Apparently, it has escaped the notice of one segment of the American population that a larger segment of the world’s population wants to destroy us. How else to describe the near immediate, knee-jerk reaction to any legislation that would in any way interfere with the terrorists’ desire to bring this country to its knees.

Over the weekend, President Bush signed into law the Protect America Act, which would expand our ability to listen in on foreign conversations as an aid in the global war on terror.

As surely as the sun sets in the west, a howl has gone up from the civil liberties crowd. According to the Center for National Security Studies, “The administration approach would allow the NSA warrant-less access to virtually all international communications of Americans with anyone outside the U.S., so long as the government declared that the surveillance was directed at anyone reasonably believed to be overseas.”

Who do they think they’re kidding. Number one, how much privacy can we have if every person calling to refinance my house knows how much I owe on it. Number two, do they really think that Uncle Sam is going to listen in on every single overseas call made? Has the government nothing better to do.

They love to quote Benjamin Franklin’s, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Well, I can’t help but wonder what old Benny would say in the face of today’s threat. Rights are not absolute. Try yelling “FIRE” in a crowded place and see what happens. Look at all the restrictions that are placed on the Second Amendment.

If we cannot eradicate nor subjugate the terrorist threat, then we are facing a whole lot worse than a little infringement here and there. There will be no room for civil liberties in the society envisioned by these fanatics.

Don’t ever forget that on 9/11 we watched horrified as innocent people jumped to their deaths because what was behind them was more terrifying than what was in front of them.

"The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media - all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe (sic) to Fox News and News Corp."

                                                                John Edwards

This man couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

Firstly, I would like to know what his idea of an "unbiased and fair media" is.  If he's referring to the mainstream media, then he's completely disconnected from reality.

Secondly, journalists have nothing to do with democracy.  They just ride the coattails of those who make it possible.  

A strong democracy begins with men and women who are willing to put it all on the line for such an ideal.  A strong democracy ends when there are no longer such people.

Barack Hussein Obama is rapidly becoming the incredible shrinking candidate.  Fresh off his rather naive comment that he would meet with any thug, anytime, anywhere during his first year as President, he has stepped in it again.

He has declared that when he's President, if credible intel suggests that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, then by golly we're going in.  Now hold on just a danged minute, son.

Obama has done nothing but denounce our presence in Iraq.  If he paid more attention to history and the facts, he would realize that we have the authority to be in Iraq.  Desert Storm did not end in victory.  It ended in a cease fire that America spent 12 long years policing.  When it became obvious that Saddam Hussein (there's that name again) was playing the U.N. and the world for suckers, with our money no less, President Bush went in. 

But, I digress. 

In case you missed it, Pakistan went nuclear during the Clinton administration.  (Even Clinton didn't notice until he pulled his pants up.)  You can't just go marching into any country, let alone a nuclear one, let alone one that is (ostensibly) our ally in the war on terror, and start bombing the joint.

You may not like President Bush and you may not like the war in Iraq, but America had the authority to act.  We have no such authority in Pakistan.  But, democrats will always find a way to justify their actions while at the same time denouncing identical actions from anyone else.

It's why democrat and hypocrite are synonymous.

Since Townhall.com is the premier blogging spot for conservatives, it would be greatly appreciated if it would get its technical act together.

Yesterday, I spent a great deal of time putting together my blog.  It disappeared shortly after I pushed the "publish" button.  I don't know where it went, and I don't know how to get it back.

I e-mailed Townhall yesterday in this regard but have yet to get a response.  I'm still waiting for a response to the e-mail I sent a long time ago addressing yet another technical issue.

Come on guys, get it together.  Thank you.

What a sad day in America. A member of Congress actually walked out on a briefing about U.S. progress in a war that has not only cost billions of dollars and taken the lives of some three thousand Americans, but is the front in the war on Islamofascism, the Left’s denials notwithstanding.

What could have possibly caused Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) to leave such an important meeting? She was hearing good news, and Democrats aren’t having any of that. All they want to hear is that the war is failing, because in their limited imaginations that translates to Bush is failing. The fact that it also translates to America is failing is beyond their ability to grasp.

Ms. Boyda said that she just couldn’t listen any more to talk that made it sound like Iraq is “a place that I might take the family for a vacation - things are going so well . . .”. Nobody in their right mind would compare Iraq to Disneyland, and Ms. Boyda’s comments show that the level of fear on the left is rising, along with their hysteria.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) seconded the notion when he said that a positive report on the surge would split the Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. He was also heard to say that a positive report would be “a real big problem for us.”

Imagine that. How could good news from the front be a problem? What is so wrong with these people that they are pinning their political fortunes on their own country’s defeat? How could they possibly consider themselves worthy to lead this country when they are in denial on so monumentally important an issue?

Ms. Boyda went on to say that “those kinds of comments will, in fact, show up in the media and further divide this country . . .” No, Ms. Boyda, good news from the front will once again unite this country behind its President, and that is simply intolerable to the party of tolerance.

America may be sick of this war, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to win it. We haven’t won a war since 1945. We’re due.
__________________

P.S.  And I thought my blog of yesterday was just satire.

 DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE

July 31, 2007

WE'VE GOT BIG TROUBLE!
The New York Times published an article by two men from the Brookings Institute that claimed the surge in Iraq is working.  Since the Times and the Institute are usually always in our corner, I feel so betrayed.

WE CAN'T HAVE THIS!
Under NO circumstances can the American people be allowed to hear or read that the surge might be working.  The lies we've been peddling will be seen for what they are.  We've been bashing Bush on Iraq for far too long now to see all our hard work go down the drain.

IRAQ MUST BE DEEMED A FAILURE!
Anything less than a complete and utter pullout BEFORE things turn around will result in an uptick in Bush's polling numbers, at a time when he's already way too far ahead of Congress in that regard.  If Iraq is deemed a success, people will once again start looking to the Republicans.  Hillary, taking all sides as usual, will be in good shape.  Obama, however, will look like a dunce for so proudly claiming that he was always against the war.  How will that look for our vice-presidential nominee?

THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOW!
Call our members of Congress and tell them to step up the chatter regarding withdrawal.  Tell them to hold the entire budget hostage if they have to.  Call our allies in the mainstream media and tell them to focus on how many Americans have died.  Tell them to re-run all the old stories about out-dated equipment and faulty vests.

BUSH MUST FAIL, IRAQ MUST FAIL, AMERICA MUST FAIL OR WE WILL FAIL!

Get moving,

Blowhard Scream
_____________

The foregoing is a creation of fiction.  All insults are intended.

At the Democrat National Convention in July 2004, John Edwards said the following:

     "We will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaeda and these terrorists.  You cannot run.  You cannot hide.  We will destroy you."

Fast forward to today and this exchange with Wolf Blitzer (5/2/07):

Blitzer:  "But do you dispute that al Qaeda has a presence in the al-Anbar province, in other provinces in Iraq, that they're trying to establish a base there from which to do their evil deeds?'

Edwards:  "No, of course, I don't dispute that.  That's obvious."

Just one month later at the debates in New Hampshire (6/3/07):

"As President of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies."

Everywhere but Iraq, of course.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton showed some skin on the Senate floor.  Some even referred to it as cleavage, and the inevitable firestorm has ensued.

The New York Daily Times said that Clinton is "a woman ambivalent about how to express her own sexuality through fashion. . ."  Where to begin.

There are three words never used in connection with Hillary Clinton:  ambivalent, sexy, and fashionable.

Ruthlessly ambitious works.  She's wanted to be President for decades now.  Everything she has thought, said, and done in that time has been with that one goal in mind.  She endured international humiliation at the hands of a philandering husband and turned her phony shock and grief into a Senate seat.  Further, her refusal to leave the man without whom she would be and have nothing has allowed her to play the "faith" card, which Democrats think is all the rage now.

If you think of sexy and Hillary Clinton at the same time, get help.

As for fashion, I do not understand how this woman can have millions of dollars and professional handlers and still look frumpy and dumpy very nearly all the time. Maybe there's something to be said about that mirror, mirror on the wall.

Getting back to the cleavage issue, what is so wrong with Hillary Clinton's brain that she thinks she gets to skate through life unscathed?  Remember when we had to hear all about Al Gore's "package?'  The haircuts of Bill Clinton and John Edwards?  Jimmy Carter's hemorrhoids?  George H.W. Bush throwing up in public?  Ronald Reagan's polyps?

Why is everything about Hillary Clinton thick except her skin?

There are a number of reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is scary.

The first, of course, is his arrogance in believing that he should be President of the United States.  This man is in his first term in the United States Senate, and his record in the state legislature of Illinois could best be described as "Present."

He rails long and hard against the war in Iraq and how he was against it from the start.   Of course, he was kibitzing from the sidelines.  He wasn't where it counted when it counted, so it's easy for him to run off at the mouth.

The second, which is in line with the first, is that he's bought into the hype and hysteria surrounding his candidacy.  Do you really think that a white first-term U.S. Senator from Illinois would generate the same buzz?

What's most frightening is his recent jab at Hillary Clinton, "I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out." 

Is he kidding?

Is he naive enough to believe that wars can be brought in on schedule?  That everything goes according to plan?  That there are never setbacks?  Never a need to rethink strategy?

Life is what happens to you when you're planning your life.  Grasp the concept Mr. Obama and quit playing to the Loony Left.  There's not enough of them to elect you.

Our Founding Fathers put into place a tripartite government with the concept of separate but equal, checks and balances.

Russ Feingold wants to censure President Bush, despite the fact that there's no constitutional way to do this.  But, as we all know, the Constitution is something the democrats bring up only rarely, and then usually just to justify abortion on demand or all of their spending programs.*

Mr. Feingold wants to reprimand President Bush.  Well, what if the President wanted to reprimand Mr. Feingold?  What if the Supreme Court wanted to reprimand Congress?  What if Congress wanted to reprimand the Supreme Court?  What if the Supreme Court wanted to reprimand the President?  What if the President wanted to reprimand the Supreme Court?  What if the Supreme Court and Congress wanted to reprimand the President?  What if the President and Congress wanted to reprimand the Supreme Court?

Where would it all end?

Once again, the wisdom of our Founding Fathers stands in stark contrast to the folly of today's Fumbling Fools.
___________________________

*  It's amazing to me that democrats can construe the Constitution to include the "right" to kill babies but can't seem to find the words "right to bear arms" anywhere in there.

They just really are.  I don't know how anyone stands them.  I don't know how they stand themselves.

The Republican President is sitting on a 34% approval rating.  The Democrat Congress is sitting on a 14% approval rating.  And, according to Chuck Schumer, it's all the Republicans' fault.  Can't the Left take any responsibility for itself?

The best that Harry Reid - who thinks George Bush is just the worst president ever - can muster is an all-night jam session that was quickly denounced for the farce that it was.  Even as a slumber party, it was a failure.  What legislative achievement can be laid at the feet of this Congress?

Democrats are just churning out subpoena after subpoena in their neverending quest to investigate the living daylights out of the Bush administration.  Case in point:  the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.  All of these individuals serve at the pleasure of the President.  They can be fired at any time for any reason.  The democrats are counting on the fact that America has forgotten that one of Clinton's first acts as President was to fire every single U.S. attorney in the country without any explanation whatsoever.  The democrats are just children.  It's okay when one of them does it, but no Republican had better ever do it.

Then there's Russ Feingold.  Apparently, he no longer even aspires to rationality.  He was on some Sunday show demanding that Congress censure President Bush for his "assault" against the Constitution.  Didn't we go all through this with Clinton?  There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for a censure of the President.  Therefore, Mr. Feingold wants to assault the Constitution in order to censure someone else for assaulting it.  This is drivel.

Then, of course, there's the ultimate democrat goal:  defeat in Iraq.  Apparently, the surge is working, although you would never know it from the MSM, and we can't have that.  If America doesn't lose in Iraq then President Bush won't go down in history the way the democrats want him to. 

Like all children, democrats want what they want when they want it.  If they don't get it, then it's someone else's fault.

This is just pathetic.  It really is.  No wonder the terrorists want to destroy us.

The Left is confusing.  They can't come right out and say that the reason they want Iraq to fail is because they want Bush to fail because that would sound petty and childish.

So, they latch onto a couple of excuses:

1.  It's costing too much money.  Please.  Are they serious?  The only time the Left complains about Uncle Sam spending too much money is when it's being spent on the other party's programs.  The Left would happily spend every dime that is being spent on the war on a never-ending array of their feel-good social programs, and call you unpatriotic and mean for saying that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

2.  Too many people are dying.  This has absolutely no merit whatsoever

Health care providers will kill more people in a week to ten days than have died in the war in Iraq in 4 years.  The slaughter is so great that it's tantamount to a 9/11 on a weekly basis.  What does the Left propose to do about this?  Make them all government employees, tax us through the nose for the privilege of being killed and maimed, and prevent us from suing them.

Motor vehicles will kill more people in three weeks than have died in the war in Iraq in 4 years.  What does the Left propose to do about this?  Demand that cars be lighter and smaller, thus insuring more injuries and death when accidents happen which, by the way, will drive up health care and insurance costs.

So, we're back at the beginning.  The Left wants Iraq to fail because it wants Bush to fail.

And that's the way it is.

Harry Reid organized an all-night bull session regarding an amendment for troop withdrawal in Iraq.  He was unable to muster 60 votes to cut off debate and bring up a vote.  Initially, he voted in favor of cloture.  Then, he joined Republicans and voted against it, thereby killing a vote on the amendment.

Why would he vote against allowing a vote on an amendment he had specifically organized an all-night session to vote on?

After claiming disappointment at an outcome he helped engineer, he said that he was going to "set aside" the Defense Department authorization bill.  Does that mean that democrats are seriously considering cutting off funding for our troops?

Congress has robbed Social Security blind.   It has refused to allow America to become energy independent, jeopardizing not only our economy but also our security.  Our dollars have built up the very people who are trying to destroy us.  Now, are the lefties actually considering stranding our troops when they're in harm's way?

If so, is there a single living soul in America that Congress cares about?

 
At an NAACP event, Hekyll (Hillary Clinton) and Jekyll (John Edwards) were overheard trying to find a way for the lower-tier democrat presidential candidates to be banished from future debates, effectively ending their campaigns.

Are Hekyll and Jekyll the only ones with ideas?  Do they think they are the only ones who should be allowed to express them?  Now, we all know that certain of those running, on both sides of the aisle, don't have a snowball's chance in hades of becoming president.  That does not mean, however, that the self-anointed elite have any right whatsoever to exclude them.   "You're not serious.  You're trivializing these forums.  Be gone."

But trying to run other people off is not the best part.  When confronted with their own words, neither Hekyll nor Jekyll fessed up.  Hekyll blamed Jekyll and said that she personally liked the forums, while Jekyll simply said he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings.

Both of these people want to be Leader of the Free World.  Heck, Hekyll thinks she's entitled to it and, believe you me, the lower-tier participants aren't the only ones she wants to eliminate.  Yet neither one of these has the intestinal fortitude to own up to statements that, in the overall scheme of things, don't amount to a hill of beans.  Doesn't either one of these imperialists have the simple human decency to say, "I said it, I'm sorry." 

They won't appear on Fox.  They disavow their own comments.  Yet, they think they're qualified to take on the bloody butchers of terrorism who want nothing less than our total destruction.

My gosh, it's frightening to think that there are actually people out there who are contributing to these people and pulling for them to win.  More frightening still is the thought that one of them will.

  The biggest coward on the face of the planet - Osama bin Hiding - may have reared his ugly head once again.  Then again, maybe not.

  An undated clip of a "weary-looking" Osama, less than a minute in length, was in a 40-minute videotape posted Sunday on a militant website.  This short clip shows Osama-Rama-Ding-Dong saying, "The happy man is the one that God has chosen him to be a martyr.  Well then, bin Leaden must be a very unhappy man indeed.  Or, maybe it's just that wide yellow stripe down his back that prevents him from being the martyr he sends other out to be.

  There is one school of thought that says that Osama is dead, and this undated clip does nothing to dispel this notion.  If he is dead, the bloody butchers of terror, who want to keep momentum going for their global jihad, don't want the world to know it.  The death of the most wanted man on earth, pathetic loser though he may be, could put a crimp in that momentum.

  In any event, it's simply wrong to deprive these people of the one thing they want most:  martyrdom.  I say we should give it to them in heaping handfuls.