posted August 23, 2006 10:14 PM            

This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.

To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror – absolutely in favor of that war – they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.

As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."

This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.

Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.

Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.

They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!

Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's MySpace page!)

Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.

Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.

The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember – the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.

But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music – more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)

Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.

Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.

The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" – a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry – the man they wanted to be president – called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.

They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.

posted August 24, 2006 02:02 PM            

Politics end at the water's edge...especially in times of war but these morons are warming the hearts of America's enemies with their outrageous lying statements and actions.

The key to being an opposition party...in America is to be the LOYAL OPPOSITION. By no stretch of the imagination, by no tortured twisting of definitions could these brain dead moron leftists be considered LOYAL..to the United States.

posted August 24, 2006 03:35 PM            

I know that given any opposition you might be inclined to say that you qualified it by saying, "Radical leftists," but we know that to you think all people from the left are radical.

It is in no way illegal to have and voice an opinion on govermental affairs including military actions. Our President is not a dictator with absolute power. As such it is quite natural that people would oppose him when he behaves according to morals that are in opposition to the people's. People who want our government to behave more honorably should not be demonized by their fellow Americans. THAT is disloyal and dishonorable.

posted August 24, 2006 03:36 PM              

But mind you, many left wingnuts, in so many words, say that they don't believe in America, and passionately assert that as an American, it's their God-given right to say so.

It's like the toaster insisting on it's right to not believe in electricity lol...

posted August 24, 2006 03:39 PM            

quote:

---

It's like the toaster insisting on it's right to not believe in electricity lol...

---

posted August 24, 2006 04:30 PM            

I disagree that Americans, most of whom have lived here their whole lives, are anti-American. That is the kind of thing Republicans are trying to get people to believe. To me, it's really unfortunate that we've reached this point as a nation.

I suggest at least looking into the language of the Right to see how they are waging this war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1840475,00.html http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/258 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5536444

posted August 24, 2006 05:47 PM            

Acoustic,

I have to disagree with that point whole-heartedly. There are a fair number of American's that are not just voicing their distaste or opinions against the Conservatives, they are truly ANTI-AMERICAN.

Just surf the net and you will find tons of websites like the one I am going to post of Americans that absolutely hate our Country.

Why I Hate "America"

by Ian Antius

I hate America and Americans. More to the point, I hate the use of those terms in reference to this country and its citizens. Calling this country "America" and those of us living in it "Americans" smacks of the most vile and despicable arrogance possible and a self-centeredness that is an underlying cause of the hatred that many of the people of the world have against this country. Bush's pathetic attempt to ascribe it to hatred of our way of life: is, in a way, true. It is not our freedoms-and-fancy-cars way of life but rather our invading, bombing and killing way of life that is the problem.

But back to America.

America is not one country but two continents, 39 countries and 850 million people. Yet the term has been usurped by this country in a way that exemplifies its treatment not only of the people of North and South America (look at our relationships with Canada and Mexico, for example) but of the world at large. The term's use betrays arrogance and a ruthless attitude that demands and extracts special privileges enforced through the use of brute military power to acquire and control the world's resources.

The term betrays an attitude that has rightly been labeled "the Ugly American." It is an attitude that began with the birth of this country as the first white settlers claimed manifest destiny as the basis for slaughtering the native peoples and stealing their lands. It is an attitude that justified kidnapping Africans from their homes and treating them as slaves to be bought and traded as personal property. It is an attitude that grew with the expansion of capitalism beyond these borders as country after country was invaded and their people were subjugated, slaughtered, or starved (the new fad). It is an attitude that says that all is fair in the pursuit of profit, especially when one has the military might to make it so.

This is what "America" means and it does not speak well for the future "America" as envisioned by Bush and Co. That vision includes never-ending war against the people of the world under the guise of fighting terrorism. As a veteran of the U.S. military, I find it very hypocritical for the U.S. to claim to be fighting terror. Smedley Butler said in 1933:

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service ... and during that period I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

The Bush and Company's vision constitutes a future where freedom and civil rights are ground under the boot heel of Homeland Security. It is a future where critical thought and any criticism of the government are labeled traitorous and where patriotism is mindless allegiance to a flag and the nations "leaders." It is a future in which country after country and people after people are subsumed to the capital interests of the U.S. and in which the United States military machine reigns supreme, meting out its own brand of justice to those who refuse to go along.

It is a future that holds no future for the people of the world.
http://www.vvawai.org/sw/sw46/why.html

Here is another list of Anti-American crap from Uni professors (oh yes, and a mention of the book "Harvard Hates America).

Here's a typical sampling of opinion:

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and far-left luminary, insists that President Bush and his advisers oppose Saddam not because of his many crimes or his reach for nuclear weapons. "We all know . . . what they're aiming at," Chomsky said in a recent interview, "Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world."

Jim Rego, visiting assistant professor of chemistry at Swarthmore College, stated at a panel discussion that, even after Sept. 11, the U.S. government is merely manufacturing another enemy "to have an identity." Rego explained his thinking with an elegance characteristic of the Left: "I think we've run out of people's butts to kick and that we essentially want to keep the butt-kicking going."

Eric Foner, professor of 19-century American history at Columbia University, states that a preemptive war against Iraq "takes us back to the notion of the rule of the jungle" and deems this "exactly the same argument" the Japanese used to justify the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Glenda Gilmore, an assistant professor of history of the American South at Yale University, tells her school paper that confrontation with Iraq represents a plot to expand American power. It is nothing less, she asserts, than "the first step in Bush's plan to transform our country into an aggressor nation that cannot tolerate opposition." She concludes by quoting the wisdom of a cartoon character: "We have met the enemy, and it is us."

Mazin Qumsiyeh, associate professor of genetics at Yale University and co-founder of "Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition," wrote in a Connecticut newspaper that "if Saddam Hussein is a dictator, [Washington] created him." He concludes that a U.S. war against Iraq would be just a diversion created by "Israeli apologists and [U.S.] government officials" who share a "tribal affiliation" (in other words, are Jewish). The only purpose of war would be to provide cover for Israel to commit what he calls "even higher atrocities" against Palestinians by removing them from the West Bank and Gaza.

Tom Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University, proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States during a recent (illegal) trip to Iraq. Specifically, he offered "estimates of the number of civilians needed to act as a human shield to protect infrastructure and buildings for Iraqi citizens."

These views are unfortunately routine for the U.S. academy, which for some decades has been the major American institution most alienated from the rest of the country. As a 1978 bestseller memorably put it, "Harvard Hates America."

Of course, professors have every right to express their opinions, however cranky and mistaken. Yet the relentless opposition to their own government raises some questions:

Why do American academics so often despise their own country while finding excuses for repressive and dangerous regimes?
Why have university specialists proven so inept at understanding the great contemporary issues of war and peace, starting with Vietnam, then the Cold War, the Kuwait war and now the War on Terror?
Why do professors of linguistics, chemistry, American history, genetics and business present themselves in public as authorities on the Middle East?
What is the long-term effect of an extremist, intolerant and anti-American environment on university students?
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/923

They try to say it has everything to do with Bush and Iraq, but if you go through their extensive background you will find they have always hated America, our business, capitalism and our ability to be resilient even if the face of attack.

It is not that WE Republicans call anyone that differs with us Anti-American, but when people call for the death of President Bush, demand we stop our Capitalistic system and so forth- they are against America and what we stand for. Last time I check the word "Anti" meant against.

"A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice."

~Pidaua

posted August 24, 2006 06:58 PM            

"It is a future where critical thought and any criticism of the government are labeled traitorous and where patriotism is mindless allegiance to a flag and the nations "leaders." It is a future in which country after country and people after people are subsumed to the capital interests of the U.S. and in which the United States military machine reigns supreme, meting out its own brand of justice to those who refuse to go along."

In the first part of that paragraph he laments Republican's use of these terms to define any opposition from within the country. He is right to do so. This is his country as well, and he shouldn't be labeled as traitorous for disagreeing with our nation's leaders. Do you think he was out calling Republicans traitors when they'd say something bad about Clinton?

The second part is valid as well. America has never been empirialistic in the past, and he laments that it appears to him that it now is. He doesn't want our country to be a bully, or be perceived as a bully. It would be one thing if those were unwarranted fears, but the evidence is out there to suggest that more people in the world hate the U.S. now than did before. When that's the kind of scenario your President puts you in, it's kind of pathetic.
____________________________________________

The rest of the professor's individual opinions aren't necessarily off the mark. You have to be able to see more than one side of an issue, though, to acknowledge that.

Noam points out Iraq's oil reserves. They're actually the third largest reserves. Is that completely out of the question? The U.S. has a demand, and Iraq has a supply. Republicans are heavily linked to the industry, and reject notions of global warming. It's not a difficult stretch to make that kind of argument.

Jim Rego's point isn't explained well enough to defend, but what's his perception? His perception is that we're becoming a world bully. People don't like bullies.

Eric Foner's point is one on preemptive war. That's not something America's engaged in in the past, so he's saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." He doesn't seem to want us straying from our roots. Is that un-American? It's certainly not anti-American.

Glenda Gilmore's thesis on the U.S.'s desire to grab power in the middle east isn't far fetched either. That region has been unstable for ages, and having a presence there has been a priority for quite awhile. Her comment about Bush's transforming us into an aggressor is a valid one. What were Democrats seeking from Bush prior to the war? More work on diplomacy. It's only NOW that Bush is coming around on this idea. If she's anti-American, then Bush must be as well, because he now takes similar stances on Iran and North Korea. He's come to realize that shooting first and asking questions later doesn't work too well, and he's expressed regret at acting like such a cowboy prior to Iraq.
If an enemy is someone who works against your self-interest, then her point about the enemy being ourselves (as represented through Bush) [at very least] may be correct. We don't know how many more people love us in the world versus how many more don't like us since Bush has been in power. What we do know is that Bush could have pursued this war in a less cavalier style, and maintained more of the goodwill traditionally bestowed upon us.

Mazin Qumsiyeh made points we've seen here in this forum ourselves. I don't think Petron is anti-American even though he's suggested the same about having created Saddam. Being anti-Israel doesn't correlate to being Anti-American to me, and his thoughts about Israel being a bully are justified in lots of people's minds.

Tom Nagy is anti-American because he helped Iraqi citizens? Wasn't that like the 5th justification for going to war in the first place - to help the civilians?
____________________________________________

posted August 24, 2006 07:51 PM            

_______________________-

So an Anti-American has to wage war before they are called an Anti-American? It is one thing to voice an opinion, but when you encourage people to hate the Country they call "Home", when you tell them to rise up against our system of equality, our principles.. guess what - You're ANTI-AMERICAN.

Do I need to post the definition of "anti" for you again?

You climb a slippery slope when you hide behind the sentiment that "They are just showing their true American colors by questioning and damning all that is American - because they have freedom of speech"

Putting the Country down and stating "I am embarrassed to be an American and I hate this Country" is ANTI-American.

Stating you want Mexico to take back the land we purchased is ANTI-American (where do you put the displaced American's that used to live in that land?)

Stating you want to see the President dead is Anti-American. If someone from France made those same comments they would be ANTI-American.

LOL... You see only what you want to see and make up your own definitions.

When someone has a website and claims to be Anti-American - you would dispute them because they are 1) American and 2) just voicing their opinion?

It is times like these that I really do wonder if you are speaking a different language than the rest of us. For some reason you have the ability to discern the "intent" of everyone and be the authority of all things.

LOL.. that is too funny... I can't wait for jwhop to post about your new definition of "anti"

Here are a few more terms for you:

Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, covers a broad range of attitudes and actions that are thought to be opposed or hostile to the government, culture, or people of the United States. Contemporary analysis of anti-Americanism typically focuses on international opposition to United States policy, though the concept includes a number of historical trends varying greatly in content and motive.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anti-american

Noun
S: (n) anti-American (a person who is opposed to the United States and its policies)
Adjective
S: (adj) anti-American (opposed to the United States and its policies)

Hmmm... opposed to the US and its policies...

policies.... many of the people you keep defending are absolutely opposed to ALL of our policies (regardless of who is in office) and would love to see our Country fall apart.

Are you telling me there is NO SUCH THING as an American born Anti-American? Have you learned about absolutes yet?

An absolute is stating that NO one that is American born of otherwise can be an Anti-American -

"Usage Note: An absolute term denotes a property that a thing either can or cannot have. Such terms include absolute itself, chief, complete, perfect, prime, unique, and mathematical terms such as equal and parallel. By strict logic, absolute terms cannot be compared, as by more and most, or used with an intensive modifier, such as very or so. "

Anyone that goes overseas to blast the United States and then goes on to say they are embarassed to be an American- is Anti-American and they ARE helping the enemy.

Jane Fonda turning over sensitive information to the Viet Cong and getting US Soldiers killed is ANTI-AMERICAN and traitorous.

John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and others that constantly give to the enemy and mock our Country- they are Anti-American. And if you need definite examples just move on to one of jwhop's many posts on Carter and Kerry.

A Traitor is Anti-American.

It seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe in the definition of the term Anti and I don't believe we can stretch to mean one thing on one context and then change the definition depending on how we "feel".

I am going to live you with this though- according to your definition of why they cannot be Anti-American is based on America being a free country, with freedom of speech- then why it is someone that shouts down with the "name your racial group here" and pushes for White purity, while living their ideal, following their priniciples is considered a racist and ANTI-"name your racial group here"?

posted August 24, 2006 08:02 PM            

I placed you in that category when you insisted and continued to insist the United States oppressed/repressed the Iraqi people..before the war and later followed up by stating that also meant the American people oppressed/repressed the Iraqi people.

You had faint damning for Saddam Hussein. In fact the entire leftist choir have not much to say about the butcher of Baghdad...except for the constant whining to leave Saddam alone.

The worst you could muster...and correct me if I'm wrong, but the worst thing ever to come off your keyboard on this site concerning Saddam was that..."Saddam was not a good leader for his people".

Hello!

I knew you were off the deep end...the deep end on the extreme left side when you insisted the United States should have packaged up an Ozone or Peroxide based water treatment plant and shipped it to Saddam. The same Saddam who was in the process of building...what was it...12 new palaces but couldn't afford to keep his water treatment plants in good operating order. Give me a break.

The US is full of people just like you acoustic. People who constantly blame America for every problem in the world and give the US no credit for any of the good we do around the world...including ridding Afghanistan and Iraq of butchering murderers and supporters of terrorists and terrorist organizations.

The Universities are full of professors who are hard core leftists...Marxists, Socialists, Maoists, Stalinists and other brain dead collectivists...who hide behind the term "Progressives".

The democrat party leadership is also full of the very same brand of extremists who like to put themselves forth as "saving America" but who are in fact part of the same leftist "I hate America" choir. They mean America no good whatsoever.

None of these people mean any good for the United States. They are all part and parcel of the "I hate America" choir.

So, basically acoustic, your argument is riddled with bullsh*t and your answer is typical..attempting to put a good face on what is wholly unjustifiable and indefensible.

There are few liberals in the democrat party. Most liberals are now Independents or liberal Republicans. What's left in the democrat party are mostly extremist radical leftists...and there's a hell of a difference between the liberals and the leftists.

Isis is also right. I do know the difference and said what I meant to say.

posted August 24, 2006 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

So an Anti-American has to wage war before they are called an Anti-American? It is one thing to voice an opinion, but when you encourage people to hate the Country they call "Home", when you tell them to rise up against our system of equality, our principles.. guess what - You're ANTI-AMERICAN.

---

Democrats by and large are not encouraging people to hate our country. Nor are they rallying people to rise up against our system of equality or our principles. I believe you'd have an extremely tough time trying to prove that assertion.

quote:

---

Do I need to post the definition of "anti" for you again?

---

When did you post it the first time?

quote:

---

You climb a slippery slope when you hide behind the sentiment that "They are just showing their true American colors by questioning and damning all that is American - because they have freedom of speech"

---

How is it a slippery slope, and why? Because you say so?

quote:

---

Putting the Country down and stating "I am embarrassed to be an American and I hate this Country" is ANTI-American.

---

Yes, people are embarrassed that we've abandoned our principles to a degree under this president. I don't hear them saying that they hate this country, though. What they hate is the way this administration handles itself. Republicans would have everyone believe that the administration and the country are one, but they're clearly not, especially with a president who gets down into the 30's in the polls. Independents put Republicans in power, and Independents give him those low ratings.

quote:

---

Stating you want Mexico to take back the land we purchased is ANTI-American (where do you put the displaced American's that used to live in that land?)

Stating you want to see the President dead is Anti-American. If someone from France made those same comments they would be ANTI-American.

---

I live in a very liberal area, and I strangely haven't heard those calls. Is this something that's in the news? Is there really a democratic group saying this?

quote:

---

You see only what you want to see and make up your own definitions.

---

You may want to see it that way, but that statement is more true of your Party. I'll refer you to the book Talking Right.

quote:

---

When someone has a website and claims to be Anti-American - you would dispute them because they are 1) American and 2) just voicing their opinion?

---

I must have missed something here. I didn't check out your links. Is that what you're referring to?

I'll respond anyway, though. If someone is an American living in America, yes, I'd have a very difficult time believing that they are anti-themselves. When they talk about what they don't like about America, are those things that are linked to this administration? If so, then this person is falling for the Republican jargon rather than using the proper terms for his/her discontent. The administration does not equal the country.

quote:

---

Contemporary analysis of anti-Americanism typically focuses on international opposition to United States policy, though the concept includes a number of historical trends varying greatly in content and motive.

---

Right there within your definition you have your own undoing. First in saying, "international opposition," and second in saying that it, "includes a number of historical trends varying greatly in content and motive." Undoubtedly, you'd interpret that to mean the Democrats content and motive, but I'd read that to mean Republican's hijacking of the term for their own motives in demonizing Democrats.

quote:

---

Noun
S: (n) anti-American (a person who is opposed to the United States and its policies)
Adjective
S: (adj) anti-American (opposed to the United States and its policies)

---

So when Republicans were waging war on Clinton, then I guess they were anti-American, too, seeing as they/you believe that America = the Administration. If it works one way, then it has to work both ways. Democrats, nice people that they are, don't go around trying to convince their own citizenry that their opponents are anti-American.

quote:

---

policies.... many of the people you keep defending are absolutely opposed to ALL of our policies (regardless of who is in office) and would love to see our Country fall apart.

---

Who do I keep defending? I don't think I defend anyone that wants to see our country fall apart.

quote:

---

Are you telling me there is NO SUCH THING as an American born Anti-American? Have you learned about absolutes yet?

---

I'm telling you that if they're truly anti-American, then they won't live here (out of disgust). Like I said earlier, we all have friends and neighbors from the opposite party. You can't tell me that their political affiliation makes them America haters. It's simply not true.

quote:

---

Anyone that goes overseas to blast the United States and then goes on to say they are embarassed to be an American- is Anti-American and they ARE helping the enemy.

---

No they're not. Why should disagreement towards an administration on a foreign shore mean anything different than it does here? Do you think that our embassadors have never had any discussions about their embarrassment about something our country did? I'm quite certain it's happened in the name of keeping good relations, and for the sake of keeping Americans from not looking too cocky.

quote:

---

Jane Fonda turning over sensitive information to the Viet Cong and getting US Soldiers killed is ANTI-AMERICAN and traitorous.

---

Where did Jane Fonda get sensitive information? http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp http://truthminers.com/hoaxarticles/hanoi_jane.htm
Jane's a good defense for your positions. However, you don't see millions of Democrats flying to Iraq for photo-ops with terrorists. Once again, the odd person does not define the party.

quote:

---

It seems that we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe in the definition of the term Anti and I don't believe we can stretch to mean one thing on one context and then change the definition depending on how we "feel".

---

Ok, I can agree to that. Just keep in mind that if you should ever oppose the actions of our government that you wouldn't want people mistaking you as anti-American.

quote:

---

I am going to live you with this though- according to your definition of why they cannot be Anti-American is based on America being a free country, with freedom of speech- then why it is someone that shouts down with the "name your racial group here" and pushes for White purity, while living their ideal, following their priniciples is considered a racist and ANTI-"name your racial group here"?

---

Because the person who is "ANTI" is not a member of what he/she is "ANTI" about.

quote:

---

You have an very bizarre way of looking at things.

---

posted August 25, 2006 01:40 AM              

A democracy does not consist of an elite group of people who tell everyone else that they have to tow the line and think as they do or they are anti-American. A democracy consists of the freedom we have under the Constitution to disagree with any government policy and speak out against anything we feel is wrong in an attempt to right that wrong. This Republic and the Constitution we have was established on the principal that the people have a voice. To attempt to silence that voice of the people in any way is NOT a democracy it's Fascism.

To attempt to silence the voice of the people in favor of only the opinions and beliefs and ideologies of a select, elite group of people is what is anti-American, not dissent. We have the right to dissent as Americans provided under the Constitution of U.S.

If our founding fathers did not dissent we would still be a part of the United Kingdom.

Ann Coulter needs to get a clue about what a democracy is all about. She doesn't know a damn thing about the Democrats. It's just what she thinks and wants her readers to think. Her opinion. Which you all seem to think she can speak but Howard Dean or any Democrat cannot speak. They are anti-American when they speak their opinions.

posted August 25, 2006 12:57 PM              

United we stand, divided we fall.

Now, you don't have to agree on every last thing, but one thing we all need to agree upon, is that there are dangerous parties in the world who intend to cause harm to the United States and all of her like-minded allies - simply for what we are NOT.

Once we all unanimously "get" that, many of the other disputes will cease to be relevent. People need to stop thinking it's an attack on them personally, from within the system, and realize that we're vulnerable to attacks from outside, as a culture. And I don't mean verbal attacks.

posted August 25, 2006 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

I'm telling you that if they're truly anti-American, then they won't live here (out of disgust). Like I said earlier, we all have friends and neighbors from the opposite party. You can't tell me that their political affiliation makes them America haters. It's simply not true.....acoustic

---

God, what illiterate drivel. Your statement does however prove you are not widely read enough to have ever come across the writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero who put his finger directly on the problem of the radical leftists within our society.

This is another facet of the leftist disease and it's one of being testosterone challenged wussies. Sometimes it takes a baaad momma to note the differences between the men and the boys.

Or perhaps it's that radical leftists who don't and won't stand up and be counted among those who would defeat international terrorism are so unprincipled that they stand for nothing but the defeat of America.

One must ask if the unprincipled radical left is attempting to recreate what they considered their finest hour....defeating the United States in the halls of Congress and handing their communist friend, North Vietnam the victory in the war they and the Viet Cong couldn't win on the battlefield.

Either way, the radical left are a sorry bunch.

Separating the men from the boys
Posted: August 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Melanie Morgan

It was a shocking moment for me, and it took a few seconds for me to be sure I had heard him correctly.

Had MSNBC's Tucker Carlson really belittled the argument that Islamic terrorists posed a growing threat to Western civilization as being "reprehensibly dumb"?

I was on Carlson's bottom-ranked cable news show, and the once bow-tied anchor was lecturing me that my justifications for the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq was nothing more than "administration talking points."

It was yet another in an incalculably long stream of television segments where an anti-war host teamed up with an anti-war panelist to do a 2-on-1 number against someone who actually supported the war on terrorism and the mission our troops are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't matter to Carlson whether the administration was right in identifying the dangers posed by the growing Islamofascist movement and the state sponsorship it has received in recent years from nations such as Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. (The latter three nations are no longer state sponsors of terrorism thanks to the efforts by our troops, which Carlson deems to be "reprehensibly dumb.")

Nonetheless, with the Bush administration now completely on the defensive on the war effort, passive in their PR efforts and distracted by infighting among senior staff, someone needs to step forward and speak to this nation about what we need to do to win the war on terror.

It's time to separate the men from the boys and find the voices in America who can articulate to the American people the danger our nation faces, and how best we should proceed to expeditiously dispatch with this enemy before the threat grows so great that it cannot be contained.

Living in the political-media bubble

Tucker Carlson wasn't always an anti-war shouter. He initially supported the tough line against terrorism until polls showed support for the war had fallen and his comrades in the news media had beaten him into submission.

If he were a rare exception we could dismiss such conduct, even as it comes at such a critical time in our nation's history. However, Carlson is just one of many who have bailed in the fight against terrorism once the going got tough. ***Note, the sign of a true wussie...who, though not one shot has been fired at him and not even a harsh word for him has been uttered by the terrorist enemies, he's ready to throw in the sponge.

In an article in the New York Observer, Carlson announced, "I'm getting more paleo every day" which surely pleases Carlson's bosses at MSNBC who target an audience ideologically opposite to that reached by the Fox News Channel.

Carlson has recently announced his participation in ABC's "Dancing with the Stars," and I'm sure that his back-and-forth dance moves on the Iraq war pleases the political and media elite. Such acceptance from this 'elite' crowd surely brings great personal satisfaction to Mr. Carlson.

But, while Carlson will be doing the Tango on television, there will be "real men" enduring the blinding sandstorms in Iraq, trying to secure a peace that will allow a new Iraq to rise up from the ashes of Saddam Hussein's despotic regime.

The men and women of the United States Armed Forces have made tremendous progress in Iraq, but Tucker Carlson and his ilk are largely ignorant of this or ignore such progress because it doesn't fit with their own agenda.

The foreign terrorist threat posed by al-Qaida sympathizers who poured into Iraq from Iran and Syria has largely been defeated. You hear almost nothing from the news media about the fact that al-Qaida in Iraq has been effectively destroyed by our military. The violence today is largely sectarian violence between competing religious and ethnic groups. The greatest need in Iraq today is to ensure that a sense of stability and security can allow this newly freed nation to chart a course for a peaceful future, free of sectarian violence.

Carlson sat silent and stunned, along with anti-war Democrat strategist Rich Masters, when I pointed out that the number of fatalities in Iraq had been dropping over the past several months. You see, both Carlson and Masters are creatures of that political-media world where truth is concocted out of do-gooder liberal ideology and facts are ignored.

So far this month, there have been fewer U.S. troops killed in Iraq than died in the month of July. July's fatality figures were lower than those of June. June's were lower than May's. And May's fatalities were lower than April's. The news is that we are WINNING!

Does this information surprise you?

It should, because the mainstream media has done everything it can to paint Operation Iraqi Freedom as a failure. The progress that is made in rebuilding Iraq on a daily basis is seldom reported.

The humanitarian efforts of U.S. troops are almost entirely ignored. Liberal journalists scoff at the daily reports by U.S. Central Command outlining our military's success in apprehending or killing terrorists and death squad leaders. These left-wing reporters seem hell-bent to rally the American public to oppose the mission in Iraq.

It takes a woman to do a man's job

While I have applauded President Bush's determination to stay the course in the fight against terrorism in spite of unconstructive criticism here at home (just as Ronald Reagan endured during the Cold War), I am dismayed to see the Bush administration apparently beaten down and weakened.

With the deepening threat of Islamic terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas, and the growing nuclear threat and taunts to destroy America and Israel coming out of Iran, it's more important than ever for Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld to find one strong voice and articulate a vision this nation can rally around.

But lately that hasn't been happening.

And that's left the playing field open to these wussy flip-floppers on the right to join in the defeatism of the anti-war left.

During World War II, a time when males comprised America's fighting force and females worked the manufacturing lines here at home, women played a major role in rallying support for our troops here at home.

With so many supposedly conservative men like Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak acting like little boys – crying and wailing about how we're just provoking more terrorists and we can't win waah waah waah – maybe it's time for some women to step up to the plate and lead the fight against the terrorist threat.

Increasingly, a number of conservative women such as myself, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and others have had to carry much of the load in rallying the American public to muster the fortitude(*balls*) to outwit and outlast the Islamic terrorists who are plotting to bring down the nations of the West.

Oh, and one more thing about Tucker Carlson's cable TV news show. When Tucker had finished insulting my position on confronting Islamic terrorism, he tried to demean me by asking what it was that I was personally doing to help advance the war on terrorism.

Had Tucker been more in tune with middle America and less focused on dance lessons and hoity-toity cocktail parties with the bow-tied crowd, he'd know that I am chairman of the nation's largest grass-roots pro-troop organization, Move America Forward.

Not only have we done "support the troops" drills, like sending over 15 tons of coffee, cookies, Gatorade and beef jerky to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we also work to knock down the defeatist messages from the "Blame America First" crowd.

posted August 25, 2006 01:23 PM            

I have one name for you: Timothy McVeigh

American Born, hated America, killed hundreds of innocent Americans.

As far as the "give land back to Mexico" I realize you live in a very Liberal a part of Northern Cali -I live along a the border in a very liberal part of Arizona.

La Raza and other Mexican organizations wants to give parts of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona back to Mexico. There is even a proposed legislation that would create a barrier along this border that will be known as a "gray state".

Just because YOU have never heard of such issues doesn't make "not relevent".

I would suggest that you stop evaluating what is and isn't real based on if you heard about it from your Liberal friends.

posted August 25, 2006 01:53 PM            

Would he be a Dem or Republican by todays standards?

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted September 28, 2006 12:12 PM            

But, there are limits on free speech...and there always were such limits as courts have upheld. For instance, one may not yell fire in a crowded theater..when there is no fire. Those who do so are legally responsible for what ensues, not only civilly but criminally as well..in the event someone is injured or killed in the panic which follows.

Leftists have marched across the line which separates free speech and dissent into treason.

There is a bright red line between dissent/free speech and treason and the test is a simple one which is found in the United States Constitution. It's noteworthy that treason is the only crime specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitutional definition of Treason:

Article III, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Note also 2 witnesses to the crime of treason are required to testify to the act of treason in open court.

How many witnesses could be found to testify against the NY Times in open court to their treason in publishing the security secrets of the United States and making them available to the very enemy they are designed to identify, track, thwart, capture or kill?

Let me suggest there are many more than the law requires for a conviction.

Let me also suggest the leftists who have burrowed into the intelligence agencies who are violating their security oaths...as well as their sworn oaths of office when they leak top secret classified documents to the press...or anyone else; they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...along side the so called journalists who published the classified information.

Leaks: Let's Dare Call It Treason
Michael Reagan
Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006

Benedict Arnold was a war hero whose courageous actions at the Battle of Saratoga helped turn the tide for the colonists in the American Revolution, so it is not fair to him to compare him to the sniveling nest of traitors now endangering our national security in the name of cheap partisan politics.

They are not Benedict Arnolds - they are in a class all by themselves – political and journalistic hacks willing to do anything to win an election and oust an administration they loathe even if by so doing they endanger the safety of their fellow Americans.

Time after time, for months on end, we have watched the spectacle of government officials in the intelligence agencies violate their oaths by leaking the most sensitive secrets to dedicated anti-American newspapers such as the treasonous New York Times.

Vital anti-terrorism operations designed to monitor communications between terrorists overseas and their agents in the United States or track the international movement of funds meant to finance terrorist activities have been compromised, if not rendered useless, by leaks to the Times and The Washington Post.

Both newspapers loathe the Bush administration and the Republican Party, and both have wallowed in self-congratulation for their coups against the security of the American people, delighted to be inflicting harm on the president and his attempts to safeguard the American people if it will help turn the Congress over to their Democrat allies.

They are being enabled by what amount to moles lurking in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, who ignore the fact that they are committing real crimes by betraying their oaths for the most sordid of political purposes.

This latest episode, the leaking of the purported April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to the Times and the Post, however, is a different kettle of rotten fish. To begin with, the stories in the Times and the Post distorted what was in the NIE – a fact that quickly emerged when relevant parts of the authentic document were declassified and released.

What has emerged since the latest leaks were publicized is the very obvious involvement of the Democrats in the whole shameful episode. It is very easy to understand that given the superior record of the GOP as a proven protector of the safety of the American people and the pitiful record of the Democrats in that regard, it's obvious that the leaks were designed to raise questions about the Republicans' ability to safeguard the national security, and thus bolster Democratic claims disputing that record.

What is at stake here is simply the government's ability to do its job of fighting a global war against a shadowy enemy that has made no secret of their goal of killing us and conquering the West.

That government simply cannot do that job as long as there is a fifth column operating within our borders. And that fifth column is composed of The New York Times and the rest of the liberal media dedicated to crippling the administration's ability to fight the war and ensure the safety of the American people.

Call it whatever you want, but no matter what name you give it, it remains treason. And if the nation is to be protected from deadly attacks against the homeland by the enemy, the people involved in this treasonous activity have to be stopped from their ongoing betrayal of the United States and the American people, and stopped now.

This is no longer a matter of mere finger pointing. This is time for the handcuffs to come out. If President Bush wants to assure the nation that he is determined to protect them from future 9/11s he is going to have to step forward and loose the hounds of justice against those in the government who are betraying their oaths, and hold the Times and its allies in the media legally accountable for their treasonous activities.

As the president has reminded us, we are at war. With an active fifth column doing its level best to make us lose that war, the time has come to root it out and make its participants pay for their betrayal.

posted September 28, 2006 03:38 PM            

Sedition n. the Federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is a lesser crime than "treason," which requires actual betrayal of the government or "espionage." Espionage involves spying on the government, trading state secrets (particularly military) to another country (even a friendly nation), or sabotaging governmental facilities, equipment, or suppliers of the government like an aircraft factory. During U. S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, sedition charges are rare, because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation's security.

This is the definition of Treason..

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

AG its kinda funny how you read stuff and then post what your mind processed.

Pidaua posted..

“Tom Nagy, associate professor of business at George Washington University, proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States during a recent (illegal) trip to Iraq.”

AG Posted..

“Tom Nagy is anti-American because he helped Iraqi citizens? Wasn't that like the 5th justification for going to war in the first place - to help the civilians?”

Its kinda funny how you see this as helping Iraqi citizens since he "proudly informed his university newspaper about providing aid to the Saddam regime against the United States"

Melanie Morgans statement is very true. If anybody would talk or ask a Soldier who was there in the beginning and is back there again now. They would get a view that is real and can be compared to the two time frames of the same war and find what she states is not doctored or false at all.

“The men and women of the United States Armed Forces have made tremendous progress in Iraq, but Tucker Carlson and his ilk are largely ignorant of this or ignore such progress because it doesn't fit with their own agenda.
The foreign terrorist threat posed by al-Qaida sympathizers who poured into Iraq from Iran and Syria has largely been defeated. You hear almost nothing from the news media about the fact that al-Qaida in Iraq has been effectively destroyed by our military. The violence today is largely sectarian violence between competing religious and ethnic groups. The greatest need in Iraq today is to ensure that a sense of stability and security can allow this newly freed nation to chart a course for a peaceful future, free of sectarian violence.”

She goes on to say

“So far this month, there have been fewer U.S. troops killed in Iraq than died in the month of July. July's fatality figures were lower than those of June. June's were lower than May's. And May's fatalities were lower than April's. The news is that we are WINNING!"

This is why the lefties are always posting crap that isnt true or has half truths in it. Read on to find out why.

"It should, because the mainstream media has done everything it can to paint Operation Iraqi Freedom as a failure. The progress that is made in rebuilding Iraq on a daily basis is seldom reported.
The humanitarian efforts of U.S. troops are almost entirely ignored. Liberal journalists scoff at the daily reports by U.S. Central Command outlining our military's success in apprehending or killing terrorists and death squad leaders. These left-wing reporters seem hell-bent to rally the American public to oppose the mission in Iraq.“

I think the lefties need to stop believing all the anti war crap and start trying to find the correct and true information. It is out there you just have to search for it and not on a blog. To me it is an acronym for BLatant Outlandish Garbage.