America Isn't Stupid: The Democrats Will Not Win In November

It is the 29th of September, and we sit just a little over a month outside of the midterm elections. And recent actions committed by the Democrat Party should have their base thoroughly worried. Thomas and Marcie have been hammering a solid point, and it's one shared by many amongst the center/right of the blogosphere: The Democrats are showing the nation that they don't stand for making sure this nation isn't hit again by terrorists.

This debate has been going on since 2003 when Democrats voted in favor of a war they didn't really believe in. The vote, which was held on October 16, 2002, supported going into Iraq, but as soon as the 2002 elections were over, the Democrats quickly changed their statements; many announced that they had a change of heart, and looked at their votes as a mistake. The whole chorus erupted with similar sentiments by the time we invaded Iraq, and within days of the invasion, Democrats were adopting the media talking points of a quagmire there.

They have been highly critical of the administration. In 2004, John Kerry announced that the Democrats wanted a new strategy for the war on terror, and campaigned on that strategy (though to this day no one really knows what that strategy was as Kerry failed to clue anyone in on it). This effort failed miserably as America realized that his ideas would lead us down the same failed road as the Clinton Administration did.

A side note here: I know that the liberals are constantly whining that our side brings up Bill Clinton. It's regrettable that we have to, but his ideas regarding how to address the issue of terrorism was completely foolish. Subpoena them? Indict them? Try them in abstentia? And they thought such tactics would frighten our enemies, which just goes to show America that these people weren't serious about dealing with the issue. Terrorists care little for laws that they don't believe in. Shari'a is the only law these people believe in, and under it they're justified in their actions. But that administration didn't get the concept of killing an enemy. And we know that there is some blame the current administration has to share in September 11th. It is not nearly as much as the previous one, but for that tragic day, there is plenty of blame to go around.

And the Democrats have simply continued to push the failed policies of that administration. But they've also taken it one several steps further. They have opposed any measures he has tried to take to make it easier and more efficient to protect the nation. They opposed the nomination of John Bolton to the UN, despite the fact that his presence has been a Godsend to the nation there. (And they still oppose him today.) They have attacked the president over his NSA surveillance program, over the SWIFT program, over secret prisons and CIA rendition flights. They have attacked him for the lack of "body armor" and "vehicle armor" for the troops. (The former a complete lie as all of our soldiers are outfitted with armored tactical vests.) Many of the Democrat leadership has taken up the talking points of the antiwar movement int he nation; a movement that may have it's roots in the Vietnam era, and that's where their last "victory" lies in that respect.

John Kerry, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer; they've all taken the stance that we need to withdraw from Iraq. (Murtha calls it "redeployment," which is a term that John Kerry has latched onto, as well.) Redeployment isn't the answer to the so-called problems in Iraq. And those problems, it should be noted, aren't shared by the commanders on the ground, like General John Abizaid. The following is from an interview the general had recently with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: General Abizaid, are you confident as well that victory is possible in Iraq? And what will that look like?

JA: Yeah, no, I'm very confident that victory's possible, not only in Iraq, but in the broader Middle East, if you consider victory being a Middle East where extremism is not tolerated, and doesn't have a chance of going mainstream in the region. I certainly think that in Iraq, there'll be violence after the time that American forces depart. I think that the sectarian issues are deep, but they don't need to be fatal. I believe that over time, as you build institutional capacity and the Iraqi government, and especially in the Iraqi armed forces, that Iraqis will be able to do more and more of the day to day security work. And as that happens, we'll be able to bring our forces down. A lot of people...

HH: Do you have enough troops, General, to do the mission, to achieve that stability and victory?

JA: Yeah, Hugh. We have over 200,000 American troops in the Middle East. That's down from a high of 375,000 back in '03. But more importantly, there's over 275,000 Iraqi troops, 70,000 Afghan troops that are fighting directly with us, and then you go to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where they're fighting against the extremists with quite a few troops as well, and througout the region as well. So if it was my opinion that the people in the region weren't willing to fight against the extremists on their own, then I would have a different conclusion than what I just gave you. But all indications are that the people out here are not interested in having their countries turn into Taliban-like states. But on the other hand, Shiia extremism and Sunni extremism in the region are very strong, and we need to help the states help themselves against this. And at the same time, we've got to keep the flow of natural resources moving through the Straits of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Babel Mandeb, which take an awful lot of air and naval power.

The general admits that there are some problems, but believes that vicotry can be achieved in the overall sense. The Democrats don't. And to prove this, we need only look to the past three or four days. They have grabbed ahold of the National Intelligence Estimate leaked to the New York Times, and are waving it like a banner. According to them, we are the source of increased terrorism. The more we fight, the more radical Islamicists will join the fight. We are, according to their estimates, creating more problems than we're solving over there. Yet that isn't what the report states. It acknowledge the uptick in violence, but it states that if we beat them in Iraq--a theater of operations where the terrorists have virtually put all their eggs in one basket--then the possibility of more radical Islamicists joining the fight is greatly reduced. It also acknowledges that killing the main leadership of al-Qaida in "rapid succession" would be enough to splinter the group thereby making al-Qaida less of a threat to the nation. The Democrats fail to grasp how this could occur.

Simply put, a fractured organization would have to rely on themselves, and those people--if they're not used to dealing with the internal situations of a cell--financing, supplying, sanctuary--they can be easily tracked down, captured, or killed. For evidence of this we only need to reference recent history. Namely, the recent plane plot broken up by British authorities. While they did have financial help from other cells, which would be the ones nailed in a worldwide sting. These arrests were made in Britain and in Pakistan. In addition to this we can look at the recent plot foiled in Canada where radical Islamicists were plotting to attack several government buildings. Both plots were able to be foiled with the help of the NSA surveillance program.

But the Democrats don't seem to care. When this subjkect is broached, they whine about the 'loss of civil liberties' for Americans when Americans aren;t the ones being targeted by these measures. Al-Qaida is being targeted. Radical Islam is in the crosshairs. They seem to miss this point. And on the issue of civil liberites, what has been revoked? If I were to stand accused of aiding and abetting terrorism, I'm still entitled to my Constitutional rights. So is Thomas, Marcie, Hugh Hewitt, and any other American citizen. We still do live in a land where we are innocent until proven guilty. Until that guilt is proven, we maintain our rights.

And despite their whines to the contrary, this program is perfectly legal. So was the SWIFT program. But they despise both because they're targeting our enemies. The democrats don't seem to like that word much, and many refuse to even acknowledge that the enemy we fight has no legitimate gripe. Their gripe--al-Qaida's and Osama bin Laden's--went away the day we left Saudi Arabia. But that wasn't good enough for them. Now there are other reasons why they hate us, and the Democrats refuse to even recognize those reasons. They hate us for our freedom, our liberties, and even our tolerance. After all, we tolerate everyone. (If we didn;t, would today's Democrat Party even have the right to speak?) They hate us, in short, because we are America; land of the free and home of the brave, and we stand for freedom around the world.

Democrats definitely dislike being painted in a bad light. They are still clinging to the lost ideals they once held onto. Being for the little man, and standing strong for America. Unfortunately for the nation, that dream died during the Vietnam War--a war they started with the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident hyped by then-President Lyndon Johnson. The radicals int he party came to the forefront, and they haven't gone back into the shadows since then. And now they play this game of brinkmanship for keeps. They want their power back so they can make the current administration pay for some imagined slight.

The Florida recounts? They'll make Bush pay. The midterms of 2002, which threw the Senate under GOP control? Oh, they';ll come back. John Kerry's failed 2004 presidential bid? STOLEN in Ohio, dammit! These people no longer live in reality. Today was the most glaring example of the "land of make believe" these people live in. When three senior Democrats take to the floor of the Senate to argue IN FAVOR OF habeas corpus protections of terrorists, something is seriously wrong with the party.

habeas corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. However, it applies only to United States citizens. Under the Constitution, it can't be suspended, according to Article I, Section 9, clause 2. Again, it applies to citizens only, and the current elected leaders are whining about it not being extended to our enemies. Our enemies are foreign-born illegal combatants, not US citizens; ligical assumptions dictate that by this reasoning, they don't have the right to begin with.

What can be said of a party that seems to be more intent on protecting those trying to kill us than protecting the people who trusted them enought o put them in office? That is what this year is all about. It's imperative that we remember we have an enemy willing to go to great lengths to hurt us. September 11th wasn't easy, nor was it cheap. If they hae the means by which to pull off another September 11th, and we have another breakdown, it's going to harm us in ways we can only imagine. This isn't 'fear-mongering' as the democrats proclaim. This is about protecting the nation. If we fail in that respect, then I have a list of things you can forget about, too.

These people are as clueless as a newborn babe in the woods. They are concerned with eight principle things:

*Withdraw the troops from Iraq.

*Begin proceedings for the impeachment of the president, and possibly the vice-president.

*Capitulate to world opinion regarding radical Islamofascism.

*Remove all the protocols put in place to protect the nation, including the NSA surveillance program.

*Repeal the Patriot Act.

*Grant terrorists the same Constitutional protections reserved for citizens.

*Release of all prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and elswhere abroad.

*A possible withdrawal from Afghanistan.

These eight items are at the top of their laundry list should they regain power. Notice that none of it stems from a need to protect the nation. It is more about tearing down a president than anything else. And while I'll grant them a teeny bit of anger about how the Republicans went about impeaching President Clinton, that quickly dies the moment I remember that the man was impeached because he lied.

He lied to a federal grand jury. He suborned the perjury of Monica Lewinsky. (To define it for those that don't understand the word "suborn," the president tried to coax someone into lying on his behalf.) And he submitted a false affidavit to the judge of the proceedings. for a party with little morality left in it, it was the last straw when the Republicans held President Clinton accountable for his crimes. These people lie all the time. And yes, I include the little white lies and the politically-motivated ones in that indictment. Yet they can't come up with a single lie the president has uttered. They attack him over the "lies" surrounding WMDs in Iraq while ignoring the fact that we have found them over them, and President Clinton cited the same thing in 1998, 1999, and 2000. They didn't magically disappear in three years; not based on the list of WMDs then Secretary of State Powell gave to the UN Security Council.

They will lie if they have to to get their power back. they will sell out anyone who disagrees with them over any politically-charged issue. Representatives Wynn and Rush can attest to this, as can Senator Joe Lieberman. But the party is about to get a rude awakening come November. As the title implies, America isn't stupid. Mainsstream America understands the gravity of national security. It isn't to be a political football, and that's what they're seeing from the Democrats. Everything to them is a political opportunity, or they look for them just so they can continue kicking the administration. Another thing they seem to have forgotten is America isn;t happy when one side attacks a sitting president. They reacted in a nasty way towards the Republicans when President Clinton was impeached, and they're none too happy with the ones that are daily assailing the administration for some slight--new or old.

When America heads to polls, they will send a message to the Democrats that they don't trust them. And while the single-issue voters might be able to rally and take down a Republican or two, the Republicans won't lose control of either House. (And if the single-issue people are that determined to remove a Republican, hopefully they have the God's honest sense not to vote for the Democrat.) This year is extremely important to the nation. It will set the agenda for the remaining two years of President Bush's last term. Are we going to play the silly game of being angry enough to stay hime and "punish" the party, abandining the nation to the Democrats so they can make it vulnerable again? Or are we going to stand up, and cast a vote that continues to keep this nation protected?

I for one know which way I'm going. And if you'd like to contribute, head over to Hugh's site and follow the links to those who need your support. The base is needed this year more than ever. Every little bit counts, and whether you donate money or time, these candidates will be grateful that you chose the chance of victory over a strategy that has been tried, and has failed.

Sabrina McKinney