Not all Democrats in Congress bother to be subtle about their hostility toward our culture, and their eagerness to pander to those who share that hostility.A few weeks ago Congress passed a resolution recognizing the brutal terrorist cult Islam as “one of the great religions of the world” and honoring Ramadan. It passed unanimously.
Then came a resolution with similar wording, honoring Christmas, and decrying violence against Christians around the world. Nine Congresskooks were bold enough in their depravity to vote against it:
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Robert Scott (D-VA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Ten others voted “present”; here’s a surprise: one of them (Mike Pence of Indiana) isn’t a Democrat.
Presumably all of these characters have more Christians in their districts than Muslims. Whoever they’re representing, it isn’t the misguided voters who put them in office.
Y’all know I’m very much a Republican and I have ranted often about how screwed up Democrats are and why all of us Republicans need to work hard at keeping as many of these Democrat jackasses out of office as possible.
I heard Tom Brokaw on a radio interview talking about how we need to abandon partisan politics and come together in peace and harmony put our political positions aside for the sake of the nation.
Is Tom on crack? Seriously, is there anyone out there reading this post that actually thinks that abandoning YOUR political ideology and core principals is a good thing? And substitute them for what?
Let me tell you, the notion that I could somehow, alter my political leaning to become more “tolerant” of Democrats and their views “for the sake of the nation” is just retarded.
The post above is one of many examples of why I find the majority of liberal Democrats repugnant.
Democrats routinely sacrifice the safety, security and core American values that make this nation great, simply for political gain. Democrats actually take pride in; bashing and maligning our military, attacking core Christian values, catering to elements that actively seek to destroy this nation i.e. wiping the collective asses of radical Islamic types.
Democrats are proficient in promoting race baiting politics, poverty pimping, loathing capitalism; they fight harder to protect American trees rather than the American people, they actually believe we are not taxed enough and they are successful at promoting the notion that they and only they are the champions of promoting civil rights and
Democrats have a perpetual hard on for increasing bureaucracy.
I don’t know about you, but I want Democrats to lose, I want them relegated to the back of the political ideological bus forever.
Tom Brokaw and anyone else preaching this political reconciliation bullshit needs to start paying attention to the stupid shit Democrats say and do every damm day.
This is from Red State - Bill when he said this crazy shit was either on crack or he just had a mind blowing BJ.
I’m beginning to be a bit embarrassed by this continued nonsense that Hillary is somehow this great and brilliant woman.
This blog is not big enough to list all of the great women in this country both in business, politics, executive positions, community leaders, folks just Google the list of the top women executives not to forget the women around the world who are truly making a difference in all of our lives.
Forget my political leanings people; it would be almost impossible for anybody who looked closely at Hillary’s background and determine that she is the “”most gifted” person of our generation!?.” That is simply a criminally insane statement.
Bill Clinton lies like a silk sheet on a waterbed. Well, ok-he IS a silk sheet on a waterbed, but that’s not my point. I’m getting fairly accustomed to his nonsense-the great orator in modern times and all that. But really, MUST I be subjected to this?:
The former president opened a two-day swing through Iowa on behalf of his wife, packing nearly 500 people into a theater on the campus of Iowa State University.”She has spent a lifetime as a change agent when she had the option to do other things,” he said.
“I thought she was the most gifted person of our generation,” said Clinton, who said he told her, “You know, you really should dump me and go back home to Chicago or go to New York and take one of those offers you’ve got and run for office.”
OK-the urge to vomit has subsided…I can continue now.
“Most Gifted” person of our generation? Sorry, Hill…you don’t even come close babes.
Democrats insist restoring America’s reputation in the world, which they say has been damaged by George W. Bush, is priority one, but perhaps they should work a little harder at making our allies not hate us.
Now in a stupid and reckless move approved by Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Congress came up with a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide of 1915. That’s right; 1915. Turkey, now a NATO member and a key U.S. ally in the war on terror, accepts Armenians were killed but call it a massacre during a chaotic time, not an organized campaign of genocide. There are now angry protests in the streets of Turkey angry over pending H. Res 106: Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution.
Conyers hopes to move slavery bill during an Obama administration
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007
This crazy bastard is serious!
After waiting nearly two decades, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) is well positioned to move legislation that could lead the federal government to apologize for slavery and pay reparations.
But the Judiciary Committee chairman is willing to wait two more years, when he hopes Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will be in the White House.
A brief pause while Snoop laughs his ass off
The bill instructs the commission to review whether “any form of compensation to the descendants of African slaves is warranted.” The legislation adds that if the commission approves such compensation, it should determine who should be eligible for the reparations. The commission would be appropriated $8 million.
Most of the cosponsors of the measure are black, including Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.). White members who back it include Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and John Olver (D-Mass.).
Senior leadership lawmakers, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), have never cosponsored H.R. 40.
Obama Says U.S. Ready for a Black Leader…now that’s funny
Monday, February 19th, 2007
ORANGEBURG, S.C. - White House hopeful Barack Obama, taking a fellow black lawmaker to task, said Saturday voters are ready to elect a black president.
“At every turn in our history, there’s been somebody who said we can’t,” the Democratic senator from Illinois told a nearly all-black audience of about 2,000 at Claflin University.
“Some people said we can’t do this, we can’t do that, so we shouldn’t even try. If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I’m here to tell you, ‘Yes we can.’”
The comments drew the loudest ovation during a question-and-answer session in his first campaign swing through South Carolina, an early voting state.
The first-in-the-South contest here is seen as a test of candidates’ abilities to reach black voters. Half of the state’s Democratic primary voters are black.
Obama responded to comments this past week by Democratic state Sen. Robert Ford of Charleston, who helped mobilize black voters for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004, but has switched to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential race.
Ford said Tuesday that Obama, a first-term senator, has much to prove. “The media made this guy bigger than life,” Ford said. “This guy isn’t tested and they made him a rock star.”
Ford said one reason he was supporting Clinton, the New York senator, is that he is skeptical Obama can win the presidency and worries his nomination could hurt other Democratic candidates.
“Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose _ because he’s black and he’s top of the ticket. We’d lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything,” Ford said.
Ford drew widespread criticism for his comment and later apologized.
U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., introduced Obama, saying “Run, Barack, run.”
“Obama is able to run today because Rosa Parks sat down,” Clyburn said. “He is able to run today because Septima Clark stood up.”
Parks, in 1955, refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., sparking a mass boycott by thousands, mainly black women domestic workers who had long filled the buses’ back seats.
Clark was an educator and activist for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People decades before the nation’s attention turned to racial equality.
Clyburn says he is not endorsing a primary candidate.
State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin tells candidates the race is open and the black vote is not monolithic.
Darcel Lancaster, an 18-year-old Claflin freshman, spent nearly two hours waiting in the morning’s chill to be the first in line to see Obama. The biology major said she wouldn’t commit to Obama’s campaign.
“I’m going to look more into others,” she said.
She doesn’t expect him to win every black vote _ including hers.
“Some people think he’s not black enough,” Lancaster said. If she picked Obama, it wouldn’t be because of his race, she said. “He’s not full black,” Lancaster said.
OK THAT IS JUST RETARDED!
U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut spoke earlier Saturday at a Richland County Democratic Party breakfast to a crowd of less than 100.
Both Dodd and Obama had to shorten their South Carolina visits to get back to Washington where they voted for a Senate resolution opposing sending more U.S. troops to Iraq. The nonbinding measure fell four votes short.
Later Saturday, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine of Virginia endorsed Obama’s candidacy.
“Just the opportunities we have had to work together, my sense of where the nation is and what the nation needs makes me believe that the senator is the right candidate,” Kaine said at a news conference with Obama outside Virginia’s Executive Mansion in Richmond.
While reading some other websites and listening to a couple of talk shows ya know I am so sick of hearing about Obama I can’t see straight.
I almost cringe as I post this because I have said this so many times and I know it’s tired rhetoric on my part.
You are not going to get a large enough number of white people to EVER vote in a black man for president. I just don’t understand why the MSM or any other media source won’t deal honestly with this issue.
“At every turn in our history, there’s been somebody who said we can’t,” the Democratic senator from Illinois told a nearly all-black audience of about 2,000 at Claflin University.
“Some people said we can’t do this, we can’t do that, so we shouldn’t even try.”
Nobody is telling you not to try you jackass. I am aware that running for president gives you political street cred, this race might translate into a high level candidate position or some other perk, but nobody is going to vote your black ass into the presidency and anybody out there that even processes that notion is delirious.
White people talk a good game about being inclusive, and being open to diversity and all of the other politically correct crap.
But when they take their asses into the voting booth they almost certainly will say hell no to a nigga president, I don’t care how “well spoken” he is.
As a Negro I don’t give a shit about “making history” it’s about voting for the person who is best for this nation and the last person I want to see in office is some novice, flaming liberal, high yella Negra.
The only thing white Democrat liberals want from Negros is their vote, give “me your vote and we will throw gubment checks at ya”
PS
You know when I have a post on Obama and I use this one with him in the KKK robe I often wonder, is Robert KKK Byrd endorsing his presidential campaign?
After all Obama did help raise money for the old racist bastard.
What no Robert Byrd and Hussein photo ops? Just askin!
WASHINGTON - When Lt. Gen. David Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander of American forces in Iraq.
They knew of his reputation as a battlefield leader, a trainer of Iraqi troops and the author of the Army manual on counterinsurgency warfare. They also recognized the difficulty and importance of his new assignment.
Many of the questions probed deeply into the rationale for the president’s new strategy of injecting more U.S. troops into Baghdad neighborhoods wracked by killings by rival Sunni and Shiite gangs. Others challenged the readiness of Iraqi forces and the Baghdad government to do their part in reducing sectarian violence.
A few of the questions were naive, self-serving or off on tangents. But virtually the entire membership of the committee was present and senators of both parties recognized the value of probing this experienced and candid witness.
With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign. Her speech replayed some of the themes from her news conference the previous week, on her return from Iraq, when she made clear her disagreement with President Bush’s decision to add 21,500 soldiers and
Marines to Petraeus’ force.
She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a “Congress (that) was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense (Don Rumsfeld), refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground.”
From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry “the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future.” She said the escalation Bush ordered was too little and too late, and instead called on Congress to “threaten to cut money for the Iraqi troops and for the security for the Iraqi leadership,” as a way to break the political gridlock in Baghdad and force efforts at national reconciliation.
She wound up the speech by saying that despite her disagreement with the policy, she wanted Petraeus’ assurance that “we have every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect these young men and women” going into battle.
“I’ll do that, senator,” Petraeus said, and after that four-word response, Clinton was finished. She had no questions to ask.
Judging by all the polls, Clinton is the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a leading candidate for the Republican nomination, is also a member of the Armed Services Committee.
McCain asked Petraeus 14 questions, ranging from the political situation in Iraq to the morale of the troops to the time line for the planned “surge.” He ran out of time before he ran out of questions - quite a contrast to Clinton.
Clinton aides said the senator thought it was important to rebut the comments from several other committee members suggesting that congressional resolutions opposing the president’s policy would “undercut the troops,” so she used her time for that purpose. But I can think of three other possible explanations for her remarkable reluctance to probe the general’s thinking.
First, she has been treading a careful line from her early support of military action against Saddam Hussein to an increasingly sharp criticism of the war and calls for troop reductions. Perhaps she feared that dialogue with Petraeus would lead her into dangerous, uncharted waters. Caution is commendable, but she is sometimes faulted for being too calculating.
Second, the hearing came only three days after she announced her presidential exploratory committee, and she may have decided it was a good opportunity to repeat her views on Iraq policy before TV cameras rather than share time with the general. That wouldn’t say much about her priorities as she begins a second six-year term as senator, but New York voters last November presumably knew she might have loftier goals than just minding her Senate duties.
The third, less-benign possibility is that Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health-care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers - so please just do as I say. In that period, she and her deputy, Ira Magaziner, two of the smartest policy wonks in captivity, were also supremely self-confident - and in some eyes, arrogant. And it cost them support, even among potential allies.
Last week, Clinton began her presidential campaign, as she did her first race for the Senate in New York, by saying she wanted to do a lot of listening. She sure wasn’t listening to Gen. Petraeus. She wasn’t even asking.
This is simply John Kerry being the grandiose moronic idiot that he is.
I continue to be amazed at just how stupid this man is and his willingness to open his mouth and say some really stupid shit.
Kerry is just a poor pathetic dude, I almost feel sorry for him, NOT!
I also don’t understand this liberal trait of going overseas and talking shit about this country. Does it not occur to these jackasses that news does manage to make its way across the ocean?
Here’s John Kerry speaking while sitting just a few feet away from Mohammad Khatami, the former President of the Iranian terror state.
Kerry was asked about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran?s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Kerry said the Bush administration has failed in addressing a number of foreign policy issues.
“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.
“So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East ? in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”
Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”
The Bush administration walked away from Kyoto? Methinks the Senator is revising history:
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. . . .
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.
It was a unanimous Senate (with five abstainers) as well as the Clinton administration who walked away from Kyoto. The current administration walked away from Kyoto as well, but for the same reasons as the Clinton administration. Kerry himself, in fact, voted for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution to keep us out of Kyoto. Yet here he is now, a decade later, dishonestly accusing the current administration of isolating this country from the world on an issue like Kyoto that Kerry himself opposed for the very same reasons the Bush administration opposes it.
Why should we believe anything that comes out of this guy’s mouth? It’s bad enough that he’s sitting next to one of America’s enemies bad mouthing his own country, but he’s flat-out lying in what he’s saying as well.
Oh, and stopping off to give an autograph to a guy who supports executing gays for being gay is a real nice touch. But don’t expect any of the gay rights groups to hold Kerry accountable for that, though.
This via Neal Bortz, If you have not seen the video of Ted Kennedy ranting about the minimum wage you should for a great laugh. Dude is a nut!
The Democrats class warfare minimum wage increase is now being debated in the Senate .. and Ted Kennedy is about to have a stroke. Did you hear this pathetic man screaming at the Republicans? [video] “What is it about it (the minimum wage) that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?”
Well … of course .. most of you will recognize this as cheap demagoguery. There are two faulty premises to Kennedy’s question:
The working wage has some meaningful connection to “working” men and women.
Republicans are offended by working men and women.
Both premises are false.
Let’s deal with this “working men and women” line first. This rhetorical nonsense is now a basic part of the left wing class warfare arsenal. The goal here is to foster the idea that the more money you make the less you work. The reality is that there we have two resources we can use to make money, physical labor and mental labor. Most of us use a combination of the two. The ugly little fact is that, generally speaking, and professional athletes aside, the more of your mind you use the more money you will make, and the more of your muscle you use the less money you’ll make.
Here’s another fact. The more money you make, the more likely it is that you will vote Republican. The less money you make, the more likely you will vote Democrat. Bring this all together and you’ll soon figure out that the more you use physical labor to earn money, the more likely it is you will vote Democrat.
Knowing that almost all Americans value the concept of hard work, the Democrats have worked to promote the concept that the only real work that physical labor. Working with your mind — managing investments, for instance — just isn’t work. Therefore the only real working people out there are those who work with their hands instead of their brains …. or those more likely to vote Democrat. Once you’ve made this absurd concept a reality you have created a wonderful class warfare weapon. If you’re smarter than the average bear, and if you realize that it is not the role of government to set wages, you then become an enemy of “working men and women.”
This, then, enables Ted Kennedy’s demagoguery. He first asks what it is about the minimum wage that, as he says, drives Republicans so crazy. Simple. First — there are still a few Republicans out there who believe that in a free market economy it is not the role of government to set wages. If the government can set a minimum wage, what is to stop the government from setting a maximum wage? If the government can set a minimum wage, then why can’t the government set a minimum wage based on family size? Why can’t the Imperial Federal Government of the United States just pass a law saying that the minimum wage goes up by $2.00 per hour for every child born to the worker? Once you allow the government to have a say in establishing the value of labor … the sky is the limit. Where does it stop?
Secondly … Republicans realize that less than 20% of the people in this country who earn the minimum wage live in families that are anywhere near or below the poverty level. Over six out of ten people who begin work at the minimum wage have received their first raise within the first year. Only 15% of minimum wage workers are still receiving the minimum wage after three years on their job. What percentage of the full time work force is earning just the minimum wage? Around 1 percent.
So .. to answer Kennedy’s screaming questions: The minimum wage drives (some) Republicans crazy because there is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that allows the government to set wages, and the minimum wage is used by Democrats as nothing more than a tool of class warfare. Around one percent of full-time workers earn the minimum wage, and most of them are part of families that are well above the poverty line. It just isn’t an issue. Knowing Republicans are also upset because they know that the Democrats push for the minimum wage increases are just another way of telling unions “thanks for your support.”
And to answer Kennedy’s second question, there is nothing about “working men and women” that Republicans find offensive. What they do find offensive is the Democrat use of the phrase “working people” as a tool of class warfare through their attempts to convince lower income Americans that those who make more than they do aren’t really working for the money they earn.
Last year Sen. Hillary Clinton was hammered by the left for co-sponsoring legislation to criminalize desecration of the American flag.
On Tuesday she again co-sponsored an anti-desecration bill – with different results.
This year’s bill was intended as an alternative to a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration – opposed by Clinton – that was about to come up for a vote in the Senate.
Clinton’s measure failed to garner enough votes, as did the proposed amendment, but this time more than half of Democrats backed the legislation.
The outcome indicated that Clinton’s position now has plenty of support within her party and she “remained within the Democratic fold as she prepared for a possible presidential race,” the New York Times reports.
But liberal political commentator Arianna Huffington is sharply critical of Clinton’s stance.
“It seems in line with her stance on so many issues – trying to strike right in the middle and triangulate, by not supporting the amendment because that would upset the base too much and at the same time supporting a legislative proposal that will appeal to the center,” Huffington said.
“It’s a truly tragic way of leading.”
Rep. Tom Davis (R.-Va.)
Lifetime ACU Rating: 71%
2005 NTU Rating: C- (49%)
Chairman If Democrats Win Majority in House
Rep. Henry Waxman ( D.-Calif.)
Lifetime ACU Rating: 5%
2005 NTU Rating: F (15%)
Hyper-liberal congressman from Hollywood. In 1990s, he worked to protect the Clinton Administration from the committee’s investigations of corruption. When Clinton left office, Waxman reversed course, demanding investigations of the Bush Administration. Nonetheless, he objected to the committee’s probe of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who eventually pleaded guilty to stealing classified documents from the National Archives. Under his leadership, this committee would launch multiple investigations of the Bush Administration.
International Relations
Current Chairman
Rep. Henry Hyde (R.-Ill.)
Lifetime ACU Rating: 85%
2005 NTU Rating: C+ (54%)
Chairman If Democrats Win Majority in House
Rep. Tom Lantos (D.-Calif.)
Lifetime ACU Rating: 8%
2005 NTU Rating: F (11%)
When President Reagan was rebuilding U.S. military might to counter the massive arms buildup of the Soviet Union, Lantos pushed for a nuclear freeze and defunding the Nicaraguan Contras. A nuclear freeze, Lantos said, was “the most pragmatic, hard-headed, down-to-earth stand we can take to move away from this suicidal nuclear arms race.” More recently he has supported the International Criminal Court and opposed President Bush’s abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Ways and Means
Current Chairman
Rep. Bill Thomas (R.-Calif.)
Lifetime ACU Rating: 80%
2005 NTU Rating: C+ (55%)
Chairman If Democrats Win Majority in House
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.-N.Y.)
Lifetime ACU Rating: 4%
2005 NTU Rating: F (15%)
Has opposed major income-tax cuts ever since he was elected in 1970. Voted against the historic Reagan tax cut of 1981. Voted against each of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts. Meanwhile, he voted for President Clinton’s record-setting tax increase in 1993. If Rangel becomes chairman, he is certain to preside over new tax increases — at a minimum allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire without being renewed.
Republicans want to kill you, take your money, slap yo mamma and eat your children
Sunday, November 5th, 2006
Old post but since the election is Tuesday, well…
I found this via Democratic Underground. It’s funny many times after I read such nonsense I am flat at a loss for words. This kinda explains Howard Dean, these are his peeps. The kook liberal left can identify with the stupid shit Howard says.
Man, but these nuts are angry and are becoming more unglued everyday.
Somebody get them some good meds or a nice hit off the pipe. Oh crap, that might be the problem. Sorry.
Disclaimer….Political Party Poop does not endorse the use of illegal substances. Drink responsible!
Thoughts on Republican Accusations of “Class Warfare” Against Democrats
The term “class warfare” as it is used in the United States today is very misleading – and purposely so. It is primarily used by Republican operatives to conjure up fears of the “lower class” masses rising up to steal from the rich what is rightfully theirs, in the process plunging our country into Communism or anarchism. For example, the number one Republican operative in our country, George W. Bush, said not too long ago in preparation for another round of tax cuts for the wealthy: “I understand the politics of economic stimulus — that some people would like to turn this into class warfare.”
Not only is this line of propaganda condescending and offensive, as it implies the existence of a so-called “lower class” that is somehow inferior to the upper classes who are the defenders of our civilization. But it is also terribly misleading.
There is indeed a kind of internal warfare going on in our country today, as is testified to by the massive grassroots support for the impeachment of the worst President in our history. But this warfare does not involve lower class vs. upper class, or even the poor vs. the rich. Rather, it is more accurately characterized as a struggle between those who seek responsible government versus those who currently hold power in our country and who wish to expand their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. In fact, it is the former group, not the latter, who are the defenders of our civilization, and it is the latter group who are plunging our country into anarchism.
The idea that these two groups break out along so-called “class” lines, whatever that means, is ridiculous, unless by that we mean the moral class vs. the robber baron class. For example, consider the 90 some thousand persons who have registered with the DU. These people certainly represent the whole spectrum of economic status, and yet they are almost uniformly on the side of this struggle that seeks responsible government. True, they are doubtlessly much more intelligent and better educated on average than the other side. But that doesn’t qualify this as “class warfare”.
I swear the Democrats don’t want to win this election. They just don’t, these people are just simply the biggest bunch of fucken idiots on the planet.
You think after the Kerry foot-in-mouth episode that common sense would finally set in.
Jesus how many time can I say this, if they would have just shut the hell up this election cycle, Congressional takeover at least in the house, was in the bag.
In this particular political climate, this should have been a cakewalk for Democrats.
To make matters worse (for Democrats) this is the party chairman running his idiot mouth.
I may be eating my words but I just don’t think so. I am totally convinced that the Republicans will hold on to control.
These Democrats are just too stupid to win elections, never mind what their ideas are.
They don’t deserve to win just on total political campaign incompetence alone.
BURLINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday that President Bush is a lot like Richard Nixon, except that the disgraced former president wasn’t incompetent.
In remarks to reporters at Vermont Democratic Party headquarters, the former Vermont governor who briefly ran for president in 2004 cited what he described as similarities between Bush and the late former president, who is the nation’s only chief executive to have resigned from office.
“Let me think carefully about this,”
The idiot bastard actually processed this stupidity before he spoke.
Dean said in a political riff reminiscent of his days as governor. “I think George Bush is the most incompetent president we’ve had in our lifetime. I mean, nobody would accuse President Nixon of being incompetent.”
I know y’all are like “damm dude enough about Herman!”
Er Uh, no NO. Why? Because Kerry was the Democrats choice last election cycle to lead this nation. Therefore until the Democrats nominate another individual as the presidential nominee Herman is it.
So anything he says and does is representative of the Democratic Party, because we all know that tis how y’all think anywho.
By JOHN SOLOMON
WASHINGTON (AP) - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to “the perpetuation of war crimes.”
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.
After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities
Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army “a greater anathema.”
“I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,” Kerry wrote. “We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job.’
“Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,” he wrote.
Kerry’s spokesman, David Wade, said Wednesday the historical document needed to be viewed in the era in which it was written but that it nonetheless raised a “bedrock question in a time of war when sacrifice should be shared by all Americans.”
“These are the words 34 years ago of a 28-year-old veteran home from a war gone wrong, wondering who in America will bear the cost of battle and shoulder the responsibility of military service,” Wade said.
Kerry filled out the candidate questionnaire at the request of Massachusetts Political Action for Peace, an anti-war group that decades later turned over its historical documents to university researchers.
AP obtained the document from someone who gathered it from archives during Kerry’s unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign against President Bush. Republicans in that election relentlessly assailed Kerry’s role in the anti-war movement decades earlier.
Kerry and Bush renewed their rivalry again this week, with the president accusing Kerry of offending troops. Kerry said he botched the text of a joke and didn’t mean to insult troops.
On Wednesday, Kerry canceled campaign appearance on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates and issued an apology.
John Kerry: Bush’s North Korea Policy a ‘Shocking Failure’
Wednesday, November 1st, 2006
SNOOP NOTE: Just FYI, I first posted this on October 10 0853a From the Democrats can’t shut up file.
This is why personally I’m not that concerned about the upcoming elections. Because Democrats are not bright enough to take a good situation, as they have now and run with it. The only thing they need to do is “shut the hell up”, don’t say anything.
Allow the media, Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Couric, to do the dirty work and just hang out until election day. But Noooooo!, Kerry and Clinton had to open their mouths and say the most predictable and partisan statements they could make.
Democrats are incapable of keeping their mouths shut. I swear most of them are not that damm bright, which is why I simply can’t take most Democrats seriously.
Just watch in the days leading up to the election how many ignorant ass Democrats will say something completely stupid and meaningless in the grand scheme of wining in November.
Tag Mr. Dean, your turn.
(NEWSMAX) -Democrats seized on North Korea’s brazen act to criticize President Bush’s record in confronting the communist regime, contending the administration’s focus on Iraq ignored legitimate threats.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president’s rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush’s policy as a “shocking failure,” and said, “While we’ve been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.”
One month before midterm elections, North Korea’s reported nuclear test provided Republicans an opportunity to shift the focus from their embarrassing - and politically explosive - congressional page scandal to national security, an issue the GOP considers its strength.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, accused Democrats of playing partisan politics with a nuclear weapons threat. “Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il,” he said.
Seizing on North Korea’s actions to argue Republicans are stronger on security than Democrats is riddled with pitfalls and leaves the GOP’s standard-bearer - Bush - as well as his rank-and-file vulnerable to criticism.
The president long has faced complaints that he has failed to sufficiently address North Korea and the threat has festered on his watch.
In the nearly five years since Bush labeled North Korea part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and Iraq, Kim Jong Il’s government has withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, announced it has nuclear weapons, refused to return to six-nation talks and launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a long-range Taepodong-2.
My old friend Isaiah Treff once told me: “Jay, if you weren’t such a wise guy you would be a wise man.” That line applies today to the great Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John F. Kerry, a man who nearly graduated from electoral college. Someone offered JFK a franc for his thoughts the other night, eliciting this bon mot: Get a good education so you don’t get stuck in Iraq. Now Kerry’s knowledge of French will sure come in handy; words like gaffe and faux pas and contretemps will figure prominently in conversations conducted behind his back. It’s a regular cause celebre, you should excuse the expression.
JFK was given the chance to tow his marooned PT Cruiser off the shoals. Citizens being charitable and journalists being slavish, it would have been the work of an instant to apologize. Instead he showed a profile in courage. Courage to stand up to those Republican hacks; like Custer he would not sit still for their bull. Courage to stand up to that “stuffed suit,” Tony Snow, in the starkest case of pot-kettle black calling since Paris Hilton called Lindsay Lohan a ditz. Courage to stand up to “doughy” Rush Limbaugh, who apparently managed to rattle Kerry with half his rabbit-foot tied behind is back.
So poor Kerry, Yale diploma and all, got stuck up on Iraq himself. As his advisers will tell him in French: “Oui bleu ette.” Or as his wife will relegate him: “Oubliette.” Not to mention the 57 varieties of spicy remarks she will tender his way. If the Democrats were really headed for Congressional victory a day ago, their chances have now sailed off on the swift boat to China.
TRUTH TO TELL, I find all this saddening. It is my fond, perhaps unrealistic, wish to live in a country with two sets of viable political ideas competing first intellectually, then electorally. This was said, in various overlong essays of turgid prose foisted upon us back in college days, to be the beauty of the two-party system. We took this to heart in our youth, if only in our effort to crash two parties a night. There were real debates in those days and the Democrats were often right on such things as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.
Now, sadly, my job has become for the most part a no-brainer. While my Democrat friends tend to be well-meaning, nice people, they are represented in the political arena by a band of rapacious rapscallions. Their intellectual wing has also shut down, paralyzed by a weird cluster of alliances and prejudices. It is not merely true the Republicans are alone in promoting vibrant ideas at this time; it is so scarily true that it makes the Republicans wrangle among themselves just so they can have some sense of philosophical ferment.
Think about it. Left-wingers embraced a sort of free-love ideal in the ’60s, originally out of a sort of science-trumps-morality logic, but now they have followed it to abortion as an inexorable destination — to the point where the logic and science of the child’s viability must be ignored. They accepted a model which identified religious Jews and Christians as the victims of a huge confidence game, rendering all the enthusiasms of such people suspect. Then along comes an attack from a quasi-theological force identifying the Judeo-Christian world as its target and leftists cannot work up the verve to join the fight for survival. The left agreed, based initially in philosophy, that all verity is nullity, and now cannot summon the moxie to do battle for the truth.
At this point I will let you in on a little secret, a powerful insight into the human personality. The fact is that a big part of the reluctance by Republicans earlier in this political season to vote for their own cause is wishful thinking that somehow a cleaner ideology will emerge from the destruction. Just as the Madeleine Albrights of the world are upset with America being the only superpower, some purist conservatives are upset with the Republicans being the only super-party. They fear the wrath of the Founding Fathers, who sought to foster an atmosphere of rational ratiocination.
Instead we get this. The Democrat Party are snobs, solons in salons, calling the Republicans slobs. Their books have no ideas, just analysis of how Karl Rove gulls naive rubes in revival tents into voting against their true interests. Books with titles like “The Haecceity of the Hayseed”; or, “What Makes Hicks Tick.” One party has the condescension while the other is in the ascension. One party does the patronizing while the other has the patrons. It’s not my fault if my side wins by default. It’s my party that has the ideas and I’ll cry if I want to.
The Rev. Al Sharpton criticized the Christian right Tuesday for focusing too much political discussion on abortion and same-sex marriage and said black churches must talk about fighting poverty, equal access to education and other social justice issues.
With comedian/activist Dick Gregory at his side, Sharpton also condemned Indiana’s new voter ID law requiring people to present government-issued identification at the polls.
“We have been inundated in the faith community with bedroom sexual morality issues and not dealing with the broader moral issues of poverty, of injustice and of health care,” Sharpton said at a news conference amid a two-day meeting of talks and revivals.
“We can no longer be misused by some in the Christian right that will not deal with the broader issue of injustice and fairness and inequity in our society,” the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate said.
The Rev. Jeffrey Johnson, whose Eastern Star Church hosted the meeting, said the issues at stake in next Tuesday’s election go beyond personal morality to broader questions.
“Why are half of our Afro-American boys not graduating from high school? Why is there 1.1 million more people in poverty over the past few years while we’re talking about the better economy, and 11 percent of African-Americans are unemployed?” Johnson said.
Conservative Christian leaders said the problems Sharpton and Johnson cited were symptomatic of more fundamental ills.
“You’ve got to go beyond that and address the root causes, which is the breakdown of family and morality,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council.
Stable homes for children will lead to better education, higher social attainment and lower incarceration rates, Perkins said.
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black conservative who leads the Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, or BOND, said Sharpton was most concerned with Democrats regaining political power.
“Jobs and education - those things come when families are united,” Peterson said.
Sharpton said his agenda was nonpartisan.
He also criticized Indiana’s new voter ID law, which will be tested in a general election for the first time next Tuesday. He compared it to poll taxes and other barriers to voting that blacks have faced.
“Now we don’t ask you, ‘Did your granddaddy vote?’ when you know your granddaddy was a slave. We ask you for identification that we know large percentages of you would not have, given the social circumstances beyond your control,” Sharpton said.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported last March that only about 56 percent of blacks voted in the 2004 general election, compared with about 66 percent of whites. Among blacks who registered to vote but did not cast ballots, 7.2 percent cited registration problems.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Indiana Democrats have challenged the voter ID law before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. No ruling is expected before next week’s election.
The conference at Eastern Star Church was the third in a series this year by Sharpton’s National Action Network, following gatherings last summer in Dallas and Augusta, Ga. The fourth begins Thursday in Detroit.
Since Kerry wants to go on the offensive instead of apologizing…
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006
From Hot Air - Sen. John Kerry held a press conference moments ago (2:45edt) to address a controversial remark he made implying those who are uneducated serve in the military and get stuck in Iraq. Kerry made it “crystal clear” that he apologizes to no one, adding his remarks were a “botched joke” about the President, not the troops.
The liberal bloggers will try and get their shit together and come up with excuses for “Herman”
But his attacks on the military are not new.
Posted by JOCUSN on Newsbusters - December 6, 2005 - 09:42.
On Sunday’s edition of CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) said in an interview with Bob Schieffer that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children.
Here’s a blurb from the transcript:
“And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”
And then he tells us who needs to be terrorizing the women and children:
“Whether you like it or not… Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.”
Once again, John Kerry shows us his disdain for the military and the lies he will spread to further the twisted agenda of the Democratic Party. With everything else heard from Rep. Murtha and Howard Dean in recent days, it’s clear the liberal left doesn’t want democracy to take hold in Iraq. They want us to fail so they can prop themselves up for the ‘06 and ‘08 elections.
The rocky marriage of religion and politics was tested again last weekend when Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. criticized the GOP’s approach to faith.
During a stop Saturday in Paris, Tenn., Ford said one of the hallmarks of the Democratic Party is that members don’t “use the Bible to judge people.”
He then quoted from the Bible about “the spirit of fear,” and living in the spirit of love, and he paraphrased U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn.
“My friend Lincoln Davis, who chairs this campaign, says there is one big difference between us and … Republicans when it comes to our faith,” Ford said. “He said ‘Republicans fear the Lord. Democrats fear and love the Lord.’”
After Saturday night’s debate in Nashville, Ford told reporters that the comment wasn’t directed at Corker.
“I just made the point … people who go around and try to judge other people are to be real careful,” Ford said.
However, Republican opponent Bob Corker’s campaign and supporters said the comments crossed the line.
“If Harold Ford believes what he said about our relationship with God is true, then it’s incredibly disturbing,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said in a prepared statement. “It’s outrageous for Harold Ford to say that someone’s love for the Lord depends on their political views — and it is offensive to all Tennesseans who want their next senator to bring people together, not divide them.”
Religious rehetoric has “been used fairly effectively by Ford to insulate himself against personal attacks,” said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. “Clearly the turning point of this was the ad in the church.”
Ford’s ad, filmed inside Mt. Moriah East Baptist Church in Orange Mound, was widely hailed by pundits as successful and criticized by some civil liberty and interfaith groups as questionable.
“The recent rush of candidates-political parties — and their often aggressive tactics — to reach out to ‘people of faith’ lures religious organizations and religious leaders into dangerous legal territory,” C. Welton Gaddy, president of the 185,000-member Interfaith Alliance, wrote in a letter last month to the national chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties.
“We didn’t mix religion and politics,” Ford told an interfaith gathering at a prayer breakfast in Chattanooga earlier this month after quoting from Ephesians. “I am who I am. I can’t step out of who I am when I go to work.”
The National Republican Senatorial Committee released a commercial that borrowed heavily from Ford’s church ad and questioned his God-focused image in light of his attendance at a Playboy-sponsored party last year.
Behind the back-and-forth is a battle over religious voters, a demographic that in previous election years has helped turn out the Republican vote. This month, a Gallup poll found white religious voters “equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican,” a dramatic shift from their strong Republican leanings expressed in surveys conducted earlier in the year.
“One of the things the Republicans have done very well over the last 20 years or so is make religion one of their cornerstones,” said John Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. “The Democrats don’t want to give that ground up. Religion isn’t Democratic or Republican.”
There are very few saints among people of any race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. None should be above criticism.
Increasingly, however, there are tighter and tighter restrictions on what you can say about more and more groups. San Francisco radio talk show host Pete Wilson discovered this recently when he criticized a city Supervisor and his female friend — but not lover — who had a baby together.
The man is gay and the woman is a lesbian, so they are not lovers in a committed relationship.
Raising a child is no piece of cake, even when the parents are married and committed to staying together. Raising a child where there is no stable, committed relationship may be cutting edge stuff but Pete Wilson’s point was that a child is not an experiment.
The same could be said of heterosexuals like the woman who recently had a baby in her sixties. That’s great for making a splash in the media but what is going to happen when the baby becomes a teenager and the mother’s energy level has declined with age, if she is still around at all?
The real issue, however, is neither heterosexual or homosexual, and it extends even beyond the important question of the best interests of the child.
The larger question for American society is, as Joan Rivers has often said: “Can we talk?”
Political bigwigs in San Francisco say “No.” They are demanding that Pete Wilson resign. In San Francisco, no one is supposed to criticize anything done by homosexuals.
Moreover, this attitude is not confined to San Francisco or to gays. On the other side of the country, Columbia University students stormed the stage when one of the Minuteman critics of our lax immigration laws was trying to speak.
At many other colleges and universities, he would not even have been allowed on campus in the first place. Many campuses have speech codes where it is called creating a “hostile environment” if you say things that make various racial, sexual, or other protected groups unhappy.
Young people educated at our most prestigious colleges and universities are learning the lesson that storm trooper tactics can silence those who are not in vogue on campus, and honest expressions of opinion about issues involving anything from affirmative action to women in the military can get you suspended if you refuse the humiliation and hypocrisy of being “re-educated.”
Meanwhile, liberals in Congress have long been advocating a return to the so-called “fairness” doctrine requiring “balance” in broadcasting. Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative simply because liberal talk radio has failed repeatedly to attract comparable-sized audiences.
The listeners have spoken but the politicians want to overrule them. Some call it “hush Rush” legislation.
“Fairness” here, as in so many other contexts, means nothing more and nothing less than the exercise of arbitrary power by third parties, since everyone has a different definition of what “fairness” means.
Free speech is not a luxury but a necessity if we are to hear the various sides of issues before we decide what to do.
It is not a question of Pete Wilson’s rights or even of the rights of all the people who speak or write on public issues. Such people are not even ten percent of the population and probably not even one percent.
Their individual rights matter. But among the pressing problems of our time, their interests alone rank far down the list.
Free speech rights exist for the whole society, not for writers and speakers. When you say that we can hear only what a growing number of censors want us to hear, you are condemning us to grope in the dark when making all sorts of decisions — about ourselves, our families and the future of our society.
Whether Pete Wilson’s opinion was right or wrong is a very small issue compared to blinding us all for the sake of political correctness. Can we talk? Apparently, for some people, the answer is “No.”
There’s a new book on Ronald Reagan making the rounds, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. Its author, Paul Kengor, unearthed a sensational document from the Soviet archives. That document is a memo regarding an offer made by Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts via former Senator John Tunney, both Democrats, to the General Secretary of the Communist Party, USSR, Yuri Andropov, in 1983. The offer was to help the Soviet leadership, military and civilian, conduct a PR campaign in the United States as President Ronald Reagan sought re-election. The goal of the PR campaign would be to cast President Reagan as a warmonger, the Soviets as willing to peacefully co-exist, and thereby turn the electorate away from Reagan. It was a plan to enlist Soviet help, and use the American press, in unseating an American president.
Think about that.
I received a review copy of The Crusader on Wednesday. The book first references the Kennedy plan on page 206, and includes the complete Soviet memo, dated May 14, 1983, in the Appendix. It’s an eye opener.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y. V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and the television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.
Just, not the senator himself. Because collaborating with the leadership of a foreign state to unseat an American president, by whatever means, could be seen by Americans as treasonous. No fingerprints, that’s the rule. Who knew Reagan would win and then defeat the USSR, so this document could see the light of day?
The Kennedy KGB memo runs about four pages. If there’s an honest liberal left in the country, it would be nice to have their take on this revelation.
Update: I should clear up a misconception that’s making the rounds, and that’s the authorship of the memo. Ted Kennedy didn’t write the memo. The memo’s author is V. Chebrikov, head of the Committee on State Security of the USSR–the KGB. It seems to have been written as an after-action in response to a meeting with former Sen. John V. Tunney. Tunney had been sent to the USSR to propose the strategy on Kennedy’s behalf to Andropov. The timing of the meeting isn’t immediately clear from the memo, but if the meeting took place it was most likely in late April or early May 1983.
I think the next step here is to nail down the authenticity of the memo. If it’s real, then the story is obviously very significant. If it’s not real, there’s no story here at all.
Polls indicate that if the November elections were held today, Democratic candidates would make major gains across the board. The Democrats are within reach of the 15 seats they need to win a majority in the House of Representatives and might even capture control of the Senate. That would be quite an achievement considering the party itself is in disarray.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been feuding with key members of Congress over how to spend the party’s money. Things got so bad this spring that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the party’s point person for picking up House seats, stormed out of a meeting screaming obscenities. Their respective staffs patched together a compromise last month, but only after DNC staffers toyed with demanding a “good behavior” clause requiring Emanuel to stop badmouthing Dean.
By David S. Broder - The Washington Post
Here’s John Kerry 
The Democrats class warfare minimum wage increase is now being debated in the Senate .. and Ted Kennedy is about to have a stroke. Did you hear this pathetic man 
Last year Sen. Hillary Clinton was hammered by the left for co-sponsoring legislation to criminalize desecration of the American flag.
I found this via 
BURLINGTON - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday that President Bush is a lot like Richard Nixon, except that the disgraced former president wasn’t incompetent.
Posted by 
This from 