8 posts tagged “democrat”

I woke up at 4:30 AM this morning and turned on the radio to hear that the so-called breaker switches had been flipped on Wall Street again preventing another Black Monday.  The market had been frozen because the stock had plunged another 6% in its opening hour.  I supported the bailout package at first.  I can now see that I was wrong to do so.  As I have since stated, I suspected as much when it failed to pass on the first vote.  It was firmed up when it did pass the second vote.  It was cemented as I began to see that Congress had no intentions of acting quickly.  In fact, the market has reacted in direct opposition to the threat of government intervention.  When it looked as if the government would not intervene the market soared, and when it looked like the government would intervene the market dropped like a rock.

When I sat down at my computer and started going through my email I opened up my VOX neighborhood recent posts notifier and TedWest had posted a link to the last honest Democrat reporter.  You can find that story which is so popular that they posted it on a static link, meaning it has a permanent address at:
.Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

.An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

Where has the integrity of America gone?  It isn't just the press that is dropping all its principals.   Its also the college professors and the teachers and general public behavior.  Even the individual behavior of the last bastion of integrity, the religious institution is dropping many of its ethical standards.  Just as this reporter is an example of a holdout for integrity to the profession, there are pockets of Christians and Jews who are still holding onto their traditions of integrity and merit, but when we have examples of CHURCHES teaching hatred and vice like Jeremiah Wright's church of the Black Christ and the Episcopalian Church literally splitting over the acceptance of the gay lifestyle there is an obvious ill running throughout our society.

One of my friends referenced the movie, Idiocrasy yesterday.  In that movie a man from today is trasported into the future where tv and advertising have transformed the entire world into numbnut idiots.  This average man is hailed as a genius because he knows that the most popular drink will not suffice for the purpose of irrigating crops.  He suggests they use water which is politically very difficult to accomplish because of the drink makers' lobbyists bribing the government to use their product.  In fact, peopel are stunned by the idea that water should be used.  "You mean, like in the toilet?"

I am not comparing myself to the two characters in that movie from the past, but at times I do feel that we are already there with regards to morality and integrity.  Its not that complicated.  If you think about long term benefit it isn't that difficult.  You recognize the profit and the sacrifice of the present success for the eventual payoff.  Its the law of consequences. 

The media are making themselves as irrelevant as the NOW organization after its support of Bill Clinton, one of the worst violators of women's personal rights.  Who considers NOW to be an authoritative voice for women's rights today?  Who will consider the press to be a trusted voice as the disseminator of information after the truth of Democrats' participation in the corruption of the banking industry and radical integration of communism and Islamization into our educational and governmental organizations?  If the Democrats do gain the super majority in both houses and gain the presidency, after the fairness doctrine and hate speech laws are inacted, will there be an American freedom to hold them accountable?

John McCain and many of the conservative talk show hosts simply do not understand the depth of the threat to our way of life.  McCain states, "If Obama wins, I don't think we have to be afraid."  Dennis Prager states, "If Obama wins, he will be my president."  Yes!  He will be the president, but his agenda to change America into a socialist state means we will not be the America the founding fathers envisioned.  We will no longer be free to inform, free to speak, free to choose with knowledge what direction we want to go, who we want to govern, what kind of governance we will abide by.

If John McCain becomes president, we will have a centrist leading us.  Another someone who leads from behind.  Someone who tests the political winds and makes his decisions based on popularity.  Someone, though known for his personal integrity, does not know how to lead others to dedicate their own lives to integrity.  Oh how I ache for a fresh Ronald Reagan.  Someone who knows how to inspire us to live better than we desire.  Someone long established in his faith, with a vision for a better world than the one we occupy.  Someone opposite of the socialist vision that has always led to literal mass murder.

Update:  This story has been determined to be a hoax by the supposed victim.  Police managed to get the complainant to confess to filing a false police report.  She is being charged for filing that false report.
Oct 23, 2008 7:34 pm US/Eastern
Click the title of this story to see the video report.

McCain Worker: Attacker Angered By GOP Sticker

MORE:  KDKA Online Voters Guide |  Campaign '08 News

 Embed our Politics widget to get our news on your site

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― Pittsburgh police are investigating after a volunteer for the Republican campaign says she was attacked by a mugger who became enraged after seeing a John McCain bumper sticker on her car last night.

According to police, Ashley Todd, 20, said she was robbed at an ATM at the corner of Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street in the Bloomfield area around 9 p.m. Wednesday after leaving a Republican phone bank. 

Todd told police that the suspect, described only as a dark-skinned African-American man about 6'4", stole $60 from her and became enraged after seeing a bumper sticker supporting Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain on her car. 

Todd, who is from Texas, said the suspect put a knife to her neck and demanded money. 

Todd told police that the man became very angry after noticing the McCain sticker on her car and began punching and kicking her.

After repeatedly hitting, kicking and threatening her, Todd told police that the man carved a "B" in her cheek.

According to the police report, the officer confirmed that he "observed the wound on the right side of [her] face. 

Todd declined immediate medical attention last night but said she would go to the hospital today.

The suspect ran off after the attack; but police are hoping that footage from bank surveillance camera may help lead them to the suspect.

In an official statement the McCain campaign says: "We're shaken up by this. It's sick and disgusting."

Governor Sarah Palin reportedly spoke with the victim by phone.

Meanwhile, late this afternoon, the Obama-Biden campaign released a statement, saying: "This is a horrendous act of violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with the young woman for her to make a speedy recovery, and we hope that the person who perpetrated this crime is swiftly apprehended and brought to justice."

I started out digging into the story behind Nancy Pelosi.  Twana had asked me to do an expose` on her but as I dug in, I found that Nancy is straight up Democrat Party hack to the core.  She has a further left voting record than Barak Obama.  Where Obama's voting record shows he has voted along party lines 96% of the time in the Senate (more than any other senator, Nancy has voted along party lines 98% of the time in the House of Representatives.  The further I dug, the more I realized that all of Nancy's astoundingly stupid moves have not been Nancy moves but Democratic moves.  She is simply following the party line and agenda.  The astounding dangerous games with national security and foreign policy are founded and supported by the Democratic version of wisdom.  So, here is what I've learned.

In the House of Representatives, the captain of the football team or the quarterback is the speaker of the house.  The position is the third highest in the U.S. government after the president and the vice president which means if anything should incapacitate both the president and the vice president, the speaker would assume the position of president until an emergency election could be held to fill the position again.  The fourth would be Harry Reid, president pro-tem of the Senate.  A Speaker of the House is elected by the elected Representatives.  So, when Democrats won the majority in 2006, Nancy assumed the position by House vote.  In this position she controls which bills come before the House of Representatives to be debated and voted on.  In essence as long as the bill is in the house, the speaker controls the political football.  The most visible responsibility of the Speaker is wielding the gavel in the House to allocate time for opposing parties to argue their points over each bill and to keep the order in the House.  This position requires a certain decorum.  One has to be fair to the minority party delegates with regard to counting votes and declaring wins or losses.  Often these are made verbally in the interest of expedience, but are sometimes disputed and so go to a recorded vote.  What happens if the speaker is less than honorable?

I'm using the game metaphor because that is the way the Democrats have been treating the policy making process.  Partisanship and political strategy takes priority over any other factor whether foreign policy, national security or issues of morality being legislated by our policy makers.   It doesn't matter if its pulling our troops out of Iraq or if its embryonic stem cell research or economic stimulus efforts, self defense via citizens legally arming themselves, or corporal punishment.  Results don't matter, good intentions are what matter to Democrats.  In my estimation, they don't believe the American voters' attention span is long enough to notice the damage done by their policies or agenda.

One demonstration of this strategic partisan games playing with foreign policy especially  in regard to national security and the war effort in Iraq was Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to engage in talks with a hostile government for the express purpose of undermining White House efforts designed to put pressure on Syria to disengage from support for Muslim insurgency in Lebanon as well as material support for insurgency into Iraq.  The Wall Street Journal called this visit 'Dangerous' and 'Foolish.'  This gaming with policy in relation to hostile forces in the region does not just undermine the Bush administration, it undermines national and ally interests by emboldening our enemies making our national will appear divided and weak.  This puts our troops in the battlefield in greater danger and makes their mission that much harder to accomplish.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

PELOSI, Nancy, (daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr.), a Representative from California; born Nancy D’Alesandro in Baltimore, Md., March 26, 1940; A.B., Trinity College, 1962; chair, California State Democratic Party, 1981-1983; finance chairman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 1985-1986; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundredth Congress, by special election, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of United States Representative Sala Burton, and reelected to the ten succeeding Congresses (June 2, 1987-present); minority whip (One Hundred Seventh Congress); minority leader (One Hundred Eighth and One Hundred Ninth Congress); Speaker of the House (One Hundred Tenth Congress). (Source.)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

Nancy Pelosi has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 98.1% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Pelosi did not vote. See a list of her votes against her party since 1991, a list of all Representatives in the 110th Congress with a similar score, or a full list of party voters.

As Barak Obama has the highest record voting along party lines with 96% in the Senate, so Nancy holds the highest record voting along party lines in the House.  What this means is a party hack with the most extreme leftist voting record is the third highest power in the land.  At the same time the fourth highest position of power in the land is occupied by Harry Reid, at the same time the highest party line voter in the Senate is the DNC pick for the Democratic presidential candidate.  If successful, the most extreme Leftist body in Washington will have full control of two of the three branches of government with the last one (the Supreme Court) having a history of taking specific cases to write laws by precedent and move our government and culture to the left.  This means, should Barak Obama win the presidency, for the first time in American history the dissenting voice of conservatism will have been shunted to the sidelines for at least two years and more likely as many as eight years of one sided power control.

What's at issue with partisanship is this self destructive nature of the Democratic agenda.  From national budget issues to workers' rights to human rights, every vote and every bill authored will be cementing into our governance further and further socialist action than we have ever known in America.  Nearly every position is either detrimental to freedom, to human rights, to societal health and strength, to even naming evil and will have no check or balance to limit this agenda.  The liberal mind is either dead set on destroying the greatest force for good in recorded history or simply doesn't believe our system is fragile enough to crumble under the weight of selling national pride for political currency.  Instead of defending the reputation of America's efforts to bring good and right into the world, they are celebrating its decline..

From Webster's Dictionary

enemy (en` a mi) n. one actuated by hostile feelings; an armed foe; opposing state; something harmful; a. of an enemy; due to an enemy

This is craziness!  How did Barack Obama ever make it this far?  In his run for the Ohio state Senate, in his run for the U.S. Senate, didn't anybody look at his background or his intentions?  Certainly, before he was put up by the DNC he should have been gone over with a fine toothed comb.  Hillary was dumbfounded when she told the American voters that he hasn't been vetted and the response to this concern was apathy at best and to her chagrin, an introduction to media bias and criticism usually reserved for Republicans.  Now he is the candidate apparent for the DNC and the responsibility falls to the Republicans to dig into his history and frame of mind.  Hasn't any of this been scrutinized by any Democratic interest for the good of the party?  I really haven't believed that the Dems want this nation to be in the hands of a man who has at any time in his life wanted it destroyed and I cannot believe that the party has ignored information that he wrote in a published autobiography.  But here we are.  This leaves me to conclude that either they do want the nation destroyed or that they don't care what kind of person takes that seat as long as he has a D beside his name.

Not even bothering to take into account that this man is a radical for leftist ideology on everything from partial birth abortion to redistribution of wealth and has the furthest left voting record in the legislature in American history, but his associations with supporters of militant Islam and militant radicals like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Raila Odinga, Rashid Khalidi, Nadhmi Auchi, Raul Reyes of FARC, Edward Said, Dick Morris, Najib Balala, sets him apart as a dangerous element in American politics with intentions to destroy our system of governance.

The laundry list of groups and individuals he supports and those which support his bid for the presidency are beyond crooks and liars.  These people are actually, violently trying to destroy the United States of America and name themselves as enemies of the state.  Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn organized and bombed buildings and are now acting through our educational system to instill, inculcate communism in our children.  Louis Farrakan teaches at Columbia University and advocates militant Islam.  It was he who invited Ahmadenijad to speak at Columbia.  The Black Panthers endorse him.  Palestinians advocate for him...  just to name a few.

Quote from Barack Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father:
"The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam."

From 'Dreams of my Father', "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school"
"I studied the Koran.."

From 'Audacity of Hope: "Lolo (Obama's step father) followed a brand of Islam ...."I looked to Lolo for guidance".

From 'The Audacity Of Hope, ""In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."  (This has been true from the beginning of this nation, the emphasis here is that it is not Christian dominated.)

From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE". (Racist against whites)

From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."  (Promoting racism?)

From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"  (Practicing animosity)

From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself.."  (Muslim)

From Dreams Of My Father:
"That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."  (The institutions that have afforded him such success he views as system of oppression.)

From Dreams Of My Father;
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"  (As racist as Jeremiah Wright)

From Dreams Of My Father, "I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicions between the races."

"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood," Abunimah writes. "He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. "As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough pri'mary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, 'Keep up the good work!"

Statistics on illegal aliens:
The Heritage Foundation ^ | 10/25/06 | Robert Rector

The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.[3] This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immi*grant will pay and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant’s children, which U.S. taxpayers would also heavily subsidize. In this way, the roughly six million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will impose a net cost of around a half-trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes

Crime Statisitcs
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually.
53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.
71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or "transport coyotes".
47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens.
66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66%, 98% are illegal.
Birth Statistics
380,000 plus "anchor babies" were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.
97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.
66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
Last Updated ( Friday, 20 July 2007 )

http://immigrationcounters.com/
http://www2.islandpacket.com/blogs/post/26929
http://www.texasborderregulators.org/
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200801/COM20080109b.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
http://www.onenewsnow.com/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...o000167/votes/
http://islamichope.org/
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
http://www.usvetdsp.com/
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289786626246641
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/obama_lou%20tribe.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm
https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/MOU_between_Ralia_Odinga_and_Muslims.pdf
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/a_question_of_power_before_tribes
http://www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=904&Itemid=141
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/02/revenge-of-epimenides.html
http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=2819848
http://www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=904&Itemid=141
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2008/01/odinga-obama-and-lack-of-courage.html

Of particular interest in the laundry list of his associations with America's enemies, one case stands out.  Late last year Odinga was a Muslim candidate challenging the incumbent for the top seat in Kenya (a country in Eastern Africa) and one of his campaign promises was to bring Sharia law to Kenya.  Kenya has a minority Muslim populace and a majority Christian populace.  He worked with Dick Morris (a criminal campaign manager formerly employed by the Clintons) to campaign for Odinga.  In my mind, this reveals Obama to be an advocate for Sharia law.  There is no way I can believe he is anything other than a Manchurian candidate in the American culture and political scene.  MilitantMuslims are dancing in the streets and cheering him on as he campaigns for the role of leader of the strongest nation on earth and the leader of the free world and essentially the world's police force.

Summary:

The man's own published book indicates he (who is running for the highest seat of authority in the land) is and always has been an enemy of American values and American businesses and American institutions and the Constitution.  The only bill I'm aware of, that he authored sets a precedent in subjugating America's Constitution to UN authority and specifically taxes Americans for a UN controlled budget to benefit non-Americans without benefit to Americans.  His associations with enemies of America.  His whispered message of approval and subterfuge to a blogger advocate for Islamism.  His church is openly anti-American.  Family members are openly anti-American.  His associations with criminals now being indicted and tried.  At some point, you would think the Democrats would throw up their hands and say, "This guy will not serve to the best interests of this country."  But enough of their party is anti-American to take this deadly dangerous candidate and push the entire party into a choice of dumping the party, or abdication refusing to participate in the process, or falling in with and becoming enemies of America.

Addendum:

I tried to make this document legible but you will have to visit the site I got it from to read it.
http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8

Odinga Sharia agreement

The greatest sin of the second Bush administration is poor communication with the people of the United States.  I understand why they have done such a poor job of it, but it is the greatest failing of George Bush's presidency.  The Main Stream press have continually worked to discredit him and have joined the Democratic party in undermining his credibility and have thought nothing of the damage to national security or the morale of our military in a war time effort.  In publishing military and national secrets during war, in seeking only the worst stories for the front page and spinning every event to make the US look as bad as possible in an international light, by burying positive news deep in the mid to back pages of the papers they are complicit in harming the reputation of the US and encouraging the enemies of freedom and Democracy.  David Horowitz is a great communicator and should be the Republican Party's spokesman on the war against Radical Islam.  He was giving a speech introducing his new book, "Party of Defeat" when he spoke these words:

The opposition party has full access to our secrets and our intelligence.  They conducted a campaign beginning in July 2003 to attack the United States and its commander in chief.  That is the position of the Democratic party.  That is a national disgrace.  We went into Iraq in March 2003, we liberated Baghdad in April 2003 with 139 casualties.  It was July (that's three months or so) after we liberated Baghdad.  We were winning the war.  But when the resistance was starting from the al Quaeda terrorists and the Baathist Fascists in Iraq and our young men and women were in harm's way that the Democratic party ran a national TV ad.  And the TV ad said "Read his lips, President Bush deceives the American people."  President Bush is a war criminal, that's what that was saying.  What change was there in American policy between April and July?  There was none.  The Democratic party, you'll remember, had a presidential primary at this time.  I can't think of anything lower than selling your country out.  Selling your young men and women who are on the battlefield out.  Selling the security of 300 million Americans out, because you wanted to win the Democratic presidential primary.  Now, let's look at a couple of these lies that the Democratic party has based their campaign against America, against the American people, against the Iraqi people, and against the war on terror.  The first is that Iraq is no threat, or was no threat.  Was Afghanistan a threat?  Afghanistan is a much poorer nation than Iraq.  Afghanistan has no oil.  Its got half the population.  Its virtually all tribal.  Baghdad was a pretty modern city.  Of course, that's the whole point of the Bush doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq.  That 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland.  Something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do.  Something the Japanese could never do.  Something no enemy in the last 150 years could do.  And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Because Saddam Hussein had put... after the Gulf war had put Alahu Ackbar into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo-fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy.  America, the great Satan.  He had tried to assassinate the president of the United States, he had held international conferences for terrorists, he had hosted abu Habbas and abu Nedal, and Musab al Zachari, and Ansar al Islam.  All of this Saddam Hussein had done.  And so, if you look out at the world, with any modicum of responsibility on 9/11, you would see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States.  I tried to lay out here, why Iraq should have been considered a threat, but you don't have to take my word for it.  You can go to Al Gore.  On February 2, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech.  Now this speech followed a speech... the state of the union that year by George Bush.  And that was the axis of evil speech.  And many Democrats were in a rage over the use of the term evil to describe Iraq even though the regime had murdered 300,000 Iraqis and put them in mass graves, even though it had dropped poison gas, a wmd, on an ethnic population (the Kurds) even though it had invaded two countries within recent memory, even though Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf war truce, Al Gore gave a statesmen like speech and he defended Bush's use of the term evil because it was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  And this is what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat.  Instead of saying it posed no threat and would cause us to be judged harshly by history, what he said was, and this is an exact quote, "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself."  "a virulent threat in a class by itself, and the United States would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down."  That's what Al Gore said.  So this book I've written, "The Party of Defeat" is about a party that betrayed its own war.  that betrayed its own country, and that betrayed its men and women in the field.  Don't let anybody tell you that you can support the troops but not the war.  If you support the troops, you support their mission, because when you do what John Kerry did, and say, "Its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" you send a demoralizing message to our troops and an encouraging message to our enemies.  On the WMD's, Saddam Hussein lost the Gulf war.  When he invaded Kuwait, the first George Bush organized an international coalition to stop him.  But actually, that coalition was a little too multi-lateral, because it included the Arabs and the Arabs said you cannot remove Saddam Hussein.   What ended the Gulf war was a truce.   It said Saddam Hussein can stay in power but these are the conditions.   And the conditions were UN resolution 687,  and UN resolution 689.  The Gulf war truce UN resolution 687 and 689 said "You will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build weapons of mass destruction.  and you will allow UN inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you're not doing it, because nobody in his right mind can trust you."  Those two UN resolutions which were followed by fourteen others, were there to keep Saddam from doing what he wanted to do, and what we know he wanted to do, which was to build weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam Hussein systematically violated these resolutions until a day came in 1998 when he actually threw the UN inspectors out.  Iraq was always on the U.S. government's mind.  Hillary Clinton in one of her statements said that she... not only did she vote for the war when she was defending her support for the war, not only did she support the war because of the intelligence that Bush gave her, but the intelligence she got from the Clinton administration.  Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Now, this is what George Bush did, he gave a speech identifying Iraq as a national threat, part of an axis of evil.  And then George Bush in September went to the United Nations and spoke to the general assembly and said, "There are 16 outstanding resolutions which are arms control agreements which are part of the UN truce with Saddam Hussein that kept him in power.  Either you will enforce your word, or you will be seen to be irrelevant."  Which the UN is.  "And we will do it for you."  That's what George Bush said.  And then he went to Congress and he got the authorization for the use of force.  So the very opposite of what the Democrats claim is the truth.  George Bush did not violate international law, he tried to enforce it and the Democrats didn't support him.  The Bush administration made a diplomatic mistake, which was to go back to the UN.  Once they had the resolution, they should have acted on it.  And Tony Blair begged the Bush administration to go to the UN again and get another resolution.  And unfortunately, the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell and did so.  And Colin Powell got what he deserved for this.  Because, what he did, go to the UN to sell the war.   And the way he sold it was to imply that Saddam had more weapons capability than he had.  And that's why people say its about WMD's.  No it isn't!!  It wasn't at all about the weapons of mass destruction.  It was about his potential to build those weapons and his programs to do so, and his intentions to do so.

Now, if there is any doubt left that the Bush administration lied to the American public, to the Congress or to the UN or that we were justified in invading Iraq, or that we could afford to allow that tyrant to continue in his plans to help work destruction on the innocent people of America, please, tell me what it is.  More, if there is any doubt that the actions of the Democratic leadership is not traitorous in their actions against our national security and against our men and women in the field at war, please, inform me.  If there is any doubt that these actions expose the complicity of the American main stream press, please, tell me what doubts you can dredge up.  This is not patriotism to act this way, careless of the effects on our security or that of the troops, or their morale.  If the Democrats win this election with this for credibility, I am without hope for our nation and its future.  John McCain is a moderate.  He has worked across the aisle enough times to anger most Republicans and only got the nomination because the more conservative Republicans were split between the two more conservative candidates.  Barack Obama is a radical leftist and his voting record proves it.  He is unvetted and has zero accomplishments to point to, much less working with the opposition, so how can he fulfill his promises to be the agent of change and hope?  Hillary Clinton is running on her husband's experience.  She voted for the war before she promised to abandon the war.  This isn't flip flop, this is pandering to the base merely for the seat of power.  The Democrats are proven traitors and deserve nothing less than a trial for treasonous act against national security in a time of war.  We cannot afford to put into office any member of the party of defeat, and of enmity with the nation that grants that power voluntarily.  We have to have a Chief that isn't moved by every wisp of breeze of political winds.  We have to have a leader with the vision and the steadfast resolve to meet every challenge with the grace and assurance of having practiced what's right and good.  No promise of benefits is greater than the value of assured security to continue in our existence as a nation of freedom and democracy.  The only issue on the ticket this election has to be the security and continuance of our great culture.  Everything else pales in comparison.  Without that security, there are no human rights protection, no freedom of speech, no opportunity to succeed in business, no opportunity to live in peace and security, no opportunity to participate or not participate in the religion of your choice.  Do not reward the party of defeat this election year.  Don't even encourage them to speak until they get this one issue right.  National security is tantamount in politics.  Everything else is secondary.

I found this today and it scares me.  They are still playing posturing games and the news is making this information available to the enemy.  So the enemy knows they can communicate with autonomy right now.  Nobody's watching because its illegal.  The original FISA bill only allows monitoring calls from outside the U.S. to outside the U.S.  This is ridiculous!

[

Ain't politics grand? 

Mel Reynolds 

IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?