Zogby poll: 42% of Democrats think Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen  ~Hot Air

No surprise there really. BDS is a virulent and debilitating disease.

MOSCOW –

Russia may have turned its back on Vladimir Lenin’s revolutionary ideology, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on Thursday told Russians they should revere and revive the ideas of the Soviet Union’s founder.”We should remember Vladimir Lenin and come back to his ideas, especially when it comes to anti-imperialism,” Chávez told the audience at the opening of a Moscow cultural center named for the South American revolutionary hero Simon Bolivar.

The rhetoric was vintage Chávez — mainly aimed at portraying Venezuela as a bastion of defiance of the United States. Chávez’s comments emphasized Venezuela’s solidarity with the Kremlin leadership, which frequently complains of Washington’s alleged dominance of global affairs.

”We must defeat imperial hegemony that is imposed on us or we head toward barbarism; we either defeat imperialism or imperialism destroys the world,” Chávez said. “The empire must understand that it cannot dominate the world.”    ~miamiherald.com

Any doubt that the left is on a collision course?

Sen. Clinton Says Lack of Body Armor is ‘Unforgivable’
She Has Called for an Investigation Into Why Soldiers Are Not Fully Protected, Jan. 10, 2006 —

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration “incompetent” when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines “unforgivable.”

So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued. ~abcnews.go.com

And yet these same liberals are even today actively seeking to downsize and disarm our military in order to dismantle ‘the threat’ we pose to the rest of the world so that we can create a socialist heathcare system and cradle to grave welfare.

“Currently there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less producing additional warheads,” the House Appropriations Committee said in its report, released last week, on the fiscal 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. The full House is expected to vote on the measure this week. ~washingtonpost.com

So when we finally have no useful nuclear warheads with which to retaliate against the inevitable nuclear attack, will the liberals blame Bush for, ‘unforgivable incompetence?’ Most certainly they will. Without batting an eye progressives and liberals agitate for slashing the military budget in order to fund their socialist agenda and yet turn around and claim that someone else is to blame when troops aren’t 100% safe when going into combat.

Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense

George Bush says that they attacked us on 9/11 because of our freedom, the left says they attacked us because of our military strength. Which is more probable? Does the War on terror and our weapons make us less safe as the left claims?

NEWSWEEK: You say that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States. That’s a pretty strong statement.
George Soros: Yes, but it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that’s rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a “war on terror” after September the 11th, we set the wrong agenda for the world. This is something that people in America find difficult to understand because war seems like the natural response. ~msnbc.msn.com

This liberal doctrine of America’s inherent evil is at the root of today’s political disunity. The incoherent and illogical lies of liberal ideology is a poisonous meme in our society which, like a virus, will eventually either be overcome or will overcome us.

Blaming America is what liberal policies are built on. When the left says that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer he, she, (or transgender) is merely repeating Marxist propaganda meant to undermine the capitalist system. When a leftist claims that fighting the War On Terror makes us less safe they are building on this foundation. When liberals claim that the, “root causes,” of terrorism are economic and political injustice they are lost within their own progressive propaganda.

The terrorist attacks have nothing to do with religious faith and everything to do with genuine injustices. Until the US addresses the root causes and its own double standards, the bombings will increase. ~commondreams.org

The capstone to this ideology is how it has cast about for an alternative to the war on terror and found it! Global Warming. And here too we find that America is to blame as the world’s leading polluter. Now even terror can be lain at the feet of America through this avenue as well since climate change is to blame for terror in places like Darfur as well.

The liberal disarming of America is an idea. An idea that has infected far too many.

Ah, the left. You gotta love ‘em.

Chalmers Johnson has made a name for himself as a documenter of the evils of American Empire. The Military Industrial Complex^tm in particular is his meat and potatoes. After all, without jackbooted babykilling peasant torturing stormtroopers what kind of evil empire would we be?

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize — or do not want to recognize — that the United States dominates the world through its military power. ~commondreams.org

This, in a nutshell, is everything you can learn from Chalmers Johnson. Without reading another paragraph one can deduce nearly everything Chalmers has to say on the subject of America.

Starting with the progressive version of American exceptionalism, Johnson summarizes his disdain and summary evaluation of the ignorance and passivity of the American people. “As distinct from other peoples,” America just won’t go along with the Communist/Marxist/Progressive vision of America as the impediment to world peace and socialist utopia, “…or do not want to recognize…”.

Chalmers both dismisses and demeans the American people by insisting that his delusional visions of the world constructed around the rigid framework of Marxist propaganda must be subscribed to in order for intelligence and perception to be bestowed upon them. Obviously we are all idiots for not seeing that America is an empire bent on dominating the world.

“The United States dominates the world through its military power.”

Typical.

Chalmers ideal wish is for this evil empire to crumble. For his vision of utopia to prevail over the dominating fear-based dictatorship of capitalist power and set free the proletariat to acheive their ultimate potential.

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

…I believe that there is only one solution to the crisis we face. The American people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created in their name and the huge (still growing) military establishment that undergirds it. It is a task at least comparable to that undertaken by the British government when, after World War II, it liquidated the British Empire. By doing so, Britain avoided the fate of the Roman Republic — becoming a domestic tyranny and losing its democracy, as would have been required if it had continued to try to dominate much of the world by force.

For the U.S., the decision to mount such a campaign of imperial liquidation may already come too late, given the vast and deeply entrenched interests of the military-industrial complex. To succeed, such an endeavor might virtually require a revolutionary mobilization of the American citizenry, one at least comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. ~alternet.org

Unlike any other ‘empire’ before it, America does not impose it’s will on the world through military force. We are in fact much too nice to be an empire. In equating and trying to spin the United States into a global dominator in the image of what the Nazi’s would have been is both stupid and irresponsible. The simple fact that some people will actually believe Chalmer’s twisted premise should be enough for him to get some kind of balanced perspective.

But this is impossible. The left has an ideology and a utopia to create and nothing like the facts should get in the way of that. Popular uprising is part and parcel of the Marxian rhetoric so it is not surprising that Chalmers see this as part of the solution of his fabricated dilemna.

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.

• Byrd assailed for Nazi remark
• NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison
• Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California
• Neo-fascists and Terrorists Against Liberty
• Prescott and Adolf: W’s grandfather helped fund Hitler and the Nazi party
• 1. republican nazi (Urban Dictionary)
• A Fresh Look: Nazis and the Republican Party
• It is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to make Nazi comparisons
• Garofalo Says Inked Salute Like Nazis
• Art: Republicans, Nazis and Communists
• Republicans ARE nazis

If only I had a nickel for every time a liberal has mentioned Geobbels in reference to conservatism I’d be a millionaire.

The Nazi reference is pulled out all to often. For instance, decry the filth and perverted priorities of Hollywood and your a Nazi.

In doing so, Medved echoed the sentiments of other conservatives who, whether they like it or not, are promoting a standard of art that the world has seen before. A standard marrying a style with a political attitude. A standard used to keep an ill-informed public brainwashed. A standard adopted by Communists and Nazis. ~mydd.com

There’s absolutely no reason to go there. Disagreement is not grounds for creating a Nazi strawman.

The Nazi neocons are supposedly following the well worn path of Hitler. 9-11 is the reichtstag.

Hitler wrote about his plans in advance in Mein Kempf. Hitler’s regime used patriotism and fear of terrorism coupled with religious rhetoric to convince the masses to quietly go along with their plans. The Germans never questioned the official line on the Reichstag Fire, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why Poland would be so stupid as to invade Germany, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why their rights were being “temporarily” suspended through the Enabling Act because it was necessary to fight the terrorists, even though it made little sense.

The neocons in power wrote about their plans in advance with The Project for a New American Century. The Bush administration uses patriotism and fear of terrorism coupled with religious rhetoric to convince the masses to quietly go along with their plans. The Americans never questioned the official line on the 9/11 attacks, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why Iraq would be so stupid as to want to attack the U.S., even though it made little sense. They never questioned why their rights were being “temporarily” suspended through the Patriot Act because it was necessary to fight the terrorists, even though it made little sense.

“We must never forget that everything Hitler did was legal.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

~democraticunderground.com

I’m not sure that the MLK quote is accurate… hmm.

The Nazi Conspiracy

Some even cross over into the conspiracy swamp, where not only are Republicans acting, talking, or resembling Nazi’s in some tangential and fabricated manner, they ARE Nazi’s! (Maybe even Hitler himself?)

Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in BLOWBACK that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U.S. These Nazis assumed prominent positions in the Republican Party’s “ethnic outreach committees.” Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas. The Nazi agenda did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the Republican Party. ~Carla Binion

The problem, of course, is that this is not just an overt problem, it is a covert problem as well. The reason so many easily take that step into Nazi accusations is that the entire liberal political theory is based on this exact idea.  Don’t believe me? Then what are they talking about when they say America is an empire? That we are an imperialist and militaristic nation which is dangerous to the world?

What is fascism but imperialism and militarism? Warmongers and rascists is how a majority of the left paints Republicans. Isn’t this essentially the same thing as outright calling Republicans Nazis?

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

In politics, as in medicine, a cure based on a false diagnosis is almost always worthless, often worsening the condition that is supposed to be healed. The United States, today, suffers from a plethora of public ills. Most of them can be traced to the militarism and imperialism that have led to the near-collapse of our Constitutional system of checks and balances.   ~Chalmers Johnson

Mark Kleiman seems to believe that any incredibly lame comparison proves that Conservatives use Nazi iconography.

…My point was that if the New Righties can’t make their case without looking and sounding like Nazis, it’s not unfair to compare them to Nazis.

Looking and sounding like Nazi’s? There seems to be a complete lack of logic and reason here.

Here’s another “stabbed in the back” poster from WWII. Does this prove that FDR looked and sounded like a Nazi? Or does it prove that conservatives look and sound like FDR?

Here also are a dozen or so cartoons which apparently also use Nazi iconogrophy.

Scottish soldiers are also apparently fond of Nazi sybolism.

Life imitating propaganda? A soldier stabbed in the back… Another soldier stabbed? Ok, in the stomach this time.

The reason I bring this up is because this is common parlance on the left. Conclusion precedes common sense logic. The left desperately wants to believe that the right truly are Nazi’s, hence no evidence is needed. Anything that makes even the slightest most tangential connection is taken as evidence that conservatives are Nazi’s.

The fallacy here is that Nazi’s somehow own the iconography of being stabbed in the back. Truly the National Socialists were a potent and creative force in history but did they actually invent this sybolism or did they merely use a common idiom which was already widely understood?

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”, Christian Today has learned. ~christiantoday.com

Pakistan, just like almost every single mideast country, has laws and stiff penalties for not being a muslim.

Under the existing blasphemy laws, anyone convicted of blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad faces life imprisonment or the death penalty, according to section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code. ~christiantoday.com

The terror war continues in Pakistan. More persecution news:

A 12-year-old Christian girl was kidnapped and gang-raped by four Muslim men in Lahore, Pakistan, on Easter Day. Less than a week later, a Christian man in Jamshoro district was threatened by a mob following allegations of blasphemy, persecution watchdog Christian Solidarity Worldwide has learned. ~christiantoday.com

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. ~rasmussenreports.com

In fact, the poll says that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance! Perhaps I should repeat that because it is evidence of the apparent mental incompetence ideological hatred of an entire swath of the electorate:

35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance!

On a side note I’d say that Segolene Royal is definitely a Democrat, or has read the official liberal playbook, or has the same ideological psychosis…

PARIS (Reuters) – Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday that France risks violence and brutality if her opponent right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday’s presidential election. ~yahoo.com

I can recall many such instances of Democrats warning that “there’s going to be violence” if this or that doesn’t happen… I believe it is just part of the unhinged nature of liberalism’s disconnect with reality. How else could so many believe that socialism could actually work and should be the ultimate goal of society?

Next we will find out that liberals believe that President Bush really is trying to kill Hugo Chavez and that, “Radical Christianity,” really is, “just as threatening as radical Islam.“

CARACAS) — President Hugo Chavez announced Monday he would pull Venezuela out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, a largely symbolic move because the nation has already paid off its debts to the lending institutions.

“We will no longer have to go to Washington nor to the IMF nor to the World Bank, not to anyone,” said the leftist leader, who has long railed against the Washington-based lending institutions.  ~time.com

Even though the IMF and World Bank are more like pale imitations of arch-capitalism rather than the real thing. But as symbols they are square in the sights of the anti-globalism/anti-capitalism crowd.