If Judicial Nominations Are Not of Vital Importance, Why Not Just Allow the Votes?
Democrats argue that the Senate is being prevented from addressing really important issues, ranging from unemployment to wartime intelligence, because Republicans have scheduled thirty consecutive hours of debate on the President's judicial nominations. The implication is that the judicial confirmations are relatively unimportant.

If they honestly consider the President's judicial nominations relatively unimportant, the Democrats can end the debate anytime, and get back to the business they claim is really important to them, simply by voting "yes" to ending debate - all the Republicans will vote with them. Bi-partisan comity will reign supreme, and the President's judicial nominees will receive an up or down vote of the full Senate, and be confirmed or rejected.

The Democrats will not do this, because the judicial nominations are extremely important to them, and their claim to the contrary is a cynical, disingenuous insult to the American People.

Saddam Misunderestimates
The Daily Telegraph reports that Tariq Azziz, Saddam Hussein's former Deputy Prime Minister, has told American interrogators Saddam was convinced the United States would not follow through with the threatened invasion of Iraq.

According to Azziz, Saddam's confidence was founded on assurances from French and Russian contacts that their governments would block American initiatives in the U.N. Security Council. The Russians and the French certainly lived up to Saddam's expectations, but somebody in his inner circle should have pointed out to Saddam that there's a new Sheriff in town over in Washington. Indeed, in a twisted way, the swift and relatively easy ousting of Saddam could be considered part of the Clinton legacy. Since Saddam was evidently expecting the same kind of weak-kneed response from George W. Bush that he had grown accustomed to during eight years of Clinton.

Saddam has now added his name to the long list of Bush's "misunderestimators," and if the reports of Azziz's remarks are accurate, that list would also have to include the Russian and French governments, who wrongly assumed that President Bush would not make a move against Saddam without the blessing of the United Nations.

It is tempting to think George W. Bush's enemies and detractors will eventually conclude that they would be much better off overestimating George W. than underestimating him, but it so happens that Bush's enemies are disporportionately comprised of the the self-consumed and the arrogant, so they won't.

I'm reminded of a scene in the movie The Patriot, in which Mel Gibson's character, Benjamin Martin, observes that his foe, General Cornwalis, is very impressed with his own vast knowledge of warfare, which creates in Cornwalis the exploitable weakness of pride. When one of Martin's companions opines that he would instead prefer an enemy whose weakness is stupidity, Martin pauses and replies simply, "pride will do."

Likewise, one of the best things George W. Bush has going for him is the impenetrable arrogance of his enemies, and the relative certainty that they will continue to "misunderestimate" him time and again.

I Support Howard Dean!
After hearing Howard Dean say he supports our troops more than President Bush, I've decided to throw my full support behind Dean.

I'm supporting Howard Dean in his run for President
I'm behind his no-good candidacy one-hundred percent

Oh, I'd never send him money, plant a sign or knock on doors,
But I'm standing right beside the candidate you may be sure.

Well, I'll say and do just anything to see that Howard flops
And I'll vote against him cause I know that Howard must be stopped

But I truly do support him, yes I look on him with pride
And although I wish him failure, I still stand by Howard's side

No, I haven't got a single thing to say about him good
But I pray for Howard Dean and I support him as I should

Yes, I know you'll think I spoof or my endorsement is an "oops"
But I am supporting Dean the same way Dean supports our troops


Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

Jesus -vs- The Pollsters
One-half of Americans believe they are going to Heaven, while only one-half of one-percent believe they are bound for Hell. This may come as quite a surprise to the One Who declared, "wide is the road and wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and many there be that go that way; but narrow is the path and narrow the gate that leads to life, and few there be that enter therein."

What a stinging indictment of America's pulpits and pews. The Church is supposed to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," yet, if these polling numbers are true, the vast majority in this Christian Nation surely do not understand the rudiments of sin, salvation and damnation.

It would be comforting, in a way, to believe that this condition is the result of Christians clearly declaring Biblical truths, and Americans rejecting the message en masse; but experience, along with George Barna's surveys and analysis of Christians' attitudes and beliefs, suggests the cause of this widespread ignorance is the flaccid message of a Church uncertain of the authority of Scripture, and of even the existence of absolute truth.

Of course, there are many Christians shining the light of God's truth in the darkness, but unfortunately many more bow to the "I'm OK, You're OK" conventions of secular society. The truth however, is that I'm not OK, and neither are you -- apart from saving faith in the only sufficient substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and His bodily resurrection from the dead.

That's all considered very impolite, intolerant, and hopelessly out-of-date now, but the One Who never changes has assured us that while the message of The Cross is weakness and foolishness to those who are perishing, it is both the wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation to those who believe and are being saved.

Do American Christians believe that enough to speak the truth to their neighbors, and from their pulpits? Or do we prefer the Public Relations "victory" of letting our fellows march sanguinly to a Hell they don't believe in, confident of admittance to a heaven that they will not enter, but at least unoffended by the truth.

This poll should be a wake-up call to the Church in America that we must shout from the housetops the truth about man's sin, and God's salvation through Jesus Christ. Too many Americans are dying each day, and wondering why nobody told them the truth about Hell before they got there.

Unpredictably, Morris Gives Predictable Bad Advice to GOP
Based on the success of Liberal Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the unusual California Recall Election, Dick Morris recommends that the Republican Party should "terminate" the influence of Christian Conservatives, in order to build future majority party status.

The usually insightful Morris must have been sucking on some toxic toes when he reached this conclusion. First of all, the Republican Party has already attained majority status, holding the Presidency, and ongoing majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, most State Legislatures and Governorships. The Republican success in changing from permanent minority status to where they are today has occurred since, and arguably because of the rise of the Christian Right in the GOP power structure.

Since 1994, in election after election at the State and Federal level, openly Pro-Life candidates have more often than not defeated openly Pro-Abortion candidates. Polling also consistently shows the scales continuing to tip in the Pro-Life direction, including among female respondents, and in States with growing populations.

Notwithstanding, it has become de riguer for pundits to declare that Conservatism is on the way out, and Pro-Life is a losing position everytime a pro-abortion politician wins an election. To reach this conclusion they must ignore the steady advance of the Republican Party from indefinite minority status to a deep, growing and active majority. Not only have Conservatives and Pro-Lifers remained at the center of influence of the Republican Party during the transition, it was their ascension to control of the party under Reagan, then Gingrich that finally rescued the GOP from the Bob Dole/Bob Michel doldrums of the 1960's and 70's.

When Arnold, a Social-issues Liberal, resurrected the moribund California Republican Party, pundits predictably raced to their keyboards to spew the conventional wisdom that a Liberal Social platform is the GOP's only hope of future success. I was only surprised to see the usually shrewd Dick Morris join the chorus of nonsense.

The unpardonable sin of actually believing what one professes
Nina Totenberg's outrageous remark that "I hope [General Jerry Boykin] is not long for this world," is alternately defended on the basis that she didn't mean what she obviously did mean, and that her comments are Constitutionally protected free speech. The former explanation must have Trent Lott pinching himself, but the latter is more ironic still.

The Left-media which broke the "scandal," and has excoriated the General since, of course recognizes no inconsistency between its self-proclaimed championing of free speech, and its rejection of the General engaging in it. That's what life in an echo-chamber will do to you. What was it, after all, that led a "compassionate" Liberal, like NPR's Totenberg, to wish premature death on a decorated American military officer? General Boykin has scandalized the high priesthood of secularized America, basically by actually believing what he professes to believe . . . and saying it!

Sincere faith in God and a corresponding confidence in transcendent and objective truth are now the unpardonable sin among those who assure us there is no such thing as sin. In contrast, religion that makes no exclusive claims to truth is always welcome among our cultural and media elites, because such religion is no threat to the status quo. It is salt that has lost its savor, and it generates no discomfort to the man unreconciled to God, who should in fact be very uncomfortable. Such "a form of godliness [that] denies the power thereof" is not merely useless, it is insidious, because it gives an illusion of right standing with God, where no such right standing exists.

General Boykin has shown very bad manners indeed, with all this "my God/your God" stuff, and the fact that his statement is Scripturally orthodox is not likely to gain him supporters among the many American Christians whose noses are always pressed longingly against the window pane of secular institutions, vainly hoping for an invitation to warm their hands at the fire.

During World War II President Franklin Roosevelt routinely identified the Anglo-American war effort as a Christian cause, so it is a good measure of the extent to which Christianity has since been marginalized, that for an American military officer to state the obvious is widely considered "hate speech," and an embarrassment to many Christians. What should Christians find to apologize for in Boykin's assertions that 1. Christians believe that the God of the Bible is real, and all others are false gods. 2. the true God is greater than false gods. 3. America is under attack from a Satanically motivated ideology, namely radical Islam.

The fact is that any genuine Christian must accept two out of three of the above statements, and I would guess that most accept the third, as well. But precious few have the strength of character to despise the frowns (or for that matter the death wishes) of secular opinion-makers, by being so impolite as to say what they actually believe. General Boykin in contrast, evidently cares more for the approval of God than the approval of man.

Special Friends
Recently, a family medical emergency and a celebration welcoming one of our daughters to womanhood reminded me of the priceless friendships that God has brought into our lives. Friends gathered around our family to pray for us, speak words of encouragement, and offer practical help in a time of difficulty and in a time of joy.

Such has been our normative experience with Christians for the past twenty years, and thinking about those friendships moved me to write the following verses:

The God who puts the lonely into families
and strengthens both the weary and the weak,
Who orchestrates those exquisite anomalies
such as bequeathing Earth unto the meek.

The Shepherd with that unmistaken calling
well known by all the sheep that to Him cling,
The One Who sees a single sparrow falling
and gives the barren woman cause to sing,

Who did not hold back even His dear Son but
instead so freely gave Him up for us,
will not demur to graciously provide us
with everything we've ever needed, plus!

Not least among His many benefices,
and intricately woven to His ends,
He knits the hearts of brethren close together,
and crowns our life with very special friends.


"and it came to pass...that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
I Samuel 18:1

Recall
A Recall Election is despised and feared by political elites because it denies them the benefit of the voters' notoriously short memories.

Presidential Poetry
Yesterday, Michael Medved read from a Canadian news article which mocked George W. Bush for a "roses are red, violets are blue" poem he wrote to the First Lady while she was traveling in Europe without him. W's poem to Laura was corny, unpretentious and sweet. The kind of rhyming that sets elitist eyes rolling, but which most wives would love to receive from their husband. The article quoted a University Professor, who acerbically assured the reader that Bush would not be receiving a Pulitzer Prize for Poetry.

The previous occupant of the Oval Office was very much the favorite of our cultural elites, so I began wondering what kind of poems he may have sent to his wife. I did some asking among anonymous sources close to the Clintons, and obtained a super-secret copy of one of Bill's recent poems to Hillary. I share it with you on condition that you do not weep while reading it.

Roses are red, violets are blue
if you throw one more ashtray at me I may sue!
don't wait dinner for me, I won't be home yet,
I'm stopping for Big Macs with a bimbo I met.

If you hop on your broomstick and run in `08
I'm quite sure we'll get back through that 16 Penn gate,
then like a fox in the hen-house I'll be on the prowl
`cause you'll be too darn busy to flash me your scowl.

We'll need damage control for each Bubba-esque stunt
'cause you bet as First Stud I'll be back on The Hunt,
oh, but being in charge you'll have so much distraction
that you can't interfere with my intern-ing action.

Late night TV comedians may miss the dysfunctional Clintons, but I am happy and relieved to have a conventional, loving married couple in the White House again, even at the risk of offending Canadian Professors of Poetic Studies.




Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

Clark's Middle
General Wesley Clark says that, if elected President, he would nominate Supreme Court Justices who are "in the middle, like Stephen Breyer."

Justice Breyer is "in the middle"? In the middle between what, Sandra Day O'Connor and Karl Marx?

The Wrong Genocidal Dictator
California Recall: With an assist from the L.A. Times, Davis reaches out to the anti-Hitler vote???

The long-anticipated dirty tricks of the Gray Davis Campaign (delivered to the voters courtesy of The L.A. Times) have reached a new low, which should surprise no one familiar with Gray Davis. But, one wonders just what constituency Davis is hoping to reach by smearing Arnold as a crypto-Nazi.

Presumably, the entire statistically significant portion of the California electorate is anti-Hitler, so I would guess that Davis is hoping to win the votes of the hopelessly credulous. Bad news, Mr. Soon-to-be Ex-Governor, by definition you already had a lock on that voting block!

Moreover, let's suppose, for argument's sake, that Mr. Schwarzenegger has very secretly harbored Nazi sympathies all these years (he is, after all, an actor; although such a convincing performance as a non-Nazi should garner a Lifetime Achievement Oscar), and let's further grant that it is noxious to admire genocidal dictators. How is it that neither The L.A. Times, nor any other Liberal organ, including the modern Democrat Party, has ever been scandalized by high-profile Liberal Democrats who have oozed admiration for the likes of Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Daniel Ortega, or Fidel Castro?

I guess that, unlike Hitler, these heroes of the Left are the "good" genocidal dictators.

Yellow-cake Journalism
Substance-free accusation against Tony Blair illustrates a repulsive trend in journalism

"Blair Knew Iraq WMD Claim Wrong, Says Ex-Aide." Thus reads the CNN.com News Headline today, and so the story passes into the public record. The only problem is that the headline and the entire point of the article is grossly misleading.

It turns out that the WMD Claim referred to is not the claim that Saddam indeed had Weapons of Mass Destruction, but merely the analysis by British Intelligence that speculated that Iraq could launch a WMD attack within 45 minutes. But to find that out you will have to read down to paragraph twelve, and then "connect the dots" for yourself.

The CNN story is drawn from a book by the former Labor Party Leader of the House of Commons, Robin Cook, and the conversation with Blair, which Cook refers to, is as innocuous as can be, and indicates no deception on Blair's part. "[Cook] said he asked the prime minister if he was concerned that Saddam might use chemical munitions against British troops...Blair's response was: 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use.' Cook said the prime minister's response left him 'deeply troubled.'"

What may have "troubled" Cook was the realization of how torturously he would have to re-contextualize Blair's words in order to cast them in a sinister light. For CNN the important thing about the accusation against Blair is not the relevance or veracity of the information, nor the credibility of the source, but the opportunity to perpetuate the myth -- now a Leftist article of faith -- that the Liberation of Iraq was justified by false pretenses.

The same technique was attempted without effect in The Observer's absurd, "Bush Knew" headline last year, but has since been employed quite effectively respecting the now infamous "Sixteen Words" from President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Message about British intelligence reports that Saddam attempted to obtain enriched uranium from Africa. The only reason those 16 words are infamous is that the Media and Bush's political enemies have persistently mis-represented their content -- and because Bush imprudently apologized for including them in his case for war (see my post 10/3/03 "Lessons From Nixon").

Anyone can read what The President actually said and ascertain that his statement was true, then as now (just GOOGLE "State of the Union Address" and you will be reading Bush's unfiltered words within sixty seconds), but tens of millions of voters will not look up the State of Union text, but will hear News reports refer matter-of-factly to Bush's "false" statement, or hear Democrats say "Bush lied," so eventually the truth will be completely replaced by a fabrication which, because of its constant and widespread dissemination, is effectively impossible to refute.

The reporting of both these episodes illustrates a repulsive trend in Media. Both American and British Media are stating facts in a way that is grossly misleading, and presenting analysis in the guise of fact. The journalistic dishonesty would be reprehensible enough in itself, but in these instances the results of successful journalistic deception may be catastrophic for the journalists' own Country. One could be excused for wondering whose side the BBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. are on.

The most generous construction one can put on such acts is that our News Media are copiously supplied with blind fools. The alternative is more unpleasant to contemplate, especially since it is considered bad form these days to question anyone's patriotism.

C.S. Lewis Move Over
coming soon at Amazon.com

My upcoming book is a look at how Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their team of "spin doctors" elevated political scandal-control to a science. The working title is, The Liar, The Witch And The War Room.TM

Learning Curve
I composed the following verses to impart wisdom to my six year old son, Isaac Reagan.

there are two ways of learning a lesson my son,
both an easy and hard way and you'll always choose one

the hard way's most popular, common and tried
it is learning through pain till the lesson's applied

a rod's for the back of the fool, it's been said
`cause a beating is all that can get through his head

now the easy way's easy and quicker beside
but it means you must listen and swallow your pride

the words of your father and mother are key
to learning the easy way, take it from me

take heed to the words of your Mother and Dad
their teaching will guide you and light up your path

for God gave you parents so you would grow wise
without all the pain that the hard way supplies

why this very lesson is one that you'll get
either the easy or hard way...have you chosen yet?


Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

A Lesson From Nixon
The only route to the good graces of the Left is betrayal of other Republicans

Republicans could learn a thing or two from the example of Richard Nixon. President Nixon is responsible for the EPA, Revenue Sharing, banning TV & Radio advertising of Cigarettes, and ending the Vietnam War. These are all celebrated Liberal causes, yet Nixon is one of the most vilified and despised political figures toward whom Liberals have ever focused their unremitting hatred.

When will Republicans learn that no amount of compromise, "statesmanship," "bi-partisanship," "growing in office" or "new tone" will ever cause Liberals to like a Republican, or say nice things about him? The only acceptable route to "rehabilitation" and the good graces of the Left is an outright denunciation or betrayal of the Republican Party or a Republican President. Jim Jeffords and John McCain currently maintain this favored status, but is that really the road Republican office-holders wish to travel?

Coyotes
The howls of coyotes heard through an open window led me to reflect on the uniqueness of Man, created in the image of God.

out under the stars of the crisp autumn sky
I hear the coyotes' lamentable cry
a solo, a duet, a trio at times,
that pierces the quiet,
sends chills up my spine

sounding awfully mournful, as if they regret
the ravenous deeds that await them, and yet,
like ghosts driven on by a curse, they proceed
to stalk the unwary, to pounce and to feed

in the daylight they skulk in their dens, where I guess
all the sounds of our day simply fail to impress
on the mind of those canines, that cunningest brand,
a single poetic or fanciful strand


Copyright 2003 by Larry Naselli

Anything To Win
Arnold smears gives the lie to Liberal justification for Politics of Personal Destruction

Whether the target is Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett, Bob Livingston, Bob Barr or Henry Hyde, Liberals have routinely justified their glee at the smearing of political enemies, by appealing to the putative hypocricy of the person being attacked.

The Liberal perspective is that anyone who speaks up for standards of traditional morality is by definition judgemental, as well as hypocritical, unless they themselves have never transgressed the moral code they espouse. In this regard, political Liberals are more insightful than theological Liberals, in that the former recognize (without crediting) the Biblical truth that "all have sinned."

Because this is so, no one is qualified to defend moral standards (make that traditional moral standards), ever. This certainly takes the heat off of moral reprobates, so long as they themselves never take a stand for traditional moral standards.

So, taking Liberals at their word, how does one account for the Left's enthusiam for the October Surprise smear campaign against Arnold Schwarzenegger? Arnold certainly does not fit the Puritanical Moralizing Scold profile that Liberals claim justifies the politics of personal destruction, so could it be that the Left is simply willing to do anything -- anything, to win?

In a word, "YES".

"Watt-ing" Rush
The Left Media does not want to understand Rush's point, they want to destroy an enemy.

In the early 1980's there was no man more loathed and vilified by the American Left than President Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt. Watt was a Conservationist, i.e. he believed in the wise stewardship of God's creation, for the enjoyment and benefit of mankind. That philosophy, though pretty mainstream throughout the "red states," was and is anathema to Environmentalist extremists, and the Media, Government and Cultural elites who give them credence.

Watt was marked for destruction by the Left from the outset, and the opportune moment came when Watt aimed his dry wit at Liberals and Liberalism (the unpardonable sin). Speaking about a committee or commission he had formed for some task of the Interior Department, Watt skewered the Left's trademark tokenism by pointing out that Liberals should be really happy about this particular commission, because it was comprised of "a woman, a black, two Jews and a cripple."

The audience laughed, but the Liberal Media smelled blood in the water and stubbornly refused to "get" the joke -- which was directed at them -- insisting that Watt had bashed women, blacks, Jews and the handicapped.

It was an incident that hinted at how bloodthirsty the Left is, willing as they were to appear as complete dunces, unable to fathom the sarcasm of Watt's comment, in order to run a political nemesis out of Washington. The lie was repeated often enough, until the utter nonsense that James Watt was a sexist, racist, anti-semitic, handicapped-hater, had become the "authorized version" of events, and Watt resigned to avoid being an albatross to the Reagan presidency.

It should be no surprise then that when the man most loathed and vilified by the American Left in the 21st Century, Rush Limbaugh, provides an opportune moment, the Left-Media intentionally misunderstands his remarks, in a way that conveniently allows them an opportunity to destroy Rush's career.

Consider the substance of Limbaugh's remark about the great desire of Sports Media to see Black quarterbacks succeed. Imagine if "The Reverend" Jesse Jackson had accused, "You Honky Sportswriters, don't really care if African American Quarterbacks succeed." Can you doubt that the Sports Media would be trampling one another to get to a microphone and declare their passionate devotion to seeing Black quarterbacks excel? Would it then be terribly unreasonable to suggest, as Rush did, that such a desire might distort the perception, or at least the reporting of sportswriters thus impassioned?

Ah, but there's the rub, the Left Media does not want to understand Rush's point, any more than they wanted to understand James Watt's barb about Liberal tokenism. They want to destroy an enemy, and any excuse, no matter how fatuous, will do. So, gleeful Leftists will play-act that they are offended and scandalized by Rush's comment, when the very thinly veiled fact is they are thrilled at the chance to "Watt" Rush.

Dixie Chicks Speak Out In Defense of Limbaugh
What ever happened to that "chilling effect?"

NASHVILLE - While Democrat Presidential Candidates joined an ebullient Liberal Media in piling on Rush Limbaugh, the beleaguered Titan of Talk Radio found support from an unexpected source.

Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Country-Pop Dixie Chicks, called a press conference in which she defended Limbaugh's Constitutionally protected right of free speech, and criticized those who have called for his removal from ESPN's NFL broadcasts.

Maines warned that the attacks against Rush for expressing his opinion could have "a chilling effect" on free speech, freedom of the press, and the very future of democracy in America.

Maines comments were interrupted by the sound of my alarm clock going off, which terminated an incident that will only ever happen in my dreams, namely a Liberal applying the same standard and rationale to a Conservative that they demand for themself.

Unfit To Wield Power
America will either win the War on Terrorism, or resign to living in fear and an ever-diminishing influence in the world.

The Democrat's Weekly Radio Address last weekend illustrates why their Party is currently unfit to wield power or set policy affecting National Security. The Democrats called for concentrating spending in the War on Terrorism on "preparedness" at home. Leaving aside the argument that this is a cynical ploy to create more government employees union jobs, thus empowering one of the Democrat's most faithful constituencies, let's take the suggestion at face value, as the Party's sincerely held viewpoint on how to win this war.

Democrats have drawn the policy distinction between themselves and President Bush. Their answer to terrorism is to stop going to war around the globe and beef up "preparedness" to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks in the U.S. A "catch the raindrops" approach, if you will. Moreover, Democrats routinely inveigh against the Patriot Act (for which they voted overwhelmingly), so their policy prescription is really "catch the raindrops with one hand tied behind our back."

The Bush Doctrine, which Democrats have never truly embraced, and acquiesced to at first only to avert electoral catastrophe, calls for the U.S. to hunt down, destroy and disable terrorist networks and the governments who sponsor and harbor them, thus taking the war to them, to prevent the terrorists from bringing the war to us. A simple truth that the President understands (and Democrats are clueless about) is that either you are moving the ball on your opponent, or they are moving the ball on you.

In the 2004 elections Americans will either agree with President Bush that the best defense against terrorism is a good offense, or with the Democrat's strategy of lay-low-and-maybe-the-terrorists-won't-bother-us. That choice will determine whether America proceeds to win the War on Terrorism, or resigns to living in fear, and to an ever-dwindling influence in the world.

A generation ago, Americans faced a similar choice. On the one hand was Jimmy Carter's worldwide retreat from Communist aggression, economic "stagflation," and dial-down-the-thermostat malaise, and on the other hand Ronald Reagan's "rendezvous with destiny" for the "shining city on a hill," that promised to restore America's economic greatness, and defeat our mortal enemy, the Soviet Evil Empire.

The right choice by the voters in 1980 led to unprecedented economic expansion, and a rising tide of freedom, democracy and American influence that transformed America and the world into a safer and better place. The stakes in the 2004 Elections are at least as great.