Pelosi A Reformer? Right Jeff, Tell Me Another One

Lobbyists Won't Like What Pelosi Has in Mind

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Monday, October 30, 2006; Page D01

Odds are that lobbying in the House of Representatives is about to get harder.

If Democrats gain the 15 seats they need to win control of the House-and most analysts think they will-one of the first things the new House will do is restrict or end outright a slew of lobbying practices.

In a little-publicized statement, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader, has promised to change the chamber's rules to reflect the provisions of her not-so-modestly-named Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006. The months-old measure would, among other things, prohibit House members from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists or from organizations that employ lobbyists.

The Pelosi bill includes changes not only to House rules but also to federal laws. Any changes in law would have to be approved by the Senate and the president before they could take effect. But the House can alter its own rules anytime, and that's precisely what Pelosi proposes to do as the House's first official act next year -- after it selects her as speaker.

Honestly Jeff, I knew you were a bantam weight, but I didn't expect even you to be that gullible. You actually believe that Pelosi will do as she is saying? You are a fool. Nancy Pelosi is as crooked as any politician that has ever been on the Hill. If she does pass any laws, you may rest assured there will be loopholes galore for her Democrat buddies.

It is certain that her buddy Harry Reid won't allow Ms. Pelosi to prevent his sons from earning a living as lobbyists Democrats were for four decades the primary recipients of the largess of lobbyists. Do you really believe that they are the ones to clean it up?

If the Democrats and Republicans do pass any kind of lobbying reform, it will be due to overwhelming public pressure, not from any genuine sense of honor. Pelosi has no honor.

Full Story: Jeff Birnbaum Immersed In Pelosi Fantasy World

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Froomkin At A Loss for Intellect: Hey Dan What Are You Thinking?

What Was Cheney Thinking?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, October 30, 2006; 12:56 PM

The one question an unusually dogged White House press corps on Friday demanded that Vice President Cheney address remains unanswered: If he wasn't talking about waterboarding, what did he mean by a "dunk in the water"?

Cheney last week agreed with a radio interviewer's assertion that "a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives." That sure sounded like an endorsement of waterboarding, a brutal interrogation technique widely viewed as torture.

On Friday, White House press secretary Tony Snow and then Cheney himself insisted that he wasn't talking about waterboarding at all.

But is there any other plausible explanation? We have yet to hear it.

Here's the text of Cheney's radio interview, the audio (from WDAY radio in Fargo, N.D.) and a White House photo.

Dan, do you want America to win the war on terrorism? What are you thinking, Dan?

I know what Vice-President Dick Cheney was thinking, he's thinking about how America can best win The War On The Global Islamic Jihad. He's concerned about saving American lives. Isn't that what you want? Or, maybe you would like to see another World Trade Center attack, how about it? Apparently it is. You would rather have thousands of American citizens killed so that you can write another hit-piece against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, than have a known terrorist be water-boarded.

Froomkin, you are nothing but a shill for the Democrat Party. Your credentials as a "journalist" are a joke. You should have to be licensed as a paid Democrat political advertiser. Your lies are as numerous as are the number of readers leaving your newspaper the other Democrat propaganda rags like the New York Times.

Waterboarding is not torture, it is a procedure that our own troops are exposed to so that they will be prepared for being captured. Torture is more like sawing the head from a prisoner with a dulled sword. Your apparent glee at "catching" Cheney in a confession reveals you to be a terrorist sympathizer and someone who is actively working for the betterment of our enemies. You and those like you are traitors pure and simple.

Full Story: Dan Froomkin: Terrorist Sympathizer-Traitor

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

WaPo Continues Campaigning for Democrats

The Year Of Playing Dirtier
Negative Ads Get Positively Surreal

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A01

Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!

Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.

It turns out that Kind -- along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House -- opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."

To Nelson, that doesn't even qualify as negative campaigning.

"Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This isn't personal at all."

By 2006 standards, maybe it isn't.

On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, it is kitchen-sink time: Desperate candidates are throwing everything. While negative campaigning is a tradition in American politics, this year's version in many races has an eccentric shade, filled with allegations of moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.

Well, it's obvious what Party Grunwald supports, lines like:

"The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters."

A statement patently inaccurate and biased, proves his dedication to the Democrat Party. Particularly in joining in the claim, made by Democrats, that the infamous "Playboy Party Advertisement" against Harold Ford is racist. The advertisement is only racist to those looking for a reason to call it so.

There is no doubt that the ads that Mr. Grunwald cites are way beyond the pale. To infer that some candidate pays for phone sex simply because one of his aides mis-dialed the telephone is really low and disgusting. The candidates who are making these absurd and slanderous claims deserve to be called down on their lies, but the fact is that this disgusting pattern extends equally across the spectrum of Left and Right.

As for the Harold Ford advertisement; it is clear that the charges of "racism" are contrived and weak. The advertisement is an amusing means of pointing out the Senators Liberal record. If he is embarrassed by his cavorting with Playboy Bunnies (most of whom are, in truth, white) then perhaps he should have more carefully considered his attendence to the party. We all are responsible for our own actions, after all.

The real problem here is the sad state of our electorate. In a society in which college students can't even name one member of the President's cabinet; in which the people don't even know any information about our government, whose in it, and what they are doing, the power of advertising is way greater than it should be. I can honestly say that I have never been influenced by any political advertisement. I have hardly ever been influenced by any advertisement other than those which introduce a new product or service which seems to be worthy of investigation.

Perhaps the press and our schools should spend more energy teaching our citizens about our government and its history rather than propagandizing and promoting their own political agenda.

Full Story: Post, Selling An Agenda

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Strength of Character: Republicans Have It, Dims Don’t

Michelle Malkin has on her blog from yesterday,a perfect example of the differences between Republicans and Democrats. In Tuesday's debate among the three candidates for Senator in Connecticut, the Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, demonstrated why it takes a Republican to handle conflict.

During one of his answers with millionaire Ned Lamont, Senator Joe Lieberman became the target of Leftist hecklers. Chanting "Lieberman Protects Cheney," these Lamont supporters refused to allow Joe Lieberman to continue in a statement he was making. Quick, how would you respond?

Your answer dictates whether you are:

• an ineffectual Liberal Democrat moderator (and former Clinton White House suck-up)
• a self-absorbed Liberal Democrat Wannabe
• a weak Moderate Democrat
• a Strong Republican.

Well true to form:

1. Moderator George Stephanopoulis whined, "Will someone escort them our of here? You're only taking up time for the debate..."
2. Ned Lamont, bored millionaire and perennial spoiled rich kid, sat and did absolutely nothing - well...he is an idiot Liberal...he probably didn't know how to react. After all he didn't want to aggravate his supporters, the protesters.
3. Joe Lieberman wheedled, "C'mon, c'mon let the candidates talk," holding his hand low and palms outward in a gesture of helplessness. Once more the nice guy approach fails.
4. Alan Schlesinger sat patiently until it became obvious that no one was going to do anything at which point he got up and said, "Show some respect for Senator Lieberman, leave this audience now! Enough!"

The resultant applause by the audience for Mr. Schlesinger's statement was loud and enthusiastic. I suspect it was the best applause line of the night. I have no way of knowing but, as boring as most of these debates are, it seems a good bet.

I know how I would respond, Ronald Reagan showed us the way back in the eighties, slap 'em down! Michelle also has that clip on her page, you know, the one in which Ronald Reagan told the heckler “Aww, Shut Up!” and got a standing ovation.

It’s past time to tell the hate mongers of the Left to “Shut Up!”

It’s time for conservatives to get mean! Next time you go to a public forum and some heckler starts in on a candidate or speaker, Left or Right, give it to ‘em with both barrels. Don’t just sit there and take it. (Hint, it will be a Liberal because only they refuse to allow their opponents to speak out).

Long Live the Republic of the United States of America!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Return To The Basics?

Clauses and Commas Make a Comeback
SAT Helps Return Grammar to Class

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 23, 2006; Page A01

Mike Greiner teaches grammar to high school sophomores in half-hour lessons, inserted between Shakespeare and Italian sonnets. He is an old-school grammarian, one of a defiant few in the Washington region who believe in spending large blocks of class time teaching how sentences are built.

For this he has earned the alliterative nickname "Grammar Greiner," along with a reputation as one of the tougher draws in the Westfield High School English department.

Or, as one student opined in a sonnet he wrote, "Mr. Greiner, I think you're torturing us."

Greiner, 43, teaches future Advanced Placement students at the Chantilly school. Left on their own to decide where to place a comma, "they'll get it right about half of the time," he said. "But half is an F."

------------------------------

Gee, ya think? Wow, after 4 decades of gradually deteriorating education courtesy of "outcome based education" and universities seeking to find new "less painful" ways of imparting knowledge, someone has rediscovered what most Americans of my generation have long known, what worked for the previous two centuries, the education system which gave us our founding fathers, still works.

Why is it that our universities require prospective teachers to take more classes in education than they do in learning the fundamentals of math, science, history, geography, and english? What is it that they are imparting that is so much more important than learning the material teachers are expected to teach? Universities know that the most qualified individual to teach a class in mathematics is (hold on to your hats) a mathematician, but in their infinite wisdom, when it comes to teachers in our school, it is much more important to be trained in diversity, conflict resolution, and sensitivity than it is to be educated in the basic 5.

There was a reason that schools used to teach, "readin' and writin' and 'rithmetic." They are the basic skill with which every functioning individual in our society need to be productive. There is a reason that schools used to require Latin or Greek. those languages form the basis of our language and our philosophical outlook. They were considered fundamental to a good "classical education." They provided stepping stones to better grammar, more concise writing, and clearer thinking.

When our schools become more concerned with political correctness than they are with educating our students, then something is wrong with our education system. When you have teachers who are more interested in imparting their own political agenda than they are in imparting knowledge, then the system is broken.

Of course the easy answer to the question, "What is wrong with out educational system?" is that the teachers are no longer competent to teach. If today's educators are incapable of reading at an eighth grade level, how can we expect them to teach reading? How does a teacher teach mathematics when they can't even balance their own checkbooks? How does a teacher teach geography when they believe that Paris is in England? Ultimately, how can a teacher who is the product of our defective educational system teach knowledge they don't have?

Mind you, I am not saying that all of our teachers are incompetent, far from it. The vast majority of our teachers are hard-working dedicated individuals who do their best in a system that has more administrators than teachers. However, there are enough bad teachers to damage our educational system, and instead of attempting to correct the problem, teachers unions are more interested in how they can get more money for these same teachers. Groups like the NEA are more interested in getting teachers a tenured position and making it nearly impossible for administrators to get rid of the bad apples.

Full Story: Better Education Requires Better Teachers

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Liberal Americans: Brainwashed To An Expectation of Failure?

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Americans are becoming wimps. Certainly Democrats have been committed to losing since the Viet Nam War. They abandoned the South Viet Namese Army following the withdrawal of American troops after pledging to provide whatever support was necessary to prevent the fall of the South. Democrats were the first to call for the withdrawal of US Troops in 1984 from Lebanon following the terrorist attack which killed 279 Marines. President Clinton lacked the courage to make a stand in Somalia following the "Blackhawk Down" incident. Democrats have been pressing for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, almost from the initiation of hostilities.

That Democrats lack the nerve to press the cause in Iraq comes as no surprise to any who have paid attention to events of the past 60 years. What is disturbing is the apparent lack of will within the Republican ranks. Even more disturbing is the inability of Americans to look beyond the next election and comprehend the implications of failure in Iraq.

America paid a tragic price in 2001 for the failures of foreign policy and intelligence in not seeing the dangers in a post Soviet Afghanistan and taking action prior to the formation of the Taliban government. Now we see portents of a repetition of that mistake about to occur in Iraq.

Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks Washington
Post Staff WritersFriday, October 20, 2006; Page A01

The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence.

On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election.

Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability.

It must be noted that the Republicans to whom Messrs. Abramowitz and Ricks are referring come primarily from the ranks of those Conservative Republicans have labeled RINO's. Individuals whose allegiance to the accepted Republican doctrine is suspect, and whose allegiance to the republican party is primarily do to historical party affiliation only.

Republican voters are about to make a fatal and possibly unrecoverable mistake if they decide that it would be a good idea to sit this next election out and let the Democrats have their way in Congress. There can be little doubt what a Democrat Congress would do, they've done it before in 1974. Democrats of the latter half of the 20th Century and the first of this century have a cut and run mentality, and they will push for us to be out of Iraq as quickly as possible, even going as far as to cut off funding for our troops should the President not acquiesce to their desires. They did it to the South Vietnamese Army in 1974 and they did it to the Contra's during the Reagan administration.

The Liberals in the Paleo-media like Abramowitz and Ricks write these articles because they want us to lose the war in Iraq. They want the American people to believe that the Republicans are getting weak and losing their faith in our ability to win in Iraq. Sorry I don't buy it, when I hear some of the individuals in whom I have faith, like Jim Sessions, Jon Kyl, or our own Senator Cornyn, then I will worry about it. Quoting Olympia Snowe to me is about as persuasive as quoting FatDrunkStupid...err...Ted "the Chaufeur" Kennedy. There is only a minor philosophical (and a couple of hundred pounds of rock hard liver) difference between them.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Liberal Blacks In Denial of Their Past: Fear Telling Truth

Controversial Ad Links MLK, GOP
Assertion About Civil Rights Leader Angers Liberals -- and Conservatives

By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 19, 2006; Page A04

When a black conservative group ran a radio ad proclaiming that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, reaction was swift. "We've gotten some e-mails and telephone calls filled with vitriol," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "They've called me Aunt Jemima, a sellout, a traitor to my race."

In the battle for the black electorate, liberals, who make up the overwhelming majority of black voters, have long disagreed with conservatives over ideology, public policy and economic strategies to better the lives of African Americans. But when conservatives placed the civil rights movement in a Republican context, black liberals said, they crossed a line.

"To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."

John Lewis, like most of the power whores who rule the media's portrayal of blacks, can't abide the truth. Nothing in the advertisment is false, not one word.

We are once more faced with the sad truth about Liberals, they cannot stand the truth. If you don't buy into their mythology then you are assaulted by them. The most outraged at blacks who defy the Democrat plantation owners are the Liberal white owners themselves. Nothing so outrages a white Liberal than a conservative African American who refuses to be made a victim. Liberals, both black and white, cannot stand an independent thinker. People like Justice Thomas, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, and Frances Rice are an intolerable reminder to liberals that they might just be wrong. It creates fear that maybe, just maybe blacks may be being suckered by Liberals, and that those who really offer a solution to the problems facing our African American citizens might just turn out to be republicans.

Eugene Robinson says that Condoleezza Rice is not "really an African American." Her crime? Being Republican and middle class. Truly black Americans are becoming equal in all things; one of which is that black Liberals are as intolerant of dissent from the Liberal mythology as are white Liberals.

It is true that former Congressmand and arch-conservative Bob Dornan marched side by side with Martin Luther King in Selma, as did Charlton Heston and many other conservatives of the period.

Examining this question on BlackNews.com, Earl Ofari Hutchinson makes the following statements:

--------------------------

In countless speeches in the 1950s, he mingled the demand for civil rights, voting rights, and the government clampdown on racial violence, with a forceful call for blacks to practice thrift, self-help, King realized that government programs meant little if fathers weren’t in the home, and he railed against the peril of family breakdown. This was a major social problem that civil rights leaders either ignored or downplayed. King again strongly emphasized values training, discipline, hard work, and the reduction of family violence as the key to resolve the family crisis. That crisis increasingly caught the policy attention of liberal and conservative academics and government officials.

--------------------------

While King can never be considered a political conservative, the snippets of conservative thinking in his musings on the black family, economic uplift, and religious values blend easily with the social conservatism of many blacks. In the decades after his murder, it has blended just as easily into the GOP’s prescription for black ills. And that evidently is more than enough for black Republicans to say he’d be a big player on the GOP team.

--------------------------

There is no doubt that King was not a Conservative, favoring as he did socialism over capitalism and while it is true that many of the old Dixiecrats did become Republicans, many refused to, choosing to remain-as stated in the advertisement in question-yellow dog Democrats. Even today there remains in the South, especially among the older voters, a large but gradually shrinking number of voters who vote Democrat because their families have always voted Democrat.

As Mr. Hutchinson says in his very thoughtful article, the ad is not as much of a stretch as conventional Liberal wisdom would have you believe. Sometimes it pays to step outside the rhetoric and take a gander at the facts, they may just surprise you.

By the way, if is very difficult to claim that someone is distorting the meaning of such a clarion call as Reverend Doctor King made, and I quote:

"I have a dream (Well) that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. (My Lord) I have a dream today."

There is nothing ambiguous in those words, there is nothing there to be "misrepresented," or misinterpreted. Those who reject those words are disrespecting the legacy and vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, and I don't care if they were his assistants, his followers, or his children.

I don't and never have agreed with all that the Reverend Dr. King stood for then, nor all of the words he spoke. I am after all a very determined capitalist, but there is little to be doubted that those of his followers like Jesse Jackson and John Lewis have fallen far short of carrying the banner he left them. Unlike Dr. King, they have allowed their own egos and desires for power and profit to gain ascendency over the "better angels" that made Dr. King a selfless warrior for the embattled black people of the time.

Dr. King was certainly no saint, but compared to those who "lead" the blacks politically today, he walked on water.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Myth of the Democrat Centrist

Which Way to Win?

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A21

As we head toward Election Day 2006, political analysts are focusing on a few dozen tossup races that will determine whether the Democrats take the House and Senate. But there's a larger, overarching battle this year between two visions of America: testing whether it's a country defined by its political center or one defined by its political extremes.

This assessment of America's meta-politics is distilled in "The Way to Win," a new book by two of the media's best political observers, Mark Halperin of ABC News and John F. Harris of The Post. They see two basic strategic ideas at work in today's politics: the "synthesizer" approach of former president Bill Clinton, and the "clarifier" tactics of President Bush and his political guru, Karl Rove. Here's the way Halperin and Harris describe the two styles:

"Clinton Politics is the politics of the center. It holds that Americans for the most part, with the exception of irate groups at the edges, are less interested in ideology than in practical solutions to basic problems. People would prefer politics to be polite, civil, and compromise-minded."

"Bush Politics is the politics of the base," the authors continue. "A successful leader will stand forthrightly on one side of a grand argument. Then he or she will win that argument by sharpening the differences and rallying his most intense supporters to his side."

-----------------------------------------

David Ignatius succeeds in writing one of the most unintentionally funny editorials I have read in quite some time.

The very concept as a Clinton, whether it be Bill or Hillary as a centrist is as chock full of holes as the Beatles Albert Hall. Bill Clinton was no "centrist" he was an extrordinarily successful con-man. As befits a sociopath of Clinton's stature, he had absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. For that reason he felt no compunction in saying any lie he felt would further his cause. That cause being a wealthy and powerful Bill Clinton.

His core beliefs, if he has any at all, are as a full blown Stalinist, with him at the head of the "polit-bureau" and suffering no criticism or opposition. Anyone who believes that the Clintons are anything other than extreme egoists is in abject denial. Clinton resolutely waited until the political wind vane told him in which direction to jump before he moved a muscle. However, the underlying philosophy has always been socialism.

Mr. Ignatius misses the "Old Media" days because in those days the left had an absolute monopoly on what was broadcast. For Ignatius and his ilk a Centrist is someone like Chuck Schumer, or Dick Durban; a Liberal, someone like Congressman Jim McDermott might barely qualify; and a Conservative, George Bush. True Conservative such as Jon Kyl or John Cornyn is, to the "Old Media" a "right-wing extremist."

Jim Talent may be correct in saying that:

Most people don't care if you're Red or Blue, Republican or Democrat"

but they do care the policies which those politicians espouse. The problem lies in getting the Democrats to espouse anything other than scandal. The problem lies in getting Democrats to fess up to their true beliefs. If the "Old Media" had been doing their jobs instead of pimping for the Democrats, the voters of America would know just how far to the Left the Democrat "mainstream" is.

Full Story: Truth Will Out? I Wonder.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Dems Must Run On Personal Attack, Can't Win On Issues

In Key Races, Democrats Look at Rivals' Personal Lives
Amid Voter Disgust Over Foley Scandal, Strategists Believe Attacks on GOP at Local Level Won't Backfire

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 13, 2006; Page A06

In the wake of the Mark Foley page scandal, Democrats are targeting the personal lives of Republicans in numerous key House races as part of a campaign to capitalize on voter disgust with the messy personal lives and alleged character defects among elected officials.

Although Democrats' internal polling shows that the Foley scandal is resonating deeply only in half a dozen races, party operatives are calculating that GOP candidates are now unusually vulnerable to personal attacks, several candidates and strategists said.

In New Jersey, Democratic candidate Linda Stender this week sent voters a two-page brochure accusing Rep. Mike Ferguson (R) of improperly preying on young women in a fashionable D.C. nightclub. Stender, who is shown by polls to be within striking distance of Ferguson, said the Foley affair "opened the door to talk about the ethical challenge of my opponent." Ferguson has denied the allegations, and a spokeswoman last night called the attacks "pathetic and desperate."

Democratic candidate Chris Carney is running an ad accusing Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) of "repeatedly choking" and "attempting to strangle" a young mistress. Foley and Sherwood share "the arrogance of power," said Carney. "They're willing to cover up these types of things to retain power."

Well, well, Jim Vandehei finally manages to get something correct, the Democrats know they cannot win on the issues confronting America, so they have to try to destroy their opponents personally. This is nothing new, the Democrats have always used nasty attack ads against their Republican opponents, it's just refreshing to see the Washington Post taking note of the trend.

The sad fact is, Democrats cannot run on the issues, because Americans are not with them on the issues. Americans do not want to live in a carbon copy of France, much less Stalinist Russia. How is that relevent? Because that is precisely the agenda of those in control of the now extreme Left-wing Democrat Party. The people now controlling the Democrat agenda, the folks at MoveOn.org, dailyKos.com, democraticunderground.com, and People for the American Way, are socialist/communists. Their campaign tactics are Stalinist. They are willing to physically and verbally attack and abuse any who disagree with their extreme agenda.

At Columbia University, Leftists stormed the stage verbally and physically assaulting "invited guests" to prevent Jim Gichrist, founder of the Minutemen, from speaking. This is not the first time the Stalinists of the Democrat Party have done this. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, attending a fund-raiser for Rick Santorum was ushered into a T-station closet by his security guard and Port Authority officers when a group of 50 or so protestors began to verbally assault and crowd around him. Interestingly, these "protestors" were not locals, but:

"made up of United Steelworkers and members of Uprise Counter Recruitment, a tour traveling through 22 cities to support anti-war efforts."

Stalinist tactics used by Democrats once more in an attempt to supress a Republican politician from freely expressing his ideas. Members of the democratunderground.com found this sort of behavior admirable and humorous

Full Story: Democrats Threaten Our Freedom and Way of Life

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

God Save Us From Know-it-all Reporters and Their 2-bit Philosophers

Bush Confounded by the 'Unacceptable'
President Wields Word More Freely as His Frustration Rises and His Influence Ebbs

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 13, 2006; Page A10

President Bush finds the world around him increasingly "unacceptable."

In speeches, statements and news conferences this year, the president has repeatedly declared a range of problems "unacceptable," including rising health costs, immigrants who live outside the law, North Korea's claimed nuclear test, genocide in Sudan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Bush's decision to lay down blunt new markers about the things he deems intolerable comes at an odd time, a phase of his presidency in which all manner of circumstances are not bending to his will: national security setbacks in North Korea and Iraq, a Congress that has shrugged its shoulders at his top domestic initiatives, a favorability rating mired below 40 percent.

But a survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence.

Truly, it takes the arrogance of a Liberal to come to a conclusion such as the one to which this world reknown intellectual "heavy-weight" Jeffrey Smith has. It proves just how lacking of a moral compass most Liberals are. The very idea that President Bush could stick to his belief of the rights and wrongs in this world in the face of declining poll numbers seems to completely escape Mr. Smith...and Liberals.

Hey Jeff, it called character. It's honed by standing fast in the face of adversity...something you would know little about. The great American William Penn once wrote,

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."

The sad but all too true fact is that Liberals, like Mr. Smith, rarely find anything "unacceptable" except patriotism, free markets, and free people. For most American, there are moral absolutes. For most Americans there are the "good" (that which is to be embraced), the "tolerable" (that which is not necessarily desirable, but which nonetheless must be permitted), and the "bad" (that which is "unacceptable"). Americans "get it" even it the "esteemed" members of the Paleo-media and our self-proclaimed intellectual illuminati fail to do so.

Terrorism is "unacceptable." Having a totalitarian, anti-social, enemy regieme in possession of nuclear weapons, is "unacceptable." Having a nation like North Korea, in which the very citizens are being starved and in which any dissidents are placed into concentration camps, is "unacceptable." The massive incursion of illegal immigrants and the resultant negative impact on our economy, is "unacceptable." The rise in medical costs, mainly as a result of ill-conceived government incurrsions into the world of socialized medicine, is "unacceptable."

I too find myself finding many things occurring within and outside of our nation "unacceptable." Most Americans do. It is only those who hate our society and freedom who find these things acceptable.

Full Story: Sad Commentary on Our Liberal Press and So-Called Experts

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cindy Sheehan for Nobel Peace Prize? Oh I Hope So!

One day to Nobel Peace, Oprah, Chechen lawyer star in guessing game

Associated Press
Posted online: Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 0000 hrs

OSLO, OCTOBER 11: Why would any decision made by five low-key, publicity shy Norwegians meeting in secret in a back room in Oslo be worthy of a global news flash the moment it was announced?

Because it is they who decide the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and on Friday they’ll make a short, public statement that will focus world attention on topics ranging from environmental awareness to advancing peace in Indonesia.

But in the weeks and months building up to the annual announcement, speculation of who could win is rife, with names as diverse as American entertainer Oprah Winfrey to veteran peace negotiators like former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari who helped foment a peace deal with Indonesia’s government and Aceh separatists last year.

---------------SNIP------------------

Others touted as possible winners are Russian human rights activist Sergei Kovalyev and Chechen lawyer Lida Yusupova; British-based charity Oxfam; Chinese dissident Rebiya Kadeer who has fought for the rights of Uighur Muslims in China; and even American anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq.

"Joe, say it ain't so!" Yep you read it right folks, Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez's newest best friend, is up for the Nobel Peace Prize. I can't say how much I hope she wins. That single factor might do more to finally destroy the last vestiges of legitimacy for that supposedly prestigious award. Certainly the first real blow to legitimacy was the naming of former President and Still Reiging Clown in Chief, Jimmah Cahtah, for the award by the Nobel Committee simply as a snub of President Bush. This possible outcome might just drive a stake in the myth of Nobel Legitimacy.

Just imagine, Mother of the Year (did she ever put a headstone on her sons grave, or has she just been too busy whoring for the MSM) Cindy Sheehan as the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner. The irony is just too sweet. Cindy hates America, hates President Bush, hates the military, hates capitalism, and just loves Venzuelan Dictator and President for Life, Hugo Chavez. She has stated that she would rather live under Chavez's rule than President Bush's; funny, I haven't heard that she has moved yet. Hmmm, maybe she's having second thoughts.

The only thing better would be if she was to challenge and beat Dianne Feinstein for her Senate seat. Talk about an embarassingly stupid representative, she'd be perfect in representing the idiots out there in Berkely. Of course as Senator she'd have to poll a plurality state wide and that seems doubtful, even for California. Talk about bantam weight politics, Cindy hasn't the brains of a fifth grader. Nothing would be more fitting than to have this traitorous stalker become the next Nobel winner.

One can only wonder...(and dream)

Full Story: Cindy Sheehan: World's Greatest Voice for Peace?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Press Still Trying to Cover for Clinton's Folly

Bush Faults Clinton Policy, But the Debate is Complex

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 12, 2006; Page A23

President Bush asserted yesterday that the administration's strategy on North Korea is superior to the one pursued by his predecessor, Bill Clinton, because Clinton reached a bilateral agreement that failed, while the current administration is trying to end North Korea's nuclear programs through multi-nation talks.

"In order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand," Bush said at a news conference. "And you have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you're alone."

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it on Tuesday: "The United States tried direct dialogue with the North Koreans in the '90s, and that resulted in the North Koreans signing onto agreements that they then didn't keep."

But the reality is more complicated, according to former and current U.S. officials and a review of the diplomatic history.

Nice try Kessler, but the talks between North Korea and the Clinton administration were two-party talks. The only parties that count are those sitting at the table. All negotiations made between nations involve consultation with allies of both parties, but it is the faces at the table that matter.

Robert L. Gallucci has no credibility. He's just covering his own tail. Besides, he's a Georgetown University Dean, that's supposed to impress me? An Ivory Towered Liberal remains an Ivory Towered Liberal regardless of the title he holds. Face it Gallucci, you blew it big time.

Clinton and Madeleine Albright gave away the farm for a bunch of empty promises from a government that should never have been trusted to hold to an agreement. I guess I have to keep repeating the fact that the enemies of freedom never negotiate in good faith. They view any form of compromise as a sign of weakness. This is a lessen the Democrats should have learned prior to World War II with Neville Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" statement just prior to the German invasion of Poland.

You can't give an inch to a dictator because he will always see it as weakness.

Full Story: Nukes in North Korea: The Real Clinton Legacy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fences? Fences? Don't Need No Stinkin' Fences

America's Population Set to Top 300 Million
Immigration Fuels Much of Growth

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 12, 2006; Page A01

Clicking upward at a rate of one person every 11 seconds, the U.S. population will officially surpass 300 million in the next week or so.

The milestone is a reminder that the United States remains a remarkable demographic specimen, 230 years old (since the Declaration of Independence) and still in a growth spurt.

Behind only China and India, it is the planet's third most populous nation. For a rich, highly developed country, it is anomalously fertile, with a population that is increasing briskly, in sharp contrast to anemic growth or decline in Western Europe and Japan. Some demographers say this continued growth is essential to support an aging population in retirement and a sign of the continued allure of the United States even at a time when its image around the world has been sullied by the war in Iraq.

Yet, how will the momentous 300-million marker be celebrated in Washington?

"Those plans, believe it or not, are still being finalized," said Robert B. Bernstein, a Census Bureau spokesman. "I don't yet know what, if anything, we are going to do in the way of an event."

Why in the heck would we want to celebrate the slow demise of the United States of America? What's so great about America becoming another third world country?

Our nation is being invaded by a huge wave of uneducated, unemployed, illegal aliens; this is a reason to celebrate? This is a time to mourn the passing of a great beacon or freedom and wealth. This is a time to mourn the demise of our great national Republic as it is gradually transformed into some sort of pseudo-democracy on its way to becoming another socialist failure.

I don't object to immigration, that has been and should always be part of the American culture. I don't care where those immigrants come from, whether it is from Mexico, Botswana, or the Czech Republic. I only care that those immigrants get here LEGALLY and in a controllable number. The unrestricted influx of people across the Southern border is an invitation to disaster and is having disasterous effects on our tax-payers.

It is way passed time for the Republicans in Congress to act on this. It's a cinch that the Democrats, who are only interested in achieving power, are not going to lift a finger to help the American tax-payer/citizen, so it is up to the Republican leadership to cudgel or cajole its membership into line and get something done.

By the way Mr. Bernstein, I suggest distributing black armbands to all American taxpayers, and tolling the church bells nation-wide to mourn the passing of our once great nation.

Full Story: Celebrate an Invasion?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat "Culture of Corruption." Reid's Cool Million

AP Exclusive: Reid Got $1 Million for Land He Hadn't Owned for Years, but Told Congress He Did

By JOHN SOLOMON
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat's deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He's never been charged with wrongdoing except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

Why Harry, you old fox you, just a nice little sweetheart land deal that netted you a cool $Million and none of that bothersome paper work to worry about, eh? You sly devil. Oh! I sure you paid the appropriate amount of taxes (on the money you report receiving) nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

I'm sure this is all just a big misunderstanding, not like those crooked deals the evil Republicans make all the time, heh heh. We all understand. Afterall, a big-shot Senate leader like yourself can't be held to those laws that you passed for the "little people." I mean you've got a lot of overhead.

What a Crook! What a hypocrite! What a Democrat! "Culture of corruption," indeed! Problem is it has always been the Democrats in Congress who have been the most corrupt. It is time for the Republican leadership to call for an immediate vote on censure on "Dingy" Harry for blatantly violating the Senate rules.

You hear that Senator Frist? No more Mr. Niceguy! It is time for the Republicans to quit cowering in fear and act with a little back bone. Quit playing nice-nice and talk about the Democrats and what they really stand for. They're crooks and liars whose only goal is a socialist America. No more, no less.

Full Story: Harry Reid: The Senate's Million Dollar Man

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat Plot Thickens As Scandal Sources Revealed

Watchdog Group Disputes FBI's Claims on E-Mails

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A04

The watchdog group that first provided the FBI with suspicious e-mails from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that FBI and Justice Department officials are attempting to cover up their inaction in the case by making false claims about the group.

Law enforcement officials said the allegations by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are without merit, and they stood by allegations that the group had refused to provide some information to the FBI.

The dispute is the latest controversy this week for CREW, a liberal-leaning group that has come under attack from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other Republicans because it has received money from a foundation funded by liberal financier George Soros.

CREW held a news conference Monday to announce that in July it had provided the FBI suspicious e-mails between Foley and a former House page. The group criticized the bureau for not taking more aggressive action and asked Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to investigate the FBI's handling of the case.

Gee who do I believe here...the FBI or an extreme Left-wing hit group? Decisions, decision. The more this scandal comes to light, the more the surrounding political machinations stink to high heaven,

Foley was wrong and he needed to go, there's no doubt about that. The attempt by the Democrats to smear the entire Republican Party is hypocritical and equally wrong. The Democrat Party has, through their relentless pursuit of power, been reduced to a cynical, hypocritical, mendacious organization full of petty politicians whose only offering is hatred and complaint. They offer no alternatives to Republican policies and are continually attempting to turn the argument away from policy to personal attack.

Full Story: Democrats: Hypocrisy Oozing From Every Pore

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats Really Hate It When Republicans Tell the Truth About Them

Stepping Up Attacks, Bush Calls Democrats 'Softer' on Terrorists

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 4, 2006; Page A04

STOCKTON, Calif., Oct. 3 -- President Bush ratcheted up his campaign offensive against Democrats on Tuesday with perhaps his bluntest rhetoric yet as he accused them of being "softer" on terrorists and willing to allow attacks on Americans rather than interrogate or spy on the nation's enemies.

With his party in serious trouble five weeks before Election Day, Bush shifted into full campaign mode this week, kicking off a month of frenetic barnstorming aimed at drawing disgruntled Republicans back into the fold. As part of the effort, he has escalated the intensity of his attacks with each passing day, culminating with what aides called a "very aggressive" series of speeches Tuesday.

"Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways," he told donors here. "They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out."

He added: "If you don't think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican."

The truth of President Bush's statements should be self-evident to any who are even half-way paying attention to the War Against the Global Islamic Jihad. Mr. Baker is one of those Democrats (shhh, you're not supposed to know his bias) in the press who are doing their darndest to supress the Conservative vote. They think that since we're all too stupid to see things their way, that we're also too stupid to see what they are attempting to do.

Every election year we hear over and over about the "Republican October Surprise." The problem is, it is always the Democrat October Surprise. Remember the DWI charges made against then Governor Bush the weekend before the 2000 election? Remember John Kerry-Heinz's false October 2004 story about the alleged failure to secure 380 tons of explosives in Iraq? Now in their desperation to get control of Congress, it appears that Democrats knew about the heinous activities of former Representative Tom Foley and held on to that news (and consequently endangered other underage victims) until the last day of this Congressional session, just so that the Republicans would not be able to name a replacement.

The myth of the "October Surprise" is a persistent lie told by the Democrats to scare the American voter into believing that something underhanded is being planned by their opponents, when it has proven time and again to be the Democrats themselves who engaged in this conduct.

No lie is too egregious to be used by the Democrats for this purpose, knowing that any later investigation by Congress will be muted by their efforts, and that no real repercussions will accrue to them.

Full Story: Democrats, Dishonest as the Day Is Long.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Reason Escapes Cohen As It Does All Liberals

Can Bush Save Bush?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page A17

Not too long after Franklin D. Roosevelt died, Republicans insisted on what was to become the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. It was meant to ensure that never again would a president serve more than two terms. Now is the time for yet another amendment. This one would ensure that no child of a president could become president. This would avert another George W. Bush.

The reasons for this amendment can be amply found in Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial." If ever a title was apt, this is the one. As if to prove that Woodward had it right, Bush reacted to the book's revelations about Don Rumsfeld -- intransigent, incompetent and intellectually intolerant -- by reaffirming his confidence in him. To Bush, and indeed to the rest of us as well, Rumsfeld has come to personify the conduct of the Iraq war. His leaving, especially his firing, would be an admission of the obvious: failure.

My proposed amendment comes to mind because from time to time Woodward would quote someone on why Bush ran for president in the first place and what determines his executive style: his father. He wanted to best his father but also even the score for him. This score was a twofold thing. George W. Bush wanted, in effect, to win the second term that George H.W. Bush had lost (to Bill Clinton), and he also wanted to finish the job his father had started with Saddam Hussein. If there is a better explanation for why Bush -- not necessarily the neocons around him -- so fervently wanted war, I cannot come up with it.

This descent into the fog of Freudian politics is, I know, just the sort of thing Washington eschews. Such musings lack position papers or paper trails -- paper of any kind, actually -- and rely instead on elastic language sometimes known as psychobabble. Yet those of us who are both fathers and sons know the truth of these matters. There is no more complicated relationship on the face of the earth. It is fraught with competition, a kind of canine sniffing that is suffused with both an edgy rivalry and an immense love that does not quit even with the grave. If I say that George W. Bush was out to both vanquish and redeem his father, many a man will know what I mean.

For dangerous fools like Cohen, there is no reason to fight for freedom. Had Mr. Cohen been around during the American Revolution, he would have been one of those Tories cowering in his basement writing hateful screeds about General Washington's incompetence to lead the troops. Cohen's lack of comprehension of the meaning of freedom, justice, morality, and the other principles for which the nation stands is typical of the Liberal mentality.

Mr. Cohen's lack of understanding as to what it means to be an American, aside from what he can personally gain, leads him to dive way over his head into the pseudo-science of Psychology to find an explanation for behavior (fighting terrorists, fighting murderous dictators whose impact and reach go well beyond their borders) that he is incapable of comprehending. In stead of doing what is right for the sake of doing right, Mr. Cohen has manufactured (I'm certain with the aid of other Liberal movers) some sort of filial competitive drive to account for what the rest of us see as defending the country.

Simplistic, unfounded, clever sounding "explanations" for conduct which Liberals consider inexplicable, has always been the Liberal's way of debating. When confronted with reason, Liberals alway resort to emotion. They always want the easy fix. That is why they so quickly fall into line behind policy suggestions like their current "cut and run" policy. They can be counted on to abandon all moral principles as soon as the going gets tough. Then finding themselves on the morally wrong side of the argument, they lash out just as Cohen has done.

Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200931.html

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below