Before the real news, there's a little interesting background news we should take care of. This comes from the "Be careful who you blame department," because everything is not always exactly as it looks.

We've been hoodwinked. Yeah, you, me, all of us. It appears to me that there is a major scam afoot. It's kind of funny, in a sick sort of way; but it is a flimflam nonetheless.

First, we know that Dan Rather and his cohorts at CBS have a major bias. Among other things, they "fixed" a certain "60 Minutes" program many years ago to pump up the failing candidacy of the lying Bill Clinton when he ran against George H.W. Bush. This year, they are going after Dubya by advertising every sleazebag book that pops up with derogatory information against him. The books were all proven wrong later, but that's not the point.

Now comes those heretofore unseen "memos" about Lt. Bush when he was in the Guard. The family of the supposed author say they are fake. Document experts say they are fake. Even most major media outlets now admit they are fake. Not CBS, though. CBS acts like they almost believe the memos are real.

What is seldom related by the liberal national media is the little fact that those memos have been shopped around the block a few times. Kerry and his campaign crew had them. The DNC leadership had them. Some newspapers had them. But, no one used them because they are obviously forgeries. Except CBS, that is, because they hate Bush.

So, why the supposed argument among those in the media about the memos then? Easy. That's the scam.

In the past week, we haven't heard much about "Unfit for Command," the best selling book in the nation -- 250,000 copies scanned already, 850,000 more copies ordered. Which means, Kerry's "war record" and subversive antics after coming home were almost out of the news last week.[1]

Liberals turned it around. Now, those fake memos are in the news. And, by staging a media food fight about the memos, the liberals in the national media are keeping it that way. Besides, by churning controversy, they are also generating more viewers and readers for themselves.

Never mind that none of it is true, that it's all a contrived media scam. The media business is a business and they are making money on this scam. Besides, they are helping a liberal candidate. What's for them not to like here?

Oh yeah . . . the truth. . . .

Well, a few of them are telling some truth. The memos are fake. Some media people say that. But, it's still a scam. They are still using "news space" to whip up derogatory thoughts about Bush, one way or another.

How often did we hear the liberal national media say anything derogatory about Kerry last week? Ever?

By the middle of last week, CBS and some other liberal media hacks were actually saying that even if the documents are fake, the content is true.

That's what they said. I say "scam!" I say that they all fell right in with the Kerry campaign/DNC talking points and are using it to suck up the oxygen of the news. It's a scam because they used it to create a diversion, almost exactly like when Clinton used to play "wag the dog" every time things got too hot for him.

Another reason they keep this scam going is to help keep Kerry off the news as much as possible. The more people hear Kerry, the more people realize he is silly. Kerry turns off everyone but the uninformed socialists. Even the rabid far-left are quickly tiring of him.

Watch the liberal national media as they function as the Kerry propaganda mill. Sure, a few of them still take themselves seriously. Most, however, are just doing their job, keeping the scam rolling through the news cycles. By last Thursday, many of them were starting to crack a little smile as they parroted the party line as instructed. By the middle of this week, it may be hard to keep them from laughing out loud when the memo topic comes up.

Most certainly, we should be laughing at them. National media liberals are running frantic because they realize Democrats are going to lose big in November. Therefore, their bias is palpable. The "news" is getting to be like an opening Saturday Night Live skit, without a punch line.

All we have to remember is that they are liberals. The talking heads, their producers, the reporters, their paymasters, all of them. Liberals. And they are paid very well to maintain the liberal line in everything they report.

That doesn't mean they are not fun to watch, though. If they want to continue making asses of themselves in public, I'll watch. After all, the Democratic Party is the Party of the Ass. There is no reason their major media campaigning section should be less so.

When I want "news" I can think seriously about, there is still the Washington Times, talk radio shows and Fox News. And, of course, we have the New Media, the Internet.

1. <http://www.swiftvets.com/ >

It is interesting to learn that I am legal again. Not that I was really concerned about it, that is. The old law was just slightly aggravating to me.

You see, I am the proud owner of an old M1 Carbine. As rifles go, it's just a small 30 caliber semi-automatic. It is not really great for most types of hunting, but very easy to carry and handle. Mine was especially easy to carry and handle because I changed the stock, and a few other little things, to improve its portability and quick shooting ability in the field.

The problem came a decade ago when some ignorant twits in Congress labeled rifles they thought looked mean as "assault rifles" and unconstitutionally banned them. And, as it happened, my little 30 caliber rifle, although handy as heck, just happened to look mean to the uninformed. Hence, it became illegal in that configuration.

Making it legal again was easy. All I did was change the stock back to the original and stopped using the large capacity magazines in public. This in no way made the rifle any less of a weapon. Nor was it any less deadly. But, I suppose, changing it back to the legal configuration, in some people's uninformed eyes, made the carbine look a little "kinder and gentler."

But, that's all over now. That silly assault weapons law is no more. My little carbine can get properly dressed for the field again.

Of course, crawling out of the woodwork came the anti-Second Amendment nuts. Sarah Brady appeared on the forged documents TV network last week saying the gun ban lapse was "purely political." And, of course, she blamed President Bush: "The real onus fell on President George W. Bush. He has exerted absolutely no leadership. We have a president and leadership in the House and Senate that simply do not want to face this."

Actually, Bush showed fine leadership in an election year. He publicly said he would sign another assault weapons ban, if Congress passed one -- knowing very well that not even Democrats in Congress would dare try any such thing this year. In effect, Bush stayed above that argument, as he should.

Not Kerry, though. Kerry used it as yet another topic to whine about. Speaking to a Washington Audience, Kerry said: "Today George Bush made the job of terrorists easier and made the job of America's law enforcement officers harder and that's just plain wrong." Then he mumbled something about having a $5 billion plan to fight crime.

There are a few interesting -- and inconvenient for Kerry -- facts about guns and crime. For the past decade or so states have been passing concealed carry laws. Therefore, in over 30 states, any adult without a criminal record can take a couple gun use classes and get a permit to carry. Many thousands of people have done just that, too.

Which means, many thousands of American citizens are legally walking around armed and trained in when and how (and when not) to use whatever they are carrying. Has anyone ever heard of these legally carrying citizens shooting up someplace inappropriately? It may have happened at some point, but it is certainly not common.

Fact is, the Justice Department reported that the nation's crime rate is steadily holding at the lowest levels since 1973.

No matter, though. Kerry outlined a $5 billion, 10-year anti-crime agenda. The Kerry cronies say the plan will cut crime by restoring the assault weapons ban, fund the COPS program better, ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies get access to the national terrorist lists, and increase scrutiny of purchases at gun shows. Kerry also mentioned enforcing existing gun laws and cracking down on interstate gun trafficking. Then, Kerry said that he can crack down on gang violence by increasing gang members' access to jobs, job training, school and drug rehabilitation.

Did we say that the nation's crime rate is down to a 30 year low? Yeah, we did.

What big government loving socialists like John Kerry cannot understand is that, as the number of armed citizens increases, crime decreases. That's because it's damned inconvenient for crooks to rob an armed citizen. And when a lot of people are carrying concealed, the bad guys get confused about who they can target -- lest they themselves become a target.

An armed society is a safe society. For some reason, Democrats do not like that.

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)[1] has sponsored all general election presidential debates since 1988. We always question the way these debates are set up, but never mind that for the moment; there are more important things to talk about this year. For instance, as usual, there is no "balance" to the debates this year.

The first presidential debate is scheduled for Sept. 30 at the University of Miami and is to deal with domestic policy. The third debate is scheduled for Oct. 13 at Arizona State University and the topic is foreign affairs.

The second debate is more interesting, and silliest. That is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 8 at Washington University in St. Louis and they want it to feature the hackneyed "town hall" format. Therein, "undecided voters will question the candidates on any issue."

Right. Anyone believing that audience will be normal walk-in voters who are politically undecided needs a serious reality check.

Again this year, CPD stacked the deck against the Republican candidate with their pick in moderators. Jim Lehrer, host of PBS' "News Hour," is to moderate the presidential debates -- with the assistance of ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Bob Schieffer. The CPD also picked Gwen Ifill, a "News Hour" correspondent and moderator of PBS' "Washington Week," as moderator for the debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards.

Anyone else see a pattern here yet? It's a set up by the Democrats and their media friends. All the questioners are flaming liberals. There is not even a moderate, let alone even one conservative.

Well folks, as can be expected, we have a better idea. Herein, the new Fiedor Commission on Presidential Debates (FCPD) makes its picks for moderators and questioners from a vast field of very knowledgeable people.

For moderators, we pick Fred Thompson and Tony Blankley [2].

Thompson is a lawyer, actor, retired Senator (and important committee chairman) and now actor again. Thompson knows all the issues, without exception.

Blankley is a journalist. As press secretary for Newt, when Newt was Speaker of the House, Tony Blankley became well schooled on political issues. As the current editorial page editor for the Washington Times, Blankley also qualifies as a noted journalist.

As an alternative moderator, we would pick Brit Hume of Fox News, simply because he knows the current issues and everyone likes him. Or, Dick Army, retired House Majority Leader.

For questioners, there's a long list of people much more qualified and conversant on the issues than any chosen by the CPD. Among those would be Economics Professor and pundit Walter E. Williams[3] -- what great fun that would be to watch! Lawyer and pundit Ann Coulter[4] is eminently qualified. So would be Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin[5].

Neil Cavuto from Fox News would bring interesting economic questions. John Gibson of Fox News would be expected to ask a few no-nonsense political questions.

We must not forget the ever-present talk radio personalities, though. Rush Limbaugh[6], of course, has an excellent handle on the issues. Rush would not only ask some very good questions, he would also help to raise the viewing audience to new highs.

So would another broadcaster with 40 years radio experience: Dale Sommers[7].

Who is Dale Sommers, some readers are asking now. . . . Many of the midnight workers know Dale by his alter ego, The Truckin' Bozo, on his nationally syndicated radio program by the same name. The Republicans want the vote of working folks and The Bozo has talked to them all night every night for a couple decades.

Let's not let the handle of "The Bozo" get in the way here. When "Dale Sommers" comes on the air, he is every bit as professional and knowledgeable as Rush Limbaugh. He also commands a huge audience that is comprised of folks from all walks of life and he can be expected to handle himself quite well in the questioning department.

So, what we have done here is put together a group of moderators and questioners that can be expected to ask the presidential candidates rather tough and pointed questions. All are media people and well versed in those rules. But, each also has their own unique viewpoint, knowledge and abilities. Which means, each would ask direct questions which would be much more interesting to the rest of us than the liberal journalists picked by CPD could or would.

1. <http://www.debates.org/>

2. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm>

3. <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/archive.shtml>

4. <http://www.anncoulter.org/>

5. <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/archive.shtml>

6. <http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html>

7. <http://www.thebozo.com/>

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.

fron317.htm. Revised 9-19-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.