WORDS speak louder than ACTIONS

Boy oh Boy.



Ugggh



Yikes.



Hmmmm



Ta Dah!!

The last few are obviously meant to be humorous. That first one of a sitting US Senator lamenting the outdated idea that the money one earns is his own is truly frightening and enlightening.

This is a truly historic time and to deny the obvious statement a Black American President makes is folly. Obama does break down barriers and will indeed help with PR overseas (which in and of itself is sad after all we have done to bring freedom to the world) and should be an effective leader. This is, if WORDS speak louder than ACTIONS. He says he will govern from the center and unite America. We shall see.

Jindal in 2012~~ !

conservOpunk

HOPE, CHANGE, TACO

What's with all the Propaganda?



What is with all the dramatic full color logos of this candidate? Does this creep any one else out?



I don't seem to remember any full color ad agency produced logos of George W. Bush during the last Presidential campaign. Caricatures certainly, but... hey. Are we even allowed to ask this type of question?



Did Clinton (Either one) Kerry, Gore, Carter, etc have their likeness done up all fancy like this? Even Reagan, who I was told in elementary school was only popular because of his "media machine and command of the image he portrayed," never had his own logo.





What is all of this? We hear the school children singing Obama songs, the chants of the "Obama Youth" dressed in Military garb telling us what they can now do with their lives because of Obama... eerie. When have we seen this before?



In his BERLIN speech he claims to be a "citizen of the World?" How about just "President of the United States?" That will be sufficient thank you. His face is up on posters, tee shirts (Che Guevara anyone)? and web banners... this is truly something to behold in this a free, and so I had thought, intelligently skeptical society.



HOPE. CHANGE. TACO

Obama to "Spread the Wealth Around"

A great answer to a plumber worried his taxes will increase. Yes, you are correct sir. Tax breaks for 95% of Americans? Only 70% or so even PAY federal income taxes. Hmmmm

Another DEM candidate promising to lower taxes. People are sheep.

Say it Aint So JOE! 14 lies

Joe Biden’s 14 Lies
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

DEMS WRONG (naturally) on FREDDIE/FANNIE

Freaking Brilliant!!! DEMS exposed.

More proof people vote DEM because their parents did, period

Mark Levin ROCKS!!!

11/13/06 Mark Levin Show



Conservatives vs. Liberals

We keep hearing conservative, liberal. We keep hearing lectures about it and we should. But we really do need to understand the terms here. There’s a huge difference between conservatives and liberals.

You’re seeing it played out on television every night. With this detestable Carl Levin of Michigan with his spectacles at the end of his nose.



Somebody buy that man a pair of new glasses!

What is Conservatism? It’s not a political philosophy folks; it’s a life philosophy. Conservatives believe that each individual is unique. We believe that each individual is responsible for his development. We believe that family is the best support group for individuals. And we believe that private institutions like churches and synagogues, charities, private enterprises and so forth are best support group for families.

Conservatives believe, as did the Founders of the Declaration of Independence, that God is Supreme-not the government. Conservatives believe that God has given us natural rights, not the government.

Conservatives believe that a powerful centralized government such as ours, putting aside national security for the moment, threatens the individual, the family and private institutions. A powerful centralized government seeks uniformity and absolute compliance; it smothers individuality, family and religion. A centralized government seeks to play the role of God, through its abuse of laws and regulations, and the confiscation of redistribution of wealth.

Conservatives believe in the Constitution. We believe in Representative government as opposed to a judicial oligarchy or government by bureaucracy.



Conservatives believe in free political speech and the free exercise of religion. We believe in the right to bear arms. We believe in due process rights for American citizens and not terrorists. We believe in Federalism, the dispersing of power among the states. We believe in a colorblind society. We believe in low taxes and strictly limited spending. We believe in individual opportunity and merit.

Conservatives respect the private property and wealth of our fellow citizens. Just as it’s wrong for any of us to steal from our neighbors, it’s equally wrong to elect politicians who steal from our neighbors on our so-called behalf.

Conservatives believe in the greatness of the American people; their compassion; their honor; their inventiveness; their judgment. We believe that but for America, the world would be a dark, bloodthirsty, regressive place where tyranny would rule and humanity would suffer an unimaginable fate. And so we’re Conservatives. Proud conservatives.

Now what is Liberalism?

Liberals put a powerful centralized government before all else. Government exists to limit individual liberty, private property rights and religious freedom.

Liberals believe that the people are incapable of making the right decisions of their own so they empower undemocratic institutions to make decisions by fiat, such as the courts and federal agencies and the rest.

Liberals believe that Americans should be divided by color, by religion by sex and by income. Liberals seek to create jealousies among Americans and sic them upon each other in hopes of keeping them agitated and unfocused and distrustful and always wanting. And always a recipe for a more aggressive role for government.

Liberals are not satisfied with temporary power achieved through the
electoral process; they seek to create a permanent liberal agenda through the
courts, through the bureaucracy, through entitlements, through academia. They want an agenda immune from future electoral losses.



Liberals create entitlement programs, not because they solve anything, but because they don’t. They seek to enslave large portions of the population, they call them beneficiaries and they seek to punish private enterprise by forcing private citizens to pay up or suffer the consequences. Liberalism isn’t a way of life, its away of controlling life.

Liberals believe Americans are selfish, stupid and dishonorable. They believe that people exist to be manipulated and to serve the state for some greater good.

Liberals believe that America is not a unique place; that the Constitution is an obstacle to their power and that to create a world order in which they rule supreme, America’s independence must be destroyed through places like the UN and through policies like open borders. They detest the American culture and they seek to destroy it.

So, they worked for America’s defeat in Vietnam, just as they’re working
today, right now, to defeat us in Iraq.

A weak America is exactly what they seek. The elites want us to lose this war. You can hear them since the election. The detestable Carl Levin tried to undermine Reagan; hoped that we would lose the Cold War; hoped that we would lose the war with the Contras down in South America; hoped that we would lose the war wherever we fight it.

Kennedy, the single biggest figure in undermining our efforts in Vietnam, cutting off funding to the South Vietnamese, enslaving millions of people. Hundreds of thousands were murdered after we left South Vietnam, millions in Cambodia and the man never blinked, his conscience never panged, he never gave it a second thought.

They say they care about casualties in Iraq. They didn’t blink when Mao Tse-tung murdered 60 million people or when Stalin murdered over 20 million people, or when Pol Pot murdered 2.5 million people or when the Rwandans murdered 800 thousand, they didn’t blink and they won’t blink if we’re forced to leave Iraq, if we’re forced to lose that war and hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered in the streets, with their blood running through the sewers they won’t blink again!

That’s what they think about humanity. The elites in our country, they don’t give a damn!
Power. Pursuit of power. The maintenance of power. That’s all they want.

You think I am wrong? Listen to them! Do they ever speak of victory? No! They tell us
victory is impossible.

Well, that’s not the country I grew up in. The country I grew up in defeated the Nazi’s. The country I grew up in defeated the Japanese in WW II. The country I grew up in can defeat any entity on the face of the earth. This is the country that fought a hugely bloody
Civil War to maintain the Union and eliminate slavery. A country that survived it.
This is a country against all odds that beat the British in the Revolutionary war. This is the country that won the Cold War despite the same liberals trying to obstruct our efforts then as they seek to obstruct our efforts today. You see the common thread?

They want us weak, they want us defeated, they want the open borders, they want to tear down our churches and our synagogues. They want to eliminate the very values and traditions and institutions that have made America unique, that have made America strong.

And why? For the greater good, of course! For the greater good, that’s how tyrants always come to power. You see they represent the very people they seek to enslave. At least they claim to. That’s what socialism and communism and liberalism is all about. Enslavement of one form or another. Anyone dares to speak up against them, they seek to destroy them. Even in our own country, they seek the political heads of one Conservative leader after another.

Whether it was Ronald Reagan, they wanted him. George Bush, less conservative, but too conservative for them. They want them eliminated.

Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich. If they had their way, and one day they might, they’d throw these people in prison without the benefit of a trial. After all, the only people who get due process in their minds are the terrorists, not the Republicans, the terrorists.

Ladies and gentlemen, some of you are extremely frustrated and upset. I share it, I understand. But we have an opportunity in this country, its an amazing thing, when the country is turned this way, Conservatism has always been the answer. Always been the answer. Liberty is the answer, that’s why Conservatism is the answer.



The rule of law is the answer. That’s Conservatism. National Security, that’s Conservatism. Merit, that’s conservatism.

That’s why most polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans 60-65% view themselves as Conservatives. Because, they are God fearing people who believe in Liberty, who believe in working hard, who believe in keeping most of what you earn, and who believe in their family and who believe in the military protecting us and the police officers watching our streets. That’s who we are and that’s what we believe in!

But, that’s not what the Liberals are and it’s not what they believe in.

I would encourage so-called conservative leaders to start explaining the differences. It’s been a long time since a national leader has done that. It’s been since Reagan. Let’s be blunt. Let’s be blunt. We must be blunt if we are to recover. And we can recover, ladies and gentlemen.

Nancy Pelosi is a boob. John Murtha is a boob. Harry Reid is a boob. THEY’RE ALL BOOBS! We’ve overcome much worse than these boobs.

But we will fail. We will fail if we follow false prophets. We will fail if we go the road of weasel Republicanism, ACLU Republicanism. Where they spent the whole damn summer worried about terrorists’ rights.

I blame John McCain on that. There’s no question about it! How silly was that? Well what will the world think? Who cares what the world thinks?

While their trains are being blown up, we’re defending ours. That’s their problem if they don’t like how we behave during war. And Europe is in no position to lecture us, given what they’ve done to humanity over the last hundred years. But, I digress.

What do we see on the agenda today? Today? Increase them minimum wage. That’s the number one agenda issue. Where did that come from?

Open borders, as I said the other night. So, we’re going to increase the minimum wage for American citizens and no minimum wage for illegal aliens. Gee, who’s going to get hired? Do you think?

Everywhere I look, I see Republicans acting like cowards. Everywhere I look, I see fear in their eyes. No, not in the grass roots, but in the elected politicians.

I need a commission to give me advice on what to do with Iraq. We don’t need a commission. We shouldn’t fight compassionate wars. We should use overwhelming force as fast as we can to destroy the enemy. Destroy the enemies’ families if we must. Mark, you’re so horrible. No.

That’s the FDR doctrine; the Truman doctrine; the Lincoln doctrine; the Washington doctrine. That’s how you fight war. That’s how you fight wars. And I didn’t even need a commission to tell you.

The elites want us to lose, so they want you to believe that this is the bloodiest war we’ve ever fought. You know that’s not true.



Every American life is precious. You’d better believe it. And we’ve lost less that three thousand in three, three and a half years in this war. In context, those casualties don’t come close to any other major war we’ve ever fought. Or for that matter, any other major battle we’ve ever had.

And as some of my audience know from my being on the radio several years now, my grandfather fought at Iwo Jima and Guam. My great uncle fought at Guadalcanal. They told me the horrible stories. Many of your relatives can tell you the same thing if not you yourself. You may have experienced it.

But a great nation must have the will to defeat this enemy. All the clutter with these phony diversionary arguments being raised by the left and the left’s mouthpieces in the media that we shouldn’t be in Iraq, that we should be somewhere else. Well, where else should we be? In Iran? No. In Syria? They tell us, no. In North Africa, Somalia? No. Well, where are we going to fight this enemy?

Iraq is the front lines. Somalia is the front lines. These are the front lines of the war.

If we don’t have the will to take out an enemy that struck the heart of America, then we will be doomed. That’s why we must win back these offices and take back power.

Obama's SHADOW DIPLOMACY

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIs IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

September 15, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Krauthammer on Charles Gibson on Sarah Palin

E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Print Version

September 13, 2008 12:00 AM

It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.

By Charles Krauthammer

“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she
agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what
he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed
her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”

— New York Times, September 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© 2008, The Washington Post Writers Group

The Palin "Interview"

E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend Print Version

September 13, 2008 12:00 AM

It Was Gibson’s Gaffe
Which made the smug condescension all the more precious.

By Charles Krauthammer

“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she
agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what
he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed
her that it meant the right of ‘anticipatory self-defense.’ ”

— New York Times, September 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© 2008, The Washington Post Writers Group

McCain Photo "op"

September 12, 2008

How Jill Greenberg Really Feels About John McCain

When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.

She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says.

After getting that shot, Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here” for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,” Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.”

What was firing was a strobe positioned below him, which cast the horror movie shadows across his face and on the wall right behind him. “He had no idea he was being lit from below,” Greenberg says. And his handlers didn’t seem to notice it either. “I guess they’re not very sophisticated,” she adds.

The Atlantic didn’t select the diabolical looking McCain for its cover. Greenberg is hoping to license that image to some other magazine (she negotiated a two-week embargo with The Atlantic so she could re-license images from the shoot before the election).

Warned that the image is just the kind of thing that will stir up the anti-media vitriol in the conservative blogosphere, Greenberg said, “Good. I want to stir stuff up, but not to the point where I get audited if he becomes president.”

That said, she goes on to explain that she’s thought about replacing McCain’s mouth with bloody shark teeth and displaying the image on a billboard with the message that the candidate is a bloodthirsty war monger.

Given her strong feelings about John McCain, we asked whether she had any reservations about taking the assignment in the first place.

“I didn’t,” she says. “It’s definitely exciting to shoot someone who is in the limelight like that. I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”

Posted by David Walker on September 12, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (147) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/258746/33399020

GLASS CEILING BROKEN!!!

This VP pick is brilliant!

Watch the DEMS squirm!

See their true positions exposed!

Issues now on the table the Obama campaign must face…

The Status Quo in Washington DC and Obama's sole claim to "change."

The true background story of their own candidate! Palin is the real deal and wont have to send out surrogates to silence anyone who questions her past.

For DEMS only LIBERALS can achieve "firsts." They don't actually support women and minorities - just LIBERAL women and minorities. (See also Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, Elizabeth Farah, Micheal Steele, etc). N.O.W. has already denounced Palin. So, they defend Bill Clinton, and attack Sarah Palin. Hmmm

Their votes and true positions on Iraq War (her son is being deployed soon)
Must admit the surge worked and U.S. is going to win.

True positions on Gun Control (Obama is against citizens owning firearms and has publicly spoken to this repeatedly)

Domestic drilling for oil (Alaska was brought into the Union specifically for their NATURAL RESOURCES)

Free markets as the most fair system - highlighting all the past failings of the DEMS

Principles FOR things and not merely AGAINST things

Obama's position(s) on Partial Birth Abortion (see also Jill Stanek) and his voting record in the Illinois Senate.

Here are the things DEMS will attack her on (further exposing themselves):

She has a special needs child and as VP will be a bad mother. (Imagine a REP saying this) Equal rights DEMS have to campaign against a woman and mother.
She used position to exact revenge on personal rival. (once) Please Google “Clintons”
Former Beauty Queen (no prob here)

Good Job John McCain! You have given me someone to vote for this November.

Her name is Sarah Palin.

conservOpunk

NOTES:

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/democrats-begin-attacks-on-palin-2008-08-29.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081209.html

It's a Miracle!!! Not that we're winning the War, but that AP is reporting it!!

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

With this one amazing headline the Associated Press burst the bubble of the Democrats in Congress, and lifted the hopes of American Conservatives and people throughout the world who yearn for freedom, liberty and the power to create their own destiny.

I for one cannot begin to describe my utter disbelief in the mere fact this was even reported. Most of us under the age of 40 stopped getting their news from the “old media” long ago, and we already knew of the surge’s success. But for the lifeblood of the liberal media to proclaim the Iraq War won??? Truly remarkable. Especially because you just KNOW they were dragged kicking and screaming towards the truth:

AP Article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5455019

Their Reasoning:

Vindication.

This is not to say that I enjoy saying “I told you so” to my friends and family, but I told you so. Typically I like to remain silent when I am shown to be correct on political and moral issues of the day, as I could never create the epic shame and embarrassment others will have when reminded of their own statements regarding this issue. I cannot remain silent in this case. Here are actual quotes from people I know and love:

“We are an imperialist country – going to war to lower oil prices.” Wrong

“America is more hated now because of this war.” Wrong

“They will find WMD’s no matter what… if they aren’t there they will be planted there.” Wrong

“The elections in Iraq are a sham.” Wrong

“This war is illegal” Huh? Wrong

“Bush is just like Hitler” Wrong Shamefully wrong.

I will merely bask in the glow of being correct.

I will (once again) rely on the conservative side of the issue being proved to be both the correct stance AND to occupy the moral high ground. The Democrats should be so very ashamed. How do they look into the eye of a military parent? To quote Brit Hume "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong."

I will sleep well tonight knowing that, after I make political statements, I can look myself in the mirror. That is all I need.

LGF - Al Jazeera is a Disgrace!

And to think NPR is all in favor of this network being seen in America. Vile propaganda is NOT Free Speech.

Posted on Little Green Footballs.

Video: Al Jazeera Throws Party for Child Killer

Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:07:22 am PDT

This depraved show alone should prevent Al Jazeera from ever being picked up by US cable channels, as the Arab “news network” throws a birthday party for released terrorist Samir Kuntar—who shot a child’s father in front of her, then bashed the child’s brains out with a rifle butt.

It’s almost unbelievable. They’ve let their thirst for blood and lack of decency trump even their political ends this time.

(Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)

Click picture to play video. Requires Windows Media Player; Mac users should install Flip4Mac.

Following are excerpts from a birthday party organized by Al-Jazeera TV for released Lebanese terrorist Samir Al-Quntar. Al-Jazeera TV aired this segment on July 19, 2008

Interviewer: Brother Samir, we would like to celebrate your birthday with you. You deserve even more than this. I think that 11,000 prisoners – if they can see this program now – are celebrating your birthday with you. Happy birthday, brother Samir.

Samir Al-Quntar: Thank you.

Interviewer: Go ahead... There is a picture here... If the camera can show this... Let’s cut it... Does the camera show this clearly or not? We have a picture here... This is the sword of the Arabs, Samir. Don’t cut the picture, cut on the side.

Samir Al-Quntar: Here’s Abu Qassam [Marwan Barghouti].

Interviewer: Marwan is here.

Samir Al-Quntar: Abu Qassam is here with Ahmad Sa’dat. That’s our prison warden...

Interviewer: This one?

Samir Al-Quntar: Yes.

Interviewer: What is the warden’s name?

Samir Al-Quntar: His name is... Never mind.

Interviewer: This is when you were released. Here you are with Wafiq Safa.

Samir Al-Quntar: Yes, this is Wafiq Safa. This is the most beautiful picture – with Hassan Nasrallah. This is the most beautiful picture. There cannot be anything more beautiful. Me and the secretary-general – the most beautiful picture of me ever taken.

Generally Speaking

"Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer." Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Why don't the Generals of the U.S. Military give public speeches anymore? There are scores of great speeches, old audio and film clips, books, etc. documenting the passion and sometimes brilliance of these military leaders under the direst of circumstances.

We still have great Generals. Gen David Patraeus makes his detractors look foolish each and every time he speaks to Congress, and even Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf had some good one liners. “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy.” Here here!

Have you noticed the silence of the Monday Morning Quarterback Democrat Generals these days? Come to think of it, are we still in Iraq? I never hear about it anymore on TV or in the newspapers. Oh, yeah... we are winning. The surge worked.

The media is a disgrace.


"But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace." Gen Douglas MacArthur

"Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men." Gen. George Patton

"Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." Gen. George Patton




"Americans never quit." General Douglas MacArthur

Unfortunately this was uttered prior to Vietnam, Somalia, and the current War in Iraq. Let us learn from history and re-start the habit of "never quitting" again.


"I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." Gen. George Patton



"In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative - qualities that you have in abundance." Gen. David Petraeus



“We have our teeth into the jugular, and we need to keep it there.” -- Gen. David Petraeus



"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf"

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian political philosopher, statesman.

No one Died when Clinton Lied? Really???

Sigh. This morning I saw another one of those "No one Died when Clinton Lied" bumper stickers. People who, to this day, defend Bill Clinton amaze me. They also prove the point that Democrats are BORN, not made.

In 38 years of life I have come to the realization that Democrats are born, not made. No one could live in this county, watch the news, see how businesses work, taxes are collected, services dolled out, schools function, etc and become a Democrat. Their political positions have simply been proven wrong too many times for this to be so.

Stereotypes are wrong and judgmental, but they are also most likely TRUE. So here is a list of the people who vote for Democrats. People vote Democrat because:

1. Their parents did

2. They are under 30

3. They have never opened or run a business

4. They are part of academia (especially universities)

5. They rely on Government for their livelihood (local, state or federal and the exceptions prove the rule)

6. They belong to a Labor Union

7. They make less than 30K annually and pay no income taxes

8. They belong to one of the following so-called “minority groups”

a. Homosexuals (except the AWESOME Log Cabin Republicans)

b. Feminists (you know, the ones who condemned Clarence Thomas and defended Bill Clinton)

c. Hispanics (except Cuban-Americans)

d. Blacks (and I will NEVER understand this one)

e. Peaceniks

f. Enviromentalists

Republicans / Conservatives champion the individual, while Democrats / Liberals champion groups. Simple. True. Really true.

Just look at the picture from the '04 convention... look at who the leaders of the DEM party are... (and remember this is before the Pelosi/Reid congress and we have yet to hear the Media report on the John Edwards love child scandal)!

conservOpunk

The Letter

Funny... I have never seen, read or heard about this letter. I'll bet many voters haven't either.

I will never, ever vote for a DEM ever again.

conservOpunk

Senator Jim "Webb a Crite" and Delahunt shows true colors!

From The Hill via Sweetness & Light:

ConservOpunk note: Didn't Reagan fire Webb after only 10 months as Secretary of the Navy? Just checking. First the disgraceful Wesley Clark and now Jim Webb... jeez Louise. I want to see that famous McCain temper flair up a bit on this one...

Webb To McCain: Calm Down About Service

July 1st, 2008

This was the first campaign ad Mr. Webb ran in his campaign for Senate two short years ago:

"Gipper"

This ad introduces Virginians to Jim’s exceptional record of service to our country, a record of service our opponent, George Allen, simply cannot match. What we’ve learned over and over again in this campaign is that when voters learn about Jim Webb, they’re ready to support Jim. They realize Jim is the "soldier, scholar, leader" we need to get our country back on track. And Jim is a leader Virginians can be proud of.

But that was then and this is now.

From The Hill:

Webb: McCain Should ‘Calm Down’ on Using Military Service

by Walter Alarkon

July 1, 2008

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) waded into the debate over John McCain’s military service Monday to say that the Republican should avoid using military service in politics.

Webb, a Barack Obama supporter, was on MSNBC’s "Countdown" to talk about his G.I. Bill to increase education benefits for returning veterans which is now law. Webb criticized both McCain and President Bush for not supporting the bill. Then, unprompted, Webb weighed in on the debate over retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s remark that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" isn’t "a qualification to be president."

"I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Tuesday] and this little fight that I’ve been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don’t serve their country for political issues."

He continued: "And John McCain’s my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that, don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don’t, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let’s get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

We are no McCain fans, but:

John McCain’s my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it’s that, don’t be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don’t…

When has he ever done this?

No, what Mr. Webb is saying is "shut up about your military service." It’s not important.

But what else did Mr. Webb ever run on, besides his vaunted military service — and ‘Macaca’?

From Newt Gingrich (I heard it on Mark Levin):

Congressman Delahunt Should Apologize or Face Expulsion from Congress

By far and away the most sour note struck this Independence Day holiday was the outrageously irresponsible and un-American comments made by Congressman William Delahunt (D-Mass.) to vice presidential chief of staff David Addington in a hearing last week.

Rep. Delahunt repeatedly asked Mr. Addington about the use of waterboarding when interrogating enemy combatants. Mr. Addington replied that he could not discuss interrogation techniques because, as he said, "al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN."

"Right," Delahunt responded. "Well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have the chance to see you, Mr. Addington." View this disgraceful exchange for yourself here.

For his unconscionable expression of pleasure at the prospect of murderous al Qaeda being able to identify an American public servant, Rep. Delahunt, in the very least, owes Mr. Addington an apology. If he refuses to apologize, his colleagues in Congress should move to expel him. There is no place in Congress for a pro-al Qaeda, anti-American public official.

MORE from Power Line:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020860.php

NEW vision???

Hey, why aren't we hearing anything about IRAQ anymore? Just wondering (yes, yes, I do know the answer). Okay, lets continue the education of America on Obama and his "vision" for energy in this country.

Here is a great feature from KTLK Minneapolis, MN (Jason Lewis filled in for "el Rush bo" today)

Barack Obama's NEW vision on energy?

Friday 06-27-2008 9:00am CT

Barack Obama keeps telling us he is about change, but why does his energy speech in Albuquerque sound familiar? Maybe because Jimmy Carter told us the same thing in 1977 in his address to the nation and again in 1979 in his "Malaise" speech. Listen to the bytes below.

Click link:
http://www.ktlkfm.com/pages/jlewispersonality.html

1977 Address to Nation:
Click Here for Byte #1
Click Here for Byte #2
Click Here for Byte #3
Click Here for Byte #4
Click Here for Byte #5
Click Here for Byte #6
Click Here for Byte #7
Click Here for Byte #8

1979 Malaise Speech:

Click Here for Byte #1
Click Here for Byte #2

Hmmmmmm... the more things CHANGE, the more they stay the same!