Posts Tagged ‘James Clyburn’

Vile Democrat James Clyburn Smears Mitt Romney As The Guy Who Kept Rosa Parks In The Back Of The Bus (Romney’s Father MARCHED With MLK For Civil Rights!!!)

January 17, 2012

Just more proof that the Democrat Party has been captured by cockroaches:

Clyburn: Romney Reminiscent Of Racists Who Kept Rosa Parks In Back Of Bus
By Mark Finkelstein | January 16, 2012 | 20:58

How pathetic. Jim Clyburn chose Martin Luther King Day to smear Mitt Romney with the shop-worn charge of racism.

Straining absurdly to make his accusation, the South Carolina Dem, appearing on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show, somehow managed to equate Romney’s criticism of the politics of envy with the people who sought to keep Rosa Parks in the back of the bus. Video after the jump.

Watch Clyburn, with Sharpton’s connivance, stoop to a base and baseless slander.

See video posted via Newsbusters]

AL SHARPTON: Let me show you, one of the most contemptible statements to people that are struggling around these working-class issues was made by Willard Mitt Romney. Let me show you what he said the night he won the Iowa caucuses. He kind of dismissed the drive to close the income gap and to deal with economic inequality like people were just jealous or envious of the rich. Watch this, congressman.

MITT ROMNEY: President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. And in the last few days we’ve seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. The country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy.

SHARPTON: Bitter politics of envy, like there’s no legitimate concern for what you and I have just talked about, the overwhelming increase in the richest’s income while the stagnation of working-class and poor people. But the problem is we’re just envious. How do people talk about they believe in the American Dream, less known [sic] King’s dream, when they have a public policy of taking away from those that already have the least and act as though if they say something about it, they’re engaged in the politics of envy?

JAMES CLYBURN: Well, you know, that’s a little bit like saying to Rosa Parks, that you are just jealous, envious, of that man who’s got a seat on this bus because you want a seat on the bus.

Mitt Romney’s dad George Romney is turning in his grave over the vicious betrayal of his son.

The following is a presentation of facts regarding Mitt Romney’s father George and the Civil Rights movement:

(In fact, if I were Romney, I wouldn’t be touting the fact that my father walked with King; I’d be touting that King told an interviewer he thought George Romney would make a good president!)

GOV. GEORGE ROMNEY AND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

FACT: In The Summer Of 1963, Governor Romney Participated In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Freedom Marches” In Grosse Pointe, Michigan.

In 1963, George Romney Gave The Keynote Address At The Conference That Sparked The Martin Luther King “Freedom Marches” In Detroit.“The establishment of these human relations groups came in the wake of several major events (besides the embarrassing racist practices of such suburbs as Dearborn), which took place in 1963 and helped galvanize interracial support and cooperation for integrated housing. The first event was the Metropolitan Conference on Open Occupancy held in Detroit in January 1963. The second event was the Martin Luther King ‘Freedom’ March in June of the same year, the spinoffs of which were several Detroit NAACP-sponsored interracial marches into Detroit suburbs to dramatize the need for black housing. … Governor George Romney gave the keynote speech at this conference, in which he pledged to use the power of the state to achieve housing equality in Michigan.” (Joe T. Darden, Detroit, Race And Uneven Development, 1987, p. 132)

Governor Romney Marched In July 1963 In An NAACP-Sponsored March Through Grosse Pointe. “The next couple of NAACP marches into the suburbs were more pleasant. Both Grosse Pointe and Royal Oak Township welcomed the interracial marchers. Close to 500 black and white marchers, including many Grosse Pointers, marched in ‘the Pointes’ that July. Governor George Romney made a surprise appearance in his shirt sleeves and joined the parade leaders.” (Joe T. Darden, Detroit, Race And Uneven Development, 1987, p. 132)

· Detroit Free Press: “With Gov. Romney a surprise arrival and marching in the front row, more than 500 Negroes and whites staged a peaceful antidiscrimination parade up Grosse Pointe’s Kercheval Avenue Saturday. … ‘the elimination of human inequalities and injustices is our urgent and critical domestic problem,’ the governor said. … [Detroit NAACP President Edward M.] Turner told reporters, ‘I think it is very significant that Governor Romney is here. We are very surprised.’ Romney said, ‘If they want me to lead the parade, I’ll be glad to.’” (“Romney Joins Protest March Of 500 In Grosse Pointe,” Detroit Free Press, 6/29/63)

· In Their 1967 Book, Stephen Hess And David Broder Wrote That George Romney “Marched With Martin Luther King Through The Exclusive Grosse Point Suburb Of Detroit.” “He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit and he is on record in support of full-coverage Federal open-housing legislation.” (Stephen Hess And David Broder, The Republican Establishment: The Present And Future Of The G.O.P., 1967, p. 107)

FACT: As Governor Of Michigan, George Romney Fought For Civil Rights And Marched In Support Of Martin Luther King Jr.

George Romney Was A Strong Proponent Of Civil Rights And Created Michigan’s First Civil Rights Commission. “The governor’s record was one of supporting civil rights. He helped create the state’s first civil rights commission and marched at the head of a protest parade in Detroit days after violence against civil rights marchers in Selma, Ala., in 1965.” (Todd Sprangler, “Romney Fields Questions On King,” Detroit Free Press, 12/20/07)

In 1967, George Romney Was Praised At A National Civil Rights Rally For His Leadership. “Michigan Gov. George Romney walked into a Negro Civil Rights rally in the heart of Atlanta to the chants of ‘We Want Romney’ and to hear protests from Negroes about city schools. ‘They had invited me to come and I was interested in hearing things that would give me an insight into Atlanta,’ the Michigan Republican said. Led by Hosea Williams, a top aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the all-Negro rally broke into shouts and song when Romney arrived. ‘We’re tired of Lyndon Baines Johnson,’ Williams said from a pulpit in the Flipper Temple AME Church as Romney sat in a front row pew. ‘Johnson is sending black boys to Vietnam to die for a freedom that never existed,’ Williams said. Pointing to Romney, Williams brought the crowd of 200 to its feet when he said, ‘He may be the fella with a little backbone.’ Williams said Romney could be ‘the next President if he acts right.’ The potential GOP presidential nominee left the rally before it ended.” (“Romney Praised At Civil Rights Rally In Atlanta,” The Chicago Defender, 9/30/67)
Photograph: “Dr. Martin Luther King speaking to graduate student Laura L. Leichliter (center) and Michigan’s First Lady Mrs. Lenore Romney in February 1965.” (Instructional Media Center Collection At Michigan State University Archives And Historical Collections)

George Romney Fought Discrimination In Housing. “President Nixon tapped then Governor of Michigan, George Romney, for the post of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While serving as Governor, Secretary Romney had successfully campaigned for ratification of a state constitutional provision that prohibited discrimination in housing.” (U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development Official Web Site, www.hud.gov, Accessed 12/19/07)

Photograph: “More than 100 angry white protesters balked at efforts by then-Housing Secretary George Romney, in car, to open their new neighborhoods to blacks.” (Gordon Trowbridge and Oralandar Brand-Williams, “A Policy Of Exclusion,” Detroit News, 1/14/02)

FACT: In 1965, George Romney Led A March In Michigan To Protest Selma.

In 1965, George Romney Led A Protest Parade Of Some 10,000 People In Detroit.“Rarely has public opinion reacted so spontaneously and with such fury. In Detroit, Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh and Michigan’s Governor George Romney led a protest parade of 10,000 people.” (“Civil Rights – The Central Point,” Time Magazine, www.time.com, 10/5/83)

· The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “In Detroit, Governor George Romney and Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh called for a march to protest what had happened in Selma.” (Jim Bishop, The Days Of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1971, p. 385)

FACT: Martin Luther King Jr. “Spoke Positively” About The Possible Presidential Candidacy Of George Romney.

In His Pulitzer-Prize Winning Biography Of Dr. King, David Garrow Notes That King “Spoke Positively” About The Possible Presidential Candidacy Of George Romney. “King spoke positively about the possible candidacies of republicans George Romney, Charles Percy, and Nelson Rockefeller. He also stressed the need for greater Afro-American unity, including reaching out to segments of the black community that were not committed to nonviolence.” (David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 2006, p. 575)

FACT: George Romney Attended King’s Funeral In 1968.

George Romney Attended King’s Funeral In 1968.“Vice President Hubert Humphrey represented the White House. Senator and Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy; Mrs. John F. Kennedy; Governor and Mrs. Nelson Rockefeller of New York; the mayor of New York City, John V Lindsay; and Michigan’s governor, George Romney, were present.” (Octavia Vivian, Coretta: The Story of Coretta Scott King, 2006, p. 99)

· George Romney Joined Other Prominent Americans In Attending King’s Funeral. “Inside was the greatest galaxy of prominent national figures there had ever been in Atlanta at one time: Robert Kennedy, George Romney, Mayor Carl Stokes of Cleveland, Nixon, Rockefeller, Harry Belafonte, and an endless array of others equally as famous. Coretta Scott King, sitting with her family front and center in front of the casket, looked lovely and courageous and dignified in a black mourning veil.” (Franklin Miller Garrett, Atlanta and Environs: A Chronicle of Its People and Events, 1987, p. 517)

· After King’s Assassination, George Romney Declared An Official Period Of Mourning, Ordered All Flags To Be Flown At Half Staff And Said King’s Death Was “A Great National Tragedy.” “On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as he stood on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., where he had gone to lead a civil rights march. The following day, Michigan Gov. George Romney declared an official period of mourning for King. The period extended through King’s funeral. Romney ordered all flags on public buildings to be flown at half staff and asked that the same be done on private buildings. Gov. Romney, in an official statement, said: “The assassination of Martin Luther King is a great national tragedy. At a time when we need aggressive nonviolent leadership to peacefully achieve equal rights, equal opportunities and equal responsibilities for all, his leadership will be grievously missed.” (“Rearview Mirror: Detroit Reacts To King’s Assassination,” The Detroit News, 4/4/07)

What a vile and depraved thing for you to do, Clyburn, you cockroach.  You maliciously demonize the son of a man who fought for freedom as the nastiest type of oppressor based on what?  Your own hatred and bigotry.

Here’s a man representing a movement that routinely substitutes hate for truth.  And a party that as a matter of habit viciously demonizes its opponents armed with nothing more than hateful rhetoric is quintessentially fascist.

Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despised You?

September 17, 2009

Well, you can count on Democrats accusing conservatives of racism the way you can count on the sun to rise in the morning.

In remarks decried by Republicans, former president Jimmy Carter told NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.”I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,” Carter said. “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans”

Continued Carter, who is famously from Georgia: “And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

I wonder if you’ve looked in a mirror lately, Jimmy.  Maybe you’ve figured out that most of America despises you on account of the color of YOUR skin.

But it was never about your melatonin level, Jimmy.  It was about the fact that you were an incompetent nincompoop who ran the country into the ground.

Same as Barack Obama is doing now.

Allow me to provide you with a smattering of articles that I have written over the past months to demonstrate how desperately wrong you truly are:

Messiah Obama Really IS The Second Coming… Of Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Addresses Barak Obama’s Convention: How Appropriate

Carter-era Economist Sees Deja Vu In Barack Obama

The Obama ‘Crisis In Confidence: Welcome Back, Carter’

So you see, Jimmy, you incompetent and morally-blind disgrace, the reason we despise Obama isn’t because he’s black and therefore not qualified to lead.  We despise Obama becuase he’s like YOU and therefore unqualified to lead.

And just how did Barack Obama ever get elected in the first place if people really thought the way you now demonically accuse them of thinking, anyway?

Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly disagree with your view, just as they came to overwhelmingly agree that your entire presidency was a pathetic joke:

The suggestion that race is behind criticism of Obama has been made by New York Gov. David Paterson and Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Diane Watson of California and Hank Johnson of Georgia, among others.

But a poll released Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports showed that just 12 percent of voters believe that most opponents of Obama’s health care reform plan are racist. The survey of 1,000 likely voters, taken Monday and Tuesday, found that 67 percent disagree with that contention, while 21 percent are not sure. The survey had a margin of error of 3 percent.

Rush Limbaugh boldly predicted that an Obama presidency would make race relations worse.  In a call from an Obama voter who said he voted for Obama BECAUSE of his race, Rush Limbaugh responded:

RUSH:  I said — you must have missed it — this is what I want to ask you about.  Well, no.  Several occasions I had people who were very hopeful, as you expressed you were hopeful, that the election of the first African-American president would end or really crimp racial strife in the country.  People asked me if I thought this and I said no.  It’s going to exacerbate it.  It is going to make it worse.  We are going to have more race related problems in this country than we have ever had.  Did you hear that and not believe me?

CALLER:  Well, I did hear that.  I took it into consideration.  But I also had the possibility of McCain getting in as president, and all he’s done is trash Republicans his whole life, so I didn’t feel we were gaining much.  It might just be a slower —

RUSH:  No, no.  I understand that, but I mean you were hoping, this is a pretty big reason to vote for Obama.  You were hoping —

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  — that the elephant in the room that’s dividing this country along racial lines would be obliterated.  That’s the primary reason for voting for him, at least as you said.

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  You heard me say that that would not happen.  You must have doubted me.

And, yep, he was right, as a CNN poll revealed:

During the 2008 election, 38 percent of blacks surveyed thought racial discrimination was a serious problem. In the new survey, 55 percent of blacks surveyed believed it was a serious problem, which is about the same level as it was in 2000.

Candidate Barack Obama was discovered to have sat for 23 years in a hard core racist and anti-American church under the ranting of Jeremiah Wright, and offered a patronizing speech to cover for what should have disqualified him from the presidency in the minds of voters.

During the campaign, we had key Obama surrogate John Lewis unleash a vicious dose of race hatred:

“I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign,” said Lewis, an Obama supporter, civil rights icon and Georgia Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” he said.

We had the media literally inventing incidences of Republican racism, and Obama jumping on the lies to deal another race card.  Just as he dealt the race card when he gave his famous “And did I mention he’s black?” line.  Obama said Republicans would use race when HE was the one using race.

In February, Rep. James Clyburn decreed that any opposition to Obama’s ultra-leftist and frankly socialist agenda was actually racism:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – The highest-ranking black congressman said Thursday that opposition to the federal stimulus package by southern GOP governors is “a slap in the face of African-Americans.”

And of course, that’s the new line from the “post-partisan” Democrat Party.  The Democrats who used to butcher Thomas Jefferson by citing him as the source of “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” are now accusing that “Dissent is the lowest form of racism.”

When corrupt scumbag Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich selected a scandal-tainted Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat, former Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush issued a racial declaration when he said:

“I — my prayers have been answered because I prayed fervently that the governor would continue the legacy established by President-elect Obama and that the governor would appoint an African-American to complete the term of President Obama.”

And in a blatant display of racism, Rush warned white Democrats who didn’t want to see Blagojevich pick ANYONE to fill Obama’s seat:

“I will ask you not to hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer.”

And then Roland Burris proves that he is such a naked ideologue that he “voted for ACORN” – a “community organization” that is so blatantly evil that it has been caught on tape repeatedly (at least five times now, with promises of more to come) trying to help a pimp and prostitute cheat on their taxes and buy a house so they can import over a dozen 13-15-year-old illegal immigrant girls and use them to set up a brothel.

I could go on.  The blatant racism from Democrats has been amazing.

Obama attacking a white police officer as “acting stupidly” for doing his job and then holding his patronizing “beer summit.”

And now we’re at the sorry and pathetic state where the words “You lie!” are classified as “racism” from the PARTY OF RACISM:

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside” if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.  He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

But lest we forget, it was the Democrat Party that literally went to war with a Republican President to keep the institution of slavery.   And it is a rather ironic historical fact that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to thwart the rise of the Party of Lincoln in the South.  And that it was the Democratic National Convention of 1924 that was so dominated by the Klan that it went down in infamy as “the Klanbake.”

Just a little trip down memory lane, for those who want to understand why we are more racially polarized under the presidency of Barack Obama than ever.

And of course, Barack Obama all the while gets to position himself as being loftily above such petty things while his demonic surrogates unleash their racist hell.

Maybe a little less racist demagoguery, and a lot more shutting the hell up would help.

I am now completely immunized against any charges of racism by a party that has used race as a club to advance their ideology in the most grotesque mockery of genuine racism.  If anyone wants to accuse me of being a racist, my simple retort is, “What a racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”

Democrats Censure Joe Wilson In Spite of Own Lies And Hypocrisy

September 15, 2009

I – like most Republicans – understand that Rep. Joe Wilson exercised something less than great judgment in his outburst during the Obama speech to the Congress.  But for some reason I just can’t muster up the outrage that Democrats bitterly cling to.

Barack Obama himself actually started the “You lie!” war in his speech:

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.  The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.  Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible.  It is a lie, plain and simple.

To which I can only blurt out, “You lie!”

When Obama appoints Ezekiel Emanuel as his health policy adviser who is on the record saying just this year:

The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

And:

Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

And when Obama appoints a regulatory czar like Cass Sunstein who is on record saying:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

And:

Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Well, I think that Republicans are more than justified in pointing out that the president who calls them liars is actually the one who is the liar.

That, and the fact that it is now a matter of fact that when Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” as Obama said that illegal immigrants would not be covered, it was Joe Wilson who was telling the truth.  The Democrats have SINCE began to deal with that reality.

But in any event, the Democrats today decided they would make a public spectacle out of demagoguing a man who had twice apologized for not apologizing.

Nancy Pelosi initially said she would move on after Wilson publicly apologized for his emotional outburst.  And Barack Obama – the allegedly offended party – accepted the apology.

Or did he?

Did the president decide to bury the hatchet in Joe Wilson’s head?  Because somebody’s hatchet men suddenly went on the warpath on Joe Wilson.  It’s kind of nice to put on the face of the One who is loftily above partisanship while your thugs go out on the attack.  For example:

Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside” if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.  He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

Given Hank Johnson’s racist statement, it is rather ironic that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to thwart the rise of the Party of Lincoln in the South.  And that the Democratic National Convention of 1924 was so dominated by the Klan that it went down in infamy as “the Klanbake.”

And that just dovetailed right along with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who could have sworn she heard Joe Wilson use a polite euphamism for “nigger” in Joe Wilson’s remark:

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

Well, sure it’s fair, Maureen.  Everyone knows that liberal journalists are allowed to make up facts and assign the harshest possible motives to their stories.  It’s called propaganda.  And mainstream journalists embrace it like lovers for their ideology and their party.

For liberals like Hank Johnson and Maureen Dowd, facts don’t matter.  Their souls swim in a sea of lies.

Democrats couldn’t help but assign racist motives to a statement that had nothing to do with race.  Because that is just the kind of vile, racist, brain-diseased cockroaches that they are.

The House voted that it was a breech of decorum for Wilson to shout, “You lie!”  And it was.

But this, apparently, was NOT a breech of decorum for the most partisan and most nakedly ideological Party and politicians in American history:

Some transcribed highlights from Democrat Rep. Pete Stark’s remarks on the House floor toward President George W. Bush:

The Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war. You don’t have enough money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement…

…But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

Apparently, any reasonable person is supposed to be able to understand why the two words spoken by Joe Wilson were horrendous, but the ugly and hateful accusations that accompanied the charge of lying were not.

Democrat Barbara Lee is quoted from the House floor as saying:

“I have been appalled by the growing evidence that the President may have lied about the reasons for invading and conquering Iraq.”

And let us not forget Democrats by the dozens booing and shouting “NO!” at George Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address must not have been a breech of decorum either.

Democrats rudely interrupted President Bush to jeer and applaud their own obstruction of crucial legislation to try to fix Social Security:

And the Gateway Pundit shows that one of the jeering Democrats was one Barack Hussein Obama.

So you’re just going to have to pardon me for not thinking, “My gosh, these Republicans are just so awful!  Good thing the Democrats are the party of wonderfulness.  No Democrat would ever do anything nasty like that!  They need to hold that awful Republican responsible!”

Because I have a brain – and the thing actually works.

That separates me from congressional Democrats.

President Obama himself suggested that a formal rebuke of Mr. Wilson would be a distraction from the larger debate. “I mean, it just becomes a big circus instead of focusing on health care,” Mr. Obama said.

So let’s just realize that even President Obama is pointing out that Congress has important business to attend to, but that DEMOCRATS are refusing to do their duty in favor of the demagoguery and partisanship of the “big circus.”

James Clyburn, who has been the lead rabble-rouser in the witch hunt, had this to say:

This is not a partisan stunt,” said Clyburn, whose district in South Carolina adjoins Wilson’s. “I do not participate in partisan stunts, and I think every member here knows that. This is about the proper decorum that should take place on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.”

But every member probably knows that Clyburn was in fact such a player in “partisan stunts” that he once said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  If every member of Congress doesn’t realize that hoping for your own side to lose a war for the sake of partisan political advantage is anything less than the most gross and contemptible sort of partisan stunt, then this country is surely doomed.

Not to mention the fact that James Clyburn – who is clearly so interested in “proper decorum” now – didn’t give a fig about it when it was Democrats who were repeatedly violating that decorum.

Democrats have the power to force through whatever resolution they want.

But anyone who thinks that it’s anything other than a partisan distraction and witch hunt by a nasty group of Democrat politicians is a fool.

For what it’s worth, if I were a Republican, I would be inclined to vote to censure Joe Wilson for his out-of-bounds comment.  But I would only do so if every episode of the Democrats’ vile conduct over the last eight years were read into the record so we can appreciate just who these self-righteous hypocrite accusers truly are.

A Time to Ponder: If US Attacked Again, Will We Still Favor Obama’s Dismantling Of Bush Safeguards?

September 11, 2009

9/11 should be a time for every American to ponder the events of that fateful and horrific day in 2001.

We had just suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy in an act of war than had ever been sustained by America on its own soil in its entire history – including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Most Americans were angry and demanded action.  Fully 90% supported George Bush as he laid out his plans to respond to the attack.  And that support was still above 70% when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.  We passed the Patriot Act with wide margins in both branches of Congress in October of 2001.  Only ONE Senator – Russ Feingold – voted against it.

And then, slowly at first, and then precipitously, Americans began to turn against the president they had supported, against the wars they had supported, and against the Patriot Act they had supported.

You can see in collections of quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq and the underlying justifications of the war how Democrats were “for that war before they were against it” as declining American support made undermining the war effort itself more and more politically advantageous.

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

Democrat Jack Murtha denounced as war criminals and murderers Marines who were later proven to have been innocent.  Democrat House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  Democrats openly attacked Bush’s “surge” strategy that proved to be the difference in turning the war around and providing victory for the United States.  And Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Now I believe myself that this war is lost” even as our military was valiantly fighting on foreign soil to win.  Barack Obama joined Democrats in voting to defund the troops fighting overseas as a means of politically undermining George Bush.  Democrats denounced the credibility of General Petraeus even as liberals ran a New York Times ad entitled, “General Betray Us?”

Today, as we pause to reflect over 9/11, we no longer have a “war on terror.”  Now we have an “overseas contingency operation.”  We no longer want our Central Intelligence Agency to aggressively pursue terrorists and seek out any and all information to help us prevent the next attack.  Now we want to criminalize those operatives who tried to keep us safe as a warning to any future CIA personnel who might be so foolish as to violate liberal morays.  Better to lose a city or two than to waterboard a terrorist.

As I reflect on the hours of that terrible day of 9/11, I remember Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets and holding up ‘V for Victory’ gestures.  I remember people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the skyscrapers rather than endure the heat that would have murdered them even more agonizingly.  I remember Democrats and Republicans arm-in-arm singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol Building – at least until Democrats determined to undermine virtually everything they had previously supported.

On the anniversary of 9/11, I just wonder what will happen if we are attacked again.  How will we respond?  What will we want?  How will we demand our president act?

Will Americans say, “We agree with President Obama.  Let us hasten our dismantling of our intelligence apparatus to show the world our good will.”  Or will there be a dramatic swing back to the strategy envisioned and implemented by former President George Bush, based on aggressively taking the fight to the enemy, remaining in those fights, and winning them?

I hope that Americans soberly reflect how they would respond to the next massive terrorist attack today.  Because virtually every expert agrees that another such attack is surely coming.  And rather than swing wildly and frankly psychotically between extremes, perhaps we might come to a considered and committed path based on the real will of the American people.

Ask yourself this: if we are attacked again, would you want a President Bush, or would you want a President Obama?  Would you want to handled the next massive attack in which thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) Americans die to be handled as an act of war, or as a law enforcement investigation?  Would you prefer to go to war against any nation that threatens us, or would you prefer to talk and negotiate instead?  Would you prefer a president who fights our enemies, or a president who voted against fighting and who in fact voted for undermining the war effort in order to stop it?

Just what is it you want your commander in chief to do in response to a massive terrorist attack?  What is it you expect your commander in chief to do in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening in the first place?

Let us realize that the next “Iraq” is rushing toward us in the form of a nuclear-weaponized Iran.  Is such a country a threat?  Should we allow them to develop their weapons of mass destruction, or should we use all means – including military power – to stop them?  The media first reports that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been dramatically slowed down, then reports that they can literally make a bomb whenever they want within the space of a couple of weeks’ time.  One thing seems quite sure: Iran is inexorably working toward nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  What do we want our president to do about it?  Everything?  Nothing?

To the extent that the American people are even capable of genuine self-reflection and wise contemplation of the future, I hope we take this opportunity to do so today.

I also hope that every single American – regardless of political party – takes a moment to thank God for our troops and pray for their safety and for their victory.

Obama Cynically Urges Iraq To Stall US Withdrawel

September 16, 2008

This may be one of those moments when even Barack Obama’s staunchest supporters have to face up to the possibility that their candidate is a man of contemptible character.

Many analysts have claimed that Barack Obama overcame Hillary Clinton primarily because he was more against the war than she was, such that the liberal base of the Democratic Party believed Obama would end the war and bring the troops home.

So it is simply staggering to hear that – while calling for a rapid withdrawel of American troops from Iraq – Obama privately urged the Iraqis to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

It is difficult NOT to believe that such a disingenuous request is not motivated by political self-interests.  If Republicans are bringing the troops home, Obama can’t claim that he should be elected so that he can bring the troops home.

One thing is for certain: this matter demands an investigation.  If it is true, it ought to break Obama’s career.

Here is the article from The New York Post:

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years – departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only “notional,” making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as “a man of the Left” – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Liberals see the most refreshing hope for change in history; I see the most cynical and disingenuous candidate who has ever run for high office.

Obama and the Democrats will not allow the war in Iraq to be viewed as any kind of success.  It is vital to their interests to argue that America failed, that it lost, that it has been defeated (e.g., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “I believe that this war is lost“).  Why?  Because they have so dedicated themselves to American failure that a victory would be bad for them (and anyone who doubts this need only recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s acknowledgment that good news in Iraq amounted to a “real big problem” for Democrats).