So Jodie Evans, one of the founders of anti-American hate group Code Pink, who told a Gold Star mom that her son deserved to die in Iraq, is hosting a fundraiser for Jerry Brown, Democratic Party candidate for governor of California.

It's amazing the double standards Democrats/liberals seem to get away with. (See, for example, Obama, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright).

Just try to imagine if Meg Whitman, or any other Republican candidate, were to attend a fundraiser hosted by Fred Phelps of the "Westboro Baptist Church" (he's a Democrat, but leave that aside for the sake of argument). Her political career would end that day. Yet Jerry Brown will remain a viable candidate.

So the partisan Democrat, left-wing NAACP doesn't like Republicans who oppose their left-wing agenda? And this is news?

Of course, calling every liberal political position "civil rights" doesn't make it so.

Here's a great video of liberals being their typical tolerant and inclusive selves, via The Jawa Report (Warning: these are liberals - contains much uncivilized behavior and vulgarity not suitable for minors):

Ahhh, Barack Obama - bringing Americans together even before the inevitable inauguration on November 5th.

Good thing they're peace activists, or the violence might have been much worse:

Protesters attacked members of the Connecticut delegation near the site of the Republican National Convention Monday in a demonstration where more than a dozen people were arrested by police using pepper spray amid window-smashing, bottle-throwing and tire-slashing.

It was a violent counterpoint to an otherwise peaceful anti-war march not far from the Xcel Energy Center convention site.

....

Police estimates of the crowd shifted several times during the event, ranging from 2,000 to 10,000.

They only arrested a dozen out of thousands of people? The Evil Bu$hCo Gestapo isn't implementing the fascist police state very effectively, are they?

... merely applying the standard the left applies to Vice President Cheney. The AP reports on Joe Biden's evasion of the draft during the Vietnam war:

Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, the same number of deferments received by Vice President Dick Cheney, and later was disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager.

....

"As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager," said David Wade, a campaign spokesman.

In "Promises to Keep," a memoir that was published last year and became an instant best-seller after he was tapped as Obama's running mate, Biden never mentions his asthma, recounting an active childhood, work as a lifeguard and football exploits in high school.

We're sure all the kook-left bloggers who went after Cheney because he avoided the draft will show equal outrage at Biden, who incidentally voted for the war in Iraq, since we learned in 2004 how vitally important Vietnam service is to Democratic "anti-war" activists.

Barack Obama, in a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus (talk about playing the race card), discussing reaching out to primary supporters of Hillary Clinton:

"If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."

Really? Does Obama really believe all women think alike on every issue?

All women want to ignore the success of the surge and prefer surrender and defeat in Iraq?

All women support abortion on demand at any time for any reason?

All women support more socialist economic policies, massive tax increases on their families, and more draconian regulation of their lives and businesses?

All women support a ban on increased U.S. energy production and confiscation of private energy company profits, which will drive up the price they pay for gasoline and other energy products?

All women support trapping their kids in failing public schools?

All women support the Democrats' efforts to make it harder to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorist communications?

All women support the appointment of activist judges who will impose radical cultural changes on Americans without regard to the democratically expressed will of the people or the clear written text of the Constitution?

We are not a woman, but if we were, we'd find the senator's rank stereotyping offensive.

...and by implication accuses Barack Obama of "character assassination" as well. After all, Obama has now also condemned the hateful statements of his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Senator Obama called Wright's comments "inflammatory and appalling" (ironically on left-wing hate site The Huffington Post).

From Politico.com:

The Chicago church attended by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued a statement Sunday contending that coverage of his pastor’s inflammatory remarks amounted to character assassination and “an attack on … the history of the African American church.”

....

The statement begins: "Nearly three weeks before the 40th commemorative anniversary of the murder of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."

This statement is sickening, a diversion and a lie. The "African American Church" is not being attacked, no one is being attacked for "preaching the social gospel..." and Rev. Wright's character is certainly not being assassinated. The Rev. Wright's own bigoted and hateful words are being criticized and condemned because they fully deserved to be condemned. And invoking the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. is pretty despicable as well. This sort of defensive outburst from his church certainly won't help Senator Obama either. It also demonstrates that the problem at the church is not limited to one man.

From the AP (via Yahoo News):

The U.N. Security Council issued a media statement early Sunday condemning the escalation of fighting in southern Israel and Gaza and urging Israelis and Palestinians "to immediately cease all acts of violence."

So after the Palestinians rain down thousands of missiles into Israeli neighborhoods month after month, as soon as the Israelis take any action in self defense the UN finally gets interested in a non-judgmental call for an end to "all acts of violence". This is typical and unsurprising from the UN, an institution for which becoming merely useless would be a step up.

The statement, though not a formal resolution, also stressed that the violence "must not be allowed to deter the political process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at establishing two states - Israel and Palestine - living side by side in peace and security."

But this is based on a basic untruth. The Palestinians, or at least certainly their "government", have shown no sign that their aim is to establish two states. They still express the idea that they want one state, "Palestine", after destroying Israel. And it cannot really now be claimed that the "government" of "Palestine" does not represent the views of the Palestinian people, because they elected two terrorist organizations, Fatah and Hamas, to head their "government".

Such resolutions have failed repeatedly in the past because of U.S. and European objections that they are not balanced in their condemnation — and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters as he left the meeting that "it's not a balanced resolution, certainly."

But what is needed is not "balance", but acknowledgment that there is a right and a wrong here: the Palestinians are the terrorist aggressors, and the Israelis are trying to defend themselves. We didn't demand a "balanced condemnation" of the U.S. and al Qaeda after 9/11. There should be no promises of recognition of a state of Palestine until they fully renounce terrorism and recognize the right of Israel to exist.

The Senate has become an increasingly ugly place under Democrat "leadership", with Democrats trying to replicate all the class of their sleazy, dishonest nutroots supporters. This may be good for fund-raising, but it is not good for the nation. They ought to be ashamed, if only they had any shame.

On Monday, Senators Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama (all three who incidentally avoided serving in the military. Chickenhawks!), along with 38 other Senate Democrats, attacked radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for allegedly insulting members of the U.S. military, based on an utter falsehood, a totally out of context quote spread around by left-wing propaganda website (and Clinton ally) Media Matters (The transcript of Limbaugh's original comments is here).

Senator Tom Harkin, who ironically has engaged in repeated fabrications about his own military service, clearly a man with no class or honor, decided to take a mean-spirited, compassionless, low-blow shot at Mr. Limbaugh's past problems with addiction to prescription painkillers, proving only once again that liberal claims of compassion and tolerance are a total fraud.

If only the Democrats had as much interest in defeating al Qaeda as they do in defeating conservative talk radio hosts.

Well, liberal Democrats certainly have loose standards for what constitutes "slamming". How nice of CNN to go to bat for their colleagues in Congress.

The headline at cnn.com reads "Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus".

The story says of Senate majority leader Harry Reid:

When asked early Monday if this was the right message for his party to send, the Nevada Democrat curtly answered, "No."

"No."

Wow, what a powerful, heartfelt, and eloquent statement!

An unnamed "senior Democratic leadership aide" went so much further:

In a separate conversation, a senior Democratic leadership aide called the ad an "unnecessary distraction" and said Democrats are prepared to focus on "Petraeus executing a mismanaged mission."

Note there's no "slamming" or even condemnation of the slanderous moveon.org ad at all. It's just strategically unhelpful to the Democrats at this point.

Surprisingly, Senator John Kerry made a pretty reasonable statement against the ad -

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, called the ad "over the top."

"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.

"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.

- but that hardly constitutes a "slam" against the ad or the disgusting hate group that produced it.

Update: via Michelle Malkin, a telling quote -

"'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'"

On the plus side, sort of, at least they haven't started spitting on the troops yet this time.

Some excellent comments on CPAC and Ann Coulter from Michelle Malkin today.

We conservatives don't need any lectures on civility from liberal bloggers, whose bread and butter are hate and bile. We don't need any lectures from John Edwards, who chose to hire and chose not to fire two of those hate-spewing bloggers to run his campaign's blog. We don't need any lectures from other top Democrats who associate themselves with many of the top left-wing hate sites.

But we cannot point to all the hate that comes from the left as a way to in any way excuse it when an individual on the right steps over the line. What Ann Coulter said was harmful to the movement she claims to support. It was harmful to the event she spoke at. It was harmful to those candidates who spoke before or after her at the event.

What Coulter said was uncalled for. It was vulgar. It was over the line, way over the line. It was not at all equivalent to using the "N word", as those on the left would like to portray it, and as some on the right have unfortunately gone along with. But a statement doesn't have to be "as bad" as that to be wrong.

If you look at the list of columnists to the left of the page (as you should do often), you'll notice that Ann Coulter is not there. She used to be, but we removed her from the list a year or two ago in response to some other in a line of outrageous statements. Coulter has many talents. Unfortunately, knowing how not to go too far is not one of them. Self control is a conservative value Ann needs to learn to uphold.

From michellemalkin.com, an update on the Radical Atheists vs. Mt. Soledad Cross case:

...a previous order requiring the City of San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad War Memorial Cross has been vacated--by the (extremely liberal) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The litigation continues, however.

Of course the litigation continues. The ACLU never sleeps, to paraphrase an old saying. But this is a positive development, none the less.