Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

A Better Way Forward

Earlier today while you were busy at work or taking care of yourself or your family at home, a sea change occurred in Washington, D.C. that will affect your life in a very positive way for years to come. Today, the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives officially, and the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was elected.

Not only will Boehner's self-effacing, emotional, heart-on-his-sleeves style be in stark contrast to the blathering and blustering that American has suffered through over the past four years with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's post, but the concrete results that the country will begin to see over time will  be even more profound.

Back in November, the American voting public sent a clear message to lawmakers that the controlling Democratic Party led by Pelosi and President Barack Obama had grossly overstepped their bounds in beginning to lead the country down a path towards Socialism. No longer would irresponsible bailouts to big business, massive increases in government control of our daily lives, and repressive taxation be permitted to continue.

In taking the gavel of Congressional power today, Boehner promised to return government to the people with a renewed focus on the Constitution and the principles of transparency, honesty and accountability. Of course in actuality it was we, the people, who had returned government to ourselves
by putting Boehner into power with the landslide electoral victories of November 2010.

Speaker of the House Boehner recognized the fact of the people's expressed will when he stated in today's speech "The people voted to end business as usual, and today we begin to carry out their instructions." Those instructions include making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for every American, rolling back the socialist Obama health-care behemoth, ending the practice of "earmarks" in legislation initiatives, and returning America to it's Constitutional roots.

The Republican Party itself has not been a very good steward of these values when it has had the opportunity in the past. In fact, there is really only one major difference in today's Democratic and Republican Party. That difference is the people who make up the two parties out here in the homeland. The majority of Republicans at the grass-roots levels want a national government that keeps taxes low, keeps spending low, promotes personal and familial responsibility, that keeps us safe here at home, and that never inhibits the faith that is at the very foundation of our nation.

Democrats, on the other hand, generally want a government that lets anyone do what they want, when they want, except when it bothers them specifically as an individual, in which case they want the government to step in with regulation and control and penalties. They want an ever-expanding nanny state that takes care of them from the cradle to the grave, and want those who have been historically hard-working, the job creators, the builders, to pay for it all.

Oh, and they want to have sex without fear of any parental consequences, and so they push for the murder of babies under the guise of a "choice" for women. Never mind that the poor little baby gets no such choice in the matter at all. Hey, mommy couldn't keep her legs closed. Hey, daddy couldn't keep it in his pants. So sorry kid, but you gotta go. (insert sucking vacuum sound here)

John Boehner and the Republicans who took office today know one thing for certain, that they are being watched. No, I'm not talking about being watched by and Dem politician or liberal media outlet. I'm not talking about being watched by some hack comedian or some self-righteous television talk show host. I'm talking about being watched by us, the very same people who elected them in November.

The elections of November 2010 are only the beginning. There are more congressional offices to take, more Senatorial offices to flip. More state houses to make a move on in the future. And then, of course, there is the big one in 2012, when it will be time to topple the faux Messiah himself.

A better way forward has been forged, not by politicians, but by the people of the Republican Party. The politicians who took office today, particularly the new Speaker of the House John Boehner because of the importance of his public position and the power that he now wields, are only our instruments. We will be listening closely to the tunes they play in the coming months and years.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Speaker Pelosi, Residents Fire Upon BP - News Headlines 11 June 2010

*** BP takes it from all sides as the multinational company continues to slither and dither.




From Denny: Politicians like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Gulf Coast residents kept up the drum beat of demanding BP make them whole after all the destruction the oil company has caused on a huge scale.

"BP misrepresented what their technology could do," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today. "They misrepresented the amount of oil that was being spewed forth into the Gulf and continued to do so."

What Pelosi is frustrated with is the constant understatement from BP. When this first started, in spite of the fact BP had an underwater camera that clearly showed the severity of the disaster, the company declared it was a small spill and only 1,000 gallons a day were spewing. Here it is over a month later and the truth is that over 1.7 million gallons a day are spewing out of that broken well head. We have over 100 million gallons of oil floating in the Gulf and more spewing. They won't be able to get those relief wells drilled for months, well into next year, not in the next two months like they erroneously claim.

Pelosi ridiculed the junk shot attempt by BP to plug the well. Remember the exploding golf balls and chunks of rubber tires? Who actually believed that garbage would plug a hole at those intense underwater pressures? They were mocking America. "When they start telling you to cut your hair and send golf balls and diapers for the cleanup, you know that's not the technology of the future," she said.

Pelosi reported she had just met with President Obama about the oil spill. She was pleased to learn he had ordered Attorney General Holder to investigate BP's negligence. "This is a matter of integrity," Pelosi said. "BP stated that they had the technology to drill deep, to prevent a blowout and that they had the technology to clean up, and none of these things happened to be a fact. Laws need to be updated to protect workers, residents and businesses who have been hurt by the disaster. If you are a fisherman, June is your big month. BP must pay them in a timely fashion."







Why we must try to save oiled birds

The Regulation Crisis

Big Oil Battling Wall Street In Congress


*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Tea Party Should Not Be A 'Third' Party

There has been a great deal of angst among the Lefty Lib community regarding the emergence over the past year or so of what has become known as the 'Tea Party' movement. The liberals who now control the Democratic Party should be concerned, because they and their political leaders led by President Barrack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have awoken a sleeping giant.

That sleeping giant is the true Conservative movement that the majority of Americans feel a natural affinity towards. The people who make up real main-stream America. Hard-working, family-rearing, tax-paying, God-fearing, America-loving, law-abiding folks who want government out of their lives. Who recognize that low taxation, modest regulation, secure borders, and the teaching of and support for American exceptionalism are the true path to lasting recovery, not the socialist style policies of the Obama administration.

That sleeping giant has been embodied by the Tea Partiers. The term, based on the 'Boston Tea Party' protesters of Revolutionary War days, evolved from those people at the grass roots levels of the Conservative movement who held and/or attended town hall meetings that sprang up across the nation during 2009 in response to the various government takeovers, bail outs, and spending programs enacted and proposed by Obama and the liberal Democrats.

Since those numerous and emotional town hall events, the Tea Partiers have taken to the internet, the radio waves, and the blogosphere to continue to push a return to basic, traditional American values and away from the government entitlements, social programs, and massive spending undertaken by the Dems.

But a problem has cropped up among some within the Tea Party movement itself. They have become so disenchanted, rightly in many cases, with some recent and current Republican politicians that they have floated the possibility of becoming their own 'third party' in American politics. This new formal 'Tea Party' would be wholly conservative in every way.

There is one major flaw to such an idea. It is a loser.

The only people who would actually benefit from a third 'Tea Party' made up of conservatives would be the Democratic Party and all of it's ultra-liberal politicians, consituencies and benefactors. Such a party would basically amount to a splitting up of the Republican Party, leaving the Dems to dominate organized politics for the forseeable future, and dooming America to their socialist tendencies, the very programs and ideals that the Tea Partiers stand against.

The 'Tea Party', such as it is, should remain exactly what it is - a movement. It should never try to become a third political party, thus damning itself to the destruction of the very causes for which it was established. What it should do, however, is hold Republican politicians at every level - particularly at the state and national levels - to traditional American and Conservative standards and values.

Remaining organized, active, and vocal will ensure that no longer will the Republican Party nominate a Progressive candidate as it's standard bearer, as it has in recent years with both George W. Bush and John McCain. Instead the Republican Party will have as it's out-front leaders those who support less governmental spending and intervention in our lives, lower taxes, a strong military, secure borders, a judiciary that interprets rather than creates laws, and programs and policies aimed at keeping America strong and independent.

Those on the leading edges of the various groups that make up the most vocal sections of the Conservative movement in America must keep the heat on the politicians and the Republican Party as a whole, while at the same time tempering and better channeling the emotions of those who would sabotage the Party and imperil it's future from within. Only by sticking together and remaining strong will we be able to overcome the Liberals, the Progressives, and the Democrats, elect conservative Republican majorities, and begin to roll back the Obama policies, dismantle the Obama programs, and return America to common sense.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

America Not Ready 4 Cyberattacks, Pelosi Death Threats, Iraq Violence, Kyrgyzstan Riots, Skinhead Leaves Hate Behind - News Headlines 7 Apr 2010

Attacks In Iraq Surge Amid Postelection Wrangling: (NPR) Insurgents in Iraq appear to be taking advantage of the political gridlock after the country's March 7 election by launching attacks on the government and civilians. More than 100 people have died in bombings and massacres over the past five days, and Iraqis fear a return to the dark days of sectarian violence.

The killings this week stirred Baghdad's most traumatic memories of the carnage from several years ago. In one suburb, men wearing army uniforms, but most likely imposters, arrived and executed Sunnis off a written list of names. Car bombs struck three embassies, and seven explosions ripped through several neighborhoods Tuesday, killing 50 people and wounding scores.

The only thing the neighborhoods had in common was that they saw terrible violence in the past...





Opposition Says It Has Claimed Control In Kyrgyzstan: (NPR) Thousands of protesters furious over corruption and spiraling utility bills seized internal security headquarters, a state TV channel and other levers of power in Kyrgyzstan on Wednesday after government forces fatally shot dozens of demonstrators and wounded hundreds in the capital, Bishkek.

A revolution in the Central Asian nation was proclaimed by leaders of the opposition, who have called for the closure of a U.S. air base outside Bishkek that serves as a key transit point for supplies essential to the war in nearby Afghanistan...

This mountainous former Soviet republic erupted when protesters called onto the streets by opposition parties for a day of protest began storming government buildings in the capital and clashed with police. Groups of elite officers opened fire.

The Health Ministry said 40 people had died and more than 400 were wounded. Opposition activist Toktoim Umetalieva said at least 100 people had died after police opened fire with live ammunition...

Since coming to power in 2005 on a wave of street protests known as the Tulip Revolution, Bakiyev had ensured a measure of stability, but many observers say he has done so at the expense of democratic standards while enriching himself and his family. He gave his relatives, including his son, top government and economic posts and faced the same accusations of corruption and cronyism that led to the ouster of his predecessor.

Over the past two years, Kyrgyz authorities have clamped down on free media, and opposition activists say they have routinely been subjected to physical intimidation and targeted by politically motivated criminal investigations...





FBI Arrests Man For Threatening Speaker Pelosi: (NPR) The FBI says the suspect accused of making threatening phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a 48-year-old San Francisco man.

FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler identified the man as Gregory Lee Giusti. Giusti was arrested at his home shortly after noon Wednesday.

Schadler did not disclose the charges against Giusti, but said he's due in court Thursday.

Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that the suspect made dozens of calls to Pelosi's homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband's business office. They say he recited her home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

On Tuesday, authorities announced charges against a Washington state man who allegedly made threatening calls to Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat. Charges also have been filed against a Philadelphia man who allegedly made a YouTube video threatening Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).





Supreme Court May Soon Lack Protestant Justices: (NPR) With U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens talking openly about retirement, attention has focused on the "who" — as in who is on President Obama's short list of potential nominees. But almost nobody has noticed that when Justice Stevens retires, it is entirely possible that there will be no Protestant justices on the court for the first time ever.

Topic With A Hint Of Taboo

Let's face it: This is a radioactive subject. As Jeff Shesol, author of the critically acclaimed new book Supreme Power, puts it, "religion is the third rail of Supreme Court politics. It's not something that's talked about in polite company." And although Shesol notes that privately a lot of people remark about the surprising fact that there are so many Catholics on the Supreme Court, this is not a subject that people openly discuss.

In fact, six of the nine justices on the current court are Roman Catholic. That's half of the 12 Catholics who have ever served on the court. Only seven Jews have ever served, and two of them are there now. Depending on the Stevens replacement, there may be no Protestants left on the court at all in a majority Protestant nation where, for decades and generations, all of the justices were Protestant.

The first Catholic to serve was Chief Justice Roger Taney, historically famous for writing the Dred Scott decision upholding slavery. After he left, no Catholic was appointed for 30 years. But by the early 20th century, the nation settled into a pattern in which there was one seat on the court occupied by a Catholic, and usually one by a Jew, beginning with Louis Brandeis in 1916. There was no Jewish justice, however, in the 24 years between 1969 and 1993. The 20th century hiatus for Jews began under President Nixon, who, when asked by his attorney general when he was going to fill the Jewish seat, replied, "Well, how about after I die."

Historically, Republicans have been the party of Protestants. But Protestant Republicans — Reagan and both Bushes — appointed five of the Catholics currently sitting on the court: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The sixth Catholic, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was appointed by President Obama. As for the two Jews, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both were appointed by President Clinton.

And what is particularly interesting, as attention focuses on a potential replacement for Justice Stevens, is that the two leading contenders to succeed him, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and federal Judge Merrick Garland, are both Jewish, while another often mentioned name, Michigan's Gov. Jennifer Granholm, is Catholic. Yes, there are some Protestants in the mix, too, but it remains a distinct possibility that when the dust settles and a new justice takes his or her seat, there will be no Protestants on the high court.

Does it matter? Should it matter? Should it be discussed in polite society?

"It would certainly raise a lot of eyebrows," says University of Virginia professor Henry Abraham. "I don't know whether it matters. Speaking idealistically, to me the only thing that matters is competence, quality, education, ability, morals and so forth..."





Cyberattack: U.S. Unready For Future Face Of War: (NPR) Georgia in August 2008 lasted just nine days, but it marked a turning point in the history of warfare. For the first time ever, the shooting was accompanied by a cyberattack.

In the opening hours of battle, unidentified hackers shut down Georgian government, media and banking Web sites. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili insisted that Russia was responsible for the cyberattack, and U.S. officials subsequently said he was probably right.

The timing was propitious. Just as Russian ground troops were engaging Georgian forces in combat, the Georgian government was forced to deal with malfunctioning computer systems. U.S. intelligence analysts were convinced that the actions were carefully coordinated.

The disruption was relatively minor, but an important threshold had been crossed. In announcing a cybersecurity initiative nine months later, President Obama referred back to the August events in Georgia, saying they offered "a glimpse of the future face of war."

That is now a widely held view.

"The next time there is a big war, it will include a cyberattack," says Richard Clarke, a former White House cybersecurity adviser and the author of a new book, Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It.

For the United States, the prospect is especially worrisome. The entire U.S. economy depends on operations in cyberspace. If computer networks shut down, so will the country.

Indeed, in a major cyberwar scenario, the United States would be uniquely vulnerable. No military is more dependent on data networking. Unmanned aircraft send video feeds back to Earth 24/7, while soldiers on the ground are guided by GPS signals and linked via computers to other units and command posts.

"In the first Persian Gulf War, we were able to overcome our opponent easily, largely because of our informational advantage," says James Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"But as others realized that," he adds, "they began looking for ways to degrade that capability. How do I disrupt the data? How do I disrupt the communications? How do I monkey with GPS? And so, we have countries out there — big and small — who work every day to figure out how to break DOD's [Department of Defense] informational advantage."

Countries around the world are now preparing to fight a cyberwar. And none takes it more seriously than China, according to Lewis.

"Twelve years ago, they said, 'We're going to develop this capability,' " says Lewis. "And you know what? They did. They're very powerful. They're very effective. They're not the best in the world. But they have spent a lot of time and energy thinking about how to attack the United States in cyberspace."

Of course, the U.S. military is planning its own cyberattacks. Pentagon cyberwarriors have detailed plans to take down power, telecommunication and transportation systems just about anywhere.

There is just one problem: What if the other side strikes first? In cyberwar scenarios, pre-emptive attacks are favored, and effective retaliation can be difficult.

"We have extremely good cyberoffensive capabilities and almost nothing in the way of cyberdefense," Clarke says.

The United States' lack of preparation for a cyberattack was highlighted in a recent exercise co-sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center and CNN.

The participants, playing top government roles, went through a simulation of an aggressive cyberattack. The scenario featured a cascading series of technology failures, beginning with mobile telephone networks. Internet traffic soon slowed to a crawl, and communication between financial centers came almost to a standstill.

The mock exercise, dubbed "Cyber Shockwave," was set in the White House Situation Room, with top U.S. security officials struggling to keep up with the developments.

"What do we have to do now to contain this?" asked Stephen Friedman, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush, playing the role of Treasury secretary for the purposes of the exercise.

No one had an answer.

Other former officials, including John Negroponte, the first director of National Intelligence, and Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of Homeland Security, also played key roles in the simulation. None found that their government experience prepared them for the decisions and policy actions that the cybercrisis required.

Some experts later disputed the likelihood of an attack as overwhelming and fast-moving as the one in the simulation, but they agreed it could not be ruled out. In any case, the exercise showed that the U.S. government is not prepared to deal with a massive cyberattack on its civilian infrastructure...

To deter a cyberattack, however, is far more difficult. One of the gravest challenges is what experts call the "attribution problem." U.S. defense and intelligence agencies would likely have a hard time determining precisely where an attack came from and to whom it could be attributed...

If anything, the attribution problem is growing more complicated. Cyberwarriors can now hijack computers in other countries, working remotely through them, hopping from server to server. Because it's so hard to trace the attack to a perpetrator, direct retaliation may be impossible...

Lewis likes to cite the German military leaders 70 years ago who took pride in their ability to encrypt radio communication through their Enigma machines. What they did not realize, Lewis says, was that U.S. allies had cracked the Enigma code and were intercepting all those "secret" German messages.

"Unfortunately, today we've reversed the roles," says Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "We're the people sitting there fat, dumb and happy, thinking we're getting all this advantage from our network and not realizing that our opponents are sitting in it and reaping all the benefits."

He adds, "I see this as possibly one of the gravest intelligence battles the U.S. has ever fought, and it's a battle we're currently losing."





Under Israel's Divorce Laws, Men Get The Final Word: (NPR) Israel has a singular system when it comes to matters of family law. For Jews, the religious or rabbinical court is the only one able to grant a divorce. The court rules according to Jewish law — a system that has been in place for thousands of years — and it is run exclusively by Orthodox rabbis.

According to Jewish law, a man has to agree to grant the divorce of his own free will before the legal separation can proceed. Rights groups say the system unfairly discriminates against women.

"If he's incapacitated, if he's abusive, if he committed adultery, it really doesn't matter," says Susan Weiss, who runs the Center for Women's Justice in Israel. "If he doesn't say yes, you're stuck."

Ramit Alon, 40, was living in an Orthodox community with her husband and three children when she decided to leave her marriage...

Alon says she was optimistic about what lay ahead. "I thought that after I leave, it will take some months and then I could get divorced and start again, a new life. But it's not over."

refuses to give his wife a divorce, she is stuck."

And that's where Alon finds herself. Her husband does not want to divorce her, and she cannot just decide to go and live with another man and bear his children, because under Jewish law, the children of the new union would be considered bastards.

They would not, for example, be able to legally get married here in the Jewish faith, Alon says.

"I have a new life now, but I can't start all over again," she says. "I can't meet someone and marry him and have kids. If I will have new kids before I have my divorce, they won't be able to marry here."

Weiss says the stigma is carried for generations.

"Very few women want to be in the position where their kids are considered mamzerim or bastards. The stigma is really great and the stigma is so bad that it goes forever," she says. "In other words, this person who's stigmatized — his children are stigmatized; his grandchildren are stigmatized; everyone is stigmatized..."





A 'Recovering Skinhead' On Leaving Hatred Behind: (NPR) As a teenager, Frank Meeink was one of the most well-known skinhead gang members in the country. He had his own public access talk show, called The Reich, he appeared on Nightline and other media outlets as a spokesman for neo-Nazi topics, and he regularly recruited members of his South Philadelphia neighborhood to join his skinhead gang.

At 18, Meeink spent several years in prison for kidnapping one man and beating another man senseless for several hours. While in prison, Meeink says, he was exposed to people from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds and started reevaluating his own racist beliefs. His transformation solidified, he tells Dave Davies, after the Oklahoma City bombing, when he saw the iconic photo of a firefighter cradling a lifeless girl in his arms.

"I felt so evil. Throughout my life, even when I was tattooed up and wanting to be a skinhead, I felt like maybe I was bad on the outside. But I felt good on the inside," he says. "And that day it switched. I felt OK on the outside, but I felt so evil inside. I had no one to talk to. ... So I went to the FBI and ... I told them my story. I said 'I don't have any information on anybody, but I just need to let you know what it's like.' And of course they wanted to listen, because the Oklahoma City bombing had happened.''

The FBI recommended that Meeink contact the Anti-Defamation League — which he did. He now regularly lectures to students about racial diversity and acceptance on behalf of the ADL, and he has written a memoir about his past, called Autobiography of a Recovering Skinhead.

Meeink says the biggest change in the skinhead movement since he left is how easily members can spread their message and communicate with one another.

"When I was around, we contacted each other through P.O. Box numbers — and not through Web sites," he says. "So the Web has really got numbers looking bigger than they are. But you gotta remember, too: Sometimes those are just misguided kids who are looking for anything to do. But if your children are looking at these Web sites more regularly, and they're not looking at them for research, you need to step in and ask why and ask the right questions..."






*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Elections Have Consequences


For the past year it has become the public mantra of Democratic Party politicians: "Elections have consequences." Whether they were talking about bailing out large corporations or taking over the banking, auto, and health care industries, that simple phrase has been their fallback position.

To some extent, that is true. When the nation elects a leader such as Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, it has definitely sent a message. A majority of the citizens of the United States spoke up in November of 2008 and sent the message that the direction the country was headed during the Bush years was not one that they wanted to continue following.

The American electorate sent a clear message for 'change' to Washington politicians at that point. The problem, however, and it is a big one for the Dems, is that the voters quite obviously wanted 'change' with a small 'c', not the "Change" that marked the Obama campaign's signature slogan.

What Obama was trumpeting was "fundamental change", a message that he banged home time and time again. The mass electorate heard those words and decided that he meant a simple change in direction, something they wanted indeed. What he actually meant was to change the very nature of what it meant to be America as a nation.

After winning election, Obama got his house in order, got his Democratic Party leadership organized, and then set out down the path towards that fundamental change from a democratic, capitalist society to a full-blown European-inspired socialist one. The American 'system' that had made us the envy of the world for generations had somehow "failed" in is words and needed to be almost completely trashed.

Problem was, the American public didn't go along for the ride. As the depth and scope of Obama's vision of change came into view and practice, as Dem national leaders like Nancy Pelosi in Congress and Harry Reid in the Senate began to push the legislative agenda, it became crystal-clear to Americans that socialism was the order of the day.

The Democrats were making a fundamental political mistake, one that the Republicans had made a couple of times in the last couple of decades. They assumed that their election to power now gave them a mandate for major changes to America, and they began to institute those major changes.

Quickly, the American public began to voice their concerns. In every major public opinion poll, the public shouted at the top of it's lungs for the Dem leadership to slow things down. Some changes were needed to the system, yes. But almost no one wanted socialist restrictions and control to replace democratic capitalism's freedom and liberty.

Socialism has failed everywhere that it has every been tried on earth. The reasons are quite simple. Taking away incentives from individuals to work harder, to dream bigger, to achieve more results in less production. Citizens come to rely on their government to provide for them. Eventually, the government can no longer do so, because it simply lacks the resources.

You cannot possibly tax individuals and businesses enough to sustain government control. And let's face it, that is the only place that government gets it's money. Government is, in fact, you and I. We pay into the system to keep it functional. We elect people to run things as our representatives. In a socialist system, those representatives just keep raising and raising our taxes to take on more and more control over our everyday lives.

Eventually a system such as the Obama administration is attempting to install will collapse on itself because it is economically unsustainable. But before it does, society will degenerate into a mess of ennui and disillusionment, or worse. If those who have control in a socialist system see that control slipping away, their response has often been to use force to remain in power. They change the laws and keep themselves in the life boats to protect their own interests as the ship sinks around them.

Many Americans did understand that this would be the direction that Obama and the leading Dems would take once in power. Those are the tens of millions who voted against them. They are now being joined by the millions 'in the middle', those Americans who wanted the small 'c' of 'change', not the capital 'C' of Obama's socialism.

Yes, Democrats, elections have consequences. However, what you are failing to remember is the lessons of politicians and Parties past. That there is always another election coming. This November, Americans will again go to the polls. All signs point to the Dems losing control of Congress, which will seriously cripple Obama's ability to continue his agenda.

Obama and Pelosi and Reid have led America down this path of 'Change' at full speed, recklessly disregarding the public's wishes time and time again. Reid and many of his Dem leadership co-horts will undoubtedly pay the price in the Fall of 2010. They will pay that price because, despite their election victories in 2006 and 2008, they are now ignoring the American electorate in 2010.

Now is a time of opportunity for the Republican Party to reassert itself, but it must be willing to return to basic American principles of democracy, capitalism, and traditional exceptionalism in order to take full advantage. The Republicans must reflect core American values, pledge a change in direction to fiscal sanity and responsibility, and to fully and effectively preserving and defending our nation and it's founding principles.

In the fall of 2010, the Democrats will be reminded that elections do indeed have consequences. When they lose their control over Congress, their control over the purse strings and the power and the direction, then they will cry and wail and moan. They will blame one another, point fingers, and become disgruntled. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, because elections do indeed have consequences, the next one as strongly as the last one.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

News Headlines Roundup 9 Mar 2010

U.S.: Pennsylvania woman tried to recruit terrorists: Washington (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania woman has been indicted for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and kill a person in a foreign country, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

Colleen LaRose, known as "Jihad Jane" and "Fatima LaRose," has also been charged with making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft.

She was arrested in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on October 15, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office said. No arraignment date has been set, the official said.

LaRose is being held at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

LaRose and five unindicted co-conspirators recruited men on the Internet "to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad," according to a Justice Department statement.

If convicted, LaRose faces a possible life prison sentence and a $1 million fine, the statement said.



"JihadJane" Charged With Terror Recruiting: (AP) A suburban Philadelphia woman "desperate to do something" to help suffering Muslims has been charged with using the Internet to recruit jihadist fighters and help terrorists overseas, even agreeing to move to Europe to try to kill someone, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Authorities said the case shows how terror groups are looking to recruit Americans - even suburban women - to carry out their goals.

A federal indictment charges that Colleen R. LaRose agreed to kill a Swedish citizen on orders from the unnamed terrorists and traveled to Europe to carry out the killing. It doesn't say whether the Swede was killed, but LaRose was not charged with murder.

U.S. Attorney Michael Levy told The Associated Press the indictment doesn't link LaRose, a U.S. citizen who moved to Europe in August 2009, to any organized terror groups.

Authorities describe LaRose as in her 40s and from Montgomery County. They say she called herself JihadJane in a YouTube video in which she said she was "desperate to do something somehow to help" ease the suffering of Muslims. According to the indictment, she agreed to obtain residency in a European country and marry one of the terrorists to enable him to live there.

"Today's indictment, which alleges that a woman from suburban America agreed to carry out murder overseas and to provide material support to terrorists, underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security.



Watch CBS News Videos Online




U.S. condemns Israel's decision to build in disputed territory: Jerusalem (CNN) -- Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the United States condemns Israel's decision to build 1,600 housing units in a Jerusalem neighborhood, calling it "a step that undermines the trust we need right now."

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," Biden said in a statement issued just hours after he met with Israeli leaders in the region.

"The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel."

The construction, announced earlier Tuesday, will be in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, located in disputed territory in East Jerusalem. The Israeli Interior Ministry denies the territory is in East Jerusalem.



Michelle Obama Donates Inaugural Gown to Smithsonian: Continuing a long tradition, First Lady Michelle Obama donated her inauguration dress on Tuesday to the Smithsonian National Museum on American History in Washington.

The white chiffon, one-shoulder gown created by designer Jason Wu will be displayed in a new gallery called "A First Lady's Debut" which will showcases 11 gowns from the past 11 first ladies starting with Mamie Eisenhower through Michelle Obama.


"I truly recognize the significance of this day. This gown -- and all of the items that we'll see in this wonderful exhibit -- help us connect with a moment in history in a very real way," Obama said as she unveiled the gown at the Smithsonian.

"The detail of each gown -- the fabric, the cut, the color -- tells us something much more about each single first lady. It's a visual reminder that we each come from such different backgrounds, from different generations, and from different walks of life," she continued.

Obama also reminisced about inaugural ceremony that took place a little over a year ago, and what this dress meant to her.

"I remember that it was freezing cold in Washington. I know we all remember that. Yet, despite the frigid temperatures, hundreds of thousands of people flooded the Mall. Nothing was going to stop them from being part of history," she said.

National Museum of American History, First Ladies at the Smithsonian exhibit


GOP Begins Attacks on Pelosi, Democrats Over Ethics: The Republican National Committee has released a new ad designed to capitalize on Democrats' recent ethical troubles and cast doubt on House speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that she would help oversee the most ethical Congress ever.




*** THANKS for visiting, come back often, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers - and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email!

Monday, March 1, 2010

Speaker Pelosi Grades the Republicans on Lack of Governing

From Denny: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did her job. She passed almost 300 bills up for approval in the Senate, none of which have been passed. Pelosi lamented it was due to, "delaying tactics of the Republicans in the Senate." The Republicans have used the filibuster tactic more than any time in American history to stonewall efforts needed to help the American people. Republicans continue to guard only the interests of Big Business and their lobbyists in order to keep the campaign money flowing into their coffers.

When asked how to grade her performance as House Speaker much as the President graded his own B+ performance this year, Pelosi responded with "an A for effort." In ABC's "This Week" interview, Speaker Pelosi said, "I think I get an A for effort. And in the House of Representatives, my mark is the mark of our members. We have passed every piece of legislation that is part of the Obama agenda." It's the mark of a good House Speaker to work hand in hand with a President to highlight and push his legislative agenda.












Transcript of this video:


VARGAS: Finally, President Obama, when asked to rate his year in office, gave himself a B plus. How would you rate yourself in the past year?

PELOSI: Well, I have a -- I think I get an A for effort. And in the House of Representatives, my mark is the mark of our members. We have passed every piece of legislation that is part of the Obama agenda. Whether it's the creation of jobs, expanding access to health care, creating new green jobs for the future, regulatory reform, we have passed the full agenda.

VARGAS: Are you frustrated so many bills have not have been stalled in the Senate? Almost 300 bills passed by the House that are sitting languishing in the Senate?

PELOSI: And most of those bills have bipartisan support. Strong bipartisan support in the House that have gone over there. But that you know what that's about? That's about -- and it's very important for you to know, that's about the Republican delay tactics. By requiring 60 votes on some simple legislation that Harry Reid always gets -- has the votes for, but he doesn't have the time to go through the procedural day after day where you have to wait days for the time to go by in order to get the 60 votes. That's how it works in the Senate.

So it's about time. Everything's about time. The most finite commodity that we have. We used our time very well in the House to get an agenda passed in time for it to be considered by the Senate. The delaying tactics of the Republicans in the Senate…

VARGAS: Dare I ask you to grade the Senate?

PELOSI: Well, let's grade this all on a curve. What really matters is, what we do and how it relates to the lives of the American people back to that kitchen table where they have to think about how they make ends meet and how they make the future better for their children and provide for their own retirement. That's really where the grade goes. And the grade is given on election day. We -- we're fully prepared to face the American people with the integrity of what we have put forth, the commitment to jobs and health care and education and a world at peace and safe for our children and with the political armed power to go with it to win those elections.






In an ABC "This Week" interview House Speaker Pelosi commenting about some of the views of the Tea Party movement among Republicans, "We share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C. It just has to stop. And that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest."








Transcript of this video:

VARGAS: The Tea Party movement, do you think it will be a force to be reckoned with? You had said last summer that it was a faux grassroots movement. You called it the "Astroturf Movement."

PELOSI: In some respects it is.

VARGAS: Is the Tea Party movement a force?

PELOSI: No. What I said at the time is the Republican Party directs a lot of what the Tea Party does - but not everybody in the Tea Party takes direction from the Republican Party. And so there was a lot of, shall we say, Astroturf, as opposed to grassroots.

But, you know, we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers - in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C. It just has to stop. And that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest.

VARGAS: So, some common ground with many people in the Tea Party movement.

PELOSI: There are some because, again, some of it is orchestrated from the Republican headquarters. Some of it is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests. Many Tea Partiers - not that I speak for them - share the view, whether it's Democrats, Republicans and Independents - that the recent Supreme Court decision, which greatly empowers the special interests, is something that they oppose.





*** THANKS for visiting, come back often, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers - and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

American Political Revolution


It might be a bit too premature and over dramatic to use such terms, but it is not very difficult to make the case that what happened yesterday in Massachusetts is not some isolated election anomaly, but part of a burgeoning nationwide American political revolution.

Since Republican Henry Cabot Lodge was defeated by a young, upstart politician named John F. Kennedy in November of 1952 and left office in January of '53, at least one of Massachusetts' two U.S. Senators has been a Democrat. Two years after JFK was elected to the Presidency in 1960, his brother Ted Kennedy assumed the seat and owned it until his death last year.

The other Massachusetts Senatorial spot was won by Paul Tsongas for the Democrats in 1979. He was succeeded in 1985 by ultra-liberal John Kerry, and so the Democrats have had solid control of both U.S. Senatorial seats from Massachusetts for a generation. In what has to be a stunning, bitter, ironic defeat for the Dems, the seat virtually owned by the Kennedy's and controlled by liberal interests for over a half century was lost yesterday.

In the special election held yesterday to replace the deceased 'Lion of the Senate', 50-year old Scott Brown was chosen by the previously reliable voters of Massachusetts to become the first Republican U.S. Senator to represent the commonwealth in three decades.

It is that very idea of previously 'reliable' voters rising up and throwing out the candidates presented by their political party, particularly the Democratic Party at this time, that leads to the notion that there is something more brewing here than simple dissatisfaction in local politics.

A year ago today, Barack Obama was sworn-in as the 44th President of the United States. The first minority to hold the office, Obama was elected after a campaign that promised to "fundamentally change America" in his very own words.

It has become abundantly clear in the ensuing year that what Obama and his ultra-liberal congressional leaders, U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi from California and U.S. Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, consider 'Change' is very different from what the vast majority of those who elected him expected.

The majority of voters are generally 'centrists' who do not adhere to any political idealogy on a stringent basis in their daily lives. They may be generally conservative in nature, such as myself and most Republicans, or generally liberal, as most Democrats, but they begin to get very turned off when the far-end of either party begins to attempt to assert control over their lives.

The voters should have understood what Obama meant by his 'Change' because he was really no secret. By every measure he was the most far-left of the liberal Democratic U.S. Senators. His personal, educational, social, and political associations were all at least bordering on socialist and communist. He is certainly the single most politically progressive individual to ever hold the highest office in the land.

But the fact is that the majority of voters just didn't get it. They were wooed by Obama's dynamic public speaking ability and by a liberal-dominated mass media into buying into the notion that he would simply be a compassionate, intellectual alternative to lead a younger generation of Americans forward in a changing world.

Instead, what Obama did was almost immediately undertake a radical policy to have the federal government take over large swaths of American private industry. He and his political allies who are currently in control of Congress and the Senate have taken what was already huge public debt and driven it to irresponsible levels. This will undoubtedly lead to massive tax increases in the coming months and years.

Many people now believe this is an intentional attempt to collapse the American financial system and lead to complete government control of most or all sectors of public life including the financial, labor, health, educational, and media systems.

None of these actions are in compliance with the stated intent or the spirit of the U.S. Constitution or the traditional American precepts of self-reliance and independence. As the year has worn on, Americans finally began to sit up, take notice, and then stand up to be heard.

At what became known as 'Tea Parties' and at town hall meetings across the country, Americans let their elected officials and representatives of the Obama administration know that they were not happy with the direction in which the country was heading. Rather than pay heed to the obvious discontent fomenting among the people, the arrogant politicians plowed on with their plans, often publicly stating that they didn't care what the people want.

Then came the fall, and election season. In New Jersey, uber-rich, ultra-liberal incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine was defeated by Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell ousted liberal Tim Kaine from the Governor's seat held by the Dems for eight years. The issues and personalities were indeed local, but in both instances reflected national opinions and trends.

For months now, almost every single reliable poll taken across the country has shown great dissatisfaction among the electorate with the programs and the policies undertaken by Obama and being plowed through congress by his lock-step Democratic Party cohorts. The polls are showing that the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey were akin to tremors preceding an earthquake. What happened yesterday in the Massachusetts Senatorial election is the strongest in what is now a continuing series of these tremors.

What seems crystal clear at this point is that traditional American values are under attack, and Americans have had enough of both parties. Going forward, at least in the short term, it appears that no incumbent who ignores their electorate is safe. Americans don't want party politics as usual, they want people who will speak the truth to them, and who will respond to them. Either that, or the people will resort to the old political axiom of 'throw the bums out'.

This coming fall Americans will go to the polls all across the nation in what will be pivotal times for the future of the country. Will the United States continue to slide closer and closer to full-blown socialism by keeping the current liberals running the Democratic Party in control? Or will the American political revolution begun at the 2009 tea parties and town halls, carried into Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts, lead to a reclaiming of traditional America?

Friday, November 27, 2009

Join the 912 Project


The picture accompanying this story might look like a scene out of some late 1960's, Gump-esque, anti-Vietnam War rally with counter-culture hippies, radicals, and others disenchanted with the actions and policies of their government protesting those actions and policies.

However, the picture, one that many of you likely have never seen because the former mainstream media does not want you to know about these events and thus fails to cover them or underpublicizes them, is not from the 'Summer of Love' but rather it is from the end of this very past summer. September 12th, 2009 to be exact.

The Americans in this counter-culture demonstration, the new generation of 'radicals', gathered in the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and all over Washington, D.C. to demand fundamental change.

You might have heard that before somewhere, the "Change" idea? The one word slogan was deftly used in last year's U.S. presidential campaign by Barrack Hussein Obama. It was meant to galvanize those sitting on the fence in the election to support a change from the policies of the George W. Bush administration which had governed for the previous eight years.

But while Obama and his people sold that idea as a change from Bush policies to what they described as some new, more enlightened and peaceful era, what they were actually selling was a bill of goods. Their real motive was a change in the very fabric, culture, and traditional values of America.

During their first year with full control of the American political process since 1994 the Democratic Party has shown that it's transformation from a centrist, populist party fighting for the middle class to one that is completely dominated by it's fringe left and bent on massive social change is now complete.

Just since coming to power in January, Obama and his lock-step congress led by California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Nevada senator Harry Reid have driven America further into debt than the combination of every political generation before them. And while risking financial catastrophe they have begun to risk our very safety and security with their weak foreign policy approach.

All the while, they and their supporters in the puppet media have begun to tear away at the very fabric of American spiritual and institutional culture, lurching it ever closer to collapse and their ultimate goal of a communist/socialist, totalitarian, government-run life for all.

Tens of millions of American did not vote for Obama or for much of any change in the last election, albeit as the lesser of two evils. Millions sat it out because they were not happy with the choices, even when they believed Obama was bad for America. And now millions more who did vote for that 'Change' have begun to realize that they were hoodwinked by these elitists masquerading as commoners.

In response to these mounting attacks on the American traditional way of life and value system, Americans from all walks of life, all races and social standings, began to mobilize at the grass-roots level, forming the beginnings of what has now grown into "The 912 Project" movement.

The movement began to organize with responses at a series of town hall meetings held by the Obama government meant to sell their socialist health-care program. Regular everyday people showed up and began to speak out against these policies. Then the 'Tea Party' movement was born, taking its name from the famous 'Boston Tea Party' protest action during the run-up to the Revolutionary War. This all culminated with the massive rally on September 12th, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck, among others, devotes a great deal of time and effort to spreading the message.

The term '912' or '9/12 mindset' comes from the idea that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks against our nation by islamofascist terrorists on September 11th, 2001 (9/11) the entirety of the population was together. We all were wounded, outraged, mourned, grieved. We all demanded and sought retribution and we all clearly saw the enemy and the dangers which they posed beginning on 9/12, the day after the attacks.

Since the first months after the attacks, however, the continued passing of time has seen many Americans drift away into a state of passiveness and apparent forgetfulness. They seem to lack the knowledge that the enemies who attacked us then continue to look for further opportunities to attack us now, and on a grander scale.

There also are some Americans who have intentionally moved past that post-attack period and are happy that many others have forgotten. These are actual Americans who believe that we simply got what we had coming to us on that fateful day in September 2001. They want a version of what the terrorists want, a complete change in American ideals and culture.

Only these Americans want the opposite direction of change. Whereas the islamofascists want America to become an islamic theocracy with the Koran as the basis of its laws and the ruling clerics as the interpreters of social and cultural doctrine, these liberals want an open, anything goes society. They want to force their version of equality and collective group-think, based on what the government believes is best for everyone. Both ways directly attack the very ideals that America was founded upon.

The organizers of 'The 912 Project' tapped into that feeling from the day after the 9/11 attacks, that remembrance that we are all one nation, that our freedom is unique and vital, and that the ideals which the Founding Fathers of our nation established are worth both fighting and dying for.

The project bases it's organization on 9 principles and 12 values upon which it hopes to begin the process of refounding traditional America. The 12 values are: honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude. Pretty radical stuff, huh?

The 9 principles are even more radical, depending on whether you share the Obama-led view that government is the boss, knows best, has all the answers, is unaccountable, and that you should just shut up if you disagree. These 9 principles are:

1) America is good
2) I believe in God and He is the center of my life
3) I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday
4) The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5) If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6) I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7) I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8) It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion
9) The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

While admitting that I agree with the vast majority of these principles and values, I have not always lived up to some of them. That is going to change. I am looking forward to dedicating myself completely to these basic foundational ideals in my life, and a fight to return them to their rightful place at the center of American culture, society, and law.

If you share the belief that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, that God has blessed America, and that we are supposed to be a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people then you need to look into 'The 912 Project' more deeply and consider dedication yourself in some way.

NOTE: As always, the title of this entry is a link to further information on the subject, in this instance taking you directly to 'The 912 Project' website.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

You Lie!


Congressman Joe Wilson had enough of the lies, and could no longer contain himself. The Republican from South Carolina had sat patiently in his chair while trying to endure 45 minutes of President Barack Obama droning on about extending his Socialist vision of America into the health care industry.

But then Obama told one lie too many for Wilson during last night's nationally televised attempt at indoctrination and bullying. The President let slip that his proposed government option would not cover illegal aliens. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for the Congressman.

"You Lie!" shouted Wilson.

If you were watching on television, you heard it plain as day. The uproar in response was immediate and boisterous as various members of Congress either gasped in astonishment, hollered their disapproval, or mildly cheered the outburst. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, seated immediately over Obama's left shoulder, shot an icy stare in Wilson's direction.

Obama was also stunned by the outburst and momentarily glanced away from his teleprompter, causing him to stumble and mumble a weak "That's not true" as a response. Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats, particularly the ultra-liberals on the far left who are pushing the President further and further towards that Socialist disaster, Joe Wilson was the only one actually speaking truth.

On the issue that caused Wilson's outburst, Obama has repeatedly rebuffed calls for individuals to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive health care under the proposed government option. This will undoubtedly result in illegals receiving such care, and increased numbers of them as Mexicans and others stream across our southern borders to receive better medical care here at no cost.

Well, it's at no cost to the illegal aliens. It will, however, cost every single taxpaying American as money is sucked from our paychecks in order to provide health care for people who are not even citizens of our country.

The funding for this project is another of it's controversial elements, and was addressed last night with another of Obama's lies. He spoke of increasing costs by $900 billion over the next decade, and compared that amount to the same amount to fund the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His point was that it is affordable if we choose to take care of uninsured sick Americans instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy or going to war.

As usual, Obama was lying. The $900 billion dollars over the next decade figure comes from adding up to 18 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. But that is just the rock bottom basic cost. Everyone involved knows that costs will rise and that the plan would end up costing at least hundreds of billions of more dollars. And then there is the fact that the plan doesn't go away after a decade.

Harsh to say that Obama is lying? Not at all. I am going to give Barack Obama credit where liberals were unwilling to give George W. Bush credit by saying that Obama is smart. Fact is, so was Bush, but you'll never convince most libs of that notion. But they would definitely agree with me that Obama is both intelligent and informed.

To even contemplate that Obama does not know all of the facts involving his health plan would be ludicrous. So when he tells you that it will be affordable, that there will be no increase in the federal deficit, that illegal aliens won't be covered, and that abortions won't be covered he is quite simply not telling the truth as he knows it to be. The word we all use for such a person is 'liar' in other instances, and it applies here as well, whether you like the sound of Obama being called one or not.

As to the controversial abortion topic, for instance, the President claims that the language of his health bill is 'neutral' on the issue. Fair enough, but fact is that most Americans have already spoken their minds that they do not want a publicly funded abortion option as part of any taxpayer funded plan. So Republicans tried to insert amendments that would specifically prohibit the plan from covering abortions. The amendments were voted down by the Democrats. So much for the President' bill being 'neutral' on abortion. What is to keep it from covering the procedure, Mr. President?

Mr. President, it might make Nance Pelosi cringe, your fellow Democrats bellow, and even moderate Republicans feign public indignance, but the facts are the facts and the American public deserves more than you and your administration are giving us on issue after issue. A 'Change' to Socialism was not what they voted for last November. I can't blame Joe Wilson for his outburst because frankly, Mr. President, he simply was telling the frustrating truth when he shouted "You Lie!"

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Why Nancy Pelosi Should Step Down


The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:

The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can't have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation. America can't afford it.

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this: If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?

Would you?

This Isn't About Politics. It's About National Security

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn't political - she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.

But this isn't about politics. It's about national security.

At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques - specifically waterboarding - on captured al Qaeda terrorists.

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality

Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used. At last week's press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."

In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'"

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory: Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?

If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA's, Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself. She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it. Not good, but not disqualifying.
Pelosi on the CIA: "They Mislead Us All The Time"

But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory. Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her - misled Congress - and not just once, but routinely.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.

And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.

Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?

And the question that remains is why? Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?

Perhaps it's because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is: The Left's attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.

America was terrified. As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn't know where and we didn't know when.

If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated
If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 - just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet - then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks - in other words, the Bush Administration policy - is vindicated.

But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance. She didn't know, so she claims. That's why she didn't do anything about it.

But President Bush did know. It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.

It was Nancy Pelosi's job to know too. But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she's now telling us she didn't know. And she's calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.

Shame on her.
Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe
Speaker Pelosi has damaged America's safety.

She's made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them.

And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.

America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi's contempt for those who defend her.

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich in his newsletter Volume 4, No. 20 dated May 20th, 2009

Monday, May 11, 2009

God Has His Ways of Getting a Nation's Attention


When Old Testament Israel strayed from following God, Yahweh had unique and painful ways of getting the Hebrews’ attention. His first line of attack was to send in His prophets—who were not the shiny, happy-clappy, cliché-spewing, aphorism-addicted mega church pastors who are more interested in hawking their books than bearding the priests of Baal.

No, the prophets were wrecking cranes to wayward Israel’s facades. They were imperfect, difficult dudes who called a spade a shovel for a perfect God. They didn’t give a crap who you were, who your mommy was, if you were the King or Pastor Whoop-Dee-Frickin’-Do. They were fiercely devoted to God and His ways. Janet Napolitano would call these truth-tellers “terror threats” because they loathed godless governments and butt-kissing priests and had no problem whatsoever letting those entities have it verbally.

Yep, if you were out of sorts with God because of practicing whacked stuff or preaching Oprah instead of Obadiah, you were about to be publically roasted via the prophets’ sizzling invectives.

Need a mental image? Imagine Rush, Beck, Coulter, Miller or O’Reilly on steroids.

This skewering, to be sure, was about as fun for the rebel recipients as watching Nancy Pelosi do an interpretive dance of “Riders on the Storm” (the extended version) would be for Simon Cowell.

A humiliating open rebuke, however, was a mere love tap when compared to an eternity of misery and the coming decades-long national butt kicking Israel was in line to receive should they remain contumacious.

The prophets’ messages were never complicated. These gruff and holy critters offered God’s people two choices: turn or . . . burn. If Israel obeyed, they’d be blessed. If they disobeyed, well . . . let’s just say things didn’t go that well for the next four decades.

You see, if Israel turned from their profane BS (belief systems) and back to God, Yahweh would chill and relent from the attention-grabbing calamities He was heatin’ up on heaven’s back burner. The prophet, unfortunately, was officially out of a job if the Hebrews went the repentant route. Yep, Amos had to go back to fig picking.

However, when Israel blew the prophets off by condemning the messenger, categorizing the message as hate speech, jailing the prophet(s) or, as in some cases, killing the prophetic salvo, God would in turn switch to plan B to get His insubordinate group’s good ear.

God, not the one to run out of advanced repentance techniques, would allow Israel’s economy to go to hell, plagues to ravage their land, nature to convulse, and enemies the ability to pulverize them.

Yep, unless I’m reading the Bible upside down, it seems that when the nation went astray from God’s law and wouldn’t listen to the prophets’ calls to repentance and instead vilified the saving voices, God allowed one (or more) of the four aforementioned hammers to pound them until Israel became all ears.

This is, at least to me, a plain prophetic pattern within the Scripture. The $64,000 question you gotta ask yourself is this: If there is a God, and if the Bible isn’t a bunch of fairy tales written by a stack of whack jobs, then does God still roll today like He did with Old Testament Israel as He interfaces with 21st century nations that spurn His values to His face?

I’m guessin’ God hasn’t had an extreme makeover and that He is the same yesterday, today and forever, which could mean in our current culture—where evil is good and good is evil—that we might be in line for grave negative sanctions because, apparently, America’s new favorite pastime is whizzing on that which is holy, just and good.

WRITTEN by Doug Giles for TownHall.com and published there on May 10th, 2009

Monday, March 9, 2009

Obama-Dem Mistake #3

President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts in Congress have done it again. In fact, they've done it a couple of times, and so both today and tomorrow we will take a look at these two most recent Obama-Dem mistakes. I am starting out today by playing catch-up with a mistake made a couple of weeks ago, that being the behemoth $3.6 trillion dollar Obama spending fiasco that he calls a 'stimulus' budget plan. This ridiculous-on-its-face plan to get out of our current financial crisis by taxing and regulating businesses both small and large while at the same time increasing spending at outrageous levels is a complete over-reach by the liberal wing that is now dominant among the Dems. I like to compare it to the famous episode of the television comedy Seinfeld in which Jerry and Elaine decide they need to have sex in order to save their friendship. Ludicrous on its face and a disaster waiting to happen, which indeed it does, which anyone with half a brain could see coming a mile away. The exact wrong solution for a difficult problem they were experiencing. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Alan Chanrey, the director of USA Action, one of many ultra-liberal groups pushing Obama strongly and speedily towards the socializing of the American governmental system, stated "This budget is real change, the change Americans voted for last November." He is right in one regard, that 53% of Americans did indeed vote for a party change last November. But he and the rest of the Democratic Party, and Obama as the President, have been making one major error after another because they do not understand what kind of change the majority of these Americans voted to see happen. Americans wanted a philosophical change away from a war footing and a perceived antagonistic face in world affairs. They did not vote for Socialism. The financial budget and programs that Obama and the Dems are instituting will result in more layoffs, higher taxes, more business closings. Obama and his supporters will argue that it should create jobs. But these are jobs that will depend on the Federal government either directly as employees or through Federally funded programs and grants. They will argue that it creates an opportunity for all Americans to receive health care coverage, but they never, ever speak about the cost involved. The cost in financial terms of not only creating such a program, but then maintaining it and likely expanding it over time will simply be the largest expenditure ever incurred by our government. Part of their plan involves $650 billion dollars over a decade in a 'cap-and-trade' plan that is nothing more than a tax on businesses. Another is increased limitations on both mortgage interest and charitable tax deductions that will effect millions of Americans at tax time, as well as payment cuts to Medicare insurers, in order to fund their new medical coverage plan. Obama and the Dems are planning on allowing tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration to expire in a couple of years, thus raising the taxes of millions more American families. Further outlays in the massive budget plan include billions involving so-called 'green' plans to combat a controversial global-warming situation that may in the end be nothing more than a natural phenomenon. There are so many other huge spending programs in this plan that it is almost a joke. One of the leading conservatives on the Republican side, Newt Gingrich, actually says that he agrees with much of Obama's rhetoric on the financial issues. But Gingrich sees a "gap between the words and reality" in a plan that actually promotes "higher-tax, weaker-economy, fewer-jobs" in its practical applications. How can the government possibly expand like this when everyone else is contracting? The simple answer is that they cannot. The Wall Street stock market is reacting to the obviousness of this folly with its weekly free-fall. The administration of President Barack Obama surely inherited a difficult financial situation, and this situation required tough decisions. But it also required smart decisions, and the obviously dumb ones of the past few weeks are only turning the economy for the worse in both the short and long term outlooks. It is similar to Obama walking into a situation where there was a fire growing. He had the opportunity to begin to pour water over the fire and extinguish the flames. Instead he and his Democratic Party cohorts led by Nancy Pelosi in Congress have chosen to pour gasoline over them. Their logic is that by making the fire bigger and bigger, we whose property is actually going up in smoke will become more and more dependent on their government to eventually put it out. But the fact is that day will never come. What will actually happen is that their power will grow as our fire grows, until eventually one of two things happens. Either we vote them out of office quickly, or they burn our American house down to the ground. The gigantic, enormous, humongous behemoth of a budget that is misrepresented as 'stimulus' is the Obama-Dem Mistake #3. Tomorrow we will cover the most recent mistake number four. NOTE: All of the items in the Obama-Dem Mistake series can be found by visiting that below label.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obamanation!

Barack Obama was sworn in this afternoon as the 44th President of the United States of America. He thus becomes the first black President, the first minority of any type, ending the monopoly held by white males on the highest office in the land for over two centuries. In some ways this very fact is a good thing. No longer will America's detractors, both within and outside of our country, be able to speak of glass ceilings and inequality with any credibility. Anyone can rise to the highest office in the land. America is willing to accept a person of color, as proven by President Obama's new position. America is willing to accept a woman in the position as well. The support for both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin from their respective party's as they ran last year prove that statement as well. So this is now officially an Obama Nation. He and his supporters are in charge now. The celebrations will continue with a number of parties tonight known as Presidential Ball's, but when everyone wakes up in the morning the real business of governance will begin. President Obama began his tenure by stumbling over his swearing-in ceremony as he was incorrectly led in taking the oath of office by SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts inserted the word 'faithfully' at the wrong point, causing Obama, who had likely prepared for this and practiced the oath a number of times, to halt. The two then did a verbal dance until Obama simply said it in the manner that Roberts led him. We can write that off to nervousness on both men's parts, and the awesome reality setting in that this event was actually finally happening. Everyone is not perfect all the time, not even Barack Obama and John Roberts. However, can you imagine the field day that the media and celebrities would be having were it George W. Bush being involved in such a blunder in front of the whole world? This was a real shame for such a truly historic moment. But human gaffes aside, its the meat and potatoes of the acceptance speech that really matter. President Obama started well by properly thanking President Bush for both his service to the nation and his cooperation in the transition. But he then spoke of how the economy has been weakened by, among other things, a "collective failure to make hard choices." Obama himself and his Democratic Senate colleagues have been front and center in failing to make hard choices and consistently cow-towing to liberal special interests and pork barrel spending programs. It will be interesting to see how the new President leads us into the more fiscally responsible era that he seems to be calling for. He said that jobs have been shed and businesses shuttered. I wonder if he plans on following or supporting the path of Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat House colleagues in allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and in raising taxes that will only result in even more businesses closing and more jobs lost. He spoke of our health care being too costly. Now is not the time for details, but when they eventually come out will they involve a socialized medical coverage plan that will lower costs for some in initially, but lower care as well while creating frustrating and interminable bueracracies such as those that have emerged with Canada's national health care system? And the costs that will rise from that bueracracy? They will be borne by 'We the People' in increased taxes for all. We will all pay in the end. It's just that now you will be paying that bigger Uncle Sam rather than some medical provider. He said that "our schools fail too many", but is that really appropriate, or do too many students fail themselves because they are unwilling and undisciplined. Is the problem really mostly in the schools, or is it in the home? He said that "we use our energy to strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet" and yet consistently voted against programs that would have led to greater energy independence for America. The new President also incredibly stated that there was a "sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable." I don't know who President Obama has been speaking with...oh wait, yes I do. He has been speaking with and is speaking of his fellow Democrat politicians and their followers. Republicans and American traditionalists of all stripes have never had any such thoughts. We are always confident in our belief in the strength, power, faith, and resilience of America. We always see both the spirit and the actuality of America's greatness extending well into the future. We are always positive. It has only been the Dems and their supporters who have felt this "sapping" and "nagging" about our nation, its world role, its direction. He later went on to call those who do not believe in his programs "cynics" who "fail to understand that the ground has shifted beneath them", and claimed that "stale political arguments...no longer apply." Trust me, we conservatives are well aware of the political shift. And we also realize that political differences remain and the arguments will continue. We will regroup, re-engage, and come back again even stronger in the future. The President said that the problems of government are not whether it is too big or small, but whether it works. The fact is that whether it's working or not is defined differently by many different sources. However, it is also factual that if government is too big, that in itself is a huge problem. Government is already too big and President Obama and his followers plan to grow it to an incredible size. That will create a true "problem of government." The President made a telling statement in addressing world leaders when he said that "America is a friend of every nation, and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity." What he failed to say was anything about how he would deal with those nations whose vision of peace and dignity is not possible without the destruction of Israel as a nation and the erasing of America from its position as a world power. He began to draw to his closing, and one of his comments referred to the goodness of "a parent's willingness to nurture a child." It will be interesting to see how his Supreme Court nominees stand up to that measure of goodness in their willingness to protect those children as God's most precious gift of human life. Despite my skepticism of his plans, Barack Obama is now my President. Unlike the destructive path that the Dems took with President Bush, myself and most Republicans will pray for and support President Obama as our own, our leader, our Commander-in-Chief. But we are indeed the 'loyal opposition', and our loyalty only extends so far. We will continue to fight against him and the liberal Democrats as hard as we can to maintain traditional American values, keep government out of our individual and familial business as much as possible, and maintain our safety and security. We will not allow this new Obama Nation to become an abomination. God bless President Barack Obama, but more importantly, God bless America.
NOTE: This article has been amended from its original form, which alluded to problems with the swearing-in ceremony being caused by Obama's nervousness. He may have been nervous, but it was Justice Roberts' gaffe that started the problems. Thanks to a commenter for pointing out this error. Comments can be viewed by clicking on to that below label on every entry.