The rest of Cheney's speech

Here are parts 2-4 of former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the American Enterprise Institute (part 1 can be seen here):



Part 2



Part 3



Part 4

This nation owes Mr. Cheney a great debt. His speaking up and standing for the truth has rocked the administration and put Obama seriously off his game. Cheney's almost single-handed defense of the Bush administration's extremely successful national security policies (coupled with Nancy Pelosi's almost unbelievably stupid performance in "briefing-gate") has put little Barry and his lickspittle spokesmen and surrogates onto the defensive and given his opponents (otherwise knows as patriotic American who don't want to see their nation driven into the ground like a tent peg) the chance to delay or even derail his plans to nationalize the auto industry and the health care industry.

This is why the left is so eager to shut Mr. Cheney up and to convince Republicans that he is harming them politically.

Getting to know you. . .

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The same day Dick Cheney delivered a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.

But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday morning, indicates that a majority of Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of Cheney.

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.

In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.

The reason for this is simple. When Mr. Cheney was vice president he had to be bound by the wishes of George W Bush in the way he represented the administration in public. Mr. Bush believed that the partisan back and forth of Washington "politics as usual" were beneath the dignity of the Oval Office and would not participate, or allow his surrogates to participate.

Because Cheney was unable to fire back at his critics the Democrat party and its propaganda organs (the mainstream media) were given carte blanc to define his image before the public.

Now that Mr. Cheney is a free agent he is allowed to speak his mind as he sees fit and the public is being given a chance to evaluate the former vice president based on truth rather than on the far left's lies.

It is natural therefore that the public's opinion of Mr. Cheney is improving since the general public is not made up of barking moonbats who will believe dailykos or Huffington Post over the evidence of their own eyes and ears.

This is why the hard left (also known as elected Democrats and the mainstream media) is falling to the ground in paroxysms of foaming madness over Mr. Cheney's public comments. They know that he is persuasive and that compared to him the Obama administration comes off sounding like the more unstable members of the local college CPUSA chapter.

Since Obama is not likely to be able to realize his fantasy of creating an American GULAG, at least in his first term, and since Dick Cheney will not shut up we can expect his stock to rise - and little Barry's to fall - as time goes by.

Obama's true passion

Karl Rove on B. Hussein Obama:

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

You have to admit that Rush Limbaugh called this on. He said, before the election, that if Obama won that there would be no withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan. Once the war belonged to Obama he would not lose it and have that defeat hanging around his neck come 2012.

Democrats were eager to have the US lose the war when Bush was president and could be blamed for the defeat but now that they own the war and can claim credit for success they will give the finger to their lunatic fringe and attempt to produce a victory.

They will not do this out of any genuine sense of patriotism (they have none) or out of any genuine hatred of our Islamofascist enemy (they feel a certain kinship with the Islamofascists, after all the Islamofascists hate the same things that the American left hates - America, Israel, Christians, Jews, Capitalism, freedom). The Democrats will base their actions solely on the political calculation that their opposition to the Vietnam War gave their party an anti-military image which has done them long term damage.

As for closing Gitmo Obama wants to do it but the adults in the CIA, FBI, Defense Dept. and Congress are putting their foot down (Limbaugh predicted this too, BTW). The simple fact is that we can't try them in open court because doing so would give away too much of our intelligence gathering methods and capabilities and no other country will take them (unless it is to toss them into a cell, torture them and then put them to death - which we, for reasons I don't understand, have some kind of problem with).

Rove then goes on to talk about the bad:

We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.

However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.

Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.

Obama, or to be more accurate Mr. Obama's string pullers - you know the people who put the words on his teleprompter, could not get elected by running as a radical neo-marxist. So they crafted for him what has to be one of the greatest political swindles in the history of the world. They managed to get him to the right of his Republican opponent on economic issues, especially taxes.

Of course this would not have been possible if Obama had been facing a halfway competent GOP challenger. But the hapless RINO John McCain is incapable of offering criticism of anyone other than a fellow Republican so Hussein was able to fool a majority of the voting public into believing that he was going to cut their taxes.

The truth is that Obama is the most left wing politician to ever sit in the Oval Office. In less than six months in office he is well on his way to nationalizing the banking and credit industry, the auto industry and the health care industry.

This is all according to plan and it shows us were Obama's true interests lie. Give on national security in order to preserve the leftward push on domestic matters. Because the transformation of the American economy from free market capitalism to Marxist central planning is the key to the establishment of a permanent governing class.

And that is the goal which the left eternally lusts after, to entrench themselves into absolute and unchallenged power. The shape of the world to come if Obama, and more importantly the people whom he is fronting for, realize their dreams can be seen in current events. The attempt to shut down talk radio, the abuse being heaped on Carrie Prejean and the attempt to criminalize policy differences with the previous administration. All of these things represent a desire to go beyond mere electoral victory and achieve not just the defeat of their opponents but their utter destruction.

This inability to tolerate the bare existence of opposition is ever and always the hallmark of the tyrant. The opponent must not just be overcome he must be eliminated. The signs at the beginning of the journey with someone like Obama always say "This Way to Utopia" but the signs at the end of the trip always have names like Berglag, Gorlag, Majdanek and Sobibor.

2010 and 2012 offer chances to get off the train. Will we be wise enough to avail ourselves of the opportunity?

More limbic brained rednecks

What a bunch of losers

An entire room full of limbic brained rednecks.

Us or them

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In case you haven't seen this video clip, this is celebrity moron Janeane Garofalo on the Keith Olbermann show commenting on the Tea Parties.

Now even when I was blogging daily I doubt that I would have made much of this for two reasons. One is that Garofalo and Olbermann are a pair of class-A idiots. Nothing they have to say about anything can be of the slightest interest to anyone who isn't also an idiot.

However I have recently reassessed that opinion. You see Olbermann's show isn't on Air America or some big left-wing city's public access cable channel. It is on MSNBC, which is a subsidiary of NBC's news department.

Think about that for a minute. What transpires on Olbermann's show is a product of NBC news.

That should frighten you.

Nearly every outlet of the mainstream media has become the moral equivalent of Der Strummer, the ,Völkischer Beobachter, Pravda or The Daily Worker. In other words propaganda sheets spewing the party line. But with this critical difference. In Nazi Germany, the USSR, Castro's Cuba or any other totalitarian nation the press is owned by and utterly controlled by the government. A reporter who tells the truth about something like the murder of the Jews or the famine in Ukraine can expect a bullet through the back of the head or at the very least a long stay in a concentration camp.

"Journalists" in America have voluntarily done this to themselves.

The fact that our "free" press has willingly given themselves over to be the tools of a Castro-in-waiting underscores what I have reluctantly come to believe is a fact; that the internal differences dividing the "right" from the "left" in America cannot be settled short of bloodshed.

The fact is that after contemplating things like Al Franken's theft of a Senate race in Minnesota, Dan Rather's attempt to sabotage George W Bush's presidential campaign using forged documents, Al Gore and the Democrat party's unforgivable conduct in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, Miss California's incredibly shabby and vile treatment at the hands of an almost unbelievably moronic celebrity gossip blogger, the Obama regime's apparent intent to prosecute former Bush administration officials and ten thousand other insults and offenses both large and small I no longer even want to seek a peaceful solution to the nation's internal divisions.

I would accept a partition of the nation into "Real America" on one side and the "People's Democratic Republic of Euromerica" or some such on the other - but I don't think that will happen. In the first place the progressives (or socialists or Democrats or what ever you want to call them) would never willingly let the red states go. What they are about is power and they will never release subjects without a fight.

The other reason why the nation will not be peacefully partitioned is that the two sides simply hate each other too much to be satisfied with anything less than the spilling of the other side's blood.

So what happens now? Must the fighting break out today or tomorrow? No, but it will break out. Unless the part of the public which still upholds the values and ideals of the Founders has lost the will to survive (a real possibility) there WILL be civil war.