DEAN DOES IT AGAIN

This week Howard Dean called for an end to the divisiveness that has tainted our political process.

Dean called President Bush "the most divisive president probably in our history."

"He's always talking about those people. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the gays' fault. It's the immigrants' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's Hollywood people," Dean said. "Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country."

He then proceeded to compare Katherine Harris to Stalin.

This guy is unbelievable.

Dean is the worst politician in a century and even he must know that there is almost no one on earth who has had more nasty things to say about the president and the Republican party than himself.

But he's party chair. Just goes to show you how they like to play the game.

I'm surprised that he hasn't come right out and thrown his support to Ned Lamont, who is the new darling of the far left and is trying to nab the Democratic senate nomination in Connecticut from former VP candidate Joe Lieberman.

Lamont is strictly an anti-war candidate, who like Dean did for a couple of months in the '04 primary season before everyone realized that he was a head case, is leading the Democratic primary field.

Like their elevation of Dean to Party Chair, a Lamont victory should confirm to all Americans what so many of us already know.

The Democrats are the party of division.

They are about to take away the nomination of a senator who is respected by Republicans and Democrats alike. A man whose bipartisan credentials are second perhaps only to John McCain. A man who, had a few more votes gone Al Gore's way in Florida, may be preparing to be frontrunner in a presidential contest two years from now, and they are about to eat him alive simply because he has not towed the dishonest Democratic party line on George W. Bush and the war in Iraq.

As the Dem's prepare to eat their own, they should be wary of what Dean says and does. Every time he speaks he gives the nation a terrific view of the Far-Left smear machine of which Dean is one of the primary operators.

For Dean to call the GOP and the president divisive is incredibly hypocritical. To say that President Bush is always talking about gays, immigrants, liberals and Hollywood is just a bold-faced lie.

When Bush speaks, in case Dean hasn’t noticed, it's usually on the topic of terrorism. If Dean and his friends can convince the American people that they have some understanding as to the significance of that threat. If he and his party can prove to someone that they care more about defending the country than they do about trying to impeach the president. If they can come up with some semblance of a plan to fight this vicious enemy, whom their impaired vision sees as being far less dangerous than the Commander in Chief.

If they can do all of these things then maybe, just maybe they have a shot at taking back congress.

Will they be willing and able to do these things? I highly doubt it. At least not with Howard Dean at the helm.

Sphere: Related Content

Idiots In The News

At the G8 summit, Socialist Dictator Fidel Castro gives his best buddy Hugo Chavez tips on how to blame the fact that your country is dirt poor on America, while at the same time crushing dissent at home.
(Not pictured due to electoral defeat: Lopez Obrador)


"..and then I punched that cop right in the face. Ha ha ha!"


" Damn Girlfriend! I can't believe that anyone in this country still takes the two of us seriously."


"As residents of San Francisco and the ultra-liberal group A.N.S.W.E.R we feel that it is our duty to let the entire world know just how ignorant and morally bankrupt we are. Besides, there was no gay rights parade or rally to legalize pot, so we ended up here. Go Bad Guys!"


Keith Olberman, host of MSNBC's "Countdown" shows his audience what he does when he goes home and looks in the mirror.

Sphere: Related Content

I wish I had written this.

Dennis Kucinich, Kofi Annan and The Pope should all read this article found on realclearpolitics.com.

Pacifists versus Peace
By Thomas Sowell

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

O'Reilly said it best this evening when talking about Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Queda. And this is not a direct quote, but essentially what he said was that you can't have peace unless both sides want it. If Hezbollah threw all of their weapons into the sea today, there would be peace. Is Israel threw all of their weapons into the sea, there would be a holocaust.

Sphere: Related Content