mention the accuser had been fired for falsifying information. Meanwhile in Denver the news reported multiple cases of voter registration fraud, yet the party of the offenders was never mentioned, a clear cut case of bias.
  3. News Balance: Is the balance of the news on any given day tilted towards one party or another? A single day though heavily imbalanced is not so much a sign of bias, but if a clear pattern persists of hammering a single issue or party day after day, then you have bias. Sometimes you have to be careful though in filtering the noise to recognize the bias at hand, who are the chosen speakers through out the period in question? Was it more heavily Democrat over the period accusing Republicans or presenting the facts against the other side, are they using human props for the "emotion" affect? A lot of wild cards could be introduced.
  4. FactChecking: Do they present all of the facts or all of the evidence? This is the hardest one probable because most people wont take the time to dig up the facts themselves or find out the rest of the story. This category I also include some of the personal story elements, such as mothers who lost children in Iraq or other places. DO they ever mention the families who lost family memmbers ans still support the war? How about the 911 families what about the Bush supporters (who outnumber Kerry supporters by the way), they always highlight the anti-Bush families. How about the draft story, do they mention all of the facts? On Nightline they never mentioned the fact that the Draft Bill was wholly supported and created by democrats, these sort of things are important to the viewer.

In the end it comes down to the viewer and the people to hold the MSM accountable for there mistakes and bias. Otherwise we are doomed to the personal opinion of a affable guy from Canada or from Texas. Also remember the big lie theory, "tell a big enough lie often enough, people will believe it" .

Remember it is the EVIDENCE not the charge that matters.


Well lately polls are showing Bushing moving back into a 3-5 point lead, and you have got to wonder why that is. According to the MSM Kerry cleaned the Presidents clock in the debates. I have a theory to why this is.

I think Kerry is totally forgettable. Unless you are reminded of him constantly the only person you really think of is the President, do I like him this week or dont I. Is he doing good or bad. Kerry is a sidebar, the back up plan for Americans. This truly is a referendum on the President this year. You ask any supporter of Kerry and you ask him what Kerry's plan is for the Economy they either cannot tell you or they tell you something that isnt true. Take Kerry's Iraq plan for instance, Kerry's supporters will tell you its different from the Presidents, but when pushed to tell you the plan once again its either they cant tell you or if they do its the same plan as the Presidents.

Another factor I believe is that alot of the Democrats gameplan was bet on hate, can we extend the 30% of America that hates Bush into the 20% that dislike or arent sure about the President. What it comes down to is you cant win on hate. I think a good 5% - 10% of the Kerry supporters are going to wane in the closing weeks of the campaign because very simply Kerry hasnt offered anything that has real meat on it.

Of course I am not a political scientist nor am I a proffesional pollster.

My final popular vote prediction is Bush 51.7% Kerry 47.3% Other .7% none .3%

My final EV vote prediction is Bush 290 EV Kerry 250 EV, This accounts for election fraud caused by the democrats, look for a couple of places to have 110% turnout such as cincinatti and philadelphia. Also 1 EV goes to Bush from Maine. Bush could end up with a modern version of an EV landslide with over 330 EV's or he could lose it by just a few points, Bush obviously has the strategic advantage this year over his challenger.


Original Site

Brown Shirts Rearise
Democrats and Union Thugs invade a Wisconson GOP Headquarters
Wisconsin Gop official site

Democrats and union Thugs invade a Orlando GOP Headquarters

Newsreport on it

Democrats vandalize a PA GOP headquarters

Shots Fired into WV GOP Headquarters

Shots Fired into Knoxville,TN GOP Headquarters

Little Girl Attacked by Democrats and Union Thugs

Not often do I have a thought that I wish to make public. But here is one that is nagging me. I am concerned about the Patriot Act. But why speak out about something that protects us from the evil that lurks out there? To speak out against the Patriot Act would be unpatriotic! That is what I a devout conservative used to think. But as a patriot I have to ask what does the Patriot Act do?
  1. Expands the FBI's power to conduct secret searches of private property or homes without informing the owner.
  2. Expands FBI access to private records held by a third party, such as credit reports, student records, medical records, financial information.
  3. Allows the FBI to conduct secret searches or wiretap s on U.S. citizens to obtain evidence of crimes without showing "probable cause."
  4. Expands an exception to the 4th Amendment for spying that collects information about the origin and destination of communications. This exception, when applied to Internet usage, allows access to far more private details than when applied to traditional communication methods like telephones or regular mail.

Yes this is an excellent tool for our law enforcement to stop those evil doers. But what if you were suspected of a crime against the nation? What if you spoke out, and somebody of authority did not like what you had to say?

I can think of several organizations that have utilized similar tactics, such as the Nazi Gestapo, and the Soviet KGB. The provisions allowed by the Patriot Act as it stands provide the basis to undermine our constitutional rights.

On September the 29th, a district judge struck down a USA Patriot Act provision allowing the FBI to gather phone and Web customer records and then barring the service providers from ever disclosing the search took place.

Judge Victor Marrero said the law violated the Fourth Amendment because it barred or deterred any judicial challenge to government searches, and it violated the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure was a prior restraint on speech.
He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote.

Bush has stated that he wants to keep the Patriot Act as is. Kerry wants to change it. I am very interested in what Kerry wants to change about it. If I like the change I'm afraid that may enough to swing my vote to Kerry. Even though he is a flip flooper.

But maybe that is too radical. I suggest that we notify the Republican National Committee www.rnc.org and tell them what we think of the Patriot Act.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


On the draft.

Much has been made lately from a mass email campaign the John Kerry Campaign and CBS about a possible draft, the truth of the matter is that its the Democrats and John Kerry who want the draft, not President Bush and the Republicans as stated by those various sources, here is my proof.

John Kerry's website:

Many Americans do full time service. John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.

From Bloomberg
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for 40,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he would ``modernize our military to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security.

How will John Kerry accomplish such a thing without reinstating the draft?

From FR:

I have been sending this out as much as possible.

The email about the draft being sent out as well as the media reports on it is a complete fraud.
First of all, only Congress can reinstate a draft, not the President. Secondly, there are two bills
with only Democrats sponsoring and cosponsoring. This is a political DIRTY TRICK!!!!!!!!!

DAN RATHER is more credible. Republicans do not want a draft. DEMOCRATS DO !!!
Click on the links and see for yourself . Don't be manipulated.
Don't let the slimy media people lie to you! Know the TRUTH!
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) [DEMOCRAT] Cosponsors (None)

s.89 Senate bill to reinstate draft

Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) [DEMOCRAT]


Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004)

h.r.163 House bill to reinstate draft


There you have it a vote for Kerry is a vote to reinstate the draft, do you want to be drafted? Then vote against Kerry and his draft mongering.


Hello eveyone I would just like to say hi to the world and I hope all is okay. Hello Chris .
I am not very good at this and it will likely be my last blog for about 9 weeks then I should have pleny to blog about. I have a lot of preperation to do prior to my leaving to Basic Training for the US ARMY.......HOOORAH!!! I'm ready to go got 6 more days lot to do not enought time. So take care Blog nation see ya again in 9 weeks.


Geez you invite a couple of friends to Blog and they dont show up, alright Vince, Pat whats up?

Anyways here is something to ponder. Much has been made lately about CBS and Memo-gate, and today CBS issued a statement about how they were deceived, fair enough now just apoligize to the President and move on.

OK now on Kerry's record. Where is his last DD214? He received one after being released from training and one after being released from active duty. Now what I understand is that after his initial enlistment Kerry must request when the Reserves should release him from the IRR(inactive ready reserve) since he is an officer it can be indefinate. Now after perusing his site I found he is he is missing his key DD214, the one releasing him from all service requirements. It is missing. People say he got an Honorable Discharge in 1978 which is there on his site, yet he doesnt have a corresponding DD214. Which isnt correct, he should have one. I am led to believe Kerry was released in April 1973 from all service requirements,5 years prior to his receiving a Honorable Discharge(under carter none-the less), and did not receive a honorable discharge, possibly just a general or even a other than honorable. Do you think that since Kerry had the choice of just one year or up to a lifetime he would choose 6 years to serve in the IRR? I dont believe it one bit. He was very busy when he returned home, and was running for federal officee at one time, he even has a document on his page stating that. So why is it that he didnt receive his Honorable Discharge until 5 years after his real discharge? Enquiring minds want to know.


First off today I would like to thank my friends Pat and Vince for joining me on my blog, they can help keep it more interesting and enjoyable and fill in the gaps when I am not feeling up to snuff on posting. Now for my opinion.

I remember being 17 years old and watching incredulously as Clarence Thomas was being paraded on TV and being lynched verbally in front of my eyes. I actually was quite the liberal thinker then, although I had already made a right turn after President Reagan made his Surly Bonds speech after the SpaceShuttle Challenger Disaster. I sat there and listened how Thomas was a "Uncle Tom", a traitor to his race, how its not the evidence its the seriousness of the charge. I was like yeah, you accused of something mister you better answer it. Well he did, and did often but that didnt matter, the preponderance of evidence was in his court yet that didnt matter, by golly he shouldnt be sitting in the most important court in the land because he was accused of something, regardless of the facts.

Flash Forward to 2004. I realized now what I didnt then, that such behavior is antithetical to Democracy, such thought is a disease that can destroy a nation. Look at Nazi Germany, I know I dwell on them alot, but in world history no bigger event was bigger than their regime. They were a democracy with a democratically elected government. On one cold night Nov 1938 Goebbels announced official German reprisal against international jewry, now up until then the German Govt had been acting out under conspicuous yet almost understandable actions, first they revoke citizenship then ownership rights, people stood by and did nothing because they accepted the official Reich understanding, over time even the average German started to believe the propoganda of the Govt. Now I understand that CBS isnt a govt, they are a news outlet outside of the govt's control. But when a massive multimedia company, starts to play by its own rules and attempts to set its own facts that is a dangerous turn of events. We understand the difference between a National Enquirer and a NYTimes, well mostly anyways the newspaper of record seems scratched lately. But when a news company is caught in its own lies, and rather(pun intended) than own up to them or even simply say they are in question but defend them for a week straight then we have a problem(kenneth whats the frequency).

There is no doubt now the documents are forged, everybody from the secretary for Killian to CBS's own vetted experts are saying this. So why are they still defending it? Rather wrote a piece in the NY Observer asking the President to answer the questions raised by him, yet Dan Rather hasnt answered the questions raised by us. What we see here is a Goebbelesque attempt to affect a nation and its democracy, to sway through false evidence and testimony a Presidential race, that is unacceptable in this time or any time.

I would like to see Dan Rather fired, but that wont happen. I guess my second best shot would be for him to sit down on another 60 Minutes and say that these documents are false, and they were woefully misled. They should have Ben Barnes daughter on counteracting her own fathers testimony. He should explain they did not use the same vetting process for those agreeing with him and CBS's news. Explaining that Barnes , Matley and others were partisans. Barnes himself is a top fundraiser for Kerry, and therefore according to there own standards set up shouldnt have been allowed on air. Lastly they should tell us there "unimpeachable source", maybe not his name but his qualifications that led them to believe his authenticity. This isnt much to ask in my opinion, the damage has been done to themalready and the famous Eye of CBS is bruised, now its time to take the steak out of the fridge and place it over the eye.

Posted on wired.com 9/14/04
I would like to say that I do not condon stealing. But if we do not stand up for our "on line" rights now, what will the future bring?
Thousands of people have signed up to call their congressional representatives Tuesday to protest the Induce Act, a controversial copyright bill that many fear would undermine the legal protections that allow consumers to make personal copies of music or movies they've bought.
The Induce Act, officially known as the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (SB2560), was intoduced in June by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).
It would hold technology companies liable for making products that encourage customers to infringe copyright. The Induce Act conflicts with the landmark 1984 Betamax Supreme Court decision, which ruled that home videotape recorders were legal because they have "substantial non-infringing uses," even though some people might use the machines to infringe copyrights. Though the entertainment industry opposed the machine at the time, the ruling paved the way for the development of the enormous home video and DVD market, and other technological innovations of the past 20 years.

We really needed to get the attention of senators and representatives and show them that people really care about this!

Protecting the innovation engine that drives the American economy and to be highly suspicious of any initiative proposed by the existing dominant players. The Induce Act will make it more difficult for the next generation of entrepreneurs to be successful.
Heavyweights like the music industry have spent more time convincing legislators to protect their current business models than serving their own customers' needs.
Television, movie and music companies have given $168,928 in campaign donations to Hatch since 1999, according to Opensecrets.org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks campaign donations. Leahy recived $232,050 in the same period. The internet, computer and telecommunications industries donated less money to each.
It simply makes our task (as entrepreneurs) that much more difficult. It tilts the playing field in favor of the established suppliers at the expense of innovators.
Once (the bill) is through, it's going to be 10 times as hard to win those rights back.

free hit counter