Dems admit lying to win the election

This is Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski who said:

I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when
I say we . . . the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of
the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional
elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government
would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back
the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts . . . and people ate it up.

And if you don't believe me, here's the video:

Democrats at the Crossroads

Senator Joe Lieberman pleads with his fellow Democrats to awake from their fallen state:

The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President
Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it
was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the
Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted
the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party
about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace
the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own,
because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders
made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of
partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.
By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but
Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to
the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

And with a warning to Barack Obama:

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the
footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never
met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting
down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

I think the Dems must wake up or fade into irrelevance. If the latter happens, here's hoping they don't take the country down with them. But I just can't figure why my fellow countrymen fight so hard those who fight against the terrorists.

Pelosi Sees Success in Surge

The Democrat Speaker of the House in last weeks visit to Iraq can't doubt the evidence of her eyes. Here's Paul at Powerline:

According to AP, the Speaker, who made a surprise visit to
Iraq, "expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote
national reconciliation." She also "welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget
as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial
elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power
among local officials."

As Abe Greenwald points out, in February Pelosi said
that “the purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of
Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq; they have not
done that." Since she now finds the government is making the changes that will
promote reconciliation,

it should follow that, in her estimation, the surge is well on its way to accomplishing its purpose.

This is good news, though I have to think that even though America is safer since President Bush decided to take the war to the Islamists rather than waiting for another attack, the Left will still continue to call this an "unnecessary war", even as they shelter under our new-found security. Of course they haven't apologized to Reagan yet.

State Dept. China Appeasers

More evidence of the liberal dominance in the US State Department, as they seek to appease our enemies and hurt our allies. Details from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times:

Taiwan's air force currently flies about 150 F-16A/B model jet
fighters that were purchased in 1992. Taiwan in May 2006 told the U.S.
government that it wants to buy 66 F-16C/D models to counter a growing Chinese
missile and aircraft threat across the Taiwan Strait. China has some 1,000
missiles within range of Taiwan and also has Russian-made Su-27 jets armed with
advanced missiles in the area.
But State Department officials want the sale
postponed in order to avoid upsetting China prior to the Olympic Games, saying
that Beijing already is angry at the protests that have dogged the worldwide
Olympic torch relay over its military crackdown on Tibet. These officials want
to delay the F-16 sales until after the games or later. China considers Taiwan a
renegade province and calls U.S. arms sales an interference in its internal
affairs.

The more help we give to our allies, the less work our own battle-worn forces have to do. Seems to me a self-sufficient Taiwan would be less provocative than a US battlegroup parked practically in China's backyard in nearby Guam.

Will Democrats go the way of British Labour?

With terrorism, energy, illegal immigrants, trade, jobs, and America's crumbling infrastructure, the Nancy Pelosi Congress' position has been to do nothing and blame President Bush. Rather than seek some compromise with the opposition party, they defer instead to the bias wishes of their radical base, the Netroots, who suffer no dealings with Republicans.

If the Democratic Party continues their pursuit of being the "worst Congress in history", they may find themselves elected out of office, much as the British cast out its Labour Party last week. The once triumphant party of Tony Blair did its very best to make their nation's resurgent economy worse. American Liberals in their 2nd year in power has done little to stop a 60% rise in gas prices, an economy in the doldrums, plus make good on their vow to force a withdrawal from Iraq (thankfully).

All polls still seem to point toward a good year for Democrats, yet as seen with the once wildly popular Labour Government, political fortunes can change overnight. If the present occupiers of Congress fail in their mandate for change, it is very likely they too will be forced out as were Republicans in 2006.

The Democrats also seem set to choose as their Party's candidate for President someone who is closer to their out-of-the-mainstream Far Left ideology, Senator Barack Obama. The more we learn about the man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate, the less likely he appears as a viable match against the conservative John McCain. In contrast is the more moderate Hillary Clinton, who the Netroots despise, but knows how to win against Republicans, if her husband's political victories at the height of the Reagan Revolution is any comparison.

Another example of how fortunes change is Italy's recent election which saw Bush ally Silvio Berlusconi return as President. The Italians snd the British apparently have learned that easy answers are no answers at all. Democrats could learn this lesson, that their recent comeback could be short-lived unless they can find answers to our nation's myriad woes, rather than the too-easy but familiar gridlock and partisanship.

Breaking the Tyranny of the Netroots

Democratic leaders are rushing to appear on conservative leaning Fox News, and their liberal base are feeling cheated. From Politico:

The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the
Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis
of liberal bloggers. The détente with Fox has provoked a backlash from
progressive bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on
the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love
to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes. In a span of eight days, Sen.
Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY.) and Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean are all taking their seats with the
network that calls itself “fair and balanced” but is widely viewed as skewing
conservative.

I always felt the Netroots' boycott of Fox amounted to an assault on our liberties. From the Left you often get "agree-with-me-speech" rather than freedom of speech.

Hillary in the Forge

Some in the media have declared that Hillary Clinton's continued persistence in the race for the oval office has been a needed learning experience for Barack Obama. Her tough and experienced form of campaigning is supposedly making a better candidate of the first term Senator from Illinois. My own view is the opposite is true, as Obama's own hypnotic, non-threatening, but ultimately empty speech making, as he's propped up by the fawning mainstream media and George Soros' war chest, has finally allowed Hillary to "find her voice" and her legacy. Early on the former First Lady has been accused of riding her husband coattails to the nomination. Who can say so now, when if anything Bill has been a thorn in her flesh, with the wife performing surprising victories often in spite of her husbands numerous gaffes in the Press?

We also saw an interesting side of Hillary Clinton during this weeks' Pennsylvania primaries that we haven't seen of late. We have been used to her stance since Barack Obama began rising in the polls of questioning the Iraq War, going so far as to label our military leaders as being dishonest on recent gains in the 5 year conflict. Now that her fortunes seem to be on the rebound, we see a more hawkish, more moderate side of the liberal Democrat.

Clinton's recent tough speech vowing to obliterate Iran, plus the Pennsylvania ad viewing her as a pro-military hawk in the tradition of Truman and Roosevelt is a welcome change. So, in her quest to be the polar opposite of her far-left opponent Obama, whose stated intent to negotiate with our enemies and punish America's allies is well known, we see a better, more rationale Hillary. Just as her husband sustained Democrats during a resurgent era of conservatism in the 1990's, this new Hillary might just be the antidote to the elitism many Americans see the Party has fallen into in recent years.

Military Recruiting Post Bombed

Could this be the next level in the Left-wing attacks on our troops, as we've recently seen occurring in Berkeley California? From Yahoo/AP:

An explosive device caused minor damage to an empty military
recruiting station in Times Square early Thursday, shaking guests in hotel rooms
high above "the crossroads of the world."...

Witnesses staying at a
Marriott hotel four blocks away said they could feel the building shake with the
blast. "I was up on the 44th floor and I could feel it. It was a big bang," said
Darla Peck, 25, of Portland, Oregon. "It shook the building. I thought it could
have been thunder, but I looked down and there was a massive plume of smoke so I
knew it was an explosion," said Terry Leighton, 48, of London, who was staying
on the 21st floor of the Marriott.

And the Leftist connection:

In October 2005, a group of activists who call themselves the
Granny Peace Brigade rallied there against the Iraq war. Eighteen activists,
most of them grandmothers with several in their 80s and 90s, were later
acquitted of disorderly conduct.

Of course, we can't discount Islamic terrorist action, especially considering NY's recent history with this problem. As we have seen so often in the Middle East, Al Qaeda excels in spreading confusion and discord among nations. The evidence, due to recent events however, is damning against the Left. Funny, how there are so against America fighting her enemies overseas, but have no such revulsion in attacking our troops here.

When prominent Democratic politicians, like Howard Dean and John Kerry in the last election, plus current presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, repeat unfounded rumors that "Bush lied to get us into war", it is only natural that their more radicals followers seek to take matters in their own hands. Meanwhile, to further their own political means, the liberal politicians excuse their own complicity in getting us in the war, as it was Democrats who first sounded the clarion against Saddam's WMD programs in the 1990's.

More from John at Powerline "Given the increasing virulence of attacks on the military and on military recruiting facilities by antiwar groups like Code Pink, most notably the repeated confrontations in Berkeley, one could speculate that a liberal group is the most likely culprit."

Even more-Gateway Pundit has photos.

Clinton Supporter Disparges McCain War Record

None other than uber-feminist Gloria Steinem. Via the Observer:

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half
years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in
captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to
be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”
Steinem’s broader
argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of
militarism in all its guises.
“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t
been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a
kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry
saluting.”
To the Observer, Steinem insisted that “from George Washington to
Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification
for ruling people.”

At first, I thought this just about McCain, but then she lambasts our country's heritage and great heroes. What's funny, its exactly the will to kill people who want to destroy our freedoms which gives Ms. Steinem the liberty to bite the hand that feeds and protects her. What a waste of good airtime!

And remember how unforgiving and quick to apologize McCain was when one of his own supporters repeatedly mocked Barack Hussein Obama's middle name at a campaign event? Where then, is the outrage from the Left concerning this attack on a selfless servant of the people? Thanks for nothing, I know!

And, John Kerry is at it again!

Obamania!

Barack Obama is a pure product of media infatuation over political correctness. You must admit, his was a struggling campaign for the Presidency until his "anointing" by the wildly popular TV guru Ophra Winfrey. Since then his political run has transformed into a holy crusade to right perceived wrongs against the poor and the American image abroad.

Criticizing Obama is almost like the Muhammad cartoon controversy in Denmark. Defame him and you're immediately labeled a heretic to the movement!

Obamania conveniently disguises the extreme Far Left views of the Senator. In ideology he is a cooler John Edwards, a slimmer Al Gore, and a younger Jimmy Carter.

Even a casual scrutiny of these views will give you the idea that he is anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and an anti-capitalist MoveOn.org candidate.

The Media is obviously circling the wagons around Obama in hopes of a return to the "glory days" of the 1960's and 1970's, when America was poorer, gas was scarce, we were losing the Cold War with the Soviets, but liberals were riding high. The New Media of the Internet, Talk Radio, and Satellite News has brought the MSM to the brink.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh of late, I'm greatly relieved the very influential talk show host has gotten over his McCain Derangement Syndrome. Apparently he's discovered that a moderate John McCain is a far better choice than a sometimes left, sometimes moderate Hillary Clinton, or a die hard Lefty Barack Hussein Obama. Limbaugh's change of heart can likely be attributed to unscrupulous and unfounded attacks on the Maverick by the New York Times. It's a matter of "I can say what I want about my family, but you watch what you say!" Welcome back Rush.

Berkeley Marine Protesters Uncensored

Prepare to be shocked. I only got through half before quiting in disgust.

Via Zombietime!

White Democrats Losing the Black Vote

Simple reason: they have overcome! Here's Charles Krauthhammer:

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it
done. -- Hillary Clinton, Jan. 7

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon
Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for
me if you want results.
Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president
enacting African-American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied
blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white
liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty --
is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about,
although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

I'm thinking that the Dems have taken the black vote for granted too long, keeping them satisfied with government tribute, while quietly but steadily blacks have been increasing their gains into American society ON THEIR OWN. You can't go anywhere without seeing them in all positions of government and industry. This is the American Dream fulfilled, and they are saying to the liberal panderers and opportunists like the Jacksons and Sharptons, who want to keep them victimized and servile WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE, if they ever did.

Continuing Charlie Wilson's War

Just viewing the trailer of the recent Hollywood biography titled "Charlie Wilson's War", you get the impression that Democrats single handily won the Cold War, with little or no assistance from a certain Republican president of the 1980's. This astonishing piece of revisionist history does get one thing right: Congressman Charlie Wilson was a real liberal hero, and no embellishments or outright lies are necessary. Without doubt he was a driving force in Congress for supplying monetary aid and military supplies to the Afghanis that eventually saw the retreat of the Soviet Union from the occupied and long-suffering nation.

Charlie was an anomaly in the Democratic Party of the Reagan era, with most liberals preferring to live with rather than confront communism. Many though, like Wilson, openly rebelled against their colleagues seeming indifference to the threat of our times, with some becoming "Reagan Democrats", most notably Jeane Kirkpatrick and Richard Perle.

Today's liberal movement once again seeks to embrace the failed policies of detente, wishing to appease our enemies instead of holding them accountable for atrocities committed against the West and fellow Muslims. Aside from Senator Joe Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent in last year's election when his radical Party based rejected their former Vice Presidential candidate, none on the Left are embracing the spread of freedom and the liberation of the Third World from terrorist oppression, as Charlie Wilson once did against the forces of communism.

In their fight with the West, the terrorists have adopted the tactics of their old enemies the Soviets. They commit atrocities against Muslim women and children, behead prisoners, and mistreat them without regard to the conventions of war. They also have established torture chambers throughout Iraq, which make the US prison on Guantanamo Bay appear as a vacation resort.

Yet, few on the Left are speaking against the crimes against humanity, as Charlie Wilson once did. Instead they seek an early withdrawal before the generals there see their mission as finished, withhold vitally needed funds to continue the operation, and blame the woes of the Middle East on the Bush administration, rather than extremism where the real fault lies.

Something strangely missing as top priorities of the Democratic platform is spreading liberty, fighting our enemies, and supporting our allies against Al Qaeda. Issues such as these were a driving force behind Wilson's obsession to aid the Afghani rebels against the Soviet invaders, and defeat the communist ideology. The Democrats see our involvement there in the 80's as an incentive for the birth of today's radical Islam, a convenient excuse for not supporting the President's War on Terror.

Wilson thought otherwise, and felt his Party and his country would be "damned by history" if they failed to act in the Great Calling of his time. Will Democrats heed this sound advice, support the President, and fund the troops, or will they let partisan politics and the hope of the next election distract them from the noble goal of continuing Charlie Wilson's War?

The True Liberals

Now that the Dems have abandoned the term “Liberal” for the more politically acceptable “Progressive”, maybe its time for Conservatives and Libertarians to reclaim ownership. Liberalism has become a dirty word in US politics, mainly because for many it has come to signify: Big Government, weakness on defense matters, and condoning immorality. However, according to Wikipedia "Classical liberalism emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, ... freedom of contract, and opposes the welfare state."

Economist Milton Friedman hated the modern vulgarism of the term, maintaining that “the consistent Liberal is not an anarchist”. Modern Liberals more closely associate themselves with Marxists ( as revealed by Sean Penn’s recent trip to Venezuela) than their pre-20th Century forbearers. An example of the original definition is revealed by our Founding Fathers, who were considered extremely liberal for their times. Imagine any current Democrat Candidate defying a mother government over high taxes, promoting States Rights, or advocating the importance of religion in government.

As odd as this may sound, True Liberals can mainly be found in the modern day Republican Party ( a rare exception being Sen. Joe Lieberman). These Social Conservatives can be likened to Harry Truman or Scoop Jackson Democrats, who were hawks on defense, but eager to spend the taxpayers’ money on a whim. Many on the Right, including President Bush, have sided with Democrats on education and immigration issues. It has been said that the Left “tax and spend” but Conservatives “borrow and spend”. In reality there is little difference.

Libertarians are the true Conservatives in an historical sense, who, like the old Taft Republicans believed in small government and a smaller overseas role for America. Candidates such as Ron Paul can also be compared to the America’s Firsters, who before Pearl Harbor were adamant in keeping the US out of World War 2. Republicans also quickly turned against President Truman when the Korean War turned for the worse after the Chinese invasion. Notice any similarity to our own times?