While propaganda is and has been at its peak from the American left, including the major networks like CBS and much of the American media, this article will seek to cut right to the truth as to what is at the heart of why president Bush won the American presidency again.

First and foremost the number one reason was not terrorism, not the war in Iraq, not the economy, but in fact it was moral values, as noted by numerous surveys. Throughout the United States polls showed this to be true. The American people understand that president Bush stands for what is morally right. As an example we only need take the issue of partial birth abortion. Many do not even truly know what partial birth abortion is. Let us make no mistake about what it is here, let's clearly define it.  Partial birth abortion is performed late in gestation, not in the first, and often times not even in the second trimester. Frequently this procedure occurs 5 months or more into gestation.  It occurs in a period of pregnancy where thousands of successful births have occurred.  The brutal immoral practice of partial birth abortion is performed as follows:

“The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.”

Many liberal left Americans, including democrats like senator John Kerry, feel it is a woman’s right to choose to abort a pregnancy.  Senator Kerry even voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.  How he or anyone justifies this belief with their moral values or faith, whether or not their beliefs stem from religion, no one really knows.  But in the aforementioned procedure, since it occurs so late in pregnancy, life is not in question.  Therefore, the practice of partial birth abortion is quite clearly a murder of an unborn, helpless, and real person. 

As we now know from the 2004 vote and the number one reasons Americans cast their votes as they did (Moral values), the majority do not agree with the right to murder.  It is immoral, particularly in the case of partial birth abortion.  The majority of Americans see abortion, and especially partial birth abortion, as an abomination and as murder.  This is based largely on their moral values.  Whether or not their moral values are derived from thier faith (e.g. A belief that human "rights" come from a higher moral power or authority) is irrelevant.  Further, the fact is that the majority of Americans feel moral values are critically important to this nation and its leadership.  The majority of Americans will not tolerate a leader whose morality allows him to justify the type of murder that partial birth abortion is.  Let's be clear about that as well, so that we all understand that a partial birth aborion is in fact the murder of a real but unborn person who can not protect themselves.  Thusly, touting a "woman's right to choose" is not excuse for turning our backs on morality or disregarding a helpless defenseless persons right to life.  Nor does touting "seperation of church and state" and turning the morality of an issue into a religious debate justify the murder of a helpless, defenseless, and innocent human being.  Simply put, there is no justification for the immoral act of murdering an unborn child through a partial birth abortion, nor any other helpless defenseless human being.  An American does not have a "right" to murder another person, particularly one that can not defend themselves.  The majority of Americans simply do not belive there is a "right" in the world that justifies this type of brutal murder.  Do you believe that someone has the "right" to murder a helpless, innocent, and defenseless human being?  In fact, lets take this line of thought and philosophy even a step further and examine what exactly a "right" is.  What is a "right" to you?  Who grants our "rights" and on what basis is judgement made on whether or not a "right" is granted?

The majority of Americans seem to understand that a "right" particularly basic human rights, are not granted by men or governments.  Rather a right, as in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are directly tied to some greater moral framework.  This is the very foundation of our nation.  It was the belief of our forefathers that all men are created equal and bestowed upon them by thier creator are certain human and unalienable rights.   Therefore, a "right" particularly a basic human right like the "right to life" must be tied to a higher moral power from which morality and moral values are derived.  Therefore, people and Americans in particular, can not and do not derive their moral values, therefore thier rights, especially basic human rights, from governments or other men. 

The founders of this great nation of course recognized this, as they so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Certainly they had wisdom, and in escaping tyranny and oppression themselves they found it imperative to define very clearly where rights come from, right up front in their new democracy.  They did this plainly in Americas Declaration of Independence as noted below.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Let us make no mistake about it. The founders of this great nation defined very clearly that "rights", especially the three mentioned above, are not granted by government or man, but rather are endowed upon all men (This means men, women, and children of all nations) by their creator. They truly suggest right in the Declaration of Independence that a right comes from a higher moral power, in the case of America the Christian God, and that man was intended to be free and had basic human rights.  Further, if men of any nation were oppressed then they have a right to pursue certain these human and unalienable rights that are endowed upon all men by their creator.

Let us also make no mistake about the fact that partial birth abortion is in fact the taking of a helpless defenseless life.  It is murder plain and simple.  Certainly to most who have raised happy healthy children, a simple look into the childs eyes and their incredible gaze back into yours is all that need be experienced to solidify this view.  We should not soon forget that a child is a huge part of the world and life of a parent, yet to that child, the parent truly is thier entire world.  Children are in awe of their parents, they are also completely helpless, wonderous, at times annoying, but always loving, trusting, and totally dependent on the parent. 

In any case, whether or not these moral values or beliefs stem from faith, and regardless of what faith, killing and particularly killing a helpless and completely defenseless unborn child is not a "right" that anyone has and the morality behind this is implied.  That said, where there is morality we can only look to a higher moral authority and framework that guides us.  This is not to say that all killing is immoral, because certainly killing as it applies to carrying out justice may, in many cases be justified and within the greater moral framework of a particular faith, religion, or greater moral reference.  For many, even those who believe in a God, Christian or otherwise, killing to enforce justice is not immoral.  But to the vast majority the murder of a helpless, defenseless, or unborn person is.  So too is the practice of brutally killing through a tortorous act, even when carrying out justice.  So even though it is deemed immoral by the American majority to perform partial birth abortion, or quite possibly any abortion, the majority in the Democratic Party and the American liberal left will argue for a woman’s right to choose.  Yet they can not seem to logically or reasonably justify this with their values, morals, beliefs, or faith.  It's as if they are in direct conflict with themselves and their own values, beliefs, and faith or religion.  In fact this is why it often appears as if they are talking out of both sides of thier mouths.  This is especially true for the American liberal left, particularly those liberals or democrats that contend to be Christian or otherwise take their faith seriously. 

Now, if that weren't enough, here is an absolutely unbelievable display of the liberal mindset and a glimmering example of liberal views and how they, even unknowingly talk out both sides of their mouths.  A state like California, liberal as they are, are supportinve of a womans right to choose, thus they support abortion.  You may be thinking yes so whats the point?  Well, that same state then decides that someone can be guilty of murdering an unborn child and they go ahead and put that person on trial for the murder of the unborn.  Therefore they are recognizing the unborn child as a life.  So which is it?  Is killing an unborn child illegal for some but not for others? 

Such is the case with the Scott Peterson murder trial in California where Californians celebrated and cheered as the verdict came in when Scott Peterson was found guilty of murdering his wife, and also guilty of murdering his unborn child with whom his wife was pregnant.  Don't take this wrong.  This author is not defending the actions of Scott Peterson in any way, shape, or form.  However, this begs the question and we must ask ourselves; If the liberal left considers this proper justice and a man can be guilty or even put on trial for murdering an unborn child, then why is it ok for a woman to kill an unborn child through abortion or partial birth abortion?  After all, if its murder for Scott Peterson then we must recognize that unborn child as a life.  He certainly didn't get conviceted for murdering a child that was not recognized as a life yet.  Otherwise he could not be charged for murder in our justice system. 

Therefore, if we are recognizing the unborn child in the Scott Peterson case as a life, then certainly a woman taking that very same unborn life when aborting her pregnancy must also be the killing of that very same unborn life.  If the abortion were also a murder, then at least the taking of a helpless innocent life and charging a man with murder would be justified.  Accordingly, it should be illegal for a woman to take that same innocent, helpless, and unborn childs life.  Because certainly if Scott Peterson can be charged for a murder for purposely taking the life of an unborn child, so to should a woman be charged for murder when killing that same unborn child.  Otherwise, if Scott Peterson can be charged for murdering an unborn child considered a life in his case, how then can anyone turn around and say that abortion or partial birth abortion is not really taking a life?  Or reversed, if it is ok and legal for a woman to purposely terminate the life of a helpless unborn child because he or she is not considered a life, how can anyone justify charging Scott Peterson with the crime of murder against the same unborn child? 

This whole quagmire makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is yet another example of the liberal left talking out of both sides of their mouths and wanting it both ways.  Either the case against Scott Peterson for murdering the unborn child is unjust because murder of the unborn takes place every day by women having abortions or partial birth abortions, or allowing a woman to murder her own unborn child is unjust and should be illegal.  So which is it?  The liberal left is so afraid of the moral issue and implications of faith and religion that it is simply ridiculous and they appear to have gone off the deep end on these types of issues.  Californians and their state judicial system have determined that abortion or partial birth abortion is a womans right and she can kill the unborn child because in fact the unborn child is not really a life until he or she is born.  Yet this same state will charge Scott Peterson with murder of an unborn child and apparently in this case the unborn child is considered a life, otherwise there could be no murder charge because one can certainly not murder something that is not alive. 

Again, this is simply absurd and a prime example of why President Bush, who stands on his moral values, won the presedential election again in 2004.  He stands on his moral values knowing full well that many in the liberal left will disagree but also knowing that his moral values are good, righteous, and truly American values.  They are the moral values this great nation was founded on, even if faith based, and he makes important decisions on these decidedly American moral values.  However, he does not impose his faith on anyone nor does he imply that anyone who doesn't share his faith is bad or wrong.  Further, if folks do not believe in the moral values that this nation was founded upon, the door is open for them to leave and go live somewhere else.  America certainly does not hold its citizens hostage as is done in many other nations.

This is but one example of moral values where president Bush and Senator Kerry differed significantly. Again, here it should be restated that the majority of people in the United States of America, a free and sovereign nation, feel that moral values are the number one quality they seek in their leaders.

Thus, the majority of Americans in this case disagree with the liberal left, the Democratic Party, and senator John Kerry.  Further, since America is largely a Christian country founded by Christian people, the majority in American derive their moral values (Their greater framework of reference) from their religious beliefs and faith.  No, they do not impose these beliefs on others, but they do feel their nation’s "rights" afforded its citizens should be derived from a moral framework that is noble, just, honorable, fair, and stem from those morals beliefs and rights that this great nation was founded on.  They believe that those rights and moral values that this nation was founded on need to remain intact as intended by its founders.  They believe this will keep America a prosperous and good place to live in peace and freedom.  The majority also believe that this is what differentiates America from those with inferior moral values and belief systems like the barbarians that are beheading innocent, helpless, and defenseless civilians elsewhere in the world.  The majority of Americans believe that for America to remain the land of opportunity we need to stay true to the basic human rights this nation was founded on.  They also believe that in staying true to these beliefs America can fulfill its ethical and moral obligations to aid and assist others from opression and the tyranny around the globe.  The American majority does in fact believe their moral values are superior to those of others with significantly different moral values.  Just take for example the terrorists beheading innocent civilians.  This author would most certainly submit, and the majority of the world would agree, that the moral values of the majority of Americans are unquestionably superior to these terrorists and any faith, ideaology, or government they may believe in or serve that would justify their ungodly, cruel, and inhumane brutality.

Terrorists behead their victims (Almost all innocent, helpless, defenseless civilians) by hand and by cutting through an innocent civilians neck and throat with a machetti.  They continue to slice the neck of thier innocent civilian victim as blood begins to spurt from the neck everywhere.  Then the terrorist continues to yank the head back from under the chin or by the hair and digs in harder and deeper with the machetti, leaning in and getting some leverage, while continuing to rapidly slice and hand cut faster and harder into the neck and throat of the victim to carve open and more deeply slit the neck and throat all around and under the jawline.  They continue until the half severed head can really be yanked back to open up the neck and let the blood really gush out. Meanwhile the victim gurgles and writhes in pain as their blood gushes all over from the now wide open neck, throat, arteries, and veins.  As the blood begins to pour from the neck and throat, other internal pieces of the victims neck (Chunks of internals) begin to fall to the floor with the gushing blood.  It is likely the victim can still see, hear, and feel some of this as they are brutally tortured and put to an agonizing death by having thier head sliced off manually while they are alive and aware of what is transpiring.  The terrorist continues to hack and saw at the victims neck and head until the audible crunching and cutting of the spinal cord is heard.  All the while the victims body below the neck is still flailing about but being held in place by other terrorists.  Finally these barbarians hold their victims decapitated head up to show the camera and begin chanting in the name of Allah!  These are truly animals, barbarians, satins children, and the scum of the earth for whom there is absolutely no earthly just punishment.  Certainly, these barbarians will spend an eternity damned in hell.  Again, this author submits that Americans have a significantly higher moral standard and far superior moral values than these hideous vermen.  Yet some in the American left have almost as little respect for the life of an unborn child, as is clearly evidenced in the case of partial birth abortion.

However, it is not implied that Americans have any desire whatsoever to impose their moral values on others as long as some basic human rights are honored.  In particular, Americans in large part want to be left out of the battles of those outside America, until and unless there is a direct threat to America herself or if there is a tyranny and oppression such that the people of any nation are suffering crimes against humanity.  

Some prime examples of societies that oppress large segments of their population and rule through tyranny and oppression were the Taliban in Afghanastan and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  These were nations where women were forced to walk behind men, many people had no basic human rights, no other faith is tolerated, obedience is expected and disobedience is punishable by death, women were considered the property of men, were forced to cover their faces in public, and public murders and beheadings were commonplace and often performed without cause on innocent, including women and children.  In these and similar circumstances Americans truly believe their moral values are superior.  However, historically even this brutality and oppression has not caused America to come to defense of oppressed and tyrranized people.  The American majority certainly believes we do have an ethical and moral obligation to help the oppressed.  After all, we know better than most that freedom is certainly worth fighting for.  This is not to say Americans are intolerant to other ways of life, other religious faiths, or other belief systems.  By the same respect it does mean that in certain circumstances Americans believe that their moral values are superior and that they are often times obligated to help those living in tyranny and oppression.

This moral and philosophical mindset also applies to other significant issues of our time here in America.  For instance, the right of gays and lesbians to marry.  Many feel that allowing gay and lesbian marriage will impugn the sanctity of marriage.  In marriage the majority of Americans see a certain morality and a promise made between a man and a woman, and in many instances sworn to before their god.  The majority of Americans believe that to allow gay and lesbian marriage would be to allow the degradation of the very fabric of their society through this immoral act.  The majority feel that by allowing the sanctity of marriage to be compromised the degradation of the family and its moral values would soon follow.  Americans in 11 states spoke loudly and clearly on this issue in the 2004 election when they were able to vote on allowing or disallowing gay marriage in these 11 states.  Overwhelmingly it was opposed.

As for the war on Iraq, the majority of Americans, based on all the available data and intelligence at the time the decision was made to go to Iraq, were largely in favor of military action.  This includes the liberal left and John Kerry.  All available intelligence throughout the world, including Russia, the United Kingdom, and many other nations, indicated that the regime in Iraq very likely had weapons of mass destruction.  Prior to September 11th America may have taken no action and continued with the patience and restraint they had shown for 12 long years.  After September 11th everything changed.  In the aftermath of September 11th the majority of Americans realize that they certainly can not in hindsight fault the current administration for acting to protect the American people.  Further, it is ridiculous and an insult to the intelligence of the American people for a presidential candidate to in hindsight denounce the war in Iraq and begin a campaign on how things could have and should have been done differently.  It is especially nonsensical when that same candidate that was in favor of military action in Iraq.  Yet senator Kerry and the American liberal left continue to condemn the current administration and state that the current administration should have and Senator Kerry would have done things differently.  Obviously this is all in hindsight and was not their opinion nor the opinion of the majority of Americans at the time we went into Iraq.

The regime in Iraq had a long and storied history of using weapons of mass destruction.  They have done so against their neighbors and even their own people.  The Iraqi regime oppressed its own people, murdered its own people, and the regime there ruled by tyranny and oppression.  It lost a war in 1990 to America and her allies after invading the sovereign nation of Kuwait.  Yet unlike the losers of other wars throughout history the Iraqi regime was not dismantled, it did not comply with the terms of surrender, and subsequently it ignored the call of the world and the United Nations for more than 12 years.  The United Nations (The great debating society) is a great concept and corrupt as it may be, it did agree to sanction, condemn, and draft resolutions against Iraq that practically the entire world agreed with.  However, Iraq repeatedly ignored these resolutions and the UN of course did nothing to enforce their resolutions or sanctions.  But of course why would the UN members agree to action against Iraq, many of them have received millions if not tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from the Iraqi regime.  The corruption at the UN runs deep and the UN certainly did not have Americas best interest in mind.  Nor did the UN ever really truly consider the oppressed and tyrranized people of Iraq.  Even though America attempted to work with the UN for a whopping 12 years to make certain the sanctions and resolutions were enforced, the fact is America and the UN failed.  Therefore the Iraqi regime continued to defy the free world, ignore the terms of their surrender, and completely disregarded the UN resolutions.

After September 11^th the world changed forever, especially for Americans.  Americans, long sheltered from events in the rest of the world, were completely united and overwhelmingly agreed that it would no longer stand by and await another attack from nations that pose a threat.  America has long realized the problem of terrorism but after the real wake up call on September 11th they overwhelmingly agreed that action was required and they would do whatever necessary to avoid another September 11th or worse.  To the majority of Americans this means that as necessity dictates American will act against any nation that poses a threat or that in any way aids or harbors terrorists.  Also, although it can not be said that Iraq was directly tied to the events of September 11^th , let us not confuse this with the fact that the Iraqi regime supported and aided terrorist groups in the middle east and around the globe for many years.  In fact the regime was a terrorist regime themselves, as evidenced by thier brutality in thier own country as well as their invasion against their neighbor, the soverign nation of Kuwait.  Since America was attacked the view of the majority of Americans has forever changed.  This view drove the overwhelming majority in America to approve the actions America took in Iraq based on all the available information and intelligence at that time.  This majority included many liberal Americans and a majority of democrats in both houses of congress.  Of course John Kerry played whatever side suited his politics at the moment.  So he voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it, as he so eloquently stated.

This type of wavering on such an important issue combined with his liberal views and voting record, including but not limited to his vote against a ban on partial birth abortion, for gay and lesbian marriage, and numerous other radically liberal votes and positions put him out of touch with the majority of Americans and certainly out of touch with the moral values of the majority of Americans.  Obviously there are many less educated voters in America, many of whom are in large inner citiy America.  In Americas larger cities, immorality in many areas is rampant, murders more frequent, rape is more frequent, teen pregnancies more common, durg use is and drug related problems are higher, overall crime rates higher, educational test scores are lower, and religious faith is lower.  These are highly populated areas and these are the states where democratic liberalism won the day in the election.  The majority of votes that catapaulted the democrats to victory came from big inner city areas in those states (See County Maps of Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and others).  In some cases the entire remainder of the state was a republican red, so the inner city vote, typically a less worldly and frequently less moral vote, won Kerry the state. 

Further, on the international issues Kerry fell short with those Americans who really paid attention to his positions.  In fact he declared in one debate with president Bush that he would have worked with the international community and criticized president Bush for rushing to war in Iraq.  Then he turned right around and said that he would abandon the six nation talks with North Korea and pursue bilateral talks with them.  So he directly contradicted his position that he would make every effort to work with the international community on important issues.  So was he for more international cooperation and if so why then would he abondon 6 nation talks with North Korea in favor of his own bilateral talks with them.  His condemnation of president Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq was done of course to appease America’s anti-war contingent and in hindsight.  Again this showed John Kerry’s true values and the fact that he only speaks typical political rhetoric, takes both sides of issues, and has no core values, convictions, or beliefs that will truly guide him in his decision making.  Rather he will say whatever politically suits him at a specific moment in time and with a certain contingent of voters.  The American majority saw right through his rhetoric and to his lack of core values, beliefs, and convictions.  The American majority decided there was no room in the office of the President of the United States for this type of person.  They believe it is not in our nation’s best interest domestically to have a leader that exhibits these qualities.  They also believe that this type of leader will not serve American interests well in the long run internationally.  The majority of Americans believe that someone that can not take a stance on a position and base that position on the values that this nation was founded on does not belong leading this nation.  They believe this lack of conviction and moral values would not make America safer from terrorism nor would it make America a better place live.

Rather the majority of Americans believe that one of the most important qualities if not the single most important quality for the leader of the most powerful nation on earth is to have good, sound, righteous, moral values.  Americans believe that the leader of their nation needs the conviction to let these universally good moral values guide his or her decision making on important issues.  Americas majority believes that America is a nation whose state of being if founded on the principles of Freedom stemming from rights granted to all men by a higher moral power.  They feel that from position of morality with solid, wholesome, and good moral values their leader would be better able govern and be a more effective leader.

Finally, this election was not all about bible thumpers in the heartland of America being the majority. It was about the majority of middle America having real family and moral values regardless of where those moral values are derived from.  It was about the rural American family, the suburban American family, the farmer, middle America, and the core values shared among this majority.  It was about true middle American moral values being different than those in the democratic party of those living in large cities.  It was about differences in the values of large inner city dwellers to those in suburban or rural America (The majority).  It was about important social issues and moral values, or lack thereof in some large cities.  And it was about what is acceptable as a whole for America in terms of moral values. 

As noted by the 2004 election maps of red and blue (denoting Republican and Democrat states), the republican moral values are spread far and wide across this country and are most certainly the majority. These shared American moral values are in counties in all states all across this land, and even in those blue democratic states where the large cities exist.  Of course the large cities themselves went the way of democratic liberal blue, but in most cases the remainder of the state was largely republican red.  Even in states where the large cities exist and liberal democratic values won the state, it was largely because the entire state was carried by the population of the a major citiy and not the entire rest of the state (See County Maps of Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and others).

Understanding these facts, these maps, the real vote, and the true honorable, noble, righteous moral values shared by Americans in the majority, who are spread far and wide across this nation, should give you a better understanding of why president Bush truly won this election.

Whatever you believe, be cautious about believing the slanted and biased liberal American media. Further, as an honorable moral person living anywhere on this earth, please understand that it is the values shared by Americans, including our moral values and our freedoms that make America the one nation more than any other, that people from around the globe want to migrate to.  It is these moral values, our freedoms, and our system of democracy that invalidates and stands against tyranny and oppression and will disallows it from winning out in our homeland.  Therefore the majority in America has spoken.  It is our moral values, our freedom, and the rights we we believe are endowed upon all men of all lands by their creator that makes America the super power it is today. 

Finally, it is our moral obligation to aid others in achieving these same rights and freedoms, if they desire them, that makes America a beacon of liberty and freedom to the oppressed and tyrranized everywhere.