politicalpartypoop.com

This is a 2005 article by Alicia Colon originally published in the The New York Sun contrasting Rep. Charles Rangel with Herman Cain, two influential African American leaders, one still lives on the “Democratic plantation,” and works every day to keep others enslaved there, while the other has risen to become a star in the conservative movement and tirelessly works to free people from the chains of the Democratic plantation.

Why do I post this old article, because it’s tis still relevant, and remember Charles Rangel if the Democrats take control would be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
You people have short memories so I’ll remind you:

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.

Rangel is a one of the oldest Democrat Party plantation poverty pimps in the House. 

Graduating From ‘Stupid Anonymous’

ALICIA COLON

Two years ago, I attended an AARP women’s luncheon at the famed 21 Club restaurant. The wife of Rep. Charles Rangel, Alma Rangel, also attended, and one of the organizers offered me the opportunity of an introduction. I declined as politely as possible, fearing I might inadvertently blurt out to her, “Oh, you poor dear. You have my deepest sympathy.”

At the time, Mr. Rangel had been making comments that defied comprehension and I had been so shocked at his injudicious remarks about our military that I wrote a column about it. In a television interview, he more or less accused our soldiers of deliberately killing innocent Iraqi women and children. In another interview, with radio host Steve Malzberg, he called the Iraq war “the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. … This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed.”

Apparently emboldened by the fact that his outrageous remarks outraged only conservatives, Mr. Rangel has now demonstrated that when it comes to smearing the president, he has carte blanche with members of his party. At a town hall meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Rangel said to the cheering crowd, “George Bush is our Bull Connor.” Local black community leaders (I use that term very loosely) like the Reverend Al Sharpton, Rep. Major Owens, and Council Member Charles Barron not only supported Mr. Rangel, they went even further. Mr. Owens said President Bush was even more diabolical than Connor. Mr. Barron added, “To be a racist in the richest, most powerful country in the world is lethal. Look what he’s doing to communities of color all over the world. He’s a lethal racist.”

Mr. Rangel was referring, of course, to the infamous Alabama police official who turned hoses and police attack dogs against innocent, unarmed, nonviolent civil rights protesters. What Mr. Rangel and his fellow Democrats have not pointed out, of course, is that Connor was a Democrat, as were George Wallace and Lester Maddox. In fact, the 1964 Civil Rights Act needed the support of Republicans to get through the legislature because the Southern Democrats were vehemently opposed to it.

Mr. Rangel and many in his party are part of the black leadership that has long taken the black community for granted, and that’s probably what inspired the title of Herman Cain’s book, “They Think You’re Stupid.”

Mr. Cain is a Southern man, born in Georgia, who probably has a better understanding of the Bull Connors of the world than the Harlem native Mr. Rangel. Mr. Cain was in New York recently on a book tour promoting what has to be the definitive book on where the black community stands in the eyes of both parties. Mr. Cain refers to many in that community as the politically homeless.

He charges that the Democratic Party is losing voters because its usual rhetoric has been exposed as empty. Republicans can’t get these voters because its rhetoric doesn’t resonate with many of them. Voters, Mr. Cain says, are hungry for common sense, a sense of urgency, and real leadership.

He is a rarity in politics, a black Republican, but that description does not connote any allegiance to a political party.

I contacted Mr. Cain to get his reaction to Mr. Rangel’s remarks. He said, “Rangel’s comment is another perfect example of how prominent Democrats think their constituency is stupid, in an attempt to keep them on the Democratic plantation. The comparison is ridiculous and an insult to anyone who thinks for themselves.”

In the introduction to his book, Mr. Cain writes, “My name is Herman Cain and I used to be stupid. This is because I did not know the history of the Democratic Party, nor did I know the history of the Republican Party. Like millions of voters, I used to make my voting decisions based on news, sound bites, political labels, distortions, misinformation, and sometimes no information at all. … I am now a graduate of ‘Stupid Anonymous’ and want to share my awakening with others.”

How I wish that Mr. Cain were a New Yorker. Perhaps he could awaken the black voters who continually vote for representatives like Messrs. Rangel, Owens, and Barron. These are politicians who always resort to interjecting race into issues rather than offering real solutions. Because the most powerful black man and woman in American history are not Democrats, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are regularly denigrated as race sellouts. That the black community in New York hasn’t recognized the absurdity of that calumny means that some are just plain “stuck on stupid.”

Dispirited conservatives and Republicans rightfully appalled at the Cunningham, Abramoff, and Foley scandals should remember history as they contemplate not voting in the 2006 elections because of disillusionment.

In early 1973, the Dow approached new highs in a booming economy. In the 1972 election, the new left was rejected in almost every state. The Paris Peace Treaty was concluded with North Vietnam memorializing its pledge not to interfere militarily in the affairs of South Vietnam. The nation was prosperous and at peace.

Worst President

Within a short time, the mainstream media were able to dismember and destroy the Nixon Administration, using as their sword the Watergate affair. In the congressional elections of 1974, Republican candidates were pounded, losing 48 House seats and five Senate seats.

Until the 1990s, the so-called “Watergate Babies” (i.e. left-wing Democrats) ruled Congress. As its first act after the 1974 election, the new Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam. Within a short period of time, this led to Communist conquest of all of Indochina, the massacre of at least 4 million of our friends in the killing fields of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and the displacement of millions of “boat people.”

In 1976, the left wing captured the White House with the worst President of modern times—Jimmy Carter. By 1979, the U.S. economy was in shambles with 12% inflation, 11% unemployment, and vast deficits. Our military was reduced to a shadow. With even our embassy officials held hostage in Tehran, the United States became a powerless joke to the world. It may be fairly said that but for Ronald Reagan the days of our democracy might well have been numbered by the consequences of the 1974 election.

It is not clear why the voters of 1974 thought it wise or just to indirectly cause the destruction of millions of allies in Southeast Asia because of the cover-up of a minor burglary at the Watergate. They certainly did not know that by their votes they would punish themselves severely, leaving, by the end of the Carter years, a U.S. economy that was a burned-out hulk and a nation that was humiliated.

I wonder whether history will repeat itself this year. Despite mainstream media distortion, the economy is in its strongest condition since the Reagan years with low unemployment and inflation rates and diminishing fiscal deficits. We have recovered from the implosion of the Clinton Internet bubble and the shock of Sept. 11, 2001. We have crippled al Qaeda, assembled an international coalition to deal with North Korea and made reasonable progress in defeating at least the foreign insurgency in Iraq. We have seen no terrorist attack on our heartland in more than five years.

Despite the second-guessing by Democrats who have no military experience and by a few veterans who question the Iraq policy, an overwhelming majority of active-duty personnel support the Bush policies and the Republican administration. For example, in 2004, an Army Times poll of active-duty military personnel showed less than 15% voting for Kerry and more than 80% voting for Bush. Despite the token military veterans trotted out by the Democratic Party as Trojan horses in Republican areas, it is clear that a large majority of veterans and active-duty personnel reject the “cut-and-run” policies of the fringe element now in control of the Democratic Party.

In the spring of 1975, I watched in horror our refusal to aid our South Vietnamese friends and their collapse. I watched our friends die by the millions in the gulags of Cambodia and Laos and in frenzied attempts to escape on the high seas, and I remembered my friends, who died in Vietnam, and whose sacrifice was so casually discarded by the “Watergate Babies.” I lost faith in the United States for many years.

I wonder now if we are so blind and ignorant of history to actually allow a new crop of “Watergate Babies” to install clearly unfit leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), John Conyers (D.-Mich.), and impeached Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) as the guiding force in our nation. Considering that a Democratic win could mean the rise of John Murtha (D.-Pa.) from Abscam to majority leader, and Hastings from impeached federal judge to House Intelligence chairman, it is no exaggeration to say both parties have bad actors. The distinction is that the Democrats promote them and the Republicans fire them.

Finally, I wonder if voters (like those in 1974) are going to actually vote for the betrayal of our Iraqi and Afghan allies and the sacrifices of our troops. I wonder if our Iraq War veterans will watch the mass execution or flight of those who fought with them and believed in us. If so, history teaches us that in the end we will suffer terribly ourselves. This is particularly true here, where we face adversaries who have said they will not stop at the waters’ edge but have already reached across the ocean to destroy our nation’s largest buildings and thousands of our people.

By Jamie Glazov - FrontPageMagazine.com 

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Gregg Jackson, co-host of Pundit Review Radio, heard on Boston’s talk station, WRKO. He is a contributing editor at PunditReview.com, a 2005 Weblog Award Finalist in the Best Media/Journalist Blog category. He is the author of the new book Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z.

FP: Gregg Jackson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Jackson: Thank you for the invitation.

FP: So what inspired you to write this book?

Jackson: I wrote the book “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies” because I love my country and felt as though somebody needed to compile a documented list of responses to the most common lies of the Left on the most prominent social, cultural, and political issues of the day. I believe we have a growing number of “domestic insurgents” who are doing everything in their power to destroy the most sacred American values and institutions which have made our country so great in an effort to reshape our nation into their own secular-Socialist utopia.

FP: Your book exposes myriad lies of the Left. You demonstrate that the Left lies and that it does so consciously. Why does the Left lie?

Jackson: Liberals lie about who they are and what they believe in because, although they claim to be representative of “mainstream” America, there is very little that the modern day Democrats have in common with them.

FP: Just a second. When you say that modern day Democrats have little in common with liberals, how does this square with the fact that the radical Left has taken a hold of the Democratic Party? Surely it is pretty clear what the John Kerrys, Ted Kennedys and Hillary Clintons stand for, no?

Jackson: I said that the modern day Democrat Party claims to represent mainstream “average working Americans.” The fact is that the Democrat Party today is run by the liberal wing, Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc.  As I show in my book, however, liberals have very little in common with average Americans. Polling consistently shows that Americans support income and capital gains tax cuts and abolishment of the death tax.. Most Americans are either 100% pro-life or favor restrictive limits including bans on late-term abortion and parental notification laws. Most Americans favor having more individual choice with regard to healthcare, education, and their personal retirement. Most Americans oppose same sex marriage.  The overwhelming majority of Americans support the USA Patriot Act. Liberals are on the other side of all these important issues.  When liberal Democrats talk about how they represent “mainstream” Americans, I would like to know to whom they are referring.

FP: Ok, fair enough. So how dangerous are liberal lies?

Jackson: The liberal lies are dangerous because ideas have consequences and influence how people think and act. In a healthy and vibrant democracy which depends on the free flow of truthful information, the lies of the left corrode civil society.

FP: Kindly name a few of the most dangerous liberal lies.

Jackson: I cover close to 300 different lies of the left in the book. The top 3 most dangerous lies in my opinion are that the “Bush tax cuts benefited the rich,” “Bush lied us into war,” and “it is uncertain as to when human life begins.”  

The left constantly repeats the slogan that “the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich” when in actuality the Bush tax cuts have soaked the rich. Revenues to the Treasury have increased every year since the tax cuts went into effect in 2003 and have reduced the deficit- the exact opposite of what liberal politicians originally predicted.

In spite of all this positive economic data the liberals continue to claim that the next Great Depression is right around the corner. The fact that the leftist politicians and their allies in the media continue to perpetuate this myth is dangerous in my opinion for a few reasons. First, by constantly claiming that tax cuts only benefit the “rich,” the class warriors on the left create an unhealthy atmosphere of envy by pitting the “haves” verse the “have-nots.” They also perpetuate the false notion that the government has a responsibility to redistribute wealth acting as an arbiter of economic “fairness.” The essence of our great nation I believe is rooted in our entrepreneurial spirit. People come to America to make a better life and have the opportunity of someday becoming as rich as Ted Kennedy and George Sorros. When you penalize the most successful and productive you diminish the incentive to take risks which decreases the chances that the least advantaged in our society will be able to achieve the proverbial “American Dream.” Every time socialism has been tried it has always resulted in economic stagnation and lower standards of living. Essentially liberal Democrats aspire toward emulating the very same European socialist system that has resulted in weak growth, high unemployment, and high inflation throughout much of Europe today.  

There is absolutely no reason that Americans should trust liberal Democrats with the economy. Yet about half the country trusts Democrats to more effectively manage the economy than Republicans. If conservatives want to bequeath robust free market capitalism to the next generation it is vital that conservatives be able to defend across the board tax cuts and clearly articulate why they work.  

Another dangerous lie is that “Bush lied about WMDs.”

The fact that liberals continue to perpetuate the Big Lie that “Bush Lied” despite all the evidence to the contrary, in my opinion is inexcusable. Virtually every leading Democrat from Biden to Gore to Clinton all agreed Saddam had WMDs and that force was necessary to disarm him. This lie of the Left is dangerous because when one of the two major political parties in our country is constantly criticizing the Commander and Chief and accusing him of lying and abusing enemy detainees, their public statements are ultimately disseminated around the world as media propaganda which further enflames and emboldens the “Arab street.”

The Jihadists see this discord as a divide that they can manipulate. The Left is fully invested in our defeat in Iraq. The stakes could not be any higher. If we lose in Iraq- which would most certainly happen if we cut and run as the Democrats are advocating- the Jihadists around the world will only strengthen their resolve. We know that they prey on weakness and submission. We cannot allow this to happen. The fact that liberals in our country are indirectly aiding and abetting the enemy is outright treasonous in many regards. Conservatives need to be constantly reminding Americans how damaging to our national security the lie that “Bush Lied” is.  

The last of the three “big liberal lies” is the false claim that, “when life begins is a philosophical religious issue.” The truth is that it is a biological scientific fact that human life begins at conception. The new human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing. The new developing baby has the same 46 chromosomes he or she will have until death. Even Bernard Nathenson, a former abortionist and president of NARAL who has performed over 75,000 abortions admitted : “There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists from the very onset of pregnancy.”  

The reason that this lie is so detrimental is that since Roe, the government has abnegated its central responsibility to protect individual life. Human life begins at conception and government does not have the authority to deprive any individual citizen no matter what stage of life without their consent regardless of whether it is “legal” or not. The fact that our government has sat idly by for over 30 years while 40 million developing babies in the womb have been slaughtered is a black mark on our nation that should make each American ashamed.

FP: You are absolutely dead on that the Left is fully invested in our defeat in Iraq. What do you think explains the Left’s romance with our Islamist enemy? The Left has always carried itself as if it is the ally of women, gays and minorities, and now it is in a romance with the most gay-hating, women-hating and minority-hating force on the face of the earth. What gives?

Jackson: Simply put, they hate George Bush more than they hate radical Islamists.  But it goes deeper than that. The heart and soul of today’s liberal Democrat Party are the same 60s radicals who now hold prominent positions in the media, on college campuses, in the courts and government. They preach the same anti-American vitriol they spewed in the 60s. Nothing has fundamentally changed. They just dress a little nicer.

Many on the Left share the Islamist view that American capitalism and hegemonic military in particular are the root causes of economic inequality, human suffering, and political unrest around the world.  

On another level, many liberals tend to empathize with the perceived “plight” of the Islamists. Cindy Sheehan referred to the terrorists who killed her son Casey as “freedom fighters.” She is not alone in her perception that America is the real terrorist in the world and the greatest threat to civilization. Senator Kerry said that our military were “terrorizing women and children” in Iraq. Senator Durbin compared our military to Nazis. Try as they might, the liberals just can’t contain their disdain for America and the US military.  

Liberals see victims in virtually every area of society. Because they are so suffused with guilt, they think that if only we would be nicer to the Islamists, give the Palestinians their own state, give Arab nations more money, and so on, that we could better achieve peace with them. But we all know that the vast majority of the terrorists are well educated and financially well off. They seek to destroy Western Civilization because our Western values of liberty and freedom for all human beings are fundamentally incompatible with Islam in general and Sharia Law in particular. The failure of liberals to recognize and acknowledge moral absolutes such as good and evil is what essentially makes liberalism so dangerous to me. The radical Jihadists who saw off people’s heads and fly jet airliners through buildings full of innocent civilians can’t be negotiated with. The only way to rid the world of these fanatical barbarians is to aggressively cut off their funding, track their movements and communications and kill as many of them as possible.  

These same groups, the feminists, gays and liberals who despise George Bush and support the Islamic fundamentalists are the first people who would be slaughtered in a radical Islamic society.  Rosie, a proud lesbian, claiming that radical Christianity is as big a threat as radical Islam, is mind-numbing stupidity.  The left is morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.  

As I say in my book, don’t judge the left by what they say. Judge them on the actual positions they take.  

FP: Give some suggestions in terms of what you think are the best techniques for debating with liberals.

Jackson: I recommend the following acronym FACE when debating with liberals. F stands for facts. Lady Thatcher once said, “first win the debate then the election.” Conservatives need to be razor sharp on the major issues of our time. That is one of the reasons I wrote my book so that conservatives could educate themselves on the requisite facts to substantiate their conservative arguments.  

But, when arguing with a liberal, conservatives should Ask questions. (This is the A in FACCE). In order to fully engage a liberal in conversation you will get further by asking what I call “high value questions.” I try to do it on my radio show all the time. When a liberal calls in like one did the other day and said, “We are spending too much money on the war and should use that money to feed the poor.” I asked that gentleman how much we were spending in Iraq and he had no idea. I then said to him, “you claim we are spending too much money in Iraq and don’t have any idea how much we are spending?” That pretty much ended the conversation. But the point is that often times you can make your point more effectively by placing the onus on the liberal with whom you are speaking to defend their claim than you can if you ram your facts down your liberal friend’s throat. Asking solid targeted questions places the burden of proof on the liberal and allows you to control the conversation.  

So C is for Control and Composure, crucial when debating with liberals. Since they rarely have the facts on their side they will meander all over the place and throw up as much excrement against the wall as possible with the hope that something will stick. The really adroit liberals can go from “Bush lied” to “Republicans are racists” to “Global warming is going to kill us all” in a matter of seconds. That is why good debaters effectively control the tone and direction of the conversation. The best way to do that is to focus the conversation on one point at a time and whenever your liberal friend attempts to sidetrack the conversation that you regain control and say something to the effect of: “We can get to that issue next but first let’s finish talking about the supposed separation of church and state you say exists in the Constitution.”  

Composure is a crucial element that liberals lack when confronted by the facts. The start getting verbally abusive and elevate their voice in an attempt to get you upset. And you will if you allow them to. When I get a loud mouth liberal on the show I say, “Try elevating the substance of your argument instead of the decibel level of your voice.” The main thing is to remember that if you can stay composed while the liberal “loses it” you have won the debate especially if there is an audience. Breath!  

Finally, the E in FACE stands for Ego. We conservatives should remember that regardless of how “right” we may be on any given issue that no individual-regardless of political affiliation- wants to look stupid. Everybody has an ego. So recognize that you don’t have to win every argument or debate. Reagan was perhaps the best at being able to disagree without being disagreeable. At the end of the day, I think that Conservatives should emulate Reagan in this regard. Have passion and enthusiasm but stay humble.  

That’s my advice

FP: How come you are not a liberal? Tell us a bit about your own personal journey and what led you to your stance against the Left.

Jackson: I was at one time in my life a liberal, prior to graduating from ultra-liberal Colby College and moving to San Francisco, I had a “live and let live” attitude about life. Having attended many multiculturalism, feminism and diversity training workshops during college, I developed a lot of liberal notions about the world.  

After living in San Francisco and being in the working world for a few years in the early 90s however, my liberal notions about the world started to change. For starters I was astounded how much money was taken out of my paycheck each week. Mayor Willie Brown and his ultra-liberal Board of Supervisors ran San Francisco at the time. The streets were filthy from all the urine and excrement from the unwashed panhandling bums who littered the sidewalks. Lewd gay-trans-bi-sexual “pride” parades were commonplace without any regard for families and children who may be downtown shopping while the men and women with whips and chains sauntered by. I saw firsthand how “progressive” liberalism contaminates civil society. Needless to say, I became increasingly frustrated and dismayed at the lack of law, order, and morality.  

Dems lead but lack message - From USA Today 

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.

At the same time, congressional Democrats failed to put together a platform as effective as the Contract with America was in bringing Republicans to power in 1994.

In 2006, Democrats could win despite themselves. They have the good fortune of running when the war in Iraq and corruption scandals have Republicans on the defensive.

For the Democrats to be more than a one-election wonder, however — or even to take advantage of increased power — they will have to do more than position themselves as the anti-Bush, less-bad party.

Dean, with an eye to the long term, has been pouring millions of dollars into hiring staff in all 50 states in an effort to make the party more competitive nationally. Emanuel and his Senate counterpart, Charles Schumer of New York, think it’s insane to put scarce resources into GOP strongholds such as Alaska; they favor pouring funds into competitive races with an eye on winning now.

Either way, the Democrats will achieve little until they can put together a vision that rallies voters. That presumably would include credible plans for addressing the quagmire in Iraq, restoring fiscal sanity and reining in Washington’s corruption.

So far all are missing, and if Democrats’ high hopes aren’t realized come Nov. 7, the screaming between Dean and other party leaders will only grow louder.

By Susan Jones CNS News.com Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - For a variety of reasons, Democrats are criticizing the military tribunals bill that President Bush signed into law on Tuesday — but it’s the “stealth pardon” for “war crimes” allegedly committed by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that upsets one Democrat the most.

Former U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, a New York Democrat and a Bush impeachment advocate, issued a news release on Tuesday, saying that President Bush, by signing the military tribunals bill, “has created a “culture of impunity” for himself and others who allowed the “torture and abuse of detainees,” such as that at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

Holtzman complained that the new law sanctions the abuse of foreign detainees in defiance of the Geneva Conventions and suspends habeas corpus in defiance of the U.S. Constitution.

Democratic control of Congress “would make impeachment a serious reality,” Holtzman blogged Tuesday on the Huffington Post.

According to Hotlzman, passage of the military tribunals bill provides another important reason for impeachment — because it “guts” the War Crimes Act of 1996, a Clinton-era law that made it a federal crime to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions. (The Bush administration has complained that some provisions of the Geneva Conventions are vague, and he pressed Congress for clarification. See earlier story.)

Said Holtzman in a news release on Tuesday, “When a president violates the country’s criminal laws and then gets a secret grant of immunity for those crimes, he makes a mockery of the rule of law. Then all lawlessness is permissible.”

Holtzman said the “immunity” provision was slipped secretly into the bill, without hearings or debate. “Most members of Congress, most reporters and most Americans have no idea that this has happened,” Holtzman said.

She accused President Bush of striking a “horrific blow” at democratic values and the U.S. constitutional system.

“Instead of pardoning himself with the complicity of Congress, the President should be making public what acts of prisoner abuse he authorized the CIA to undertake or what acts of theirs he ratified,” Holtzman said.

The New York Democrat has been advocating Bush’s impeachment for months, and she has co-written a new book “analyzing the illegal, unconstitutional and/or impeachable actions” of the Bush administration.

In a January 2006 article posted on the Nation website, Holzman cited the president’s alleged “scorn” for international treaty obligations, “torture scandals,” the war in Iraq, and the secret wiretapping program, intended to eavesdrop on terrorists who contact people in America.

“As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush,” Holzman wrote in January.

“While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.”

In the January article (the one posted on the Nation’s website), Holman notes that she sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon.

“As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon’s policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.”

As the midterm election draws closer and the drumbeat for impeachment grows louder, it appears that in the case of George W. Bush,some Democrats would take great pleasure in impeaching this particular president.

The Republican Party has warned that for Democrats, impeaching Bush is what the midterm election is really all about.

Posted by Greg Sheffield on Newsbusters - Link 

The Sacramento Bee reports that the media can’t get enough of Julia Wilson, the California teenager who was investigated by the Secret Service for her “kill Bush” MySpace page.

Once upon a time Julia Wilson dreamed of becoming the next Christina Aguilera, a pop star famous for glamour but not politics. Instead, she’s become the next Cindy Sheehan, receiving global attention for displaying her anger at President Bush. The story of the Sacramento teenager questioned last week by federal agents about her anti-Bush Web page has spread around the world, with newspapers in Egypt, China, Australia and Europe publishing articles about her and national television stations clamoring for interviews.

The 14-year-old McClatchy High School student who posted the words “Kill Bush” — along with a photo-collage showing a cartoon dagger stabbing the president’s hand — on her MySpace page last year is scheduled to be interviewed today by CNN. She and her father appeared on MSNBC over the weekend and turned down interview requests from Fox News.

“It has been unprecedented in our otherwise mundane existence,” said Julia’s father, Jim Moose….

Over the weekend, the America Online Web site posted an Associated Press story about Julia along with a poll asking two questions: Whether the Secret Service was right to question the girl (71 percent said yes) and whether her parents should have been included in the questioning (78 percent said yes). More than 560,000 people responded to the poll.

“This is one of our largest polls since the 2004 election,” said AOL spokeswoman Dori Salcido. “It generated a lot of interest and traffic, and people were really paying a lot of attention to it.”

News outlets around the world grabbed onto the story. A headline in the Middle East Times, an English-language paper in Cairo, declared “US schoolgirl investigated for Bush ‘threat’.” The International Herald Tribune ran the story beneath a headline that said “California teen questioned over threats to Bush posted on MySpace.” The China Post in Taiwan, and numerous papers in Australia and the United Kingdom also ran the story.

BY CARRIE ANTLFINGER
Associated Press - Article Link

MILWAUKEE — A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor who has come under scrutiny for saying that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay that his students are being required to buy.

The essay, “Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11,” is part of a $20 book of essays from 15 authors called “9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out,” according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by the Associated Press.

The book is on the syllabus for the twice-a-week course, “Islam: Religion and Culture,” being taught by part-time instructor Kevin Barrett, but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett’s essay.

Barrett is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

“Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies,” he wrote.

Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

“That’s not comparing them as people, that’s comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that’s an accurate comparison that I would stand by,” he said.

But he did say in an interview: “Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.”

Moira Megargee, publicity director for the Northampton, Mass., publisher Interlink, said the book is due out at the end of November, and the editing isn’t finished.

“It is not final, and for all we know, that essay may not be in the book or may be edited,” she said.

The UW’s decision to allow Barrett to teach the course touched off a firestorm of controversy over the summer once his views became widely known.

Sixty-one state legislators denounced the move, and one county board cut its funding for the UW-Extension by $8,247 — the amount Barrett will earn for teaching the course — in a symbolic protest, even though the course has nothing to do with that branch of the UW System.

The two major-party gubernatorial candidates said Tuesday they still believe he should have been fired.

“The governor feels this is crazy, offensive and shouldn’t be in the classroom,” said Matt Canter, spokesman for Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.

In a statement, Republican Mark Green said: “Kevin Barrett continues to make a complete mockery of the University of Wisconsin and our great state.”

One essay Barrett is requiring is entitled: “A Clash Between Justice and Greed,” about how conflicts between Islam and the western world were made up after the “collapse of the Soviet Union to justify U.S. ‘defense’ spending, and to provide a pretext of controlling the world’s resources.”

“The Remaking of Islam in the Post 911 Era” is about the assault of Islamic people by the Rand Corporation.

The author of “Interpreting Terrorism: Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare?” contends some Western intelligence agencies are doing acts of terrorism to make it look like radical Islamics.

UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell decided to retain Barrett for the course after reviewing his plans and qualifications. He said Barrett could present his ideas during one week of the course as long as students were allowed to challenge them.

He later warned Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his personal political views.

Farrell said Tuesday that he hasn’t seen the essay but faculty can assign readings that may not be popular to everyone.

“I think part of the role of any challenging course here is going to encourage students to think of things from a variety of perspectives,” he said.

Farrell said it’s common for instructors or professors to require books they have written or contributed to.

“For many faculty a book represents their best thinking on how an issue should be presented, so why not use that ‘best thinking’ for the students they teach?” he said in an e-mail.

In the essay, Barrett restates many of his controversial views of the terrorist attacks.

Barrett said required class reading will also represent mainstream views on the Sept. 11 attacks.

 by Thomas Sowell - Human Events

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year’s elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame’s identity as a C.I.A. “agent” — actually a desk job in Virginia — and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media — and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton’s perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like “chicken hawk” or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as “unilateral” U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year’s election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.

Even World War II, won by “the greatest generation,” was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren’t looking for more war or more conquests. We weren’t even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.

NEWSMAX - Howard Dean talked up Democrats, talked down Republicans and went door-to-door in a Portland neighborhood on Monday to rally Democrats for the upcoming election.

Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a former Vermont governor, and Maine Gov. John Baldacci spoke to about 150 people at a breakfast fundraiser at the Italian Heritage Center before knocking on doors in a heavily Democratic Munjoy Hill neighborhood.

Accompanied by a gaggle of reporters and cameras, Dean and Baldacci stopped at four houses to tout the Democratic message.

One of them was owned by Jon Radtke, a high school teacher who said it’s important for Democrats to conduct a grass-roots effort to remind voters what’s at stake in the Nov. 7 election.

“It was a way to boost spirits as we go into an election,” he said.

Earlier in the morning, Dean told party supporters at a fundraiser that Americans can’t trust Republicans with their money or to defend the country. The Maine Democratic Party asked for contributions of $29.29 because the event took place 29 days before the election.

While Bush likes to talk tough, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, North Korea announced it has tested a nuclear device and Iran has threatened to do the same, Dean said.

“You’ve got to be tough and smart, not just tough and talking tough at election time,” Dean said.

For the governor’s race, Dean called Baldacci’s Republican opponent, Chandler Woodcock, a “clone of George Bush.”

“If you like what George Bush is doing, you ought to vote for Chandler Woodcock,” he said.

On Munjoy Hill, Dean and Baldacci visited several homes of people who were notified ahead of time that they might be coming to their door.

At the first house, Gary Akovenko asked what should be done about the war in Iraq. He was pleased to hear Dean say a change of direction is needed and Baldacci call for a comprehensive foreign policy, not one that changes from country to country.

“I wanted to hear about Iraq. I think that’s what’s on people’s minds,” Akovenko said.

While Dean and Baldacci knocked on doors, several neighborhood residents followed behind carrying signs for Ben Meiklejohn, who is running in the district as a Green Independent Party candidate for the Legislature.

Kevin Donoghue, who is registered as a Green, commented about how “staged” the event was.

“I think it’s interesting to see an establishment party pretending to do grass-roots politics,” he said.

Wow this is very timely. Recently we had Leonard Pitts visit the University of Kansas Campus. His topic was about Civil Liberties after 9/11. (I strongly recommend especially those on the right to listen to this lecture, link on top of blog)   The topic is not what matters.
It was the tone of Mr. Pitts that was a bit disturbing as he lectured and maligned right leaning types comparing them to ignorant little children.
But then you have this Hot Air segment highlighting the contempt liberals have for differing points of views and how suppressing conservative and Republican points of view is their goal and mission.
While Pitts is free to mock and malign conservative types, when Coulter visited the campus last year ignorant ass liberal types take it upon themselves to protect the rest of us from the evils of right leaning ideology.
Over the weekend I watched an episode of Tony Brown’s Journal on PBS.
Until this particular episode I had a great deal of respect of Mr. Brown.
The topic of this particular show, “What is it that prevents the Republican Party from attracting a large black vote?” Joseph Watkins, a member of the Republican National Committee’s African American Advisory Board, was to give his perspective on the question and offers some solutions. But that was hardly the case.
In all the years I have watched Tony Brown I have never personally seen him interrupt and chastise a guest like he did on this episode.
Mr. Watkins point is simple, one that I have made to individuals for years.
It’s is not logical for blacks to vote in the 90th percentile for the Democrat Party.
Blacks have far more in common with conservative ideology than they do liberals ideology.
But forget about that. If you are a black individual and you have voted your entire life for a single political entity, basically giving your vote away to a party that neither appreciates it, nor respects it and you have noticed little or no change to your situation or circumstances why would you continue to give your vote away to that representative party?
No other social or ethnic group has such a disparity (90%-10%) in voting.
Common sense would tell you that any ethnic group should split that vote, no matter what part of the country you are from or what your social or economic status is.
Blacks have been conditioned to believe that a specific political ideology/party specifically has their best interest at heart when nothing can be further from the truth.
In this episode, Mr. Brown would not allow Mr. Watkins to make that connection.
Why is that?
I believe that individuals like Mr. Brown and other black folks “in the know” are paid for by the Democratic Party to keep that ignorance at the forefront amongst black voters.

Do I believe that black individuals who are political pundits, columnist, individuals in the medial with social status and “access” are paid political fodder to keep the liberal Democrat propaganda machine running full bore? Absolutely!
Why are black conservative types portrayed as evil as a ghetto Neno Brown drug pushing thug?
If there isn’t financial incentives and access to the good life then what is it?
Ask yourself, if 20 percent of blacks voted Republican, would it not be nearly impossible for any Democrats to win an election anywhere?
Blacks have far greater control of the direction of political politics than any other ethnic group. How else do you explain people like Jessie Jackson and other silly ass black Democrats getting the kind of attention they do.
Keep black folks stupid, by any means necessary.
This explains liberals’ ridiculous behaviors at lectures, on talk shows on liberal blogs and other websites.
I have said more times than I can remember, I welcome opening the floor to liberals ideals and rants. I read many times over, liberals angst in editorials, blogs and lectures like Pitts.  And what continues to be clearer and clearer each day I process liberal nonsense is that I feel secure and grounded in my beliefs.
People like myself scare them, so keeping the truth or another point of view from people is their best weapon.
The ridiculous whining chants of campus liberals, the disrespectful tone of talk show hosts or the rants of a newspaper columnist can nor will shake my beliefs or resolve.
What are you liberal afraid of, LET THEM SPEAK!

Columbia U.: Campus gone wild
Ivy League brownshirts
Gilchrist ambush liveblogged
NYSun; WashTimes
Flashback: Berkeley mob

WATCHHERE

 

 

 Crazy at Columbia - Washington Times 

The scene is all too familiar by now: A conservative gets threatened with violence for trying to speak at an Ivy League campus.
    This time the conservative was Jim Gilchrist, founder of the border-watching Minuteman Project, invited by the Columbia College Republicans to talk immigration Wednesday night. Just moments into his talk at the Manhattan school’s Roone Arledge Auditorium, two students from the International Socialist Organization climbed the stage to unfurl a banner reading “No one is illegal!” Then half a dozen or more fevered militants rushed the stage, fists waving, in a bid to intimidate.
    Within moments security officers ushered Mr. Gilchrist and colleagues Marvin Stewart and Jerome Corsi — yes, that Jerome Corsi, of “swift-boating” fame — off the stage. Loud voices began chanting in Spanish “Si se pudo” — “Yes, it could be done” — drowning out any possibility of discussion. No one was reported to be hurt, thankfully. The rowdy students were neither removed by security nor arrested; instead, the speakers were ushered out.
    So much for reasoned debate and free speech. Conservatives tolerate people like Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan and others who espouse their ideas on students around the country every day — without anything remotely resembling such intimidation.
    Columbia’s officials announced that the events are “under active investigation, so “it is premature to make any official statement regarding facts that are yet to be confirmed.” Not so fast. The video circulating around the Internet late last week confirms that threats of violence warranting discipline had taken place. Why couldn’t the university promise to discipline the stage-stormers?
    Its own press release makes the case. “The University deplores the disruption that took place last night at the ‘Minutemen Forum’ sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans at Alfred Lerner Hall… This much is a matter of core principle at Columbia: The freedom to speak, to pursue ideas, and to hear and evaluate viewpoints totally objectionable to our own is an essential value of this university and, indeed, of our civil society.”
    Columbia officials must demonstrate a real commitment to free speech by showing that people who threaten violence and break the rules get punished. Otherwise, this is just empty rhetoric.

SCORE ONE FOR BILL CLINTON and Jimmy Carter.

As of this writing in the early morning hours of October 9, President Bush is expected to announce that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test. Unlike the abortive launch in July, last night’s explosion netted the Stalinist gulag valuable information and packed a lethal impact. At 9:35 p.m. EST, the U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude disturbance approximately 240 miles northeast of Pyongyang.

The Left quickly attempted the shopworn tactic of pinning the blame on the Bush administration’s rhetoric or unwillingness to bribe Kim Jong-il. Early this morning, Joseph Cirincione of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress told CNN, “They had numerous opportunities to negotiate a deal…They did not.” He concluded, “I think the North Koreans came to that conclusion: that there is no deal to be had with this administration, and they decided they had nothing to lose.”

By way of commentary, the popular left-wing blog The Daily Kos quoted Selig S. Harrison from the international edition of Newsweek:

North Korea’s missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date “in the future” were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions. In North Korean eyes, pressure must be met with pressure to maintain national honor and, hopefully, to jump-start new bilateral negotiations with Washington that could ease the financial squeeze. When I warned against a nuclear test, saying that it would only strengthen opponents of negotiations in Washington, several top officials replied that “soft” tactics had not worked and they had nothing to lose.

The Kos feels no need to explain which U.S. provocation justified the birth of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994 – during Bill Clinton’s presidency – nor that the DPRK’s “‘soft’ tactics” entailed firing a missile over the Japanese mainland and threatening to strike the United States.

Worse yet, Kim Jong-il’s methods have paid off handsomely. Each act of brinksmanship has brought cash, supplies, oil, nuclear reactors, or additional concessions from the West. Within two months of the Taepo Dong missile scraping across Nippon in August 1998, President Clinton sent North Korea a multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.

READ THE REST AT FRONT PAGE

“Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror.”
–George W. Bush, September 28, 2006

President Bush is right. It would be nice if he weren’t. The country would be better off if there were bipartisan agreement on what is at stake in the struggle against jihadist Islam. But despite areas of consensus, there is still a fundamental difference between the parties. Bush and the Republicans know we are in a serious war. It’s not the Bush administration that is in a “State of Denial” (as the new Bob Woodward book has it). It’s the Democrats.

Consider developments over the last week. Democrats hyped last Sunday’s news stories breathlessly reporting on one judgment from April’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)–that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists. More than would otherwise have been created if Saddam were still in power? Who knows? The NIE seems not even to have contemplated how many terrorists might have been created by our backing down, by Saddam’s remaining in power to sponsor and inspire terror, and the like. (To read the sections of the NIE subsequently released is to despair about the quality of our intelligence agencies. But that’s another story.) In any case, the NIE also made the obvious points that, going forward, “perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere,” while jihadist failure in Iraq would inspire “fewer fighters . . . to carry on the fight.”

READ THE REST HERE

By Michiko Kakutani, NY Times’ book critic - Via Fron Page Mag 

‘In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state.

As this new book’s title indicates, Mr. Woodward now sees Mr. Bush as a president who lives in a state of willful denial about the worsening situation in Iraq, a president who insists he won’t withdraw troops, even “if Laura and Barney are the only ones who support me.” (Barney is Mr. Bush’s Scottish terrier.) Mr. Woodward draws an equally scathing portrait of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who comes off as a bully and control freak who is reluctant to assume responsibility for his department’s failures, and who has surrounded himself with yes men and created a system that bleached out “strong, forceful military advice.” Mr. Rumsfeld remains wedded to his plan to conduct the war in Iraq with a lighter, faster force (reflecting his idée fixe of “transforming” the military), even as the situation there continues to deteriorate.’ NY Times, Saturday, September 30, 2006

Well, which is it? The inconsistency in Woodward’s assessment of Bush — of Bush’s character and leadership, not just his policies — is a red flag to anyone who understands the process by which a book like this is written. Woodward’s raw material  is the opinions of political figures who have been involved in policies and in bitter quarrels over policy — so bitter that at least one State Department official leaked classified documents — a federal crime — to Woodward to support his partisan case. The bitterness of the disputes between these witnesses is not merely a bitterness over policy decisions. Career reputations of figures like Colin Powell are at stake.

The writer is not merely responsible for selecting text from the interivews he has conducted; he is responsible for the kinds of questions he asks. For example, suppose Colin Powell has made some harsh criticisms of Condoleeza Rice to Woodward. If Woodward takes these criticisms to Rice for her reaction, he may communicate to Rice that this could be a hostile book. If Rice communicates this to other members of the Bush Administration, sources will dry up. Hence the writer may decide not to pose the challenge to Rice, but to save the adverse comment for his text. The more sensational the charge, the greater the temptation to do just that — to spring it in the text rather than risk closing up sources and/or watering down its impact by soliciting an answer from the target.

In this situation, the judgement — and fortitude — of the writer in asking questions, in assessing  answers, is absolutely crucial to establishing a reliable picture of what actually took place. That is why Woodward’s dramatically inconsistent portrait of Bush is so disturbing. It is even more disturbing in that it corresponds to the shift in Washington attitudes towards Bush between 2002 (before the Iraq war) and after. If Woodward is so susceptible to the tides of opinion how can he navigate readers through the contentious waters of Washington politics. The probability is he can’t, which is why this book should be called Caveat Emptor, rather than State of Denial.

 This post is a great example of why liberalism is bad for your health.
Liberals are simply incapable of processing positive vibes for their own country.
I believe they actually prefer to be miserable, and depressed while at the same time blaming America for their ills.
Their misery is not even logical or else it’s calculated.
How else can you explain liberal blogs and news sites complaining about the falling price of gas and the signs that the economy is healthy, while at the same time obsessing over the racial thoughts of a lone white guy.
The theme on liberals’ blogs I have read over the past few days is Republicans are trying to scare the American people into voting for them. Do they even process how stupid that sounds?
Liberals are continuing to sink to new lows, I almost feel guilty continuing to bash them,  it’s like kicking a puppy.
However I have way too much contempt for liberalism. Tis far better to analyze them ranting and raving on blogs and news sources rather than having these crazy ass people in power running this country into the nearest iceberg.

 

 

Title: Am I alone in this? Today I feel like I am a woman without a country  
By Diane Silver - From the Blog In This Moment

These are my thoughts from Kansas on a gray morning. I woke up today, and the first thing I thought was: I am a woman without a country.

In the aftermath of yesterday’s Senate passage of the torture-enabling and Constitution-trashing Military Commissions Act, it feels like my country has ceased to exist. I haven’t moved away from my commitment to citizenship and the ideals of the United States, but my country has.

I am in mourning.

The second thing I thought was: I need to post about this.

The third thing I thought was: Is it safe? If I speak so openly about my fury and my disagreement with this president will I someday be said to be aiding terrorists? Will my sentiments be the trigger for an arrest. Is that already possible?

(On second thought: Aren’t I being foolish! America will never do that, but look at the letter of this law. Doesn’t it give the president the right to define who will be imprisoned? The way this is written, no one need or possibly can look over George W. Bush’s shoulder, or am I wrong? I pray I’m wrong, and not just for me, but for thousands of other people and for the soul of my country.)

And then I thought: Should I leave? Is it time to pack up and go to Canada? My brother lives not far from there. Is it time to move near him so we could dash across the border quickly if necessary?

And then I thought: I will be damned if I let George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Joe Lieberman and all the rest steal MY country.

And then I went over to visit Blue Girl, Red State who lives in Missouri not far from me and found her wonderful post “Rest in Peace America.” Read all of it, but this is just a tiny snippet.

Sleep eludes me tonight, but it is understandable. I lost my country yesterday. It was not a sudden death - we knew it was coming. But that does not assuage the inevitable grief.

She talks about her anger and her promise to work for change. (And yes, oh great inquisitors, we are talking about political change, not violent change.)

It’s time.

Enough is enough.

America is better than this.

Carter: Bush has brought U.S. ‘international disgrace’…
Clinton: ‘Incalculable Damage Done’…
Stone: ‘I’m ashamed for my country’… 

By Michael Goodwin - New York Daily News
 
It must have been hard for Harlem congressman Charles Rangel to keep a straight face when he criticized Hugo Chavez’s personal attacks on President Bush. Professing “extreme displeasure” that the Venezuelan crackpot called Bush the “devil” and an “alcoholic,” Rangel was hiding a dirty little secret. Namely, that he, too, is guilty of outrageous personal attacks on Bush.
“Our Bull Connor,” Rangel called the President a year ago, referring to the infamous ’60s Alabama police commissioner who turned hoses and dogs on civil rights marchers. In July, he called Bush “a stone-cold alcoholic who found Jesus” at an anti-war, pro-immigrant event, according to Gerson Borrero’s column in the Spanish-language paper El Diario. He quoted Rangel as saying Bush “talks about Jesus as if they were raised together.”

Rangel, of course, is not the only Dem to cross the decency line. Sen. Hillary Clinton said Bush viewed Hurricane Katrina as “a mixed blessing” because it wiped out Democratic New Orleans. Al Gore accused the President of unleashing “digital brownshirts” on journalists. Party boss Howard Dean and congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly accused Bush of lying, mostly about Iraq.

With the slimy attacks routine since Bush was reelected in 2004, my suspicion is that November’s midterm elections have everything to do with Democrats’ sudden concern for decorum. They know that being fellow travelers with anti-American nut jobs like Chavez will backfire among U.S. voters. And unless Democrats pick up at least 15 House seats, Rangel won’t be head of the Ways and Means Committee and Pelosi won’t be speaker.

Even if their conversions are sincere, they are still responsible for creating the environment Chavez exploited. Their personal attacks gave license to the likes of Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq. She has called Bush an “evil maniac” and a “fuhrer.” Michael Moore, George Soros, Air America and the Internet ooze with Hitler-Bush comparisons, as though Nazi death camps were just a political dispute.

New York State Controller Alan Hevesi was the worst. During an introduction of Sen. Chuck Schumer at a college commencement, Hevesi said Schumer would “put a bullet between the President’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

Hevesi quickly apologized, saying the comment was “beyond dumb.” But there is no apology from the British filmmaker behind “Death of a President,” which uses special effects to show Bush being assassinated. Labeled a “fictional documentary,” whatever that means, the film, CNN reports, opens with demonstrations against Bush during 2007 visits to Chicago. As he leaves a hotel, he is shot by a sniper, allegedly a Palestinian.

Presto, all the real issues of the day - anti-war protests, Mideast terrorists, jailing the innocent - are woven in. Only the shooting is fictional. So far.

News reader Carol Daly isn’t fooled by what’s going on. No sooner had Chavez and Iranian President and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ended their UN rants than Daly sent me this e-mail:

“I believe the United States Democratic senators who have been criticizing the President, calling him a liar, etc., have emboldened the rhetoric we are hearing from the leaders of Iran and Venezuela,” wrote the 66-year-old Republican from Long Island. “To disagree with the President on any issue is fine, to ridicule and foster hate, etc., is not. Their rhetoric has also fostered false allegations regarding 9/11, etc. We live in the best country in the world, and I for one am proud to be an American.”

Former Mayor Ed Koch has made a similar point, and he includes some of the mainstream media in his criticism. He thinks the personal attacks against Bush are helping Islamic terrorists.

“You can differ and you can disagree,” Koch said. “But when you demean the President, you are aiding the enemy.”

Koch was quick to say the attacks “are not a crime,” but added: “We are at war. And everything we do that derides our President before the world of nations hurts our ability to fight and win.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.
 

 According to Weiner, “Impeachment is not on Conyers’ current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda.”
Hmmm then what about this: ImpeachPAC - Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Also these nuts from the Impeach Bush Coalition has had that silly “Impeach Bush” graphic on their blogs for well over a year. So wait, is this going to be the Democratic strategy, tell the lunatic left to stifle the impeachment talk until after the elections? This is why I thank God I’m not a liberal Democrat.
You people are that deceitful that you would “attempt” to conceal your true thought process and principals for votes? Duh, your Democrats!   

(CNSNews.com - Article link) - Democrats and liberal advocacy groups have been talking about impeaching President George W. Bush for months. But when Republicans say the president indeed may be impeached if Democrats regain control of Congress, they’re just trying to scare people, a Democratic operative says.
In an op-ed column in Thursday’s Detroit Free Press, Robert Weiner, a former press secretary to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), accused Republicans of “trying to create hysteria about the likelihood of impeaching President Bush.”
According to Weiner, “Impeachment is not on Conyers’ current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda.”
(In a Democratic House, Conyers would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus a key player in deciding to impeach, or bring charges against, the president.)
Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers “has told me directly: ‘I’m not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country’s attention from issues that need to be addressed.’”
Weiner said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who would become speaker of a Democrat-controlled House, said last May that “Democrats are not about impeachment. Democrats are about bringing the country together.” (You don’t decide to impeach, Pelosi said at the time, until the facts and “investigations” lead you there. She left the question open.)
The Republican National Committee insists that the real Democratic agenda is impeachment — spurred by hatred for George W. Bush as well as payback for what happened to Bill Clinton.
A number of Democrat/liberal websites, groups and individuals certainly do want Bush impeached on a variety of grounds — including the invasion of Iraq, the NSA wiretapping program, and alleged abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
Various cities and towns have passed impeachment resolutions, urging Congress to act against the president. A number of Democratic politicians, Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer among them, have mused about impeaching Bush. And groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union also have pressed the impeachment issue.
Based on the sentiment of liberal grassroots groups, Conyers — if he becomes Judiciary Committee chairman in a Democratic House — would find himself under tremendous pressure to bring charges against the president in a time of war, as CNSNews.com has noted

(see reports below).

See Earlier Stories:
Impeachment Teach-Ins Seek to Oust Bush, Sell Books (21 July 2006)
Impeaching Bush Is ‘Cause Worth Fighting for,’ Actor Says (17 Feb. 2006)
ACLU Panel Urges Impeachment Over NSA Spying (21 Feb. 2006)
Kerry’s Impeachment Crack Not Funny, Republicans Say (16 Dec. 2005)
Has Bush Committed an Impeachable Offense,’ Senator Asks (20 Dec. 2005)

@

 Michele Malkin has this on Jabba the slut Rosie O’Donnell. I hope she keep running her mouth. Could you feel the collective cringe by Democrat operatives everywhere. Yeah, Rosie that’s righ…..er uh, shut up Rosie, wait until after the elections.
If this is an example of the kind of change you want in America vote DEMOCRAT in November! 

Rosie, I recommend you invite Bruce Bawer on your show to cure you of your abject ignorance. From Bawer’s website:

Let it not be forgotten, after all, how countries ruled by Koranic law treat their homosexual citizens. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan put at least ten homosexuals to death; on New Year’s Day, 2002, our good friends in Saudi Arabia beheaded three men for sodomy. According to one report, Iran has executed several thousand men for homosexuality since 1979. Even in Egypt, with its relatively moderate and secular government, a widely publicized mass arrest of suspected homosexuals in early 2001 resulted in the torture and imprisonment of dozens of males as young as fifteen. And these figures are undoubtedly dwarfed by the annual number of “honor killings” of female family members who have strayed sexually (or who have shamed their families by being raped)–a form of murder that is so much a part of traditional Muslim culture that it goes unprosecuted even in relatively moderate Islamic countries like Jordan. In May 2002, Amnesty International reported that in Pakistan at least three honor killings occur every day, and that the perpetrators are usually not even arrested, although their identities tend to be known to family, neighbors, and even the police.

What do all these liberal women who pretend to speak for women have to say about that? Or about Pakistan’s cave-in to the sharia-enforcers who protect and coddle rapists in the name of Islam?

Maybe The View should invite Mohammed Khatami for a comparative religion chat.

***

You know who I’d really like to see on The View? MKH. That 3-to-1 libs-to-conservative panel needs balance. And some Southern flava. Where’s their commitment to diversity?

Meanwhile, O’Donnell, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem have formed an estrogen-fueled talk radio network–because left-wing female views are sooo suppressed in the MSM.

Rosie’s rant
MKH’s view
Newsbusters busts Rosie
Bruce Bawer: While Europe Slept; more
Khatami: execute gays
Townhall.com

 

 

 

 

WATCH: Michelle and Mary Katharine take on Rosie O’Donnell.