…. will do so because, out of negligence, malevolence toward the right or simple ignorance , take your pick, they want for themselves and their fellow Americans what is on this list at Always On Watch.

….on 7 November, before you think about casting any votes to the left, it might be good to consider what the Democrats have in store for us should they win themselves a majority in Congress.

Gayle, at My Republican Blog, has posted a partial summary of Nancy Pelosi’s voting record and a link to same in its entirety — Pelosi’s voting record reflects perfectly the agendas of today’s Democratic Party, and with a majority vote would be able to make many of their agendas a reality.

Unlike so many of our Republicans on the Hill, the Democrats don’t believe in compromise: The first chance they get, it will be “my way or the highway” as they begin slamming out bills that will do great harm to our national security, our economy, our already broken education system and the criminal justice system, not to mention, of course, various “adjustments” to social issue legalities that would go against what most Americans endorse. They have already laid out their plans to impeach the President based on their dubious charges regarding his conducting of the War On Terror.

Many elections in the past have been less significant in terms of combined major impact, but this upcoming election comes at a time when the wrong policies generated from the Hill can do the most long-term harm to this country.

Please give Gayle’s linked post and the link within a good read….

…. I have been mulling over regarding the motivation behind some of the otherwise unfathomable peculiarities of today’s liberal-infested Democratic Party deals with their resistance {is that understated, or what?} to the President’s endeavors at fighting the Global war On Terror and keeping Islamofascists from committing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Now, it’s immediately obvious (at least it is to anyone with an IQ above 6) that the liberal media and of course most of the rest of the Democrats we hear from, operating under the nickname of “the Angry Left”, have been seething mad since one Tuesday in November, 2000, when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in a Presidential election. After several decades, they’d finally had one of their own in the White House for two whole terms, and they thought they were on a roll — Al Gore was obviously going to win, how could a “dumb redneck” like Dubya possibly even dream of defeating Gore? Keep in mind, here, that liberals seem to think that everyone shares their political philosophies, because…. because…. well, how couldn’t they?

And then Bush won. I think that was when the left actually became totally “unhinged” (Michelle Malkin definitely hit the nail right on the head with that book title). It was incomprehensible! It was monstrous! It couldn’t be! It was not acceptable that the majority of American voters thought Bush would be a better President than Gore! So the debacle began, a spectacle that demeaned the American political system in the eyes of the rest of the world as the left made a judicial spectacle of the unsatisfying election results, going all the way to the Supreme Court.

This is the left’s answer to everything these days — if they can’t get no…. satisfaction…. via the proper channels, call these channels (Congress, the polls) Daddy, they go crying to Mommy…. The Court. As they make legal issues out of legislative decisions they don’t like, after the 2000 election they ran bawling to SCOTUS, accusing the GOP of “cheating”.

Fortunately, despite a lot of arm-waving about “hanging chads” and other moonbattery, the desperate, flabbergasted lefties received no solace there. SCOTUS didn’t go with the program, and George W. Bush became the next President of these here United States. Yay!

From the time he was sworn in, Dubya has been the target of more irresponsibly conceived, extremely disrespectful, immature and certainly rabid, drooling verbal and written attacks by both the mainstream media and our nation’s entire inventory of liberals, to whom the MSM caters.

That’s fine, as Americans we enjoy the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Then we endured the terrible tragedy of 9/ 11. During the Clinton years, Americans and American interests had been attacked by Islamic terrorists numerous times, and the “honorable” William Jefferson Clinton had played the passive resistance game or something similar {just ignore them and they’ll go away?}, so the Islamofascists had perceived rightly that the U.S. was, collectively, a physical coward that could be “bitch slapped” and be too afraid to fight back — except they miscalculated, they didn’t take into account that a liberal was running the country, not a conservative.

After 11 September 2001, Bush responded in a 180 to Clinton’s mode of being CEO of the United States Government. He launched a global war against Islamic terrorism. We invaded Afghanistan and kicked butt in record time, ousting the Taliban, and later invaded Iraq, taking down Saddam’s government. After each defeat of bad guys, we helped their former subjects construct new governments. Democratic ones, where the people could determine whom and of what political dogmas their leaders were, and could have a say in the making of their laws.

Anyway, I’ve been digressing big time, but I’ve felt that giving background was a good idea, here.

To get back on topic, well, here we have the left…. Hooray, Left!!!!…. You fucking idiots!

Bush got reelected, defeating Jacques Kerry, which caused a new symptom of mental anguish, a genuine terrifying emotional malady called BDS{Bush Derangement Syndrome}

Bush Derangement Syndrome, imagine that! A disease worse even than rabies, though certainly related. Instead of being a fear of water, though, it was a fear of a “shrub” that the terrifying water had helped grow.

Okay, now ….

Back to the Angry Left.

They were …. angry enough at Bush’s first victory, but once he had beaten Kerry — a second winning of the Presidency in a row — they apparently went completely around the bend….

They developed a new mission in life — Damn all! Get Bush out of office at any cost! Obstruct him at every turn! We hate his so-called War On Terror, so let’s make him lose it! Lie, cheat, steal {wait, before you object to the last, remember Sandy Burglar Berger…. The MSM helped all they could, a superb example being the New York Times, who went so far, on two (count ‘em, 2) occasions, as to publish U.S. intelligence secrets so that the enemy got a “heads-up” and could rethink their strategies. The left has done all they can to sabotage Mr. Bush’s war effort and his national security policies so as to help the Islamofascists butcher Americans and make the President fail.

Just so they might get their own politicians elected.

Right now, I’ll acknowledge that Nixon had similar motives in his time that led to the Watergate kerfuffle, so anyone who wishes, still, to bring up that comparison in comments is now on notice — we agree there, so if it’s referred to in any argument, it will be ignored.

There is a difference… no one sought tragedy as a way of implementing their policy, as the Democrats do now.

Ah, finally, after all the background, we have reached the stage wherein I can make my point! Yes, friends, there is actually a point to all this.

We have an enemy, Islam, that is the antithesis of our concept of freedom. It is attacking us in a murderously brutal way, its targets innocent civilians, its ultimate goal rulership of the entire planet according to its ruthless, intrusive and oppressive Sharia law, a legal system that relegates women to the same social strata as toilet water and demands that the rest of us tow a line not far removed from spiritual, mental and physical slavery. A religion that orders its followers to murder anyone who doesn’t believe as its own followers do.

You know, with all this background, I’ve seriously digressed!

Okay, here goes —

During the Cold War, all the folks that joined the American Communist Party came from Democrat/ liberal origins. Argue all you want, Communist Party Presidential candidate Angela Davis was no Republican.

Today, because they’re pissed off that Bush got reelected, the same people are willing to sabotage him every way possible…. They would actually love to see Islam win.

….so we come to the “why”….

Because they hate Bush? Welllll, here’s where the theory comes into play.

They will never be dissuaded from their opinion that they will eventually be able to reason with Islamofascsm. They are convinced that they are dealing with people who think and reason on the same plain they do.

So they are willing to do whatever they can to make Dubya fail, wrongfully thinking that they’ll later be able to come to an agreement with Islam.

However, let’s look back on their track record.

Today, they entertain socialist ambitions for our country. Yesterday, pure Marxist.

So –

the left doesn’t believe that the people should make their own laws, a dictatorial gov’t should do so.

So they supported the Commies for years, now the same people support anyone who is anti-Bush, especially Islamofascism.

Islam promises to micromanage our very lives.

That must turn today’s Democrats on — if we can’t have the details of our lives dictated by communists, we’ll let our friends of “the Religion Of Peace” make the rules.

Someone has to dictate, right? People, according to the Democrats, can’t manage their lives without government leadership and regulation, so….

Islamofascism promises a way that the people can be ruled, as the left feels we need to be.

Sure, why not?

Unfortunately, surrendering to Islamofascism will prove a mite more extreme than surrendering even to the Nazis might have been.

Senators and Reps and rich people who believe that their wealth and/or previous status will be greeted with respect, will be treated like scum.

They all believe that Islam will treat them diplomatically, provide them deferential treatment for supporting Islam… throughout history, conquerors have left business dynasties alone. Islam will do the opposite: It will butcher them. They will be stripped of every aspect of their lives as they know them.

An Islamic will sneer at a wealthy liberal and say, “Shoot this pestilant piece of camel fesces! The infidel scum has served his purpose!”

This is great, it truly is, to say nothing of vastly amusing in a pitiful sort of way, and demonstrates perfectly why the Democrats aren’t getting Congress or the White House back anytime soon.

While the Republicans are running on platforms related to national security and the survival of the free world in the war against global terrorism, et al, the Democrats’ big contribution is the “war on Wal-Mart”. Here is a retail behemoth that makes it possible for millions of low income Americans to make ends meet and at the same time enjoy many products and technologies that might otherwise be beyond the reach of their respective finances. It is also an entity that creates large amounts of jobs, with benefits, in places where employment is scarce.

When you stop to think that lower income voters are at the same time both the meat and drink constituency of the Democrats and the biggest customers of Wal-Mart, you just have to wonder… The Democrats don’t like that the unions don’t like that they can’t get into Wal-Mart for their usual profiteering activities, and given the size of the company, it would be an enormous coup, they could bleed the retailer until in order to survive it had to raise its prices, thereby hurting those same low income folks who depend on the savings they enjoy at Wal-Mart.

The Democrats in their present incarnation do more to campaign for the Republicans than the Republicans do. And these are the “intellectuals” among us. The cultural elite. The “champions of the poor”. Go, Dems!

In this weekend’s edition of Jewish World Review, Jonah Goldberg introduces a new malady called WMDS, or Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome.

The New York Times reported recently that the Democrats have, en masse, declared their party to be the enemy of the mega-box store. Sen. Joe Biden Jr., D-Del., recently delivered what the Times called a “blistering attack” on the company at an anti-Wal-Mart rally in Iowa, and other Democrats have appeared at similar events. Indeed, one of the few times Lieberman and Lamont appeared at the same event during their primary contest was at an anti-Wal-Mart clambake in the Nutmeg State.

This bonfire of buffoonery is helping me learn to love Wal-Mart. First, let’s talk politics. More people shop at Wal-Mart every week (127 million) than voted in the 2004 presidential election, according to a company Web site. They are disproportionately low-income folks who, by some estimates, are collectively saving hundreds of billions of dollars by shopping there.

Compounding the electoral asininity is the glorious hypocrisy of it all. Hillary Rodham Clinton — who returned a donation from the devilish retailer — was on Wal-Mart’s board of directors from the mid-1980s until the 1992 presidential campaign. If the store’s policies are so un-Progressive, how come it never occurred to her to do anything about it until now? Similarly, former would-be first lady Teresa Heinz attacked the store in 2004, saying it “destroys communities” — which apparently never stopped her from hawking her ketchup there or owning $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. Even Lamont, the golden boy of the new yuppie populism, owns a few thousand bucks of Wal-Mart stock.

Read the entire column, it’s quite enjoyable.

With a hat tip to James Taranto, here’s another spot-on column on the War On Wal-Mart by Herman Cain.

Re this kerfuffle:

A recent leak to The New York Times and some other newspapers revealed a previously secret program by the Bush administration to examine foreign banking transactions in its pursuit of terrorists with ties to al-Qaida. The banking transactions mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas. This isn’t about examining our canceled checks for items that might embarrass us before prying eyes.

As they have with previous secrets of the President’s prosecution of the Global War On Terror, the only thing that stands between the safety of Americans in America and encores to the likes of 9/11, the New York Times has again aided and abetted our enemy by publishing classified information leaked to them by treasonous elements of past or present federal employees.

Yes, I say treasonous — the people who are in a position to possess the sort of information, deemed “need to know” that Bill Keller and the rest of those leftists over at NYT take such pleasure in publishing are betraying not only any oaths of confidentiality they might have taken on accepting the jobs they occupy; worse, they are betraying the American people, those of us whose taxes pay their salaries and will be supporting them through their pensions when they retire.

In my honest opinion, I believe that what the NYT has once again done, despite Keller’s lofty protests that his paper was adhering to their 1st Amendment rights and that he had done all kinds of soul searching and moral deliberation before, has been to use information leaked to them by above mentioned traitors to commit treason themselves. What else can you call it when a newspaper prints stories they have to know will alert our enemy, in time of war, to secret methods by which we are fighting that war?

Cal Thomas has it completely right:

This isn’t about the privileges guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is about the agenda practiced by the Times and some other newspapers and media outlets that clearly want the administration to fail in Iraq — and in everything else — so that Democrats will retake the reigns of government. The Times’ editorial board fears what one more Republican term could do to the left’s judicially imposed cultural realignment and wants to blunt the Bush administration’s counteroffensive.

Yes, completely right.

Read his entire column here.

Recently, I put up two posts on the Global Warming Myth, here and here.

Right Wing News has posted an article from the Canada Free Press that further, and profoundly so, debunks the myth that high CO2 levels caused by man are inducing dramatic changes in the earth’s climates. The article in question includes input from several scientists who, unlike most of those with whom the likes of Algore consulted to make his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, are actually experts who specialize in Climate, as opposed to climate related fields.

“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

And from another expert,

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Read the entire article here.

Former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont has an informative Op-Ed up in yesterday’s WSJ Opinion Journal titled, “Don’t Be Very Worried” that rather succinctly debunks most of the left’s global warming fantasies.

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America’s population has increased by 42%, the country’s inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:

• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

• The Pacific Research Institute’s Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that “U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000.”

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they “have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years,” according to the institute.

• Also according to the institute, “bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs.”

Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down.

This doesn’t sound like we’re in the throws of environmental homicide to me, it sounds like things are getting better.

But now comes the carbon dioxide alarm. CO2 is not a pollutant–indeed it is vital for plant growth–but the annual amount released into the atmosphere has increased 40% since 1970. This increase is blamed by global warming alarmists for a great many evil things. The Web site for Al Gore’s new film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” claims that because of CO2’s impact on our atmosphere, sea levels may rise by 20 feet, the Arctic and Antarctic ice will likely melt, heat waves will be “more frequent and more intense,” and “deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years–to 300,000 people a year.”
If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted “intolerable deterioration and possible extinction” for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action “civilization will end within 15 to 30 years,” and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people–including 65 million American–would perish from famine in the 1980s.

I’m curious to know how these doomsayers respond, years later, when their theories of impending disaster have failed to come to fruition. Do they simply go on pontificating, expecting the usual suspects to continue to regard their theories and projections as gospel? Of course they do, because those “usual suspects” are liberals, and liberals will never let anything as picayune as being proven wrong alter their opinions in any way. Its a political thing. A liberal would as soon see America die as admit that he or she has believed a lie.

There are substantial differences in climate models–some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–but the Climate Science study concludes that “computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase.” The National Center for Atmospheric Research’s prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is.

What warming there is turns out to be caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution. The Climate Change study concluded “half the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes,” and changes in solar radiation can “account for 71 percent of the variation in global surface air temperature from 1880 to 1993.”

There are more myth-debunking facts and figures in the Op-Ed, so give the entire article a read here.

Last year I hit the half century mark, and I know I’m not the only conservative who’s done so and taken the time, from time to time, to compare the way things were when I was growing up and the way they are now.

Of course we’ve advanced technologically, more so in the quarter century since Armstrong took that small step for mankind than we did in all the centuries that came before, but socially and politically we in America seem to have regressed in many ways, the changes engendered willingly by Americans – despite the fact that allowing this regression has damaged and continues increasingly to damage our country.

The regression I’m talking about is the decline of patriotism and love of country, the gradual abolishment of our morality, values and the relationship with God our founding fathers incorporated into the documents that have defined our great nation since its inception.

The source of the problem lies to the left of our political center, emanating from the once credible Democratic Party that has since allowed itself to be hijacked by liberals whose only goal seems to be to replace our capitalist republic, synonymous with the awesome success that has made us the richest and most powerful country on earth, with socialism, which has proven time and time again to fail its constituents through astronomic taxation and the removal of personal responsibility from individual citizens by forcing all citizens to carry the weight of a non-achieving and/or unambitious/unmotivated few while shouldering the blame for the failures, transgressions, laziness, stupidity, negligence and other shortcomings of the few.

When I was a kid back in the 1950s and 1960s, a Democrat (all the way up until Jimmy Carter’s presidency taught me the error of my ways) in a Democrat family, nobody in my household ever spoke as disrespectfully and derogatorily of a sitting President as Democrats do today. Comparing a President with Adolf Hitler would have been unthinkable to anyone with a patriotic bone in his body and pushing leftist politics on school children would have been the formula for both parental and administrative outrage leading to the dismissal of an offending teacher. Even with the outpouring of rage and hatred toward the government by the hippie movement over Vietnam and the draft and the support of same by the liberal media and a bunch of ambitious and feckless politicians, there was little if any invective of today’s magnitude advanced by said politicians or newsies. The pols and scribes won their battle – General Giap admitted after we pulled out of Vietnam that we were winning, and had it not been for this loud dissent from those politicians and the media, the North Vietnamese would have surrendered long before our withdrawal.

Certainly, public school faculties maintained the discipline not to preach personal politics to pupils who were there because they had to be, nor to echo the anti-war rhetoric of the left.

Now, thanks to the slow creep of liberal judicial and political influence, teachers’ unions and Marxist organizations like the ACLU being as powerful as they are, teachers like that Jay Bennish asshat are free to rain their farfetched, anti-American diatribes, unchecked, upon their students without restraint and still keep their jobs. Any parental outrage that occurs is all but swept under a rug as the liberal educational system gradually pushes parents’ say in their children’s educations out the door.

In school, we were also given the option of taking a moment for silent prayer every morning. No particular religion was endorsed and we were under no obligation to pray. Nothing was being forced on anyone, nobody was being exposed to anyone else’s beliefs.

Now, thanks to left wing judges, sleazy opportunistic leftist lawyers and again, the ACLU (also sleazy, opportunistic leftist lawyers), such prayers are illegal as they have been falsely branded as a “church and state” issue. It’s come to the point where the ACLU can successfully sue any public institution that sports the Ten Commandments or a Christmas message.

And of course, there’s the Global War On Terror: Muslim extremists have been waging war on our country in one way and another for twenty five years, give or take. They became emboldened during the Clinton Administration, when that President allowed them to commit terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies and one of our naval vessels with virtual impunity, and early into the Bush Administration they brought us 9/11. Unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush responded decisively, first by taking Afghanistan away from the Taliban and helping promote a democracy in its place, then by doing the same in Iraq. He has strengthened our homeland security venues so that no further acts of Islamic terror have occurred, though there have been foiled attempts.

What say the Democrats?

Angry that Bush defeated straw man Al Gore in the 2000 elections and then went on to win a second term, beating John Kerry, the Democrats under their liberal masters have joined the “angry left” in placing anti-Bush politics over the well being of America and her citizens.

Knowing full well that Islamofascism poses what is probably the greatest threat to the safety of U.S. citizens in our nation’s history, they impede Bush’s defensive efforts on that quarter purely in the interests of attempting to make him fail. Democrat politicians rail against the Administration with irresponsible slurs and slanders, they make pronouncements that demoralize our troops in harm’s way and encourage our enemies to fight harder and terrorize more, they support the media when they print or broadcast secret defense data.

We can’t speak plainly and accurately without being censured for political incorrectness or accused of bigotry. A bunch of Muslims can blow people up, slice up a citizen for disagreeing with their views, burn hundreds of cars, vandalize, set embassies on fire in the name of Islam… And the media will bend over backwards to omit the fact that these crimes and terrorist acts were done in Allah’s name, by followers of Islam. At airports and other transportation venues, searching a dark-skinned Arab male who fits the profile of every terrorist in recent history is “racial profiling”, just to appease a few peoples’ sensibilities we have to ignore the natural suspects and search the more unlikely passengers, such as little old Caucasian grandmas and old men in wheelchairs, or preadolescent girls with Barbie dolls.

Had this country been under attack by a huge, well financed, globally based terrorist organization when I was a kid, had an attack the equivalent of 9/11 happened on our soil, the order of the day would have been “rally ‘round the President,” not “Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford lied, people died.” Our politicians, the media and most Democrats would have acknowledged that we were defending ourselves, that failure to support the administration’s efforts would result in Americans being murdered on our very streets.

Today, things are just the opposite.

The fact that Republicans have been the majority on the Hill since the early 1990s and have been gaining more power ever since renders the underlying victories of the liberals a paradox of sorts. They have woven atheism, socialism and PC into the fabric of our society and even now are twisting the Constitution around to interpretations that have little relationship to the original text. They have found the means to represent child molesters as regular Joes and made same sex marriage a front burner issue, just about turned our schools into anti-American, leftist propaganda institutions and vilified our primary religions while approving that religion which is practiced by people who want to kill us because we are “infidels.” They’ve obstructed the President’s national security policies in times of a serious threat to our country and enabled frivolous lawsuits to become as commonplace as a trip to the grocery store.

And the level of outrage we would have seen during my childhood years had such things even been dreamed of is simply not there, except among those of us who are informed and active on the conservative side.

Did I mention that there was some regression afoot?

Well, the Dems are still banging away at the NSA’s monitoring of outbound telephone conversations by suspected terrorist associates here in the United States, still obstructing Bush Administration efforts to keep Americans safe from terrorism.

Stifling partisanship is preventing the Senate Intelligence Committee from overseeing the nation’s spy agencies, the Senate’s Republican leadership says.

But the top Senate Democrat says the Republican-controlled panel is falling down on its responsibility to hold the Bush administration accountable.

…to hold the Bush administration accountable is the operative concept here, of course.

Not that of giving the proverbial rat’s rectum about the safety of Americans, nor of anything else except the usual partisan political agenda of discrediting the President.

Luckily, the majority of Americans, since immediately after the treasonous lefty scum at the New York Times aided and abetted terrorism via reporting U.S. defense secrets when they broke the story, listened or read about it with mild to middling interest, thanked Bush and the NSA for doing what they have to do to protect us and went about their respective business.

So what are lefties like Reid, Rockefeller and Feinstein doing besides flogging what amounts to a dead horse? Why, they’re trudging desperately down a veritable road to nowhere because a)they have no other ammo in their political armory at the moment, and b) if they push the issue hard enough and get it back to kerfuffle level, they can waste Congress’, and therefore the taxpayers’(you and me, folks) time while preventing the timely addressing of other, more vital issues.

“Now why would they want to do that?” You ask.

Because the more obstacles the Democrats put in the way of Bush’s prosecution of the Global War On Terror and the enforcement of Homeland Security policies, the more likely another 9/11 style incident could have of occuring in a U.S. city, and that would reflect as a grand failure on Dubya’s part that could conceivably give the left, albeit at great and mortal cost to thousands of American citizens, a shot at getting back both the White House and a majority on the Hill(that’s a pretty brazen thing for me to write, perhaps, but in view of the Democrats’ treacherous collective behavior almost from the outset of the GWOT, I see no other possible explanation. Their ruthlessly single-minded concern is to score political victories. When they demonstrate otherwise, maybe I’ll find my point of view modified).

And,

Because the less that gets accomplished during this President’s watch and therefore the more this lack of results hurts the American people, the more opportunity the Democrats have to cite supposed inadequacy on the part of the administration and the GOP during this year’s and 2008’s election campaigns.

Sounds a lot to me like sabotage, friends, and not even a little to me like any kind of patriotism, love of country or concern for what happens to the people these politicians were elected to serve.

…is about the most accurate term for what the left presents George W. Bush as their contribution to homeland security.

The administration is prosecuting a war against terrorists who mean to harm murder all Americans who are not Muslims. Men, women, children, old folks, all the same to them… and Dubya’s having to spend an inordinate amount of time defending policies that have proven themselves to have saved a whole lotta lives — American ones — here in the continental United States.

All this aggressive energy the Democrats and their liberal masters, for purely political reasons, have been investing in attacking and obstructing Bush’s efforts to protect our country, ourselves, our families and our fellow Americans from an ambitious, remorseless, implacable enemy would be better invested in supporting the Global War On Terror and the Patriot Act.

Instead, we get a thinly concealed declaration from the left that they want to see Bush fail, meaning, among other things, that terrorists would be successful in mounting attacks here in the United States. Despite these peoples’ Utopian fantasies, we really can’t have one without the other, which pretty well tells us where their priorities lie.

Those leftists are, indeed, some sick puppies…