Although it is really funny to watch, most of us are getting a bit weary constantly hearing about Dan Rather and his Democratic Party/Kerry campaign-fueled accusations in memogate. This time, the deception of CBS was easily identified and publicly exposed. Unfortunately, that is not always true with the liberal propaganda generally spewed by "Old Media." Quite often, they get away with it.

CBS and Dan Rather now want us to believe they were "misled." No they weren't. Terry McAuliffe at DNC and the Kerry campaign had those memos first. CBS admits that their news producer, Mary Mapes, has been searching that Bush Guard story for years -- practically begging for some type of dirt to turn up. The story was a contrived deception, a coordination between the Kerry campaign, the DNC and Bush haters at CBS.

On September 10, Dan Rather told us: "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be (an) apology."

The arrogance at CBS prevailed. In an absurd announcement, Rather labeled anyone not agreeing with his liberal baloney "partisan political operatives."

Throughout this fiasco, knowledgeable bloggers on the Internet joined forces, traded information and published what they found for comment. There were very extended, in-depth discussions concerning the memos on Free Republic[1]. Drudge posted much of the information and links to some of the discussions. Talk radio jumped on the topic. Fox News presented a lot of the evidence for those without computers to see. And, clearly, CBS quickly became the laughing stock of the Old Media.

It took 10 full days for CBS to finally start to admit they were attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the American people. On September 20, Rather announced: "I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. ... We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry."

Well, too little too late. Dan Rather and CBS attempted to disparage the President of the United States using contrived stories and forged documents. CBS owes President Bush an apology, and that apology should be the same length of air time as the original story. It must be sincere, accurate and identify those CBS producers and staff who worked in the background to perpetrate the fraud.

In other words, CBS must publicly admit its bias. Then, clean house. Otherwise, Viacom might just as well cancel all CBS "news" programming because no one is ever going to take them seriously again. "New Media" is in force now and will be relentlessly fact-checking everything "Old Media" does for both accuracy and bias.

Jonathan Klein, a former senior executive at "60 Minutes," said on Fox News a few days ago that "Bloggers have no checks and balances. . . . (It's) a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas."

Well, Jonathan, take it from someone who has been writing op-eds on this New Media for over ten years: that just is not true at all.

If I make a factual error, I receive 30 to 40 replies within two hours after sending out the newsletter. Many like to correct my spelling and grammar. When posted on interactive sites, it is not uncommon to see disparaging comments simply because the reader did not fully understand the material. Most interesting, though, are the comments from those who do actually understand what I write with great clarity but disagree because their personal political beliefs are way out in the ether of one extreme or another.

"No checks and balances"? The cold hard fact is, we have each other for checks and balances. And, when hundreds or thousands of politically adroit people read the material, every aspect of it can get nitpicked to death within minutes.

That's the way of the New Media. On one hand, this is no forum for the thin-skinned. On the other hand, one can learn a whole lot really fast here.

Clearly, Old Media's days are numbered. New Media is feeling its oats now and will not be reined in by the Old. Simply put, Old Media is just too biased and makes too many subtle errors to keep up with New Media.

Which means, this is probably the last Presidential campaign that Old Media will be able to affect.

1. <http://216.180.225.13/frforgerypdf09154.pdf>

Concerning those forged memos: What did John Kerry know and when did he know it? There are a few seldom mentioned interesting facts that almost answer that question. The accumulation of "facts" do not speak well for John Kerry and his campaign workers at all.

The first interesting tidbit was published in the Sept. 21 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle[1]. The lead paragraph tells the story: "Former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign heard but did not pursue allegations about George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, similar to the information in discredited documents aired by CBS News this month, a former campaign official said Tuesday. Tony Coelho, who ran the campaign for several months in 2000, said he did not follow up on the claims because they were not serious enough to demand further attention."

So, the brash and often obnoxious Al Gore had that information back in 2000, knew it was both false and silly and rejected it.

That makes Kerry, his campaign workers, McAuliffe at the DNC, the news producers at CBS, Dan Rather, and the many so called "journalists" who also ran with the story without fact-checking all look even sillier than they already did. They are either totally dishonest or just plain stupid. Whichever. Take your pick.

Fast forward from Gore to last April[2] and we see the very same information pop up in a crass John Kerry announcement. Because Kerry, in desperation, purposely used the false information. Then, working through a cut-out or two, he marketed it to media friends.

How much of this is supposing and how much is pure fact? Part of that answer is in the impertinent questions Kerry publicly asked last April 27:

-- Bush Has Said He Used No Special Treatment To Get Into The Guard. How Does He Explain The Fact That He Jumped Ahead Of 150 Applicants Despite Low Pilot Aptitude Scores?

-- Col. Albert Lloyd Said A Report From Alabama To Ellington Should Have Been Filed. Where Is That Report?

-- Why Did Bush Miss His Medical Exam In 1972?

-- Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush's Absence From The Exam?

-- Why Did Bush Specifically Request To NOT Be Sent Overseas For Duty?

-- Why Does The White House Say Bush Was On Base When Bush's Superiors Had Filed A Report Saying He Was Gone For A Whole Year?

-- Why Is The Pentagon Under Orders To Not Discuss Bush's Record With Reporters?

-- Where Are Bush's Flight Logs?

-- Why Hasn't Bush Himself Demonstrated That He Showed Up For Service in Alabama?

Obviously, some of these Kerry questions were tossed in to add confusion. Others were crafted from the forged memos. In any case, all this material was discussed completely when Dubya first ran for governor. Therefore, even the Gore campaign knew these were spurious arguments and no longer worthy of addressing.

On the DNC side, Clinton-selected Democratic National Committee chairman McAuliffe also coordinated with the Kerry campaign and CBS (along with an assist from AP and a few newspapers) to keep the myth in the news. The prevaricating Democrats called it "Operation Fortunate Son" -- again based, in part, on documents they knew were Forged[3]. Today, thanks to bloggers and a few honest journalists at Fox News and on talk radio, we know that 100% of that Fortunate Son attack on Dubya is false.

None of that seems to matter, though. The whole of the Democratic Party's war room is still actively trying to keep that garbage in the news.

Kerry, of course, made some attempt to change the topic to Iraq last week. The problem with that was that he also again contradicted himself a few times. That could be why the DNC war room is sticking with the false Bush Guard story. It's all they've got to use. Kerry contradicts everything else that is said.

If the media were doing their job correctly, there would be constant demands for all of Kerry's military records, his wife's IRS records and Kerry's medical and psychiatric records.

1. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/09/21/politics1854EDT0752.DTL&type=printable>

2. <http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29442>

<http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0427b.html>

3. <http://www.democrats.org/fortunateson/>

He who pays the fiddler calls the tune, so they say. And, if anyone thinks it's any different in Washington, they probably have their head stuck someplace it doesn't belong.

Most of us would call what lawmakers get bribes. They don't, though. They call the donations -- the ones accounted for on the record -- "campaign contributions." They call their paid vacation trips -- family and all -- "fact finding tours." Then, of course, there are all the paid golfing outings, ski trips, sporting events, and whatnot, most of which are thousands of miles away from their state. Those are paid business meetings with "constituents," of course.

And us citizens? Uh . . . well . . . are you on the contribution list? If not, you may get to say something to your Member of Congress for two minutes. Maybe. It all depends who your Member is, actually. Contribute a thousand bucks, though, and see how much time you get. Or, form a PAC and contribute $10,000 and you may even be able to influence some legislation.

Remember the peanut subsidy vote a few years back? That ridiculous subsidy survived 212 to 209. Of those 212 voting to keep the subsidy, each received an average of $1,542 from the growers. And the 209 voting against the subsidy? Well, as it turns out, they only received an average of $152 apiece.

Hey! Money talks in Washington.

Here's another example: A few years ago, the Senate voted 54 to 42 to preserve a law allowing timber companies to salvage dead and dying trees on public lands. Those voting to keep the program had received an average of $19,503 in timber industry contributions over the previous five years; those opposed, $2,675.

Ditto for the sugar industry. In a House vote to keep the sugar price subsidy, the 217 voting for the subsidy received an average of nearly $6,000 each. The ones voting against only averaged $853. Senators voting for the subsidy received an average of $13,473, and those voting against only $1,461. That vote ended up costing consumers about fifty cents more for a five pound bag of sugar.

And so it goes. There are many of these "coincidences." Probably hundreds actually, over the years. We have the best Congress money can buy.

This information comes from the Center for Responsive Politics report titled "Cashing In: Money, Votes, and Congress." It's a very interesting report on how campaign contributions affect the vote in Congress. Wander over to <http://www.opensecrets.org/> and see how your Members of Congress stack up in this money for votes game. You may be surprised.

But before you do, ask yourself how we Constitutionalists can play. Do we have to pay them to cast their vote for Liberty? Do we have to pay them to protect our individual rights? Apparently it would help. Slick Willie took money from just about anyone, and regulated accordingly. So do many in Congress. Maybe that's the name of the political game: If we give them enough money, maybe they will leave us alone. . . .

Kind of like the Mafia. You pay the payola, give them the tribute every so often, and maybe they do something to help you when you need it.

It's just like politics in a third world country, too. Except, here the payment is not called bribes. Here, it's called "contributions" or reimbursements for "meetings." Uh huh. It may take a while, but we'll catch on.

This is a really sick way to run a government. It looks bad, but this is how it works. The proof is in the evidence.

Therefore, the question those of us seeking a Constitutional form of government must ask is both simple and very pragmatic: If this is the game, how much does it take to get in? And, what are the rules? What will it take for Liberty loving citizens to start winning?

This is an election year. Let's ask them and find out.

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.

fron318.htm. Revised 10-1-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.