The perfect gift for the your liberal nut friend's children

I thought for sure it was a joke when I first saw this book referenced on another site. But Why Mommy Is A Democrat is, sadly, oh so very real.

The book's website says the book intends to "bring to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand ... using plain and non-judgmental language." The 28-page paperback is fully illustrated, using "whimsical squirrels" (I'm not joking) to accompany the text.

The book's pearls of wisdom include:

Democrats make sure we share all our toys, just like Mommy does.

So do Communists. And in the very same way when it comes to managing the country's budget.

Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does.

You mean by slashing all weapons and war expenses, repealing the Patriot Act, and stopping recruiting for the military on college campuses? Right on.

Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does.

I guess a page saying: Democrats don't want Mommies and Daddies to have a choice in where they send their kids to school didn't sound as appealing.

The website only lists those three pages, but I'm sure they are all equally forthright and "non-judgmental" (which, when used here, must mean "lacking in truth").

Conspicuous by their absence from Why Mommy Is A Democrat were such pages as:

• Democrats believe the people on the news because they're on TV, just like mommy does.
• Democrats like spending other people's money, just like mommy does.
• Democrats born into a low-income, government-run squirrel nest believe "the man" is always keeping them down, just like mommy does.
• Democrats use schools to indoctrinate children in a collectivist mentality so it's easier to control them later, just like mommy does.
• Democrats confuse a foreign policy of appeasement with that of safety, just like mommy does.
• Democrats believe saving the earth is more important than saving babies, just like mommy does.
• Democrats play politics with other people's safety, just like mommy does.
• Democrats don't believe you should be allowed to take your religious beliefs to school with you, just like mommy doesn't.

Stand by for excerpts from the forthcoming sequel, "Why BOTH Your Mommies Are Democrats."

Source: Concepts for some of the "missing pages" were excerpted from: http://wizbangblog.com/2005/12/03/why-is-mommy-a-democrat.php

Nancy Pelosi now two bullets away from the Presidency

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

She may be taking kissy face PR photos with the President today, but earlier this year on 60 Minutes Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, called Bush 'an incompetent leader,' and then corrected herself ... 'In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment.'

This from someone who says one of her goals is to make our country safer than it is today. How has she demonstrated this "commitment to safety?" By voting to:

• deny wartime appropriations,
• stop research and development on advanced weapons,
• repeal provisions of the Patriot Act, and
• cease military recruitment on college campuses.

So, we shouldn't spend money on the war, should stop R&D on weapons, need to repeal the Patriot Act, and can't recruit on college campuses? Hmmm. What's the plan then, Nanc? I guess, now, we'll find out if there IS a plan -- beyond bashing those in place.

She claims she wants to protect our ports and secure our borders. Yet, she voted against a bill that would have prevented alerting illegal immigrants from Mexico about the Minuteman Project. She voted against reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. And she voted in favor of extended immigrant residency rules and more immigrant visas. Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi intends to open our borders, not protect them.

Meanwhile, on social issues, she made it clear before the election that if the Democrats get the majority in Congress, she plans to immediately resurrect the embryonic stem-cell research bill vetoed by the President last September. The bill, championed by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., seeks to lift restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research put in place by the President in August 2001.

And the rest of her social record is a train wreck for those who value life:

ABORTING BABIES

• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• ... all of this nets her a perfect 100% rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America. (Dec 2003)

CLONING HUMANS

• Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Her party has convinced her to stay largely silent on these issues publicly, but now that Pelosi is about to become Speaker, she almost certainly will have to more openly show her true liberal colors.

Who is even more tiresome than Bill Maher?

That would be his audience of drones, who sit in his studio each week and wait for the "clap now for liberalism" sign to light.

Given that, I am always surprised when anyone right of James Carville is willing to go on Maher's program. But Christopher Hitchens, author of Thomas Jefferson Author of America and writer for Vanity Fair, was not afraid. He not only went on Maher's show last weekend, but did something others who've had the misfortune of seeing parts of Maher's show have been wanting to do for years -- give his lefty loonies a single finger salute.

It also left Maher in a rarely seen position: speechless. Albeit only for a moment.

Washington high court elects not to legislate from bench, upholds Marriage Act

In 5-4 decision, the Washington state Supreme Court chose to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The liberal court in Washington took more than a year before handing down today's decision. A thin majority of the judges, however, ultimately realized that the people -- through their elected representatives -- make the laws, not the courts.

This victory, along with a recent similar victory in New York's highest court, is a severe setback to the nationwide gay activist movement that has been seeking to rewrite the definition of marriage.