Democrats pre-Iraq war...

found on Yahoo! Answers, you tube showing several prominent democrats explaining why Saddam's WMD's are a threat to the US.

Wright's Awards

This problem is bigger than I thought. My impression was that this preaching was unique or contained. It may be pretty widespread in the Black church. (I used to say "black church" thinking it meant the color of the skin of the congregation. Does it mean the preaching they receive also?)
Retired pastor Wright is set to receive an award at Brite Divinity School, in Dallas, on the 29th. He was named the recipient of the award a year ago.
This article makes it plain that Wright is indeed a hero of sorts to folks in the black community of Christians.

Stacey Floyd-Thomas, director of black church studies at Brite, said Wright, like Martin Luther King Jr., represents the black church tradition in his harsh denunciation of social problems affecting the country, and said Wright's harsh criticism does not make him unpatriotic.
"Standing in the rich tradition of the African-American church, if he [Wright] is guilty of anything - this loving father, this prophetic pastor, this former U.S. Marine - is guilty of loving the United States enough to tell the truth," said Floyd-Thomas, who teaches ethics at Brite.

And later in the same article...

More than 15 black church scholars joined Floyd-Thomas and Haynes in their defense of Wright.
The Rev. Raphael Warnock, pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, said the public has confused moral outrage with hatred in response to claims that black preachers promote hate from the pulpit.
"In fact, it's inappropriate not to feel outrage in the face of injustice," he said.

At the bottom of the page is the nearly 45 minute video (I have only seen snippets) of the news conference at which the black bible scholars defended pastor Wright.
Personally, I'm all for outrage over moral injustice and I'll be the last to argue that the media always portrays their stories accurately. I find it odd though, that the defenders are heavy on counter-attack and weak on content. But this has a while to play out now. I think this is either Obama's inexperience showing up (that this whole scenario was allowed to go on this long) or a confirmation that he really didn't expect to get this far in his quest for the office he seeks.

I had a chat with a friend at work this evening. He'll be voting for Obama. I got the distinct impression that Democrats expect politicians to lie. Bill used to say that he tried marijuana but didn't inhale, and his party thought he "handled the question" quite well. For a Democrat, truth isn't the point, it's telling the lie cleverly enough that no one challenges it.

This is the "edited" spoof on Hillary's arrival in Bosnia. Hillary "showing off her marksmanship" cracks me up every time. The video is fine but the rest of the page is unfortunately not "family friendly."

Obama Shows Christrian Deference and Respect (Not)

Once again my impeccable
timing is on display.
This article appeared June 24th,
but I've got a cache of blogs on the
burner waiting to be dispatched.

It's been said that when people realize how far left Mr Obama truly is, he'll quickly lose his appeal for possessing a Bobby Kennedy-type eloquence. I've wondered if that would pan out but Mr Obama just proved it with his junk references to the Christian Right. All (em) is mine...

The speech by Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate and member of the 1.2-million member denomination, dealt with the link between faith and politics

(as opposed to what right leaning Christians do - which is to demolish the much vaunted "wall of separation" between church and state!)

The phrase, "link between faith and politics" is repeated three times in the article.

"Our conscience can't rest so long as 37 million Americans are poor and forgotten by their leaders in Washington," Obama said. "We need to heed the biblical call to care for `the least of these' and lift the poor out of despair. That's why it's not just a policy issue when we fight to expand the Earned-Income Tax Credit and the minimum wage. If you're working 40 hours a week, you shouldn't be living in poverty."

In the United States it is possible to have the grandest income and still not be able to buy a decent meal. It comes down to how well you budget. I know a few hispanic immigrants who work 80 hrs a week, make less than the national median, and are still grateful for the oppurtunity to send money home.
It's can be very uncomfortable to watch those with higher incomes seemingly enjoy the rich life. Which is why class envy works so well for Democratic politicians in the first place. But the world knows poverty. The U.S. and most of the west does not.
In the west, Robin Hood IS the Sheriff of Nottingham. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is not only a safe and legal practice, it's considered a societal step UP from getting a decent education and providing for your own family.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Hijacked?"

I think it's helpful that Obama brings this up. His speech to the United Church of Christ convention in Hartford, Conn, is probably the strongest evidence that the Christian Church in America is at a frightfully weak point in its history. Democrats have proven time and again that the American people are dangerously ignorant of their own Constitution. It looks now that they will do the same for America's ignorance of the Bible.
Which is good. Perhaps Christians will then get serious about what their faith is supposed to be about - the offer of eternal life to a dead generation. I firmly believe that Christians belong in the public arena. But when a denomination that ordained its first openly gay minister 30 years ago and has been pro-abortion as long as the word's existed complains of "moral outrage" and "division" caused by the right, can we help but wonder if the word "Christian" has outlived its usefulness?

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.
"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.
"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

My my, where to start? The wealthy are paying higher taxes than ever, and the cuts were across the board, which our democrat candidate fails to mention. And by the way, if we complain about the rich getting more access to the gov't, then perhaps we shouldn't expect them to pay for so much of it.

Harry Reid Is "Lost"

Iraq is a war that we not only can win, but have to win. What will make that impossible is the same Kennedy/Kerry - esque creeps who demanded America lose in Viet Nam. This pair of articles found on Drudge . Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

I can only wish someone will think to ask him
(a) "What 'wars' in the past have been "won diplomatically, politically and economically?" and
(b) Do you think the slaughter of millions of S Vietnamese had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Democrats cut funding and supplies to their U.S. allied Government?...

But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.
"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.

This as moronic a statement from a John Lennon wannabee as I've ever encountered. Johnson "surged" with troops but considered the war an Allied operation of "containment" directed at the Soviet Union. The involvement of South Viet Nam was incidental until Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, that was somewhat successful in preparing the South's Army to take over the fighting. Neither Johnson nor Nixon, in decisions that only a Harvard/Stanford "whiz kid" could understand, would attack areas of neighboring countries harboring VC and NVA activity. The Soviets so cowed them that they wouldn't even allow the US Air Force to attack the lethal Soviet anti-aircraft batteries.
If the leader of the Senate had said we waited too long to regain control of Baghdad, he'd have found plenty of heads nodding in unison. But if the pitiful U.S. congress wants the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, then their allies are Al Queda and the Muslim insurgency, not the people of Iraq, or of the U.S. for that matter. The enemy and the Democratic party are both using the same talking points for pete's sake.
But there is hope still for the Democrats that the American people will never hear about the bloodbath that will follow their cut-and-run "strategy." That's is one comparison with Viet Nam that WILL hold true.
The press coverage on this minor exchange between the Senate Leader and the president is classic also. Reid makes a ridiculously inaccurate historical statement, no fact checking, no questions, and the president's party supposedly "struggles" to cope.
U.S. Republicans battle charge Iraq war is lost

Asked to compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war that still weighs on the American psyche three decades after it ended, Bush told an Ohio audience a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could lead to chaos and death the same way war broke out between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia after the fall of Saigon in 1975.
"After Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life. My concern is there would be a parallel there," Bush said, adding that "This time around, the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East, they'd follow us here."

...

Many lawmakers believe serious talks toward a compromise will not take place until after a veto. Then, they say, there could be fresh legislation that would have "benchmarks" to gauge Iraq's progress instead of withdrawal timetables.

...

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader in the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

These are adequate responses, but Republicans are still in charge of our foreign policy. They ought to sound more like they understand that and assertively articulate their positions.

Dagney's Rant

Found a wonderful blog via the comments section at Iraq The Model. Dagney's Rant describes itself in the header ... "This is where I will put my upsets, resentments, reasonings and logical commentary on why liberalism is a threat to the United States of America!
Dagny Taggart is a character from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", but she was also my teacher. She taught me the fallacy of my liberal upbringing. If you are a liberal, you may see some of the fallacy of it here, too....unless you're braindead!"
At the time of my visit, the lead article was the one linked.

Hiram Revels, First Black Senator, Served 1870-71, Filling Mississippi Term of Jefferson Davis

It is as informative (and true) as it is startling! DR recounts (her?) trip to the truth, and even credits Rush.

My original reason for starting to blog was that I'd been lied to as a student. I'd been told that the civil rights legislation was due to the Democrats. How did I learn I'd been lied to? It began in 1989 when I started listening to Rush Limbaugh. I originally listened to him because I liked to argue with him....until one day he said that the Republicans had pushed for civil rights legislation for decades before it was passed. It wasn't until the 1960's that the civil rights tide began to turn. Having been raised by conservative Roosevelt Democrat parents, and having been schooled in Southern California, of course I'd been taught that it was entirely the donks who had engineered this history making legislation. So when I did my own research to refute Rush's allegations, and learned he was entirely correct, I was livid! If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is being lied to...even once! I felt like I'd been lied to my entire life! So with that in mind, I am going to post that letter again.

What follows is "An Open Letter to the Democratic Party" and it's just slpendid. Being rather lengthy but worth the full read, I'll just excerpt, and encourage folks to take a look....

Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,

Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,

Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,

DR left a comment at ITM, and said good-bye with this sign-off...
"Thank you, Brothers-of-my-Heart, for your continual education of my fellow Americans. It gives me hope for both your country and mine."

espresso beans to ITM

You Tube, 1984, The Democratic Party

The creator of this ad has been "outed."
Internet video sensation indeed.

"It's true ... yeah, it's me," said Philip de Vellis, a 33-year-old strategist with Blue State Digital, a Washington company that advises Democratic candidates and liberal groups.

The name attached to this Hillary "response" is "obamaloveslieberman"

I think we're in for quite a few "whoppers" this cycle.

It's my belief that the reason the "Big Brother" scenario of the many available conspiracy theories has such holding power flows directly from the "nanny state" mentality of the Democratic party.
It's absurd to believe that we can tax the bejeepers out of the rich to pay for our entire two trillion dollar government, (complete with "free" benefits for the rest of us) expect them to smile and hand it over without a whimper, and expect nothing in return. If we are going to insist that they (the conspiratorial "they") pay for it, then they are going to own it.
It's equally absurd to try to arrange for this massive government to provide huge and expensive benefits for the entire population without tight controls over the use of those "bennies." If there is an erosion of rights, (I believe there is) that is the cause. If you can provide for your own, you are free and independent. If you can't, or won't, you are an obliged dependent.
What is delicious about this is that the promoters of the one-world welfare state are battling each other trying to prove that the opponent is more terrifyingly one-world-ish.
Doublespeak at it's finest.

How Are The Democrat(ic)s Going To Get Out Of This?

The problem for Democratic leaders is that they know darn good and well that the terror war in Iraq is a very serious matter, and that their large, vocal, but hysterically paranoid grassroots has no clue.

On her first visit in a decade to the state that helps kick off the 2008 White House race, Clinton told voters in New Hampshire that Iraq was a challenge
because of "the arrogance and incompetence of our administration in Washington."

That's one way to put it!! Another, more truthful way to put it would be' "shut up you pipsqueaks!! The Islamic fanatics are causing the deaths in Iraq and we're the ones trying to bring justice and prosperity to a region of the planet that desperately craves the benefits of democracy for their children!" Do I think any candidate will put it like that? Duh. I would, and I'd get, if anything, a kick in the head for it.
More inspiring, but also weightless, is Barack, who announced his run for the White House today. The theme he chose, (chosen?) was strange, given the violent days in which we live.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) announced his bid for president Saturday, a black man evoking Abraham Lincoln's ability to unite a nation (that line has sooo many problems! Has this journalist been told that Lincoln was a Republican?) and a Democrat portraying himself as a fresh face capable of leading a new generation...
...
He tied his announcement to the legacy of Lincoln, announcing from the building where the future 16th president served in the state Legislature.
"We can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, (kinda' like telling Jack Bauer to "relax!") where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America," Obama said. His voice rose to a shout as he spoke over the cheers from thousands who braved temperatures in the teens.

I like Mr. Obama, he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy. His politics won't impress me, and I think he may regret running so early in his career, but I've been wrong before, twice, I think...
Edwards has a lot of support, including my Iowa gramma, but my stand is closer to Sen Biden's on him and Hillary ...""I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about." And here's Biden on Hillary's Iraq plan: "nothing but disaster."

Tokyo Who? A Friend's Email Forward

Ghost of "Tokyo Rose"
and some random gifs I've been collecting...

Anyone who remembers anything about World War II, or has studied anything
about World War II, will understand and remember that during World War II,
the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces.
The Japanese psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave their psychological warfare script to their famous broadcaster
"Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged
in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American
GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message?

It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war

Does this sound familiar?

Is it because;

Tokyo Hillary,

Tokyo Harry,

Tokyo Teddy

Tokyo Nancy ,

Tokyo Durbin,

Tokyo Kerry,etc. have all learned from the former enemies of our country and have
picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on

Tokyo CNN,

Tokyo ABC,

Tokyo CBS,

Tokyo NBC,

etc., to our troops?

The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they
demoralize them.

Come to think of it... Tokyo Rose told the American Troops she was on
their side also!

espresso beans to dean!

Democrats Approach To CAIR Will Be A Winner

NRO"s Andrew McCarthy takes a look at the unfortunate relationship between the Transportation Security Administration and terror supporting CAIR, the Islamic ACLU. Into that convolution he compares Bush's "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" statement with Boxer's cancellation of an awards event with CAIR, specifically because of their relationship to terrorists. Not only does McCarthy find Bush wanting, but sees the Democrats setting up a "Sister Souljah Moment" for themselves.
First, the TSA gets cozy over the Imam fiasco, ahead of the Islamic hajj.

As if snuggling up to CAIR, coercing our law-enforcement and intelligence professionals to endure CAIR’s Islamic “sensitivity training,” and inviting CAIR to weigh in on our nation’s foreign policy were not enough, we now have a Bush-administration agency publishing an unedited CAIR press release on publicly subsidized, official government Internet space.

After bringing us up to date on the many noxious Hamas and Al Queda linked organizations that brought CAIR to us, and the activities they've engaged in, McCarthy then shows how the Dem's will, as they said in the campaign, "fight smarter."

THE DEMOCRATS BEGIN A DIFFERENT APPROACH
While the Bush administration continues to enrage its supporters by romancing this besotted organization, top Democrats — having just run rings around GOP strategists in the midterm elections — are mobilizing in a different direction with the 2008 campaign already in swing.

...

Boxer indicated that she had been “influenced by previous critical statements about CAIR made by her Democratic colleagues Sens. Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York.” She’s right. As Pipes notes, “Senator Charles Schumer ... describes [CAIR] as an organization ‘which we know has ties to terrorism.’... Senator Dick Durbin ... observes that CAIR is ‘unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.’”
The more the American people learn about CAIR, the more odious they are going to find it, and the more outraged they are going to be that the Bush administration — which for now embodies the Republican party in the public mind — has cozied up to it. Along those lines, the Newsweek article features a picture of President Bush with CAIR executive director Awad right after 9/11 — notwithstanding Awad’s by then solid record of statements supporting Hamas and its atrocities.

espresso beans to powerline

Berger is Fried

The next time anyone says anything about crime in the Republican Party...
Honestly, Only a Democrat could have gotten off so easy.

Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

...I love this next part. It got to the point that they gave him speciall attention because of earlier episodes!.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

And finally, from Patterico's, Mr Clinton's classic reaction just after Mr Berger's "mistake,

As long as Patterico is talking about the Sandy Berger scandal, I think readers should be reminded of Bill Clinton’s reaction to the charges:
“We were all laughing about it on the way over here. People who don’t know [Sandy] might find it hard to believe. But … all of us who’ve been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers.”

In My House, Newt Has 50% Of The Vote

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. My wife thinks he's mean and his divorce(es?) disqualify him. Still, I can't help but wondering when the Boston Globe ever opened a story about a Democrat this way...

Gingrich: GOP needs new kind of campaign
By Beverley Wang, Associated Press Writer | December 15, 2006
MANCHESTER, N.H. --Even Republicans are impressed with the reception of Democratic superstar Barack Obama.

I guess you'll just have to trust me, the story really is about Newt.

D's Still Searching For Intelligence (Chairman)

Hastings, Harman Rejected for Chairmanship
According to recent news accounts, House speaker Pelosi really wanted to placate the Black caucus and appoint Hastings. Harman sounds like she had some insight into, and appreciation for, the Pentagon, which of course makes her insufficiently shrill. There's also some history between Pelosi and Harmon.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has decided against naming either Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, or Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), the panel's No. 2 Democrat, to chair the pivotal committee next year.

The unresolved issues between the "blue dog" democrats and the liberals will have to play out --

The fight over the top spot on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exposed the kind of factional politics that bedeviled House Democrats before they were swept from control in 1994. Harman, a moderate, strong-on-defense "Blue Dog" Democrat, had angered liberals with her reluctance to challenge the Bush administration's use of intelligence. Hastings, an African American, was strongly backed by the Congressional Black Caucus but was ardently opposed by the Blue Dogs, who said his removal from the bench disqualifies him from such a sensitive post.

Of course, Hastings offered his congratulations on the victory acheived by the vast right wing conspiracy; including,columnists, bloggers,

"...and other assorted misinformed fools."

espresso beans to Drudge