Mood:  chatty

Five Common Types of Democrats

An identification guide

By Justin Hartfield

1. The College Student
In college, previously disinterested students are inundated with leftist rhetoric from college professors who seem to have all the world perspective the students themselves lack. College students are further blessed with lots of free time, time which they can now use to save Nelson Mandela via a cardboard protest on a busy campus intersection. (Or did they save him already? Oh well, we can just change the signs to read "IMPEACH BUSH." Great idea, Tad!) It makes sense that such idealistic young people would gravitate toward the Dems. They see the Republican Party as about holding onto past ideals and conserving, and the Democrats as the forward-thinking alternative. To many young adults, new always trumps old. Since they have little or no previous convictions to hold on to, these students often are swayed toward new ideas which seem to them novel or even brilliant at first glance. That's why it is with no bit of irony that Kucinich once said, "I hold in my heart that rebellious spirit of youth that demands change."

2. The social liberal but economic moderate
The classic liberal, as it was originally defined and is currently found all throughout Europe, is extremely different from the breed of liberal found in the US. Classic liberals support the free market. Usually these people would vote Republican (due to their pro-market positions), but many are so revolted by the Christian Right's domination of the party that they feel compelled to support the Dems. This is often the case when the voter regards social issues as more significant than economic because he or she is already wealthy. For example, Steve Jobs is regarded as a liberal, yet he is a passionate defender of the free market. It is his social positions that resemble those of the Democrats.

3. The socialist
This voter believes in the corrupting power of Capitalism and supports the Democrats on social issues. However, his economic policies often stray left of the traditional party line. Dennis Kucinich and his cohorts are examples of Democratic Socialists. They generally believe in immediate withdrawal from NAFTA, preventing any privatization of social security, and creating single-payer universal health insurance. They are also extremely liberal on social issues and support same-sex marriages. They are so far left that even Hillary Clinton would blush at their latent, unrepentant communism.

4. The minority
Minorities are essentially born into the Democratic Party. Many are raised to believe that programs like Affirmative Action give them the boost they need to be competitive in America. Their leaders (e.g. Rev. Jesse Jackson) have hoodwinked them into believing that they need handouts in order to contend with their white counterparts. The tendency for minorities to be affiliated with the Democrats is so widespread that those not registered as Democrats are often scorned and ridiculed by their peers. Larry Elder, the black champion of libertarianism, is often called an "Uncle Tom" or "anti-black" by his detractors. Instead of asking Mr. Elder how he got to where he is today, they criticize him for not toeing the party line.

5. The victicrat
A victicrat is someone who views his government as a form of protection against the evils the rest of us call life. They look for handouts before helping themselves. To be clear, victocrats are not necessarily found in the welfare line. They are often affluent heirs who blame illegal immigration for taking their jobs, or minorities "accepting" their lot in the US because of their skin color. Not only do they refuse to market their differences, they use it (them) as an excuse for their lack of effort. Like Dr. Dre has said, breaking out of the "slave mentality" is crucial to succeeding in business.

Prometheus Institute ~ Justin Hartfield ** Five Common Types of Democrats

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Libtard Soros Group Blasts Pelosi Endorsement of 'Unethical Murtha'...
Public Statement

CREW Blasts Pelosi Endorsement of Unethical Murtha for Majority Leader

Washington, DC -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Murtha was listed in CREW's report Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep, Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha.

Eight incumbents in CREW's report lost their races to ethics issues.

CREW's report can be found at www.beyonddelay.org.

ORIGINAL CAMPAIGN:
CREW releases 2nd Annual Most Corrupt Members of Congress Report, 09/20/2006

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ** CREW Blasts Pelosi Endorsement of Unethical Murtha for Majority Leader
Related: This Blog *** Demented-crats Act To Surrender Quickly To Al Qaeda
Pelosi backs Murtha for House Majority Leader...
Roll Call ~ John Bresnahan ** Pelosi Puts Weight Behind Murtha in Leader Bid
Democrats to Call For Iraq Troop Withdrawal... NY Times ~ Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Mark Mazzetti ** Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months

Posted by yaahoo_ at 7:05 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 13 November 2006 7:21 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Democrats Act To Surrender Quickly To Al Qaeda

Update: Iran Says Israel’s destruction near. We need to hear from the Dem Congressional Leaders on this threat to our ally. And we need to hear now, before Iran assumes the Democrats really want Israel wiped off the map. And why would they get that idea? Clarice Feldman explains how.

OK, I must be living on a different planet because I never thought the Democrats would be so stupid as to go out and do all those terrible things people predicted they would do - but the are. The first terrible move is to call for troop reductions in Iraq. Troop reductions have been big losers in Senate votes, the latest just this past June. And there has been no public support for a surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. None. So why the dems are pushing this subject now is an interesting issue.

This is bad on so many fronts for the Dems it is hard to fathom if any logic is being applied at all. First off you have the Lieberman factor. He owes the Democrats absolutely nothing and his top priority is success in Iraq. Now we hear that Lieberman is flexing his new power (as the 2nd most powerful person in the country right now):

Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

Asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

“I’m not ruling it out but I hope I don’t get to that point,” he said. “And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut — nobody ever said, ‘We’re doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,’ and I appreciate that.”

It seems the battle inside the Democrat party is just beginning. The old dog liberal democrats are trying to grab power. But in their effort to grab it, it may just slip away. Who knows, but I think they are over reaching. I have not seen any polls, but the country is watching to see if the Dems defy or embrace all the negative predictions that the conservatives put out on what the Dems would do if elected. Stunningly, they seem to be embracing the worst of the predictions.

Surrendering to Al Qaeda in Iraq is probably the worse move. We still have our soldiers there, in country, trying to help Iraq stay afloat. These signals are just the worse thing to be sending to all sides in that conflict. While Democrats see Vietnam, the rest of the country still sees 9-11 heros. I doubt this will play well. Recall that Iraq was the fourth most important issue ini exit polls, so a rapid surrender is not higher on the people’s list than terrorism, the economy -- and corruption.

And the House dems seem to be going full throttle into the corruption tank by looking to experienced, corrupt pols to be leaders. Now that is ambition. Don Surber did an excellent overview of the scandal riddent Dems riding into town to claim their share. $100K in illicit money is not enough to get in the way of Democrat morals. But that is only part of the issue. The new blood of moderate Dems coming into the Congress seem to have either shaken the liberal leaders to the core, or they are still too taken by Bush Derangement Syndrome to comprehend what they are doing. By example, Jane Harman is one tough, seasoned moderate who cares about this country and its security - and she just got the liberal royal shaft by those liberal morals we now see on display. It is not about what is best for the country. It seems all of Grandma Pelosi’s actions are about personal revenge. Pathetic.

Actually, what is truly pathetic is the Democrats still think they can put lipstick on their pig-headed plans to surrender to Al Qaeda. They think Americans are going to embrace the democrats near panic to retreat because they have some ex-marine to play cover for their surrender plans:

But in her first real decision as the incoming speaker, Pelosi said she was swayed by Murtha’s early stance for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Her letter of endorsement yesterday made clear that she sees Iraq as the central issue of the next Congress and that she believes a decorated Marine combat veteran at the helm of the House caucus would provide Democrats ammunition in their fight against congressional Republicans and President Bush on the issue.

“I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election. It was surely a dark day for the Bush Administration when you spoke truth to power,” she wrote. “Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to lead on these vital issues.”

Yep, they are speaking to power (Al Qaeda) and saying ‘you win’. That’s a democrat’s definition of courage -- to bravely slink away and then have a parade marking the successful retreat.

The Dems are in serious trouble here. They are playing a classic Neville Chamberlain to Bin Laden’s version of Hitler. Except that in this modern day, we have the record of Chamberlain’s mistakes to compare against. And we have the responses of Al Qaeda to the news the Democrats are riding to the rescue - ready to retreat and give the field of battle to our enemies. Last century the people of Britain and Europe did not have the insight we have today, but that will not ensure we do not repeat history. It may only allows us to see this disaster pan out in real time. These acts of appeasement will not satiate our enemies’ lust for land and power.

As I noted before, the terrorists are planning now to go on the offensive. They need to build momentum in the Muslim world to enhance their image as the ones who brought down the Great Satan. They need to grab as much of their Caliphate as possible before the West realizes the mistake we just made. This is from the terrorists’ viewpoint, so don’t expect the Dems to have a clue on this. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing these early, unforced errors by the Dems. Al Qaeda has mobilized 12,000 fighters and redeployed them. We see them coming back into Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan from Afgahnistan - and possibly Iraq. So what is the possible plan?

First, Al Qaeda needs to sow the seeds of doubt in Europe and Australia (and possibly Canada). They need to attack there so the people in those countries pull a Spain like America just did (elect the Surrenderers-in-Chief). Second, the democracies or pro-West nations in the ME need to be toppled or, at least, distracted. That means Lebanon is a target for toppling the still weak government there. This would allow Syria, Iran and Hamas Hizbollah to begin round two of their campaign on Israel from Southern Lebanon. The other big target now is Pakistan. The fastest path to the Islamo-fascist’s nuclear bomb is taking over Pakistan. That is the number one strategic goal, while eliminating Israel is more a political goal.

Sadly, it will be a Democrat Congress that brings civil war to Iraq -- and Turkey. The one force out there still very pro-West and still very potent are the Kurds. They will be target number one -- but I am not sure how this will play out. They are fierce fighters and will not abide the coming tide. But every time they consolidate some power Turkey gets the jitters. Turkey might be able to finally fulfill its NATO role as the defender of Europes southern flank. They coudl ally with the Kurds and hold norther Iraq and do some serious damage in Norther Iran (the other Kurdish region). Or they could fold to the Islamo-fascist forces that are roiling Turkey. That is another battlefield that could open up on us.

The Democrats, in the myopic fit, are releasing the pressure we have been applying to the region so that things would not begin spiraling out of control. But just like Chamberlain actually freed up Hitler to start is putsch on Europe, so will the Democrats. This is a different kind of war from WW II, so signals are sent in a different way. But they are there. AQ knows they have a small window to act in to gain as much ground as possible. The question is do they think that window is open now or not. It is hard to tell. If the Dems keep doing their Chamberlain-role my guess is the terrorists accelerate their efforts. America has always been the big problem. Our military is so strong and can project anywhere that the terrorists know only political will can stay our hand. But a wave of attacks followed by inept statements by Dems could backfire on the terrorists. My fear is the terrorists are as myopic as the Dems seem to be and will go full throttle to bring on the pending war. As has been said, more attacks were inevitable. But many of us hoped they would be last ditch efforts of a dying movement. The Democrats have lit the fires of hope again in our enemies, and the next attacks will now be an offensive effort.

Strata-Sphere ~ AJ Strata ** Democrats Act To Surrender Quickly To Al Qaeda
Related: Pelosi backs Murtha for House Majority Leader...
Roll Call ~ John Bresnahan ** Pelosi Puts Weight Behind Murtha in Leader Bid
Democrats to Call For Iraq Troop Withdrawal... NY Times ~ Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Mark Mazzetti ** Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months

Posted by yaahoo_ at 5:02 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 13 November 2006 5:10 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

And so the bipartisan cooperation begins!

Democrats are set to subpoena

The new majority is expected to hold hearings on military spending and the Iraq war -- just for starters.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Ike Skelton knows what he will do in one of his first acts as chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Democratic-led House: resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The panel was disbanded by the Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994. Now, Skelton (D-Mo.) intends to use it as a forum to probe Pentagon spending and the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war.

It has been 12 years since Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate. But they are looking to make up for lost time, and in some cases, make the Bush administration and its business allies sweat.

With control of every committee in Congress starting in January, the new majority will inherit broad powers to subpoena and investigate. And that is expected to translate into wide-ranging and contentious hearings.

The agenda is likely to be dominated by the Iraq war, but could include probes into the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance, environmental policies and new prescription-drug program for seniors. Industries, such as oil companies, could also come under closer scrutiny.

"The American people sent a clear message that they do not want a rubber-stamp Congress that simply signs off the president's agenda," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who is in line to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "Instead, they have voted for a new direction for America and a real check and balance against government overreaching."

Conyers and other Democrats say that sort of scrutiny has been noticeably absent over the last six years. Democrats accuse Republicans of being complicit as Bush has led the nation into an unwinnable war and adopted economic polices that favor the affluent and big business.

Under Republican control, Congress did subpoena baseball players to discuss steroid use and summon oil industry executives to justify record profits at a time of high gasoline prices.

"What we have to be wary of, and the American public will be wary of, is a subpoena bazaar here on Capitol Hill, and government by investigation by Democrats," said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

But even some scholars say recent GOP oversight has been lax. "This could be remembered as a historically unique period in which an administration got immunity from Congress to engage in errors with impunity," said Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor and a former House counsel.

Democrats face a delicate balancing test, mindful of a public backlash if they focus more on investigating than legislating.

Their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), has already ruled some investigations out of bounds. Conyers has wanted Congress to determine whether there are grounds to impeach Bush. But Pelosi has said that will not happen.

While there is pent-up demand among Democrats in Congress and their constituencies to oversee the Bush administration, their new caucus will also include a number of moderates and conservatives, which may force the leadership to tone down its act.

"The Democrats are going to be cross-pressured. They could hold impeachment hearings. They could make people in the Bush administration look absolutely terrible. It wouldn't be hard," said Joel Aberbach, a UCLA political science professor. "But there may be a little restraint because of their political needs in terms of consolidating themselves and looking to the 2008 election."

Democrats are expected to bore into the Iraq war, including review of no-bid contracts for reconstruction, intelligence failures and decisions to ignore the advice of military commanders about troop levels.

"Rather than focus on the failings of the war, though, these events will be staged in order to highlight the administration's incompetence and inflexibility," said William Howell, an associate professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said, if he becomes chairman, he would look into "security at our nuclear labs, oversight of the Food and Drug Administration, and energy policy."

Now that they have the power of the subpoena, Democrats expect to be able to get the administration's attention. A number of senior Democrats have complained that the administration has ignored their inquiries.

Rep. James L. Oberstar, the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, this year was in the middle of grilling Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina when the Republican chairing the hearing cut him off. He had used his allotted five minutes.

Now that Oberstar, of Minnesota, is in line to become the committee chairman, among his first acts is expected to be scrapping the five-minute rule established by the GOP majority.

"I would guess that we're going to have some fairly long hearings," said Jim Berard, an Oberstar spokesman.

The new Congress will also be marked by the ascendancy of some old watchdogs.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) is set to head the House Government Reform Committee. Waxman used another committee to push for landmark laws reducing pesticides in food and regulating nursing homes in the 1980s and 1990s. He also famously put tobacco company executives on the spot at a high-profile hearing in which they testified under oath that they did not believe that nicotine was addictive.

Since Bush took office, Waxman has written letters to the White House seeking information on a wide range of subjects -- often getting no response. Now, with the power to issue subpoenas, he is likely to get answers.

Waxman wants to investigate waste, fraud, profiteering and "whether government is doing the job it's supposed to do."

"When Clinton was president, there was not an accusation too small for them not to launch investigations and issue subpoenas," Waxman said of congressional Republicans. "When Bush became president, there wasn't a scandal big enough for them to ignore. I think they've given us a good model on how not to behave."

The most senior member of the House, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), is also scheduled to play a crucial role in the new Congress, again becoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

He already has a number of subjects he wants to look into, including the Medicare prescription drug benefit and an overhaul of energy policy, two of the GOP's proudest achievements.

"We're not after anybody," Dingell said, but he said if anyone from the administration has "useful things to tell us," they will be "invited to come forward."

rick.schmitt@latimes.com ---- richard.simon@latimes.com
LA Times ~ Richard B. Schmitt and Richard Simon ** Democrats are set to subpoena

Posted by yaahoo_ at 2:36 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 13 November 2006 3:00 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Socialists of America

Welcome to a White House run from the city of 'Nan Francisco'

For everybody depressed that the Democrats now rule the US House and Senate, that is not a Democrat poised to take over the job of new minority leader in the House of Representatives -- it’s a sworn-for-life Socialist.

Not the kind driven by a university student’s flirtation with the soul-killing politics of socialism, but the bona fide brand practiced by a 66-year-old grandmother.

Radio host Michael Savage was right on the button when he coined the home city of Nancy Pelosi as “Nan Francisco”.

If anybody was paying attention, World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah exposed Pelosi as “a long-time member of the “Progressive Caucus”, “or, as I call it, the Congressional Red Army Caucus” back in 1999.

“In fact, she has even served on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber,” said Farah. “Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WND, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent.

“The Democratic Socialists of America’s chief organizing stated goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to “socialism” in the eyes of most Americans.”

As elected officials, Pelosi and company are doing the same kind of work in America that former Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev does from posh quarters in San Francisco’s Presidio.

One could ponder why the multi-millionaire Granny and the former Soviet leader who never renounced Communism would want to practice socialism in a proud Democracy.

Neither would give a fig for the sage conclusion of one of the world’s last statesman Winston Churchill: “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal has no heart, and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative has no brains.”

It is not the brainpower but the agenda of Pelosi that people should be most worried.

Until WND’s investigative journalism forced the Democratic Socialists of America to clean up its act, the DSA website included the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.

Worse was another DSA-adopted song on the site called “Red Revolution” sung to the tune of “Red Robin”. Considering that we live in an era where Islamofascists televise the beheading of “infidels” on television, the words to Red Robin are chilling.

Red Revolution
“When the Red Revolution
Brings Its Solution
Along, Along

“There’ll be no more lootin’
When we start shootin’
The Wall Street throng

“Wake up you proletarians
Don’t act like seminarians
Expropriate Barbarians
Build a Worker’s Republic

Exploitation and Degradation
You Won’t Find Here
Surplus Value and Capital Will Disappear

I’m just a Red again,
Saying what I’ve said again,
When the Red Revolution…da, da, da, da
Brings Its Solution…da, da, da, da, da
A long”

On the day after midterm elections, Savage predicted that Pelosi would drop her Socialist ties because they got her where she wanted to go and she won’t be needing them anymore.

But hiding behind Socialism isn’t peculiar to the style of Nancy Pelosi; hiding behind fronts is a key strategy in the Socialist Rule Book.

Americans did not vote for Socialism on Tuesday night, they voted against the Cowboy in the White House, Amnesty and how the war in Iraq is being handled.

Meanwhile welcome to a White House run from Michael Savage’s “Nan Francisco”.

Judi McLeod is the founding editor of Canada Free Press.com, an award-winning journalist with over 25 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Judi can be reached at: letters@americasnewssource.com.
America's News Source.com ~ Canada Free Press - Judi McLeod ** Welcome to a White House run from the city of 'Nan Francisco'

Posted by yaahoo_ at 1:11 AM EST

Updated: Sunday, 12 November 2006 1:58 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Must make the libtard left so proud to know the enemy is firmly on their side...

New al-Qaida tape says 12,000 activated

CAIRO, Egypt -- Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq, saying it had mobilized 12,000 fighters.

The group also said it welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and it added that its fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops.

"The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake," a man introduced as al-Muhajir said in an audio tape made available on militant Web sites.

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house -- which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

Al-Muhajir became the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June.

The tape could not be independently verified.

The speaker praised the outcome of Tuesday's elections in which Democrats swept to power in the House and the Senate, in large part due to U.S. voter dissatisfaction over the handling of the war in Iraq.

"The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

Describing President Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected due to U.S. policies.

He urged Bush not to withdraw U.S. forces so al-Qaida could have more opportunities to fight U.S. soldiers. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he told the U.S.

The speaker also referred to Rumsfeld's resignation and called on "the lame duck (Bush) not to hurry up in escaping the same way the defense minister did."

"They are getting ready to leave, because they are no longer capable of staying," the al-Qaida leader said, referring to U.S. forces.

"Remain steadfast in the battlefield, you coward," he said, addressing Bush.

Yahoo News ~ Assoc. Press - Nadia Abou El-Mago ** New al-Qaida tape says 12,000 activated
Related: Reuters ~ Jon Hemming ** Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran

Don't worry. Nancy Pelosi and the WonderDems will "solve this situation."

Posted by yaahoo_ at 11:58 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 13 November 2006 3:09 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Bill Maher, Larry King, CNN, GOP

PUSHING THEIR LUCK

An Early Sign Liberals Won't Stay In Control

One of the reasons your Radio Equalizer believes Democrat Party control of Congress won't last long is that it's going to be nearly impossible to keep their loony wing under control, even until their January takeover.

Here, for example, Michelle Malkin talks about the left's pro- Bush impeachment buzz already underway.

And while not elected representatives, television host Bill Maher and his friends at the Huffington Post certainly are closely associated with the Democrats and have a lot of moonbat influence.

That's why Maher's antics on the Larry King Show, wisely edited out of CNN's later rebroadcast of the program, demonstrate this utter lack of self- control.

Without a shred of evidence or even a good reason to mention it, Maher tried to assert that Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay.

While it might be one thing is this behavior was simply confined to Maher, it isn't. Instead, his HuffPo pals have taken up the cause, angrily accusing CNN of censoring King's show for the rebroadcast:

CENSORED BY CNN: BILL MAHER SUGGESTS RNC CHAIR MEHLMAN IS GAY...

From CNN:

During the live broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher suggested to Larry King that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is gay. Watch the clip from the live broadcast and read the transcript:

Partial transcript of Bill Maher's Live appearance on Larry King Live:

Bill Maher: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to mention names, but I will Friday night...

Larry King: You will Friday night?

Bill Maher: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...

Larry King: You will name them?

Bill Maher: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he doesn't say...

Larry King: I never heard that. I'm walking around in a fog. I never...Ken Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is...

Bill Maher: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.

When CNN re-aired the interview later that night, they edited out Larry King and Bill Maher's discussion of Mehlman's potential homosexuality.

Memo to Maher and the HuffPo gang: CNN did you guys a favor. You won the elections, quit while you're ahead!

Technorati tags: cnn bill maher huffington post larry king democrats congress michelle malkin cable news

The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** Pushing Their Luck - An Early Sign Liberals Won't Stay In Control
Also at:
News Busters ~ Noel Sheppard ** Bill Maher Tells Larry King That RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is Gay

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  spacey

ABC's Rosie O'Donnell: 'Don't Fear the Terrorists, They're Mothers and Fathers'

By Megan McCormack

One would have thought that the Democratic takeover of Congress and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation would have preseted plenty of fodder for the women of  ‘The View’ to debate on Thursday’s show. However, it was a discussion on Iraq and the war on terror that dominated today's 'Hot Topics' segment. Not surprisingly, co-host Rosie O’Donnell equated the post-September 11th America to the "McCarthy era" and claimed people were "blacklisted" and labeled "unpatriotic" if they expressed any dissent from the Bush administration. O’Donnell also defended the United Nations as a "world voice" and took a shot at Iraq war ally Britain for being "on our side and in our pocket." The liberal O’Donnell then went on to tell conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck to not be afraid of terrorists:

Rosie O’Donnell: "Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country--"

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe--"

O’Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

Joining the ladies as a guest co-host was Barbara Walters’ best friend, retired opera singer Beverly Sills. Sills seemed to fit in well with the majority liberal ‘View’ panel, as she deplored, what she saw as a lack of vocal opposition to the war before it began, leading to O’Donnell’s rant equating today’s environment to the "McCarthy era":

Beverly Sills: "And the weapons of mass destruction-- I don't remember everybody-- now you can't find anybody who was in favor of it ever. I mean, where was the great, great screaming and yelling?"

O’Donnell: "I think it was a tough time to raise your voice in dissent in this country because look what happened to the Dixie Chicks, people were blacklisted. We were close to the McCarthy era, where if you said that you were against the policies of the administration, you were called unpatriotic."

Hasselbeck pointed out that before the Iraq war, Senator Hillary Clinton had made this statement during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "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."

O’Donnell used Clinton’s words to defend the United Nations and slammed Britain for being "on our side and in our pocket":

Hasselbeck: "These are quotes of, of people like Hillary Clinton, who were, ‘if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological warfare--"

O’Donnell: "Ok, ok, stop, stop. If left unchecked, so what she was saying is maybe we should have let the U.N. finish their job before we invaded in defiance of the world."

Hasselbeck: "The U.N. wasn’t doing their job. He was in violation of how many sanctions?"

O’Donnell: "But the U.N.--but here’s, here’s the thing, Elisabeth. When you go to war--"

Hasselbeck: "I have more quotes."

O’Donnell: "All right, but wait. When you go to war, we have the United--we have the United Nations, and the United Nations is the one who says, as the world voice, what they condone and what they condemn. And the U.N. had said we could not do it, and every other nation in the world, besides England, who’s on our side and in our pocket, they said it was a bad idea."

Sills then rejoined the conversation, seemingly arguing for negotiating with the enemy:

Sills: "In the second world war, we were fighting Adolf Hitler from Germany, Mussolini from Italy, you know, we knew, we knew--"

Walters: "Hirohito from Japan."

Sills: "Hirohito from Japan. Who are we? Who, if we decide now, okay, let’s bring our men and women home, it’s all over. Let’s sit down at the table and negotiate. What are we negotiating, and with whom? Does anybody know the name of the enemy?"

O’Donnell: "It's a vague, it’s a vague nation called terrorists."

Sills: "But I’m going to say that--I mean, has somebody said to me, I hate you Americans because my children have no electricity, they’re not educated, we have no medication, they’re very poor. If somebody said that to me, I would really sit down and want to listen to them and want to do something."

Sills went on a nonsensical rant, where she made it sound as if the government had placed the blame for September 11th on one person:

Sills: "So far we've seen one fellow with a big birthmark on his face and he's gone to jail because he's the only one responsible for, for the catastrophe that happened in this country."

Behar: "Saddam, you mean. Who are you talking about? Hussein?"

Sills: "Hussein, no. This man on the airplane who they say is responsible for 9/11, the one person responsible for bringing the Towers down. The only one? That's what we've come up with? One murderer responsible for all this?"

It’s not exactly clear to whom Sills was referring, but most people recognize that those responsible for the 9/11 tragedy either died in the terror attacks, been killed or captured, or are being pursued in the war on terror.

Towards the end of the segment, O’Donnell berated Hasselbeck for "fearing" terrorists:

O’Donnell: "Well, you have two choices in life, Elisabeth. Faith or fear. Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country--"

Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe--"

O’Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

If the phrase "faith and fear" sounds familiar, it should. O’Donnell, as NewsBusters reported here, used that line before, arguing that "the government should lead by faith, never by fear," in the same program where she declared, ‘radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

News Busters ~ Megan McCormack ** ABC's Rosie O'Donnell: 'Don't Fear the Terrorists, They're Mothers and Fathers'
Megan McCormack's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories: 9/11 | ABC | Foreign Policy | Iraq | Rosie O'Donnell | The View

Posted by yaahoo_ at 8:53 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink