"I voted for the war, before I voted against it," John Kerry admitted. Fast forward to the Larry King show and Kerry admitted that he was not yet briefed on national security issues. Kerry stated that he was too busy for a national security briefing. "Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time," Kerry explained.

Then, last week, there was some talk in Washington about the possibility of postponing the presidential election in case of a significant terrorist attack on the United States. Suddenly, Kerry found the time to make himself available for that national security briefing.

Yep. Watch what he does, folks, not what he says. In this case, apparently "Senator" Kerry doesn't care much about the security of the people of the United States; he only cares about the security of the nation when security actions might/could affect his quest for higher office.

We hate to be overly inconvenient here, but isn't Kerry still supposed to be a senator? How does it happen that this egotistical rich boy, with a wife who has nearly a billion-dollar bottom line, still draws a paycheck from a job for which he never performs? Interesting, that.

Kerry had time to hobnob with nasty-mouthed celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg at a New York fundraiser but not to take an interest in the security of the American people.

After that fundraiser, Senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.) said he was saddened, but not surprised, that Kerry didn't challenge the rabid anti-Bush commentary spouted there. ". . . John Kerry held a fund-raiser in New York that featured performers in a time of war calling the president of the United States a killer, a cheap thug and a liar. John Kerry just sat there, grinning like a mule eating briars," Miller said.

We might remind Senator Miller that John Kerry has a long history of agreeing with such language. After a truncated tour of military service, Kerry entered the political scene with disgraceful antics, which included labeling active and prior Vietnam troops with all sorts of obnoxious, uncalled-for and untrue statements. Based on his Senate record alone, it is obvious that Kerry has never been a friend of our armed forces. So, it is no surprise that Kerry also agrees with disparaging remarks when made concerning our nation's Commander-in-Chief. "Situation Normal . . .," those of us with military service used to call it.

And dig that hot public display of metrosexual behavior between the two Johns on the campaign trail! Press photographers were having one hell of a good time snapping pictures of what looked like sensual foreplay between the Johns. They seem to be trying to redefine the term "running-mate."

Most interesting, though, is that Edwards was definitely not Kerry's first (or second) choice for running mate. For some reason, the DNC (read Clinton cabal) forced Edwards on Kerry. We may speculate about that, but there is yet no real evidence as to exactly why that happened.

So, here's what we have in a nutshell: two far-left senators, millionaire lawyers both, who have never run anything more extensive than their mouths, wanting to be chief executive of the United States. Worse yet, there are a few hundred-thousand yellow-dog Democrats out there who will vote for them. That's an "ungood," as one of my little neighbor girls likes to say.

The White House is not a very good place to start one's executive training. Nor is the White House the proper place for a man who has a long history of disparaging our American fighting forces -- especially while they are involved in combat. Nor is the President of the Senate a position that should be open to a lawyer whose whole career was spent perverting the court system by suing nearly anyone he could find with deep pockets.

The American people need better. The vast majority of the American people know that, too. And, the American people will have better. Because, as our current President's father likes to say, the American people shall "stay the course."

No matter what anyone may think of the politics of George W. Bush, we know that the man means what he says.

No flip-flops with Dubya. Also, those terrorists who would do us harm now know, unequivocally, that as long as George W. Bush is President, any attack on the United States will surely be punished with the full force of the United States military.

In the July 19 issue of "Newsweek" Michael Isikoff writes: "American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call 'alarming' intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack."(1) That report was surprising enough that even Senator John Kerry interrupted his foolishness on the campaign trail to go get himself updated with a national security briefing he hadn't taken time for in previous weeks.

As Isikoff reported: "The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge." Not reported by many news sources, though, is the fact that, as Isikoff reported, there was a very large "but" in Ridge's statement. "Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots."

So, what we've got here is nothing but a big old "maybe." Nothing but a "what if," in other words.

Well, sure terrorists would like to interfere in our elections. Problem is, we are not a country like Spain or France. That won't work here.

So, maybe we should put the would-be terrorists on notice right now: Cause problems here and it will go far in unifying the American people behind a President who we know will take immediate action and kick some terrorist ass. As President Bush told the people of Michigan last Tuesday, "I will never relent in bringing justice to our enemies. I will defend the security of the United States, whatever it takes." Simply put, no matter what else some may think of the politics of President Bush, the American people know that statement to be the honest truth.

Tom Ridge did not originate this election story, though. Apparently, this silliness starts with DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission.(2)

Yeah, yet another independent federal agency with little or nothing worthwhile to do. So, they created something.

According to their web page:

"The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Central to its role, the Commission serves as a national clearinghouse and resource for information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections. According to the text of HAVA, the law was enacted to . . . establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, and for other purposes," etc., etc., etc.

Funny thing, we see no authority for playing "what if" there, nor is there authority for even suggesting changes to the U.S. Constitution -- which is what would be necessary to change the date of the presidential election.

Nonetheless, Soaries wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to postpone the election, if they feel it necessary. This brings to mind the words of Nancy Reagan when she was First Lady: "Just say No!"

It is, in fact, true that terrorists could cause problems here just before the election. However, it is impossible for terrorists to cause more than a couple localized problems. Which means, the election may proceed as scheduled with, perhaps, special arrangements made for any localities that may have been affected. At no time in our history has an election been postponed and, short of an all out attack on the United States, it should not be.

Those wishing to read current Presidential Election Law may visit the Cornell Law Library(3) for the particulars. EAC does not seem to have a function in this scheme and should be told so.

1. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/>

2. <http://www.eac.gov/>

3. <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/ch1.html>

Back in the depression era, FDR claimed that he could get the nation's economy moving again if only he had extended powers over farming, business and industry, like his buddy Stalin had. To that end, the Roosevelt administration designed a complete regulatory bureaucracy, with each agency to be controlled by little politburos and the politburos, in turn, overseen by a dictator in the White House.

The problem was, the whole scheme was totally and completely unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court told the administration exactly that. So, FDR attacked the U.S. Supreme Court, threatening court packing and other unheard of arrangements to mitigate the Court's checks and balances.

Ultimately, Roosevelt won. Our Constitution suffered and the federal government has never been a Constitutional government since.

Today, there are at least 113 federal regulatory agencies passing laws they call -- with a wink and a nod -- rules and regulations. These rules and regulations affect everything the American people do and their hidden costs (hidden tax) are more expensive to most taxpayers than all other federal taxes combined.

For instance, according to the Cato Institute in a report by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. titled, "Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State," federal regulations cost the American people about $854-billion annually.(1) That amounts to a hidden tax of 8.4% of the U.S. gross national product annually. Put another way, the cost amounts to an average hidden tax bill of, on average, $7,490 per American taxpayer annually.

Every new federal regulation costs us more money.

Congress is being a little more careful about staying out of the tax and spend mode lately, so the task is performed stealthily. Instead of funding a program on the budget, Congress simply requires state and local governments, or industry, to do it. Nevertheless, we get the bill, just as if it were a direct tax.

Regulatory agencies, of course, are totally unaccountable to voters. It shows, too. In the fiscal 2001 year, congress passed 108 bills that were signed into law.

The regulatory agencies, however, wrote 4,132 rules (laws)that were inflicted on the American people. This is, of course, taxation without representation. Worse yet, it is also government without representation.

Think about that last remark: "government without representation." Not one of us, or even our representatives in government, voted for even one of the many thousands of rule-making bureaucrats. Not even one.

The very first sentence of the body of our Constitution implies that Congress shall make all law. Yet, there is a lawmaking ratio between the regulatory agencies and Congress of nearly forty to one!

So, when we ask where the inflation is coming from, we should look directly to government. The federal regulatory bureaucracy has written many controlling regulations for every product sold. Which means, every product sold in the United States costs the consumer more money because of these busy-body regulation rangers in the unconstitutional regulatory agencies. Congress knows this.

But, evidently, they just do not care.

As Cato reports: In 1998, the median two-earner family's after-tax income of $41,846 contained $7,410 in hidden regulatory costs -- thus eating up about 18 percent of the after-tax family budget.

That equates to a lot more every year than most people pay out in house payments and food combined.

Here in the United States, the regulatory costs alone are more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of Mexico or Canada. Just the annual budgets for these regulatory agencies cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

So, when we look for the reason for the cost of living increase (inflation) every year, look to Washington.

Congress is the direct cause of most of it because Congress allows the regulatory agencies to exist and function autonomously. It is time that unconstitutional scam ended.

1. <http://www.cato.org/tech/pubs/10kc_2002.pdf>

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron308.htm. Revised 7-17-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.