John Kerry: Obama will be a great President because we're all bad people... and he's black

I've caught as much of Rush possible lately, and at the end of today's show he played some clips of 'the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam' talking about how great President Obama will be for this country... because of, well, the color of his skin. Keep helping John!

Here's the transcript with El Rushbo's comments:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's how difficult it's going to be for Barack Obama to keep race out of his campaign. When you've got idiots like the haughty John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) out campaigning for you, you're rolling the dice. (laughing) Last Monday, Kerry did an interview with the New Bedford Standard Times. It's in Massachusetts, the New Bedford Standard Times editorial board, and of course they taped him. An unidentified reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives Obama credibility on that score?" Kerry had said that Obama's blackness and Muslim background is his main qualification for office, and would help him with American foreign policy, and the reporter said, "What gives him credibility on that score, particularly?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people, if we can elect an African-American president, a young leader who is obviously visionary and got an ability to inspire people. It would give us an ability to talk to those countries, to, in some cases, go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise. I think in the end, um, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism, to maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.

RUSH: Man, this is what I mean. When you got guys like this speaking for you, you have no control over. Do you realize what you just heard? This is the former Democrat presidential nominee, and he has just encapsulated here the liberal Democrat view of this country where it comes to race: "We are guilty!" Whatever anybody, particularly our enemies - whatever radical Islam thinks of us - they're right. We are guilty, because we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes and all that. And we need to elect an African-American president, a young leader, obviously visionary, to show the rest of the world that we are who we say we are as a people. To bridge the divide of religious extremism? (laughing) Kerry said this on Monday. I don't think Jeremiah Wright was a common household name at that time. (laughing) Bridge the divide.? He has created the divide! He's widening the divide! He's dredging the divide! He's dumping the sand of the divide on both sides of the shore. But Kerry wasn't through. The reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives him credibility on that score, again?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: Because he's African-American! Because he's a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. His life story, you know, a Kenyan father who abandoned him and he was raised by a single parent and -- and -- and found the purpose and values to go to college and make something of himself. That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything.

RUSH: Folks, I'm sitting here laughing because it's Friday, it's the end of the show, but this is outrageous, though. This is just... What must John Kerry think of his own country in order to say these kind of things? That only Obama, because he has a Kenyan father, his life story...? He hasn't had any oppression in his life. He wasn't raised as an African-American. He wasn't down for the civil rights struggle. He has no ties to that. That's what the black community was worried about when Obama first announced. That's what "Magic Negro" is all about. That's what "Is he black enough?" was all about. He found the purpose and values to go to college, make something of himself? That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan? What? He went to college? It's an important lesson to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? This is ass backwards. This is 180 degrees out of phase. What ought to be happening here is that we ought to be telling some of these other places what's wrong with them and because if they don't fix it they keep attacking it, they are in peril. Did you see, by the way, the story that the Saudi Arabian government is going to start training 40,000 new imams to try to deal with this Wahhabi sect that's causing all the grief? So anyway, there you heard it: John Kerry (the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam), speaking Monday to the New Bedford Massachusetts Standard Times editorial board.

END TRANSCRIPT

I'm not proud to say this, but I truly despise the elitist, socialist Senators from MA... right up there with Al Gore, lefty Hollywood boneheads and Code Pinko.

Related, from the great Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.

Also related (only because it further exposes Kerry) is this HotAir video of YAF's Jason Mattera catching up with Sen. John Kerry and confronting him about his unsubstantiated, troop-smearing testimony:


Link: sevenload.com

And here's Glenn Beck on Black Liberation Theology... terrifying.

Mainstream Media lies about 3,000 Iraq war dead...

Jayme Evans, proprietor of War of Wits, writes in his latest piece called "A Media Milestone":

... Ted Kennedy, The Associated Press, Reuters News Service, and other mental midgets in the media rang in the New Year celebrating the historic milestone of the 3,000th US servicemember killed in Iraq. Kennedy called it a "tragic milestone", while the media variously referred to it as a "grim milestone" or "the death toll milestone".

Both Reuters and the AP were practically drooling, awaiting the announcement of the next dead soldier. As a matter of fact, for about two hours on New Year's Eve, Yahoo News posted an article attributed to Reuters entitled "US death toll in Iraq reaches 2,999" with no byline. A few hours later, it was replaced with the three thousand figure. The article was then attributed to Claudia Parsons (Reuters), and has been updated on several occasions.

---

Both Reuters and the AP
were practically drooling,
awaiting the announcement
of the next dead soldier.

---

Reuters is straining sooo hard to emphasize that this is a milestone, that the story was accompanied by those unauthorized photos of flag-draped coffins being offloaded at Dover Delaware that are several years old. In addition, according the the source they're citing for the casualty figures, there has yet to be an official confirmation of the three thousand figure, yet the Reuters headlines scream "3,000 dead". ...

... A milestone is something you use to measure either a). distance, or b). progress. So unless you're cheering for the terrorists in Iraq, no number of dead US soldiers is a "milestone". And no body count should ever be the measure of the success or failure of an entire military campaign.

Jayme concludes...

I have monitored DoD casualty reports for two years. DoD only confirms military deaths upon notification of the families, and sometimes they are posted on DoD's website out of chronological sequence. Therefore, I submit to you that the entire premise of this piece of garbage propagated by Reuters, and then modified at least three times over the course of six hours is in question. The number 3,000 cannot be confirmed by any independent source, and yet Reuters reported it as fact.

Even worse, not only does Ms. Parsons report suggest that an unconfirmed US body count is some sort of measure of progress, she disrespects all US soldiers by devoting half of her article on their deaths to the details of how Saddam Hussein was mourned in his hometown. Apparently she sees Saddam Hussein as morally equal, and therefore deserving of just as much attention. What a sicko.

And people wonder why the influence and subscription rates of mainstream media publications continue to plummet. The only milestone worthy of mention here is the new lows that some people and organizations will descend to, in order to advance their agenda.

The eagerness with which the MSM and many Democrats point to casualties in Iraq is horrible, although somewhat understandable. Whether in Iraq or here at home on the local news, Death is the lead story almost everywhere you look. Combine that with anti-Bush blinders and it can seem almost like joy.

The MSM and many libs suffering from liberal guilt want us to lose... period. Well done Jayme!

Daniel Pipes:

“Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.”

The snub...

Powerline:

This is a true story....Check out this photo from our mess hall at the US Embassy yesterday morning. Sen. Kerry found himself all alone while he was over here. He cancelled his press conference because no one came, he worked out alone in the gym w/o any soldiers even going up to say hi or ask for an autograph (I was one of those who was in the gym at the same time), and he found himself eating breakfast with only a couple of folks who are obviously not troops.

What is amazing is Bill O'Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!

As the commercial says... Pay back. This time it's for real. Or... maybe this is just a botched joke by the troops.

Update: No snub, just an intended private conversation. Apologies.

Kerry is soooo very...

...unlikable:

... Among those placing ahead of Kerry were about a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"This is bad, bad news for Kerry," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, which conducted the survey.

"Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don't like him," said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to U.S. President George W. Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat. ...

Poor John.

Related from NewsMax:
Poll: Giuliani, McCain, Obama Are Hot for White House
Conservatives Launch Anti-Hillary Web Site
Al Gore: McCain 'Capable Guy' for 2008

When straight-talk on fighting evil was cool - the good old days...

(Thanks to ElephantOwners for the video and quotes, and to Allah for the tip)



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

A pittance of time...

From a commenter on a recent Hugh Hewitt post:

Young Men and Women Going Off to War
My son graduated from high school this year. He, like many of his classmates, is now off to college; he's studying business. He's an entrepreneurial young man so this is just right for him. My son considered the military, and we'd gotten the occasional recruiter calls at the house for the last year because of my son's interest. In the end, he's off to college, but the military was a real option. One that my husband and I did not discourage.

My daughter, three years behind my son, wants to go to Annapolis. JAG then Harvard. She's got the grades to do it. We're doing everything we can to see that her dream happens.

One of my son's best buddies has joined the Coast Guard. Another buddy has joined the Army. These young men have been to my house numerous times over the last few years and they are both bright. One is a high-achiever - he is focused and knows just what he wants. The military is going to be better because of him. The other young man wasn't sure about which technical school he wanted to go to after high school, and decided that the military would give him options, benefits and purpose. In this case, the military is going to be good for a capable young man.

Throughout the past summer, every week or so my son reported on another classmate who signed up. Some were suprises, some were not. Now, these young men and women are from a wealthy area. We're five miles from the beaches of Southern California! Dude, these dudes and chicks could've gone surfin', for Pete's sake.

They did not have to join the military. But they did.

As a mom, whose son didn't make that choice, I am so deeply touched and impressed by these young men and women, who have options - choices - to do anything they want, and yet still decide to serve this nation. They, and everyone else that signed up for military service, are what make this country great.

(Yes, I expect my son to make this country great, too, through business and commerce, and he'd better darn well have created jobs for his classmates and others who end their service and get into the job market.)

And I know that what happened in my town this past summer also happened in many, many towns across America.

There's a reason why members of the audience gasped at John Kerry's offensive remark. It's because we know the people that he insulted, for the sake of a joke, and they're not worthy of such shabby treatment.

Anybody can make a joke, even John Kerry. But when you pony up to the microphone, make a public speech, trade on your celebrity status and do everything possible to draw attention to yourself, then you'd be wise to take your pot shots at others like yourself - public figures and toadies. Not our service men and women, not when we're fighting a treacherous war that requires every person to keep his or her wits about them.

The US military is all volunteer. No one is being conscripted to fight. Even those who signed up because it was their best economic choice - or because it's a chance to put their troubles behind and start over - deserve our respect for making this decision. The military has a way of educating a young person and making a better person out of him or her. As an organization, this is to be respected as well.

No matter how hard Kerry and the nostalgic media wants this to be Vietnam, it just isn't. And they cannot treat our young people as if they've been forced to do this or made a bad or wrong decision.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T find out what it means um-hum.

Some of the very best blog reading comes from comments like this one... and a great video from Terry Kelly.

John Kerry may have meant to slam George Bush, but at the very least it was a Freudian slip indicating how he and the Democrats really do feel about our military... that they're either uneducated victims or ruthless murderers.

Rush: John Kerry Said the Same Things About the American Military in 1972

What media bias? - A roundup...

USA Today Pronounces Iraq War Not 'Right' Vote

In another grand example of "journalistic" integrity, USA Today has declared the Iraq war a total failure even as we are still in the middle of it all. With that "truth" reported, I'd like to have their crystal ball to get the next lottery numbers, too.

What photo should we run today?

Roughly one in six or seven of my e-mails over the last 12 hours has included an attachment of the famous "Stuck in Irak" banner response to John Kerry. Hugh Hewitt notes MSM newspapers where you can't find the photo and wants to know if it ran in your local paper.

Hume Marvels at How Papers Buried Kerry Story, Cites ABC Quote Highlighted by NB

“The John Kerry flap may have been the major political story yesterday, and even today,” Brit Hume accurately noted in his Wednesday “Grapevine” segment since, indeed, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts led with it both Tuesday and Wednesday night. But he observed, “you might not have known that from the newspaper coverage. Not a single front-page headline in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or USA Today.

Nothing You See in Drive-By Media Makes Sense

Not only are they talking about Republicans losing, they're now starting to talk about how this country loves the Democrats. I'm sorry, folks, but I don't believe it and I don't see it. The Democrats haven't done anything to earn this victory. The Republicans may have done things to deserve losing, but I even tried to explain that away. It's tough for conservatives in the House to be conservative when their president isn't as conservative as they are, issue by issue by issue. For example, you who hold the immigration issue as your first and foremost important issue, you realize if the Democrats win the House we're going to get an amnesty program. It will happen. They will vote for it. It's the Republicans in the House who have provided the only reason that we don't have amnesty now. They stood up to the Senate bill. I've always assumed, at least people in this audience, are bright enough, informed enough to figure all this out and not be swayed by the daily onslaught of Drive-By Media. That's why I watch this stuff, and so much of it just didn't click with me intellectually, none of it makes sense. The portrayal of Republican voters doesn't make sense in terms of the way I understand Republican voters and conservatives. And that, frankly, is what has me scratching my head and I'm sure a lot of you, too, as our last two callers have expressed it.

Media’s ‘Botched Joke’ Double-Standard: Remember Trent Lott?

The firestorm ignited on Tuesday concerning Sen. John Kerry’s insensitive remarks in front of a group of students in Pasadena, California, once again demonstrates the media’s double-standard regarding jokes made by politicians: if you’re a Democrat, the press get it; if you’re a Republican, fuggetaboutit!

Barack Obama Only "Sounds Like" a Liberal? Sen. Obama gets the Hillary Clinton centering treatment.

"Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has become the prize catch of the midterm campaign. More sought after than virtually every other Democrat, Mr. Obama was fully booked, long ago, on a schedule to take him across a large swath of the country to help his party try to win control of Congress."

Kornblut, like most of the press, slides by Obama's liberal views in favor of forwarding his self-styled pose as a moderate.

Suddenly, the New York Times is worried about dangerous disclosures

The NYTimes blabbermouths are accusing the Bush administration of being careless with national security data?

Ouch. Stop. Sides. Splitting.

... Just another rich and ripe example of how the Times' problem is, you know, that it's too "evenhanded."

Liberal bias in media is no secret, but now it’s proven

To watch the nightly network news, you might think that (a) America is everything that’s wrong with the world, (b) Barack Obama’s emergence on the national scene is like the Second Coming of Christ, (c) the country has turned en masse against the Republican Party in numbers not seen since Watergate, and (d) Kevin Federline may actually have a promising rap career.

ABC News Agrees With Kerry- Troops Are Dumb

Notice how ABC agrees that Kerry's slam on the military was just "a joke"?
And, how could ABC possibly question that our troops are stupid as Kerry "jokes" when the facts show that Kerry is not just insulting but wrong.

Media 'In The Tank' For Liberals

Do journalists have an agenda this election season? It sure looks that way. A study released Tuesday by a media watchdog group concludes that news coverage on network TV skews heavily toward Democrats.

The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs confirms what we've been saying for a long time: The media's liberal beliefs get in the way of honest reporting of elections and other key elements of our democracy, like the economy.

Why It's Pointless for Me [Rush] To Go on CNN

RUSH: CNN, they're doing their bit tonight with the Michael J. Fox flap. And they're running promos every ten minutes. Every ten minutes. You know if I didn't know better I think I'd become a movie star. I'd think I'm Tom Cruise, they're talking about me so damn much -- and, of course, the promo includes this video of me that totally misinterprets, they misinterpret, purposely, what I did and said about Michael J. Fox in that ad, and I want to say again: We have sent transcripts to CNN. We have talked to them personally. We've explained all that and what it was, and it doesn't matter. You know, many of you, and I understand this, many of you have written me, "Why don't you go on television? Why don't you answer some of this? Why don't you go out beyond your audience?"

Folks, believe me. I'm one person who can't do this. They've all asked. There is a line a mile long of television shows asking me to do this. But, for crying out loud, if even after talking to us and getting transcripts they insist on getting it wrong, what's the point of taping an interview that they could then edit or what's the point of going on live when they have no interest in getting it right in the first place, and who knows what they'll run after I finish? I am not going to give them ammo, and I'm not going to go out and build up their ratings simply by showing up and allowing them to promote it all over the place.

November surprise! NYT plans page-one Iraq WMD splash for tomorrow

Well, on the bright side, at least they’re not making a pretense of being impartial anymore.

Only two possibilities here:
1. They have evidence that someone in the administration knew there were no WMDs.
2. They have evidence that Saddam was further along in his nuke program than we thought.

The election’s in five days so I think we can safely rule out number two.

Watch Fox News... fair and balanced.

Kerry in 2008!

From the Scrappleface Enterprise Institute:


A joke?

Kerry is the joke, and as their 2004 Presidential Candidate, he represents the Democratic party as well as - or better than - anyone else. No apologies... anywhere.

Way to go George! You too John! You too Katie! McCain too!

Newsbusters has coverage of the coverage.

Here's a hilarious photo courtesy of Michelle Malkin:


More from Michelle here.

Update: Courtesy of Glenn Beck:

The Politics of Hypocrisy...

Here's part of a nice article from Jim Clonts:

... The modern liberal loves hypocrisy. It's just too easy and so politically correct. When faced with a diverse point of view, just raise the notion that your opponent is not worthy of taking a position. Some favorite fodder for liberals in our national history include slavery, our treatment of the American Indian, ignoring the Holocaust, US support for the Shah of Iran, the Iran-Contra fiasco, Viet Nam, and, of course, faulty intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. No matter the topic of discussion, you can bet the liberals will bring up one of these as proof we are we are not allowed to assume the moral high ground.

---

When faced with a diverse point of view,
just raise the notion that your opponent
is not worthy of taking a position.

---

Every now and then I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-Span. This is where the Prime Minister of Great Britain stands before the House of Commons and answers their questions. The first time I saw this I was astounded. Here was Tony Blair of the Labor Party receiving questions from his Conservative rivals and actually responding on-topic to the question at hand. They actually addressed each other, made extremely persuasive arguments, and debated national topics. Unlike our Congress, where most speeches are political sound bites made to empty chambers, or our presidential debates, where the candidates are not allowed to address each other directly, these men and women actually called each other on the carpet. At the end of the evening, the average British citizen not only knows why Blair supports an issue, they know both sides of the issue and can form their own decision.

Although all politicians are capable of political-speak, I've never heard a liberal actually answer a question with a salient, on-topic answer. They constantly criticize the war in Iraq and our efforts to fight terror, but when asked what they would do differently, they spout something like, "George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and took us into this war under false pretenses. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. We must change course. New leadership is required, a new vision, a new strategy." Did I miss something here? The President's stated strategy is to train the Iraqi security forces until they can handle the job themselves, then bring our forces home. This may or may not be a good strategy, but it is a strategy. If the Democrats have a better one, what is it? I'm not opposed to a better strategy. How about giving us one, please!

Maybe they have one and just won't admit it. The only pretense of a Democrat strategy I've heard so far is from Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Murtha. They say to pull our troops out immediately. This is not a popular strategy with the American people, so most Democrats won't adopt it. Staying the course, however, is not exactly popular either. At least the President has the guts to stand by his convictions. If leaving Iraq to the insurgents is really the right thing to do, then the Dems need to stand behind their convictions, popular or not, and let the American people decide their fate in November.

---

Modern liberals have either forgotten
how to debate or have decided
it does not serve them well to try.

---

Modern liberals have either forgotten how to debate or have decided it does not serve them well to try. They just attack, typically with very effective one-liners completely out of the context of the debate. One-liners are great sound bite fodder for the media. Comprehensive and complex arguments are too long for a news update between My Name is Earl and The Office, or for the moving ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen on cable news networks. ...

Very nice Jim!

A message from George Allen & Christopher Ruddy... (updated)

George Allen appears to be bypassing the MSM... can't really blame him after the one-sided lambasting he's received recently. Certainly, he's not used to playing defense.

From Allen:


Allen vs. Webb on the issues.

From Ruddy:

Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton will show up in Virginia for one reason: to defeat Senator George Allen.

She, Howard Dean and the leadership of the Democratic party and their friends in the major media have launched an all out assault on Senator George Allen.

They want revenge for Senator George Allen increasing the number of Republican Senators from 51 to 55 when he was Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2004. They want revenge for knocking off the Chief Obstructionist – Tom Daschle.

They want to defeat him in November.

Make no mistake about it. Senator Allen can win this race.

But it may be a very close one because of the extraordinary effort by the Democrats to defeat Senator Allen – even to the point of their campaign to smear his reputation.

You can support Senator Allen by making a contribution today just, Go Here Now.

The Democrats are pouring in millions to Virginia. They know they have to pick off just a few GOP senators to gain control of the Senate.

If the Democrats defeat Allen and make other gains, they will gain control of the Senate. The new Democratic-controlled Senate would be led by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and others. The stakes are very high.

But they can be stopped. Polls show Senator Allen still ahead.

But the Democrat, James Webb is gaining.

He is gaining in the polls because of the unprecedented media juggernaut out to destroy Senator Allen and smear his name.

Rush Limbaugh has said this media smear will backfire as the people of Virginia and Americans like you come to support Senator Allen.

You can support this smear campaign backfire by standing with Senator Allen.

Senator Allen has had a sterling record first as Governor of Virginia, then as a U.S. Senator. He is a strong Reagan Republican – for less government, less taxes and a strong national defense.

His opponent, James Webb, claims he is a moderate. A former Republican, he told Virginia Democrats he really never supported the Republican cause, he joined the party for expedience and later served as President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy.

Today, Democrat Webb is airing commercials of Ronald Reagan twenty years ago saying kind comments when he was Secretary of the Navy – all in a phony effort to make it look like Reagan is endorsing him!

Even Nancy Reagan was so angry over Webb’s deception, she issued a public statement that he stop using her deceased husband’s image and words for his own political ambition. (Video of Allen ad)

You can join with leading Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Bill Frist, Jack Kemp and many others who are supporting the real Republican, the true Reagan conservative, George Allen.

Support George Allen today, Go Here Now.

Thank you.

Previous.

Update: Phillip Ellis Jackson exposes more hypocrisy on the left and has some great advise in "Macaca" takes on "white nigger" and wins in a landslide... just stay away from a$$holes of any color! Great comments at his post too.

Just how stupid do the Democrats think you are? Pretty stupid.

Phillip Ellis Jackson over at Intellectual Conservative tries to help us with...
"Deciphering Democrat Doublespeak"

... Which brings us to the launch of FaithfulDemocrats.com, the brainchild of former Democratic Party Chairman David Wilhelm. Its purpose is to show that Democrats go to church too (well, those who aren’t offended by the antique notion that there actually is a God who establishes what is right and wrong independent of human consensus). And these Democrats — church going or otherwise — are moral people just like Republican conservatives. And how do we know this? They just told us they were. Weren’t you listening?

If the only thing I had to comment on was the self-delusion of Democrats who think that words are a substitute for genuine actions, I wouldn’t have written this essay. What’s new about that? The only difference between what the Democrats believe about Iraq today and what they believed in 1998 is the political affiliation of the guy in the Oval Office. Remember these little gems?

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

Okay. So I still would have written the essay just to make fun of Democrat duplicity, but my essay would have ended here. However, with Pelosi taking things to a new level by invoking her own rendition of the “Golden Rule,” these people aren’t simply being dishonest or disingenuous by manipulating words (that is, when not forgetting that they said them at all). They think you’re too stupid to know that they’re being dishonest! ...

It depends what your definition of morality is.

Related... Sharon Hughes asks: Are you cheering them on?

The liberals and PC police who wave the 'tolerance' banner to propagate their political agendas and version of morality, are also the ones who lay out the red carpet for arrogant dictators to step on here in America, welcoming them into our churches and universities.

To my fellow Americans who are cheering them on, all I can say is that you are blinded by the colors of bigotry, and you don't even know it.

All I can say is be a truth-seeker. There's BS all over the place, so when you take something on authority... choose your authorities wisely.

Evil prevails when good people do nothing.

Update: Speaking of truth, how about checking out The Truth about Muhammad.

'Republicans, who love all those Christian votes but seem not to care seriously about enacting a Christian agenda, had better take note'...

A very interesting article from Patrick Hynes and The American Spectator - "God's Other Party":

... WHICH BRINGS US TO THE FIRST OF TWO significant challenges facing the Democrats as they seek to win the votes of believers: the crisis of credibility. Outside of Kaine and Casey, most of the Democrats' rhetoric has betrayed signs of the same overreach with which they have approached the war in Iraq. When House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) cast her vote against the Republican budget resolution, she claimed to have done so as "an act of worship." Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has invoked the Prophet Isaiah on the House floor to agitate for higher taxes. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) voiced her opposition to a Republican immigration reform measure because, she said, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because the bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." ...

... This kind of over-the-topness calls into question the Democrats' sincerity. Rob Boston from Americans United for Separation of Church and State told me some of the Democrats' appeals stink like old school political pandering. "Sometimes it's hard to tell if they mean it or if they are just trying to get votes," he says. "It is both sincere and calculated," adds Professor Green. "Some in the party are informed by their faith and others just think it is a way to win."

And is talk enough? No major presidential candidate in American history used the word "values" more often than Senator John Kerry did in 2004. It earned him 18 percent of the "values vote." The question remains: Why should it be any different this year?



MEANWHILE, A SLUICE OF LIBERAL anti-Christian tracts has opened up. The tracts deride increased religion in public life as hints of a looming "theocracy." Conservative Christians consider this a deeply offensive charge and it has the potential to diminish appeals from religious liberals to find common ground. "The two messages might cancel each other out. It is hard to appeal to religious voters if one does not respect religion. All this talk of 'theocracy' could easily appear as hostility toward religion," Green says.

The second challenge for religious-left Democrats is to avoid cross-pressuring their secular base with all this new "God talk." Green believes the Democrats' increased public religiosity has the potential to turn off secular voters. Boston agrees. "If the Democrats continue going down the road of introducing more religion into their proposals, sooner or later congressional debates are going to evolve into proof text contests," he says.

Waldman argues, "If the Democrats decide to become a secular party, they will have decided to become a minority party." This might be a matter of simple math, but the fact remains that approximately 11 percent of the electorate describes itself as "secular" and this cohort votes overwhelmingly in favor of Democrat candidates. Will these voters stay with the Democrats if the party continues to posture itself as the party of Jesus?

The question may not find its answer in 2006. Waldman believes the Democrats' "God talk" will not have a significant impact on the off-year elections in November. "I don't think they [the religious left] are organized in enough local races," he says.

But despite all the reasons to suspect the Democrats of a cynical play for votes, they nevertheless are for the first time in three decades telling Americans of faith that they are willing to talk. This is a remarkable transformation and a powerful testament to the enormous growth in the number of religiously motivated voters.

Religion of convenience.

It depends on what your definition of 'peacekeeping' is...

From The Weekly Standard:

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and material, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got. ...

From Jed Babbin:

The U.N.'s years-long record on the Israel-Lebanon border makes mockery of the term "peacekeeping." On page 155 of my book, "Inside the Asylum," is a picture of a U.N. outpost on that border. The U.N. flag and the Hezbollah flag fly side by side. Observers told me the U.N. and Hezbollah personnel share water and telephones, and that the U.N. presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists.

So "peacekeeping" means aiding the side you're friendly with. Interesting. Some might argue that it's just a case of siding with the "little guy", but that's a load of #!@%. The U.N. is on the side of the terrorists / Islamic fascists. Whose side are you on?

The U.N. is about as useless as John Kerry, and vice-versa.

Update: Hezbollah bunkers were apparently built right next to U.N. "peacekeepers". Bryan has the story.

Great Minds Think Alike

(from BOTWT)

John Kerry* on U.S. servicemen, April 22, 1971:

"They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

* But he supports the troops!

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, July 16, 2006:

"The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan."

-Home-

An "irritate a liberal" article roundup...

Survival of the Fakest (pdf)

Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?

The black rebellion against fatherlessness

BLACK BOSTON, like black America, is in the midst of a moral and cultural crisis. Forty years after the passage of groundbreaking voting and civil rights legislation, blacks face dire conditions that would have been inconceivable to the generation who came of age during that period.

Church vs. State in our Modern Society

The view that the state is to be thoroughly secular, and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian - was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not try to expunge every vestige of Christian religion, thought, and values from all facets of public life.

Devising moral destruction

How would you destroy the moral fiber of a nation grounded in moral truth? A nation whose founding document says is predicated on the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights?

Intelligent design makes sense, complexity of life not accidental

Evolutionary theory is based on the faith belief that millions of such fortunate mutations have occurred, sequentially. This is statistically impossible. It makes Darwin's theory more of a religious belief than science.

If there are truly scientists who believe Darwin's theory, then perhaps they could prove their faith by volunteering to become genetic mutants.

I am not holding my breath for any to volunteer.

This is a tacit admission that there is an intelligence in the universe far in advance of us. This is just common sense. To ignore the obvious is not good science, and to preclude research or a scientific theory because we don't like the conclusion is worse.

Intelligent design does not require the espousing of any religious belief. It only recognizes the obvious — that the incredible complexity of biological life is not accidental, but instead shows evidence of intelligent design.

All intelligent design proponents ask is that it be examined on a scientific basis, just as we do now with its competitor, Darwin's theory of evolution.

Open letter to ABC News: your ‘BIG LIE’ on same-sex marriage

Your news anchor, Charles Gibson, asserted that the American people are “fairly evenly split” on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Yet he did so in the face of your own organization’s poll showing that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to “same-sex marriage” by a margin of 58 to 36 percent.

Making Gibson’s false claim even more outrageous was the fact that on the same broadcast ABC reported that “forty-five of fifty states have passed either constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.”

Thank God for Moral Violence

Let us make war on the phrase "violence doesn't solve anything." It is a lie, and anyone who utters it cannot be taken morally seriously.

Take, for example, the American use of violence against the Taliban. Thanks to it, Afghani women may get an education, attend public events without a male escort and otherwise ascend above their prior status as captive animals.

‘White Guilt’: America’s race problem In his new book, Shelby Steele, a scholar on race issues, offers a solution. Read an excerpt:

When I woke on that January morning to the sight of President Clinton wagging his finger on the morning news and saying "I never had sex with that woman," I thought two things: that he was lying and that he would be out of office within two weeks. It was a month later that I realized not only that he might survive his entire term but also that his survival, even for a month, already spoke volumes about the moral criterion for holding power in the United States.

Liberals will get us all killed

I don't say it as much anymore and yet there may be nothing more important for our nation to understand than the reality of that statement. Liberals don't have a clear cut sense of right and wrong. They are fuzzy when it comes to moral absolutes, and they sure don't seem to have any clue when it comes to national security.

Don't believe me? Then how 'bout a refresher?

Is America Headed For Decline?

"What one generation allows in moderation," it was once said, "the next accepts in excess." This has certainly been true in America in recent years. Anyone old enough to be raising children has witnessed firsthand the decline of moral standards since the time we were kids. It seems the time-honored notions of courage, honor, sacrifice, responsibility and decency have become a thing of the past.

When Education Fails to Educate

Let's face it. Public education is a mess. Some may even say it is dead. Many subjects being explored and indoctrinated into our children's minds in the public education system these days doesn't even have anything to do with education at all. Just last week the National Education Association (NEA) was debating whether to embrace or endorse same-sex marriage or not. At first the NEA did decide to endorse same-sex marriage, then changed their minds about it and decided not to. Then, at the last moment, they pulled a John Kerry flip flop and changed their minds again. Now the NEA will endorse same-sex marriage. My question is what does same-sex marriage have to do with kids learning math, science, history, and other such subjects?

Crisis of Faith: Episcopal schism reflects wider culture war

The Archbishop of Canterbury last week unveiled plans for a great divorce within the 77-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion – or at least a formal separation from its American cousin, the Episcopal Church. The split that so many Anglicans have anticipated for so long finally appears to be upon the church – and North Texas Episcopalians are leading the way.

And, like many nasty divorces, this one has to do with sex.

Stem Cell Research: Science or Politics?

It’s important to remember that there is no ban on embryonic stem cells research. Anybody who wants to do it is free to do so, he just can’t do it on the public’s dollar. If it held the promise that proponents claim, top pharmaceutical companies would be vying for chances to throw their research dollars at it. After all, if it worked as promised they could expect to make huge profits. That they don’t see such prospects should tell us something.

The real crisis in American education

The real crisis in American education is that we no longer agree about what a child is. If a child has a soul she requires one kind of education; if she has no soul, it hardly matters what kind of education she receives. If she has a soul, her personal conscience, shaped by transcendent considerations, should guide her in every situation. If she has no soul, the collective will may serve as her compass.

On the Soulful Side: If she has a soul, she has a higher destiny than that of the social order to which she belongs — she out lives it to reach her eternal disposition. When a society understands this it will be structured to help her attain her higher destiny — or at the very least, its institutions will not be allowed to hinder her journey. Hence protections like the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

On the Soulless Side: If she has no soul, society may work upon her to shape her to fit its aims — whatever they may be. Her beliefs, allegiances, sexual energies, religious ties, familial bonds; her very mind, will and emotions are all available to be worked upon by the master planners of her education. Enter the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There is an alternative to Islam’s example

In her essay A Call For Clear Thinking, Ayaan Hirsi Ali urges her fellow Muslims to reject fundamentalism and to embrace the open society

UN Watch Issues Report Card of UN Human Rights Council Inaugural Session

Geneva, June 30, 2006 — UN Watch issued a Report Card (see below ) grading the performance of the UN Human Rights Council's inaugural 2-week session, which has just concluded. "Despite some encouraging indicators," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO, "the Council failed to adopt a single statement for the victims of gross atrocities in Darfur and for millions of other victims around the world."

Children need both a mother and a father at home

Fathers roughhouse and encourage competition and independence. Mothers are gentle and encourage equity and security. Fathers tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. Mothers tend to avoid risk. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.

-Home-