Moderates in the World.

Strikes me as odd that Wapo does countless stories that they think will politically harm the Republicans, yet they ignore the flip side of the coin.

Paul Morrison, a career prosecutor who specializes in putting killers behind bars, has the bulletproof resume and the rugged looks of a law-and-order Republican, which is what he was until last year. That was when he announced he would run for attorney general -- as a Democrat.

What they ignore by simple virtue of being the rag they are, is people such as myself and a few of the people who have made comments here and sent me emails. We, the former Democrats, that will be voting Republican this year and probably for more to come.

Below I have a few notes on how al-Qaeda uses papers such as NYT and Wapo as part of the war on terror.

My reasons start with National Security, I firmly believe the Democrats do not have a clue on how to keep the country safe. As I pointed out clearly yesterday, people like Charles Rangel cannot even understand the basic laws that separate a POW from a terrorist in custody.

His opposition to the Military Commissions Act-2006: Where he uses the terms combatants or prisoners of war, referring to the terrorist detainees, which in and of itself shows his lack of understanding of our laws.

To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.

Prisoner of war status is NOT granted to terrorists according to our laws.

Then we have Democrats like Hillary Clinton, and her desire for "common good"

At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to "punish" people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her.The woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.

With Democrats like this running, we do not NEED terrorist to terrorize us, we have Democrats!!!

So, back on point, there are many like myself out there, that will be voting for Republicans this year, yet Wapo and NYT choose to ignore this, they shouldn't. There are more of us than you think.

They ignore this because it does not fit into their media bias or their political agenda. Just because they choose to ignore the obvious, does not mean we choose to. No one can say what will happen on election day, yet they seem to think that despite their obvious bias, people will still see them as "credible". This is a mistake. Not one person I know or have spoken to or have corresponded with online has ever claimed that the Washington Post was objective, nor the New York Times for that matter.

To be considered credible, one must show credibility and sadly, Wapo has none and neither does NYT, who is already preparing "excuses" for the Democrats if and when they lose in Novemeber.

One more point as the old expression goes, last but not least. It is media outlets like NYT and Wapo, that encourage the terrorists to continue, they use these media outlets to undermine the war on terror, to pressure the administration to "cut and run" and expel the Americans from Iraq. This is stated clearly in the letters that have been intercepted from al-Qaeda..... so in effect, Wapo and NYT are "helping" the terrorists. This is how I see it and if you think about it and read those letter, you will too. One of those letters are linked in my piece "Media Helps Al-qaeda".

Others Posting: Outside The Beltway, Fredom Eden, Iowa Voice, Musings of a Real Texas Cowgirl, Mudville Gazette, Ex-Donkey Blog,

Dealing with yet another side of this is Right Truth with "America's Enemies want Democrats to Win". (A must read)

Don Surber also speaks to Insurgents endorsing Democrats.