We're getting close to Election Day 2004 and the Kerry campaign is feeling the stress. Even with 90% of the media acting like an arm of the Kerry campaign, Kerry is still losing.

Of course, Kerry's neighbor (at one of his mansions), a fellow named George Soros, got himself into the act by contributing about $18-million to the socialist committees of darkness in the background. The dark side thought they could use the money to defeat Bush this year by being extremely negative. Silly Soros, all he did was make a few political pikers rich. Oh, and it went far to prove just how much of a scam that Campaign Finance Reform Act really is.

According to the Wall Street Journal last week[1], "John Kerry got things going over the weekend with an accusation that President Bush is planning a 'January surprise' to 'privatize' Social Security. And, right on time, his campaign is rolling out an ad that claims Mr. Bush 'has a plan that cuts Social Security benefits by 30% to 45%.'"

John Kerry is rather ignorant on his own, to be sure. But, in the case of those ridiculous Social Security statements, Kerry had a little help from Bob Shrum, who pulled the same stupid tactic while advising Gore.

As the Wall Street Journal adeptly pointed out, Kerry "certainly hasn't left himself much room for leadership. His campaign Web site says: 'As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security or privatize Social Security.' These promises simply can't all be kept. There is a choice to be made."

Kerry, of course, has a record on Social Security we can look into. To start with, Kerry missed 36 of 38 votes on Medicare reform and prescription drug benefits, including the final vote on the bill. So, we must assume these topics are not among his major interests. Nonetheless, Kerry somehow found the time to vote five times for a formula that required Medicare premium increases. Yes, and it's that very same 17% increase in Medicare premiums starting next year Kerry was harping about -- blaming Bush. Well, Kerry voted for the Balanced Budget act of 1997 that mandated the increase. The Clinton/Kerry tax hike on Social Security benefits increased taxes on seniors making as little as $34,000 per year.

Kerry always seems to be able to show up for work for a tax increase vote. So, let's look how Kerry really wants to "fix" Social Security -- based on his actual record:

Back in 1996, Kerry called for raising the retirement age, means-testing benefits, lifting the cap on payroll taxes, and lowering COLA increases. In 1998, Kerry said we should spend the surplus on other government programs, not give Social Security any additional funds, and instead make it solvent by lowering COLA increases. In 2004, Kerry said of Republican plans for taking action and reform: "No, I rejected that. We looked at that and we found that we don't have to do it."

As it turns out, John Kerry voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits eight times: Including, twice for Clinton's $241 billion tax hike and three times to keep the Social Security tax hike in the Clinton budget.

I may never agree with every little thing proposed by the Republicans on this issue (never have), but at least the ideas proposed by President Bush stand a good chance of working.

I believed President Bush when he told a huge crowd in New York (and 28-million on TV): "We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away."

Unlike with Kerry, President Bush understands the problem and means to make some constructive changes. There will be no "January Surprise" from the Bush administration. It will be a correction that argues its way through Congress over weeks. Which means, we all get to kibitz some.

On the other hand, don't be surprised to hear Kerry change his story on Social Security two more times before the election. That's the problem: We cannot pin him down on anything because he keeps changing his story.

1. <http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005777>

Folks are complaining that government took God out of public life, but they fear trying to do anything about it. Much of our common language is now censored in favor of "political correctness" and it probably will not be long before making any derogatory remark will be a federal felony. Today, instead of teaching kids patriotism and American history in school, parents stand by and allow their kids to be taught the feel-good benefits and joys of foreign cultures by socialist leaning public school teachers. Even in government schools, American patriotism is somehow painted in a bad light in favor of just about any other culture.

Many Americans rant and rave about these and other changes, but they fear taking action. Instead, they go to the polls and vote for the very people responsible for instituting these changes: The Socialist-Democrats.

Certainly, there are also a number of Republicans in government who are just barely on the good side of being pure socialists, and we will start weeding them out shortly. Right now, let's just talk about those Members of Congress who actually attend socialist meetings -- and identify some of those who would be in major leadership positions if the Democrats win the House in November.

Over the past few years, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and its arm in Congress, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have begun to brag outwardly that they have the same goals. What the DSA admits, but the Progressive Caucus has not outwardly disclosed yet, is that their socialist goals include the downfall of our Constitutional form of government and much stronger government controls on the American people.

With the help of House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Progressive Caucus[1] socialists cover most major House committees and many of them are "ranking members" -- which means they would become the committee's chairman if their party wins a majority in the House.

For instance, picture that idiot from Detroit, John Conyers (D-MI), as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, or the contentious Henry Waxman (D-CA) as chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. Anyone watching any of the hearings over the past few years knows both of them wander between dangerous and useless.

Socialist Charlie Rangel (D-NY) would get the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and Maxine Waters (D-CA) would chair the subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. What new fiscal hell would they initiate?

Barney Frank (D-Mass), whose friend and roommate ran a homosexual outcall prostitution service out of Frank's home, would chair the Housing and Community Opportunity subcommittee. But wait! Major Owens (D-NY) -- famous for his many one hour diatribes about how so many thousands of slaves were tossed overboard when the slave ships were bringing them here that the sharks still today follow the ship's paths looking for more -- would chair the Workforce Protection subcommittee. Or, picture Jerry Nadler (D-NY) trying to chair the Commercial Law subcommittee.

The cold hard fact we should remember this November is that there are 54 members of the Progressive Caucus in the House -- card carrying socialists, one and all. That is, there are 53 Democratic-socialists and one independent-socialist in the House who outwardly align themselves with the domestic arm of the Socialist International. Most of the group have been in Congress long enough to become ranking members on their respective committees.

Which means that, if by some chance Democrats win the House next month, Nancy Pelosi becomes the first outwardly socialist Speaker of the House (and third in line for President of the United States) and her Progressive Caucus (socialist) members are in place to chair many of the important House committees. Therefore, voting for any House Democrat this year is the same as putting these socialists closer to controlling the whole House.

So . . . now, who is going to pull which lever at the poll next November?

A few of the so-called Republicans running for Congress are not a whole lot better than the Democrats. But, they are better. And, as a group, Republicans will be much easier for us to deal with.

1. <http://bernie.house.gov/pc/>

It's that time again, folks. This is our time to send all the liberals searching for their Prozac. It's time we extract our pound of retribution from each of their socialist hides. And the best way to do that is to vote straight Republican.

Unfortunately, we rejected some of the most Constitutionally oriented candidates in the primary process. No matter, though. We can still work with those we have running.

The Republicans are, after all, an electable bunch. Sure, I can nit-pick and find problems with most of them. Nevertheless, collectively, the Republicans are fielding a pretty good group -- for the moment. I mean, let's face it, when we look at the big picture, we all want nearly the same thing: the liberals gone. Well, the only other ones electable are the Republicans. So, that's what needs to be done next month.

After all, we WANT to see wholesale retirement of liberals from Congress. And the oldest, most dangerous of these socialist Cretans will drop out when they see they are never again to be in power. We WANT to watch all those socialist talking heads crying into their microphones when they have to announce a clean sweep of Republicans across the country. We WANT to see a major change in the Washington press corps, which will be necessary because few powerful Republicans will be hobnobbing with the very scribblers who will be trying to take them down. And we most definitely WANT a unified Republican Party running everything in the federal government for at least the next two years so they can better clean house of the entrenched socialist scumbags running that huge, over-reaching leviathan called a regulatory bureaucracy.

Mostly though, we WANT one stop shopping to air our many diverse complaints of local federal bureaucratic abuses. We WANT to know who is in charge because we also WANT to know who is to blame!

And blame we shall. A unified front in government will soon realize that there is a very strong unified front developing out here in the real world and we shall be demanding significant changes -- often with a loud unified voice.

Ah yes, there can be great safety in having a unified party in government because then we all will know exactly who to confront for change in the next primary. No more blaming the Democrats for obstructionism.

Sure, to pump up the Republican numbers in Congress we will have to elect a few of those "Republican In Name Only" (RINO) stooges. But, if we start early next year, we can defeat them in the next primary election and elect real Republicans who will support our liberty. The same applies to those overly authoritarian Republicans who are always so willing to "plug loopholes" in the law and give police nearly unlimited power. They can all be beaten and replaced.

First, though, we must send as many Republicans to Washington as we can. Second, we must instruct them that we want our freedom back and we want all socialists driven out of the federal bureaucracy -- no exceptions.

We can do that. And, if the elected ones want to stay in office, they will obey our wishes. Else, they fall by the wayside in the next primary election. But before we can instruct them, we must vote them into office.

Our job, then, is to aggravate liberals in all sectors of society. It is time the media stop lying to us with their biased reporting. It is time all those far-left non-governmental organizations get de-funded, or at least stop receiving all those fat government grants used to promote their many unconstitutional programs. It is time the federal government gets out of education, the unions get out of government and the whole of the federal government gets paired down to less than six departments and ten agencies.

Our job is to instruct those we send to Washington, then insure they do our bidding. Their job is to lead the federal government back towards a Constitutional form of government. And, any member of government thinking we have a "living Constitution" (arbitrary meaning) should also have an arbitrary tenure that is immediately terminated. That includes judges, too.

So I say, vote straight Republican. They will be much easier than Democrats to control over these next two years and we may be able to institute a bit of Constitutional esprit de corps in enough of them to influence the others. Otherwise, we are sure to get nothing else than more socialism.

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.

fron322.htm. Revised 10-24-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.