These are the kind of clueless and arrogant statements that mark a true liberal elitist:

OTTAWA — Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, referred to the United States on Friday as “a theocratic state” in which Christian evangelicalism plays a big role in the Republican administration.

“Right now the United States is in many ways a theocratic state, not dissimilar to some of the other religious states in the world where religion has a huge part to play in government.” ~canada.com

This is more a statement about the small mindeness and exclusionary aspects of secular humanism and liberalism (small minded liberalism.) The heart of this kind of thinking is not the all-inclusive rainbow of multi-color/multi-ethnic togetherness and sharing that liberals tend to fantasize about their ideology– instead it is dogmatically hateful, exclusionary and anti-religious.

So what is McKenna actually saying here? His point is that anything less than a strictly ‘secular state’, meaning one which completely represses and stigmatizes any religious input, impulses, or influence, is a “theocracy.” Because, *GASP*, we can’t have people who are religious in government… everything they do is invalid by definition. (Unlike, let’s say, someone basing all their political decisions on progressive ideology bordering on religion.)

Essentially McKenna prefers his state to be ruled by an anti-religion. “Canada is truly a secular state. Religion and politics do not mix in this country.”

Which becomes problematic when you realize just how much of life folks like McKenna believe the government should control. Virtually all of it in fact. There is nothing off limits for quasi-socialist nanny states. Everything is subject to legislation. All areas of economic life, all areas of public life, all areas of private life are potentially subject to control for the common good. But, religious people need not apply to hold the reigns of government because they don’t have valid beliefs. Which brings up an interesting question for McKenna, since he obviously believes religious people should be ruled by people like him in charge of “stricly secular states,” one wonders if he feels they shouldn’t have the right to vote either because obviously religion shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.

I’ve got an idea, let’s substitute any other group for, “Christian evangelicalism,” and see how it sounds.

OTTAWA — Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, referred to the United States on Friday as “a black state” in which colored ‘African-Americans’ play a big role in the administration.

Very forward thinking don’t you think? Is it now valid liberal thought to say an entire segment of society should have no participation in government at all?

What is a theocracy?

The reality is that a theocracy is a very different thing from how McKenna wants to define it.

Answers.com defines the word theocracy as, “A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.” The Brittanica excerpt goes on to say:

Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. ~answers.com

The key aspect here is in bold. If we merely said that every government which was popularly thought of as being merely led by divine guidance, or had elements of religious law embodied in their legal system then America was indeed founded as a theocracy. But this is not enough to label a country a theocracy.

Today we have a whole political class who view true theocracies, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, as lesser evils in contrast to their true chosen enemy: Republicans and Christians in America.

They question the very notion of a war on terror because they don’t believe the threat from Al Qaeda rises to the level of ‘war’ status. No matter that Al Qaeda is a truly radical theocratic religious terrorist organization which has already destroyed the World Trade Center buildings killing 3,000 Americans and declared war on the United States, the West, and all religions besides their taliban version of Islam. Yet the left is alarmed about American Christians, not Al Qaeda. So alarmed that they are writing books about the, “Clear and Present danger,” to America posed by these ‘radical extremists’, “that together threaten the future of the United States and the world.”

In the much lauded book (among liberals), AMERICAN THEOCRACY, Kevin Phillips explains the equivalent danger posed by both radical Islam and radical Christianity/Judaism:

The excesses of fundamentalism, in turn, are American and Israeli, as well as the all-too-obvious depredations of radical Islam. The rapture, end-times, and Armageddon hucksters in the United States rank with any Shiite ayatollahs, and the last two presidential elections mark the transformation of the GOP into the first religious party in U.S. history. ~americantheocracy.net

The premise of his book is nothing if not all-too familiar: Iraq is a War for Oil started by the Republican theocracy. Where have I heard that before?

Then there are the Jews.

The path that liberals and progressives are on isn’t new, and it isn’t pretty. Liberalism isn’t about inclusion. In fact, it’s central premise is exclusion and demonization. Like the Borg on Star Trek they see any deviation from their proscribed ideology as a threat and a menace to their utopian dreams of a fair society equitably distributed by an all-knowing and all-caring government. That can’t happen when people exist who completely disagree with your premise and argue that the practice of egalitarianism runs counter to the theory every time it’s been tried.

“The president says, ‘I don’t care.’ He’s not accountable anymore,” Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. “He’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don’t know. It depends how this goes.” ~outsidethebeltway.com

Chuck appears to have been given some kool-aid while in the hallway between votes I’d imagine. Where is this guy coming from? He seems to be channeling Kos, or Howard Dean.

“Congress abdicated its oversight responsibility,” he says. “The press abdicated its responsibility, and the American people abdicated their responsibilities. Terror was on the minds of everyone, and nobody questioned anything, quite frankly.” ~outsidethebeltway.com

Which is to say, the most ironic, or the most idiotic thing I’ve heard from a Republican ever. So is it the fear-mongering that Hegel is blaming for this catastrophe. And what catastrophe is he speaking of? The war on terror?

It’s as if Hegel is saying that the war is over and we lost… and there is no danger from hordes of jihadis intent on bringing down the great satan of which Hegel is supposedly sworn to protect.

Hegel has joined the list of uber-idiotarians.

This is an incredible post at the NYTimes. Even though it is an editorial, it could just as well have been on DailyKos.

The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.  ~nytimes.com

Little green footballs is exactly right:

Apologize to the world, set all terrorists free so they can realize their full potential, and then everything will be peace and flowers again.  ~lgf

Hee, hee.

Joe Klein? Does the NYTimes fit the list?

The title of this article from New America Media is, “Are Higher Fees for Immigrants a Plan to Stall the Number of Democratic Voters?”

The Center for Immigration Studies found that Latinos identified more with Democrats across all nationality groups, except Cubans, and across nearly all states.

“The gap is even wider among immigrant Latinos who have not yet become citizens. As many of these non-citizens naturalize, the political affiliation of Latinos is likely to shift still further toward the Democratic Party,” noted a center study.   ~alternet.org

This is interesting for the same reason that Muslim demographics in Europe are interesting; all of these issues interesect. Immigrants are apparently more inclined toview socialist programs as a good thing. What happens when there are more foreign born voters in America than natural born?

What happens to representation and the American culture if we have too many immigrants too quickly and they gain control of our political structures?

The number of foreign-born voters grew by 20 percent between the 1996 and 2000 elections, compared with 1.5 percent for all persons, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Once naturalized, voter turnout among the foreign-born is high; 58 percent registered to vote and 87 percent showed up at the polls in 2000.

Most worrisome for the GOP, the party identification of the largest foreign-born group, Latinos, is 58 percent Democratic, 23 percent Republican, even though Latinos tend to be conservative on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, says a 2005 national survey by the Latino Coalition in Washington, D.C.

Detecting Democratic leanings among new citizens, Republicans in the ’90s blasted the Clinton administration for promoting naturalization among immigrants through the Citizenship USA program.  ~alternet.org

I’ve always been on the lenient side of immigration. In my experience most people who come to America are looking for a better life. Many countries around the world are, quite frankly, immersed in the kinds of policies that Democrats promote and thus stay mired in poverty. Prompting many to immigrate to the U.S.. But if they then make America more like the countries they left, Where will we flee to for a better life?

Normally, I’m willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. If Al Gore and his Hollywood cronies want to fly around on gas-guzzling, atmosphere-polluting private jets while railing against global climate change, I’m willing to overlook it.

But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of … hold your breath … Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros’ total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.   ~blog.foreignpolicy.com

It’s a window into the mind of highly partisan leftists. They talk a great deal about the corruptness of corporations and the rich. They demonize ‘wars for oil’ and imagine all kinds of conspiracy theories about how every action of the GOP and GW, the merciful and compassionate, is geared toward making profits for these same corrupt corporations and their ‘plutocracy’. So it’s really no surprise when the rich left cheats, lies, steals, and are generally unabashedly everything they supposedly despise.

So the next time you hear the left talk about how their political enemies are like Goebbels, using propganda to brainwash the public, just think about what they might feel and decide is the optimum tactic to use once they are in power. It’s uncanny. A window into the soul.

Jean Francois Kerrie (did I mention that he served in Vietnam?) used his elected office as a vehicle for revenge during the confirmation hearing held today for Sam Fox, who was nominated as ambassador to Belgium…

Incredible. Well, incredibly small minded.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., grilled nominee Sam Fox about why he donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential race. The group of Vietnam veterans made unsubstantiated allegations against Kerry — then the Democratic presidential nominee — and charged that Kerry did not deserve the medals he won in the Vietnam War.

“Might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics as regards the politics of personal destruction?” Kerry asked near the end of the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  ~foxnews.com

I heard part of this exchange on Fox News this evening, where Kerry accused the SwiftVets of lying. I would have asked Kerry to specifically tell me, “What lies?” What lies did the SwiftVets tell? Specifically.

Then I might have discussed the nature of truth. Whose truth? How can one define anything as an absolute. After all, many things are not black and white. Kerry obviously has his own version of the truth, granted. But that doesn’t make the SwiftVets truth any less valid.

“But Kerry said the incident raised questions about Fox’s fitness to serve as an ambassador.“   ~foxnews.com