‘heathen’ posted: “Wonkette Power! yeah! and that’s why I heart wonkette! also nice work getting paid to hack their election all those of you who voted during work!” It would seem that the employer for most of those votes and visits would be ‘you’. The visits to http://www.countryaboveself.com, linked in from wonkette, during business hours looked like a who’s-who of government agencies (FCC, DOJ, Defense Department, House, Senate, Navy, OSIS [Intelligence agencies], and many more) , law firms, universities and thousands of individuals.

‘indigowarrior’ posted: “This voter fraud brought to you by Wonkette & Diebold. Partnering to bring you a brighter and more artificial America.”

‘Trai_Dep’ posted: “They banned someone (please let it be a Wonketteer) for nominating John Hinkley as a patriot. Were they upset because he took six shots, or because he missed?”

In the initial story posted by Wonkette, “Wingnuts Rank America’s Best Patriots, Worst Traitors,” ‘AngryBlakGuy’ responded, “…if these are the “Patriots” then in the immortal words Rev. Wright ‘GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!’”
Within an hour of that first report on Wonkette, the site was hacked. Only the vote database was destroyed. It was replaced with a backup. Two more hacks later… there have been thousands of visits from the wonkette story and over 40 nominations placed by wonkette linked visitors. Those nominations have ranged from John Hinkley and Adolph Hitler as Patriots, George Washington, John Adams and Abraham Lincoln as Traitors, God and Jesus as Traitors, Santa Claus, John Kennedy, and numerous attempts for George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales and even the ‘corpse of Ronald Reagan’, all as Traitors. The first access banned was the U.S. House for nominating ‘Joe Turncoat’, obviously an attack on Joe Lieberman.

A good deal of visits came from email messages. But most came from Wonkette. Who was reading Wonkette? George Soros’ Open Society Institute, hillaryclinton.com, many Soros backed 527 groups, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NewsCorp, CBS News, Reuters, The Associated Press, Congressional Quarterly, PBS Newshour, and many city-wide newspapers. That would explain a great deal.

Many of the news organizations watched the top video: George Bush’s “It’s A Wonderful Country”, which tells a true story of national interest.

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for ‘progressives’ to see a vote process they cannot control. ‘DangerousLiberal’ posted: “Don’t game the site until the early returns are recorded! When we socialist pinko freedom haters take over, this will be an outstanding list of the first cohort of inmates in our reeducation camps.” Do you think he’s kidding?

To paraphrase Attorney General Mike Mukasey, ‘I’m surprised, I am surprised.’ Six years ago my wife and I had our lives threatened and a career destroyed and have spent the time since waiting. But we never stepped down. We won’t step down, now. The video may be silly, but the story sure isn’t.

My question for them is, why does the mention of the word ‘Traitor’ cause instant defensiveness for liberals?

http://www.countryaboveself.com in three more days it will have been 1000 days since something happened. To those who know, do you hear me now? It’s only going to get louder.

Last year, I wrote a piece entitled, “National Crime Victims’ Rights Week” and published it on April 17, 2007 for the April 22-28, 2007 commerative week. I opened that piece with this, “As we begin the 27th observance of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, April 22-28, 2007, without equal protection for victims as guaranteed by our Constitution, it is a good time to pause, and a fitting time to reflect on what that fundamental right means. The Department of Justice says: “This year’s theme “Victims’ Rights: Every Victim. Every Time.” embodies the work of the individuals, networks and partnerships to forge a national commitment to help victims rebuild their lives.” I wonder about any theme where victims might actually enjoy justice: every victim, every time. Ever since 1868 the right to equal protection has been guaranteed in our Bill of Rights as the 14th Amendment, Section 1. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”

This year’s National Crime Victims’ Rights Week seems to be themed, “Justice for Victims, Justice for All.” Excuse me? In just one year we have moved from, “Every Victim. Every Time,” to “Justice for Victims, Justice for All,” but have we? Has a victim received justice when the victim does not know it? Have civil rights been restored if the victim does not know it? Has a witness who was scorned for political gain been given justice if nothing has publicly exonerated him? Isn’t a victim who has not received justice still a victim? Isn’t the person or persons responsible for keeping that person a victim, just as guilty as the original perpetrator, regardless of their motives? Doesn’t the Constitution protect individual civil rights?

In last year’s piece I stated, “When the scales of justice are balanced, the victim is no longer the victim. The victim becomes the vindicated and it is supposed to be that the perpetrator becomes the incarcerated. Tilt that toward the incarcerated and they’ll be back for another dose real soon. Tilt that back to equal and the victim’s rights week the Department of Justice wants to celebrate by patting themselves on the back for pretending to care about victims will be all smoke and mirrors and I’ll change my mind about the ‘who can you trust’ thing.”

This year, I once again wonder: why are perpetrators keeping their jobs and remaining free, while justice is not served for the victim? Why are politicians with diverted loyalties permitted to keep pretending? Why is my country suffering at the hands of deeds unknown to most? Why haven’t zealous prosecutors, prosecuted? Who can be trusted? Who can’t? Why is a great man demonized for political gain when he has served his country in the highest honor?

Responding to the New York Times, “Robert H. Bork Jr., a corporate communications specialist,” and the spokesman for Alberto R. Gonzales stated, “Mr. Gonzales ‘looks forward to the conclusion of the department’s inquiries and getting on with his life.’” So do I. It would be a nice thing, after all these years. People have a right to know the truth. The former great Attorney General has a right to have his name cleared. Our country needs it. Our country needs it now. This week. Not after the election. This week, where some frame of symbolism still matters.

On February 7, 2008, John McCain told the gathering at this year’s CPAC: “I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be ‘nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.’ I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.”

On March 27th of this year Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey spoke at The Commonwealth Club of San Francisco. In part, he stated, “In the midst of San Francisco’s Graft Prosecutions, when this city’s effort to combat corruption seemed hopeless, President Theodore Roosevelt sent a lengthy letter to the civic leaders who were championing the anti-corruption cause. The letter concludes with this rousing admonition: ‘Do not be discouraged; do not flinch. You are in a fight for plain decency, for the plain democracy of the plain people, who believe in honesty and in fair dealing as between man and man. Do not become disheartened. Keep up the fight.’ This city and our country have come a long way since the turn of the last century. We have a system of representative democracy that, despite its flaws, remains a model to countries that aspire to be democracies and countries undergoing the pangs of being born as democracies the world over. Even now, however – especially now – we should keep up the fight against public corruption, at home and abroad. And I am here to tell you, we will.”

I know there are many who are not discouraged and will never flinch. Being disheartened is not about self. It is about country. The AG says he will. But when?

As National Crime Victims’ Rights Week is upon us once again, for the sixth time: will “Justice for Victims, Justice for All,” and “Every Victim. Every Time,” be nothing but a marketing ploy? Prove that wrong, Judge Mukasey, prove that wrong. For the good of our union, prove that wrong!

Cunningham’s remarks were caustic and inflammatory, just the things he need do in today’s radio, to garner a participating audience, but exactly the opposite for a Presidential campaign. As liberals do, the so-called ‘conservatives’ have focused in on only one thing he said: “Barack Hussein Obama”. Luckily, he did not say what he has said on his Sunday night syndicated talk show. On that program he has referred to Obama as “Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama.” It is the food of vacant minds to mock in absurdity and only serves two things: the emboldenment of the lame and the disgust of the sane.

Over at ‘Newsbusters’, Brent Baker put it this way, “With cover from John McCain, NBC and ABC on Tuesday night condemned the ‘caustic’ and ‘mocking’ remarks of Cincinnati radio talk show host Bill Cunningham who, on stage before an Ohio campaign appearance by McCain, dared to utter Barack Obama’s middle name and call him ‘a hack’ Chicago politician.” But that is not all Cunningham said.

“At some point in the near future the media, the stooges from the New York Times, CBS (The Clinton Broadcasting System), NBC (The Nobody But Clinton Network), The All Bill Clinton Channel (ABC), and the Clinton News Network at some point is going to peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama… That day will come and then you’ll know the truth about his business dealings with Rezko, when he got sweetheart deals in Chicago, and the illegal loans that he received, at some point the media will quit taking sides on this and maybe start covering Barack Hussein Obama the same way they covered Bush, the same way they covered Cheney, and they same way they cover every Republican.” Great radio. Disgusting politics. McCain’s comments were all he could do to turn his campaign back to civility. “I regret any comments that may be made about these two individuals who are honorable Americans, we just have strong philosophical differences, so I want to disassociate myself from any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them… I absolutely repudiate such comments, and again I will take responsibility it will never happen again. It will never happen again.” Had McCain informed the crowd of same, it would have been an attack on Cunningham. McCain is far too much of a statesman (something neither Democratic candidate can pretend to achieve) to have changed the topic that way.

AllAccess.Com, (membership required) commercial radio’s premier online news and information source, related Cunningham’s complaint as; “For his part, CUNNINGHAM, complaining that MCCAIN ‘threw me under the bus to the national media,’ said that he would endorse HILLARY CLINTON.” McCain didn’t throw Cunningham under the bus. It just looked that way when ‘Willie’ stuck his head out of the gutter. In a dose of reality, Mark Ambinder quotes Karl Rove, “Rove said that the use of “Barack Hussein Obama” would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.” But it makes good radio.

To understand Cunningham one has to understand the radio business. That is something I can speak about. I spent my adult life in that business. Never having met Mr. Cunningham directly, I did nonetheless watch a portion of one of his night shows at WLW from the producer’s studio while I was there working as a news anchor. The guest that night was Rowdy Roddy Piper. I have witnessed radio’s regression from entertainment, people could embrace and make an important part of their lives (where starting up a 45 was all about finding the burn); to confrontation and shock that people can only react to, that draws the worst of society. You may not be aware of the state of radio these days.

Back in 2002 the Future of Music Coalition published a study of commercial radio. Although radio has never really been about the music (it has always been about the profits) it took the music to fill the signal. It is ironic how a business that entered the ‘less talk is better’ mentality, wound up being all about talk. As costs were reduced, the disk jockey was converted into a virtual voice in a digital box. Mornings became king where syndicated ‘network’ shows dominate. In order for a ‘one size fits all’ program to succeed it must cater to the least common denominator, in order to pull the largest share of the most markets. Where nearly all radio shows were about the community and its local flavor, syndicated radio shows cannot mention community without alienating all the other communities they are broadcast in.

Being all about the profits, the point of any business, was the sole focus of big corporation ownership. The bean counters of wanna-be broadcasters made the profits the focus of the business. That meant squeezing more out of the staff that remained and introduction of cost savings devices like voice tracking and centrally controlled play lists. What was once a potential hit in the south could now only be a hit, if it hit everywhere. Music suffered. Talent suffered. Radio suffered. But profits climbed. Out of that fiasco of cannibalism came the few voices that actually succeeded. Those voices succeeded for the same reason liberal voices on radio do not succeed. They cater to the lowest common denominator with a single theme, and make that theme their daily topic. Whether it is illegal immigration, or anti-liberal ranting it is still one theme. Liberals have so many fractured parts of their loose membership, a single theme cannot be held. The anti-war theme has worn thin with good news and the Bush lied theme has fallen to the facts. ‘Conservative’ talk hosts are starting to fall into the same mold as the corporate conglomerates they bow to. They are focusing in on the simple obvious, while ignoring what it takes to get there. And they are applying inductive reasoning in catching the ‘he said the whole name’ argument, when McCain’s distancing involved everything else Cunningham said too.

“I’m gonna follow the lead of Ann Coulter. I’ve had it with John McCain,” Cunningham told FOX News’ “Hannity & Colmes.” “Cunningham said McCain ‘embarrassed himself,’ and then made up a name of his own for the Arizona senator, ‘John Juan Pablo McCain,’ an apparent reference to McCain’s sponsorship of immigration reform legislation. He added that McCain should be ‘repudiating Democrats and leaving conservatives alone.’ That isn’t too easy to do when they keep making fools of themselves. It is the food of vacant minds to mock in absurdity and only serves two things: the emboldenment of the lame and the disgust of the sane.

Now, the ‘conservative’ talk hosts are out and about the talking head circuit bemoaning John McCain for setting the record straight on how he will run his campaign, and a single topic is paramount to their moaning: how dare McCain go out and say something against what Cunningham said. That is simple. Cunningham is not running for President. Cunningham is not using his head. Cunningham is trying to be another Ann Coulter and make a name for himself. Well, not at the expense of civility and not at the expense of the most important political election in modern times. So what was Bill Cunningham thinking? Your guess is as good as mine. But I can rest assured it wasn’t potential consequences to the nation.

(Lee Kent) Hempfling’s radio career spans decades, including positions as news anchor, program director, morning personality, general manager and air talent in markets like Cincinnati, Dayton, Little Rock, Austin, Corpus Christi, Fort Smith, Greenville, New Bern-Jacksonville, and Charleston among others.

The entire concept of ‘right and wrong’ has fallen into the mire of ‘opinion’, where everyone is entitled to one, and no one is judged right or wrong. It is that way due to Controlled Focus. Bad ideas and wrong positions can only be defended through the deliberate spreading of information that supports their right to exist, not their being right. Generally, Republicans are really bad at using Controlled Focus. We like to call it for what it is: propaganda. Propaganda (according to Webster) is “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person” and “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.” Republicans have a habit of discarding such tripe. Democrats live by it. So do the institutions that do the Democrat’s bidding. I won’t bother with examples. Self explanatory is easily searched in your favorite Internet search engine.

The ‘one size fits all’ campaign is a necessity for Democrats. Take ‘change’. Wow. Change. Make things different. Take ‘hope’. The desire of attaining something. The problem is, with all ‘one size fits all’ slogans, put them together and they don’t exist. If you have hope of change and change does not happen, you can still have hope. But if they exist at the same time, you have hope and change; and change happens, hope is gone. If you change, hope no longer exists. If you hope, change cannot happen without hope being dashed. It is the same problem Democrats find themselves in, when addressing issues of any of the individual causes that make up their party. If any one is ever attained, that portion of the party will cease to exist. Democrats make their future by pandering to their parts in order to maintain their condition, hoping for change. If bigotry was history, where would all the civil rights leaders go? If poverty was history where would all the crusaders go? If gays achieved special treatment, if they could redefine marriage what would they do? If abortion was ever NOT fought against, where would feminists go? The Democratic party is comprised of many groups of unfulfilled and frustrated victims. Their causes must continue as struggle, or there is no longer a cause to bind them to the Democrats. Taking advantage of that need for victimhood, propaganda becomes the necessity. And that necessity is supported by the throng of believers, the followers of the piper, the emotional wrecks who do not even have the slightest regard for hiding it.

A quite telling exchange is offered, without acknowledgement of the disorder suffered by the writer, in this passage from DailyKos: “I’ve just returned from staying with my physician brother-in-law, and as often is the case on these visits, somewhere after 1AM we held an hour long screaming session on politics. I believe I said something about everything being the fault of freakin’ anti-worker Republicans backed by corporate corruption (and I may well have used a word other than “freakin’”), while he ended by touching on his Air Force career and insisting that it was going to take a military coup to set this country right.” Democrats will say ‘amen-brother’. Republicans will say ‘a good therapist would be a nice idea and God bless the Patriot-Veteran.’

Another example is offered by good ol’ Howard Dean. Democrats deride John McCain for standing his ground and sending out a money letter to ‘take advantage’ of the ‘bad press’ from the New York Times. Then, Howard Dean sends out “a fundraising e-mail under his name Friday. Dean specifically references the conservative push-back against the Times and the hay the right made out of it, then says to Democrats, ‘Let’s hit back.’” He had the gall to state, “seeing more dollar signs, the McCain campaign and the RNC decided to jump at the chance to take advantage of the distraction they had created to raise money.” Problem is, it was the far left, America hating New York times that caused the distraction. What part of ‘ancient history’ qualifies as NOT a distraction?

Liberal bloggers and parrot-posters are doing their best to climb on the marching order bandwagon. They always do. Read some liberal blogs when congress is not in session and it is a rather boring existence. As soon as the ‘powers’ start squawking the parrots start barking. They climb on board so much, they miss what is not said. Republicans tend to pay more attention to what is not said than what is being propagandized. A prime example, once again from DailyKos is this entry: “Barack Obama distilled into a Javascript.” What something means is not contained in what something says. It is contained in what something does not say. Click the link. Click away. How is Barack Omama your ‘new bicycle’? Round and round, going no where, saying nothing. If the liberal parrot-poster who created the ‘Midday Open Thread’ would have used his head for more than that hat-rack, he would have realized the link makes the point of Republicans, about Barack Obama. In all of the comments from parrot-posters the main topic covered is the first topic of the thread: Ralph Nader. One person apparently gets the irony of it all posting a link to http://hillaryismomjeans.com/. Equal treatment for Hillary going round and round, going no where; which might be more applicable than first thought. Another person found http://hillaryclintonisyournewhddvdplayer.com/. When last checked not one liberal parrot-poster got the meaning of the links. Once you get a liberal’s attention nothing else matters, including the point.

The most glaringly missing topic that is not being talked about is that good ol’ “Republican Culture of Corruption.” Goodness knows there has been enough fodder for Democrats to make hay with, but they are not. Way back on April 26, 2007 Politico reported that, “House Democrats plan to recycle their ‘Culture of Corruption’ slogan this week in an attempt to further tar congressional Republicans as scandals continue to plague the GOP.” Ah.. Where’d it go? “‘Our intention is to keep our foot on the gas as the party of reform,’ said Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois…” Whoops. Somebody is running on empty. When someone goes to jail, like “Abramoff” does that mean Democrats lose a talking point? All the hoopla over fired attorneys. Alberto Gonzales quits and whalla… nothing left to crow about?

Now the topic is FISA. No Democrat attacks. Just Democrat responses from White House and DOJ and Intelligence attacks. No Culture of Corruption attack even after Representative Renzi was indicted 35 times. And the real reason the New York Times decided to dump the McCain story on a lobbyist? Telecommunications corporations. The FISA debate needs all the help the Democrats can muster so what better way to put an underlying confusion on the issue than to involve the Republican Presidential nominee (even though that is not official yet.) The New York Times does need some lessons in how to control the parrot-posters on liberal blogs, though. Once they mentioned the potential of a sex scandal, that was all the parrots could parrot. The focus was not placed correctly in the article to engage the useful idiots. Once you get a liberal’s attention nothing else matters, including the point.

To prove that point, under the headline; (Forget the Woman) McCain the Faux Reformer is in Bed with the TELECOMS!!!, over in the wasteland of Democratic Underground, Controlled Focus was ignored in order to blame the ‘real culprits’. “People like MSNBC are under orders from their corporate bosses at General Electric (who are under orders from their bosses at the Pentagon) to paint this story as a smear job against an American War Hero from the Liberal Media. They will talk about Sex, sex, sex and more sex. Forget the blonde. John McCain is in bed with the telecoms.” It is always someone else’s fault. A new book liberals will not want you to read is, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” by Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a “board-certified clinical psychiatrist.” He states, “The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

The state of liberal lunacy, is as it has been: lost victims of Controlled Focus. Rossiter says, “the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; augmenting primitive feelings of envy; rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.” “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

Place index finger sideways over your lips, move up and down as fast and you can, blow air, make a sound everyone is happy with. There. Now you know how it feels to be a Democrat.

Yes, new threats. Now that the Protect America Act FISA enhancement has expired, we’re back to the 1978 FISA bill, that was so out of date it took special action by congress to allow it to even recognize things like email and cellphones, and routers.

President Bush remarked in his Saturday 02/16/08 radio address, “Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.”

Steny Hoyer (the House Majority Leader) accused President Bush of fear-mongering in an election-year. Edward Kennedy claimed, “It’s nothing more than a scare tactic designed to avoid legal and political accountability and keep Americans in the dark about the administration’s massive lawbreaking.” Anytime the Administration does something that involves protecting Americans, or in the case of fired U.S. Attorneys, exercising the rights of the Executive Branch, Democrats scream lawbreaking. Why?

Democrats are constantly harping how FISA’s lapsing causes no harm. Anything already in the works can keep on going, they say, for up to a year. Of course. But they ignore the point being made by the Administration. It isn’t what has already happened they are concerned about. It is what has not yet happened they are concerned about. (Insert all of the presuasive arguments made for the August, 2007 revision of FISA here). As typical as it may be for Democrats, defense lawyers and clinical morons to focus on topics out of context for personal gain, this process of ignoring the real topic, can have devastating effects on the nation.

The chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Silvestre Reyes, made a point that managed to ignore the irony of his party’s own actions. “We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.” Isn’t that what Harry Reid has already declared?

There are many possible reasons why Democrats refuse to permit a law that was passed to protect Americans, to be maintained. They can’t stomach the idea of encouraging cooperation from telecommunication carriers in protecting Americans, as someone who is not a terrorist might have their email scanned by a machine, or their phone call recorded by a machine. I don’t know about you, but I would think that anyone who has nothing to worry about, wouldn’t be worried about it. Good grief. If you have Google’s GMail, you are allowing Google to have a machine read your mail. That is so ads can be shown that match the mail. Do you not think that targeting terrorists is a bit more important than targeting consumers?

Another possibility is the one put forth by Scott Stanzel of the White House press office on February 15, 2008; in response to badgering from the caustic Helen Thomas:

“Well, it’s unfortunate, as you heard the President talk about this morning, that the House is departing Washington for 12 days off for Presidents Day. And it is important, I think — as you heard the President, it’s important to note a few things. It’s our view that leaders in Washington have no greater responsibility than to protect the American people. But at this time, this gap that we closed six months ago is going to reopen. And as Director McConnell has said, the Protect America Act has helped us obtain valuable insight on terrorist activities and it has led to the disruption of terrorist attacks. And unfortunately, tomorrow night that law will expire. So we will continue to work with members of Congress about the importance. But the issue really here is why is the House leadership, Democratic leadership, blocking a bipartisan bill?”

Thomas then asked; “What right does the President have to tell any company or any person in this country to break the law? … No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without any warrants?”

Stanzel attempted to explain the facts to her. “The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program that is expiring tomorrow night.” She interrupted, “Well, if it’s lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still prevails, doesn’t it?”

Stanzel tried again. “Because it’s — in 1978, as we talked about, during that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we’re not wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to terrorists in foreign countries. So it’s important that this law was modernized. It was modernized in August. As we talked about then, that the law was significantly outdated. You could have sat in that chair in 1978 and not had the ability to make a phone call from a cell phone; today you can. Today, you can send an e-mail from anywhere in the world via a Blackberry. The law was outdated, so it needed to be improved. It was improved. But Congress set a deadline for it to expire so they could review it some more and that — they missed that deadline. We gave them a 15-day extension. The Senate used that time to pass a bipartisan bill that received over two-thirds support from the United States Senate, has a majority of support in the United States House. But the House leadership, which seems to be beholden to class-action trial attorneys in this matter, refused to let it come up for a vote. So they are more interested in protecting the interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the interests of Americans.”

Thomas was aghast. “That’s a terrible indictment for you to say. They want to obey the law.”

Do they? The Senate Democrats stalled and received an extension. Why did they stall? Why are the house Democrats now doing the same thing? Could it be their ownership by “class-action trial attorneys”? Or could it be deeper?

Dana Perino thinks so. On February 14, 2008 she said, “They’ll have to ask themselves, ‘Do you trust the intelligence community more than you trust Democrats who are beholden to their left-wing?‘ And that’s the debate that this country is going to have.”

This country is going to have a debate about the Democrats being controlled and owned by their left-wing (sedition)? I can’t wait.

Perhaps the most damning evidence in support of Stanzel’s accusation comes from a thoroughly researched and expertly written piece by Amanda Carpenter, National Political Reporter of TownHall.Com; published February 13, 2008. Entitled “Obama, Hillary, Dems Take FISA Trial Lawyer Cash” I am repeating portions of that article here, as the press has not picked up on these facts.

“Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators. Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.”

“Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), who is in the running for the Democratic nomination, was given $28,650 from trial lawyers listed as counsel for plaintiffs who are suing those companies because they turned over phone records as a part of President Bush’s covert phone surveillance program. $19,150 of that was donated in the last year. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y), the other main contender for the Democratic presidential bid, also accepted money from trial lawyers on the case. Records show those lawyers have poured $34,800 to her and her husband’s campaigns over the years. $12,150 of those donations were made to her within the last year.”

“The other 22 senators who opposed the amendment and have taken similar donations are: Joe Biden (Del.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (M.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Teddy Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Carl Levin (Mich.) Robert Menendez (N.J.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.) Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).”

“Since 1997, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) accepted donations from three lawyers working the FISA case that amount to $10,000. The No.2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, who is charged with whipping votes, has accepted $18,350 from 1996 through 2007 from lawyers listed as counsel against phone companies.”

“Records show that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) accepted $3,750 in donations to her campaigns and PACs from these lawyers from 1996-2001.”

When asked his take on the FISA problem, John McCain stated, “people that are patriotic Americans need to sit down together and work this out.”

In his CPAC speech McCain stated: “I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be “nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.” I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.”

The President charged, “House leaders chose politics over protecting the country — and our country is at greater risk as a result.”

So while we’re having that sedition debate, let’s have the public corruption debate as well. President Bush is demanding the ability to catch new threats and the congress is content to rest on known threats. Somebody is trying to make the country blind to new threats.

Wonder who that might be?! The question is really: Who’s Zoomin Who?

It is important to know what the strategy cannot be.

1: It cannot be an embrace of the Democrats’ brand.
2: It cannot be an embrace of the Democrats’ agenda.
3: It cannot be an embrace of the Democrats’ talking points.
4: It cannot be a multitude of divisive issues.
5: It cannot be the Democrats’ division by class.
6: It cannot be a divided Republican effort.

The Democrat Brand: democrats, by the very nature of their party must appeal to various interest groups. That cannot be done by being specific. Thus, ‘Change’. Republicans who embrace the ‘change’ brand are not running for their election, they are running to enhance the Democrats’ brand.

The Democrat Agenda: democrats, by the very nature of their party must appeal to various interest groups. That cannot be done by addressing issues that matter to a nation, but only by issues that matter to those interest groups; finding issues that are common to them. Thus, ‘universal’ health-care, abortion and anti-national security positions. Each one, appealing to a small collection of radical elements.

The Democrat Talking Points: democrats, by the very nature of their party must appeal to various interest groups. That cannot be done by being specific. Talking points allow Democrats to offer various social ills, no matter how real they are or not, and offer solutions to them that always involve direct imposition. Thus, the solution to the ‘health care crisis’ (which does not exist) is single payer, government controlled health insurance. The solution to the ‘national security crisis’ (which does exist) is talking to the enemy, (which only makes the enemy equal.) The solution to the ‘economic crisis’ (which does not really exist, it is mostly reactionary problems from scared people who believe the ‘crisis’ line) is putting money in the hands of anyone who has not contributed to the funds in the past.

The Democrat Multiplicity of Issues: democrats, by the very nature of their party must appeal to various interest groups. That cannot be done by being specific. The issues they do embrace are those that tug at the emotional reaction of voters who want something for nothing, and they do it with clouds. Thus, ‘Change we can believe in’, ‘Hope’, and the ever elusive but always desired ‘I’m asking you to believe in yourself.’

The Democrat Division By Class: democrats, by the very nature of their party must appeal to various interest groups. That cannot be done by being specific. With Democrats, their base is wealthy power, but they want you to think their base is the poor and the deprived. They talk about the rich, as if being rich is a bad thing. They talk about the haves as if the have-nots are a preferred class. They talk about the minorities, as if being a minority should give one preference. They talk about gender, as if one’s gender means they should ignore their reasoning abilities. They pit the living against the unborn. They pit the poor against the rich. They pit those who want to love for peace, against those who want to fight for it.

Democrats Thrive on Division: democrats, by the very nature of their party must appeal to various interest groups. That cannot be done by being specific. As luck would have it, they are so divided, it is easy to bring them together, when their candidates appeal to the one thing all splinters of the Democratic party have in common: the appeal of government solving the ills they perceive are always someone else’s fault.

The right strategy must be:

1: Simple, single theme, and its own brand.
2: It must be an argument the Democrats can only counter by discounting, to their own peril.
3: It must be the single answer to every Democrat proposal.
4: It must be singular, understandable and able to become top of mind through little repetition.
5: And it must be applicable to every issue the Democrats raise.
6: The Republican party must be united.

Single Theme: just like the threat that faces the nation from abroad, this is not an election about the right and the left, it is an election about right and wrong. There are only two types of answers possible for every problem. The right answer and the wrong answer. There are many wrong answers. There is only one right answer.

Counter This: as Rudy Guiliani pointed out, there is right change and wrong change. Where Democrats cannot compete with Republicans is in the notion that there is a real ‘right’ and a real ‘wrong’. Democrats are about nuance, gray areas and exceptions. Republicans are about what is right. And that ‘right’ is not variable.

On The Issues:

The War On Terror: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to end a war. The wrong way is to pack up and leave. It is an admission of defeat and would be capitalized by the enemy exactly as it is. The right way is to defeat the enemy. No one is for war. No One! But those who are for country first, must prevail or the country will be last in the world. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of win or loose do you not understand?”

Medical Care: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to provide medical care for individuals. The wrong way is to dictate to individuals how they can acquire that care. The right way is to understand that personal medical care is the most personal issue a person can face, and that choice must remain with the individual in a many options as possible. The government can aid in the presentation of health care to individuals, but it cannot become part of the system without making that system socialist. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of there is nothing free in life, do you not understand?”

Taxes: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to fund the government’s essential services. The wrong way is to penalize ambition. The right way is to reward ambition. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of it’s the people’s money, do you not understand?”

Abortion: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to deal with a pregnancy. The wrong way is to blame the new child and kill him or her. The right way is to address the needs of the mother and the new child, where both live. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, do you not understand?”

Corruption in Government: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to conduct the people’s business. The wrong way, is to be controlled by outside influences, special interests and the corruption of money. The right way is to be entrusted by the voters and serve their interests. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of a government, by the people, for the people and of the people, do you not understand?”

Border Security: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to control the nation’s borders. The right way is to stop access of entry to those who are not legally entering. The wrong way is to encourage illegal entry. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of citizen’s rights do you not understand?”

Illegals In The Nation: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to deal with millions of illegals who have disregarded the nation’s sovereignty by entering illegally. One wrong way, is to round them all up and kick them out, it does nothing but cost a great deal and abruptly disrupts the industries that employ them and the communities that rely on them. Another wrong way is to leave them where they are, forgetting what they did. The right way is to penalize them for the form of entry, and require them to leave the country and return the right way. The right way is also to prohibit the employment of illegals and penalize those who refuse. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of the rule of law, do you not understand?”

Education: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to address the educational needs of the nation’s youth. The wrong way is to require the monopoly of government control. The right way is to consider the needs of the children first, and provide the means for parents to decide the type, form and method of their children’s education. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of parental control, do you not understand?”

Second Amendment Rights: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to guarantee the survival of this nation. The wrong way is to declare that the second amendment grants militias the right to keep and bear arms. The right way is to declare the second amendment grants individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Militias are controlled by politicians. Individuals are only controlled by what makes them the most involved. If the Supreme Court rules that the second amendment is referencing militias and not individuals it will have granted to the constitution what the constitution cannot contain: the right of the state over the right of the individual. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of ‘from my cold dead hands’, do you not understand?”

Veterans: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to honor the nation’s warriors. The wrong way is to treat them after their tour of duty as if they had never placed country before self. The right way is to show a grateful nation’s most honorable gesture, and repay their selflessness. Veterans should receive medical care from their preferred provider. Veterans should receive preference in employment in government positions. Employers should receive tax incentive to hire veterans. The families of Veteran’s who have given the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, should be treated as the Veteran is treated with the same respect and grateful appreciation of the nation. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of country above self, do you not understand?”

Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to spend the people’s money. The wrong way is to slip in projects that have not been given the light of public discourse. The right way is to require a public vote on every expenditure of the people’s money. No earmark not voted on by elected representatives and passed by majority vote should ever be permitted to be executed. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of get your hand out of the cookie jar, do you not understand?”

The States: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to apply the Constitution of this nation. The wrong way is for the federal government to usurp the powers granted to the states when that is prohibited by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” California cannot in anyway be prohibited by imposing regulations that exceed those of the federal government in curtailing greenhouse gases. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of Republican form of government, do you not understand?”

The Environment: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to address the quality of the planet’s environment. The wrong way is to scream crisis and impose restrictions on growth, economy and quality of life. The right way is to strive for a zero impact. That can only be done by incentive that is world wide, but it can be capitalized in this nation as an opportunity to reaching that goal. We all desire to breath clean air. We all desire to retain the quality of our family’s physical inheritance. Seeking to reduce green house gases by creating innovation and jobs is not admission of man made global warming. It is capitalism at its best. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of chicken little was a fairy tale, do you not understand?”

Quality of Life: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to determine the importance of quality of life. The wrong way is to allow any person, relative or not, the power to determine whether any quality of life is worth living. The right way is to accept that the right to life, from which our prohibition of homicide is derived, is paramount and life is life, regardless of a subjective judgment of quality. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of life, do you not understand?”

Religious Freedom: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to interpret the First amendment to the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The amendment does not permit the government, in any way, to prohibit religion, or the manner or means in which any person may exercise their personal religion. “…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The use of public property to peaceable assemble, even if it is for the purposes of exercising a religion must be restored. The wrong way, is to prohibit displays of religious symbols, the Ten Commandments and religious holiday celebrations from public property. The right way is to embrace the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of the Constitution is the foundation of this nation, do you not understand?”

Energy Policy: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to provide for the nation’s energy needs. The wrong way is to jump on the available technology bandwagon. The right way, is to invest in new technologies and allow the marketplace to determine which technology will prevail. If it was good enough for VHS versus Beta, it is good enough for energy. In the short term, we must begin building nuclear power plants, increase research into solar and geo-thermal energies and before committing to the over-use of our nation’s farms, we must consider the consequence of bio-fuels to the food supply. A technology that is not yet popular may prove to be the solution. Embracing bio-fuels now, will only serve to dampen research into non food-supply threatening technologies. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of less, is not more, do you not understand?”

Military vs. Domestic: There is a right way and there is a wrong way to address the needs of a nation under siege from radical enemies. The wrong way is to confuse the use of funds for military protection with the use of funds for domestic intervention. Democrats love to mix apples and oranges. Republicans must catch them every time and turn the topic to what is right and what is wrong. Spending money in the war on terror, is not relational to spending money for new first responder radios. Spending money to defend the nation is not at all relational to spending money to educate children. They are different topics, both of which are important to the nation. “Mrs. Clinton, what part of logic in context, do you not understand?”

On The General Election:

Everything said today will be heard in the general election. Count on it. Every ratings driven, egotistical radio talk show superstar that utters disparaging words against a potential nominee will have those words featured in a Democrat campaign television ad. The use of those words will be the sole responsibility of the talk show host. I hope they are held accountable for them.

The Republican’s first President, and one of our nation’s best: Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Slavery ended, and civil rights began as a Republican action.

The Republican party MUST follow Lincoln’s advice: “The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.”

George W. Bush has stood by that advice. Republicans must stand up to accept the mantle of continuing to fight for what is right and condemn what is wrong. The only way to do that, is to retain the White House and recover the congress in 2008 through a united party, a common goal, and a single, simple theme.

“Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”
– Abraham Lincoln February 27, 1860 – Cooper Union Address

That would be a nice thing to say if it was true. Apparently Behar doesn’t know a duck.

If you look at the commercial, the one liberals are screaming ‘cross’ about, you’ll notice one thing they have not noticed. There is no cross in the video. How can I tell?

A cross looks like a lower case ‘t’ (without the sweeping tail), while the thing that shines white behind Mike Huckabee, (besides being a book shelf) is a ‘plus’ sign. It looks like ‘+’, not ‘t’. So how could a plus be turned into a cross?

Better yet, how could a real cross symbol be completely ignored by ‘The View’? John McCain’s Christmas ad depicts the story of one of his Christmas’ as a prisoner of war. In it, he speaks about a Vietnamese jailer who drew a cross for him on the ground. And gasp: the video shows a real cross symbol being drawn, right there on the screen. But ‘The View’ doesn’t go for the throat on that one. Why not? It really is a cross. There is nothing to impose. Nothing to interpret.

Huckabee’s ad, on the other hand, presents a ‘white’ bookshelf, nicely lit, with Christmas ornaments in a corner of one cubby that is visually impossible to change in shape, but that does not matter to liberal thinking.

Liberals do not ‘see’ what is, they ‘see’ what should be, to match their own realities. A shape that is ‘white’, that is associated with a ‘preacher’, and that is shown while the dreaded ‘Christmas’ discussion includes the name ‘Jesus’ results in that thing that represents Jesus and the religious Christmas. That thing and the Soul Christmas is all about are to be driven from society by secular non-belief. That ‘thing’ just HAS to be a cross.

Oh, if it were so. If you actually look at the Huckabee ad you will see a near equidistance between the center joint of that ‘thing’. A cross is more like the outstretched arms of a person standing upright, with a short head and neck above the arms and a long standing pole beneath it. The sheer fact that anyone sees a ‘cross’ in that commercial tells only of what the observer assumes, not of what is being observed. It is a bookshelf and if it has to be rendered into a shape that is something else, it is a ‘+’, not a ‘t’.

When I met Huckabee in his office in Little Rock, some years ago, to discuss a scientific issue I was not aware he was an ordained preacher. Never once in the discussion could it have been discerned. In the Christmas ad, it cannot be discerned either. If you did not know that he was a preacher, you could not conjure it up from what he said, or from what the ad looks like.

Speaking of delusionist characters: Will Thomas at Huffington Post asked Ron Paul about the ad. Paul said, “It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, ‘when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ Now I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don’t think I would ever use anything like that.” Neither did Huckabee. Paul had invoked Lewis on Fox News earlier.

Sinclair Lewis also said, “It is, I think, an error to believe that there is any need of religion to make life seem worth living,” as quoted by Will Durant in On the Meaning of Life (1932).

The word ‘fascism’ is tossed around a lot these days, mostly by emotionally dominant, fear-controlled liberal apologists with a need to find the boogeyman responsible for anything they can’t accept personal responsibility for. ‘Fascism’ means “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition,” (according to Webster.) It is the inductive thinker’s greatest crutch.

Liberals live inductively. The fringe of the Democratic party, grown up in age only; to become the progressive movement having started in the 60′s, is mostly based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not logical. Having seen only red cars, a person determines all cars are red. There is no logic in that at all. As with Astrology, the weak accept a single occurrence of accuracy as proof of the movement’s validity. The next car the person sees turns out to be red, convinces the person all cars are indeed red. The next horoscope that turns out to be accurate defines Astrology as accurate. The next white plus sign the person sees behind a preacher convinces the person the thing is really a cross and all sorts of inductive absurdity follows.

There was a time when the lunatic fringe actually had their place in the fringe. They smoked their weed, listened to rock music, hated everything remotely resembling authority, didn’t trust anyone over 30 years of age, and tuned out before they dropped out. That was 1969. At the time, the big deal for peace-niks was embracing the euphoric utopia of socialism while burning their draft cards, bras, and brains. Then, a giant group hug happened in a rain drenched, farm field where rules were ignored, order was useless and the media was captivated with the ‘hippies’ at Woodstock.

Here we are, 38 years later. Those hippies are holding public office, running 527′s and trying to take over the country without anyone knowing about it. They now trust over 30′s, are still convinced socialism is not the mark it has worn through history, they believe tuning in, requires taking over, they carry i-pods to remember the ‘good ol days’, work the ‘Internet’ for all it can be, have completely accepted the notion that nothing goes on in the country without their side being right, and most of all, they are now smack in the middle of the nation’s conversation: the fringe, having grown old without ever growing up.

The single most important thing they have not changed is their loyalty. It has always been to ‘self’. There is no reason in logic at all for a person to refuse to adhere to a society’s norms unless it is for ‘self’. Being all about ‘self’, the old hippies have convinced themselves that Patriotism is about the self, complaining about the country and declaring the thought of a greater whole to be facist. They have convinced themselves that they are a majority of the nation. They have convinced themselves no one is the wiser. They are wrong.

They have always been wrong. But to hear them type today, they were always right. HuffingtonPost.Com is one such pathetic play ground of the fringe. Arianna Huffington leads the pack: In “Midnight in America: the Mainstreaming of the GOP’s Lunatic Fringe” published 10/23/07 she says; “…the right wing lunatics are running the Republican asylum. These days, the only thing that separates the RNC and Rush Limbaugh is a prescription for OxyContin.” A statement from the patient. There is never a mentally ill person who knows they are, and they almost always say the doctors and staff are nuts. Huffington is just a poster child for alternative reality. Democrats pimp a child to pass their socialized medicine back-door bill and then cry foul when deductively logical thinking persons question their doing so, they refuse to rebuke a lunatic congressman for personally attacking the President, then blame Republicans for questioning why. Anything that remotely disagrees with them, is not addressed, it is inductively connected to something else. Strawmen argue strawmen in search for liberal hearts. The most aggretious example of hippy politics (they now call themselves Progressives) is in the way they use and abuse people to reach their own political end.

America’s African heritige citizens were slaves in the 1700′s & 1800′s by force. They broke out of the force through a Republican President’s pen. In the 1900′s they were slaves by rejection. They broke out of the rejection through the voices of strong and fearless leaders and Republican congress. In the 2000′s they are slaves by deception. The N.A.A.C.P. is no friend of blacks. It uses them to push a socialist agenda. Being used is what people are when the elite are in control.

The brave warriors of America’s military are a prime example. Back when Woodstock was the banner of the progressives, the soldier was reviled, hated and spit-upon. The warrior was rejected for having fought in Viet-Nam. The war then was brought to a close through the rejection of the soldiers by the militant socialists with long hair and loud voices, and the cowardice of politicians. Today, those progressives have not changed their goals one bit, but they have changed their method. Instead of demonizing the individual soldier, they claim to support the individual soldier, and demonize the Commander in Chief. There is no difference in the real world.

Just as the A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union) is named to be what it is not, the deception is easy to see by knowing the motive.

A people that views its nation as something greater than the sum of its parts is deemed a ‘fascist’ movement by people who cannot fathom the meaning of a whole greater than the sum of its parts. It is why those who cannot; claim to be Patriots, while doing all they can, to not be. Luckily this nation is not a true democracy, as Democrats would have it be. As a Constitutional Republic, where E pluribus unum (out of many, one) dictates the greater whole the dictatorial leader is not possible. The autocratic government is not possible, unless it is imposed without the people’s knowing. The instilling of the use of the word ‘fascism’ to capitalize upon the ignorance of people is what makes Democrats thrive. If the race baiters heading up the N.A.A.C.P., the Jessie Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the country can be counted on to cry racism at any opportunity, if only to further their own wealth and power; then the Democrats can continue to do what they do so well: accuse others of doing what they do. Just listen to John Edwards’ screams of corruption in Washington, as if his party is not involved.

Where Lewis undoubtedly meant to convey that the religious would be the demon, religion teaches the demon would pretend to be religious. Inductive thinking is required to confuse the two.

As Deacon Keith Fournier describes in Catholic Online, “Huckabee finds himself in a maelstrom of controversy having to defend this video Christmas card against accusations that it had mixed “religion and politics” in an inappropriate manner. Some have even suggested that it was an intentional act of sending a coded message of sorts to evangelical Protestant voters.”

So let me ask. Is there such a thing as mxing ‘religion and politics’? Let alone in an inappropriate manner? What about that ‘separation of church and state’ thing? What about the ‘freedom from religion’ thing? Well, there is no freedom from religion, anymore than there is freedom from speech. Huckabee’s right to say whatever he wants, in anyway he deems fit with his own money (donated or not) is free speech. Viewers are not granted protection from being offended anymore than listeners are granted protection from being offended for anyone else’s freedom of speech. Religion and politics has been with this nation since it began and it will never cease. The only objections are coming from those who want a freedom FROM religion and that is just plain tuff.

Fournier relates more: “Bill Donahue, the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, in an interview airing on Fox News Network’s “Fox and Friends” morning program suggested the ad had an ulterior political motive. Donahue stated ‘You know what, sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is.’ Some reports have alleged that there is a floating white cross in the ad. The candidate says it is simply the outline of a bookshelf. Donahue suggested it was some form of subliminal message to evangelicals in Iowa.”

That would lead one to question the “Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties”. It states its purpose on its website, “When slanderous assaults are made against the Catholic Church, the Catholic League hits the newspapers, television, and radio talk shows defending the right of the Church to promote its teachings with as much verve as any other institution in society.” But Huckabee is not Catholic. Does that mean that the Catholic League is not about freedom OF religion, but rather freedom FOR a specific religion?

It further states, “When the religious freedom rights of any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts.” But apparently NOT when it involves a Baptist, especially a Baptist preacher running for President.

Even if Huckabee’s ad DID contain a cross, (as McCain’s ad does), Bill Donahue’s admonition of Huckabee’s speech disagrees with his own organization’s policy. In “Religious Expression at Christmastime: ‘Guidelines of the Catholic League’, Christmas 2003″ the organization says, “The display of religious Christmas symbols in the public arena certainly involves a greater understanding and tolerance for different religious traditions within the United States. It is also an opportunity to see that First Amendment rights of religious expression and free speech be guaranteed to all on an equal basis. Openness to religious expression, recognition, and speech in forums that are traditionally open to secular speech is not a violation of separation of church and state, or government seal of approval for any particular religious sect.” There is no more ‘secular speech’ event than a candidate running for office.

In a scathing attack piece by Media Matters For America, Donahue’s bio is depicted as, “Prior to leading the Catholic League, Donahue was a sociology professor at La Roche College, a Catholic college in Pittsburgh. He was also an adjunct scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He has authored several books, including Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU (Transaction, 2001) and On the Front Line of the Culture War: Recent Attacks on the Boy Scouts of America (Claremont Institute, 1996).”

Rawstory.Com has declared Donahue’s attack on Huckabee to be an ‘unlikely critic’. Bill Berkowitz writing in Dissident Voice, in 2004 quoted Donahue from MSNBC as saying, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK?” As much as I support the individual right of every American to think and praise whomever or whatever they choose, I find it quite absurd that the President of the Catholic League will fight for his religion but not choose to fight for any other religion or other religion’s person, for that matter.

The attacks on Huckabee from progressives, The View and The Catholic League share one thing: a complete imposition of self imposed reality on what is nothing at all like they claim it to be.

Huckabee’s Christmas ad and McCain’s Christmas ad both share one thing. Christmas. To hear the Christmas story from a completely different perspective, visit http://www.countryaboveself.com and click the ‘Hear The Heartbeat’ link. And for a lesson in the humility it takes to be a true Patriot, visit John McCain’s ‘A Cause Greater’ at http://www.johnmccain.com .

A more prime example of adhering to a false reality could never have been found.

From this quote, liberals assumed:

“The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.” As published verbatim on Public Affairs Books website http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781586485566&view=excerpt

In reading that excerpt, what is the topic? “The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” The topic is “help restore credibility”. The subject is, “amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” But that is not the focus of the reality-challenged. Their focus is what makes them feel emotionally fulfilled.

From that, came every sort of misconstrued ignorant claim the emotionally distraught miscreants could muster.

The topic became Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. The focus turned to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The fiction liberals live as truth interrupted the facts and resulted in a complete disregard for what the quote says. The reactions though, brought interesting statements, the speakers should be held liable for.

China’s news service proclaimed, “Bush told me to lie”, and opened their false story with, “Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has blamed President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for misleading the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.” The topic never arose in reality. I can understand China’s desire to make it seem so.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/22/content_7125637.htm

China’s news service wrote: “White House press secretary Dana Perino said Tuesday it was not clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. ‘The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information,’ she said.”

The Washington Post stated: “Former White Press Secretary Scott McClellan says in an upcoming book that he was misled by President George W. Bush and other high officials into misinforming the press about a CIA leak case that fueled debate about the Iraq war.” No he did not. He never mentioned the topic. It was NOT the topic. The press is simply making up a context in which to place the quote, the quote could not be placed in. With the context established directly in the quote, making it what it was not is not only bad journalism it is an outright lie, based in a reality that does not exist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001933.html

Salon tried to spin the topic by making up even more: “In a short, tantalizing excerpt from his forthcoming memoir posted on the Web site of Public Affairs Press, McClellan complains that he was duped into misleading the public and the media. Although the excerpt does not mention Valerie Plame, it clearly refers to her whispered exposure as a CIA agent by ranking aides to President Bush and Vice President Cheney.” Allow me to apply one line from McLellan’s quote that works here: “There was one problem. It was not true.”

The mention of “Karl Rove and Scooter Libby” immediately caused the author ‘Joe Conason’ to induce the issue that came to mind regarding two people who worked in the White House, both of whom create instant emotional reactions from emotionally controlled people. There is no way possible to deductively assume that mentioning those two people could only have meant Valerie Plame. It could only have been accomplished inductively. It is almost like liberals cannot fathom Rove and Libby doing anything else in all the years they worked for the Administration, let alone have anything at all to do with the topic: “help restore credibility..amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/21/mcclellan/index_np.html

False reporting is the thing that brings out the statements by politicans that most make them susceptible to have to live with what they say. Could that have been the point all along?

As quoted on Rawstory: “Sen. Joe Biden (D-CT) said that President Bush should ‘immediately come forward and explain any action taken by him or his administration to mislead the American public…it appears from McClellan’s account that the president himself was ‘involved’ in spreading false information. That is outrageous.’”

Rawstory: “Fellow presidential hopeful Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) stated that it was ‘a low point in our history when the leader of the free world fights to deceive the American public.’ Added the governor: ‘Rather than defend the Constitution, President Bush has bamboozled the country. Whether it is outing a CIA operative, illegally spying on Americans, or advocating the use of torture, the Bush administration has made a mockery of our legal system.’” The problem is, that is not true. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Joe_Wilson_McClellan_book_bolsters_lawsuit_1121.html

Not one comment from the less reactive politicians. Mike Huckabee, whom I have met and spoke with in a meeting in Little Rock some years ago, disappointed me in his response, as he either did not bother to read the quotation, or he did not bother to understand what it DID NOT SAY. Not a good sign for a Presidential candidate. Biden and Richardson needed the headlines. Huckabee does not.

MSNBC’s Keith Olberman’s sand box derby program hosted Joe Wilson, who claimed treason and all sorts of other absurd things in an attempt to resurrect a civil suit. Problem is, it wasn’t the topic at all. Olberman asked about McClellan, “he insists he isn’t saying President Bush lied to him about the outing of Valerie Plame,” then proceeded to mock (all he can do, given his reality disconnect) “What exactly did the President do? Hand him a sealed envelope?”

The point is Keith, the topic was never Valerie Plame. All it takes it a simple read of the quotation. Unless you are predisposed to assumptions and tend to disregard facts in order to make yourself feel fulfilled and justified living in a reality that does not match the one that has three dimensions: you could never have even raised the Plame issue. No one could. But I have a feeling someone insisted you would.

Stupidity fascinates me. Liberals never let me down.

And as usual, unable to question what something may actually mean, they run with their perception of what it means to them and demand action to stop it from being such an emotional reaction. They call for action from the minions who follow as they have nothing in their own lives in which to hold onto as stable. Liberalism prohibits ground rules, normality, tradition and yes, even contentment. Being content, or feeling safe, or feeling confident in core beliefs that cannot exist as progressive to the point of being oppressive to anyone who disagrees, is just what progressives feel is necessary to overcome other people controlling them.

That strange to true logic method of living is a result of thinking that way; and there is today, probably no more a poster child for progressive-inductive based lunacy beliefs, than Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia. You remember him as the… ‘it was not my gun before it was my gun,’ fiction writer turned ‘man of the evening’ in the Senate.

On NBC’s Meet The Press, Webb and Lyndsey Graham talked past each other in an exchange that is being billed as the lunacy of Graham and the great intellect of Webb. Certainly Webb is smart, but there is a great difference between being smart and using smarts in a smart way. If being smart meant the inability to make mistakes, incorrectly select an option or be wrong at all then no person could be wrong, and we wouldn’t be discussing problems of the world. We would be all sucking our thumbs wondering where all the interesting things in life went. We would have fulfilled the desire of every liberal: to make the world just as comforting and risk-free as the womb was. We all would have bought into the refusal to admit anything in the womb, that is not likewise aware of how snuggly it really is, is viable. That is, until we had returned to it and found it was what we had been seeking all our lives and suffering the consequences of learning how wrong we were.

Webb angrily told the truth, without knowing to whom he was really speaking: “It’s politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers. You can look at poll after poll and the political views of the United States military are no different than the country at large.”

Webb admitted the ‘end the war at any cost’ trash was all politics. He admitted he was using that politics to win the votes of those who want to ‘end the war at any cost’. He admitted he does not understand the military at all. He decided based only upon what he knew. He did not question what Graham may have known. He induced that since soldiers have opinions, the military is made up of some strange collection of not from this country humans or golly, the military, he admits, DOES mirror the country, contrary to all those ‘its harder on __fill in racial blank__’ claims from pretending leaders.

He, like the liberal-progressives he sold his soul to, believe that supporting the soldiers is what war should be about. Screw the mission. Screw the consequences of losing. Just support those soldiers because there is nothing America likes more than a nice big hug. And that political reality is driving the liberal-progressives’ self-deception conviction that they will ‘take back’ what was never and could never have been theirs. America. If America had been a progressive-liberal nation it would have failed like every other society in the history of human endeavors. America has survived as long as it has, due to a common notion of what America is and what it stands for. It has survived men like Webb who could not put the country ahead of their own political ambitions and it will continue to do so, relatively soon I educatedly suspect.

Republicans allowed the ‘support the troops’ marketing slogan to become normal speak. When the leftists began showing their fake patriotism behind the soldiers Republicans should have called them out on it. Instead, Republicans and particularly this Administration fell silent and allowed the spin to become the topic.

Republicans, as a whole, know, (minus the sick ward inhabitants like Ron Paul), that a soldier is the nation’s finest weapon. A soldier is more than his having formerly been a civilian. Without soldiers there could be no true defense of the nation, no weapons would work, no amount of a terrorized population’s yelling would stop invasion.

In fact, to paraphrase (accurately) the Soldier’s Creed: A soldier is a Warrior and a member of a team. A soldier serves the people of the United States and lives the Army Values. A soldier always places the mission first. A soldier never accepts defeat. A soldier never quits. A soldier will never leave a fallen comrade. A soldier is disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in warrior tasks and drills. A soldier always maintains arms, equipment and self. A soldier is an expert and a soldier is professional. A soldier stands ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. A soldier is a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. That is what an American Soldier, is.

Liberal-progressives cannot support what a soldier is. They are incapable of supporting what they cannot support. A soldier is a part in the whole that makes up this country’s ability to stay a country. Spending all concentrated energies on addressing a part of the country, ignores the nation, no matter how important, honored and revered the soldier is to this nation. Liberals can only be a team member if there is a common enemy. A liberal wants less ‘values’ as those are ‘conservative’ and cannot find anything greater than themselves than the earth, the animals or the theories of a nature out of nowhere and an evolutionary path in a nice straight line. A liberal will avenge a fallen comrade, not minister to him. Liberals decry discipline. A liberal uses an unusual abundance of thinking ability to refuse training and disdain the drill. A liberal expects someone else, mostly government to take care of the essentials. A liberal is an emotional wreck, reacting to any attack on any ‘thing’ they believe to be true except the thing they are. Humans are at fault for everything, but the human that who says it is, is that special no-fault type. A liberal is willing to ‘deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat’, with the force of soldiers they pay and in whom they believe should be all it takes to do so, and when the conflict fails to just quit fighting, they accept the enemy as oppressed peoples and they blame the ‘man’ (whatever party holds that office) for the condition they observe others to be in. And they need a scapegoat to get you to believe it. A liberal quits when it benefits them. A liberal cannot be defeated as long as they are not stopped. So they ‘support the troops’.

No they don’t. They don’t ‘support the troops’ now anymore than John Kerry supported the troops in Vietnam, or the ‘less war, more love’ crowd turned the first major logic error of their life into a movement, which turned into a battle trained collection of opportunists, which turned into the progressives of today, who have learned through failure, how to control the media, how to set the agenda, how to work within the system, even to the point of doing it illegally, in the name of the cause which is the elimination of capitalism as a form of economic lifeblood of this nation. Oh, but to make America the model socialist environment of the world. All that was wrong would be right and the whole place would just feel so warm and cuddly that the womb would no longer represent the place where those fetuses somehow push a baby human out into the world where it had not before lived so it therefore did not before live. It is the deepest and most utterly idiotic logic ever employed by humans: to claim what we come from to not be what we become, is the argument of all time. It is not possible to be anything other than what you are when you are a moment old, or a hundred years. You just know it from the aged side of the memory.

But don’t tell that to a liberal-progressive. They believe supporting the troops is about the troops. Think it over. If unions ran companies, companies would become unions and unions do not sell things, they take them. That does not make unions bad as doing what unions are supposed to be doing. It does mean that liberals believe a private’s opinion matters in the scheme of the nation. It does mean that liberals believe that a general who has retired, had somehow spent his entire military life, devoid of political influence and convictions and is somehow credible on political matters and war matters that are made political, yet a private’s opinion matters. Liberal’s own spin is so comical as it winds up proving itself inferior and oft’ times impossible. To think that a private’s opinion or Senator Webb’s military opinion poll mean a thing in the scheme of the nation’s survival, is to admit through demonstration how totally intellectually inept you are. You are smart but since it is never used you are simply full of it.

Sirius Left and Sirius Patriot are the brand names of satellite talk channels. Liberals cannot comprehend the use of a brand unless the product already makes sense to them. The perspective starts at the topic most impressive to the liberal. From there the liberal will spew forth totally connected and completely out of context facts and figures that may or may not exist in the real world, and become totally unglued when you cannot see the logic. If you ‘see’ logic in your head you can be manipulated to posses an ‘image’ of a concept, or scene of ‘truth’. To you it would be fact and real, but that reactively created reality would make you face the demon of a world you are forced to live in, as the bad thing it is, and you could only blame humans for that condition. The more depressed you become over it, the more determined you become to gain control over something. You certainly cannot control your emotions but you can think of ways to make things happen in ways no one would be the wiser too. You think.

A person is only an ‘intellectual’ if they have told others they are, or joined with others who believe they are. Intelligence doesn’t talk about how superior it is. It takes a path others find different. No matter what FOX Networks wants you to believe, being smarter than a 5th grader has nothing to do with knowledge, which is all the show is about. It has to do with what one does with that knowledge, and then if they have applied the same intellect to questioning why, before deciding nothing is with dieing for, and those who do die for their country are to be honored and revered, not used for political gain as a slogan to arms for emotionally distraught people.

If you really wanted to support the troops, send a letter to them telling them you do. Send them your love. Send them the things they are not issued by the people. Hold parades when they return home. Give them additional weight in hiring new employees. Give them a college education. To those who do not come home, give them respect and their families, love. But whatever you do, stop profiling them with the message you think they are more important than the country they have sworn to defend. That would make you transparently unpatriotic.

And if you should feel like a person who fits that profile maker’s mask, you will never be President. Dick Cheney said so.

Author Bio: Lee Kent Hempfling
Lee Kent Hempfling is a human who writes books about humans and other creations at http://www.enticy.org and tracks logic in neuroscience and at http://www.logicwatch.com. The latest book is part three of West WithOut Heaven entitled, “Monkey See, Monkey Do” and explains awareness, consciousness and free-will. Parts one and two, like part three are free to the public in pdf download. No royalties of any kind are taken by the author. Previous books include, “The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing” and “Modern Mysticism”.

But let’s not forget the Senate. When The Vice President’s office pushed the notion that could only be induced by a Democrat to be a ‘fourth branch of government’ (on account it was the only thing they could think of that wasn’t what they were used to), good ol’ Chuck Humor, I mean Schumer (he’s from New York) opened his mouth without thinking as well: “The vice president doesn’t know what branch of government he’s in, the president doesn’t know what the Constitution is, and the people don’t know what the heck is going on.” (06/28/2007)

Two comments said in frustration, that when combined mean what they mean: “The American people really don’t even know the half of it… and the people don’t know what the heck is going on.”

So I wonder what it is that both Sorosites are speaking about. Just exactly who’s business is the congress set about doing these days? The people’s? The rebellion’s? The members of congress themselves? Is ‘oversight’ being used as espionage? Or is it the opposite? Do the Democrats have so much and so damning a collection of hard non-circumstantial evidence as to bring about their desired impeachment proceedings and they are just not telling anyone so they can do something more important beforehand? Like increase their wages. Makes one wonder.

Didn’t Nancy and Chuck remember the words of Ronald Reagan? “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.” If they have information the country should know about they should cough it up, now: not after all the demonizing and politically corrupt hearings.

Way back in April (the 18th to be exact) while Chuck was pushing the demonization of Alberto Gonzales, he remarked on the forebodingness of Alberto Gonzales’ reasons for removing Presidentially appointed, term expired United States Attorneys and stated: “What is the real reason? And why don’t people want to talk about the real reason if it was perfectly legitimate?” So Chuck. What is the real reason you think the people don’t know “what the heck is going on?” What is the real reason, “the American people really don’t even know the half of it…?” Is that real reason legitimate or not?

Why then, with Schumer and Pelosi knowing so much, has John Conyers been unable to dig up the whazzup on their own, and have resorted to calling for the loyal to divulge what they know in an on line form of all things? They call that whistle blowing. On May 17 Schumer remarked to some reporters: “It seems the only person who has confidence in the attorney general is President Bush.” Now, it would seem the only persons who have confidence in what the people do not know are Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Or is it that the people are not supposed to know and the non-thinking emotional frustration that caused both persons to blurt out tale-telling phrases, hides a much deeper issue?

Speaking of that: get ready for the rest of the presentation of ‘The Summer of 07′ play as MoveOn.org has predicted. More demonization, more threats and intimidation and more racketeering/protection/extortion rackets like the one recently pulled on Ed Basha, of Basha’s Grocery in Phoenix. Hit with a letter demanding he stop supporting ‘anti-immigrant conservative talk radio ‘. Basha was literally threatened with a boycott if he did not stop buying ads on KFYI and if he did not place a full page ad in the Arizona Republic on a Sunday disavowing any affiliation with ‘anti-immigrant conservative talk radio’.

“PHOENIX June 28, 2007 — We begin in Phoenix and today we send our emails across the United States requesting other organizations join with Hispanic News in beginning a national boycott of anti-immigrant conservative talk radio sponsors. We are Phoenix based and begin with identifying the number one anti Hispanic radio station in the Phoenix area: 550 KFYI. The radio station daily carries national radio talk hosts and also has a local section which features J.D. Hayworth, a former Scottsdale congressman known for his anti Hispanic migrant rhetoric who lost his reelection bid. We begin with Bashas, an Arizona grocer who owns Food City which is where Arizona Hispanics buy their food and other store merchandize. Hispanics make up upwards of 98% of consumers at Food City stores located throughout Arizona.” Why hasn’t the Justice Department already indicted or better yet, convicted the thugs?

Of course Alberto Gonzales said he would “sprint to the finish line” on June 1 and then that he was “sprinting to the finish line” on June 11 and here we are facing the anniversary of our nation in July: he’s either out of breath by now or a good reason for heat.

And then there’s that issue of Habeas Corpus getting underway by the rebellion. Terrorists who want to kill the children, as well as the mature, can’t be what the movement to ‘restore’ it is all about.

Is it a race against time or a race against evidence? Perhaps both. But one thing is for sure: a horse-slappin’, spur kickin’ party is on the horizon (with apologies to the equine). Chuck and Nancy won’t tell you about that, though.

So I think it behooves me to offer a bit of friendly suggestion to the children of DemocraticUnderground; ThinkProgress; MoveOn; TalkingPointsMemo; FireDogLake; The Huffington Post and MediaWatch: if ewe were about to take part in a hoedown, wouldn’t ewe want to know if ewe were on the menu?

It just seems to me that the only people feeling any heat at the moment are the people who emotionally react, and announce in frustration that half of what is going on is unknown. That says a lot.