December 19, 2006

LOL!

First Democrats were "threatening" to leave the country if George Bush was reelected, now a Democrat, a former Clinton aide no less, is threatening to leave the country if Hillary gets elected President.

Political strategist Dick Morris is so disgusted by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency that he’s announced he’ll leave the country if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "Hannity & Colmes,” Morris – a former aide to President Bill Clinton – said that Bill and Hillary both suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder: "When they don’t get enough attention, they’re disordered.”

Go figure....

Posted by Seth at 01:42 PM | Comments (24) |

December 01, 2006

Heh....

.... so this is the oath all those new Democrats in the House of Representatives will take during their swearing-in ceremony, presided over by then new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

My question is, who will defend the Constitution against Nancy Pelosi and her leftist majority? And while I'm on the subject, since when do today's Democrats bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution? Am I missing something? Is there something someone's not telling me?

On another note, I sense even more hypocrisy here -- given their war against having any references to G-D being attached to anything of a governmental nature, won't these portsiders have any kind of problem with "So help me G-D"? I mean, Pelosi's friends in the 9th Circus didn't even want to keep G-D's name in the Pledge of Allegiance!

Well, at least one new Representative won't have that problem, he'll only have to say, "So help me Allah".

Posted by Seth at 03:03 PM | Comments (3) |

Heh....

.... so this is the oath all those new Democrats in the House of Representatives will take during their swearing-in ceremony, presided over by then new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

My question is, who will defend the Constitution against Nancy Pelosi and her leftist majority? And while I'm on the subject, since when do today's Democrats bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution? Am I missing something? Is there something someone's not telling me?

On another note, I sense even more hypocrisy here -- given their war against having any references to G-D being attached to anything of a governmental nature, won't these portsiders have any kind of problem with "So help me G-D"? I mean, Pelosi's friends in the 9th Circus didn't even want to keep G-D's name in the Pledge of Allegiance!

Well, at least one new Representative won't have that problem, he'll only have to say, "So help me Allah".

Posted by Seth at 03:03 PM | Comments (3) |

November 27, 2006

This Is Too Funny

And here we have a sterling, totally blatant example of liberal hypocrisy in its finest hour, courtesy of none other than John Edwards, our former Vice Presidential candidate.

Posted by Seth at 10:22 AM | Comments (8) |

November 19, 2006

Murderous Exasperation

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....

Posted by Seth at 04:48 AM | Comments (25) |

November 06, 2006

Those Who Vote Democrat Tomorrow....

.... 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.

Posted by Seth at 04:47 AM | Comments (7) |

October 29, 2006

The Democrats And Taxes

According to such cartoon characters as Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, should they manage to get enough of their fellow travellers elected so as to have a majority in the House of Representatives, with Pelosi expected to become Speaker of the House (well, Halloween is almost upon us, so what's a good scare among friends?), one of the first priorities of the Democrats will be to stamp out the Bush tax cuts and roll back our taxes to 1990s levels.

If I were an enemy of the state, I would utterly destroy my hands applauding this ambition. Unfortunately, I am a patriot who loves America, to say nothing of the fact that I am also an American who lives and pays taxes here, so I must convey the blatant fact that I am not a fan of this intended tax increase.

I understand the Democrats' need to tax me into the ground. Well, not exactly understand it, per se, but I realize that the Democrats have a serious problem with their fellow Americans being able to keep some of the money they earn and are fixated on the concept of raising taxes whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Some people are into sky diving, some people collect butterflies, some people are passionate stamp collectors, some people love archery, some tennis, some throwing rocks at passing cars, some surfing porn websites, some collecting sea shells, some climbing trees, others mountains.... Democrats are into raising taxes. It's what they do, just as sucking blood is what mosquitos do, or what leeches do.

It's not their fault, it's simply who they are.

They particularly like to tax those who are successful, like the rich and like large, prosperous corporations, and are very much like Robin Hood -- they take from the rich, and give to the poor. It makes them feel good -- hell, it makes them feel great -- stripping a big company of its investment capital plunges them into ecstasy.

Back in the 1980s, during the Reagan Administration, the greatest President in my lifetime stopped the bloodsucking practice of penalizing American business for its success, allowing it to keep its investment capital in order to put it to work, and lo and behold, despite the Democrats' criticism of what they fondly referred to as Reaganomics, our economy exploded into a dynamo of successful professionals, low unemployment, newly created millionaires and prosperous companies.

This trend continued through the Bush 1 Administration, but then, alas and alack, American voters sent Bill Clinton, a Democrat, off to the White House.

Keeping to the sacred tradition of Democrats, he raised taxes, as usual targeting the rich.

Before the end of his second term (he was actually reelected, go figure!), we were plunged into recession. The unemployment rate soared, businesses struggling to stay afloat transferred record amounts of their production to outsourced labor pools and after Algore, Clinton's Veep, lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the newly elected President engendered massive tax cuts.

Naturally the Democrats, dismayed that Americans were being permitted to keep more of their earnings, mounted yet another of their innumerable bumper-sticker friendly campaigns -- "The Republicans have given tax cuts to the rich, screwing the poor as always!"

That was worth, at the very least, a good chuckle, since every American taxpayer was entitled to the cuts. The Democrats somehow managed, once realizing that they really couldn't produce any low income working folks who were being either neglected or recieving the fid, cited poor people on welfare and other premature social security venues who weren't benefiting from the tax cuts, the fact that these people didn't pay any income tax to begin with notwithstanding... they actually forced the government to give something "back" to these noncontributors as well.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts enabled corporate America and smaller business people to use the "surplus" equity to expand existing business and create new enterprises.

The result has been a major rebound in our economy and a serious decrease in the unemployment rate that is still adjusting downward. America is again flourishing!

But let's not be too confident, friends, okay? We still haven't had this year's elections, so we don't actually know where we stand.

We're pretty confident about holding a Republican majority in the Senate, but there has been a lot of negative conjecture regarding the House majority after 7 November. Personally, I believe we'll hold our majority there, as well, though we'll have a few less seats.

But...

Should the Democrats gain a majority in the House Of Representatives, they will raise taxes, and you can bet your bottom dollar, assuming you still have one, that the late 1990s recession will return even more quickly than it went away.

Of course, the Democrats will find a way to blame Bush....

Posted by Seth at 04:27 PM | Comments (29) |

October 24, 2006

Democrats And Racism

I ran across this 4 year old article recently and thought it a good "share".

As on so many other issues, the hypocrats Democrats say whatever they have to say to get votes, no matter how shameful the lies or the manipulations.

The black vote has long been one of their mainstays, which is really pitiful as they have proven, decade after decade, that they are the worst enemy of black Americans, the very party that holds them back while blaming the Republicans, whose intent is to give them real equality and real equal market share in America and the American Dream. Considering their track record, the very fact that blacks continue to vote Democrat probably confirms in their eyes that blacks are exactly what the Democrats think they are. After all, when you run such a transparent scam on the bulk of a major voting block for so many years and they continue to allow you to lead them around by the nose, how smart can they be, right?

Of course, the Democrats have their own black perpetuators of racism, such as the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who depend on playing the race card to earn their miserable livings by helping to keep their fellow blacks from waking up and smelling the proverbial coffee. These two individuals are the real "tokens" or "Uncle Toms", as they sell out their own for their white masters in the Democratic Party in order to perpetuate their own careers.

The OpEd is here.

Posted by Seth at 04:15 AM | Comments (7) |

September 16, 2006

Obsessing On Bush

Peggy Noonan's got a good take on why the Democrats aren't likely to do very well in upcoming elections.

The most telling part of the OpEd is here:

The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They've been sucker-punched by their own animosity.

"The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. " 'What is your vision on Iraq?' 'Bush lied us into war.' 'Health care? 'Bush hasn't a clue.' They're so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own." They heighten Bush by hating him.

One of the oldest clichés in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a cliché because it's true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.

Mr. Bush's White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That's why he's out there talking, saying Look at me.

Because familiarity doesn't only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you're going to turn away from him, you'd better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don't appear to have one.

Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.

This is true. When you ask a Democrat for a better plan than one we're implementing now that he or she disapproves of, you rarely get an answer -- you get Bush innuendo. Very confidence inspiring, that. It's funny that while the left call themselves progressives, they invariably fail to progress away from strategies that have already shown themselves to be failures.

The entire Peggy Noonan OpEd can be read here.

Posted by Seth at 06:54 PM | Comments (5) |

August 24, 2006

Democrats On Homeland Security -- Right...

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!

Posted by Seth at 02:34 PM | Comments (15) |

August 08, 2006

Democrats In Action

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

Posted by Seth at 10:09 AM | Comments (8) |

January 16, 2006

Some More Right-On Steyn

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.

Posted by Seth at 05:41 AM |

January 14, 2006

Excerpt From A Forward I Received

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

Posted by Seth at 06:23 AM |

December 27, 2005

Some Democrats Are Growing Brains

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."

Posted by Seth at 10:09 PM |

December 13, 2005

Good Advice For Democrats: From A Republican

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.

Posted by Seth at 02:43 PM |

August 04, 2005

A Headline We Like

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.

Posted by Seth at 10:45 PM | Comments (2) |