Thursday, December 29, 2005
Big Brother Security vs Freedom
Worried about a backlash due to their non-existent credibility on national security, centrist democrats are warning their liberal cohorts to stop attacking president Bush on the issue. Democrats have come to the sudden realization that the vast majority of American's trust president Bush and Republican's far more to do what is needed to keep the nation secure from terrorism.
"In shaping alternative policies -- particularly on national security, terrorism and Iraq -- Democrats have to be extremely careful to avoid reinforcing the negative stereotype that has cost us so much in the last two national elections," the DLC's recent memorandum said.
More howls by far-left liberals accusing Bush falsely of breaking the law are just not resonating with the public, especially when most honest law-abiding Americans understand that phones being tapped by the NSA are of those who plan to do harm to the country, and listening in on terrorist communications is of utmost importance to prevent another 9/11 or worse type of attack.
A new survey found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the National Security Agency should monitor communications between terrorist suspects overseas and contacts inside the U.S.
According to Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of respondents said the super-secret NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Just 23 percent disagreed, the survey found.
The president of the United States would be derelict in his duties to not authorize these security measures as required. Getting a court order takes far-too-long, leaving time gaps that help the enemy.
Earlier this month, Democrats filibustered against the Patriot Act and threatened to block security measures. It was later followed by a resounding gloat from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, "We killed the Patriot Act." This anti-American glee by the senate minority leader is why so much nervousness has set-in among Democrats concerned about solidifying the public's (accurate) perception of the democratic party's weakness on national security.
President Bush sharply attacked Mr. Reid, saying lack of the Patriot Act "will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers," Senate Democrats dropped their filibuster and accepted a six-month extension. A Republican-backed five-week extension was adopted last week by the House and Senate.
Let's remember how democrat's were whining about a lack of security prior to 9/11 and demanded action. The result was the Patriot Act agreed to by most democrats in congress.
"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.
"I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it," said Mr. O'Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is "good legislation."
These Democrats say attacks on anti-terrorist intelligence programs will deepen mistrust of their ability to protect the nation's security, a weakness that led in part to the defeat of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, last year.
"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses.
Excerpts from: FISA vs. the Constitution: "For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection--especially in wartime--was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.
Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.
America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list."
Many democrats realize the liberal left has cost them too much by being so radical and so far out of the mainstream, leading most Americans to disqualify the party outright, as the facts expose the real liberal agenda that goes against not only the U.S. Constitution, but family values, freedom of speech and religion.
Don't move, you're being trackedWhile democrats are whining about their civil liberties being encroched upon by the NSA in America, over in the European Union there is a much more aggressive infringement of civil rights going on.
The new national surveillance network for tracking car journeys, which has taken more than 25 years to develop, is only the beginning of plans to monitor the movements of all British citizens. The Home Office Scientific Development Branch in Hertfordshire is already working on ways of automatically recognising human faces by computer, which many people would see as truly introducing the prospect of Orwellian street surveillance, where our every move is recorded and stored by machines.
From 2006 Britain will be the first country where every journey by every car will be monitored
Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.
Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.
The EU has also just launched their answer to America's Global Positioning System (GPS) with a Russian launch of the Galileo system.
European Space Agency formally agreed to go ahead with the project in 2002. A second test satellite will be launched next year, and an entire network of 30 satellites - 27 active ones and three spares - should be operational by 2010.
Galileo should offer greater accuracy - down to a metre and less; greater penetration - in urban centres, inside buildings, and under trees; and a faster fix.
The question for each person to answer is this: Do you now feel more secure knowing you are being tracked, or do you feel that your individual freedoms are being taken away by the same government that guaranteed them?
Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Democrats (incredibly) at it again!
With nothing more to do or say about their failure to acknowledge the great success of president Bush's plan to bring about democracy in Iraq, democrats in the U.S. are trying with increasing desperation to convince the American people that he is somehow corrupt. This time they're trying to say that he is spying on the average American's, without any proof or evidence based of any laws being broken to back them up. Their weak allegations are making the democrats look so petty that most American's are ignoring them and the biased liberal media. Some liberal law makers such as Barbara Boxer (D) CA, are hiring lawyers to find ways to impeach the president for doing his job to protect the people. For a reality check, see: Impeachment Nonsense.
Proving their memories are very short, democrats never complained about government wire tapping or eavesdropping when the last two democrat president's (Clinton and Carter) were doing it without court approval during peace-time.
Found on the Drudge Report...
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence
information without a court order."
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.
So the hypocritical democrats want everyone to believe that the law only applies to republican presidents, but that democrats should be allowed to do whatever they please without consequence by the media or anyone else who might question them, while pointing the finger for the same things they have done!
It is absolutely incredible how democrat's think they can get away with double standards in this day and age of instant information that continually blows-up in their faces as they run into the fire carrying gasoline.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Iraq Success proves Dems Out-of-Touch
With election turnout over 70% in Iraq, it has become clear that all the whining from leftist haters such as John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, etc., ad nauseam, has failed to dampen the spirits and progress of Iraqis and true Americans who understand the cost of setting another nation on the path to freedom.
While the Iraqi people courageously march toward constitutional self-rule, the Democratic Party is too full of pride and too committed to its predictions of and investment in doom to recognize the magnitude of this historic achievement. Whether or not they are rooting for the aspiring democrats in the Middle East, it clearly kills them that these events are occurring at the behest of the reviled President George W. Bush.
To the dismay of dismal democrats, so many Sunni Arabs voted Thursday that ballots ran out in some places. The strong participation by Sunnis, the backbone of the insurgency, bolstered U.S. hopes that the election could produce a broad-based government capable of ending the daily suicide attacks and other violence that have ravaged the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. A successful election followed by an effective, broad-based government gives the president Bush and his administration a significant victory in its campaign to spread democracy through the Middle East where his democrat critics have insisted could not be done.
Murtha, Dean, Pelosi, Slaughter, Kennedy, and Kerry do not speak for “the majority of our country.” However, ominously, they do speak for the majority of the Democratic Party. A full 59 percent of Democrats agree with Dean’s statement that the Iraq war cannot be won. Although 46 percent of Democrats agreed Iraq would be “worse off if U.S. troops left Iraq now” – and 69 percent of Democrats don’t believe Iraqis can defeat terrorists without U.S. help – a majority of grassroots leftists want us to withdraw, anyway. (View the poll in PDF format; scroll down to pp. 5-6.)
The Senate on Friday made possible the expiration of 16 provisions in the Patriot Act, which mostly went along partisan lines with 8 republicans joining democrats voting not to keep them intact.
Don't be surprised if another terrorist attack happens next year due to democrats and moderate republicans weakening our security for civil liberties. But remember who voted against the Patriot Act, which since implemented has played a major part of keeping America secure after 9/11.
Iraqi soldiers from a unit assigned for the security of an election center sang and danced as they celebrated the end of the elections process, after election commission officials retrieved the ballot boxes from their center, in Baghdad, Iraq Friday, Dec. 16, 2005.
Source Article: Associated Press
All is lost for democrats and liberals in America who have not helped with this process and contrarily tried to make it not happen in order to bash the president and the military with claims of another Vietnam.
The liberals on the far left who would vote for communism as our form of government, want revenge for Clinton's impeachment desperately because they are filled with nothing but hatred for Bush and America's freedom.
"One-third of Americans say they believe President Bush should be impeached, according to a new survey – a figure that mirrors the number of people who say the United States cannot win a military victory in Iraq.
However, most Americans disagree with Bush-Cheney impeachment. Rasmussen found that 58 percent of those surveyed did not think the president should be removed from office.
Not surprisingly, the divide was wide in terms of political partisanship.
Rasmussen said Democrats, by a 47 percent to 28 percent margin, said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports impeachment. By comparison, 80 percent of Republicans would not vote for such a candidate." Full article continued
Thank God President Bush has stuck to his guns despite the whiners on the left who continue bemoaning Iraq's progress as if it could've been done some other way they have yet to define.
The isolationists' on the left are not for the freedom of any nation. They believe that government was created to keep people down and dependent on it, and that individuals are not able and should not be allowed to make their own decisions concerning their family and livelihood. No, they want everyone the same, following along in groups being told what to do and when, as long as commands come from "like-minded" socialist democrats, and not rational free-thinking republicans.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Dean Says: "We will Lose in Iraq!"
What the Democratic Chairman really meant was that the democrats will lose because of Iraq. Democrats clearly have no confidence in our military and believe that a dwindling bunch of rag-tag terrorists' using car bombs are superior to our trained soldiers in uniform supplied with U.S. military equipment.
"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there," Dean said. "The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."
Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman (who Dean is too scared and ilinformed to debate) said Dean's "outrageous prediction sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."
Democrats who've whined like little brat kids against the war have shown they are not real Americans. They do not deserve to live in this greatest of all countries because they are spineless nay-sayers who do not understand what doing the right thing is or even means.
Perhaps Dean is just whining about Iraq for a distraction from the ruling in the politically motivated case against Tom DeLay on Monday that threw out charges of conspiracy, with more to follow. Democrat's are about to be in more trouble than they've ever imagined.
Howie Dean attempts to compare today's war in Iraq to that of Vietnam where over 50,000 U.S. troops were killed due to democrat's micro-management of that war. Dean is furiously trying to tie Watergate around Bush's neck, which jumps beyond ridiculous straight to insanity.
With only 10 days to go before the Iraqi elections, an increasingly desperate Dean continued with this: "What we see today is very much like what was going in Watergate," he said. "It turns out there is a lot of good evidence that President Bush did not tell the truth when he was asking Congress for the power to go to war. The President said last week that Congress saw the same intelligence that he did in making the decision to go to war, and that is flat out wrong. The President withheld some intelligence from the Senate Intelligence Committee."
Really now? Dean has created an entire fiasco for the democrats, to the point of treason. What evidence is Dean talking about? The same evidence that president Bill Clinton had about Saddam when he insisted he had WMD's? The same evidence most democrat's were claiming as justification for bombing Iraq in 1998? Democrats all insisted that Saddam had WMD's when Clinton bombed Iraq and even then claimed a ground war was needed to oust him.
Dr. Dean has sided with the enemy during wartime, which requires charges of treason to be filed against him.
The fact is that the president, should not release classified information against Saddam as democrats are calling for, so they could then charge him with the high crime of treason, which is what democrats are actually guilty of now.
Dean wants America to give all our intelligence away to the enemy before we go to war, so they will be able to use it against the U.S., feeling we are just too powerful on the world stage and should take a back seat to some socialist country or be punished for success. Maybe he talk the left into believing 4.3 percent growth, 215,000 new jobs, huge deficit reductions, record productivity gains and continued growth in real estate prices is a bad economy.
All Democrat's, ALL of them are selfish liars who complain about everything while offering no solutions, ZERO! Cutting and running as dems have wanted certainly proves how pathetically weak and shallow they ALL are. Liberal democrat's like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hitlery Clintoon, Babble head Boxer, Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi are a disgrace to the flag and should be impeached immediately!
Rest assured that if a democrat was president now, they'd all be saying how great the war is going, and how low the casualties are compared to Vietnam. We'd be hearing how great the economy is and how lucky we are to live in such a great country who helps other nations become free. Well the economy is great, but the liberal media hates it so they don't tell the reality of it like they did when Clinton was in office with his false economy.
They'd tell us every chance they get that our sacrifice is needed to help the great nation of Iraq, and we'd never hear the end of it. They still can't stop talking about JFK, Pearl Harbor, etc., and yet they never mention 9/11 or how President Reagan helped end communism in Russia, which they also protested against with violence.
Being the epitome of hyprocrisy, especially when they're not in power, democrats continue proving how out-of-touch they are with the majority, whenever one opens their mouth. Nancy Pelosi is a primo example of idiocy, when she came out in support of withdrawing the troops days after Congress voted it down 403-3.
First and for months, Mr. Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and his leftist complainers said we don't have enough troops in Iraq, never did. Now he says there are too many troops in Iraq and wants to bring home 80,000 immediately!
Dean says "We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome." Does anyone else see how utterly backwards this man's thinking is? Dean proves beyond all doubt that the democrats are the party of gloom and doom, cut and run losers who worry more about global warming in sub-zero temperatures than about keeping our nation secure.
Dean goes on... "And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops."
The truth is that Zarqawi was in Iraq originally and had ties to Saddam Hussein, which proves democrats lied when claiming Iraq should not be part of the war on terror.
Comparable to Al Franken and Michael Moore, Howie Dean is clearly a nut job who wants very desperately for America to lose this war like the liberals lost the war for us in Vietnam by trashing it and egging on the enemy. Democrat's are playing politics with the war because they have no plans for America at all, none!
The GOP can only hope that other democrat's running for office, continue letting Dean speak for the party. His shill whining is so outrageous that he's making the 2006 mid-terms a cake walk for democrat opponents.
Dean has far too much hate in his puny heart to be the chairman of anything, much less the democratic party. He is anti-American to his core and has more hatred for Bush than even Al Gore, who by the way should really be locked up in a mental institution.
Liberals are a truly disgusting bunch of shills, who should be deported to France or Germany where they can live in their desired nanny state for losers with unemployment more than double that of America's.
The U.S. economy is strong under predident Bush, and it is REAL, not false like Clinton's bubble which left us in recession. Democrat memories seem to fail them as the liberal media still covers-up for the worst president in American history – 'ol slick willey, serial rapist, bubba Clintoon who IS a disgusting blot on America's history along with peanut farmer fool Jimma Carta.
Democrat's have proven beyond doubt that they cannot govern. Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana is the most recent and solid proof of that! The strong growth of the economy proves without doubt that democrat's have been wrong all along, and they are being proven wrong everyday by the facts of this booming economy.
Bush and our troops are protecting the country and giving another its freedom in the middle east to spread democracy while crushing terrorism.
Democrat's side with the terrorists' because they don't appreciate freedom, taking it for granted. They would rather have an appeasing socialist government to run everyone's lives for them while they rape it in the form of higher taxation and wasteful programs designed to keep people dependent on government handouts. Democrat's would be better off back in jolly 'ol England, abandoned by our founders in order to get away from that kind of intrusive government control. Democrat's have been trying to shred the U.S. Constitution for decades in order to rule by judicial fiat, contrary to the American way.
Victory Plan in IraqPresident Bush has a clear plan for victory in Iraq that begins with training Iraqi forces so they can defend their country and fight the terrorists. We are making tremendous progress towards this objective. Earlier this year, Iraqi forces led the fight in clearing out terrorists during the crucial battle of Tal Afar, with U.S. troops in a supporting role, and every day, Iraqis are taking more control of the situation on the ground. Withdrawing from Iraq, as some Democrats in Washington propose, would send a dangerous signal to our enemies that we cut and run when the going gets tough. President Bush is offering a clear strategy to win, not a political quick fix. See below for more.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Bush's Best Crushes Naysayers
In his speech on Wednesday at the Naval Academy, president Bush proved without doubt that he is the real Commander in Chief, and those on the left are just shill whiners who have bet against America and Iraq.
As Mr. Mackubin Thomas Owens noted a comparison of Bush's speech to Alexander Hamilton's views in Number 71, "I don’t know if President Bush has ever read The Federalist Papers, but the steps he is taking to explain the policy and strategy of the United States in Iraq means that he has at long last recognized Hamilton’s principle. His speech today at the Naval Academy is as fine an example of republican rhetoric as I have heard since the presidency of Ronald Reagan."
President Bush noted specific evidence of progress in the training of Iraqi forces.
Bush said: "As we fight the enemy in Iraq, every man and woman who volunteers to defend our nation deserves an unwavering commitment to the mission -- and a clear strategy for victory. A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group."
Democrat's and liberals are much the same as terrorists' in that they reject advancing freedom for anyone other than themselves. They reject sacrifice for good cause. They reject people who have their own thoughts outside of groups. They reject individual accomplishment, unless it is driven by liberal promoters for a cut. They reject freedom of religion. They reject doing what is right and good for all mankind. They embrace self-destruction, gays, baby murders, selfishness, arrogance, welfare, government control of everything and everyone, socialism, marxism, communism.
Real American's must see to it that all these whiney liberals are crushed for good if we are to remain a free nation!
The president continued: "This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."
The best part of Bush's speech was this: "As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists. These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington." ie: liberal democrats.
Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."
Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)
Those on the left are not listening to what the president is saying because they have only resentment and blind-hatred for Bush, our troops and the war. Democrat's offer no help whatsoever to our soldiers, but only complaints and false accusations meant to keep the enemy killing our boys, and who keep them safe. Democrat's claim they support our troops, but their words tell a different story. That is the tragedy of the anti-American left today.
Emotionally stunted liberals rely on unproven theories based on gloom and doom scenario's contrived to keep the leftist-losers believing in their wasted lives while the rest of society continues progressing without them.
As it just happened in Canada, the liberal party in the U.S. is also basically toast. While debating and trashing the war that is nearly won, liberals unwittingly continue dragging down the democrats to their ultimate demise.
Liberal/Socialism having outlived its usefulness from past decades, has certainly lost favor thoughout most of the world today, being proven grossly ineffective in modern society. It will surely never work in America because real people value their freedom more than government, which is contrary to the democrat's true agenda, not what they falsely profess.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|