The Tax Wo-Man(come on she looks like a guy in drag in this picture) promises to "drain the swamp" in the first 100 hours, or however long that really is.
Per the San Francisco Chronicle...The House meets at noon to elect Pelosi in a formal process expected to take several hours.
Several Hours? That's government efficiency for you!
After the coronation comes the gala for the Dummycratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
People will pay $1,000 per ticket, $15,000 per political action committee, to be entertained by; Warren Beatty, Annette Benning, Ben Affleck, Amy Brenneman, Richard Gere, Carole King, Wyclef Jean, Tony Bennett and the House Band that features Mickey Hart and Bruce Hornsby.
The festivities that began Wednesday with a mass and afternoon tea where Pa-Loser said, "We've waited over 200 years for this time, America's working women, women working at home, whatever they choose to do, they have a friend in the Capitol of the United States."
With a friend like this...?
On Friday the Speaker will host a "People's House" event in the Cannon Caucus Room across from the Capitol.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle...She'll spend an hour or two meeting and greeting anyone who wants to line up to say hello.
No mention of the cost for the price of admission.
Dummycrats deny the celebration is over the top..."We've eaten so much crow over the last 12 years I have no problem with popping the champagne...."Donna Brazile, Dummycrat strategist.
A popular button being worn was, Rosie the Riveter with Pelosi's face superimposed, with pearl earrings, above the slogan: "A woman's place is in the House ... as Speaker."
A woman disrupted the House yesterday, Cindy Sheehan drowned out the press conference of Rahm Emanuel (D/IL) with chants out of the '60s..."de-escalate, investigate, troops home now".
Emanuel and the rest of the flustered lawmakers retreated to a room behind closed doors, and surrendered the field to Mrs. Sheehan.
Butch up Boys! Maybe this link will help....manlaws.com
Grow some gonads or at least see if the Speaker will let you borrow her balls!
What a long strange trip it will be as the House gavel is now, per Mother Pelosi, in"the hands of America's children."
But, it's the DUMMYCRATS! First William Jefferson and now John Murtha(pictured beginning surrender monkey move).
SanFranNancy Pelosi must have been looking in the mirror when she came up with that slogan. She should have remembered...When you point a finger, there's always four pointing back at YOU!
Here's The Washington Times...
Rep. John Murtha is thinking big thoughts. Since coming out for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq last year, he has accused Marines of murder "in cold blood" before a preliminary investigation is even complete; accused the military of a cover up over the same incident; declared his candidacy for the House majority leadership post; and, most recently, refined his cut-and-run strategy in Iraq to mean "redeployment" to Okinawa, Japan. That's quite a splash for such a veteran congressman, who a year ago had zero name recognition outside Washington. That he's made a name for himself now by slandering our troops and their mission deserves a brief recital of some other activities associated with Mr. Murtha. Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported. In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee." It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." Maybe the next time the new Jack Murtha thinks up another big idea someone can ask him about the old Jack Murtha.
Here's Robert Novak...
I had forgotten that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago. I was reminded of it after Murtha became a candidate for majority leader, not by a Republican hit man but a Democratic former colleague in the House. In a long political career, Murtha has made bitter enemies inside his party who are alarmed by his new stature. . . .
In 1980, the FBI named him as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik.
The other seven targets took cash and were convicted in federal court. The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence. Murtha testified against the popular Rep. Frank Thompson, which created lifelong enemies in the Democratic cloakroom. The House Ethics Committee exonerated Murtha of misconduct charges by a largely party-line vote, after which the committee's special counsel resigned in protest.
That salvaged Murtha's political career but limited his public exposure. The current Almanac of American Politics says: ''He speaks for attribution to few national or local reporters, hardly ever appears on television and rarely speaks in the House chamber.'' That reticence has disappeared the last seven months.
Finally the guys at Powerline weigh in...
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hopes to became Speaker of the House by pushing the "culture of corruption" theme in this fall's election. Unfortunately, instances of corruption among House Democrats keep conspiring against her. The latest instance hits particularly close to home. This Washington Times editorial notes that her point man on defeatism in Iraq, Rep. John Murtha, appears to be part of the culture Pelosi purports to condemn.
The Times collects a number of tidbits. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Murtha's brother, Robert, runs a lobbying firm that represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. Another official of the lobbying firm is a former Murtha congressional aide. Murtha is the ranking member of the House subcommittee that appropriates this money.
Murtha's role in the culture of corruption also implicates Pelosi herself. Roll Call reported last year that Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Pelosi's nephew, Laurence Pelosi, was an executive of the company that owned the rights to the land. Roll Call also reported that Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of his fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. And the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group, lists Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
Nor is Murtha a newcomer to the culture of corruption. The Times recalls that after the 1980 Abscam scandal, the FBI named him an "unindicted co-conspirator."
Just to be clear, I'm not questioning John Murtha's patriotism. I'm quesioning his ethics.
Today Rick Campbell, one of our senior members at age 87, is here to reminisce a bit and give us a history lesson.
He says he is so old that he learned to drive an internal combustion engine car (remember those) with a manual transmission.
He once owned a typewriter.
He remembers when bicycles had one speed, phones had two-party lines, and cameras had something called film.
He is from a different time; almost a different world.
I'm sure all of us are far too familiar with the tragic events of 2010, so Rick is not going to plow that fertile field again.
Instead, he is going to give us a personal look back at the conditions which led up to that fateful year, in a speech titled "2010 Was Not A Good Year To Be President."
Yes, 2010 was long ago and far away.
As we look back on history, it appears that some Presidents had an easy ride- times of growth and stability.
Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton come to mind.
Those were good years to be President.
Others were elected just when the Republic was facing terrible crises: Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush.
They rose to the occasion, even though they were controversial and widely hated while in office.
Not such good years to be President.
Just a few years prior, in 2008, the country began foundering.
We were in the sixth year of the Iraqi Occupation, and the economy was flat.
The mainstream press clearly wanted a Democrat elected.
Although we didn't know it until some years later, oil producing nations had colluded to secretly buy their own oil on the open market, driving oil prices to shocking levels above the true demand price- reaching a high of $162 a barrel in October, 2008, just before the general elections.
Their purpose was simple: to effect regime change in the United States.
And of course, the U.S. economy was already in a real estate slump and also suffering the curse of stagflation; slow growth and high inflation.
There were a million home foreclosures.
Independent truckers went under by the thousands.
Airlines failed. Airlines with names now long-forgotten: United, Delta, Northwestern, American.
All now merged, of course, into the one lone U.S. carrier we love so much: Southwest.
Against this backdrop of weariness of the war on terror, and economic distress, the American people were ripe for a demagogue, and they certainly got one in Barack Hussein Obama.
He and his running mate Kathlene Sibelius inspired them with vague notions of hope and change; of a world in which diplomacy settled all international problems, of free universal health care, of abundant alternative energy, of peace and love.
It was a vision too good to resist.
The Republican nominee, a name you probably haven't heard in years, anyone?
Yes, it was John McCain, an obscure Senator from Arizona had no clue how to run a national campaign, and a platform nearly as liberal as Obama's.
The selection of Condoleeza Rice as his running mate looked brilliant at first.
Unfortunately, black voters viewed her as white, and women voters viewed her as one of the guys.
Even so, the McCain/Rice ticket would have won the election if it weren't for the fact that 16 percent of conservative Republicans voted for, anyone remember?
That's right, Bob Barr, another name that's a footnote in history.
After Obama's narrow win, thanks to recounts in Broward County, Florida, the country was positively giddy.
A Democrat House, Senate, and President.
At last an end to gridlock in Washington.
Camelot!
When Congress convened in January, 2009, the 44th President of the United States did something unique in history: he made good on his campaign promises.
Certainly most Americans never really thought he was serious during the campaign.
But whether because of inexperience, idealism, or simply incompetence, he followed through.
In Obama's first One Hundred Days, the Congress passed his initiatives, and he signed them into law as he said he would.
He repealed the Bush tax cuts, increased capital gains taxes.
He enacted a windfall profits tax, and instituted price controls on gasoline and diesel fuel.
He passed universal health care, which added an additional 10 percent tax increase on all working Americans.
He signed the Immigrant Amnesty bill which created 12 million new citizens instantly, each with entitlements.
He closed the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and summarily released all the detainees.
He repealed the Patriot Act, and cut funding for espionage, and eliminated all terrorist listening and wiretaps.
Most important, he began the complete and immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.
He ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to retain bases in Kuwait and Qatar.
Instead, he went with the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Dennis Kucinich, and ordered all troops back to U.S. soil.
Viola!
In One Hundred Days, by May of 2009, it was all done, and the vision was complete. He did exactly what he said he would do.
And so it was in the summer of 2009 that things began to unravel for Obama.
Of course, the economy needed a tax cut, not an increase, and unemployment quickly rose to 12 percent.
Even attorneys and economists were put in the bread lines.
Hard times.
Price controls on gasoline immediately led to shortages and gas lines.
The global cooling trend we have seen for the past 25 years first became obvious in 2009, exposing the CO2 global warming fraud.
People were justifiably angry.
Federal deficits increased massively because thousands of baby boomers, facing job loss and much higher taxes, simply gave up and took social security.
Although the superb U.S. health care system was thrown into disarray, the bright spot was the creation of the Federal Department of Health care, and the immediate hiring of 250,000 administrators, inspectors and auditors, the only job growth in any economic sector in 2009.
By February 2010, the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq was complete. It was a very expensive undertaking.
And then in March, the gradual Shiite insurgencies from Iran turned into a true Iraqi civil war.
In May, Iranian tanks crossed the border and quickly took Baghdad.
Although the exact number is not known, at least 230,000 Sunni Iraqis died as we stood by.
Iran also quickly moved into undefended Kuwait.
President Obama did exactly what he said he would.
He sent Secretary of State Maria Cantwell to Tehran to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
After two weeks of high level talks, the United States agreed to allow Iran to retain Iraq and Kuwait to create stability in the middle east, with the understanding that Israel would not be disturbed.
Cantwell returned to Washington, and explained the agreement in her famous speech, in which she proudly noted that the Obama administration had finally achieved "peace in our time" in the Middle East.
So there was some surprise at the rocket attacks on Tel Aviv on August 14th.
President Obama said, "This is not the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."
The Obama administration decided it would be de-stabilizing to take sides in the conflict, and approximately 29,000 Israeli civilians died during the summer and fall.
American Jews were appalled at the inaction.
Yes, in 2010 most American Jews were Democrats, but because of 2010, they are solid Republicans today.
As awkward as it was, everything might have turned out all right for the Obama administration going into the fall mid-term elections of 2010, if it hadn't been for the dirty bomb in the Port of Long Beach.
The administration had cut funding for the inspection of containers, because they felt it showed a "lack of trust" in the international trading community.
It wasn't really a very big bomb, and thank goodness, not a real nuclear device, but nonetheless it contaminated some expensive real estate- Newport Beach, Palos Verdes Estates- and ultimately caused the death of 14,000 Americans.
People were especially annoyed that Disneyland had to be closed for decontamination.
And so, in the midterm elections, Republicans regained control of both the House and Senate, and the rest is history.
The impeachment proceedings against President Obama for "failure to protect and defend" were swift and nearly unanimous.
Vice President Sibelius resigned.
Newly-elected Speaker of the House, J.C. Watts, became the 45th President of the United States.
But you know the rest of the story well.
Republicans finished the war on Islamic fundamentalists, largely by aiming ICBM's at Mecca and Medina.
No Democrat has been elected President since.
Republicans have held both Houses of Congress.
History of Western Civilization and Economics are now taught in all public schools, and in English only.
Marriage is defined as one man and one woman.
And there are border fences, north and south.
We old codgers remember the ancient Confucian curse:
"May you live in interesting times."
Well, 2010 was an interesting year, but it was not a good year to be President."
This came from my friend Cal, I believe the author is unknown.
From The Washington Times Inside Politics column....
"Asked by a reporter about how 'President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,' incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how 'the 9/11 commission dismissed that notion a long time ago, and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again,' " the Media Research Center's Brent Baker reports at www.mrc.org.
"Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 commission conclusion was about links before September 11, on Tuesday's 'NBC Nightly News' reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant.
Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's sound bite with a bewildering set up of his own about how incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House.
"On [Fox News Channel's] 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as 'confused' and Morton Kondrake suggested she was just 'mixed up,' Fred Barnes maintained that 'she clearly screwed up here.' ...
"Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: 'If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable.'
"Neither ABC's 'World News Tonight' or 'The CBS Evening News' played the Pelosi sound bite."
SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
SanFranNan Pa-LOSER is off to a rousing start.
I can't wait to see how smooth her first 100 hours as Speaker will be.
*****UPDATE*****
The Dummycrats are already backing away from a key election promise!
Here's what the Washington Post is reporting....
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
....aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.
The 9/11 Commission was unequivocal about the need.
"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."
Sufferin' Succotash Sylvester score another swing and a miss for Pa-LOSER!
John Kerry disgraced himself yet again...when he launched a salvo against the Bush administration at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
...Kerry's latest folly.
...“When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said.
Speaking of duplicity and hypocrisy...Kerry himself has actually had the opportunity to vote on the Kyoto carbon emissions treaty.
...this says it all…
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session
Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM
Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )
Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.
YEAs 95 NAYs 0 Not Voting 5
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Duplicitous and hypocritical: that pretty well sums up John Kerry.
What Makes A Protest Newsworthy?
This point is closely related to the "Grim Milestones" post immediately below. Earlier today, "tens of thousands" of demonstrators gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. to protest the Iraq war. The cast of speakers was less than impressive: Dennis Kucinich, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda.
...Organizers said the biggest challenge facing the anti-war movement today is how to hold together a loose coalition of groups with divergent agendas using celebrities who peaked in popularity 10 to 30 years ago.
“The speaker roster reminds me of the old Hollywood Squares game show,” said one unnamed staffer of Vegan Lesbians for Racial and Nuclear Justice, whose dozens of members will cross the continent to join the rally today. “I mean Fonda, Sarandon, Glover and Jackson might as well be Charo, Joan Rivers, George Gobel and Paul Lynde. How am I going get my group excited about geopolitical and military strategy with these has beens leading the way?”
It's hard to say how many people attended the demonstration; the Washington police no longer issue estimates of crowd sizes. Organizers said they were hoping for 100,000, and news accounts say there were "tens of thousands." I haven't seen a photo that shows the entire crowd; this one comes closest:
You can't judge from a single picture, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think the demonstration was anything special in terms of turnout.
Contrast this with a demonstration that occurred in the same place, just a few days ago, when"tens of thousands" of demonstrators gathered to protest the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
I don't know which protest was bigger, but I'm pretty sure I can predict which one will get more press coverage. My home-town paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, didn't cover the abortion protest at all. Again, whether and how a demonstration is covered has a lot more to do with the political agenda of reporters and editors than with the number or enthusiasm of the demonstrators. And I think we all know what narrative the liberal media are now pushing. It's the "will to lose" that John O'Sullivan identified at the National Review summit last night.
Grim Milestones
...people are talking about a statistic that has been kicking around for a while: illegal aliens murder approximately 12 Americans a day. Is this accurate? I'm not sure; this isn't a statistic that is officially kept, so estimates are based on more informal surveys. The number seems to have been popularized by Congressman Steve King.
While I'm not sure that it's right, the 12 per day figure is plausible. There are 16,000+ murders a year in the U.S., so, if my math is correct, that number implies that, if there are around ten million illegal aliens, they commit about ten times their pro rata share of murders.
Twelve per day works out to 4,380 a year, or around 16,600 during the time that has elapsed since we have been engaged in Iraq. This is more than five times the number of military deaths in Iraq.
My point here is not to argue for the accuracy of Representative King's numbers, but rather to note how discretionary the concept of a "grim milestone" is. If the mainstream media kept a "grim milestone" count on murders of Americans by illegal aliens, imagine how it would re-frame the debate over illegal immigration. But the media have no interest in that particular set of "milestones." What constitutes a "milestone" depends not on the actual magnitude of the issue, but rather on the political agenda of the mainstream media.
Who Knew Congressman Foley Was a Closeted Democrat?
By Ann Coulter
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office six more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaeda -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
-- Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
-- Priests: No gays!
-- Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
-- Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
-- White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
-- Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
-- Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pictured are two reasons to vote Republican.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (gettin' kinky with it) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DOH).
Only YOU can prevent HIGHER TAXES andTERRORIST ATTACKS!
Nelson (D-NE), Prior (D-AR) and Lieberman (I-CT) sided with Republicans to shoot it down.
Two different measures were debated as well.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 20--A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.
Senate Resolution 107--A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no action should be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces of the United States or impact their ability to complete their assigned or future missions.
In a complete surprise Dummycrats supported this and CommieTommie Harkin supported the latter two.
Surprised because this is what CommieTommie had to say, in just the last two months, about Iraq.
3/15... "misbegotten, misguided war"
2/17..."a tragic quagmire"
He utilized the same "quagmire" statement on 2/5, it's a theme he's used since shortly after the invasion.
That and Iraq is another Viet Nam.
Thomas Sowell shows that these statements aren't really showing support for the troops...
Talk about "supporting the troops" or "honoring the dead" is part of the general corruption of language for political purposes.
... After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.
The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about "supporting our troops" or "honoring our troops" have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.
During the early stages of that war, men fighting for their lives were criticized for not protecting the contents of an Iraqi museum.
Unsubstantiated charges against American military personnel create instant front-page news stories in the New York Times. But innumerable things that our troops have done that would make us proud are not likely to be reported at all.
... Perhaps the most irresponsible act of all has been Congress's promotion of a non-binding resolution against the recent increase in American troop strength in Iraq.
People's opinions can differ on troop deployment, even if -- like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- they have never deployed troops in their lives and have no military experience whatsoever.
But if anyone in Congress is serious about stopping the war, they can simply cut off the money -- and take responsibility for the consequences that follow.
Instead, they want to have it both ways, passing a non-binding resolution whose only effect is to embolden our enemies and undermine the morale of our troops that they keep saying they are "supporting."
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is expected to be Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee in the next Congress.
Levin sounded the retreat signal on ABC's 'This Week'. "First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy.
....and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months."
Mark Steyn paints a true picture of why last Tuesday was bad for America and the War on Terror.
"The jihad crowd....view of America is roughly that of the British historian Niall Ferguson -- that the Great Satan is the first superpower with ADHD. They reasoned that if you could subject Americans to the drip-drip-drip of remorseless water torture in the deserts of Mesopotamia -- a couple of deaths here, a market bombing there, cars burning, smoke over the city on the evening news, day after day after day, and ratcheted up a notch or two for the weeks before the election -- you could grind down enough of the electorate and persuade them to vote like Spaniards, without even realizing it. And it worked.
...we are all Spaniards now. The incoming speaker says Iraq is not a war to be won but a problem to be solved. The incoming defense secretary belongs to a commission charged with doing just that. A nostalgic boomer columnist in the Boston Globe argues that honor requires the United States to "accept defeat," as it did in Vietnam. Didn't work out so swell for the natives, but to hell with them.
What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it "redeployment" or "exit strategy" or "peace with honor" but, by the time it's announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation. Likewise, when it's announced on "Good Morning Pyongyang" and the Khartoum Network and, come to that, the BBC.
For the rest of the world, the Iraq war isn't about Iraq; it's about America, and American will...."
I knew something was not quite right with the lady lawyer's health insurance story that got her on the podium to introduce Michelle Obama (The Story In Your Eyes).
We already know how the feel about the military with John Kerry's remarks this week, but he did the same last year too when he implied they were terrorizing Iraqi women and children. He began attacking the military when he got home from Viet Nam, calling them murderers and rapists, a pattern that continued through his first unsuccessful run for Congress.
Dick Durbin (D-IL) likened our troops to Nazi's, the Soviet Gulag and Cambodian genecidal maniac Pol Pot.
Here's what the Dummycrats will do to the economy....
The Democratic Party's "New Direction for America" leads to $79.1 billion in new annual federal spending, according to a line-by-line analysis by a non-partisan taxpayers' group.
"Americans should take note that proposals containing many political promises are likely to contain many tax dollars as well," said Demian Brady, senior policy analyst for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), the research affiliate of the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a non-profit citizen group founded in 1969.
Brady tracked the fiscal impact of proposed legislation listed in "The New Direction for America Book," a 31-page document posted at the website of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Under Dummycrat control Representative Charlie Rangel (NY) would be in charge of writing the nation's tax legislation. He would determine what rates you and business will pay.
Rangel recently said that if the Democrats win, 'Everything is on the table.' In fact, when he was asked if he would consider across-the-board income tax increases on everyone, including the middle class, he said 'No question about it.' House Speaker Dennis Hastert cited a Treasury Department analysis, that the Democrats would reduce economic growth by about $93 billion a year.
Friends don't let Friends make an ASS of themselves and vote DUMMYCRAT!!
Gore's appearance came during a segment called "Ask The Speaker".
Gore joked, “We oughta take that act on the road, Nancy,” to which Pelosi responded, “We are on the road!” Gore replied, “We are on the road, but I feel right at home, I’ll tell you.”
Like a $1.5 Trillion to $3 Trillion plan to transform a nation because of Gore-BULL warming when the Earth's temperatures have been steady or declining for the past ten years?
Leaving Iowa for Maui in the winter is one of the best decisions I've ever made.
It used to come in third, behind marrying Chris and moving to the Not So Vast Right Wing Ranch, but now it's probably tied for second if not solely in second by itself.
I couldn't even escape the snow, as Haleakalā received a couple inches during our stay.
It was great to get three Packer playoff wins and move onto the Super Bowl, especially over Jay Quitter and the Chicago Bad News Teddy Bears.
My brief brush with fame this trip came on the final leg.
Chris Spielman was on our flight from Chicago to Des Moines, he was the guest speaker for the John Stoddard Rally Against Cancer, I told him I respected how he played the game and I enjoyed him as a commentator now.
There was a guy on the same flight wearing an Ohio State windbreaker, a few rows back from Spielman, but he didn't seem to recognize the former Buckeye great.
Last night, Dave Price made the mistake of having Spielman's wife still among the living.
Stefanie Spielman lost her battle with breast cancer in November 2009.
"...the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."
Biden tries to come across as an intellectual when he says...
"...I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee."
Shouldn't a "constitutional scholar" and the one time chairman of the Judiciary Committee know that the House has the SOLE power to Impeach?
Article I Section 2 Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
And the scientific community is united in that fact!
House Dummycrats, led by big girl Speaker Nancy Pa-Loser, passed their minimum wage bill.
However, there's something fishy about it!
Per The Washington Times....The bill extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi.
Smells fishy (tastes like chicken?)!
"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
"Simply put: It is unethical to provide a special benefit to a company in any member of Congress' hometown," he said. "For Democrats to act in such a manner so early on in their tenure is hypocritical at best, and criminal at worst".
No name was associated with the article, but it looks like the story was written by Catherine Lucey (pictured).
I was going to cut Lucey some slack, since she just started in Des Moines in January and her Twitter page says she's Getting to know the heartland, but these are facts that can be looked up and not made up
