Month: April 2013

Benghazi

Mark Noonan55 Comments

They say its not the crime, but the cover up – but with Benghazi, it might be the crime and the cover up:

At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”…

Good to keep in mind that Nixon was brought down because Dean managed to sucker him in to giving post-facto approval to Dean’s attempted cover up of Watergate – and no one died in Watergate.  Here we’ve got dead people and possible obstruction of justice…and potentially attempted cover ups of both events.

Now, will this topple Obama?  Not a chance.  As long as at least 34 Senators are Democrat, then there is absolutely nothing Obama can do which would result in his conviction by the Senate.  We might do pretty well in the 2014 mid-terms, but we’re not going to win a net of 22 seats.  So, Obama will get the stay on – but it is important that the truth come out for two reasons:

1.  Simple justice.  The dead deserve to have the truth told regarding what happened.  Also, in future Administrations, wise people will take to heart what happened and work against a repeat.

2.  Benghazi doesn’t just mean Obama, it means Hillary – she is, in my view, one of the lowest people we have engaged in politics today, and that is in world where Obama is President and her husband was President.  Keeping her out of the White House would be a patriotic service to our nation – and the truth about Benghazi will be devastating to Hillary as well as Obama (and, in fact, perhaps more devastating to Hillary).

The bottom line of what happened in Benghazi – regardless of criminal folly – is that a President, a world-view, was put to the test and found wanting.  The Islamists enemies hate us, all the time and every where and nothing we can do short of dying or surrendering will change them. To ignore the Islamist threat is plain and simple idiotic – to try and explain it away as the result of Israeli or American action is simply to ignore the fact that Islamists, acting as Islamists, have been around for many centuries…not just since before Israel became a nation, but before we became a nation.  One example – in a book written long before our current troubles – really struck home for me.  America existed at the time, but we weren’t in any way involved – in this case, the Great Mutiny in British India in the 1850’s.  A group of Muslim soldiers were being whipped up by an Imam – urged to fight and die for Islam – and at the end of the fiery sermon, the Imam shouted “and now I, too, will die for Islam” and went down in to the fight, where he was promptly killed.  These are the kind of people we fight today – they won’t quit and whether we are soft or hard, they will keep fighting us – because they believe that God commands them to do so and will reward them magnificently for fighting.  Unless our government keeps this fact firmly fixed in mind, we’ll never get anywhere – we have to decide to either fight them to the death or surrender entirely.  Pick one, because our enemies will allow no other choice.

Obama and his Administration believed that words of sweet reason would change things – and our ambassador in Libya (perhaps very voluntarily) was sacrificed to this absurd ideal.  It is to be hoped that once Obama leaves office, his successors will have a more realistic view of things.

What’s Next for Syria?

Mark Noonan19 Comments

There have been many reports recently that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the rebels – and this action supposedly crossed Obama’s “red line”, which should have triggered a US response.  But, no response.  Why?  This article in the New York Times gives a pretty solid reason:

As Islamists increasingly fill the ranks of Syrian rebels, President Bashar al-Assad is waging an energized campaign to persuade the United States that it is on the wrong side of the civil war. Some government supporters and officials believe they are already coaxing — or at least frightening — the West into holding back stronger support for the opposition.

Confident they can sell their message, government officials have eased their reluctance to allow foreign reporters into Syria, paraded prisoners they described as extremist fighters and relied unofficially on a Syrian-American businessman to help tap into American fears of groups like Al Qaeda.

“We are partners in fighting terrorism,” Syria’s prime minister, Wael Nader al-Halqi, said.

Omran al-Zoubi, the information minister, said: “It’s a war for civilization, identity and culture. Syria, if you want, is the last real secular state in the Arab world.”…

Which statement is pretty close to the truth – but doesn’t change the fact that Assad’s regime has been an unrelieved series of rat-bastard actions since the days when his dad was in charge.  While I doubt recent claims of chemical weapons use, it is pretty sure that the Syrian regime has used poison gas in the past against rebels.  Additionally, while the Assad regime is officially secular it has been long allied with Islamist Iran and has provided vital support to Islamist Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Even as an allegedly secular State, Syria has been helping our Islamist enemies – in addition to being implacably opposed to the existence of the State of Israel.  There is, in short, not much for us to love there.  Of course, the rebels do appear dominated by Islamists, so if they do manage to topple the Assad regime, it also won’t work to our advantage.

And so I’ve always said we should stay out – no matter who wins in Syria, we lose.  But what we should have been doing is using Syria’s civil war as a means to pry Hezbollah out of Lebanon.  Right now, no one in Syria has much time or resources to be supporting Hezbollah – a concerted effort against Hezbollah will now ultimately bear fruit because all actions against them will weaken their power, which cannot be easily rebuilt without active Syrian support.  Partnering with Israel and those elements in Lebanon (which are substantial) which would prefer to see an end to the quasi-State run by Hezbollah in Lebanon, we could have secured genuine Lebanese independence – so that no matter who wins the Syrian civil war, Syria’s position in Lebanon is permanently destroyed.

But, we did nothing of the kind –  because Obama doesn’t see enemies over in the Muslim world, just alienated friends (alienated by us, of course).  Obama – and all his foreign policy team – probably never even thought about how to exploit the Syrian civil war to our strategic advantage.  We’ve dithered and blustered and threatened and half-armed the rebels – and we may yet be dragged in to direct participation in the war and the subsequent cost of pacification and rebuilding.  But we won’t secure a pro -US regime in Syria and we may well end up midwifing a new, virulently anti-US regime which also controls Lebanon.

Its a miserable situation and because our leaders are ignorant of the realities of the Middle East, it will likely just get worse.

From All Angles

Cluster96 Comments

With the report that Obama’s most recent budget submission raises taxes on everyone, despite his campaign promises, and the news today that the administration is literally paying people to enroll others in the SNAP program in effort to continue the entitlement culture, the liberal assault on the American people is coming from all angles. Add to that, the report that federal revenues are too hit record levels this year at $2.7 trillion, yet Obama will have you believe that the $85 billion dollar sequester was a huge concern and may be catastrophic to the economy. In fact, Obama is now making us feel the pain for that temporary slow down in spending by furloughing FAA workers, delaying flights and causing back logs at major terminals, this despite the fact that Obama just promised $200 million to Syrian refugees. Obama and his far left regime have discretion at how revenues are allocated so just know that they have chosen to make your traveling life miserable as punishment, and instead opting to give that money to Syrian refugees, this again despite record levels of revenue flowing into Washington DC.

I can not think of a more dishonest, uncaring, selfish, narcissistic, un American President than the current occupant. He has spent tens of millions of dollars on his own vacations while unemployment remains persistently high, GDP continues to drag along the bottom, and Obamacare continues to force companies to lower hours, cut benefits, and delay any expansion or hiring. Obamacare is a train wreck waiting to happen, as evidenced by the delay in the SHOP program, and lack of achievable benchmarks by the HHS department. Obama is truly out to serve his own interests, that of his cronies, and that of his far left, elitist base, and regular, hard working, God fearing Americans simply don’t factor into that equation. The average American is being squeezed from all angles to serve an elitist, selfish, far left community agitator and this is without question a truly sad, black mark in America’s history.

Equanimity

Cluster175 Comments

e·qua·nim·i·ty

Noun

Mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, esp. in a difficult situation

These are difficult times for a lot of people to be sure, and this is an excellent article that I recommend highly. Suicides are up, stress is up, rancor is up, unemployment is up, etc., etc., – these are trying times, but then again, “fundamental transformation” of anything can be difficult. The sad thing is, we didn’t need any fundamental transformation, and the current unsettled societal environment is exactly what Obama needs to continue the decline. This is not by accident. Obama plays on the emotions of every one at every opportunity, and that is by design. But that being said, I want to make an appeal to the common sense on both sides, those on the right and the left, to dial down the rhetoric and just stop and think for a moment.

For those on the left – Obama is playing you. He wants you to think that corporations are evil, that the rich are evil, that America is a misogynistic, racist, imperialistic society, and that white Christian men are paranoid about the changing ethnic landscape. His fundamental transformation of America into a European style socialist country with a more powerful central authority requires that you reject capitalism, that you reject Faith, and that you question the traditional family role. And this distorted belief he needs you to embrace started with your schooling via the ultra liberal educational system in our country, led by 1960’s style radicals that largely failed in that very capitalist system they need you to reject. But I believe you are better than that. I believe that most of you understand that our capitalist system is responsible for creating the most powerful economic engine in the world, for providing the highest average standard of living, and for lifting more people out of poverty than any other economic platform hands down. That our Constitutional model of government is responsible for providing more civil and human rights to more people, and for giving more autonomy to more people than any other country, and there really isn’t even a close second. So my question is, why would you, as part of the “proletariat” want to change that dynamic, and restrict not only your freedoms, but your voice as well?

For those on the right – Obama wants you to become irrational. He wants you to “hate”, to shout, and to become visibly angry. He also wants to divide conservatives, to have the social conservatives battle the fiscal conservatives, and to polarize. That plays right into his hand. He can then better play on everyone’s emotions if we are all at each other’s throats. So why do this? Are we not able to oppose his agenda from an intelligent perspective? Are we incapable of convincing people that the Constitutional model of governance on a capitalist economic platform is best for everyone? Because if we are, and all we can do is shout and call people names, then we have truly lost. We are better than this, and America is stronger than this. We need to begin to appeal to a broad spectrum of people on our terms, and not on just opposition to what Obama is doing. We need to appeal to their common sense, to their intelligence, and to their core belief that America is the beacon of liberty, justice and opportunity. If we stop playing into the hands of the left, dial down the rancor, and show people what we stand for, and not just what we stand against – then we can begin to turn the tide. And that will require a conviction of Faith and composure of the heart and the mind. Equanimity, if you will.

A Rudderless Ship

Cluster112 Comments

Any more it seems as though this nation is a rudderless ship, as our petulant President chases every emotional liberal issue, with his faithful lap dog media in tow. The other day, Obama was visibly angry as his hand picked issue of 2014 went down to defeat. I only wish Obama had shown the same level of passion when our Ambassador and three other brave Americans were slaughtered in Benghazi. But evidently, that passion is only reserved for those who dare oppose his high-minded agenda and his fundamental transformation of America. Vowing to continue the fight over what Democrats obviously see as their wedge issue, Obama has yet to tell Americans that this piece of legislation that he is laser focused on would not have not done one thing to prevent the Sandy Hook tragedy, and will not accomplish one thing in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. But actually resolving the issue seems to take a backseat, when there is an election to be won. As Rush so astutely pointed out yesterday, this bill was suppose to pass the Senate, where the Democrats have the majority, to where it would eventually be defeated in the House, where the evil Republicans reside, and then the Democrats would have their 2014 campaign bumper sticker – Republicans want children to die. Sadly, instead of addressing the issue of mentally instable people, privacy laws, and enforcing the numerous gun regulations and background checks already on the books, Obama will choose to cite this piece of legislation as the only thing standing in between the American public and wholesale slaughter. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have less of a President, and more of a community agitator.

Compounding the frustration with this current empty suit of a President, is his rush to politicize every single issue, at every opportunity, and his desire to play the media, and on the emotions of the low information voter to advance liberal legislation. I remember when Democrats and the media use to scold Bush for politicizing 9/11, and would accuse him of playing on the emotions of that day to advance his causes, but evidently, that’s a one way street for them, because they have no shame in employing that tactic themselves. It’s too bad we don’t have a leader for all Americans in the White House. Someone who listened to others, someone who reviewed previous legislation to ascertain the effectiveness, or lack thereof, someone who managed all of the issues confronting our country not just the causes of the left, and someone who was equally upset over those Americans killed abroad, those Americans unemployed, those business’s facing strangling economic conditions, and those Americans questioning the future of their religious freedoms.

UPDATE by Mark Noonan:  Just wanted to add two cents in light of today’s events.  Think about this, a 19 year old was able to bring an American city to its knees today and we didn’t catch him!  Reports are the the FBI looked in to one of the two and did nothing.  Uncle Sam is snooping on our private correspondence but at least one of the two bombers can travel to Chechnya, come back, link to Islamist You Tube videos and no one says “boo” to him. We suck.  But mostly we suck because liberals, from Obama on down, suck.  A fully armed America in possession of its rights and courage would have just gone about its normal business and waited for the mutt to show up, and then shot him.  Just a lousy, disgusting series of events.

Regarding Asia’s Mini Me.

Leo Pusateri6 Comments
Image
The linked article below from Stratfor.com gives an interesting perspective as to the history of the relationship between Beijing and North Korea-One possibility missing in this article is that of North Korea being a puppet and proxy government under Beijing’s control, via which Beijing can assert plausible deniability for actions it takes via its North Korean sock puppet.In an effort to ‘diffuse’ tensions, John Kerry sojourned to Beijing the other day, and offered, in exchange for China’s willingness to call off its ‘attack dog,’ concessions on U.S. missile defense in Asia.Could it be that Beijing is rattling North Korea’s saber, just to see how the West reacts and/or cowers? We arguably have the least cogent, most feckless foreign policy since the dawn of Jimmy Carter. It would appear plausible that China is exploiting the Obama Administration’s/Washington’s newfound affinity for “global test” pacifism and Chamberlain-esque knee-jerk appeasement, and will try to obtain more and more concessions while the gettin’s good.My guess is that China will continue to play the West via North Korea like a fiddle, as long as the current feckless leadership remains in Washington, and that Beijing will seize every opportunity to effect the West’s strategic weakening and further a lack of resolve.

Read further here:

Thoughts On Boston And Other Gripes

Cluster26 Comments

Yesterday’s events in Boston are certainly deplorable, definitely an act of terror, and proof positive that evil does exist. If this does turn out to be the act of a domestic terrorist, either side will be quick to label that person as representative of the whole, and that will be wrong in either case despite the seemingly gleeful anticipation by some in the media that this is someone on the right. Chris Matthews and a whole host of other left wing “journalists” are already speculating that this is some anti government, far right extremist, and have actually mentioned that extremists of this nature are pretty much all on the right, which is not only wrong and shameful, but knowing their character or lack thereof, fully expected. In September 2010, some left wing loon took hostages at the Discover TV channel, over the last couple of years OWS protestors have destroyed a lot of public property, and going back a few years, the Weather Underground became famous for their bombings, just too name a few. In fact one member the Weather Undergound, Bill Ayers, is so revered on the left that he is a prominent professor at Columbia and a noted member amongst the left intelligencia. And this is aside from the Black Panthers, the unions and the Greenpeace demonstrations, which are anything but “peaceful”. So violent whackos are hardly the sole occupants of the right.

In addition, Democrats are already rushing to make this political. Sheila Jackson Lee has blamed the sequester, Axlerod has tied it to Tax Day, and Barney Frank credits increased spending for first responders quick reaction, among other inappropriate musings. Every single one of them needs to be chastised for these repugnant comments. I am sick of tired of nearly everyone in our Federal Government and most of those pundits at the national level. The politicians have increased spending over 30% in the last four years, they have tripled the debt in the last four years, and they continue to display complete incompetence every day, while the sycophantic pundits deflect and make excuses. Or worse yet, are really that stupid to not know the difference. Allocation of tax payer money is the responsibility of our elected representatives, and is prioritized in a budget, something of which has largely been missing over the last several years. Considering that spending has increased by over $1 trillion in the last 4 years, Jackson Lee, for example, wants us to believe that an $85 billion cut back in the rate of growth, is partly responsible for yesterdays bombings. This is the level of intelligence that occupies our federal government, and that is the level of discourse that our national media chooses to give time to. We are in for a world of hurt if we continue to elect and allow people like this to govern our country.

In conclusion, my prayers are with those affected by this atrocious, evil act.

The Food Stamp President

Mark Noonan203 Comments

It just keeps getting worse and worse:

Record Dow, record S&P, record debt, record plunge in gold, and now: record US households on foodstamps. What’s not to like. While today’s gold selloff may be confusing to everyone, one can scratch off some 23,087,886 US households, or the number that according to the USDA, were on foodstamps in January and just happen to be a fresh all time high, as the likely sellers, especially when one considers that the average monthly benefit to each household dropped to a record low of $274.04. This number probably ignores, for good reason, the once every four years fringe benefits of Obamaphones and other such made in China trinkets…

Serious question for those who voted for Obama – is this what you voted for?  Ever more people on welfare while the rich get richer and more Chinese garbage gets exported to the United States?  Did you consider the possibility – even for a moment – that just perhaps someone else might be able to do a better job at it?  Or was it always and ever going to be a vote for Obama?  If so, why?  Because you just wanted to stick it to us Republicans?  Because you were afraid to vote against our first black President?  Because you were actually worried that Romney was going to go after your birth control?  Tell us what motivated you last November…

Not All Democrats

Retired Spook117 Comments

This was something that I posted as a comment at the old BlogsforBush shortly after the 2004 election, and back when I was still a registered Republican.  Amazingly, about 90% of it is still relevant after 8-1/2 years, proving that, in politics, some things never change.

This started out as a contest with a Liberal Democrat friend of mine during the 2004 election, to see which one of us could list the most things we disliked about each other’s political party. About that same time I heard a discussion on the radio about racial profiling and the war on terror. The point was made that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims. Political junkie that I am, my first thought was that this same principle applies to Democrats. As the list grew, it reaffirmed the reason I am a Republican. In addition to supporting Republican principles of smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, entrepreneurship and personal responsibility, there are just so many things about the Democrat Party that I find morally repugnant and intellectually dishonest.

1. Not all Democrats compare their political opponents to Hitler and refer to them publicly as fascists, Nazis, digital brown shirts, book burners, Satan, the real terrorists, worse than Sadam, etc., but it is only Democrats who do this. (These are from public comments by prominent Democrats just during the 2004 campaign. I have NEVER heard a Republican use any of these words to describe a Democrat.)

2. Not all Democrats support partial birth abortion, but virtually all supporters of partial birth abortion are Democrats.

3. Not all Democrats are radical environmentalists who believe that man represents the greatest threat to the planet, but nearly all radical environmentalists are Democrats.

4. Not all Democrats oppose private property rights, but the vast majority of those who oppose private property rights are Democrats.

5. Not all Democrats oppose school choice, but the majority of those who do are Democrats.

6. Not all Democrats believe the government can spend our money more wisely than we can, but most of the people who do are Democrats.

7. Not all Democrats support homosexual marriage, but the majority of those who support homosexual marriage are Democrats.

8. Not all Democrats believe that the main purpose of a business is to provide jobs, but nearly all who believe so are Democrats.

9. Not all Democrats believe that our Constitution is a living document that can and should be changed primarily by the courts rather than by the will of the People through the amendment process, but most who believe this way are Democrats.

10. Not all Democrats praise and admire (or, at the very least, apologize for) brutal communist dictators like Fidel Castro, but the only people who do are Democrats.

11. Not all Democrats believe that if we just leave the terrorists alone, they will leave us alone, but the vast majority who believe so are Democrats.

12. Not all Democrats support turning over a substantial portion of our national security to the United Nations, but the only people who support this are Democrats.

13. Not all Democrats believe that by making America weaker we will make America safer, but virtually all who believe so are Democrats.

14. Not all Democrats believe that tax cuts cause deficits, but the majority of people who do are Democrats. (Federal revenue from individual income taxes grew at a nearly 50% faster rate in the five years following Reagan’s tax cuts than it did during the five years following Bush Sr.’s and Clinton’s tax increases in the early 90’s. (source – Statistical Abstract of US) Were it not for 911, the Dot.Com stock market bubble burst, the War on Terror and numerous corporate scandals that originated during the Clinton years, the Bush tax cuts would have likely produced the same result. As it is, most economists agree that the tax cuts, at the very least, dramatically lessened the severity of the recession. A noted Nobel Laureate in Economics recently stated publicly that the only thing wrong with the Bush tax cuts was that they weren’t big enough. (update – summer, 2005 – Federal revenue from individual income taxes increased dramatically)

15. Not all Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment, but most of those who do are Democrats. If they ever mount a serious attempt at repeal, they will find out why the Founding Fathers included it in the Bill of Rights. (Hint – it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting or target shooting.)

16. Not all Democrats have a static view of the economy, but nearly all who do are Democrats. A static view holds that for every winner of life’s lottery there must, by necessity, be a loser; that the rich got that way only at the expense of the poor. A Dynamic view holds that our economy is ever-expanding, that a rising tide lifts all boats.

17. Not all Democrats believe that there are people in this world who neither desire nor deserve freedom, but virtually the only people who express this belief publicly are Democrats. (Of all the beliefs and positions on this list, I find this to be the most offensive.) This “cultural condescension” as Ronald Reagan termed it, has been soundly rebuked in such major world powers as Germany, Japan and India. In fact, the number of free, democratic governments has quadrupled in the last 30 years, a growth spurt of freedom unequaled in human history. The most absurd question posed by Democrats with regard to the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq is “what will we do if they vote for an Islamic theocracy”? That is like asking what we would do if an innocent person freed from prison voted to go back to prison.

18. Not all Democrats hold the American Military in distain, but the vast majority of those who do are Democrats.

19. Not all Democrats believe that we deserved what happened to us on September 11, 2001, but most of those who believe so are Democrats.

20. Not all Democrats are playing politics with national security, but virtually the only ones doing so are Democrats.

21. Not all Democrats believe people should receive government assistance based on the color of their skin instead of their economic circumstances, but it is almost exclusively Democrats who believe this.

22. Not all Democrats believe the First Amendment applies only to those who agree with them, but it is clearly only Democrats who believe this. During the 2004 election cycle Democrats tried to stop the publishing of the book “Unfit for Command”, then threatened legal action against bookstores that sold it. They also threatened legal action against radio and TV stations that carried the Swift Vet ads, and attempted to get the FCC to stop the Sinclair Television Network airing of the Vietnam documentary “Stolen Honor”. One Kerry campaign staffer, Chad Clanton, even went so far as to threaten Sinclair in public, saying “they better hope we don’t win”. (THIS IS REALLY FRIGHTENING!) On the flip side, anti-Bush books, documentaries and news shows have numbered in the dozens, one even based largely on forged military documents (a felony). There has been no effort (at least publicly) on the part of the Bush campaign to stifle any of these, often vicious, attacks.

23. Not all Democrats believe convicted felons and illegal aliens should be allowed to vote, but it is only Democrats who believe this.

24. Not all Democrats believe public school teachers should not be held accountable for education results, but it is mostly Democrats who believe this.

25. Not all Democrats advocate violence as an acceptable form of public protest, but Democrats have a virtual monopoly on violence as a protest tactic. During the 2004 election cycle local Republican headquarters have been shot at, broken into, ransacked and stormed by union-led mobs. Bush supporters have been assaulted and had their tires slashed. I have not seen one single report of any of these tactics being used by Republicans.

26. Not all Democrats deny the existence of good and evil, but it is mostly Democrats who are apprehensive about defining things in terms of good and evil lest they be perceived as morally judgmental.

27. Not all Democrats are radical feminists, but virtually all radical feminists are Democrats.

28. Not all Democrats confuse patriotism with loyalty, but it is mostly Democrats who seem not to understand the difference. Patriotism is a feeling, a “love or devotion to one’s country.” Loyalty, by definition, is an action word. It is “allegiance to one’s country” or “faithfulness to one’s government.” Many traitors have come and gone calling themselves “patriots.” Few would agree they were being “loyal.”

29. Not all Democrats believe we are under-taxed, but the only people who believe so are Democrats. They often point to the United States as being the lowest taxed of all developed countries as though that was a bad thing. It is the reason our unemployment rate is half and our economic growth rate is double or triple that of most of the European countries Democrats like to cite as examples we should emulate.

30. Not all Democrats support using our military primarily for humanitarian reasons but not when our interests are threatened, however, it is mostly Democrats who believe this way.

31. Not all Democrats are cheaters, but election fraud by Democrats has become so widespread that it’s even inspired a new best-selling book: “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat”. When was the last time you heard reports of “dead” Republicans voting?

32. Not all Democrats support the exploitation of injured, ill and physically handicapped people for political purposes, but Democrats have refined such exploitation into an art form. Recent exploitations of Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, Max Cleland and the amputee soldier reciting a litany of lies in the recent TV ad funded by Operation Truth, coupled with the blatant lie that President Bush has banned stem cell research, are simply beyond contempt.

33. Not all Democrats believe that people like Whoopie Goldberg, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and Michael Moore represent the “heart and soul of America”, but it is only Democrats, including their Presidential nominee (who said so publicly), who believe so.

34. Not all Democrats think that Homeland Security should be held hostage to union collective bargaining demands, but it was only Democrats in Congress who opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security unless it contained a collective bargaining provision. Then they had the nerve to publicly demagogue the President because of his opposition to unionization of DHS.

35. Not all Democrats, when they’re unable to defend their positions, resort to calling their political opponents names, (ie: racist, bigot, homophobe, etc.) but this is a tactic used almost exclusively by Democrats.

36. Not all Democrats believe that America spreads nothing but evil and misery around the world, but it is only Democrats who believe this way.

37. Not all Democrats are oblivious to the Law of Diminishing Returns, but Democrats in particular seem not to understand this important concept as it applies to government spending related to problem solving. (ie: clean air and water)

38. Not all Democrats realize it yet, but their party has become defined, as the noted columnist Victor Davis Hanson so aptly put it, “by pampered New York metropolitan columnists, billionaire heiresses, financial speculators, and a weird assortment of embittered novelists, bored rock stars and out-of-touch Hollywood celebs”.

39. Not all Democrats see the desirable outcome of military conflict as an exit strategy rather than as victory, but it is almost exclusively Democrats who believe this way.

40. Not all Democrats believe the solution to energy independence is through restricting energy consumption and expanding alternative energy sources (don’t even get me started on their hypocrisy with regard to alternative sources) rather than by simply finding more existing sources of energy (or some combination of the three), but it is mostly Democrats who hold this view.

41. Not all Democrats compare Terrorists to our Revolutionary Minutemen and refer to them as “Freedom Fighters”, but it is only Democrats who have made such references publicly. (This comes in a close second to #17 in the offensive category) The real Freedom Fighters are the men and women of the United States Military. I challenge anyone who doubts this to make a side by side list of all the countries Islamic Terrorists have freed from oppression and the number that have been liberated by the US Military.

42. Not all Democrats believe the Boy Scouts is an evil organization, but the individuals in the ACLU who are waging all out war on the Boy Scouts are certainly not Republicans. As a former Eagle Scout, I am repulsed by the ACLU’s attempts to force ideologies on the Boy Scouts in the name of diversity that are inconsistent with their founding principles.

43. Not all Democrats preach tolerance but practice intolerance (of those who disagree with them), but Democrats have become highly skilled at such hypocrisy.

44. Not all Democrats value effort over results, but such a mindset has come to define the modern Democrat Party. I’m not sure if it’s because the Democrat Party is dominated by liberals who are more emotional and effort oriented, or if Democrats would rather just have specific problems as ongoing campaign issues instead of simply solving the problems in the first place. Either way it’s a difficult position to defend.

45. Not all Democrats are anti-Christian (in fact, many are devout Christians), but the anti-Christian vitriol and hostility coming from liberal Democrats is a poison that, if not checked, will lead to a marginalization from which The Democrat Party may not soon recover. One only needs to go online and read the Letters to the Editor page of any major newspaper or news magazine to see the extent of the problem.

46. Not all Democrats value equality over liberty, but I believe one of the main reasons the Democrat Party is in decline (anyone who doubts this must be living under a rock.) is the growing number of Democrats who believe equality trumps every other human condition. This kind of thinking breeds moral relativism, resulting in the elevation of immoral or amoral minorities at the expense of moral majorities.

47. Not all Democrats favor diplomatic negotiations over military victory as the surest road to lasting peace, but diplomacy clearly finds its home in the Democrat Party while history is emphatically on the side of victory.

48. Not all Democrats believe in a dependent society as opposed to an ownership society, but the opposition to President Bush’s proposals for Personal Retirement Accounts, Medical Savings Accounts and Lifetime Savings Accounts is almost exclusively by Democrats.

49. Not all Democrats confuse values with opinions, but the 2004 election proved that a large number of Democrats don’t know the difference. An opinion is what we think about an issue. Values concern what we know to be right, given what we have been taught – – religiously, ethically and morally. One can only hope that peoples’ values inform their opinions. Until a majority of Democrats understand this concept they will continue to lose elections.

50. And last but not least, not all Democrats eventually get fed up with the fact that their party has been hijacked by the lunatic fringe and become Republicans, but there are a lot more ex-Democrats in the Republican Party than the other way around. Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

If you are a Democrat, do you admit to supporting the beliefs, principles, policies and positions stated here? If not, you are out of step with the leaders of your party. If you do, how do you defend your position without ignoring the facts and the truth? You ultimately risk being tied by interests you cannot or will not admit to arguments you cannot defend.

Ideology Thread – Cont.

Cluster81 Comments

I think Retired Spook has struck a nerve here, and I am pleased that the dialogue has remained civil – kudos to everyone for that and especially our liberals, so considering the volume of posts on the previous thread – let’s pick it up here. One observation I would like to make comes from a comment from James (not to single him out, but it was in his post). I read this the minute he posted it and have been thinking about it ever since:

…….its (gun control) not on top of my list to be honest. many more things wrong with this country.

I think that comment is indicative of how liberals largely see America, including the President. I think liberals see America has an unjust, racist, imperialistic country that needs to be “brought down to size” so to speak, and that vision could really be at the heart of what separates liberalism and conservatism. I, and I think most conservatives, see America as that “shining city on the hill” (to quote a great President), that has many more virtues than vices. Has this country made mistakes, of course, but has this country advanced prosperity, civil and human rights, and promoted diversity of culture and progress more so than any other country on this planet? That would be a resounding YES! I don’t see America as a country with “many more things wrong with it”. I see America as a country that needs to get back to it’s original charter, to continue the path towards even more “progress”.