Can we blame them?

I certainly can’t, and I know what my Big Bad Wolf would have to say on the subject (I won’t say it here, since there would undoubtedly be a large quantity of expletives)!

Just imagine the gall, though of course we are talking about today’s liberal controlled Democrats, who have no reverence whatsoever when it comes to the American flag or any other symbols of this great nation, whose very existence in its constitutional state, with its freedoms, encouragements of citizens’ independence and the convention of its collective moralities evidently offend them.

An American flag featuring an image of President Barack Obama’s face was removed from outside a local Florida Democratic Party headquarters Tuesday after several veterans called it “despicable” and a “desecration,” the Orlando Sentinel reported.

Veterans gathered Tuesday afternoon to protest in front of the Lake County Democratic Party headquarters, where the flag — featuring Obama’s face in the blue section where the stars normally go — was flying beneath a traditional American flag. The confrontation ended after party chairwoman Nancy Hurlbert took the flag down, according to the Sentinel.

The protest started after Don Van Beck, a Korean war veteran and executive director of the Veterans Memorial at Fountain Park in Leesburg, Fla., snapped several pictures of the flag and distributed them to others. He told WFTV-TV seeing it made his blood boil.

“I can‘t describe how upset was because you just don’t do that to the American flag,” he told the station.

What collossal moxi these “portsiders” have!

Sorry about that, I couldn’t help myself. What a pun! What a — oh… well, the title of this post certainly applies; if one considers what the mainstream media has been focusing on of late. First there’s the 100% political firing of a small quantity of U.S. attorneys, which happens to be a mid-term event that is practiced by nearly all administrations — as we know, Clinton’s Justice department terminated all of theirs. There was no MSM uproar when the latter occurred under Clinton, but since there is a Republican administration ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue led by George W. Bush, the former has been blown up to Armageddonal proportions by the liberal media as the Democrats raise the roof with blaring accusations and utterly moronic, blatantly politics-based innuedo….

It is eroding the Anna Nicole moment, which was just starting to wan, anyway, for all except those who are truly without lives of their own to live, and as it gathers momentum, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces that she is going to Syria on a “fact finding” tour. The White House requests that she not go, but she announces that she’s going, anyway.

She does, and not only does she perform the Kiss of Shame on Bashir Assad, she delivers a false diplomatic message from Tel Aviv to Damascus that not only isn’t she asked to deliver, but there has been no message sent. Then she reports false peace policies of Assad’s government regarding Israel to the local media. There is no “fact finding” involved in her tour, only hints and not so subtle hints that indicate that the United States has two completely different sets of official policies on the execution of the War on Terror, and that the Democrats’ policies are equally as official as the President’s. What she is doing is in total violation of the concerned articles of the U.S. Constitution, dangerous to both our diplomatic relations and Bush’s message to the world on America’s resolve to defeat terrorism and a serious threat to U.S. troops in Iran and Afghanistan.

Some of the same liberal media that supports her editorializes her activities in a negative light while most of the same liberals that disagree with every point made at conservative blogs they frequent of course present laughably thin, generally downright stupid defenses of Pelosi’s harebrained, purely political exploits.

Don Imus comes into the picture, making a joke that has the race baiting team of Sharpton & Jackson crawling out from beneath their respective stones — did I employ the word “picayune” at the top of this post? Um, sure did! Back in the 1970s when I lived in New York, Imus had the morning show on an A.M. station while Howard Stern worked mid afternoon to early evening on the same station. Both of them were shock jocks, and both made a living out of boldly offending whatever or whomever came to mind. Nothing has changed with either, particularly Imus. Now he makes a “nappy haired ho” remark about players on a female college basketball team, which is not, by far, the most offensive thing he’s ever said into the mic, and it’s suddenly treated as the most important, dynamic story on the planet by the MSM and Democrats (as well as a few soulless Republican politicians whose lives revolve around pandering for votes wherever they can find them), conveniently drowning out much of the Pelosi-in-Syria affair. Now, Nancy’s talking about taking a trip to Iran to nasalize some butt for Ahmadmanjihad.

Liberal politicians are doing their best to take a bite out of our First Amendment rights by enacting “hate crime” laws that aren’t crimes.

The Democrats have absolutely no issues of a positive nature on the table, everything they do attacks the President, the Constitution and the American way of life, and most of their purely political assaults are based upon trivialities that they themselves have blown up into maelstroms of misinterpreted laws and ridiculous innuendo, from Scooter Libby, who did nothing wrong, to the federal judge firings, the liberal media conducting disinformation campaigns to bring things to a boil.

The media we are confronted with today is a joke, I mean why waste money on a newspaper today when one can enjoy the same awareness of what’s going on in the world by reading The Onion?

…(which portsiders aren’t misguided?) get their due herein, one, a punk (I truly cannot locate, after much thought, a more accurate descriptive) whose celebre eminates from among the columns of the New York Times, from his fellow Democrat and undoubtedly the best former mayor New York has seen in my lifetime despite his political career having been spent on that side of the aisle, the other, a braying, disgusting, megablubbery, smelly looking, treasonous pig comedienne cum TV personality, from one of the more aggressive right thinking political commentators of today.

First, there is Koch on Kristof.

The hostile views that Nicholas Kristof expresses in his March 18, 2007 column correspond with those held by former president Jimmy Carter.

Kristof is distressed that the Democratic Party leadership is too supportive of the State of Israel. He says that he prefers the view of U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Barak Obama who recently stated, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” for which he says Obama was “scolded.”

Kristof does not mention that Palestinian suffering has in large part been brought on by the Palestinians’ own actions. Their leaders rejected the United Nations vote in 1947 dividing historic Palestine into two states: one Arab and one Jewish. They supported or actively participated in at least seven wars against Israel: the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1968 War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1982 Lebanon War [1] and the 2006 Lebanon War [2]. Their leadership declared two intifadas (insurrections) in 1987 and in 2002, which still goes on.

Imagine that! Another liberal who is comfortable with ignoring the facts in order to press a political agenda. Of course, he and his fellow members of the anti-Israel persuation have no choice but to employ the communistic technique of sweeping the truth under the rug in order to replace it with propaganda for consumption by the masses. If you simply gloss over the realities, you don’t have to work all that hard at revising history, modern or otherwise — sort of like lefty teachers do in schools these days, but let’s not digress, for once (that means you, Seth).

Kristof denounces Israel’s building “a better fence” or seeking “more weaponry.” What does he mean? That in his opinion Israel may not erect a fence to help keep the terrorists out? Does he suggest that the U.S. should deny the sale of new weapons to Israel unless it also makes them available to the Palestinians? Kristof’s tortured reasoning led to the fall of the Spanish Republic to which we would not sell arms to defend itself from Franco’s fascist armies which were supported by Hitler and Mussolini.

Liberals, who yearn desperately for the implementation of that provenly oppressive failure called socialism to “come to our rescue”, never miss an opportunity to opine that any and all democracies should bend over backwards to sabotage themselves in the face of the enemy. Thus the leeches over at the ACLU, for example, are forever using the courts in an attempt to erode the security measures the United States Government takes to repel terrorism from our shores, and the liberal anti-Israel crowd demands that the Jewish state tie their own hands and that the U.S. turn our backs on them in order to allow the forces of their terrorist enemy to destroy them.

Kristof clearly wants the U.S. and the Democrats seeking the presidency to end what every president since John F. Kennedy has called “a special relationship” with Israel — that of an ally — and create a new climate of neutrality. Even the Arabs have accepted that special U.S. relationship with Israel; nevertheless, they have asked the U.S. to take the role of mediator/broker, knowing that only the U.S. would be able to get Israel to make concessions based on hopes and promises rather than concrete confidence-building measures by the Palestinians and their supporters.

Emphasis mine.

************

The second subject of conservative OpEd attention is a truly twisted soul who is the epitome of ugliness inside and out, and who embodies treason in a most abrasive and wingnutty way, from a forum that used to be (prior to her arrival) a light hearted, acceptable-to-all political groups, womens’ talk show.

Here is O’Reilly on O’Donnell.

Armed with propaganda and dangerous with passion, Rosie O’Donnell has turned a morning coffee klatch TV program into Al Jazeera West. Where once “The View” dealt with menopause and shopping tips, the program now routinely assassinates the characters of anyone Ms. O’Donnell finds objectionable….

Read the entire column here.

All I can say about O’Donnell is that I find her to be one of the most offensive, disgusting TV personalities in existence and one who truly doesn’t merit citizenship in our great nation. I really don’t like to say derogatory things about women (no chauvenism intended, just a conservative Jewish upbringing and a profound appreciation and respect for the female of our species) but that horrible creature is a real toilet cake.

To that end, Thespis also has a thing or two to say regarding O’Donnell that aren’t exactly rosie (pun intended)…

Kerry eats alone, heh heh.

Our troops pretty much told Kerry what they think of him by not telling him anything at all.

The schmuck!

H/T James Taranto

…. proves that this is not the free country intended by our founding fathers, interfering, and not for the first time, with the competitive structure of the marketplace.

Of course, scum sucking, piece of shit, treasonous, commie liberal politicians are at the source of this particular infringement, but what’s new? They always are!

In this case, the victim is a dairy farmer who chose to charge less money for his milk.

I can see no reason why liberals should even want to live in America, except to destroy this great country. There is no other conceivable purpose they could have for remaining here.

They should go to countries whose governments are structured more to their liking and leave this one alone.

Sure, they claim to respect our form of government, yet prove time and time again that they do no such thing – if they did, they would permit it to work as it’s supposed to.

For example, if a given decision is solely the responsibility of Congress and the President to reach agreement on, like the decision or not, that is the final word. Next time elect senators, representatives and/or a President who are more in tune with your own political agendas. If you fail to do this, well, guess what? This means that the majority of the citizens with whom you share this democracy disagree with your choice. Sorry, try again next election.

What do liberals do when they don’t get their way? They weasel around Congress and take their case where it just flat out, plainly does not belong: To the courts. To leftist judges like those treasonous commie toilet cakes on the bench at the 9th Circus in San Francisco, or, if that doesn’t work, to the Supreme Court.

The courts have no mandate to legislate, yet these self important, sleazy southpaw judges are permitted to get away with it both blatantly and regularly.

One such issue is the global warming farce. You know, the one that caused recent snow in Florida and seems to be adding density to Algore’s “melting” Arctic ice mass (It’s pretty easy to B.S. a few hundred million people when you know they’re not very likely to climb into a boat and go up there to check for themselves).

The Supreme Court this week will begin hearing perhaps the most significant environmental case ever to reach its marbled halls — a dispute that could shape the future of U.S. policy on global warming.

This is not SCOTUS’ mandate. It is not their job. It is not a Constitutional issue. It is purely a Congressional issue.

The Court’s rightful response here, simply put, should be “Ees na’ my yob, man!”

In 1999, when environmental groups originally petitioned the EPA, they argued that the Clean Air Act required EPA to regulate “any air pollutant” that could “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

EPA denied the petition in 2003, saying even if the agency had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it would be inappropriate because there’s no conclusive proof the gas hurts to the environment.
The agency cited a 2001 study by the National Research Council that concluded, “A causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established”

Some climate scientists say that view contradicts the best evidence now available.
“The EPA position is untenable,” said Andrew Dessler, an associate professor of climate science at Texas A&M University. “At the present time it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet. The real question is how much warming we can attribute to emissions, and it’s likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity.”

There they go again! ….it is virtually certain that human emissions are warming the planet.

Yoda: Virtually certain, they are!

….the best evidence now available.

And what the {pick an expletive} does that mean? They couldn’t convict OJ with “the best evidence available”!

Excuse me, Andrew, but last time I looked, no one had proven anything of the kind! The only science that supports your theories is political science. Get any new research grants lately?

If SCOTUS does its job, it will simply opt not to rule on the issue and cite it as a matter for Congress, but after some of their more recent offerings of note, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I was perusing the comment section at another blog yesterday and read a liberal’s comment that made me thankful he and I were not in the same room — had we been, I probably would have strangled the son of a bitch out of sheer frustration. My own comment, in reply to his, was as restrained as possible, I believe it remained within, though pushing the envelope, the boundaries of respect due the owners of that most excellent site.

I mean, these people (not the owners of said most excellent site, but liberals) are such — such varmints!

Look.

They claim to be champions of human rights, for example. Here in America, human rights are honored more than they are anyplace else on earth. Freedom of speech? C’mon. Here, you can shout obscene jokes about the President from the rooftops if you feel like it.

In the Soviet Union, you’d have been hauled off to the Lubyanka, or perhaps Lefortovo Prison, in a heart beat, and not seen again for quite some time, if at all.

If they needed information they thought you might possess, there was none of this patty cakes BS like water boarding or playing loud music at you, they were somewhat more practical — maybe running some electricity through your genitals, or shooting you up with interesting chemicals like lysergic acid mixed with amatol that might get you to babbling, but might also scramble your brains permanently. Then again, permanently might have only meant a couple of hours, anyway.

So what did American liberals do? They extolled the virtues of communism in all its grand superiority over capitalism, even as they enjoyed instant gratification at the local mall while Soviet citizens were standing in bitter cold, in four and five hour lines, to buy a potato.

North Vietnam, an oppressive communist regime, invades the south, and our country defends the South Vietnamese against the north and its VietCong terrorist apparat. Liberals at home fight tooth and nail against the conflict. They influence politicians, who influence the war effort itself, prolonging it by several years. They eventually succeed in getting our troops pulled out. They rejoice. Ho Chi Minh’s communists sweep into South Vietnam and butcher hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then they enslave the country under said oppressive government.

Meanwhile, here in America, the liberals are celebrating their “victory”. They could care less about the fates of those poor souls thousands of miles away, human beings they’ve helped murder as surely as if they’d been there, splattering brains across the ground.

In the 1990s, there was brutal conflict in the Balkans. Muslims were slaughtering Christian Serbs, and Milosevic’s people were killing Muslims.

The EU, led by Germany, exploited the violence in order to get a foot in the door for influence in the Balkans. They altered intelligence reports and manipulated the media to paint a gruesome picture of Muslims being victimized via
“ethnic cleansing” by Milosevic’s people. Peaceful, nonviolent Muslims, victimized!

Then-boss liberal Bill Clinton bought into it and got us into it, and we helped eliminate a lot of obstacles al-Qaeda and fellow travellers faced in the day-to-day ethnic cleansing operations they were engaged in over there.

Milosevic was arrested and tried for his “crimes” — and died in custody five years later without ever being convicted of anything.

Muslims in the Balkans continue murdering Christian Serbs to this day.

Onward to Iraq, and to the global war we are waging to defend ourselves against the abolition of liberty under Islamic rule.

There we are again — which side are liberals on?

The other side, of course, as usual!

America’s enemies, any enemies, have never had a better friend than a liberal.

You want some liberal friends? Just declare war on the United States and they’ll be coming out in droves to shake your hand or, if requested, stick their noses wherever you wish.

Liberals….

Certainly not on our side, ever, yet when you state this obvious truth, they will actually argue the opposite, as often as not with that smug smirk that brings out the strangler in many of us….

Yeah, liberals can be quite amusing, despite the danger they pose to this country now and that which they’ve exposed this country to in the past.

It’s funny in a tragic way, for example, that they have so conned minorities into believing they have their best interests at heart. Let’s see now… In the 1950s and the 1960s, liberal justices on the Court began pushing an agenda of blaming the crimes of violent black criminals on all of society instead of on the perpetrators, tampering with the rules of evidence so as to protect the guilty and liberal judges began cutting defendants loose left and right. This phenomenon emboldened would-be violent offenders to become active as such, seeing that the teeth had been removed, by general consent, from the criminal justice system.

So who was actually helped by this liberal legal trend? If you guessed the law abiding, inner city black communities, you’re dead wrong; When potential perps realized that they could commit all the mayhem they wanted to commit without “getting in any real trouble” because any crimes they committed were “officially the white man’s fault”, they did just that, but they didn’t do it very much in white neighborhoods, they brought it home, instead, to their own. They turned low income black neighborhoods into war zones, terrorizing their neighbors, defacing the ‘hoods, robbing small businesses repeatedly and rendering the neighborhoods unsafe for respectable citizens to even leave their homes to buy groceries. This turn of events had very little effect on whites or white neighborhoods, the victims were almost exclusively blacks in black neighborhoods.

The public schools in these urban areas turned into the same quagmire of drugs and gang violence as the rest of the ‘hoods, driving away most effective teachers, and the children in these schools were thus denied the same quality education the liberals’ children, in their white neighborhoods, enjoyed.

And the liberals told, and continued to tell, the mostly law abiding members of these beleaguered neighborhoods that the gang violence and street crime were the white man’s fault, more specifically, the “racist” Republicans.

To this day, liberals pat themselves on the back for completely fucking over black communities everywhere by playing guardian angel to their criminal elements, yet masterfully exercising the truth so as to maintain a strong black constituency.

The liberal intellectual feels, despite the murder and misery his policy has caused, that he has achieved the “moral high ground” in the matter, and therefore it is all acceptable, and besides, he still has the black vote.

Tragic, even macabre, but funny in its own bizarre way to those of us who laugh hysterically at films like Dumb And Dumber — that an entire constituency can be so naive as to fall so heavily for a con, to the point that they jump right into bed with the very people who are screwing them — hmm, there’s something of a double entendre {ugh, French, spit!} there, so to simplify what I mean, I’ll say that there is “no kissing” involved.

Meanwhile, the Dubya Administration has had blacks in key positions, such as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. Good people both.

I attended a keynote session at last year’s ASIS conference where Colin Powell was the speaker, and he was awesome! The job of SecState has got to be one of the toughest jobs in the world right now, and Condolleeza Rice is doing just fine, even though I don’t think we’re being hard enough in our dealings with Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

High ticket liberals, on the other hand, feature a paucity of blacks among denizens of their respective payrolls. Well, seeing as the KKK was comprised of Southern Democrats, why should I be surprised?

But that entire example was a digression from the topic of this post.

How about all the other liberal policies, the ones that they’re still trying to force on us?

Within the last several days, I decided to try to learn, from their own “mouths”, exactly where liberals believe they are trying to take this country. I asked a handful of “serious” liberals I know personally the following question:

Let’s say that liberals won the White House and became a congressional majority(both houses) by 2008, then by 2010 had seen every one of your political, economic, immigration, education, homeland security, foreign policy and social agendas reach fruition. How do you see the U.S. in the year 2030?

My friend Mr. Ogre thinks their respective answers will be one word, “Utopia”, LOL.

So far, I haven’t received a single reply, unless you count the “crickets chirping”. My guess is that liberals don’t particularly relish looking down the road at the long term realities of their ongoing endeavors. After all, when their(and the rest of our) chickens come home to roost, they can always blame Republicans, raise taxes and expand government payrolls, perhaps create new beauracracies, right? To liberals, the tax base is the same thing as having a cigar box at home where you keep your cash, and a fairy godmother(or, perhaps, in view of their more recent political platforms, fairy godfather) who replaces the cash as fast as you spend it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that Monopoly money is our hard earned tax dollars.

Wanna know something? If the members of the First Continental Congress had somehow gotten to watch a video on liberal influence in today’s government, they would’ve stood up and left en masse, wanting no part of anything outside taking care of their own colonies. What the left is doing to our country is bringing it around on a 180 from the mission of our founding fathers. They twist the wording of the Constitution to change our laws, they turn government schools into liberal indoctrination centers that teach selective History and tolerance of perversion while accepting no religious referendums other than the study of the Koran.

They use the courts to restrict our freedom of speech — not theirs, liberals can say whatever they please and it’s great, anything a conservative says is racist.

They’ve instituted this whole PC trip in our society which I think is even beyond idiotic.

Speaking of which, another friend of mine, GM Roper, has put together a LEXICON FOR THE LEFT that demands immediate perusal.

Enjoy….

Liberals, so-called tolerant intellectual types, are forever saying they are open to debate, yet in my experience on the web, their debating style seems to be constant repetition of the same bumper sticker dreck. A prime example of this would be a lengthy debate I had here in my comments section a few months ago with a pacifist who claimed we could have removed Saddam Hussein from power through peaceful means, yet throughout our discourse over a period of several days, he never once provided a “how” to his statement. Why? Because there was no “how”.

To him, there had to be, though he apparently had no clue as to what it was, because he lived(and probably still does) in the Utopian land of the liberal, where “in a perfect world” ideals trump reality.

When you get into face-to-face arguments with liberals, you learn where their real debating skills come into play. Their technique is almost uniform: They shout you down or, if they are more civilized, simply interrupt you three words into every sentence so they don’t have to hear your point of view. This is because they actually don’t have any real world ammunition to fuel their sides of the respective debates, only the usual repetitive diatribes and anti-Bush/anti-God/anti-America/anti-conservative rhetoric. Naturally, despite all the verbal evidence to the contrary, they’ll be the first to deny that they’re anything other than sterling, Constitution-respecting, believing-in-God American patriots of the highest order.

Right. Sure. Yeah.

I got to watch a good sampling when I tried getting through Bill Maher’s show a little while ago, the first time I’d watched him since his Politically Incorrect days and probably the last.

The guests were liberal wingnut columnist Helen Thomas, liberal actor/comedian(not necessarily in that order) Eddie Griffin and former Bush Administration spokesman Daniel Senor.

The topic of discussion was, of course, the eighteen hours that elapsed between Cheney’s accidental shooting of Whittington and his making a statement about it to the media.

Senor tried several times to point out that the MSM, during a press conference, had asked nearly two hundred questions about the incident and only four in reference to the ongoing and profoundly more momentous issues of Iran’s enriched uranium/ nuclear weapons program and Bush’s meeting with Annan on Dharfur; and while Senor listened respectfully to the liberal participants when they registered their opinions, his responses were continuously stomped on by the lefties with statements to the effect that the priority issue was that the Vice President had shot someone, as though he had done so maliciously, with the intent to commit murder.

Griffin actually said that he believed Iran should have nuclear weapons, his stated opinion being that a country needs to have “the bomb” in order to participate with any credibility in global commerce. Helen Thomas agreed with him wholeheartedly, commenting on his “great” logic.

This kind of hogwash is what dominates the entire liberal-dominated Democratic Party political spectrum. They are so far “out there” that this is the best they have to offer America, and this in lieu of any realistic contributions to the governing of the United States or to U.S. foreign policy.

The fact that there are Americans, or facsimiles thereof who have access to our polling places who actually take the far out blatherings of the left seriously leads me to only one possible recommendation:

Let us pray…