Miller Breweries/Folsom Street Fair Update

From Catholic League:

October 1, 2007

MILLER ANNOUNCES IMMEDIATE AUDIT:

MARKETING POLICIES UNDER REVIEW

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the latest developments regarding the league’s boycott of Miller Brewing:

“Today’s San Francisco Chronicle reports that at yesterday’s Folsom Street Fair, ‘couples led each other up and down the street with dog collars and leashes, men in thong underwear played Twister….’ There was also a man who was flogged to such an extent that ‘red lash marks covered his back.’ Other gay men decided to ‘walk around naked’ in front of women and children. In addition to the homosexuals who dressed as nuns—ridiculing the women who have given selflessly of their lives in service to the dispossessed—there was a female stripper who was hoisted in a cage over a Roman Catholic church (on a Sunday when Masses were being said). The lead sponsor for the incredible spectacle is the Miller Brewing Company.

“The response from Miller has been encouraging, though incomplete. The Milwaukee brewer issued a news release on September 26 saying it took exception to the use of its logo on an offensive poster mocking the Last Supper. Today, it extended its original statement by apologizing for the misuse of its logo, ‘particularly [to] members of the Christian community who have contacted us to express their concern.’ It also said, ‘We are conducting an immediate audit of our procedures for approving local marketing and sales sponsorships to ensure that this does not happen again.’

“We called Miller today asking for clarification of this statement, and we are pleased to note that a full-scale review of all its promotional policies is underway. It is not certain at this time whether Miller plans to sponsor events like the Folsom Street Fair in the future.

Accordingly, while we are not calling off the boycott, we are tabling a serious course of action that we were going to announce today. We expect that Miller will resolve this issue before too long.”


********************
As shown in a previous post here, Miller has no problem acceding to the wishes of muslims, African-American clergy, lawyers and feminists. Apparently, it has a problem acceding to the wishes of Christians. The ad was not pulled prior to the event. Regardless of what Miller does now, the damage has been done--they have sponsored the deviancy of Folsom, even after being requested by many, many Christian groups. It shows where Miller's priorities lie.

The question is--where do YOUR priorities lie?

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA.

Sphere: Related Content

Folsom Street Fair, Miller Brewing, Nancy Pelosi: Purposeful Denigration of Christians

Isn't this a nice picture? Look in the bottom left corner. See the sponsor there? That's right, it's Miller Brewing Company. Do you happen to be Christian? Do you happen to partake of Miller's products? Do you like your beliefs being mocked in such a fashion? Or do you give a damn?

I personally don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I DO care when their private proclivities spill out into a public forum and their perversions and agendas are put on display for the world to see.

It's easy to mock Christians and those with Judeo-Christian values.

Why?

Because Christians and those with Judeo-Christian values aren't going to pay a visit to you and slice your head off because they don't like what you say. No--we do things peacefully. Things like boycott. Raise a loud voice in protest. Bring such outrages out of the darkness and expose them for the filth they are. I don't see anyone making a mockery out of islam, do you?

Why do you suppose that is? Because the freakin' islamists get offended from CARTOONS--so these idiots go after the safe shock.

Now, if you lived in San Francisco and you knew this was the weekend this obscenity was going on, what would you do? Would you stay home with the family, maybe rent a few movies and just avoid it? Or would you have to go be titillated by the perversions?

Believe it or not, some people think it's okay to take their children to this thing.


She's an absolutely adorable child, wouldn't you say? Obviously well fed, hair clean, a little bit of dirt, but then it's in the middle of the day and children do get dirty throughout the day. Overall, a pretty well cared for child. Now, take a closer look. How has she been dressed by her parents? A beaded "collar" around her neck. "Goth" clothing. She obviously can't believe what she's seeing by the look in her eyes and her hand over her mouth--classic "OMG" reaction of adults--and perfectly mimicked by this innocent child.

Laura Ingraham has a word for this kind of child abuse. It's called "pornification". This child is being pornified to "accept" what she's seeing as "normal" behavior amongst adults. And yes, it is indeed child abuse. There are many different forms of abuse and this particular form is insidious. Parents expose their children to this under the "guise" of being "open" with their children. Well, frankly, children don't need this exposure. I don't care how "open" parents want to be with their children, this isn't open--it's abuse.

So where does San Fran Nan come into this?

She was asked point blank about the issue. According to this article by KTVU.com:

At her Friday morning press conference, Pelosi was asked about the ad."It's a Constitutional question. It's a religious question. It's about as global a question as you could ask," the House leader said. "I'm a big believer in the First Amendment. I do not believe Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair.

Huh. Imagine that.

A poster that mocks DaVinci's Last Supper, replacing the Bread and Wine with sex toys and replaces Jesus and His Disciples with half-naked, leather and bondage clad denizens. A group that villifies Biblical values--BECAUSE THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY CONDEMNS THEIR CHOSEN LIFESTYLE--misses NO chance to attack and mock Biblical values.

But Pelosi doesn't think Christianity has been harmed. THIS is what we have as our SOH, ladies and gentlemen. A bitch who thinks nothing of killing babies on demand with her abortion stance. A bitch who doesn't hesistate to use children to further her political aims. A bitch who claims to be a Christian yet refuses to take a stand for her belief. A bitch who also stands with Code Pink and their ideas that murdering troops is fine. A bitch who wants every single bit of your disposable income to facilitate her grandiose tax plans and socialization of this country. A bitch who espouses child abuse between abortion and allowing this deviancy to admit children.

By now, you may be asking why I keep harping on the children issue at this exploitive, deviant affair. Because of this little tidbit found here at CNSNEWS.com:

The Folsom Street Fair Web site says young people are welcome: "While we don't have any age restrictions at the gates we do inform attendees of the adult oriented nature of our events." The fair organizers say beer and liquor age restrictions are strictly enforced.

Now. Who foots the bill for this? The California taxpayers. Yep, every single one of them AND every person who visits California and stays in a hotel. So, even if you live a normal life and don't want anything to do with this event, if you're a California resident and/or a California visitor, you pay for it. Taking the kids to DisneyLand (another supporter of the GLBT lifestyle with their "gay days") and you stay in a hotel, you pay for it. SeaWorld? You pay for it. Those taxes go to pay for the police and security and for blocking off several blocks of San Francisco so the event can occur.

Again, from CNSNEWS.com:

Concerned Women for America called it "shocking and offensive" that California taxpayers are forced to foot part of the bill for the Folsom Street Fair. The City of San Francisco sanctions the event by shutting down several city blocks and providing police for security.

And, from WorldNetDaily.com News:

A police lieutenant confirmed officers are on the clock during the event, not paid for by the organizers.

The Folsom Street Fair website also lists San Francisco's environment department and its Grants for the Arts –which comes out of the hotel tax fund – as sponsors.

More hypocrisy from the left: Senator Larry Craig (a Republican) has been hung by his toenails for his alleged gay actions in a Minnesota airport. Of course, the loudest screamers are the Democrats. Senator Mark Foley faced the same villification. I'm NOT condoning Craig's or Foley's actions--not by a long shot. However, when it comes to something far worse in their own districts, Democrats praise it. Why do you suppose that is? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOTHING BUT HYPOCRITES, THAT'S WHY. In the same WorldNetDaily and CNSNEWS articles referenced above, you find this:

"Senator Larry Craig was arrested and driven out of the Senate for allegedly soliciting public 'gay' sex, yet during this event the city of San Francisco suspends the law and allows 'gay' men and women to parade the streets fully nude, many having sex - even group orgies - in broad daylight, while taxpayer funded police officers look on and do absolutely nothing."

And this:

The group [Concerned Women of America] wants California's elected officials – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer – to "publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers.

We see how Pelosi publicly condemned this unprovoked attack and this blatantly homosexual festival.

Personally, I don't drink beer. However, if I did, Miller and it's products would no longer be part of my shopping list. They were asked by Concerned Women of America, the Catholic League and a surprising voice, Stephen Bennett, to pull their sponsorship. Why do I say Stephen Bennett is a surprising voice? Because of this quote from the article at the Concerned Women of America site:

Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual who runs a ministry for those struggling to overcome same-sex attraction disorder, challenged mainstream gay groups to condemn the vile anti-Christian display. "I call upon the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, GLSEN, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to publicly condemn this blatant mockery of Christians and Christianity by some within their community, and condemn this sick public display of immoral behavior," he said. [Emphasis mine]

More from the article:

"Furthermore, Miller has a record of acceding to requests from various segments of the population that have objected to certain ads: it has bowed to the wishes of Muslims, African-American clergy, lawyers and feminists by pulling ads deemed offensive. Surely it will do the same in this instance: the ad, like the event, is morally depraved. Indeed, it is the kind of ad that only the enemies of Christians would entertain." [Emphasis mine]

But it didn't pull the ad. It continued its sponsorship. Just like Pelosi condoned it. And just like the California politicians DID NOT condemn it.

The hypocrisy of the left is blatantly obvious. The appeasement mentality is blatantly obvious. You're only valuable to the politicians if you are a fringe group insulting Christians.

It's time to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Go read the articles.

Others posting on this:

Do the RIGHT Thing

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA.

Sphere: Related Content

John Boehner's Passion FOR The Troops; pullout pelosi's comebacks

Today, I saw a clip of John Boehner (R-OH) on funding for the troops. This man GETS IT. He wants the troops to have what they need so badly, he broke down in tears. Tears of frustration, tears of rage at the idiocy of the defeatists and surrender monkeys. Certainly not tears of wimpiness. Here are a few quotes I found from him regarding the troops:

Let's be clear here. Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing more than wrong. This is a war of necessity that we must fight.
John Boehner (Emphasis mine)

No, let's make sure that people understand that this is a very important war that is helping to protect us here at home. And that we have no choice but to win it. As difficult as it is.
John Boehner (Emphasis mine)

And fighting the war in Iraq has certainly been more difficult than anyone has expected. But we have no choice but to win.
John Boehner (Emphasis mine)

The United States did not choose to fight Islamic extremists. These terrorists chose to fight our way of life. They chose to challenge our existence.
John Boehner

These quotes alone show a very definite theme here; the defeatocrats would call it an agenda. Regardless, Boehner GETS IT, DAMMIT. Here's a fantastic "money quote:

I think the American people want us to defeat the terrorists. They want us to win the war in Iraq as part of that global war on terror.
John Boehner

This quote, however, was the impassioned plea of frustration to fund our troops NOW and without all the nonsense:

"Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you if we don't do it now, if we don't have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it."

pullout pelosi's response? In a totally cold, absolutely chilled tone of voice, she said:

"I see something that does not have adequate guidelines and time tables. Something that does not have adequate consequences and something that does not have my support.

From her own lips--anything that benefits the country and the troops DOES NOT HAVE HER SUPPORT. I only wish the leftists had the integrity to be as honest as she was--and I don't think she intended to state her intentions and her actual agenda so clearly. Hats off to John Boehner...the man gets it.

Sphere: Related Content

harry reid & nancy pelosi Are About To Get an Earful!!

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America:

I mentioned this in my earlier post, but this deserves to be seen in full, on its own.From Oppose Reid.com:

MEDIA ADVISORY -

May 15, 2007

CONTACT: Robert Dixon robert@moveamericaforward.org

CARSON CITY PROTEST EVENT AGAINST HARRY REID ADDED

Pro-Troop Organization to Hold “Surrender is Not an Option” Protests Against Harry Reid in Carson City & Las Vegas

In response to the efforts by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to undercut support for the missions of our troops in Iraq, pro-troop supporters will be conducting protests outside the district offices of Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 10:30 AM Pacific Time.

A protest against Senator Harry Reid will take place outside of Reid’s district offices in Carson City & Las Vegas. The Carson City protest has been added in response to the wishes of local grassroots activists who are furious with Reid’s efforts to cut funding for our troops serving in Iraq and his recent declaration that, “the war is lost.”

Local grassroots activist, Eric Odom, will be heading up the newly added Carson City event.

The protests are being organized by Move America Forward (website: www.MoveAmericaForward.org), the nation’s largest grass-roots, pro-troop organization and will be called “Surrender is Not an Option.” The protests will include picketers carrying white “surrender flags” to mock the defeatist approach offered by Reid & Pelosi.

“The anti-war movement and their leaders in Congress have gotten too far ahead of themselves and they are now going to experience the backlash from the American people. If these anti-war advocates won’t stand behind our troops then maybe they should stand in front of them on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

On Thursday May 17th at 10:30 AM, Move America Forward will be holding “Surrender Is Not an Option” rallies at the offices of speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. The Grassroots organization is asking that its members bring white “surrender flags” to show their displeasure with Reid and Pelosi.

The protests against Harry Reid will take place outside of his offices at these locations:

LAS VEGAS

333 Las Vegas Boulevard South,

Suite 8016,

Las Vegas, NV 89101

CARSON CITY

600 East William St, #302,

Carson City, NV 89701

“We’re not going to sit back any longer and allow politicians and anti-war groups to undercut our troops, we’re starting to fight back,” said Melanie Morgan.

The provocative campaign is funded by small donor contributions from tens of thousands of Move America Forward members around the country. For more information please visit www.MoveAmericaForward.Org

Can we say HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH????!!!!???

Double and Triple that HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH for ME as well!

Sphere: Related Content

San Francisco Priest Tells nancy pelosi she is PRO-DEATH

This article is directly from Spree at Wake Up America here.

I am a practicing Catholic, and me and my family have been participating in Tridentine Masses for approximately 3 years now. It shames me to call pelosi, kerry, kennedy, etc. fellow Catholics, particularly with their shameless pandering to their own aggrandizement rather than following their inculcated moral teachings.

For myself and my own conscience and soul (yes, I believe in those old fashioned "things"), I examine my conscience nightly; I read my Bible daily (those that know me personally know I'm going through a particularly trying time with my children and the Bible above all else brings clarity and comfort); and I generally participate in the old-fashioned notion of Sacramental Confession. I do NOT participate in Holy Communion without having cleansed my soul first. To my chagrin, I have not been to Mass, Confession or Holy Communion since my mother's funeral a little over a year ago. I have strayed from the teachings of my youth multiple times and I have done a considerable amount of maturing. I am thankful and grateful to God for giving me the opportunity to mature in wisdom and in life, through Him. I know my responsibilities and He hasn't let me down; I've let Him down.

I hope to NEVER be included with such wastes of skin as the aforementioned pseudo-Catholics, in their actions or deeds. For such people to continue to claim Catholicism while giving in to secular values and the culture of death is abhorrent and I think this priest is SPOT ON TARGET. To claim, well times change is NO EXCUSE--times may change; God and His teachings and His values are eternal and unchanging.


Now, the post from Spree:

As usual, I follow the links that I find in my email, this particular email came to me from Political Pistachio, so, I followed the links, then started a few searches and lo and behold, a letter from a San Francisco Priest telling Nancy Pelosi that she should stop calling herself a catholic, that her record belies high moral standards, she should not receive Eucharist when she attends mass and compares her to Nazi's as well as telling her, in their view she is Pro-Death..

WOW.

Harsh words from a priest.

Do you think I exaggerate?

Here is the PDF of the letter and below is the letter in full.

Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned this “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” which was recently published in the parish bulletin.

Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.

The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but your answer to the question are you a conservative Catholic was:

“I think so. I was raised in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics, and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will, and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, then that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.

”That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.

The NARL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”

Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby's brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.

Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.

Rev. John Malloy,
SDBSan Francisco, CA

Ouch, gotta hurt when your own proclaimed religion, doesn't even want you because your claims do not match your actions.

For those that would say the Priest overstated what Partial Birth Abortion is, take a look for yourself and see if the Priest is right? (Pictures of the process are at that link)

You can also link to a former post of mine called THIS is Partial Birth Abortion here. Fair warning to the faint hearted--my post is EXTREMELY graphic in showing exactly what this form of murder does to children.

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support

I've saved the BEST news for last, though (at least, last at this time). It must really, REALLY piss of pelosi, reid, murtha, clinton, durbin, et. al., that Baghdad is asking us to stay.

The link to the story is here. The entire text is below:

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support
By ANNE FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Worried Congress' support for
Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential on the war debate. On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"He understands that American patience is waning," said Sen. Norm Coleman, after eating lunch with Saleh, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie and Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

But the lobbying by the Iraqis isn't the only pressure-point being applied in Washington.

Clinton said Friday she considered it "promising" that several Republican House members went to the White House and told President Bush they believe the continuing war is adversely affecting the party.

She said the GOP lawmakers told Bush pointblank that "he has to change course in Iraq." But she also said she didn't think that Bush was ready to reverse course.

"I think we're going to go back and forth on this for a while longer," Clinton said in an interview Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program with Joe Scarborough.

"It is clear that whatever the mission used to be, it is either accomplished or over," she said. "If there are remaining American interests, then let's spell them out."

Baghdad's ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president's decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited.

Coleman, Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year — facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops. While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach.

With the clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the "imperative of success" in Iraq.

"Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict" against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie's visit on Tuesday.
The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail. Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don't want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid.

The House voted 221-205 Thursday for a stronger measure that would fund the war only through July, giving Congress the option of cutting off money after that. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, although it indicates the war's unpopularity among members and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

The most recent irritant among U.S. lawmakers was a report that Iraqi officials would break for two months this summer.

"Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we're over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. ... And the Iraqi answer? We're taking a summer off. Goin' fishing," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do "not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess."

Democrats seemed to consider these meetings with Iraqi officials as beneficial — if only to convey their frustration to Iraqi officials in person.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said the senator told Saleh that "U.S. patience, blood and treasure were not unlimited and that the Congress would be taking a more decisive role in the coming weeks and months."

"Salih understood the point, and said he would deliver the message to the Iraqi cabinet," Manley added.

Sphere: Related Content

How To Start Each Day With a Positive Outlook

A little humor from my friend Tony!

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

1. Open a "new file" in your computer.

2. Name it, "Hillary Clinton".

3. Send it to the "trash".

4. Empty the "trash".

5. Your PC will ask you, "Do you really want to get rid of "Hillary Clinton"?

6. Firmly, Click "Yes".

7. Feel better.

P.S. Next week, we'll do "Nancy Pelosi"!

Sphere: Related Content

WE WIN THEY LOSE...Ronald Reagan

THIS NEEDS TO BE SPREAD AROUND TO EVERYONE! Hat tip Snooper!

Sphere: Related Content

Message to harry reid from the TROOPS

Hat tip to Gazing At The Flag (http://gazingattheflag.blogspot.com/) ; Snooper (http://takeourcountryback.townhall.com/) and Gull (http://perishthethought.blogdrive.com/)

THANK YOU TROOPS FOR SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THIS JACKASS!




Here's the link to the video: http://www.nmatv.com/view_video.php?

Sphere: Related Content

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER--YESTERDAY AND TODAY

This came to my email courtesy of Cyper Pastor at Do the RIGHT Thing (here: http://dotherightthing.townhall.com/). Humorous, but unfortunately way too true.


OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

********************

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall Overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote

Sphere: Related Content

A LAUGH AT NANCY'S EXPENSE

I found this article on Pelosi at Snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp

While the original premise of Nancy calling for 100% tax on stock profits is false, the entire article is worth reading. Keep in mind, it could also apply to Billary and her statements about taking the oil profits and redistributing the wealth to the "poor and downtrodden".

It would be laughable if it weren't so plausible for these lunatic nutters!

Sphere: Related Content

Madame Speaker Meet General Petraeus

This is an excellent piece from Townhall.com (trackbacked below), sent to me by my friend Cassy.


Madame Speaker, Meet General Petraeus
By John Boehner
Saturday, April 21, 2007

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.


General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.


Too busy? The only thing that could be more important than hearing from the top general in a war effort that is critical to America’s long-term national security would be providing our troops the resources they need to succeed. But Democrats certainly haven’t been busy doing that.


Instead, Democratic leaders pushed through a pork-laden surrender bill that would undermine General Petraeus and our troops on the ground. In an editorial titled “Do We Really Need a General Pelosi,” the Los Angeles Times said the Democrats’ plan is “an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.”


After that, House Democrats left Washington for the first two weeks of April in no apparent hurry to begin negotiations with the Senate on providing our troops with the funding they need. Such delays in funding, says the Secretary of the Army, “carry consequential effects, including substantial disruption to installation functions, decreasing efficiency and potentially further degrading the readiness of non-deployed units.”


Lawmakers often receive information that is filtered through media reports, bolstered by suspect polling data, or drummed up by ideologically-driven activist groups. When it comes to America’s commitment to fighting al Qaeda, this information-deficit can have real consequences.


For example, in a March press conference, General Petraeus insisted that “military action is necessary to help improve security” in Iraq. He also said military force alone “is not sufficient,” a reflection of his new strategy which relies on military, political, and diplomatic force alike. But as is their way, liberal special interest groups seized on that single phrase – military force “is not sufficient” – and presented a false portrait of what the General was saying to give cover to politicians who would rather abandon Iraq to al Qaeda than see it through to victory.


That’s why General Petraeus’ visit to Capitol Hill is so timely – and so important. Members of Congress not only need to hear about the need for a clean troop funding bill, they need to hear from America’s top commander in Iraq about the realities on the ground. Petraeus has said we will make progress even if there are setbacks along the way, and that is exactly what is happening.


The deficit of on-the-ground information has caused some Members to go so far as to outlandishly suggest the war effort is “lost.” That’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters earlier this week, igniting a firestorm of criticism from veterans groups and others who recognize the danger of demoralizing American troops and conceding defeat to al Qaeda.


I would like to challenge my colleagues to not only attend this briefing by General Petraeus, but to come with an open mind. The General has been entrusted with an historic task; he deserves not only our full faith and support, but the courtesy of acknowledging that he knows better than 535 Members of Congress how to succeed in a war effort.


The questions for each member of Congress to consider after Senator Reid’s recent comments are real and they go to the heart at the battle against our enemies:


Do we support our troops? Or do we starve them of resources?


Do we put politics aside during a time of war? Or do we “bleed” America’s military forces in an attempt to derive partisan benefit?


Do we fight to win? Or do we preemptively declare defeat?


The most important question, however, is this: will Members of Congress listen to General Petraeus … or to Democratic leaders who believe they know best?


John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.

Page link here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnboehner/2007/04/21/madame_speaker,_meet_general_petraeus'

Sphere: Related Content

A Compilation of Pelosi Nonsense-Courtesy of Snooper at Capitalism or Socialism...You Decide

I'm a day late, but hopefully not a dollar short with this compilation. Most of these writings are Snooper's, but he allows me to share his writings with y'all.

I'm sharing on the Pelosi weed today because of the wonderful news handed down from the Supreme Court regarding upholding the ban on Partial Birth Abortions. Nancy Pelosi voted FOR these heinous procedures over 8 times. What a murderous bitch.

Keeping mind her tendency towards infanticide, I felt it appropriate to re-run Snooper's compilation. Enjoy!

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:52 PM

The below are posts with various takes on the SoH Nancy Pelosi...a good portion mine [Snooper]...

I Am A Loyal Democrat

Subversion? Treason? You Decide...Part 1

Subversion? Treason? You Decide...Part 2

Surrender Is NOT An Option

A Gunny's Letter To Pelosi

What Constitution?

Double Standard Pandemic

Idiot Pelosi...What A GOMER

Carter and Pelosi?

Madame Traitor

Pelosi Owned?

Impeach Pelosi

Censure the Leftinistra

WSJ Behind the Curve

General Moonbat Pelosi

Wrong-Way Leftinistra

Pathology Of The Leftinistra

Will SoH Pelosi Heed The Call To Resign?

Another Call For Pelosi To Resign

Wannabe SecState Pelosi

Pelosi And Our Enemies...Birds Of A Feather

Recall Congress

Terrorists Laugh At Pelosi

Send A Thank You To Nancy

Keeping Up The Pressure On Pelosi

Impeach Pelosi Fax

Unlike Pelosi, THIS Is an Authorized Visit

Also, in light of the surrender tactics being played out in Congress, led by Pelosi, this petition was sent to me and I'm passing it on to you: (Hat Tip: Cassy)

Congressional leftists have passed a bill to shut off funding for the troops and put a deadline on their withdrawel from Iraq. The result would be a complete surrender in the Middle East, and we have to stop it while there's time.

TheVanguard.Org is sending a giant postcard to the House Democrats: everyone needs to sign it (for free), at

http://www.TheVanguard.Org/r/fax/pmpsp1.shtml

They also provide a way to fax all the Congressmen and Senators who've voted wrong, and demand they change their vote immediately.

There's still time to make a difference, but not much. The President will veto their current bill, but since all money bills have to be passed by the House, failure to pass any bill cuts off funds for the troops too. This is a fight which can only be won by a public outcry, and it's time for us to stand up. Please sign the postcard -- and if you can, call Congress and send them faxes too -- at

http://www.TheVanguard.Org/r/fax/pmpsp1.shtml

Our safety and our futures may literally depend on it.

Sphere: Related Content

Vice-President Cheney's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation

You Tell 'Em Dick! This speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-2.html

Vice President's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation
Ritz-Carlton ChicagoChicago, Illinois
10:42 A.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:

That's quite a welcome. Well, thank you very much. Ed, I appreciate the introduction, and the opportunity to come speak with all of you today. You've chosen one of America's truly great cities for your meeting. I'm delighted to be in Chicago once again, to have the opportunity to speak about some important issues facing the country. I used to come to Chicago a lot, because our oldest daughter and her husband lived here while she went to law school at the University of Chicago, and I brought her back with me today. My daughter, Liz, is traveling with us today. (Applause.)

I've attended many Heritage events over the years. I've benefited greatly from the scholarly work that Heritage does. And one of the things I like about the Heritage Foundation is that it resides in the city of Washington, but it's not of the city of Washington. Rather, it reflects the wisdom, the traditions, and the common sense of the nation as a whole. For more than three decades, policy makers have looked to Heritage as a clear and an honest voice for the cause of freedom at home and abroad, limited government as envisioned by the Founders, and a healthy free enterprise system, and the value of personal responsibility.

The whole enterprise has been strengthened, of course, by the leadership of Dr. Ed Feulner. President Bush once observed that in Washington, presidents come and go -- except at the Heritage Foundation. (Laughter.) There's good reason for this. Ed is a man of ideas, energy, incredible talent; he's won the admiration of us all. I also want to recognize another "lifer" at Heritage, your vice president, Phil Truluck, and your trustee chairman, David Brown. It's a pleasure to be in their company once again. (Applause.)

My most recent visit to Heritage was last September, when David and Ed hosted a dinner honoring Lady Thatcher and naming the Thatcher Center. Since that time, a good many events have unfolded in the political world. The American people spoke in the mid-term elections, the 110th Congress has arrived in Washington, D.C., and for the first time since 1995 the Democratic Party now controls both the House and the Senate. It was, in retrospect, a narrow victory. A shift of only 3,600 votes would have kept the Senate in Republican hands, and a shift of fewer than 100,000 votes would have maintained Republican control of the House of Representatives.

This weekend marks the 100th day of this Congress, and it's not too soon to assess the direction in which the new majority is attempting to move the country. The Democrats, as all of us remember, came in with high expectations, many pledges to bring change, and a promise of something new. What we've seen, however, is not really that new -- in fact, it's kind of familiar to those of us who've been around a while and can remember the early 1970s.

Thirty-five years ago, the standard-bearer for the Democrats, of course, was Senator George McGovern, who campaigned on a far-left platform of heavy taxation, a greatly expanded role for government in the daily lives of Americans, and a major retreat from America's commitments in the Cold War. Senator McGovern was, and is, an honest and a straightforward man. He said what he believed and he told people where he stood. And on Election Day, Senator McGovern lost every state but one, and collected just over 3 percent of the electoral vote.

That was the last time the national Democratic Party took a hard left turn. But in 2007, it looks like history is repeating itself. Today, on some of the most critical issues facing the country, the new Democratic majority resembles nothing so much as that old Party of the early 1970s.

On taxes, the Democratic leadership has made clear its opposition to the Bush tax cuts that have fueled this economy and helped to create nearly 8 million new jobs. The budget passed by the House assumes that all of the Bush tax reductions will be swept from the books within just a few years. The result would be a staggering tax increase on the middle class, on families and small businesses, and a return of the federal death tax from zero back up to a confiscatory 55 percent. This would constitute the largest tax increase in American history.

On the spending side of the ledger, it's enough, I think, to offer this example: Last month, in response to President Bush's request for an emergency war supplemental, the House and Senate tacked on billions of dollars to cover items on their wish list -- from fighting crickets to spinach subsidies. Even though it's still early in the session, when it comes to the appetite for tax dollars, the new Congress has already earned a place in the big-spending hall of fame.

But the Democrats' return to old patterns is most dramatic, and most consequential, in the field of national security. This will be the focus of my remarks today. In the early 1970s, the far left wing turned the Democratic Party away from the confident Cold War stance of President Truman, President Kennedy, and Senator Scoop Jackson. The result, as we know, was not merely defeat at the polls, but the beginning of a long period in which the American people largely declined to trust the Democratic Party in matters of national security. In fact, that period ended only when the Cold War itself came to an end, during the administration of former President Gerald Bush -- George Bush.

Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda. The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq.

An early sign of unseriousness was the comment by Howard Dean, now the party chairman, that the capture of Saddam Hussein did nothing to make America safer. He made that statement several years ago while running for president, and a number of his fellow Democrats sharply criticized him. Yet now we hear almost daily the claim that the fight in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

This leader of al-Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate. He has also said, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a vital front in that war, and it's where they have chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for numerous bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (Applause.)

The Democratic leadership has assured us that, in any event, they support the troops in the field. They did vote to confirm General Dave Petraeus unanimously in the United States Senate -- and for good reason. General Petraeus is one of the finest military officers of his generation, an expert in counterinsurgency, a leader committed to victory, and with a strategy to achieve it.

The senators knew something else about General Petraeus. They knew he had told the Armed Services Committee that he could not do his job without reinforcements. Yet within days of his confirmation a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing those very reinforcements, thereby undermining the General's mission. Over in the House of Representatives, such a resolution actually passed on the floor. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary to win that battle."

In the weeks since that vote, the actions of the Democratic leadership have moved from the merely inconsistent to the irresponsible. It's now been 67 days since the President submitted the emergency supplemental request. As most Americans know by now, the House of Representatives has voted to provide the funding, but also to require that we cut the number of troops below the level that our commanders in Iraq say is necessary for victory, and further require that American forces begin withdrawing from Iraq according to a set timetable, and be gone next year regardless of circumstances on the ground.

Not before that vote had the Democrats ever managed to find enough members of the House to support a planned retreat from Iraq. So how did they manage to pass it this time? They did it by horse-trading -- by adding in all that pork-barrel spending we've heard about. And when they had the votes they needed, they stopped adding the pork, and they held the vote.

Such an outcome raises more than a little concern about the future of fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill. The implications for national security are equally obvious, and far more critical to the future of the country. An editorial by The Washington Post aptly termed the House bill an "unconditional retreat ". The legislation that passed in the Senate is no better, and that bill, also, calls for the withdrawal of American troops according to a pre-set timetable determined by members of Congress.

So this is where things stand today. The Democratic Congress has approved appropriations for a war, and attached detailed provisions for the timing and the movement of American troops. It is unacceptable, of course, from an institutional standpoint. Under the Constitution, Congress has the purse strings and the power to confirm officers. But military operations are to be directed by the President of the United States, period. (Applause.) By the wisdom of the framers, that power rests in the hands of one Commander-in-Chief, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.

I might add that we don't need 535 secretaries of state, either. (Laughter and applause.) It didn't help matters when the Speaker of the House showed up in Damascus for a sit-down with Syrian president Bashar Assad. Here again, we have an instance of the new congressional leadership making a bad move and sending mixed signals about the policies and the intentions of the United States.
It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a basic constitutional principle. No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. (Applause.)

In America, above all, the Democrats -- excuse me, in Iraq, above all, the Democrats' attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region. Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out -- wait for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.

This notion of a timetable for withdrawal has been specifically rejected by virtually every mainstream analysis. The report of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended against it. The National Intelligence Estimate produced by the intelligence community said a rapid withdrawal would be ill-advised. Our military commanders believe a rigid timetable is not a good strategy. It does, perhaps, appeal to the folks at MoveOn.org.

Recently the National Commander of the American Legion said, "You cannot support the troops if you want them to cut and run. It's time for the President to veto this surrender bill and for Congress to pass a serious war-funding bill, which would provide the money without the micromanagement." (Applause.) Standing here today, I can assure the American Legion, and the VFW, and all the veterans organizations, and all the men and women serving at this very hour, that the President of the United States will, indeed, veto this irresponsible legislation. (Applause.)

Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing. And yet the exercise continues. Three days ago the President invited the Democratic leaders to meet with him next week to discuss the supplemental. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, at first declined to do so. When Nancy Pelosi flies nearly 6,000 miles to meet with the president of Syria, but Harry Reid hesitates to drive a mile and half to meet with the President of the United States, there's a serious problem in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Senator Reid has threatened that if the President vetoes the timetable legislation, he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraqi operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of funding. Three positions in five months, on the most important foreign policy question facing our country and our troops.

Senator Reid, of course, was one of the many Democrats who voted for the use of force in Iraq. They are entitled, if they want now, to oppose this war. Yet Americans are entitled to question whether the endlessly shifting positions that he and others are taking are reflections of principle, or of partisanship and blind opposition to the President.

In their move to the left, many leading Democrats have turned not just against the military operation in Iraq, but against its supporters, as well. I think of the case of Senator Joe Lieberman. I've known Joe since I was secretary of defense, and we debated each other when he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000. I've run for office eight times in my career, and I have to say that Joe is the toughest opponent I've ever faced, and also the one I've most admired.

Joe and I see many issues differently. He's a center-left Democrat, and he has been throughout his career. Yet last year Joe was targeted for political extinction by his fellow Democrats. Al Gore himself, who famously endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, refused to help his former running mate, Joe Lieberman, on grounds that he doesn't get involved in primaries. Senator Lieberman's Connecticut colleague and best friend in the Senate, Chris Dodd, campaigned against him. In a tough political fight, Joe Lieberman was abandoned simply because of his firm stand on the war -- a stand he has consistently held regardless of whether the news was good or bad, or whether snapshot polls agreed or disagreed with him.

Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman was re-elected, winning more votes than the Democratic and Republican candidates combined. The campaign against him was the political equivalent of street theater, and the voters of Connecticut showed little interest. It is tempting, I suppose, to view the current situation on Capitol Hill in the same way -- as mere posturing by a liberal element that has no chance of prevailing. But it's far more serious than that. We're talking about a congressional majority with real power and a liberal agenda that, if followed, would have serious consequences for the country.

In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be different if the current Democratic leadership had controlled Congress during the last five years. Would we have the terrorist surveillance program? Or the Patriot Act? Or military commissions to try unlawful combatants? All these measures have been essential to protecting the American people against enemies who are absolutely determined to cause another 9/11, or something far worse. And it's an open question, I think, whether the current Democratic leadership would have put these protections in place.

They've even created controversy over the words we use to describe the challenges now facing America. According to news accounts, one committee in the House has decided to stop using the phrase, "Global War on Terrorism." I'm left to wonder -- which part of that phrase is the problem? Do they deny the struggle is global, after the enemy has declared the ambition of building a totalitarian empire that stretches from Europe around to Indonesia? Do they deny this is a war, in which one side will win and the other will lose? Do they deny that it's terror that we're fighting, with unlawful combatants who wear no uniform, who reject the rules of warfare, and who target the innocent for indiscriminate slaughter?

That's the nature of the fight we're in. We can't wish it away, or define it away. In Iraq, while extremists are trying to stir an endless cycle of violence, where al Qaeda is operating and trying to open new fronts, where an elected government is going about the hard work of political reconciliation, the United States has interests at stake, and promises to keep.

The ultimate solution in that country will be a political solution, but reconciliation cannot be reached in an atmosphere of violence and instability. So we are there, alongside Iraqi forces, to bring security to Baghdad. Together our forces have carried out thousands of patrols. We have set up joint security stations and combat posts in the capital city, we've seized hundreds of weapons caches, found and cleared hundreds of improvised explosive devices, detained suspected killers and bomb makers, and found and destroyed car bomb factories.
Our new strategy in Iraq is still in its early stages of implementation. Roughly half of the reinforcements have arrived, and as General Petraeus has said , it'll be a while before we can fully assess how well it's working. But there's one thing the American people already know: The men and women we've sent to carry out this mission are brave and decent. They and their families represent the best in the American character, and we are proud of each and every one of them. (Applause.)

The good men and women serving in the war on terror, on every front, are staring evil in the face. Some of them will not make it home. They can never be sure what the next day will bring. But they're giving it all they have, and we owe them the same. Both political parties, both elected branches, both houses of Congress need to unite and back up our military 100 percent, leaving no uncertainty about whether this country supports them and what they're doing. (Applause.) They deserve this support so they can finish the job and get it done right, and return home to an America made safer by their courage.

The United States is keeping its commitments, and persevering despite difficulty, because we understand the consequences of getting out before the job is done. History provides its own lessons, and none perhaps is better than the example of Afghanistan in the 1980s. During those years, Afghanistan was a major front in the Cold War. The strategic significance was clear to all, and the United States was heavily engaged in the area, supporting the Mujahedin against the Soviets. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, everybody walked away from Afghanistan. From that point on, extremist factions began to vie for power. Civil war broke out. By the end of the 1990s, the Taliban had an iron grip on the country, and was hosting Osama bin Laden and the training camps for terrorists that led directly to the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

The consequences of walking away from Afghanistan were severe, but perhaps hard to foresee prior to 9/11. But no one could plead ignorance of the potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now, withdrawing coalition forces before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed. Shiite extremists backed by Iran could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam Hussein regime.

As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war. If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies could recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and they could underwrite their own designs, including against our friends in the region. If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime in Teheran's own designs for the Middle East would be advanced, and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our efforts in the war on terror, and to our interests in the broader Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look about for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments, in what the terrorist Zawahiri has called a "jihad wave." Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? And what would it say to leaders like President Karzai in Afghanistan and President Musharraf in Pakistan, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror? Critics enjoy pointing out mistakes through the perceptive power of hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our Coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen. (Applause.)

This nation has chosen a better course. Instead of allowing problems to simmer, instead of allowing threats to gather thousands of miles away and assume they won't find us at home, we've decided to face our challenges squarely. We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment. We believe, and we know, that free institutions and human liberty provide the best long-term hope of progress for nations, and peace for the world.

The course we have chosen is not an easy one for America. But it will be far easier on the conscience of America when we see it through, sparing millions from suffering, and leaving behind a free and democratic Iraq. Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of the hard left in the early '70s, America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret. Thirty-five years is time enough to have learned the lessons of that sad era. When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and hopes of millions are lost forever.

Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. (Applause.) This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. At this hour in our history, it is the cause of America -- and the best among us are fighting and sacrificing for its success. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome is not in doubt. We will press on in this mission, and we will turn events towards victory.

Thank you very much.

END 11:13 A.M. CDT

Sphere: Related Content