Michael Gaynor
Why terrorism terrifies Democrats
By Michael Gaynor
Democrats aspire to take control of the White House and both houses of Congress, especially the United States Senate, so they can control the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and pursue their political agenda through judicial activists who refuse to follow the law and twist or fabricate it instead.
That's why they must not be allowed to realize their aspiration.
Ironically, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, America haters, have helped President Bush and Republicans, their fiercest adversaries, instead of leftist Democrats, who either just don't appreciate the threat of terrorism in this age of weapons of mass destruction or really believe that it's more important that a telephone call to America from a terrorist abroad not be surveilled without a judicial warrant than that a terrorist plot be monitored and foiled.
September 11, 2001 allowed President Bush to put the Democrat attacks on the legitimacy of his presidency aside (he won, fair and square, but the Democrats did not care about that and began the 2004 election campaign immediately after Election Day 2000) and rally America behind him in retaliating against the terrorists.
The Taliban, which then ruled Afghanistan, had harbored Osama and al Qaeda, so President Bush did the right thing: he ousted the Taliban, by force, and began the process of democratizing Afghanistan, which is difficult and expensive, of course.
Likewise, President Bush ended the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Saddam's in prison and on trial and his sons are dead), and began the even more difficult process of democratizing Iran. In doing so, he made Iraq instead of the United States the central front in the War on Terror. That protected the homefront. The subsequent attacks in Spain and Great Britain and the basing of the foiled terrorist plot to explode over the Atlantic airplanes headed from Great Britain to the United States are powerful proof.
In 2002, Democrats were shocked when the American people expressed their approval. Republicans increased their majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The party out of power is supposed to make gains in the off-year elections.
In 2004, President Bush won re-election. He won even more electoral votes than he had won in 2000 and a majority of the popular vote too. And Republicans increased their Senate majority (making the task of repopulating the judiciary with strict constructionists a bit easier, but far from easy, because Democrats decided to filibuster either loudly or silently, many qualified nominees, all of whom were entitled to be confirmed by a simple majority instead of blocked by a willful minority).
Osama appeared on tape shortly before Election Day 2004. Thrilling President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove. Senator John Kerry, President Bush's Democrat opponent, probably wished that his wealthy wife had paid Osama to delay his reappearance until AFTER Election Day.
As 2005 and 2006 proceeded, Democrat hopes to take control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate too seemed more and more realistic.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2006, three-term Democrat Senator and 2000 Democrat vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut lost a Democrat primary. 52 to 48, to a wealthy anti-war candidate. Senator Lieberman is a realist in the War on Terror and a firm friend of Israel (like President Bush). That made him anathema to the Far Left Democrats.
Then the political landscape shifted as the very real threat of terrorism again reared its ugly head. A plan to explode ten airplanes flying from Great Britain to the United States while they were over the Atlantic Ocean was not only foiled, but publicized.
Fact: The terrorists have not stuck America since September 11, 2001.
Conclusion: The Bush Administration has done very well in protecting the homeland, in large measure by taking the fight to the terrorists in the Middle East.
Fact: The British have a more robust version of The Patriot Act than the United States does (mostly due to Democrat dumbness) and they discovered the latest terrorist plot (aimed at both Great Britain and the United States) and, with help from the United States and Pakistan, foiled it.
Conclusions: (1) The United States would benefit from a more robust Patriot Act, as President Bush and most Republicans would prefer; (2) Democrats have endangered the security of the United States by trying to kill The Patriot Act and then compelling renewal in a weaker form; (3) President Bush acted lawfully and wisely in ordering warrantless surveillance and monitoring of international banking transactions as part of the War on Terror; (4) The New York Times acted recklessly and perhaps criminally, if not treasonously, in publicizing thereto secret measures taken to protect the United States, particularly the monitoring of the banking transactions, which even Democrat Representative John Murtha urged The New York Times to keep secret; and (5) President Bush did a wonderful job in recruiting the President of Pakistan, an Islamic country, as an ally in the War on Terror.
To those thinking about voting for a Democrat for United States Senator: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, boasted that he had killed The Patriot Act before it was renewed. Fortunately, he was wrong. Equally fortunately, he showed what kind of person he really is when he made that boast. DO YOUR REALLY WANT HIM TO BECOME SENATE MAJORITY LEADER? And Jay "The Sieve" Rockefeller of West Virginia to head the Senate Intelligence Committee? And Patrick "The Far Left Secular Extremist" Leahy to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee?
If you are thinking about voting for a Democrat for United States Representative: It's true that Representative Cynthia Mckinney, Democrat of Georgia, who assaulted a Capitol policeman, hates Israel and thinks that the September 11 attacks were a great conspiracy instead of al Qaeda being al Qaeda, won't be part of the next Congress, but some of her good friends will become Committee chairmen if the Democrats win the majority. Do you really want House Minority Leader Nancy "San Fran Nan" Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Charles Rangel of New York, who complained that Hitler isn't described as a "Christian fascist" when President Bush took to calling Islamo-fascists Islamo-fascists, as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee? John Conyers of Michigan, who wanted to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, to become Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee? Alcee Hastings of Florida, who was impeached and removed from office as a federal judge, to become Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee? John Dingell of Michigan, who called for a premature cease fire in Lebanon and obstinately opposes America accessing its own oil in Anwar (thereby reducing price and dependency on foreign oil), to become Chairman of the Committee on Energy & Commerce? John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who wants to retreat from Iraq to Okinawa and calls Marines cold-blooded murderers long before trial (in trying to make the case that winning in Iraq is too hard for America), for House Majority Leader? Maxinbe Waters of California as "the conscience of the House"?
It's too terrible to contemplate.
The bad news is that President Bush and Republicans generally are not perfect.
The good news is that President Bush was still greatly preferable to his Democrat adversaries, Republicans are generally preferable to Democrats and President Bush and Congressional Republicans will do a better job of doing what the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States envisioned would be done: "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
The unalienable, God-given rights declared in America's Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In that order. Republicans understand that much better than Democrats. Terrorism terrifies Democrats because it makes the world too dangerous for them to be in control.
© Michael Gaynor
Democrats aspire to take control of the White House and both houses of Congress, especially the United States Senate, so they can control the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and pursue their political agenda through judicial activists who refuse to follow the law and twist or fabricate it instead.
That's why they must not be allowed to realize their aspiration.
Ironically, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, America haters, have helped President Bush and Republicans, their fiercest adversaries, instead of leftist Democrats, who either just don't appreciate the threat of terrorism in this age of weapons of mass destruction or really believe that it's more important that a telephone call to America from a terrorist abroad not be surveilled without a judicial warrant than that a terrorist plot be monitored and foiled.
September 11, 2001 allowed President Bush to put the Democrat attacks on the legitimacy of his presidency aside (he won, fair and square, but the Democrats did not care about that and began the 2004 election campaign immediately after Election Day 2000) and rally America behind him in retaliating against the terrorists.
The Taliban, which then ruled Afghanistan, had harbored Osama and al Qaeda, so President Bush did the right thing: he ousted the Taliban, by force, and began the process of democratizing Afghanistan, which is difficult and expensive, of course.
Likewise, President Bush ended the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Saddam's in prison and on trial and his sons are dead), and began the even more difficult process of democratizing Iran. In doing so, he made Iraq instead of the United States the central front in the War on Terror. That protected the homefront. The subsequent attacks in Spain and Great Britain and the basing of the foiled terrorist plot to explode over the Atlantic airplanes headed from Great Britain to the United States are powerful proof.
In 2002, Democrats were shocked when the American people expressed their approval. Republicans increased their majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The party out of power is supposed to make gains in the off-year elections.
In 2004, President Bush won re-election. He won even more electoral votes than he had won in 2000 and a majority of the popular vote too. And Republicans increased their Senate majority (making the task of repopulating the judiciary with strict constructionists a bit easier, but far from easy, because Democrats decided to filibuster either loudly or silently, many qualified nominees, all of whom were entitled to be confirmed by a simple majority instead of blocked by a willful minority).
Osama appeared on tape shortly before Election Day 2004. Thrilling President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove. Senator John Kerry, President Bush's Democrat opponent, probably wished that his wealthy wife had paid Osama to delay his reappearance until AFTER Election Day.
As 2005 and 2006 proceeded, Democrat hopes to take control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate too seemed more and more realistic.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2006, three-term Democrat Senator and 2000 Democrat vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut lost a Democrat primary. 52 to 48, to a wealthy anti-war candidate. Senator Lieberman is a realist in the War on Terror and a firm friend of Israel (like President Bush). That made him anathema to the Far Left Democrats.
Then the political landscape shifted as the very real threat of terrorism again reared its ugly head. A plan to explode ten airplanes flying from Great Britain to the United States while they were over the Atlantic Ocean was not only foiled, but publicized.
Fact: The terrorists have not stuck America since September 11, 2001.
Conclusion: The Bush Administration has done very well in protecting the homeland, in large measure by taking the fight to the terrorists in the Middle East.
Fact: The British have a more robust version of The Patriot Act than the United States does (mostly due to Democrat dumbness) and they discovered the latest terrorist plot (aimed at both Great Britain and the United States) and, with help from the United States and Pakistan, foiled it.
Conclusions: (1) The United States would benefit from a more robust Patriot Act, as President Bush and most Republicans would prefer; (2) Democrats have endangered the security of the United States by trying to kill The Patriot Act and then compelling renewal in a weaker form; (3) President Bush acted lawfully and wisely in ordering warrantless surveillance and monitoring of international banking transactions as part of the War on Terror; (4) The New York Times acted recklessly and perhaps criminally, if not treasonously, in publicizing thereto secret measures taken to protect the United States, particularly the monitoring of the banking transactions, which even Democrat Representative John Murtha urged The New York Times to keep secret; and (5) President Bush did a wonderful job in recruiting the President of Pakistan, an Islamic country, as an ally in the War on Terror.
To those thinking about voting for a Democrat for United States Senator: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, boasted that he had killed The Patriot Act before it was renewed. Fortunately, he was wrong. Equally fortunately, he showed what kind of person he really is when he made that boast. DO YOUR REALLY WANT HIM TO BECOME SENATE MAJORITY LEADER? And Jay "The Sieve" Rockefeller of West Virginia to head the Senate Intelligence Committee? And Patrick "The Far Left Secular Extremist" Leahy to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee?
If you are thinking about voting for a Democrat for United States Representative: It's true that Representative Cynthia Mckinney, Democrat of Georgia, who assaulted a Capitol policeman, hates Israel and thinks that the September 11 attacks were a great conspiracy instead of al Qaeda being al Qaeda, won't be part of the next Congress, but some of her good friends will become Committee chairmen if the Democrats win the majority. Do you really want House Minority Leader Nancy "San Fran Nan" Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Charles Rangel of New York, who complained that Hitler isn't described as a "Christian fascist" when President Bush took to calling Islamo-fascists Islamo-fascists, as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee? John Conyers of Michigan, who wanted to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, to become Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee? Alcee Hastings of Florida, who was impeached and removed from office as a federal judge, to become Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee? John Dingell of Michigan, who called for a premature cease fire in Lebanon and obstinately opposes America accessing its own oil in Anwar (thereby reducing price and dependency on foreign oil), to become Chairman of the Committee on Energy & Commerce? John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who wants to retreat from Iraq to Okinawa and calls Marines cold-blooded murderers long before trial (in trying to make the case that winning in Iraq is too hard for America), for House Majority Leader? Maxinbe Waters of California as "the conscience of the House"?
It's too terrible to contemplate.
The bad news is that President Bush and Republicans generally are not perfect.
The good news is that President Bush was still greatly preferable to his Democrat adversaries, Republicans are generally preferable to Democrats and President Bush and Congressional Republicans will do a better job of doing what the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States envisioned would be done: "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
The unalienable, God-given rights declared in America's Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In that order. Republicans understand that much better than Democrats. Terrorism terrifies Democrats because it makes the world too dangerous for them to be in control.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
