97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense
97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can’t Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/29/2006
Today’s Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.
Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens’ travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.
President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.
That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn’t like the Shah’s alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.
The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran’s government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.
The Obama Factor
As the Democratic Primaries battle on with bloodletting on both sides, Barack Obama continues to secure his position as the Democratic nominee for President. As distasteful as I feel toward Hillary Clinton as President, this man scares me to death! This is not because he is black as many blacks will be brainwashed into believing, but because he is very dangerous!!
All I am hearing about this man is that he is an unknown, but this is untrue! He has written TWO autobiography’s about himself, and what he writes is very revealing. All one needs to do is read. Add to this his twenty some years with Trinity United Methodist Church, his refusal to wear an American Flag pin on his lapel, and his refusal to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem (Not required but is a sign of patriotism).
In his books he shows his disdain for white America again and again. His testimony about his encounters with whites shows paranoia almost to the point of schizophrenia! He wonders incessantly what they are thinking of him as a black man. He seems to think that all whites every thought is racist! If this man were white, he would be detained in the psychiatric ward of the nearest hospital! We surely do not want this lunatic in the Whitehouse!
What Did We Do?
Now that the November 2006 elections are over we must look back and observe the results of our own decisions on that day. For weeks before the elections, all I heard was “punish the Republicans!” or “I just won’t vote!”
Overwhelming statistics show that the vast majority of the voting public is either conservative or moderate Christians. From this I can only deduce that most of these voters did exactly what they threatened… either they stayed home or they voted Democrat just to punish the Republican Party! This reminds me of the parable of cutting off your nose to spite your face! I hope those of you that exercised this God Given right are happy with your decision because we are going to live with it for a long time! As was predicted by conservative talk show hosts across the nation, a Democratic majority has resulted in an endless series of wasteful and time consuming investigations over the most insignificant issues around.
The Democratic Legacy
With the almost constant and obviously well rehearsed term of “culture of corruption” spewed out at almost every media event by the left wing Democrats, I decided to delve into the decades of democratic policies and their effect on history. While all of these Democratic Presidents had some positive effects on history, I chose to research their most blatant negative effects, which far outweigh any good they may have accomplished. I subscribe to the adage that one right does not make up for four years of wrongs.
While I am beginning with John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), I have no intention of degrading his presidency. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest presidents that ever lived. The only thing that I could say is that if he were alive today, he would be a Republican. There is no way that he would ever subscribe to the policies and practices of the present day Democrat Party. He was a conservative Democrat who believed in a strong military, or “Peace Through Strength”(Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989)
Democrats & National Security
This Is Why We Don’t Trust Democrats with National Security
By Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 4, 2006
From Human Events Online
It seems the Bush administration — being a group of sane, informed adults — has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even if you were “an American citizen” making the call from U.S. territory — like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah’s speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only “American citizen” Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.
The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA’s spying cited by the Treason Times was “an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.” Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words “ties to Osama bin Laden,” we’re still left with those words — “ties to Osama bin Laden.” The government better be watching that person.
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I’m pretty sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had any brains, they’d distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush’s impeachment for listening in on terrorists’ phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they’d be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama’s cell phone number.
That’s all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can’t be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to the Treason Times’ exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, “1,754 warrants were approved.” No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: “The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary.” He “wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests,” said USA Today.
Put aside the question of why it’s so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it’s nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court “modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.”
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify — much less reject — one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges “modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration.” In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 “substantive modifications” to warrant requests and rejected or “deferred” six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I’m sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims’ families that, after all, the killer’s ties to al Qaeda were merely “dubious” and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security. This is today’s lesson.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).