With all of the Democrats’ feigned flak over former Rep. Foley’s salacious and indefensible instant messages, this week, they have quite effectively moved the political debate over real issues to that of a sick individual. I write “feigned flak” as one of the Democrats’ own, former Rep. Gerry Studds, actually followed through with his prurient perversions. Foley is to blame for his behaviors. But, Foley resigned. Studds did not.
This Democrat strategy has been most effective. Democrats and their willing, able and even gleeful mainstream press have been able to divert and devolve the real upcoming November campaign issues into a second-rate sex scandal. Kudos to the Democrat machine!
However, the most salient question regarding the looming elections is: “Which US political party will best protect our country from its termination?” As the Republican Party is currently the only one willing to fight for the United States and protect it from Islamic terrorists, the answer is rather simple. Democrats do not want to fight terrorism and their leaders have said so over—and over again. And the words of the US Democrat leadership have reverberated worldwide, to the extent that these same words and similar ones are being used by the terrorists on a regular basis. Let’s take a look—shall we?
Osama bin Laden’s deputy in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, commented recently that President Bush is a “murderer and spiller of Muslim blood” and a “deceitful charlatan”. John Kerry, Al Gore and other prominent Democrats have consistently called President Bush a liar. Al Gore even ranted that President Bush “betrayed” the US. Democrats continue to regularly leak classified national security documents to their press, which gladly and immediately publishes them; the indication being that there may be NO US national secrets or security as long as a Republican is president is in office. Zawahiri follows US Democrats, with a videotape aimed at President Bush, when he asks: “Why are your troops retreating in secret from the south and east of Afghanistan?”
Question: Did Democrats leak this information to al-Qaeda? Considering all of the other Democrat security leaks, I have to wonder.
The Democrat mainstream media (including the usual suspects CNN, MSNBC and all of the other alphabet networks) continue to have internal divisions set up to publish the daily US overseas’ body count and persists with their anti-war-against-terrorists drumbeat, as Zawahiri asks President Bush: “Why don't you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory [then Zawahiri also emulates the Democrats’ parroting of their false charge that the Iraq war was fought for oil revenues] in breathless pursuit of the mirage toward which you are driving your people's sons in order to increase your profits?”
Yes, it’s pretty clear that the Democrats and their MSM have been very effective with their current strategy of changing the election issue to sex over survival—of us and our country. The reason, of course, is that they simply cannot win if the real country and planetary issues are remembered by the American electorate—the issue of terrorism and the continuation of our country. Instead, Democrats do not appear to care if the country survives or not—only if they can regain their power. Otherwise, they would have brought forth the “damning Foley IMs” years ago. They have apparently had them for the last 3 years. Why did they hold onto them? As they were released just weeks before the November elections, I think the answer to that question is a clear and definitive one. Democrats can’t win on issues of survival—so they work to win on sexual outrage—if not titillation. Remember how they backed President Clinton in both his Lewinsky affair and alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick?
Note: If the Dems can keep the current debate on sexual matters, they will probably win. After all, illicit sex is the Democrat forte.
One thing seems certain. The upcoming elections will tell us whether sex or the survival of our country will win out. Your vote does count—now more than ever.
Sher Zieve is a long-time syndicated columnist who generally writes columns of a politically Conservative and Constitutional nature. She also interviews notable people with an interesting and/or newsworthy story to tell. These include politicians, writers, activists and others in the news. Her work has been and continues to be carried by both national and international publications. Sher appears regularly on national talk shows.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
