Back in April of this year, United States super-patriot and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-alQ) said this about the Iraq war and the 'surge' plan: "I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week". Even more impressive than Harry's proclamation was the fact that he made it before the surge was even in place. Maybe he consulted Miss Cleo for the info, or maybe the DNC, Crystal Ball Division. I'm not sure, but the man sure has some impressive psychic powers. Other than being totally wrong, Reid was totally right.

Buoyed by Hangdog Harry's uplifting pro-american can-do spirit and leadership, our troops proceeded forward with the surge under the command of general David Petraeus (real american), who made a report back to Congress in September on the progress of the surge. At that time, Petraeus reported that some progress had been made in Iraq, which prompted flagwaver Hillary 'Betsy Ross' Clinton (D-PLO) to declare that Petraeus' testimony required "the willing suspension of disbelief". You'll have to excuse me for a moment, because I get all choked up when Hillary starts displaying her unwavering support for our troops like that……..she's…..so…..presidential…….cough.

Now, near the end of october, Iraqi government forces have taken over security control of another Iraqi province from the americans, attacks are decreasing, the death toll is dropping, increasing numbers of Iraqis are turning in terrorists, and Al Sadr has called for a cease-fire against US forces. Bin Laden even came out from under his rock to release a tape urging his forces to remain united, which he wouldn't have had to do unless they were in disarray. Judging from the silence, it seems the US mainstream media is unaware of most of this. The ony thing that gets their attention is body parts flying off in the wake of a bombing by some terrorist scumbag.

I don't want to be too overly optimistic here, but things have been going so well in Iraq recently that I expect some uber-patriot from the Democratic party to call for a full and immediate surrender any day now. I mean, holy crap, we could actually win this war, and that would just be devastating for our gung-ho, red-blooded, totally non-treasonous, yankee doodle Democrats.

And that would be a darned shame, wouldn't it ?

I mean, the Dems are SO committed to the position that the Iraq war cannot be won, that it would probably take like a whole week for them to come up with a new cover story, costing them otherwise valuable Bush-bashing time. Could John Kerry (D-VC) be 'for the war before he was against the war before he was for the war' ? Of course he COULD, he's a politician after all, but I think he'd need some serious historical reinvention assistance from the NY Times and the rest of the mind-meld media. Can you picture Nancy Pelosi (D-Syr) with her plastic rictus of a smile painted on as she welcomes our victorious soldier heroes home, shakes their hands, and says 'we knew you could do it !' ??? My god, what a train wreck that would be. Pelosi's head could actually explode right on the spot, I'm serious. There has to be SOME physical tolerance limit for BS, even for a liberal pol from San Fran.

So, in order to save our very patriotic and earnest friends across the aisle from a world of embarassment, there is only one solution: OUR SOLDIERS HAVE TO STOP TRYING TO WIN THIS WAR, STAT. That's a direct order from Congress.

It's the only politically correct option the Democrats have left.

Valerie Plame's book, Fair Game: My Life As A Spy, My Betrayal By The White House, has been released. In it, Mrs. Plame, the wife of liar Joseph Wilson, accuses the Bush administration of maliciously outing her to destroy her career as payback for Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times that called the Bush administration liars for the famous 16 words contained in one of Bush's pre-war speeches about Iraq: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Plame also contends that her 'outing' compromised CIA intelligence operations and endangered lives.

You don't even have to get to the first page of Plame's book to find something misleading, because it's right in the title, in the 'My Betrayal By The White House' part. It wasn't the White House who first told Robert Novak that Plame worked for the CIA, it was Richard Armitage, a State department Iraq war critic, hardly a Bushie. Novak was the one who outed Plame by saying she worked at the CIA in one of his columns. You'd think it was Cheney who announced it in a press conference if you listened to the propaganda from the left. Nope. Novak did call Karl Rove and told Rove he knew Plame worked at the CIA, to which Rove responded with something like 'oh, you now about that too ?'. For that, liar Joseph Wilson thought Rove should be frog-marched out of the White House. Don't think so, Joe. After prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's endless investigation of the White House, nobody was ever charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) for outing Valerie Plame, though Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, was convicted of making false statements to the FBI during the investigation for not remembering who told him Plame's name first several months after the fact. You should have just said you didn't remember, Scooter. It worked pretty well for Hillary. She used some variation of the 'I don't recall' testimony 250 times under oath, and not only is she not in the slammer, she could be the next president. Everybody says how smart Hillary is, but do we really want a president with such a bad memory ? Somebody get the gal some Ginko Biloba or something. I never cease to be amazed at what you can get away with if your last name is Clinton.

Anyway, with Valerie Plame Wilson's book being uncritically reviewed by the NY Times (naturally), and with Plame making an appearance on Hardball With Chris Matthews (which should be renamed Softball in light of Matthews fawning all over Plame), I think at least one person should have thought to ask the following question: Mrs. Plame, if you were so concerned that classified CIA operations were compromised by the release of your name, why did your book have to be so severely redacted by that very same CIA ? You didn't seem very concerned about revealing classified CIA operations when you wrote that book ! Plame said this on Matthews' show:

MATTHEWS: OK. What do the people—what do the spooks you work with think, the real hard case spies? Do they feel that this impeached their role, that this really undercut them, this whole Valerie Wilson case?

WILSON: They know that it happened to me, but it could have just as easily happened to them. Something I feel passionately about is the amount of politics that has spilled into the intelligence realm, which distorts and dilutes the product and thereby harms our national security.

I guess Valerie is even MORE passionate about making millions in a book deal than she was about the intelligence community. I also imagine if Val was so concerned about staying covert, she maybe wouldn't have posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine when she was still working at the CIA. Not to mention that Valerie Plame was SO SO SO deep undercover that she drove right to work at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va every single day, not that anyone would ever think to look for CIA employees there. Heavens no. Did I mention that the CIA CONFIRMED PLAME'S EMPLOYMENT OVER THE PHONE FOR BOB NOVAK when he called to ask if she worked there ? Yeah, this gal was DEEP undercover, man. A real spook. About as deep as I am. And speaking of politics spilling over into the intelligence realm, the fact that Joe and Valerie were Kerry campaigners and supporters probably doesn't matter either, right ? How about the fact that the British stand by those 16 words Bush said in that speech ? And does anyone really believe that Joseph Wilson could go to Niger for 8 days to sip tea and come up with all the facts about Saddam seeking uranium ? How can anyone NOT see that Joe Wilson was on a mission to undercut the Bush administration from the beginning, spurred on by his wife, so pardon me if I don't shed a tear for poor Valerie Plame, who along with her hubby wanted to bring down a president. I don't buy the Wilsons act for a minute. They aren't nearly as naive and innocent as they pretend to be, and a lot more people would know it if we actually had a media in this country instead of a bunch of partisan parrots pushing the liberal company line, mixed in with the dumbed down infotainment morons reporting every move by Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.

Deroy Murdock wrote a column detailing the terrorist preference for the next american president. Which candidate do the terrorists favor ? Hillary. Actually, the terrorists would prefer any Democrat. Here are a few samples of the terrorist's reasoning:

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq", said Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Palestinian terror group.

"We see Hillary and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq", said Abu Jihad of Al Aqsa's Nablus unit. "This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world…"

Al Aqsa's Nasser Abu Aziz, considered it "very good" that there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion".

Islamic Jihad's Abu Ayman felt "emboldened" by Clinton's demands that America retreat from Iraq. He said: "It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that have brought about these calls for withdrawal".

"All Americans must vote Democrat", insisted Jihad Jaara, an exiled Al Aqsa agent who commanded 2002's siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.

With such strong support among the Islamofascists, I expect the Democrats will introduce a resolution on the House floor any day now to give terrorists the right to vote. The Dems already support illegals, so this would only be one more little step in the wrong direction. The party of the donkey has already demonstrated that voting blocs trump any silly old laws on the immigration issue, and it looks like terrorists are a lock to vote Democrat. The terrorists hate Republicans so much that they want Giuliani dead, and Rudy's not even THAT conservative. Following are some of the terrorist's opinions of candidate Giuliani:

"If I had the occasion to meet him I would hurt him", said Ramadan Adassi, a West Bank Al Aqsa leader. "For the sake of the American people, Giuliani shouldn't be elected".

"Giuliani doesn't deserve to live or even to be mentioned", said Al Aqsa's Ala Senakreh. "He hates Palestinians and we hate him".

Al Aqsa's Abu Hamed said Giuliani "can hate Arafat and the Palestinians, but he knows that nobody is hated in the world more than his leadership, his party, his president, and his Zionist friends".

See, the terrorists would like america to ease up on the war against terrorism, and they know Rudy ain't gonna play dat, nor will the rest of the Republican candidates. The terrorists would like america to look more favorably on Islamofascism, and the placating Democrats are just the ticket. They are the terrorist's useful idiots. The Democrats have complained every step of the way about everything Bush has done to fight terrorism. They've twisted, turned, spun, folded, spindled, and mutilated Bush's every utterance regarding terrorism. If Democrats gave one thousandth the effort to fighting terrorists that they've given to fighting Republicans, I think I'd fall over and faint. Democratic politicians are the best hope the terrorists have in the Great Satan. The terrorists know it. So should you.

Adding weight to the theory that far left liberalism is just a case of arrested adolescence, the loons have been acting out and disrupting class more than usual lately. From the bloody hands assault on Condoleeza Rice, to the Code Pink disruption of the Petraeus hearings, to the 'don't tase me, bro' guy, to the shout down of David Horowitz at Emory University, to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts on the Bill Maher show, to the protesters outside of Nancy Pelosi's house, it is clear that the moonbats think freedom of speech means the freedom to interject themselves into any venue at any time. They also think freedom of speech means the freedom to stop any speech that they don't like, which is a very old leftist tune. Just like Chavez in Venezuela nationalizes the radio stations to prevent any anti-Chavez sentiment from being heard on public airwaves, so does the american left propose the (Un)Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to muzzle the conservative dominance of talk radio. Ah, can't you just smell the democracy ? The left touts civil rights, tolerance, and diversity — but not for you, you nasty conservative devils. You neither, Christians. The left loves the free exchange of ideas, as long as they are all leftist ideas. If you don't believe me, go to the nearest university and find out for yourself. Somehow, our universities can tolerate Islamic fascists like the Iranian president Ahmadinejad, but our universities can't tolerate conservatives like David Horowitz speaking about Islamic fascists like Ahmadinejad. If anyone can find a nugget of sense in that, please explain it to me.

As we can see from the cases of Maher and Pelosi, you don't even have to be anti-liberal to feel the wrath of the moonbats. All you have to do is step out of line on any one tenet of liberal theology. Bill Maher, the moonbat's best TV friend, made the sole mistake of stating the obvious (for once), by saying the 9/11 truth nuts were NUTS. Yeah, no kidding, Mr. Wizard. The next week, the 9/11 truthers were acting up on his show and had to be thrown out. Nancy Pelosi's sin is bigger. She hasn't ended the Iraq war like the Democrats promised they would do if elected in 2006. Apparently, there are people in this country who really believed that San Fran Nan and company would end the war. They didn't realize that was just campaign rhetoric, that most Democrats know we can't just pull up stakes and leave Iraq tomorrow without suffering serious consequences. There isn't even one Democratic presidential candidate with a snowball's chance of getting the nomination who would exit Iraq immediately. You have to sink down to the level of moonbat touchstone Dennis Kucinich to hear that kind of talk, which is why Dennis polls at about 1%. I hear even Kucinich's wife is leaning towards voting for Edwards.

It won't be long until somebody gets hurt in these escalating hissy fits being thrown by liberal lunatics. If their precious little intolerant ears are so offended by conservative speakers and non-liberal speech, I suggest they do what they've been telling conservatives who are offended by pornography or pictures of Jesus in urine to do; don't attend, change the channel, or whatever. For security, I also have a suggestion: tase them all, bro. If the moonbats can't behave like civil human beings, they don't deserve to be treated as such. The communists haven't taken over america yet. Until they do, we all have freedom of speech, not just the ones YOU agree with. Code Pink THIS, you jerks.

The other day, Mitt Romney said the USA should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Much to Romney's chagrin, the USA is already boycotting the UN Human Rights Council, so we don't have a seat. Oops. Mitt made a mistake, but he also said a mouthful.

The former Massachusetts governor said the U.N. Human Rights Council has repeatedly condemned Israel while taking no action against nations with repressive regimes.

"The United Nations has been an extraordinary failure of late," Romney said in response to a question at a pancake house along the coast of early voting South Carolina. "We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council."

Irwin Cotler, Canadian Parliament member, details some of the discriminatory policies of the UN council in this Boston Globe article. The UN condemns an Israeli attack on Palestinians even as they ignore the Palestinian attack that provoked it. Ditto on battles between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has been so singled out, that even former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the entire UN loses credibility over the discriminatory and obsessive targeting of Israel. There were even three special sessions held to condemn Israel in 2006 before the Council ever got around to thinking maybe the genocide in Darfur might be a bad thing. I guess they couldn't figure out a way to blame Israel for that. No wonder Mitt Romney also called for a new coalition:

Romney also said he would support a new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together".

"We should develop some of our own - if you will - forums and alliances or groups that have the ability to actually watch out for the world and do what's right", Romney said.

I hear you, Mitt.

Ironically, the UN Human Rights Council was started in 2006 due to the disappointing performance of it's predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. Guess what the big failure of the Commission on Human Rights was ? If you guessed 'discriminating against Israel', you win first prize.

In June 2007, the UN Human Rights Council voted to 'permanently indict' Israel, with Israel being the sole nation in this singular category. No word yet on whether the next special session of the Council to condemn Israel will take place at Auschwitz, so they can put the Jews in yet another 'singular' category. In all, four UN resolutions have been passed against Israel, and none against any other country. None. Maybe the Council heard Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech where Mahmoud said that there aren't any homosexuals in Iran, and forgot about the reason: Iran executes homosexuals. When a member of UN Watch, a United Nations watchdog group, called attention to the inequities of the Council, his speech was banned.

The UN Human Rights Council also condemned 'defamation of religion' following the dustup over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Somebody tell me what this has to do with human rights, please. The resolution was introduced by Pakistan and passed easily, with 16 of the 17 Council members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference voting for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa (anybody notice the miserable human rights records of most of these countries ?). Opposing the resolution were all of the European Union, Japan, Ukraine, and South Korea (aka, the non-repressive regimes). It's pretty ironic that a so-called 'Human Rights Council' would advance a resolution stifling freedom of expression, no ? The resolution claimed that things like the Mohammed cartoons cause "negative stereotyping" of religions and "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism". Right. Everyone knows it's those crazy Methodists who are blowing sh*t up all over the world. Looks like politics rule the day over at the UN, and the wrong politics at that. It's time for the nations that really promote freedom to take the lead. This nonsense has gone on long enough. The UN Human Rights Council is a joke.

If you go to virtually any poverty-ridden inner city hellhole in america, you will find it is run by Democrats. If you go to virtually any inner city school board in america, you will find it is also run by Democrats, and has been for 50 years. Democrats pretty much have a stranglehold on our system of socialized public education. Teacher's unions are part of the Democratic base, and among the Dems largest campaign contributors. As a result of all this Democratic expertise, design, and control, we have inner city public schools where half the students don't graduate, and the half that do barely learn a damned thing. We have schools that are nothing more than day-care warehouses for the next generation of poor folk in america. It's a national disgrace, but Democrats try as hard as they can to maintain the status quo. They resist school vouchers, charter schools, and merit raises for teachers. They make it nearly impossible to remove bad teachers, they coddle bad students, they dumb down the curriculum, and there is precious little discipline. The Democrats keep calling for more money and more money for our schools, even though americans already pay more for education that any other country in the world. That money goes to the adults in our school system, to the unions and the bureaucracy, but it doesn't ever seem to improve the educational process for the students. Our national inner city public school system is an unqualified failure, and is just as responsible as the welfare state for keeping poor people poor. The next time you hear some fool talk in favor of socialized medicine, tell him to look at how socialized education has gone.

Since a large number of inner city folk are people of color, the tragic failures and wrongs of Democratic policy have fallen most heavily on them. Yet somehow, about 90% of black people continue to support the Democratic party. I wish I could explain this for you (propaganda, affirmative racism), but I really can't. The loyalty of minorities to the Democratic party is akin to Patty Hearst becoming a member of the extremist SLA group who kidnapped her. How in the hell can you be loyal to the people who implement the very systems that lead to your downfall ?

By any honest measure, private schools outperform public schools across the board. If anybody tells you differently, they aren't telling you the truth, they are presenting you with an agenda. Almost all the Democratic politicians who sing the false praises of public education send their own kids to private schools. They know the truth. They just think you are so stupid that you won't know.

There is an important vote coming up in Utah on school vouchers, and the largest teacher's union, the National Education Association (NEA) is waging a multi-million dollar campaign to get the Utah voters to reject school vouchers. Why ? Because school vouchers would allow families to get between $500 and $3,000 depending on income to send their kids to private schools, where the kids would have a chance at a better education. Why would the NEA be against children getting a better education ? Because the NEA's primary care isn't children's education, that's why. The NEA cares about the NEA and the NEA's members, and the Democrats genuflect in front of the NEA every chance they get. The NEA knows if they can win in Utah, a heavy Republican state, then they have a really good chance to destroy children's education defeat school vouchers all across the country. This must be another example of Democrats being 'for the children'.

In the political wars, Democrats like to paint Republicans as white male chauvinist christian bigots who are in the pocket of rich people and don't give a single crap about the poor. Democrats paint themselves as the compassionate good people who are fighting for the rights of the little guy against those same evil Republicans. On this battlefront, the Democrats are winning (though not as much as they were when they controlled ALL the media), because that perception is pretty widely accepted. But who really helps the poor the most ? Painting with the broad brush, and granting that there are many exceptions, the solutions of the two parties to poverty are these: Republicans believe economic growth leads to expanded opportunity, for the poor along with everyone else. It's the principle of the rising tide that lifts all boats. The Democrats believe in more government intervention in the form of government programs to assist people out of poverty. I'd say both sides believe education is key to lowering poverty.

In 1965, president Lyndon Johnson launched the War On Poverty. 17.3% of americans lived below the poverty line in 1965, according to the poverty tables of the US Census. In 2006, 12.3% lived below the poverty line. So, poverty dropped by 5% over 41 years. It's good poverty dropped even a little, but I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry, because a 5% drop doesn't sound like a real victory in the War On Poverty to me. That sounds like it's gone about as well as the War In Iraq the last few years, only marginal improvement. Plus, since we have more people now than we did in 1965, we actually have MORE people living in poverty. In 1965, there were 19,141,300. In 2006, there were 29,645,000. That's over ten million more people living in poverty than when the War On Poverty started. I'm also thinking that the estimated 12 million illegals aren't all showing up in the Census data either, which would drive the poverty number higher yet.

The question to ask is: Did all those Great Society social programs have any effect on poverty, or was it the opportunity in the Land Of Opportunity that caused the percentage drop ? Of note is the fact that the numbers of americans in poverty was dropping sharply before the big government Democrats began their 1965 round of big government programs. According to the same Census poverty tables, in 1959, 22.4% lived below the poverty line, so in the six years BEFORE LBJ's Great Society program began, the poverty rate dropped by 7.1%, more than it has in the four plus decades since. To me, those numbers say that it was the opportunity from economic growth that decreased poverty the most, not any big government anti-poverty programs. I would explicitly exempt educational and job training programs from that judgement, because those ARE valuable. Education IS the key.

We all know what was accomplished by those other types of government programs that were supposed to help the poor by subsidizing them with our tax dollars. The welfare state was created, which not only didn't help people out of poverty, it kept them mired in it for generation after generation. We gave the poor food stamps, virtually free housing, assistance with utility bills, a monthly stipend. We increased the stipend for each child the poor had. In short, we removed individual responsibility, promoted irresponsibility, destroyed the work ethic of many, and it wreaked havoc. The family unit disintegrated, out of wedlock births soared, crime became rampant, drug use skyrocketed. Those 'compassionate' Democrats had created an unmitigated disaster. The Democratic response to the nightmare they had unleashed on the poor communities ? Why, MORE government programs, of course. Some people never learn.

Finally, in 1996, something positive happened. Bill Clinton, after twice vetoing welfare reform packages from his Republican congress, reached a compromise agreement with them and signed welfare reform into law. It was Clinton's greatest achievement, and to accomplish it, all he had to do was agree with what Republicans were saying all along. Liberals widely denounced Clinton at the time for being a sell-out, because, well, they're liberals, they're wrong about almost everything. Immediately, the poverty rate began to drop, particularly among black people. In 1995, the poverty rate among blacks was 29.3%. By 2001, it was 22.4%. In 2006 it still stood at 24.3%, and that was after a recession, 9/11, Katrina, and war. Now that the success of welfare reform has been so obviously displayed, liberals like to pretend they were in favor of it from the start, because in addition to being nearly always wrong, they are also shameless liars. Liberals also never mention that it was the Republican congress that initiated welfare reform. They like to pretend it was all Clinton's doing, since he's a Democrat. Like I said, liars. Shameless. They never met any history they couldn't try to reinvent.

In the end, what is best for the poor is also what is best for the rest of the country. A strong economy, a good educational system, low taxes. That leads to opportunity, and opportunity is what lifts people out of poverty. The endless attempts of the left to foment class warfare and division among us in order to consolidate their political power and push socialism is counterproductive. Everyone believes in a safety net for the poor and unfortunate, but that safety net shouldn't become a way of life, it should be a transitional period. We should always take care of the disabled and the elderly. I don't think anybody disagrees with that either. But if the big government cradle-to-grave nanny state policies were going to cure poverty, it would have already happened. They aren't going to, so let's try to minimize them as much as we can, leave people's money in their own pockets rather than the government's pockets, and go about the business of creating good jobs and prosperity. That will be more effective than any of Hillary's million hare-brained wealth redistribution schemes.

Now that Bush's veto of the Democrat's S-CHIP expansion has been upheld, and the Democrats have had their hissy fit on the floor of congress yesterday, with one highlight (lowlight) being nutjob Pete Stark (D-Cal) making absurd comments about Bush "killing innocent people for his own amusement", maybe now the Democrats can quit playing political games and a reauthorization of S-CHIP can be worked out. I'm pretty tired of the Dem's tactic of using families that are already covered under S-CHIP as human shields to prevent any real dialogue from taking place on the issue. This vote on the veto override should have taken place two weeks ago, but the Democrats wanted to play the 'Republicans hate children' card for all it was worth, so they delayed the vote. I can see why the Dems mantra for S-CHIP has been 'For The Children', because their behavior has been totally infantile.

Democrats were so busy calling Republicans mean and hateful, that they pretended not to notice that Republicans are announcing an alternative S-CHIP plan today. The tenets of the Republican plan follow:

- Reauthorize SCHIP for eligible children. The bill would continue to cover kids in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

- Enact a child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the bill would offer tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level. This would cover the population targeted by liberals with their bill, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage, it would provide assistance to keep their current insurance plan.

- Adopt a "federalism" health-care initiative. The bill encourages greater experimentation at the state level to expand health-care coverage.

The idea of a health care tax credit is far preferable to signing up millions of kids into an expanded government program funded on the backs of smokers (the Democrat plan). A tax credit offsets the cost of health care insurance for working families, plus it puts worker's wages back in the hands of workers where they belong. The idea in health care is NOT to fill the government coffers and then have the government decide how to spend it. The idea is to make health care insurance affordable. The tax credit helps. I think it would be a good idea if all health insurance and out-of-pocket medical payments were tax deductible. Hopefully, the Democrats will go along with this idea IF THEY CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN, as they claim to. We'll see if they care about the children as much as they care about consolidating power unto themselves by taking all our money.

One more thing I should mention with all this 'Republicans hate children' crapola being thrown around by the Democrats regarding S-CHIP. The S-CHIP program was started in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Two of the Act's three sponsors were Republicans (Gramm and Rudman. Hollings, a Democrat, was the other). The S-CHIP program was passed by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, and then Clinton signed it into law. So, the next time you hear Democrats lying through their teeth about this issue, let them know you are onto them. The next time you hear the Democrat's propaganda arm, the mainstream media, distorting the truth, let them know too.

Those wild and crazy liberals keep telling us there is no terrorist threat, or if there is, it's a minor thing, kind of like catching a cold. They say Bush, Cheney, and company, those neocon devils from the evil empire, are just trying to scare us into giving away all our rights, so the Bushies can then force us all to go work on the Deathstar or something (to add to the horror, the Deathstar will be a non-union shop !). John Edwards famously illustrated how completely unfit he is to assume the role of commander in chief by once referring to the war on terrorism as 'a bumper sticker'. As I mentioned yesterday, Paul Krugman, propagandist columnist for the NY Times, pointed out on the Bill Maher show that Iran was not a threat. That should make Vladimir Putin breathe easier, since Iranians are trying to assassinate him. There are hundreds more examples of liberals downplaying the terrorist threat.

What I'm wondering is, how many terrorist attacks will it take before liberals are convinced the terrorist threat IS real ? (This is an update of the old joke 'How many ________ does it take to screw in a lightbulb ?'). We must be up to about 5,000 worldwide terrorist attacks by now, and that hasn't done it. 9/11 didn't do it. Liberals are still more worried about Bush wiretapping Al Qaeda or offending Muslims than they are about busting potential terrorists. Following are links to stories about terrorist plots that have appeared in the news only since September 2007: We have terrorist organizations operating out of New Jersey now, terrorists plotting to blow up British soccer games on live TV, the CIA is warning of Al Qaeda attacks in Paris and other european targets, a trial is taking place for the men who plotted to bomb Chicago's Sears Tower, a man was arrested for attempting to bomb the US embassy in Vienna, there may be terrorist training camps in america, muslim extremists are planning a takeover of the USA, a terrorist group was plotting to rob NY ATM machines, the NY Times blew an investigation into an jihadist blogger, the Goose Creek terror case is coming to trial…

Like I said, this is just since September 2007. You can read about the slew of successful terrorist attacks through the years here.

So, in spite of the thousands of examples of worldwide terrorism, in spite of 9/11, in spite of the numerous attacks that have been prevented since 9/11, in spite of the Islamofascist element openly saying they want to destroy us, liberals put their pointy little heads together and decided………..

WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS DOING ISN'T ABOUT FIGHTING TERRORISM.

Uh, whatever you say, liberals. Just don't go near any sharp objects, and please, don't stick that fork into the light socket ! If I didn't know better, I'd think someone was putting LSD into the liberal's drinking water, but Timothy Leary is dead, so that's probably not it. Maybe liberals think Bush is wiretapping terrorists, tracking terrorist finances, and imprisoning terrorists as some new real life Skull and Bones version of Dungeons and Dragons, I really don't know. I don't pretend to understand them. Liberals talk about Bush proceeding without any checks and balances even as Congress is deciding whether to reapprove the Bush wiretapping program or not, and as the Courts are ruling on it, both obvious examples of, drumroll please, checks and balances. Liberals not only can't see the forest for the trees, they can't even see the trees.

Liberals claim they are for upholding civil rights, and that's why they are against Bush's tactics, but these are the same people who want to impose The Fairness Doctrine to silence talk radio, who shout down conservative speakers on campus, who promote things like the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act that will remove the secret ballot in union voting, who want to steal all your money through taxation, who are for big government socialism, who want to stamp out any mention of God in public, who hate capitalism, who hate business, who don't believe voters should show ID (makes vote fraud easier),……….so don't tell me they love civil rights so much. They are totalitarian marxists. They aren't even close to being about civil rights. They aren't even close to being about freedom. What they are about is acquiring power and eliminating the opposition. Trust me, if the liberals ever do take complete power, you'll never hear them utter the phrase 'checks and balances' again, ever.

I know how much liberals hate it when someone mentions that the liberals are helping the terrorists by fighting Bush every step of the way on terrorism……but that's all the more reason to point it out.

My friend Roysoldboy sent me an e-mail this morning that I have to share with you. Roy got it from the man behind the Redstate blog, who also goes by the name of Flagstaffan for any of you who have been on any of the Mclatchey forums. I hope he doesn't mind me telling you that. I don't think he will.

I can't vouch for the origin of this e-mail, but I think it reflects some commonly held sentiments of the american public.

——————————————————————————————-

: NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA.

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!) Then, get a JOB !!

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(Lastly….)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!