Posts Tagged ‘Kerry’

One Thing Is For Sure: Democrats REALLY Hate People Who Drive Trucks

January 18, 2010

Elitist limousine liberals don’t like trucks, or the people who drive them.

Scott Brown driving his truck to campaign stops might have been a gimmick, but it was his truck, which he’s been driving around for 200,000 miles.

Not exactly something to mock, unless you’re a liberal.

Why not mock the fact that maybe he wears a pair of ten-year old boots while you’re at it?

But…

There’s something about Republican Scott Brown’s truck that has gotten the Democratic establishment all revved up.

Mr. Brown, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts under the GOP banner, often mentions the truck he’s used to campaign around the Bay State, and his opponents don’t like it one bit.

President Obama, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democrat running against Mr. Brown, each bashed the truck at a rally on Sunday organized to help increase Democratic turnout for the special election on Tuesday.

Mr. Kerry, the first speaker in the lineup, used the truck to liken Mr. Brown to Republican former President George W. Bush. “I’ve got news for you, Scott: George Bush drove a truck, too, and look where it got us,” Mr. Kerry said.

Then Mrs. Coakley picked up the theme. “I’ll tell you one thing: Just because you’re driving around Massachusetts in a truck doesn’t mean you’re going in the right direction,” she said for an applause line.

Her remarks were followed by a series of jabs at the truck made by Mr. Obama. “He’s driving his truck around the Commonwealth …. Well, you’ve got to look under that hood because what you learn makes you wonder,” Mr. Obama cautioned.

He also told voters to “forget the ads.”

“Everybody can run slick ads. Forget that truck. Everybody can buy a truck.”

But Mr. Obama couldn’t forget that truck himself. He brought up the truck again to make a dig at Mr. Brown’s opposition to a bank tax by saying, “He decided to park his truck on Wall Street.”

The retort

“Mr. President, unfortunately in this economy, not everybody can buy a truck.” — Mr. Brown’s reaction to Mr. Obama’s truck slam.

“Forget the truck,” says the man who clearly couldn’t forget the truck.

It’s almost the “guy-version” of the raving, spitting, frothing, insane mad Sarah Palin hatred.  You take a good-looking, average, decent guy, and just watch the liberals erupt into total madness.  They just become unhinged when they see an ordinary American trying to take their power away.

Thank God airplanes have windows, or ordinary Americans living in “flyover country” would have to continually keep umbrellas due to all the liberals trying to spit on them.

Advertisements

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

August 22, 2008

Barack Obama supporters want to talk about how nuanced he is on complex issues, and how he supports a woman’s right to choose rather than impose his morality on them, and how thoughtful he is in answering questions such as, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Please watch this five minute presentation:

Having watched the video, consider again Barack Obama’s “nuanced” answer. Picture that little baby squirming helplessly in the dark slowly and miserably dying of neglect while Obama’s answer drones on and on:

REV. WARREN: Okay, now, let’s deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue.

Forty million abortions — at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with.

One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with these pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.

So for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform — is, how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is is that although we’ve had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. And that, I think, is something that we have to ask ourselves.

Pardon me for my language, but there is a time when only vile language is adequate to respond to an absolutely vile worldview: BULLSHIT.

I’ve provided analysis of Barack Obama’s hypocrisy and lies regarding his abortion stand. I’ve provided Jill Stanek’s documentation of ten different reasons Obama has given for refusing to support a bill that would stop babies from literally being left on a table to die. But a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video even more.

The fact is that Barack Obama’s 100% NARAL-approved abortion position is so bizarre, so vile, and so extreme that he opposed a human life bill whose identical version passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate, with Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy supporting.

In other words, even by the standard of the most ardent abortion-rights supporters, Barack Obama’s stand is vile.

Barack Obama’s voting record clearly reveals that he is a baby killer. That is a documented fact. And I frankly don’t give a damn how “thoughtful” or “nuanced” his dissembling, self-righteous lies are.

Obama, Democrats attack of Bush Knesset Speech Reveals Appeasement

May 15, 2008

President Bush gave a speech on 15 May 2008 before the Israeli Knesset that has drawn condemnation and outrage from Democrats. The most “outrageous” position he expressed – in context – is presented here:

Some of the reactions:

Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said, “Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It’s quite frankly sad and astonishing that the President of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. … We have come to expect, and seen from this administration over the last eight years, this type of cowboy diplomacy. We’ve come to expect it, but over the past eight years it’s made this country far less safe than we were. … I think people are going to ask themselves in this election, are we safer than we were eight years ago, under this president, and I think the answer is going to be a resounding no” (“American Morning,” CNN, 5/15).

A listing of similar cries of angst and outrage:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Senator Joe Biden responded with unusual eloquence:

This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”…
“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.

Senator John Kerry said, “[Bush] is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset.”

There is no escaping what the president is doing,” said [Dick] Durbin, who supports Obama. “It is an attack on Sen. Obama’s position that we should not be avoiding even those we disagree with when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy.

“I am shocked and, actually, very, very saddened by what the President has done,” [Tom] Daschle said during an interview he gave to Fox News.

“This is an unprecedented political attack that we’ve never seen a president do before.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she, “would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments…

The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

What on earth did the President say? I mean, it must have been really, really awful. He must have said that Democrats were all direct descendants of Satan, or that Barack Obama was secretly in direct communication with Osama bin Laden to plot against the United States or something. I mean, it had to be really despicable to generate such a reaction, right?

Wrong. We are dealing with people who have no moral compass, and think only in terms of self-serving political rhetoric.

Here is the statement that President Bush actually made, in context (the full speech is available online):

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is the ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. That is why the followers of

Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance, freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all of the world because they are a gift from Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. And societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners for peace.

In an article titled, Appeasement, the Democrats, and Shakespeare, posted Democratic Representatives Jim McDermott (Wash.), David Bonior (Mich.) and Mike Thompson (Calif.) going to Iraq to attack President Bush from foreign soil – in a visit that turns out to have been financed by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service.

He cites former President Jimmy Carter’s statement from England.

And he cites remarks made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she took it upon her self to go to Syria.

Given the fact that President Bush did not name a single Democrat by name, given the fact that his only allusion to any American political figure was an unnamed American senator back in 1939, and given the fact that Barack Obama claims the remark did not in any way resemble his own foreign policy position, why say anything at all? Why all the outrage?

President Bush didn’t attack Democrats or Barack Obama. They attacked themselves, and blamed him for it.

These Democrats shrilly proclaim that President Bush is beyond contempt for attacking them, when he didn’t, and then demonstrate that they are not in the least beyond launching vicious personal attacks themselves. It’s really a quite remarkable act of hypocrisy.

While watching Fox News with Megyn Kelly interviewing an Obama spokeswoman this afternoon, I heard the Obama camp first claim that Bush’s policy of refusing to talk with our enemies was causing political instability, and then almost immediately thereafter claim that Bush had dialogued with leaders of countries such as Sudan to show that it’s Bush – and not Obama – who is dialoguing with enemies. You wonder how these people’s heads don’t explode trying to contain all the contradictions.

Barack Obama has famously said that he would be willing to have direct dialogue with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, without any preconditions. His website says, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” It was a position that her Democratic rival Hillary Clinton repeatedly pointed to as an example of his inexperience and naiveté. It is a substantial departure from the policy of every American president over the last fifty years.

I point out in an earlier article that:

The Bush administration – like all U.S. presidential administrations before it – had the policy of refusing to directly engage with terrorist states and rogue totalitarian dictatorships. Doing so, they argued, gives these states credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the world while doing little to change their despicable ways.

In other words, by dialoguing with terrorists, we implicitly recognize them, and thereby recognize the acts that they commit. We abandon the belief that some acts are so heinous, and so deplorable, that anyone who commits them should be shunned and reviled instead of being rewarded with recognition and legitimacy. Instead, we tacitly acknowledge that using violence and suffering to advance one’s cause is a valid path to international recognition. Otherwise, we would not have allowed their violent approach to succeed.

In an article detailing Jimmy Carter’s recent visit to the terrorist entity Hamas, Katarina Kratovac wrote the following:

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who brokered Israel’s historic peace agreement with Egypt three decades ago, is on what he calls a private peace mission. He contends the U.S., Israel and other Western states should stop isolating Hamas if they want peace efforts to succeed.

Heading the Hamas delegation in Cairo were Gaza leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Said Siyam. “This meeting is a message to those who don’t recognize Hamas’ legitimacy as a movement,” Zahar said as he left for Egypt, according to Hamas’ Web site.

In Cairo, Hamas spokesman Taher Nuhu told The Associated Press that the purported Thursday meeting would be “a recognition of the legitimacy” of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinians’ parliamentary election in 2006.

Hamas obtained the desired prestige and international attention it wanted, and gave up absolutely nothing in return, which is exactly what American conservatives and Israelies said would happen.

Barack Obama – and prominent Democrat’s – argument that the President of the United States must be willing to talk directly to our enemies because otherwise there will be no communication and no possibility for compromise or peace is simply a straw man. In reality, the United States has constant lines of communications with countries such as Iran through other countries, through lower level diplomats, and through various other “back channel” sources. A meeting with the President of the United States should be reserved as a conditional reward for abandoning behavior harmful to the interest of the United States; not as a reward for engaging in that very behavior we find despicable.

Do you want to know the real reason why all these Democrats are so livid?

Because – in talking about the colossal errors of the past – President Bush showed why liberals are so terribly wrong in the present.

In a speech by Newt Gingrich which I have available on this blog (under the title, “Fighting For Survival Means Fighting For Truth – by Newt Gingrich”), Gingrich, in discussing what he learned from his reading of a book titled, Troublesome Young Men, says, “And we tend to understate what a serious and conscientious and thoughtful effort appeasement was and that it was the direct and deliberate policy of very powerful and very willful people. We tend to think of it as a psychological weakness as though Chamberlain was somehow craven. He wasn’t craven. Chamberlain had a very clear vision of the World, and he was very ruthless domestically.”

Ultimately, Bush wasn’t attacking Barack Obama or any other Democrat for being willing to speak to this leader or that, even without preconditions. Such is the allegation by Democrats attempting to divert attention to what Bush really was criticizing, which was: the historic tendency to dismiss genuine moral evil on the part of leaders of rogue regimes, and the historic tendency to be all-too-willing to appease to such leaders.

If Democrats truly agreed with these two basic positions, they merely had to affirm that they too embrace these ideas, and will be true to them if elected.

In demonizing Bush’ position, they implicitly proclaim that the spirit of appeasement from 1938 is still alive and well in 2008.