From all I’ve been reading, the Democrats are endeavoring to develop a strategy for this year’s elections that will convince American voters that they can be trusted with protecting the United States against terrorism, should we elect a bunch of them to Congress.

Right, LOL, the cut and run, throw ourselves on the mercy of Islam, appeasement and capitulation at all costs, let’s be PC about this Democrats have turned over a new leaf, now they’re on our side.

Excuse me a couple, I need to go prep the 4 lb. prime rib I’m expecting to enjoy part of for dinner — with white horseradish and garlic mashed potatoes, yum! — so hold the thought, Ah’ll be bock!

Bock!

The problem is that to date, the Democrats have been advocating defeatist policies… Make a run for it Redeploy our troops, shut up and die be politically correct and go along with their Religion of Peace camel shit, unconditionally surrender our freedom to them and kowtow to Sharia law seek diplomatic solutions , apologize for any imaginary transgressions Muslim fanatics might have inflicted upon us in the course of the War On Terror, as though it was all our fault that we are forcing them to murder our friends and neighbors. The nerve of us, how dare we not simply do as pleasant memories and doctrine presented to mankind by Mohammed the murdering pedophile demand!

Wow, I’m beginning to wish, more and more, that I was preparing a pork roast rather than the delicious prime rib now gracing the inside of my oven! Pork for Islam, here 72 virgins join the chorus, Rah rah rah!

But the Democrats have their own set of tough strategies to defend us against the threat of militant Islam, their “belief” being that there is mostly some other kind.

For insight into the Democrats’ brand of appeasement foreign policy, look no farther than former President Jimmy Carter. Just a few months into his presidency, he urged Americans to reconsider our “inordinate fear of communism.” Carter kissed then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek. Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan.

Carter, a staunch Bush critic, helped to usher in the “Iranian Revolution” of 1979 by leaning on the Shah of Iran to “release political prisoners.” To show their gratitude, Iranians seized 90 hostages at the U.S. embassy, holding 52 of them for 444 days, before releasing them minutes after Ronald Reagan took office. At the time of the hostage crisis, Carter sent what some called a believer-to-believer letter in longhand to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The letter praised the ayatollah as a “man of G-d.”

And the Democrats (here I am applying the title of a 1960s Jefferson Airplane album, the liberalism of my former teen idol Gracie Slick notwithstanding), bless their pointed little heads, are chaffing at the bit to employ the Neville Chamberlain approach to addressing the problem we face of psychotic Islamic terrorists doing everything in their power to kill us or convert us to the Religion Of Peace.

Yeah, the Democrats will defend us against Islamic terrorism, and pigs might fly!

Here’s an interesting observation on the true loyalty of the Democrats to the constituency they purport to represent.

Mark Steyn has offered up another of his on-point analyses, this one titled Ham handed Dems didn’t lay a glove on Alito. It doesn’t bide well for the immediate future of the Democratic party in terms of “looking good for the next elections.”

I find it, as grave somber Senate Democrats like to say, “troubling.” Indeed, I find it not just “troubling” but sad that a party once so good at “the politics of personal destruction” has got so bad at it. The last time they had a Supreme Court nominee to hang upside down in the Democrat bondage dungeon was the John Roberts hearings. And at least, when hatchet man Chuck Schumer professed himself “troubled” by the “fullness” of John Roberts’ “heart,” the crack oppo-research guys had uncovered an “inappropriate” use of the word “amigo” by Roberts back in the early ’80s.

But, with Sam Alito the worst they come could up with was that he might have been around some other guy who might have used the word “amigo.” Not back in the early ’80s, but in the early ’70s.

Mr. Steyn writes of the dog-and-pony show in which the older Democrats dance, looking extremely foolish, to the idiotic tunes of far left organizations like MoveOn.org in order to continue to enjoy the filthy lucre campaign backing these concerns cough up.

He calls it “dancing for dollars,” LOL.

…In the Democratic Party, the old lions are now led by the grassroots donkeys, and, like some moth-eaten circus act, Ted and Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein are obliged to jump through ever more ludicrous hoops for the gratification of the base.

Read on.

“Back off and let men marry men, women marry women, and totally legalize abortion. In three generations, there will be no Democrats!!!”

It would seem that some Democrat politicians and think tanks are finally waking up to the fact that their party’s practice of playing politics over homeland security is damaging them in the eyes of the voting public, who perceive the fanatical leftist rantings of Harry Reid and his ilk as a sure sign that the Republicans are much more suited to defend the United States against the threat of terrorism than are the Democrats.

Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party’s credibility on national security.
That concern arises from recent moves by liberal Democrats to block the extension of parts of the USA Patriot Act in the Senate and denunciations of President Bush amid concerns that these initiatives could violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
“I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you’ve gone too far if you leave that impression. I don’t believe that’s true,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.

As a conservative Republican myself, I am both angered at the obstructive policies of those on the left who place our nation and its citizens in grave danger in the name of their hatred for President Bush and their partisan political agendas, and amused at the way they sabotage their own chances of political success in the process.

Their endeavors at running a far-fetched civil liberties scenario(the government eavesdrops on international telephone calls by al-Qaeda connections in the U.S., the liberals try and make out that they’re spying on every citizen, like the agencies of “Big Brother” do in Orwell’s 1984) in an effort to discredit Bush and compromise vital national defense programs are as sick as they are suicidal. It is quite obvious that their intention is to dismantle our protective operations to the point that one or more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are able to be successfully executed, Americans die and then they can accuse Bush of failing to secure the country against terrorism.

In my opinion, the very fact that such people hold office is a sad reflection on the intelligence of the Democrats who voted them in.

“I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it,” said Mr. O’Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is “good legislation.”
These Democrats say attacks on anti-terrorist intelligence programs will deepen mistrust of their ability to protect the nation’s security, a weakness that led in part to the defeat of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, last year.
“The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested,” said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party’s national-security weaknesses.
Nervousness among Democrats intensified earlier this month after Democrats led a filibuster against the Patriot Act that threatened to block the measure, followed by a victory cry from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, “We killed the Patriot Act.”

Right, Harry, you’re also killing your party’s chances of regaining their former majority status on Capital Hill for another few years. On behalf of Republicans everywhere, I thank you. Keep running your mouth.

As for those Democrats who are wising up, you would do well to start acting like Americans again and rally ’round your President in time of war. To say “he’s not my President” is to renounce or otherwise deny your American citizenship, because, whether you like it or not, he is the President of the United States.

Lastly,

White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy yesterday discounted the scope of the eavesdropping operation.
“This is a limited program,” he told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Mr. Bush is vacationing at his ranch.
“This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches.”

Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough has some great advice for congressional Democrats that they’ll naturally prove too… well, Democrat to heed.

According to Mr. Scarborough, the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

While reading Best Of The Web Today, I ran across a link to this article at Newsmax.com and thought its headline rather amusing.

Democratic Pollster: We Don’t Stand for Anything     

Democratic Party pollster Stan Greenberg said Wednesday that “one of the biggest doubts about Democrats is that they don’t stand for anything.”

Maybe Greenberg should have run against Bush last year. In so few words, he was able to deliver a message it took Johns Kerry and Edwards an entire campaign season to get across to the American people.