posted August 09, 2006 08:37 PM            

In the radical leftist democrat party of today, not a word of dissent is permitted...even from a former Vice Presidential candidate and US Senator for the last 18 years.

Even though Joe Lieberman has voted with his party 90% of the time through the years, even thought he almost always votes against any Bush policy or bill...Joe is out.

Not only is Joe Lieberman out but the bloated, incoherent liar, Michael Moore is threatening every other democrat politician who doesn't toe the radical leftist agenda of the extremists democrats.

Typical of Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists and other collectivists, not a word of dissent is permitted...or else.

Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006 5:39 p.m. EDT
Michael Moore Threatens Democrats

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, following the Connecticut primary defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman, issued a direct threat to his fellow Democrats: Denounce the war in Iraq or you’ll get what Joe got.

In a letter to his Web site visitors, which served as fertilizer for blogs everywhere, Moore raged that Ned Lamont’s anti-war victory was the beginning of a revolution among liberals.

Writes Moore on his Web site: "Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.”

Moore referenced the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket – John Kerry and John Edwards – as two Democrats who voted for the war who have now "seen the light,” but because they "sided with Bush . . . may never enter the promised land.”

Moore saved his most pointed criticism for Sen. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic frontrunner for the presidency in 2008.

posted August 09, 2006 09:14 PM              

The Democrats as well as those who represent true Republican conservatism want change, Jwhop and you are going to find out just how much we want that change in government come Nov. .Joe Lieberman is an example of things to come for any Democrat who is in Bush's pocket and for all the Republicans running for congressional seats.

You Neo-Cons are way too extreme for most Americans.

Democratic voters just don't trust any Democrat that Bush hugs and smiles at. We know that Bush is anything but non-partisan. If you are a Democrat and Bush is nice to you then you are in Bush's pocket. We also know this from Liebermann's statements and his voting record. He is no moderate Democrat. He is definitely no liberal. He swings all the way to the extreme right in the Democratic party.

I think Joe Liebermann should just be honest and join the neo-cons instead of becoming an Independent because he has no chance of winning on that ticket either. At least not in his home state.

posted August 09, 2006 09:28 PM            

Some of you might remember Uncle Joe Stalin, communist dictator of the Soviet Union and one of the worst mass murders in the history of the world.

After Germany surrendered in WWII, General George Patton wanted to take US forces north and destroy Stalin's communist regime. Roosevelt wouldn't hear of it...neither would Ike. Too bad they didn't listen to Patton. A lot of lives would have been saved and a lot of trouble in the world too. Instead, we fought a cold war for most of the next 50 years.

And the radical extremists in the leftist democrat party annoint a nephew of the man who helped fund Stalin.

Bigfoot, Scoop Jackson Democrats and other myths
Posted: August 9, 2006
6:28 p.m. Eastern

Ann Coulter

I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!

As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Bigfoot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.

In yesterday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.

Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."

Rep. Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.

Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy – Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")

To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

posted August 09, 2006 09:35 PM              

Really, it just shows the true nature of you people.

posted August 09, 2006 11:26 PM            

When a party loyalist who was part of the presidential candidate team for the democrats is run out of the democrat party by the extremists, it's time for democrats and independent voters to wake up to who these people really are.

That's going to happen and Republicans are going to help that process along.

John McCain was never threatened with being tossed out of the Republican party because he disagreed on some policy issues. The Republican Party never backed a candidate to replace McCain in Arizona. So, your argument is bullsh*t, as usual.

The Swift Boat Veterans were not working for Bush, had no connection to Bush or to the Bush campaign. They were dead set against electing a traitor who wrote his own commendations and put himself in for medals for self inflicted and superficial wounds..not while engaging enemy forces. They also objected to the traitor Kerry running as a war hero...when he was no such thing.

The most radical elements in America are now in charge of the democrat party. As moveon. org says, the party belongs to them, they bought it...with the radical America haters money...George Soros.

I can understand your angst. We have the extremist radicals number...so does Ann Coulter. Expect to hear a lot more on this subject and the subject of the SurrenderCrats leading into the November elections.

posted August 10, 2006 03:07 AM              

Triumph Of The New Moral Center
Robert L. Borosage | August 9, 2006

Ned Lamont's stunning upset of incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary race on Tuesday sends shock waves through the dead sea of American politics.

Lamont did the impossible—this virtual unknown beat in his own party's primary an 18-year incumbent with universal name recognition, a $12 million campaign war chest and the support of Washington insiders, the punditry and the corporate lobbies.

His victory represents a growing voter revolt against the failed policies and politics of the Bush administration and its congressional enablers, particularly the debacle in Iraq. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman prided himself on being the president's leading Democratic ally in touting the war. After his defeat, Democrats will show more backbone in challenging the current disastrous course and more Republicans will look for ways to distance themselves from the president.

Lamont's victory was propelled by a rising tide of progressive energy—activists who are tired of losing elections to the right and disgusted with cautious politicians who duck and cover rather than stand and fight. Until a few weeks ago, Lieberman exemplified those Democrats who establish their "independence" by pushing off the causes of their own party and embracing the right's agenda. His voters didn't abandon him; he abandoned them long ago. After his defeat, incumbents in both parties may begin to listen more closely to their voters and less avidly to their donors.

Lamont's victory was fueled by a new generation coming into politics with a passion—and organizing over the Web. Over the past year, the Washington establishment has scorned them as extreme and mocked them for failing to win anything. After Tuesday, there will be no more "bring em on" challenges issued to the bloggers.

Most important, Lamont represents a new moral center in American politics—a challenge to the failed status quo and a demand for a new direction that a growing majority of Americans are searching for. Bring an end to the disastrous occupation in Iraq and bring the troops home with honor. Change priorities to invest in our schools, in universal pre-kindergarten, in modern infrastructure. Champion affordable national health care for all. These are not issues from the "edges of our politics," as Lieberman suggests, but ideas whose time has come.

Lieberman, in a classic sore-loser posture, refuses to accept the verdict of the voters. The man who spent the last weeks of his campaign boasting that he was a good Democrat now announces he'll form his own party and denounces partisan politics. The man who last week said he had gotten the message and would go to Washington to challenge the president's policies now says he'll go to Washington to make common cause with Republicans to "get things done."

But his brand of "getting things done" is exactly what Americans are turning against.

He joined with the president in championing the war in Iraq—got that done.

He joined with Republicans and corporate lobbies in passing corporate trade deals that have destroyed American manufacturing and undermined wages in America—got that done.

He joined with conservatives in championing the privatization of Social Security—at least he was blocked there.

He joined with CEOs in defending off the books, stock options that gave CEOs a multimillion-dollar personal incentive to cook the books and raid pension funds—got that done.

He doesn't get it. The problem isn't that things aren't getting done—the problem is that the things he was helped to produce are weakening this country abroad and undermining workers and middle-class families at home.

Lieberman's sore loser campaign will be well financed by the corporate lobbies he has served. Since he has no new ideas to offer, he'll run a nasty negative campaign of personal vilification against Lamont, trying to smear him before voters have a chance hear what Lamont has to say.

And that race will be a test for every Democratic leader. Will they come to support Lamont and the new energy, the new ideas, the new moral center that he represents? Or will they offer nominal support but stay away, refusing to challenge Lieberman's low-road campaign? Their reactions will be a true measure of who is ready to fight for a new direction for this country and who is not.

And those that don't stand and fight will be ousted when their election bids come up. Because the working class people of this country- the majority of voters - don't want professional politicians who sell their votes for money and perks. We want representatives who will fight for the Constitution and for their constituents over the lobbyists and corporate backers. We want representatives who listen to our needs and follow through on them. After all, that is what they are, representatives that we elect to do just that. They either will or they are gone. This is the message we are sending them all. We are fed up with the rubber stamping in Congress and the House. We also want representatives who put the Constitution before anything else and who will go after Bush and Cheney and hold them accountable. Get a clue. It isn't the Democratic Party as much as it is the voice of the people being heard. We will be heard. That is what democracy is all about.

posted August 10, 2006 11:37 AM            

Commies only represent themselves, they don't represent America.

These aholes just made an enemy and they made an enemy who is going to be reelected to his same Senate seat...by the will of the people of Connecticut in November.

Expect to see George Soros, Michael Moore, moveon, dailykos and the rest of the kooky commies play important roles in tv ads all over the country in the next few months...Republican TV ads.

There isn't one of those aholes who the people would elect, respect or even listen to if they knew who and what the hell they are. People are going to find out in the coming months. They and their candidates are going to be outed as the extremists they are and tied to the tails of the extremist democrat party.

posted August 10, 2006 12:41 PM            

Surely, one of the finest times for the leftist radicals in the democrat party.

History repeats but leftists aren't capable of learning from it.

Decent Men Need Not Apply for Democratic Party
Michael Reagan
Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006

The message was loud and clear: there is no longer any room for the likes of Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Party.

Forgotten were Lieberman's decades of service to his party, his vice presidential candidacy in 2000, his years of loyally voting for his party's liberal measures in the U.S. Senate and his incredible decency. All that counted in this week's Connecticut primary was his support of the war in Iraq and his refusal to go along with the cowardly cut-and-run group that has taken over his party.

In their eyes this was the unforgivable sin, and for committing it he earned the scorn of the left-wing crazies who have managed to take control of the party of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and John F. Kennedy. He simply had to go.

I may disagree with many of his liberal political positions but I bow to no one in recognizing the undeniable fact that he is that rarest of all politicians – a decent, honest, deeply religious man whose word could always be trusted.

In a sane political party those qualities alone would earn him the loyalty, support and respect of his fellow Democrats, but in the party of Howard Dean, Michael Moore, George Soros and MoveOn.org those qualities don't matter. In that party, decent men and women need no longer apply.

There has been much talk and all kinds of proof that a crazed, well-financed segment of the Democratic Party had taken control; what happened in Connecticut Tuesday showed it to be a fact. From this point forward, only those willing to sign on to the hate-America Stalinist policies of the party's now-dominant left wing will survive.

The rest will follow Joe Lieberman into the new Gulag reserved for those Democrats who refuse to bow their knees to the reigning monarchs of the extreme left and insist on putting principle above party.

I trust that most of my fellow Americans are as shocked as I am over this turn of events. There is no longer a rational dialogue between the two major parties, or even within the Democratic Party itself. The deranged babbling of the Soros-MoveOn.org loonies is now the only language spoken.

This is a disaster for the Democrats. It has converted what was a legitimate - if frequently wrong - political party where seemingly rational political policies were advanced, into a cabal of unhinged ideologues where no dissent is permitted.

It could also be a disaster for the nation should the loonies of the Democratic left prevail in the fall elections. To begin with, we would quickly witness a replay of Vietnam – a war we won on the battlefield but lost in the halls of Congress which, while claiming to support our troops, slashed the military budget to the bone, de-funding the war.

The end result was the creation of a communist regime in Saigon, and the imprisonment and death of a million Vietnamese – a nation condemned to slavery under the brutal Hanoi dictatorship.

If the crazies gain power on Capitol Hill we can expect to see their cut-and-run policies put into play by the simple expedient of choking off the finances required to fight the war. With our troops withdrawn, we could expect to see Iraq and the entire region descend into chaos, depriving us of our vital Mideastern oil supply lifeline.

Moreover, should we flee from our solemn commitment to help pacify Iraq and secure for the Iraqi people a stable democracy, what other nation would be able to trust us to keep our promises? Taiwan would see itself as defenseless and Japan would be forced to go nuclear to defend itself. The message would be loud and clear to all – Uncle Sam is not a trustworthy ally.

The left has already made it clear that they plan to harass the president and start impeachment proceedings in the middle of a war, no less. They make it plain they will increase taxes and cripple the economy, and return to their cherished goal of imposing a socialist system on the American people.

posted August 10, 2006 12:59 PM            

I heard that the primary turnout was only 20% of registered Democrats, which means that Ned Lamont won the primary with essentially just over 10% of the Dem vote. That leaves another 80% of the Dem vote up for grabs.

posted August 10, 2006 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

The Republican response Wednesday was highly coordinated, tightly matching a set of GOP talking points distributed to activists and strategists. The effort also paralleled an internal strategy memo, first reported by the Los Angeles Times, that laid out the party's intent to mobilize its base for the election by highlighting Bush's actions in Iraq and the notion that Democrats were weak in their approach to "foreign threats." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess10aug10,0,2825316.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

---

posted August 11, 2006 12:07 PM            

Many are acting surprised at the Democratic Party's readiness to throw Lieberman overboard. They shouldn't be.

Lieberman's 90 percent liberal voting record isn't good enough for the monomaniacal antiwar fringe. Complete obedience is required. No belligerence toward terrorists can be tolerated; all venom must be reserved for President Bush and the neoconservative cabal.

While Joe Lieberman was good enough in 2000 to join Al Gore on the national ticket, he probably wouldn't even be allowed in Jimmy Carter's prestigious box at a Democratic National Convention today, unlike the rabid Michael Moore, who has rooted for the terrorist insurgents against American troops in Iraq.

No matter how loyal Lieberman has been to the party, he violated the cardinal rule against showing civility to President Bush. Worse, he supported him on the War on Terror, Iraq Theater - a truly unforgivable sin. Didn't he realize that all interests, including America's national interests, must be subordinated to the overarching agenda of hating and demonizing President Bush? Well, he'll realize it now. Or will he?

While Republicans are falling all over themselves praising Lieberman, they, too, should be careful not to turn into single-issue advocates. While Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq against the oppressive Democratic tide has been admirable, let's not forget just how liberal he is on almost all other issues, from taxes and abortion to guns and Kyoto.

Nor should we overlook how Lieberman was virtually forced to behave as the election approached to ensure a respectable showing against his anti-Bush primary rival. He made clear he was no Bush-lover and certainly no conservative.

In a speech at the East Haven Community Center two days before the election, he couched his remarks in terms chosen to clarify - above all - that he was no Bush lapdog. He "opposed the Bush ban on stem cell research." He opposed the "Bush constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He "opposed the Bush bankruptcy bill" and "the president's efforts to undermine affirmative action." He "stood with my fellow Democrats to oppose George Bush's plan to privatize Social Security."

Let's not lose our heads and pretend Lieberman's a conservative - such as with the Weekly Standard's toying with the idea of his running as a vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket in 2008. There are plenty of national security hawks on the Republican side who are also conservative on economic and social issues.

I respect Lieberman for doing the right thing on national security, but his post-election posturing shows how even honorable Democratic politicians are willing to pander in a desperate effort to avoid permanent ostracism by liberals.

Let's keep our eyes on the big ball. This isn't about Lieberman, but the Democrats' steadfast refusal to support the good guys against the bad guys in the War on Terror and their excommunication of anyone in their ranks who dares to buck their thought police.

While Republicans are pointing to the Democrats' purging of Lieberman as proof they've marginalized themselves as the party of Cindy Sheehan, Democratic operatives and leaders are boasting about the development and what it portends for 2006 and 2008.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says he is more confident than before Lieberman's defeat that Democrats can recapture control of the Senate. Sen. Chuck Schumer joined read in saying, "The results bode well for Democratic victories in November." Sen. Kennedy called the election a "clarion call for change."

But these Democrats, perhaps unwittingly, are just reinforcing what we've been saying about them: They have no constructive solutions and no policy agenda other than to oppose and trash President Bush and "his war." Reid and Schumer admitted as much when they essentially dismissed Lamont's role in the election, saying it was "a referendum on the president more than anything else."

Liberal Slate magazine confirmed this Democratic mindset in an article following the July debate between Lieberman and Lamont by conceding that "Lamont is less a candidate than he is a conduit" for the expression of displeasure against Lieberman for supporting Bush on the war.

posted August 12, 2006 03:31 PM            

Who they represent and what they are..which is communists hiding behind the cover name "Progressive" is also becoming more widely known and will be more well known by the November elections.

The extremists have captured the democrat party and extremists don't win elections...as Ned Lamont is going to find out when real democrats, independents and some Republicans vote for Joe Lieberman in November.

Of course, there is now a campaign by other leftists to talk Lieberman out of running against their radical "Progressive" candidate. That's not going to happen so Dean, Hillary, Dodd, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Leahy and other radical leftists may as well save their breath.

Lieberman thought these leftists were his friends but with friends like the extremists on the far left fringe, one doesn't need any enemies.

The "Progressives" at moveon, dailykos, democrat underground, George Soros and the rest of the crazies may terrorize democrats, but then, democrats have already proved they are too cowardly to even defend their own country and our allies.

The rest of us are not in the least cowed by this new repository of the old Communist Party USA members who now hide behind the word "Progressives".

Communist carries with it such a stench...call it the stench from the rotting corpses of 200,000,000 people murdered by communists in the 20th Century. Changing their name to "Progressives" isn't going to remove that stench.

One can call a "sewer" a "perfume factory" but it still stinks just like the sewer it is.

Two Kinds of Terror
Lowell Ponte
Saturday, Aug. 12, 2006

On Tuesday, America's Left toppled one of the senior Democrats in the U.S. Senate, sending a message of intimidation to that party's moderates. On Thursday British authorities moved to pre-emptively thwart terrorist plans to bomb 10 or more U.S. airliners flying in American airspace.

Both actions involved radical activists who use fear to gain their objectives. And their parallel objectives include getting the United States out of the War against Terrorism by ousting the political leaders waging this war for America's survival.

As details emerge about those planning to bring down American airliners, it has been reported that at least some of the plotters were Muslims of Pakistani or Khasmiri ancestry and had been in contact with 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden's group, al-Qaida, while visiting Pakistan.

On Thursday, one of those they aim to bring down, President George W. Bush, described these would-be bombers as "Islamist fascists." Like the similar term "Islamists," this described megalomaniac zealots who have twisted the religion of Islam into a political ideology bent on forcing the submission (the Arabic word "Islam") by fire and sword of every non-believer and imposing a planet-wide Muslim theocratic dictatorship under one ruler, the Caliph. Bin Laden, too, has declared that his goal is to help impose a global Caliphate.

The radical Left, like its Islamist counterparts, also wants to bring down decadent Western culture, undermine the capitalist United States, and impose its own fanatical utopian ideology on all human beings.

Promoting this Leftist revolution is a collection of activist groups such as MoveOn.org and radical billionaires such as George Soros. Their wealth and organizing skills have taken backstage control of the Democratic Party. David Horowitz and Richard Poe describe this far-Left takeover of one of America's two ruling parties in their splendid new book, "The Shadow Party" (Nelson Current Publishing).

These radicals seized a pinnacle of power on Tuesday by beating three-term Democratic Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate only six years ago.

Today the Democratic Party has been pulled so far to the extreme Left that almost none of its officeholders objected when a wealthy Shadow Party activist challenged the pro-War on Terrorism Lieberman in this month's Democratic primary election. Instead, Democratic politicians (frightened and cowed by the Left's growing power and vengefulness) and the liberal media criticized Sen. Lieberman for saying he would seek re-election this November even if the Left's money from outside Connecticut generated enough primary votes to beat him.

The Shadow Party candidate against Lieberman was wealthy cable television entrepreneur Ned Lamont.

The mainstream media have portrayed Lamont as a businessman, centrist, and patriot who merely wants to bring American troops home from Iraq. The media have kept remarkably quiet about Lamont's pedigree as a red diaper baby of the far Left. There's a reason Lamont is sometimes called "Red Ned."

This new Democratic Senate candidate, endorsed and embraced by his party's leaders, is the grandson of famed socialist Corliss Lamont, author of "humanist" books, who from 1932 until 1954 was director of the ACLU.

Corliss Lamont in 1953 wrote a booklet titled "Why I Am Not a Communist," apparently to answer questions that many were asking. The question arose because he headed the Communist front group the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, which, like the ACLU, moved heaven and earth to protect Communists and undermine those fighting against Communists.

Lamont was, in the vernacular of the time, a "fellow traveler," a leader in the "popular front" against capitalism and the United States during the Cold War.

He was also a key figure in the organization Friends of the Soviet Union and chairman of its renamed spinoff, the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. In 1946 he was charged with contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena to turn over the latter group's records to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

Corliss Lamont denied being a Communist, but like many so-called "liberals" and "progressives" he was above all else an Anti-Anti-Communist. And as grammarians of the English language know, a double negative is essentially a positive.

Corliss Lamont's father became chairman of J.P. Morgan & Co. Young Corliss graduated from elite Phillips Exeter Academy and was the roommate of Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopian novel "Brave New World") during his years at Oxford University.

Corliss Lamont used his family wealth to promote and advertise on behalf of the Stalinist CPUSA (**Communist Party USA)and assorted Communist front groups, for which he was a "financial angel."

Corliss Lamont taught at Harvard and the liberal New School for Social Research in New York City. Columbia University named a Chair after him in its Humanities Department – but what is humanist or liberal about defending Stalinism, as Lamont did?

Such is the lineage, genetic and intellectual, of Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Connecticut Ned Lamont. His narrow victory suggests just how extreme this political party has become – and that the Nutmeg doesn't fall far from the family tree in the Nutmeg State.

Ned Lamont's grandfather called himself a socialist, not a Communist, but his every effort was directed at destroying those who opposed Communism.

Lamont, likewise, today claims to oppose terrorism, but his and his comrades' entire effort is aimed at politically intimidating and defeating those who are waging the War against Terrorism. But less than 48 hours after Lamont's Connecticut victory jerked the Democratic Party far to the Left came the sobering news of a terrorist plot that would have recreated the terrorist horrors and deaths of 9/11 on the 16th of August, 2006.

Corliss Lamont's sick dream of a socialist future suffered a nearly fatal setback with the collapse of the Soviet Union. For radical Shadow Party supporters of Ned Lamont, the residue of that dream survives in the Left's hatred for America and the hope that radical Islamism can blow up the Statue of Liberty and put Francis Fukuyama's triumphant liberal capitalist "End of History" up for grabs again.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/11/162119.shtml

posted August 13, 2006 06:18 AM              

I was raised an old fashioned democrat-remember those?
They use to be the voice of the people, they actually carried the heartland in my Mom's youth.
I'm an independent today because of the far left extremest that have such control over the D-party.
Hmmm if only there was a people's party- I wouldn't have any doubts about casting my vote in the next election- I think John F. Kennedy was the last "real" president we voted in, and the sad part is I wasn't born until a decade later.

posted August 13, 2006 03:18 PM            

Not many "real Democrat" politicians left and not many left in the democrat party of the far radical left. Most, like you have become Independents or Republicans.

When you say John Kennedy was the last "real" President we voted in...I'm going to assume you mean "real Democrat" President.

posted August 13, 2006 03:40 PM            

As I write, I can hear from my kitchen the media blare about the “plotters” arrested in London. Let's try not to forget that we have our own half-mad plotters – with names like Cheney, Hadley, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Abramsa – and that it is thanks to their peculiar madness (and blindness) that we now live in a far more dangerous world than we would be living had we faced the future with intelligence and candor following 9/11 – Peter Laarman, on The Huffington Post.

The day an international operation stopped terrorists from carrying out an attack that experts agree “could even have been bigger” than 9/11, the Left has responded with baseless conspiracy theories. Mr. Laarman’s comrade at The Huffington Post, Sheldon Drobny, greeted Michael Chertoff’s announcement by asking:

Is anybody in the MSM [mainstream media] going to look into the details of this news story or are they just going to parrot back to the public official releases from the U.S. and UK governments? We all know that there are hundreds of unanswered questions about 9/11 that the MSN has ignored. Who is going to protect the public from the dissemination of false government announcements that terrorize their citizens to their advantage. The only winners in the game of the politics of fear are the governments of the UK and U.S.” [Punctuation, abbreviation, and paranoia his; emphasis mine.]

***Note, now I know where Mirandee gets her talking points...this is exactly the talking point Mirandee introduced on this forum concerning the British airplane bomber wannabes.

The details are that a cell of British-born Islamic fascists plotted to simultaneously detonate peroxide-based TATP explosive devices on more than 10 U.S.-bound international flights. Two of the suspects had traveled to Pakistan to meet with an al-Qaeda operative, who later wired them money. An intensive U.S.-UK-Pakistani investigation that began last December foiled the plan, which could have been carried out “within days.” One of the 24 “alleged” terrorists was a “Muslim charity worker”; another worked at Heathrow, and at least two left “martyrdom tapes” behind them. British Home Secretary John Reid said, “police are confident that the main players are accounted for,” but acknowledges at least five members are still on the loose from a cell that may number 50 people.

The Paranoid Left is deviled by these details: Every disclosure about yesterday’s thwarted attack renders the Left’s homeland security platform as discredited as their conspiracies.

NSA Wiretaps. When the New York Times revealed the NSA “domestic spying” program, Howard Dean responded:

Americans need a president who will keep them safe and enforce the law. We don't need a Big Brother.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of “legal scholars” whether the move was impeachable.

Yesterday, we learned although Scotland Yard is getting all the praise, American wireless surveillance played a key role in stopping this terrorist catastrophe. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times (perhaps the best national security reporter alive) reveals, “U.S. officials publicly congratulated Britain for the arrest, but privately two officials suggested that electronic surveillance of terror suspects in Pakistan and Britain provided the initial clues to the plot.” Time magazine verifies, “MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.” Fox News has reported these were phone calls intercepted from American targets speaking to al-Qaeda operatives, without a “dry run” would have preceded a blood-drenched assault.

“Sneak-and-Peek.” Last December, Sen. Russ Feingold, a Democratic senator favored by his party’s left-wing base in the 2008 presidential primaries, declared from the Senate floor:

Let me make one final point about sneak and peek warrants. Don’t be fooled for a minute into believing that this power is needed to investigate terrorism or espionage. It’s not.

Sneak and peak is the radical notion the government should not notify terrorists they are being investigated, a common sense practice invaluable in preventing flight and the destruction of evidence. Despite its value, it remains a seldom-used provision. Seven months before Feingold’s whopper, Rep. Howard Coble, R-NC, denounced “alarmist rhetoric,” setting the record straight: “only 61 out of 32,000 are delayed-notice warrants.”

As it turns out, this specific technique allowed British agents to track the plotters’ every move. British official Peter Clarke told the press yesterday, “During this investigation an unprecedented level of surveillance has been undertaken…not only between agencies and police forces in the UK but also internationally.”

The Daily Kos posts, with no sense of irony, “the British are a hell of a lot more competent in wrapping potential terrorism up than we seem to be, and that the British have accomplished this via normal law enforcement techniques coupled with apparently excellent human and signals intelligence.” Meanwhile, a representative of the Legal Left told Bill O’Reilly last night Great Britain was on track to become “a police state” for denying an enemy’s forward army constitutional protections (which England does not have) during a time of war.:rolleyes?

Leaks. As a result of the illegal NSA wiretapping leak, Senate Democrats – who were coincidentally debating the Patriot Act at the time – filibustered, allowing Minority Leader Harry Reid to crow, “We killed the Patriot Act.”

That January, James Risen – who had printed the story over the objections of the Bush administration – told Katie Couric the criminals who had helped him undermine national security were “people who came forward in order to tell the American people the truth as they saw it, and I think they were truly American patriots.”

The litany of press leaks disclosed the existence of classified “secret prisons” and that specific allies practiced “rendition” – possibly causing the terrorist strike on Jordan, one of the countries named, one week to the day after Dana Priest’s story. Risen followed one month later; additional details about how the government follows a terrorist’s money trail followed this summer – all hailed by the Left as the work of valiant “whistleblowers.”

Now, the Financial Times reports British detectives “followed the young Muslim men’s movements in London and other parts of the UK, listened into their meetings and monitored their spending.”

Perhaps it was with these activities in mind that President Bush responded to the June financial leaks by saying, “We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm.”

Both President Bush and Tony Blair emphasized the need for a responsible press yesterday. Trust the media not to tarry in disappointing them.

We’re Losing in Pakistan. The Left has insisted al-Qaeda is on the verge of reclaiming Afghanistan and take failure in Pakistan as a fait accompli. Indeed, some write that we brought it on ourselves.

It was Pakistan that arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We now learn Pakistan cooperated in the international investigation that led to yesterday’s arrests, arresting two or three Pakistani citizens in the process. In a purportedly unrelated move, it also placed Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, the “former” head of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, under a month-long house arrest shortly before he to stir up Islamist unrest. (Saeed is the group’s “former” head, because Pakistan has banned the organization and it no longer officially exists.)

The arrests, in Lahore and Karachi, were released only on condition of anonymity; Islamabad, too, has to deal with unauthorized leaks.

Racial Profiling? Although the Left insists profiling is neither justified nor helpful, yesterday’s arrests reinforce a familiar pattern. All those arrested were British-born Muslims from one of the two countries Osama bin Laden now most likely calls home. Time again: “Most of the suspects are second or third generation British citizens of Pakistani descent whose families hailed from war-torn Kashmir.” The Bank of England has frozen the assets of 19 people, all Muslims between the ages of 17 and 35.

This recalls the fact that three of the four 7/7 plotters were British-born Muslims “of Pakistani origin” (or “Asians,” as the Brits say).

On the nether side of the pond, two 20-year-old American-born Muslims from Dearborn, Michigan, were arrested in Marietta, Ohio, with a collection of cell phones – the sort that could have been used to detonate explosives like the ones involved in the London cell’s plan. They also carried thousands of dollars, detailed information about flight plans – including a passenger list – and a roadmap to Wal-Marts, where they could buy more phones. (Incredibly, bond was granted, at $200,000, for these potential terror assets.)

Still, the far-Left Mother Jones magazine does not recognize the importance of banning terror-friendly technologies from planes. On Thursday, its blog derided “wristwatch profiling” and banning iPods. (The blog also quotes a Washington Post reporter’s claim that Israel is allowing Hezbollah to attack, so it can pound Lebanon, adding: “Hmm, using terror attacks to justify drastic military action that also serves other strategic objectives. Rings a bell somehow.”)

Iraq is a Distraction. The Left instantly latched onto a potential tragedy to discredit the commander-in-chief and his ongoing war. Again, the DailyKos:

Once again, the astonishingly incompetent notion of “fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here” has been shown to be nothing but ideologically-backed neoconservative bungling of the highest order. A dangerous and blood-soaked farce that has gained nothing except expanded territories in which terrorism can flourish, and has not made the nation safer.

***Note, I guess someone should tell the brain dead morons at dailykos that there haven't been any further "successful" attacks on the United States and this one was thwarted..."over there".

Had the United States treated the 9/11 hijackings as George Soros advised, prosecuting them as “crimes against humanity,” the Taliban would assure that Afghanistan and Pakistan remained “territories in which terrorism can flourish.” Instead, we…fought them over there so we didn’t have to fight them over here.

And we did the same in Iraq, where Ansar al-Islam freely operated. In the process, America’s fighting forces killed al-Zarqawi. They captured universally acknowledged al-Qaeda leader Hasan Guhl, “The Gatekeeper,” as he crossed into Iraq via Iran, and nabbed numerous other Afghan-based members of al-Qaeda – not that nationality matters to Islamic terrorists. (Witness the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden.) The war in Iraq has killed regional jihadists from all backgrounds, not least the “original franchise” of al-Qaeda, which the Bush War has rendered ineffective.

Islamofascism. In reporting the stymied jihad, true to form, the New York Times blamed…the United States of America. In its front page story, reporters *** editorialists Alan Cowell and Dexter Filkins assert:

This is the latest in a series of conspiracies apparently rooted in the disaffection of young, British-born Muslims, many of Pakistani descent, who cast themselves as part of a jihadist struggle against Britain, which they see as an outrider of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon.

The next paragraph inconveniently confess:

It also mimicked a failed plot in the Philippines in 1995 financed by Osama bin Laden to blow up airplanes over the Pacific. That ended when the chemicals exploded at an apartment in Manila. (Emphasis added.)

That places similar activity six years before American involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. (And Lebanon, sirs?)

President Bush was right in saying the United States is at war with “Islamic fascists” – a subtle but significant rhetorical pivot from the term “Islamists.” In response, Daily Kos responded:

This statement – an echoing of the transparently phony “Islamic fascism” branding used and pushed by every significant racist and hate group in America – is truly terrifying, because it demonstrates that five years into the fight against international terrorism, George Bush still has no fundamental idea about the basic nature of the issues involved. (Emphasis his.)

Actually, “every significant racist and hate group in America” is in league with the Islamic fascists, as their forebears were during WWII.

Thursday’s London jihad proves two things: Radical Islam is a worldwide threat, even among third and fourth-generation Muslims – as previous activities demonstrated it is a threat among converts. Until Islam displaces this fundamentalist interpretation from its current position of prominence, the enemy within will never be defeated.

Secondly, the president is on the right course. The attack on 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum: it followed unpunished terrorist strikes in the World Trade Center, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tanzania, and Yemen – and a disgraceful exit from Somalia. In terror as in business, nothing succeeds like success. Osama has throngs of willing executioners, not because America is killing terrorists but because the Clinton administration’s limp-wristed, law-and-order approach to terrorism convinced the Muslim world fomenting anti-American jihad would be painless.

It’s clear one side has “no fundamental idea” about the issues involved when a group of Islamic theocrats determine to kill innocent civilians for the greater glory of Allah. Yesterday’s planned “murder on an unprecedented scale” demonstrates why the clueless can never be entrusted with our national security.