Posts Tagged ‘suspended’

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Suspension: Two Things Liberals Hate (Facts And Freedom) And The One Thing Liberals Love (Fascism)

December 19, 2013

We live in a world where Phil Robertson has no right to express his views on homosexuality, but where homosexuals have every right to express their rabid, frothing hatred of Christianity and evangelical Christians.  We live in a world where Phil Robertson gets suspended for basically just saying what the BIBLE says but Miley Cyrus doesn’t get suspended for performing a simulated sex act on television.  We live in a crazy, morally depraved world, in other words.

I mean, just try to get your head around: Phil Robertson is being suspended from a “reality program” for actually being “real.”  And A & E wants to take Phil Robertson out of a show that is actually mostly about HIM (he was the inventor of the duck lures of “Duck Dynasty,” you know) and is entirely about his family of which he is the patriarch.  And since A & E wants the family to continue with the show that they just banned the family’s patriarch from, A & E literally is attempting to “suspend” Phil Robertson from his very own family.

Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson allegedly just got suspended from his own television program for saying that homosexuality was next to bestiality:

Not only does “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson fail to understand what it’s like to be gay, but he also thinks homosexuality is a sin comparable to bestiality.

In a shocking new interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community.

It doesn’t matter that Robertson didn’t actually do that.  Read his quote (and it would have been nice and, well, HONEST had GQ provided the context OF the quote – unless you think Phil Robertson just started popping off about homosexuality without any prompting whatsoever):

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Notice that you “START from homosexuality” and then you “morph out from there.”  One is NOT necessarily the same as the other in Robertson’s description any more than a nasty kid starts with pulling the wings off of insects and morphs out to killing other children means that children and winged insects are the same thing.

It also doesn’t matter if the Bible confirms the view that, yes, homosexuality really IS next to bestiality:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.  Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.  Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” — Leviticus 18:21-23

In blatant fact, not only is homosexuality next to bestiality, but it is actually sandwiched in between bestiality and child sacrifice (which liberals also love: we call it “abortion” today and 55 million innocent children have been sacrificed to the gods of convenient liberal demonism).

And, no, homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.  Don’t take my word, don’t even take Phil Robertson’s word, take the Word of God’s word:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And it’s not just the Book of Leviticus or 1 Corinthians.  Go to Romans Chapter One.  In fact, go to ANY passage of God’s Word and see if it EVER says a positive word about homosexuality (hint: it DOESN’T).

Liberals are pathologically opposed to the Bible.  And their hatred for the Word of God literally begins with the very first words of the Word of God and pervert more from there.

Liberals have “fundamentally transformed” morality by replacing God’s morality with their own perverted version of it.  And now they sit in rabid judgment of God and the Christians whose crime is believing the Word of God which had been the source of the moral backbone of Western Civilization for 2,000 years.

I’ve pointed this out so many times: liberals have a fundamental and profound hostility toward the Bible and toward everything about the Bible and the God of the Bible.  That hostility permeates their entire worldview.  God wanted us to be stones – individuals free to choose as individuals.  But liberals want us to become government-stamped bricks where one is identical to all the others.  It has been so from the very beginning of human civilization and it is so today.

As a Christian, Phil Robertson ought to have the right to accurately express the content of his faith – particularly when he is virtually quoting the Bible when he does it.  But “Christianity” now has to bow down before political correctness.  And the factual content of the Bible and the Christianity it expresses be damned.

Facts are anathema to the left.  They utterly despise them.  And therefore they utterly despise anyone who disagrees with them.

You need to understand how liberals, secular humanists, et al view “truth.”  I wrote about this a long time back (see part I, part II and part III).  Basically, liberals reject the classic philosophical position of foundationalism and believe instead in postmodernist coherentism.  Under coherentism, knowledge does not require any foundation and rather can be established by the interlocking strength of its components like a puzzle.  Which is to say liberals parted with “truth” long, long ago.

I stumbled across a great expression of this liberal “philosophy”:

The only difference between an opinion and a fact is the way you look at it.

In many ways, there are no facts. There are just different ways of looking at things.

With that in mind, I think it’s important to think of your opinions as facts.

Don’t tell me what you think. Tell me what you know, and if you don’t feel passionately enough about something to think you “know” it, then you should probably save your breath.

A good argument is when two people take two competing facts and let them battle it out.

The truth is created when an opinion beats out all other opinions.

Don’t say what you think is true. Decide what is true and then try to be right.

Like I said, liberals HATE truth.  They don’t even accept the possibility that there could be something called “the truth.”  They despise facts as irrelevant whenever they become inconvenient.  What they love is perverting discussion about truth into opinion polls.  And then relying upon their propaganda control over the media to slant the debate by creating straw men regarding the view they despise versus a celebrity culture regarding the view they cherish.

On my view as a foundationalist, our ultimate foundation for being able to know truth and have genuine knowledge of the external world rests with Creator God who made man in His own image and created the world for the man whom He created in His own image.  Because of the Fall and sin, we do not know truth perfectly, but because we are the result of a special creation by a truth-knowing God and because He created the world around us for us, we can reliably know things about the world.  That is the ultimate foundation upon which human epistemology rests.

Let’s hear what evolution logically entails:

Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There is no purposive principle whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable…

Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.

Third…the individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is.

Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us…

Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived…simply does not exist. — William Provine, Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University

To put it in Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty terms, if you are a man and you prefer another man’s anus to what God intended for you, you are a biological meat puppet insect who cannot help but prefer the anus to the vagina. And since there is no possibility of “morality” in the world your love/lust for the anus is simply a brute fact that cannot be questioned in any way, any shape or any form.  And it is for some mysterious reason only those who hold any other view who must be suppressed as ruthlessly as necessary.

Contrast that with the view that necessarily stems from the philosophy atheism and evolution:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

As a result of my view, I can know the truth and I can have free will and freely choose.  And I therefore have the right to express my beliefs.  Versus anyone who believes in evolution, who necessarily is a biological meat puppet entirely conditioned by DNA and environment and by definition can have nothing the Bible calls a “soul.”  Whereas such humanity is utterly and completely impossible to liberals BY DEFINITION.

Anyone who believes in evolution is according to their own view basically an insect who crawls a certain way merely because they were either hard-wired to so crawl or because their parents crawled that way once and didn’t happen to get eaten as a result.  That is what you are and that is all you are.  It is scientifically impossible for you to ever be anything more.

Ooops.  Did I say “free”???

Liberals also viscerally and viciously despise human freedom.  And as I believe you ought to see, that hatred stems from their views on human origin itself which result from their radical hatred of the God of the Bible.

Do I have the right to my beliefs?  Absolutely, says the liberal.  As long as your beliefs accord with mine.  Otherwise, as Khrushchev boasted, “We will bury you!”

Liberals, secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists (basically one and the same group, for the record) exploited the view of their enemies regarding individuality and freedom to make their public case.  Conservatives opposed what they said, of course, but they did not oppose their right to say it because they believed in freedom.  But the moment the left got their way, they shut the door.  They use a device called “political correctness” to shape society and therefore shape reality to their point of view.

Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

We’re told that “political correctness” is about being sensitive to people.  But we already have the template for that; it’s called “good manners.”  Political correctness is not at all about anything other than power.

You need to understand how this has worked its way into our government: huge, sweeping government that has the power to intrude into virtually every component of our lives.  A giant welfare state.  A giant ObamaCare bureaucracy.  Stifling regulations.  The belief that “you didn’t build that” and therefore the government has the right to whatever it demands from the fruit of your hard work.

What you end up with is “Government is God” from the people who first rejected the God of the Bible.  And you end up with the battle between: Paul Ryan: ‘Our Rights Come From Nature And From God.’  Barack Obama: ‘Our Rights Come From Government And To Hell With God.’

Obama openly mocked the Bible as a book that should have anything whatsoever to do with modern life or the modern world.   I explore Obama’s demon-possessed misunderstanding of Scripture.

And instead of any worldview informed by Christianity in any way, shape or form, we have this demonism:

Liberals are fascists.  They are intrinsically and pathologically fascist.  I wrote an article two years ago that went on and on and on documenting Obama’s fascism.  And note that I predated Obama’s NSA scandals, Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target conservatives or anyone who used “anti-Obama rhetoric,” and the latest ObamaCare meltdown.  Note that I predated a Clinton-appointed judge who denounced Obama as a fascist who rules by “secret law.”  Another judge described Obama’s policy as “almost Orwellian.”

Let’s consider these statements from these judges, first from Clinton-appointed Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle:

In a Freedom of Information Act victory, a federal judge has slapped the Obama administration for its secretive ways and ordered officials to turn over a bland-sounding foreign policy document.

Chastising what she called “the government’s unwarranted expansion of the presidential communications privilege at the expense of the public’s interest in disclosure,” U.S. District Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle ruled the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development is not exempt from FOIA.

Judge Huvelle’s 20-page decision took a shot or two, or three, at the Obama administration’s penchant for secrecy.

The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight, to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law,'” Huvelle wrote.

Now by Judge Richard Leon:

A federal judge ruled Monday the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records “almost certainly” violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon described the NSA’s activities as “almost Orwellian.” He wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen.”

This from the administration of “The Liar of the Year” (by both überliberal Politifact and by the überüberliberal Washington Post) who made a career dishonestly and deceitfully boasting that his was “the most transparent administration in history.”

Note: when I called Obama a FASCIST and pointed out that it is the pathological nature of the left to BE fascist, I WAS RIGHT.

In all of human history, we have NEVER had a man as stridently revealed as a complete and utter liar as Barack Obama has now been.  More human beings have seen his lies played out before them than any other liar who ever lived.  And this dishonest man is a fascist.

And the same damn people – and “damn” being a technical term for those who are one day surely going to burn in hell – are out to get Phil Robertson.  Because as I describe above, they are biological meat puppet insects and it is their nature as slave-beings who by definition have no free will and therefore do whatever their hateful slave ideology compels them to do.

You can be the random evolution meat puppet or you can get off your ass and not stand for what the left is trying to do to a man just for expressing his opinion and exercising his freedom of religion.

I mean, stop and think about it: “marriage” has meant a particular thing for the entirety of human civilization and certainly the entirety of the Judeo-Christian-based Western Civilization upon which our society was formed.  Liberals believe they have the right to redefine marriage to mean something that it never meant before as they “fundamentally transform” America.  But it gets worse, because these fascists literally believe that no one has the right to oppose them or stand for the sum entirely of previous human civilization as they pervert and distort reality to suit their demonic ideology.

In the same manner, a damn liberal judge just imposed POLYGAMY on America.  Nothing is more alive in America than the slippery slope that conservatives have been warning about.  The claim to polygamy logically follows the claim to homosexuality: who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry the man – or men – of my dreams???  And that same “logic” will necessarily ultimately see the imposition of the very bestiality that Phil Robertson talks about, because who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry my canary???  And again, that same logic will also ultimately spill over to children having the “right” to be sodomized by some adult pervert.  Because if a kid is old enough to choose abortion – which all kids are by definition according to the “logic” of liberalism – then who are you to tell them they can’t have sexual relationships with the people they choose to have them with???  It either all logically follows or NONE of it does (another free hint: NONE of it does).

Liberals can say whatever the hell they want and nobody boycotts them because conservatives believe that people have a right to say what they think.  But the liberals who believe THEY have such freedom are fascists who would NEVER grant that freedom to anybody who doesn’t think just like they think.

I update this to note that Mark Steyn wrote:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

That is precisely right: Christians who dominated society allowed gays and other radical leftists to have free speech because it is our nature as conservatives to allow freedom.  But the left is truly fascist and the moment they were allowed in the door they slammed it shut because genuine freedom is anathema to them.

I update again to add Bristol Palin – who apparently has her mother’s way of expressing herself – to the mix:

“I think it’s so hypocritical how the LGBT community expects every single flippen person to agree with their life style. This flies in the face of what makes America great — people can have their own beliefs and own opinions and their own ways of life.

“I hate how the LGBT community says it’s all about ‘love’ and ‘equality,'” she added. “However, if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, they spread the most hate. It is so hypocritical it makes my stomach turn.”

I demand the left defend it’s “tolerance” when they are so radically INTOLERANT with anybody who doesn’t precisely march to their goose step it is beyond ridiculous.

Take a stand against that fascism while you still have a little bit of your country left.

Advertisements

Keith Olbermann Demonizes Fox News As Biased; Gets Caught Donating Max Amount To Über-Liberal Democrats

November 6, 2010

Fox News is biased.  It’s advocacy journalism.

But don’t believe me.  Believe Keith Olbermann.  Now there’s a fair-minded journalist for you.

Oops:

Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats
By SIMMI AUJLA | 11/5/10 6:00 AM EDT Updated: 11/5/10 6:22 PM EDT

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

The network originally announced that Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation, was going to fill in for Olbermann. But the network announced late Friday that Hayes would not be the substitute host, after Hayes’ previous donations to two Democratic candidates in 2008 and 2009 came to light. […]

Olbermann is one of MSNBC’s most recognizable faces, and has emerged as one of the country’s most prominent liberal commentators. A former ESPN star, Olbermann’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” started in 2003 as a traditional news show but evolved into a left-leaning opinion program – and in some ways, led the network into its new identity as the cable-news voice of the left and an attempt to be a counterweight to Fox News. […]

Inside MSNBC, employees were shocked at the news of Olbermann’s suspension. Despite a reputation for a prickly personality off-air, Olbermann was given wide berth inside the network because of his stature – and his ratings. […]

In addition, Olbermann has been a critic of the political donations made by Fox News’s parent company, News Corp., which contributed $1 million each to a pair of organizations trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

You’d think that Olbermann’s head (and the heads of every liberal) would explode from trying to contain all the hypocritical contradictions.

I must point out that this story about Olbermann follows the revelation that “journalists” at a CBS affiliate actively sought to find stories damaging to Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller out of an obviously blatantly partisan and ideological mindset.

As for the News Corp. donation, Keith Olbermann, objective journalist extraordinaire, railed as follows:

Oct. 7 — On his MSNBC show, “Countdown,” Olbermann went after News Corp. and Fox News, highlighting the political donation and describing the network as “a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view … and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party.”

What’s it like to walk around without a single honest bone in your entire body, Keith?

And which Democrats did Keith Olbermann choose to give to?  Was it those decent, moderate Democrats?

Nope.  Rabid, rabid liberals.

Meet Raul Grijalva:

It is well-documented in this space that Raul Grijalva is known for stealing his political opponents’ yard signs, even back in the early days when he ran for school board and Pima County Board of Supervisors.

So should it surprise us that his congressional campaign uses the same dirty tricks?

Read the KGUN 9 story and watch their news report below:

Gabby Mercer, a naturalized American citizen from Mexico, went with a few other military wives to Raul Grijalva’s campaign office to ask Grijalva about his stance on the wars.

What she found shocked her: In the trunk of the car owned by Ruben Reyes — Grijalva’s chief of staff and husband to city councilwoman Regina Romero — was a stack of Ruth McClung signs that he had stolen. So she filed a police report.

Here is page one, page two, and page three of the police report.

Here is the Arizona Daily Star’s write-up:

A campaign volunteer for several Republican candidates filed a Tucson police complaint Wednesday, alleging theft of Ruth McClung’s campaign signs by a staff member of U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva.

Gabriela Mercer, 46, said she saw two political campaign signs in the back of district director’s Ruben Reyes’ vehicle.

Mercer, who has a daughter serving in the Marines on her second tour in Afghanistan, had visited Grijalva’s congressional office with a small group of military parents to ask for information about his stance on war. She and two others then headed to his campaign office, hoping to speak with him there.

As Reyes approached them to tell them their issue was being resolved, he opened the back of his sports utility vehicle, where two yard signs were visible.

Mercer, who has volunteered for both Republican congressional candidates McClung and Jesse Kelly, said when she asked why he had them, Reyes became defensive and eventually said he was going to “put them up.”

She said she found it “unbelievable” that a high-ranking staffer would steal a political opponent’s signs.

And what happened to Gabby Mercer?  She came out of a speaking engagement to find a rock had been thrown through her back window.

In addition, this noble candidate who is getting Keith Olbermann’s money was caught committing widespread voter fraud.

And Grijalva is the kind of race-baiter who is not above using racism to attack his Caucasian – or should I say “white bread” – opponent.

Jack Conway?  How about his “Aqua Buddha” ad that was so vile it probably derailed his entire candidacy.  Even the liberal New Republic characterized Conway’s vicious attack piece as “The ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year.”

As for Gabrielle Giffords, all I have to say is “Nancy Pelosi.”  Giffords has been described as a Pelosi protegee, and was a doctrinaire liberal who voted with Pelosi 94% of the time.

You can see why Keith Olbermann would support such toad.  Because lowlifes flock together.

For a personal note, I don’t mind journalists donating to political causes or to politicians.  In fact, I’m all in favor of it.  It’s not like these “journalists” don’t have political opinions merely because of some network policy against political donations.  I prefer knowing where these people are coming from to having some bogus facade of “objectivity.”

Hillary’s nuclear threat to Iran shows need for McCain

April 24, 2008

“CIA officials will tell Congress on Thursday that North Korea had been helping Syria build a plutonium-based nuclear reactor, a U.S. official said, a disclosure that could touch off new resistance to the administration’s plan to ease sanctions on Pyongyang,” begins a Los Angeles Times story dated today.

It’s really a pretty scary issue, when you stop and think about it. Why would Syria want a secret nuclear facility? What would they do with it?

Israeli aircraft bombed that particular geography in Syria into rubble because Israel isn’t going to take any chances over being exterminated by an Arab nuke.

The question is, how willing are we to play Russian roulette with a WMD attack?

North Korea under Kim Jong-Il; Syria under Bashar al-Assad; Iraq under Saddam Hussein. We don’t exactly have total transparency in such regimes. They do one thing well: keep the rest of the world in the dark.

When we went into Iraq, we did so because we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein had possessed WMD in the past. He had repeatedly used it on his own people, in addition to Iran. And we knew that he was playing game after game with the U.N. inspectors.

An analogy might help here. During President Clinton’s administration, he had a state visit planned to Russia. Boris Yeltsin (who died a year ago today) had been ill, and was known to be in poor health, and there was a credible rumor that the man had recently died. It would have plainly been embarrassing had President Clinton made a state visit to see a man who was dead. So the White House contacted Russia, and demanded verification that Yeltsin was still alive. Yeltsin provided the verification, and the visit took place.

What President Bush did – in the hindsight of realizing that 9/11 would have been unimaginably worse had the terrorists possessed WMD – was demand that Saddam Hussein prove that he did not have any WMD. For whatever reason (possibly because he did not want his Arab neighbors to know he’d been defanged), Saddam refused. And so President Bush pulled the trigger and invaded.

And he’s been flat-out demonized for it by Democrats ever since.

Now, yesterday on Good Morning America, Senator Hillary Clinton followed up on a nearly identical statement made on 22 April 2008 on MSNBC’s Countdown the night before by saying,

“If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel what would our response be?” Clinton said. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. That’s what we will do. There is no safe haven.”

“Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Well, maybe Hillary Clinton is willing to make Israel a proxy in her game of “Nuclear Chicken” with Iran, but an important question is, Is she willing to play with the United States at stake?  Israel, for its part, has made it official policy to state, “We aren’t playing games when it comes to our survival.”

Are we willing to sacrifice several million people, or do you think we should be willing to attack a country pre-emptively if we believe they possess WMD and plan to attack us?

Interestingly, given the fact that terrorists or a nation-state would prefer a large metropolitan city as its target – and since large metropolitan cities are largely populated with people who vote Democrat – Democrats are at essentially saying, “We are willing to put our lives on the line rather than follow the Bush Doctrine of preemption. If millions of us – or even tens of millions of us – should die, it is a far better thing than that we attack someone who may not have the weapons we think they have.”

Well, good for you, I guess.

But please don’t naively believe that a Democratic administration is going to be able to do a better job of ascertaining the intentions of a totalitarian dictatorship or theocracy. Even if they didn’t oppose the Patriot Act, the NSA domestic surveillance of international calls, terrorist detaining facilities such as “Gitmo,” aggressive interrogation methods, and other protective measures that Democrats have loudly protested. We just don’t know what goes on behind the closed doors of secretive, paranoid regimes. They love their secret evil schemes.

Only a fool doesn’t think that the terrorists would love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and attack us with it. They would love nothing more than killing millions of Americans. We can know that.

Democrats are essentially saying, “Let’s pull out of Iraq and let terrorists have it. That way Iran will know we mean business.” “Let’s withdraw our troops from our commitment (remember the Iraq war resolution passed overwhelmingly in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate) to help Iraq become a stable government. That way, our allies will know that they can trust us to keep our promises.”

There’s a word my dad uses: Bullpuckey. Iran will not believe that Democrats who have screamed to get out of Iraq will be willing to go into Iran. And Sunni Arab states that will be fearful of a Shiite nuclear capability in the hands of Iran will not believe Democrats who are all for bailing out of Iraq will protect them. Under a Democratic administration, we will see a nuclear Iran, and we will see a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the planet. Guaranteed.

Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, according to our intelligence estimate. Many liberals used this information to cry that President Bush was wrong in his policies. But the question screams, WHY DID THEY STOP THEIR PROGRAM IN 2003? DID IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAD JUST ATTACKED IRAQ OVER ITS WMD PROGRAM IN 2003? A “yes” answer proves you have a clue.

Many European intelligence sources believe that Iran is hard at work again working on a nuclear ballistic missile delivery system, but it’s just so darned hard to know for sure.

What will the U.S. do in all the murkiness? Will Democrats act – and prove that they were totally full of “bullpuckey” throughout the Bush Administration? Or will they passively sit by and allow the most terrifying arms program in the history of the world to succeed because they couldn’t verify it until the mushroom cloud?

Who wants to play Nuclear Chicken with a theocratic Iran, or with the terrorists who could finally get their eager little paws on a nuke?

A President John McCain can assure the Iranians, “We attacked Iraq when we believed they represented a threat to us, and we will do the same to you. You seriously might want to rethink your plans.” A President John McCain can say to Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, “We have stood by Iraq even when it was difficult, and we will do the same for you. You don’t need those weapons; the United States will be there for you.”