Song and a Dance!

What do you think?

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

Coming Clean!

What do you think?

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

Texas consumers will benefit from modernizing insurance market

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 28, 2007

Texas consumers will benefit from modernizing insurance market

Paper recommends shift of TDI focus from rate regulation to fairness and solvency

AUSTIN – The focus of the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) and other Texas policymakers on rate regulation has been misguided and damaging to Texas consumers, according to a new paper released today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“The marketplace for both homeowners’ and windstorm insurance is not being allowed to meet the needs of Texas homeowners or investors,” said Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom. “Without meaningful reforms and a new focus at TDI, it will be Texas taxpayers and consumers who will foot the bill for these harmful policies.”

The paper, “Modernizing the Texas Insurance Marketplace,” recommends four actions that would improve the competitiveness of Texas’ insurance market:

* Implement a regulatory emphasis on fairness and solvency at TDI: Because TDI’s regulatory focus has remained on subjective notions of “affordability,” the market-oriented “file-and-use” system has turned into a de facto prior approval system that will cause long-term harm to the homeowners’ market. TDI should allow rates to be observed in the marketplace in order to more accurately assess fairness, and redirect its regulatory resources to ensure that insurers have enough reserves to cover potential claims.

* Completely deregulate homeowners’ insurance rates in Texas: Illinois has completely deregulated insurance rates and focused its insurance department on insurance solvency and market conduct. As a result, Illinois has a “healthy, stable, and thriving marketplace that benefits consumers.”

* Allow Texans to purchase insurance from companies licensed in other states: Legislation to allow interstate commerce in health insurance was filed last year in the U.S. Congress. Adopting a similar principle here in Texas would present some logistical challenges, but ultimately would increase competition and shift regulatory costs away from Texas taxpayers.

* Adopt the concept of an optional federal charter: This proposal would allow insurers to opt for either federal or state regulation, as is currently done in the banking industry. Federally licensed insurance carriers could sell a product in any state, while a state licensed carrier could sell in those states in which it is licensed. A recent study on the optional federal charter conservatively estimated that it would reduce costs for life insurers by more than $5.7 billion per year.

“Insurance regulations are wasteful, produce higher industry costs, delay innovation, reduce competition, slow the introduction of new products to the market, and build operational inefficiencies into the insurance carriers,” Peacock said. “Texans will be better off without the regulations and those side effects.”

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. The paper can be downloaded through this link or via the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

- 30 -

What do you think?

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

TPPF commentary: Lone Star Spending Spree

When Congress returns from its August recess, it will resume deliberations on the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Congressional Democrats are pushing for a more than doubling of the program's budget. But as Mary Katherine Stout points out in this week's commentary, President George W. Bush's experience in implementing Schip while governor of Texas may be a major reason that he is threatening a veto of such a massive expansion of the program.

NOTE: This commentary originally appeared in Saturday's Wall Street Journal.

----------

Lone Star Spending Spree

By Mary Katherine Stout

Give George W. Bush credit. He's drawn a lot of criticism for not doing more to control federal spending over the past six years. But he is now deep into a spending fight against a sacred liberal program. And he isn't backing away.

In recent weeks, Mr. Bush has confronted Congress over the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- which is substantially funded by the federal government and up for congressional reauthorization this year. Mr. Bush understands Schip has become a wedge for expanding government-run health care in Texas.

In 1997, Congress and President Bill Clinton created Schip to provide health insurance for children of families that are living up to twice the federal poverty line. Many Republicans foolishly thought they could create a limited health-care program for kids and avoid ending up with full blown HillaryCare. What they didn't seem to appreciate was that Schip was itself a baby step toward universal health care.

But that gets ahead of the story. In 1999, Texas Republicans were divided on whether to authorize creating the program in the Lone Star State. Some GOP legislators opposed it. But Mr. Bush, then one year into his second term and preparing to run for the White House, favored it. He worked with Democrats, then in control of the legislature, to create Texas's Schip program.

It was supposed to have limits. Schip's champions argued that the program would not be an open-ended entitlement, obligating the state to pay for anyone who met eligibility requirements and signed up. Instead they promised to cap the costs at a specific dollar amount each year. If too many people sought to sign up, Schip administrators were to draw up waiting lists and halt enrollment.

It didn't work out that way, of course. Once it was up and running, the program mushroomed in cost and few officials wanted to control its growth. In 2001, its first full year, Texas's Schip cost $381 million. One year later, the program was up to $679 million and the state was headed into a $10 billion budget deficit. (The state has budgeted more than $900 million for the program for 2008.)

Not coincidentally, in 2002 Republicans won control of the legislature for the first time in more than 100 years. Shortly thereafter, Republicans cleaned up the Schip program by requiring that beneficiaries apply every six months instead of once a year (circumstances often change throughout year), and by mandating that those enrolled in the program meet specific income and assets tests. These reforms aimed to make sure the program really was a last resort for poor parents seeking health care for their children.

The assets test revealed evidence of abuse. Under the reforms, families were generously allowed to exempt up to $15,000 in value of one vehicle and up to $4,650 for a second. But several Texans were caught collecting Schip benefits while driving expensive, late model luxury cars. One person had three automobiles worth more than $50,000 after the exemptions. Another family was denied enrollment when found to have $150,000 in IRAs.

The number of people enrolled in the program fell precipitously between 2003 and 2005, to 326,557 from 507,259. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimates that 84% of that decline was a result of the reforms.

But this year, the state was flush with a $14 billion surplus and Texas Republicans were backsliding. Advocates argued to stop dropping people from the program just because they no longer met eligibility requirements. Some argued that the state should figure out who chose not to reapply for benefits and convince them not to drop out of the program. Many wanted to loosen restrictions that stopped beneficiaries from owning expensive cars and eliminate waiting periods that deterred Schip from acting as a welfare magnet for enrollment.

Republicans capitulated. In the session that ended in May, GOP legislators noted that loosening Schip eligibility was the least expensive item on the Democrats' wish list.

Rep. Sylvester Turner, a Democrat and Schip supporter, said on the House floor: "Would I like to see more kids added? Absolutely. Would I like to see 700,000 kids that would qualify for [S]chips on the rolls? Absolutely." He also urged his colleagues to "do the right thing for kids today, hoping that as we move forward, we'll take another step for kids tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow." In the end, only a handful of Texas legislators voted against expanding the program by loosening eligibility standards, relaxing the assets test and reversing other 2003 reforms. Gov. Rick Perry has already signed it into law.

This is where President Bush's experience in Texas comes to play a role in his fight at the national level, where Schip must be reauthorized this year. As the governor who signed Schip into law in the state, he can remember the arguments and the promises made during the initial debates of the program. He can see how Schip has been used to expand government control of health care and how it has been abused. He can see how a program that started out for poor children has become an instrument for universal and, increasingly, socialized medicine.

Mr. Bush comes to this fight with an understanding of how Schip has played out in the states, which is why his administration recently instituted reforms to the program that aim to restrict eligibility to those it was originally intended to serve -- the truly needy -- and not provide an incentive for middle class parents to drop their private health insurance. Moreover, he has threatened to veto federal legislation that would allow states to expand their Schip programs.

It would be easy for Mr. Bush to give in on this fight. He is, after all, in the twilight of his administration. But next month, he'll square off against Congress to oppose an incremental advance of socialized medicine. We are fortunate he is today willing to do so at a time when Republicans in his home state were quick to abandon the fight.

Ms. Stout is vice president of policy and director of the Center for Health Care Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

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

First post!

First of all, let me express my thanks to Will for his kind invitation for me to post on this blog. Hopefully we will be able to provide you with a steady source of useful information about Texas state government and policy.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Our research agenda is organized along five centers:

• Economic Freedom -- tort reform, insurance, energy, property rights
• Education -- public and higher
• Effective Justice -- criminal justice reform, over-criminalization, restorative justice
• Fiscal -- taxes and spending
• Health Care -- health care, welfare reform

Besides the dozens of research reports a year in these areas, we have a bi-weekly podcast called "Texas PolicyCast" that features an 8-10 minute interview on current policy issues. We have a weekly commentary that is sent to hundreds of newspapers across Texas. And we also put out press releases every once in a while. I will attempt to link as much of that content as I can on this site, but obviously, after a while, we'd be thrilled if you would just bookmark our site and drop by a couple of times a week.

What do you think?

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

The Original Bridge to Nowhere

What do you think?

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

America: awash in illegal immigrants

esbiem - 8/22/2007

What do you think?

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

New Study Proves No Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Violence

I am always amused (well sometimes just irritated) by the predictability of those on the Left who are seeking some means, fair or foul, to side-step the most important of our God given rights, that of self-protection, by attempting to ignore, bypass or finesse the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.

Here we have an article which by implication says that Virginia gun sales (among other states) are responsible for the sky-high murder rates in our cities with the tightest gun laws...a murder rate, I might add, that makes living in New York or Washington D.C. more hazardous than serving on the frontlines in Iraq.

In Study Of Gun Traffic, Va. Stands Out

By Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; Page A01

Law enforcement authorities traced more than 10,000 guns recovered in Virginia, Maryland and the District last year -- and nearly half came from Virginia, according to federal data released yesterday.

Virginia also was among the top sources of guns recovered by authorities in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and South Carolina, the data show. In New York, more recovered guns came from Virginia than from any other outside state -- roughly one of 11 traced.

"Somebody coined I-95 'the iron pipeline,' " said Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which released the report yesterday. "There's a lot of traffic moving up and down 95."

The ATF gathered information from police agencies across the country and compiled state-by-state reports detailing types of offenses and where firearms originated. The ATF traces nearly 300,000 guns a year to determine where they were sold to customers.

Blah, blah, blah, blah this is the same old song being sung by the same old uninformed, paranoid, Liberal Mainstream Media. The topic of this article is so irrelevent as to be absurd.

Liberals seem to live in constant and irrational fear of their fellow law-abiding gun-toting citizens. They have no problem with the government, both local and federal, having a monopoly on gun ownership and they ususally cite the same old thoroughly debunked studies they have been using for decades to beat we legitimate gun owners over the head.

Well the truth is out now in this new exhaustive study by Don Kates, a Yale-educated attorney and retired professor at Stanford Law School and Gary Mauser, a Canadian university professor and author. Their study which compared different nations, populations groups, and types of violence (including homicide and suicide) throughout recorded history. They have completely debunked the old claims, made by those who seek to restrict our right to gun ownership.

This exhaustive examination of the data suggests that there is little or no relationship between gun ownership and the level of violence within a given society. What little relationship that can be gleaned from the data suggests a slight edge to the concept that more guns equates to less violence, not more.

This is by far the most exhaustive study to have been performed on this subject and is sure to draw fire (no pun intended) from the demogogues and pedagogues who continually spew disinformation through our Left-wing, anti-gun press.

Here is a link directly to the study:

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.

Our Freedoms are a legacy left by men who had a closer and better grasp of what it can be like living under an oppressive and all too powerful government. Perhaps it's time we take those rights seriously, before those on the Left strip them from us.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Iraq War Progress Forcing Some Democrats to Face Reality

The Post is still trying to deceive the public by toeing the extreme Left-wing agenda. The real story in this article is not, as the Post editors would have you believe is Levin's dislike for Maliki, it is that as Democrats begin to visit Iraq and see the real progress our boys in arms are making, they are beginning to back away from their own leaderships commitment to the extreme Leftist anti-war wing of the party who have been making a bid for control of the Democrat Party.

Democrats are beginning to break from Snively Reid's and Bela Pelosi's push for early withdrawal from Iraq. The truth is beginning to get out and it is taking hold with the American public. Watch for a turn in the polls as this information begins to get out.

Senator Calls for Maliki's Ouster
Levin Urges Iraqis To Replace Leaders

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; Page A01

Declaring the government of Iraq "non-functional," the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that Iraq's parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival factions in a matter of days.

"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said after a three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan.

Levin's statement, the most forceful call for leadership change in Iraq from a U.S. elected official, comes as about two dozen lawmakers are traveling to Iraq during Congress's August break to glean firsthand assessments before receiving a progress report next month from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander there, and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador.

Not every Democrat has come back from Iraq supporting a drawdown of U.S. forces in the coming months, as party leaders have advocated. Staking out positions that could complicate efforts to achieve party unity in September, a few Democratic lawmakers have returned expressing support for a continued troop presence. One of them, Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.), said yesterday that he will no longer vote for binding troop withdrawal timelines.

This bodes well for those of us who believe that what we are doing in Iraq is not only just, but necessary. Perhaps now reason will prevail over Leftist emotionalism. Even though Levin is calling for Maliki's ouster, he has no answer to the simple follow-up question, "What will happen if Maliki is ousted? Will the person who replaces him be even more partisan?"

For that, he has no answer, no solution, and has obviously not given it any thought. He is just another knee-jerk Liberal who wants us out of war and "Damn the consequences."

The denizens of dailyKos and democraticunderground must be starting to get worried, which means the personal attacks and invectives against more moderate and reasonable Democrats will increase dramatically.

It's beginning to look like the politics over the next 14 1/2 months are going to get more and more interesting.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

President Places Financial Limits on SCHIP Entitlement

It's good to see the Bush Administration showing a little backbone in this battle to limit the Democrat Congress' single-minded, poorly thought out, drive toward Single Payer Socialized Medicine. Like all well-intended, "compassion"-based, Liberal ideas, SCHIP is a bad idea, being worsened by the Left's overwhelming belief in the rightness of all things goverment, and their mistrust of private enterprise.

The move to broaden the definition of a "child" to include 25 year-old adults with children of their own is simply a transparent attempt to move closer to the Left's ideal system of government run medical care.

Makes perfect sense to me, place the most intrusive and inefficient bureaucracy in existence in control of our most vital of services.

New Bush Policies Limit Reach of Child Insurance Plan

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; Page A04

The Bush administration, engaged in a battle with Congress over whether a popular children's health insurance program should be expanded, has announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children.

New administrative hurdles, which state health officials were told about late last week, are aimed at preventing parents with private insurance for their children from availing of the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program. But Democrats and children's advocates said that the announcement will jeopardize coverage for children whose parents work at jobs that do not provide employer-paid insurance.

Under the new policy, a state seeking to enroll a child whose family earns more than 250 percent of the poverty level -- or $51,625 for a family of four -- must first ensure that the child is uninsured for at least one year. The state must also demonstrate that at least 95 percent of children from families making less than 200 percent of the poverty level have been enrolled in the children's health insurance program or Medicaid -- a sign-up rate that no state has yet managed.

There are far better alternatives, coming out of the Conservative side of the aisle, that will better serve the needs of the American people, provide healthcare to those who truly need assistance without the addition of thousands of government paid employees, spending $Billions in taxpayer money to shuffle paper in a newly created bureaucracy.

One of the most sensible is to allow small businesses to group together to qualify for the discounts that large corporate interests get, but of course this, like any program that would thwart the Democrats in their drive toward Single Payer Socialized Medicine, is being blocked by those same "compassionate" Liberals who so loudly bemoan the poor state of healthcare among the lower middle-class families.

Time for Democrats to put their...oops!...our tax money where their snouts aren't. Oink! Oink!

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

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

Direct from: Texas Public Policy Foundation

Hi folks, allow me to introduce another of our contributors to the houston conservative, David Guenthner the Director of Media and Government Relations for the Texas Public Policy Foundation

I have invited David to begin posting his more Texas oriented material here to balance my tendency to concentrate on national politics. So without further ado...here's David

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

Good morning.

When a private business in a competitive market runs into trouble with its customers, that business typically makes changes to its product, procedures, and/or personnel to get back on track. But when a government monopoly winds up in that same circumstance, the response tends to be less substantial. In this week's commentary, education policy analyst Jamie Story highlights one example of how far the government schools will go to maintain their status quo -- even at the expense of the next generation.

David Guenthner
Director of Media and Government Relations
Texas Public Policy Foundation

A Monopoly by Any Other Name

By Jamie Story

What’s in a name? Apparently, to a government school monopoly, it’s everything.

Last month, Pittsburgh Public Schools announced the district would be dropping the word “Public” from its name in order to avoid the negative connotation often associated with public schools. A paid marketing consultant helped develop the plan, which will also result in renaming the individual schools themselves.

While a “public” outcry has caused the district to reconsider the policy, the scheme serves as a powerful reminder of the upside-down priorities of public schools—and of government monopolies in general.

It’s no wonder why Pittsburgh’s schools suffer in public perception. While the district spends more than $12,000 per student on operating expenditures alone, only 40 percent of its high school students are proficient in mathematics. District students also perform below the national average on the SAT, ACT, and Advanced Placement tests. So one would think the best way for Pittsburgh schools to improve public perception would be to increase student’s learning, not to hire expensive consultants to rebrand the schools.

The district’s policy is reminiscent of a decision made by the United States Postal Service in 2006. Faced with customer complaints about lengthy wait times, it came up with a novel “solution”—removing the clocks from post office walls. Rather than streamlining its processes to increase efficiency, the postal service merely tried to shield customers from the knowledge that they were receiving subpar service.

Government monopolies don’t have to do the hard work of competing, and they don’t have to make any substantive changes when they’re failing. Public schools and the U.S. Postal Service are perfect examples of this mindset.

The private sector, on the other hand, cannot afford to resist meaningful change. Imagine the results if an obsolete factory decided to paint its exterior walls rather than installing up-to-date machinery. Would consumers be any happier to purchase their defective products just because they were made in a prettier facility? Private companies must respond to consumers’ desires for better products or shut down.

Public schools don’t face the same dilemma. As a government monopoly, they enjoy a captive group of consumers regardless of product quality. Unsatisfied parents and students have little recourse but to uproot and move to a new district, where they are still customers of an education monopoly.

The public school establishment resists meaningful change—such as school choice, incentive pay, and financial accountability—because the lack of competition allows them to maintain the status quo. It’s much easier to rename a school than it is to implement dramatically positive, if at times uncomfortable, reforms.

Pittsburgh Public Schools’ new-name theory is not unprecedented. After taking over China in 1949, Communists renamed the country “The People’s Republic of China”—a mere pretense, since the new leaders certainly didn’t serve the people. Shortly after, government control over private property and the economy resulted in reduced production and widespread starvation.

But nearly 60 years later, China’s embrace of capitalism and the effects of competition have made it one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

China’s leaders realized that significant—not superficial—change was needed for the country to succeed. They introduced competition, and the results speak for themselves. When will our public schools do the same?

Jamie Story is an education policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

Look for more contributions from David in the future.

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

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

Our New Photorialist: Meet "ESBIEM"

the houston conservative is proud to add a new member to our staff. His specialty is what he has labeled "Photorials." Some of them are funny, some of them are poignant, but all of them are pointed, if not sharply barbed.

After watching the ABC sponsored 90 minute 2008 Democrat Party advertisement (thinly disguised as a "debate," I feel this is the perfect introduction to ESBIEM's portfolio:

Welcome ESBIEM, keep up the good work! May we all look forward to more of your excellent pictorial commentary.

What do you think?

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

TEXAS MONTHLY TALKS - TED NUGENT

Some people get "it," and some people don't. Ted gets it. He understands what Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and Michael Moore just can't seem to comprehend.

Ted Nugent Rocks!

What do you think?

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

This Ought To Sour A Few Democrat and RINO Stomachs

Hey, this little bit of news from the War Against the Global Islamic Jihad (WAGIJ) cannot be thrilling to the surrender monkeys in the Democrat and Repbulican Parties. Just as the Democrats are doing their darndest to give-up the in the WAGIJ in Iraq, comes this little jewell from Baghdad:

"Citizens Oust Terrorists from Mosque, Help Uncover Weapons Cache
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, Aug. 6, 2007 – Fed-up with violent and indiscriminate terror tactics, a group of more than 80 residents of the Adhamiyah district, on the east side of the Iraqi capital, banded together yesterday to oust suspected terrorists from a local mosque.

The uprising led to a string of events over the next 12 hours that ultimately resulted in the arrest of 44 suspected terrorists and the capture of three weapons caches.

The initial takeover of the Abu Hanifa Mosque occurred at about 2 p.m., apparently triggered by news that terrorists had murdered two relatives of a prominent local sheik. As the news spread, angry residents joined the sheik to storm the mosque, long believed to be a sanctuary for terrorists operating in the area, and ousted the suspected terrorists inside from the building.

Iraqi army troops from 1st Battalion, 1st Brigade, 11th Infantry Division, responded quickly to control the situation and secure the area around the mosque. Residents led them to several individuals among those ousted from the mosque who were suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. Thirteen suspects eventually were detained.

After order was restored, the Iraqi army received a tip about a weapons cache hidden near the mosque. At about 7 p.m., Iraqi forces returned to the Abu Hanifa Mosque and uncovered a massive illegal weapons cache in an outside courtyard. The cache contained several already-assembled improvised explosive devices, dynamite, mortars, rockets, landmines, bomb-making materials, and various weapons."

Hmmm, seems that the surge might just be working like General Patraeus predicted. Imagine that, once the Iraqi people begin to trust our claim that we are there to help them they begin to switch their allegience back to the Iraqi government and away from the terrorists. Once they begin to feel safe in defying the Al Qaeda and Iranian provocateurs those brilliant strategists in the Democrat leadership and those brilliant surrender monkey RINO's, who all obviously know more about running a war than our generals do, have decided that we need to abandon our allies for their clever cut and run strategy.

Only once before in our nation's history has Congress been so determined to surrender in the face of victory and both times it has been the Liberals, both Democrat and Republican who have led the call for "RETREAT," just as we were winning.

I am going to keep throwing Karl "Rasputin" Rove's words in the Democrat's faces until they gag over the truth of them:

"When it gets tough, they fall back on that party's old platform of cutting and running. They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles."

Never have truer words been said. Democrats and RINO's are not "Patriots," not in the traditional sense of the words. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe would no more call today's Liberal surrender monkeys "patriots" than they would have the tories of their day.

President Bush was correct all when he spoke after the horrendous, un-provoked, attack against our nation by the cowardly terrorist thugs of our enemies in the WAGIJ:

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

It seems to this American that Liberals have made their choice. The ACLU has made its choice. Harry Reid has made his choice. Nancy Pelosi has made her choice. Marcos Moulitsas Zuniga and his fellow "Kosacks" have made their choices. Members of the editorial staffs of the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angelos Times, the Atlanta Constitution Journal, and a myriad of other so-called mainstream media outlets, including CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have made their opinions clear. The creatures who inhabit the lower regions of the internet known as the "democraticunderground" have made their choices as well.

All of these people who protest, jeer, name call, whine, and seek to undermine the moral of our nation's citizens, and our troops in combat are guilty of sedition. They have become the face of our WAGIJ enemies in America. They are not the "loyal opposition," they are enemy sympathizers, and all the empty rhetoric they spew about how they "support the troops but not the mission" is just so much hogwash.

These "loyal" Americans have repeatedly done all they could do, errected every barrier of which they could conceive, told every enemy propagandist lie they could think of to obstruct our President and the Department of Defense in fighting this war. It is not difficult to see the fruits of their anti-American labor; one only has to listen to their words being thrown back at us by the leaders of the enemies we fight.

In World War II these people would have been arrested and charged with crimes against the state. Even more likely, they would have been set upon by their neighbors and silenced in a more direct and emphatic method. Of course I would never advocate violence against our fellow "loyal citizens," but the idea does have a certain visceral appeal.

The problem lies in the inability or should I say the continued inability (or politically motivated, intentional inability) of Liberals to comprehend a simple but profound truth. We are at war with an enemy who does not negotiate, does not show mercy, and will not stop until they are forced to by might of arms and weight of public opinion.

Liberals seem inherently incapable of understanding that there are "bad people" in the world. They seem incapable of comprehending that those "bad people" are not interested in "peaceful coexistence" or playing nice; they are only interested in the death or conversion of all who do not adopt their own "warped" version of Islam (I say "warped" because I keep being told that Islam is the "Religion of Peace," though I have seen very little that convinces me of those claims).

In the warped view of these Liberals, America is always the bad actor. America is always to blame for the ills of the world. Hell, today we just found out that "it was George Bush's fault" that the bridge in Minnesota collapsed.

We are winning this War Against the Global Islamic Jihad. We are winning it both militarily-something the surrender monkeys continually remind us cannot be done-and diplomatically-something the surrender monkeys repeatedly told us would not ever occur.

Liberals have been wrong for so long one would imagine they have forgotten what the truth is. They were wrong about Stalin and the people of the Soviet Union died by the tens of millions; they were wrong about Mao and the Chinese people died by the tens of millions; they were wrong on the Vietnam war and the Cambodian and Vietnamese people died by the millions, in every case, the Liberals were wrong, and their victims paid a horrendous price in lives lost.

How many more times will Americans be fooled by the lies of the Liberals in the media and in our political system? How many Iraqi deaths will occur should we follow Democrat/RINO policy and withdraw our forces from Iraq? How many Iraqi deaths will satisfy the Liberal lust for power and control of our government?

How about it Liberals? Is 1 million enough? How about 5 million? Maybe 10 million? Would that slake your lust for blood and power?

I believe the world has had quite enough "Liberal Wisdom." I believe the "Pacifists" have killed enough innocent civilians through their know-it-all do-gooder interference. I think it is time to consider that maybe the Liberals and their Pollyanna-ish ideals of pacifism have done enough damage to the world.

I believe that Amnesty International and their efforts to "free the illegally held prisoners in Guantanamo" have more than proven themselves to be rosy-spectacled fools by the continued recidivism of "Gitmo" detainees who have been released at their behest and the actions of Liberal judges and lawyers.

War is not a game. It is not pretty; it is not nice; and it cannot be won by following foolish self-defeating rules like those set down in the Geneva Accords. No nation that America has fought since the signing of the absurdly naive Geneva Accords has abided by those accords. All of our allies have done so, but none of the enemies we have fought, not the Nazi's, not the North Koreans, not the Soviets, not the Chinese Communists, not the North Vietnamese, not Hamas, not the Taliban, and not al Qaeda...none, not a single enemy has been foolish enough to abide by those accords.

To quote Harvey Logan from the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

"Rules? In a knife fight? No rules!"

To our sunshine patriots; to our Republicans In Name Only; to Harry "the Sniveler" Reid; to "Bela the Boaster" Pelosi; to tin-hats of dailyKos.com and democraticunderground.com, to Moveon.org, to the liars at the Clinton Machine's mouth piece "Media Matters;" to the Democrat Party touts who work for the Paleo-media, I say the same thing.

We are at war. Fighting a war with rules is one of the most absurd concepts ever devised by mankind. The idea that one can or should be fighting "a limited war" is a certain recipe for defeat. We found this out, to our detriment in Vietnam and again in Somalia. Do Democrats really need to be taught that lesson again?

There is only one rule that should be followed in war...always fight to win.

This war is not some construct of the Bush administration to accrue power to the White House; it is not some phantasm created in the backrooms of some cabal of Skull and Bones, or "the Masons," or "the Illuminati," or "the Bilderbergers;" it is a real, substantive, life taking-life threatening, blood spilling war against an implacable foe.

You fools in Congress and on the Left who somehow believe that if you just wish hard enough (maybe you should try clicking your heels together three times, it worked for Dorothy), or if you're nice enough these people will leave us alone and we can go on as we were before 9-11 are going to wind up killing a lot of Americans if you get your way.

I and those of like mind will do everything in our power to prevent that from happening. The proposals coming from the Left, both Democrat and RINO are dangerous and naive in the extreme.

Liberals love to accuse those of us who see the reality of this threat to our nation as "fear-mongering" or "fearful." I assure you perfidious lemmings of Liberal legerdemain that I do not live in fear of al Qaeda or terrorists, nor do those, like me, who understand the threat we face. I do not cower in my home worried about when the next attack will occur or if there is a terrorist in the next room...What was that noise? Oh, never mind...

Just because Conservatives understand what you seem unwilling or incapable of comprehending does not mean that we live in fear. It means that we believe that we should be prepared. It means that we believe that we should stand firm in the face of our enemy. It means that we should not be gullible enough to believe the lies of our enemies.

It appears to me that it is you Liberals who live in constant fear. You seem to see conspiracy in every act of your own government and love in the eyes of those who seek to kill us. Yours is a dangerous combination of fear and naivete. Oh and I do not buy your own fearmongering over the chimerical threat to our civil liberties from the efforts of the Bush administration. I do not see the hand of Karl Rove behind every Democrat screw-up. I do not fear that Dick Cheney might give the nation to Halliburton.

What I do fear is that you Liberals in your rush to surrender may someday succeed in betraying your fellow citizens in your lust for political power.

Long Live Our American Republic.

What do you think?

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MELTDOWN! AUGUST 02, 2007

Here is the heinous betrayal of the American people's House of Representatives

What do you think?

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

Democrat Leadership's "Premature Gavelation" H.R. 3161 Floor Fight

Last night the Democrats demonstrated very clearly the lie that Speaker Pelosi spoke when she declared:

"I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship."

"Bela" Pelosi famously declared during the 2006 campaign:

"You must drain the swamp if you are going to govern for the people...I intend to be very fair."

Yet Democrats committed an unprecedented breach of House ethics and rules. Representative Lewis (R-CA) put forth a motion to recommit the Agriculture appropriations bill to committee,

"for the purpose of adding language prohibiting any taxpayer funds under the agriculture programs from going to illegal immigrants."

A vote on the motion was held and was won (according to the vote tally board) by the Republican minority 215-213 and declared "final." In spite of the numbers reported as final on the tally board, President Pro Tempore Michael McNulty(D-NY) declared the vote a "tie" of 214-214 and gaveled the vote closed before the final tally was read.

McNulty's premature gavel occurred on orders from the Democrat leadership who knew they had lost the vote and chose to use this subterfuge of "a mistakenly early gavel" to violate the House rules.

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

Well let's return to January of this year and review Madame "Bela's" ascension and the words she said. From CNN's coverage of the "momentous" event:

"Pelosi becomes first woman House speaker

POSTED: 4:28 a.m. EST,
January 5, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi became the first female speaker of the House of Representatives on Thursday, as Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress.

"I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship," Pelosi said, taking the symbol of her new job from Republican minority leader John Boehner.

...Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters that Democrats would move quickly on rules changes.

"On Thursday and Friday, we're going to adopt rules that will change the way the people's House operates to ensure its integrity, to ensure its openness and to ensure its transparency," Hoyer said Wednesday."

[Emphasis added]

What Steney Hoyer said way back in January has not stood the test of time. From the very outset the Democrats have made excuse after excuse to exclude Republican legislators (representing almost half of the American people) from the legislative process, by manipulation of the House rules, ruling perfectly legitimate amendments being offered by the Republican minority as out of order or by bringing legislation to the floor under "closed" rules preventing the offering of amendments.

It is not enough to say "Well, the Republcans behaved just as badly when they were in the majority." Not when you have run on the claim of "draining the swamp."

First it is not enough for Democrats to make that statement, because what happened last night has never been done in the 200+ years of the Congress. Once a vote has been gaveled closed, the voting has concluded...period. No if's and's or but's. The gavel bangs, the vote count is recorded and the House moves on to the next piece of business. Never in the history of the House of Representatives has a vote been "gaveled closed" and then re-opened so that the results are more to the liking of the majority. Never happened.

Second, when you make it your stated policy to run things with greater "integrity, openess, and transparency" [Democrat words, not mine] actions like those described above prove the lies of Democrats claim. The correct term for this is "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy in its most raw and blatant form.

Third, if nothing underhanded occurred, then why was the record of the proceedings expunged of the ensuing debate? Why did the majority leadership think it necessary to censor the official record to show only that the vote resulted in a 212-216 victory for the Democrats?

What follows is taken directly from the following link:

CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
LEGISLATIVE DAY OF AUGUST 2, 2007
110TH CONGRESS - FIRST SESSION

10:20 P.M. -
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3161

The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
10:21 P.M. -
The House adopted the amendments en gross as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

10:22 P.M. -
Mr. Lewis (CA) moved to recommit with instructions to Appropriations.

10:23 P.M. -
Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Lewis(CA) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the same back to the House promptly with an amendment that prohibits any funds in the Act(including grant funds) from being used to employ an alien who is not authorized to be employed in the United States and prohibit any funds in the Act for rental housing assistance programs to provide assistance to an alien not authorized to receive such assistance pursuant to 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

10:31 P.M. -
The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.

On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 216 (Roll No. 814).

11:00 P.M. -
Mr. Hoyer moved to reconsider the vote.

11:05 P.M. -
On motion to reconsider the vote Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 238 - 12, 55 Present (Roll no. 815)

11:07 P.M. -
On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by voice vote.

11:16 P.M. -
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 237 - 18, 13 Present (Roll no. 816).

11:18 P.M. -
The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair.
H.R. 3161:
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes

Noticeably absent from the above description of events from the vote at 10:31 PM is any account of the debacle which actually occurred, including the mass walk-out by the Republicans in protest over the corruption of the House voting procedures.

This is as grave a threat to our nation's stability as I have ever witnessed. When the majority party feels it can arrange the result of any floor vote to suit them, they have intentionally chosen to disenfranchise the American voters and the American citizens. Nowhere has this kind of behavior been seen except in the Stalinist and Maoist regimes America spent 50 years attempting to defeat.

Rather than holding the sham of voting why don't the Democrats simply dispense with voting altogether? If they have decided that the outcome of any vote will be what they want it to be then any pretense of democracy or republicanism can be dismissed. We no longer have government by consent of the governed; we have government by Democrat fiat.

Americans have spilled a lot of blood fighting against precisely this kind of behavior. The kind of behavior more commonly seen in the Gleichschaltung (Nazi restructuring) of Hitler's Nazi Germany than in an American house of Congress.

The result of this premature gavel will have lasting negative effect. Having obviously won the vote, the Republicans rejected an appeal by House Majority leader Steny Hoyer to "correct this error" by holding a revote. This was not error, this was no simple oversight; this was the dictatorial hand of Madame Nancy "Bela" Pelosi simply choosing to ignore House rules and the rights of the minority.

By the way, in case you are wondering why the Republicans were so adamant about this victory and so strong in protesting their case, I should mention exactly what it was in this Agriculture bill to which they object.

This bill strips $190 Billion dollars from Medicare aid to the elderly and our veterans to provide free medical care for illegal aliens.

That's right folks, the Democrats care more about pandering to the Hispanic community of illegal aliens than they do about our own elderly or our veterans. We, the American taxpayer are once more being asked to foot the bill for people who have come to this country in violation of our laws, who live here in violation of our laws, and who routinely flaunt our nations laws in pursuit of their business.

This is not about xenophobia, this is about asking American taxpayers to pay for the medical care of criminals.

I normally conclude with the optimistic declaration "Long Live Our American Republic!!!"

But today I feel that such an optimistic proclamation is in appropriate.

We have witnessed the gravest threat to our nation's Liberty I have seen in my entire life, including the much exaggerated alleged threats posed by Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon.

Those days were halcyon days of our nation compared to what occurred last night. Under the cover of darkness.

What do you think?

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

Harold Meyerson-Democrat Hack-Tries to Promote the Failed Pelosi Leadership

They say small minds are easily entertained. Harold Meyerson must have a very small mind...well, he is a Democrat spokesman could he possibly be intelligent?

Touting the expansion of SCHIP to include "children" age 25 or less and the Democrat's choice to eliminate the simple and perfectly reasonable (hey, they are Democrats after all) requirement that all participants be American citizens, is hardly a sign of intellect Harold.

Only rich Liberals like you or Nancy Pelosi could be so uncaring about the way our hard earned tax-money is being spent. Your socialist agenda doesn't serve the American people, it serves your political aspirations.

Here's this political hack's poorly thought out and poorly argued opinion piece (or is that "his scripted by the Democrat Party" opinion piece:

The Speaker In Charge

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; Page A17

This is one of those odd weeks when Congress may actually work. Both houses are likely to pass Democratic bills to expand SCHIP, the children's health coverage program. Yesterday, the House enacted lobbying reform, and the Senate may follow suit tomorrow. Also yesterday, the House passed a bill restoring the right of victims of pay discrimination to sue their employers.

In short, it's one of those weeks when Nancy Pelosi has no doubts about the wisdom of her decision to become speaker of the House.

"What's it like?" she asked herself, beaming, at the conclusion of a breakfast meeting with roughly 20 liberal journalists yesterday morning.

"It's fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!"

Let's see. What have the Democrat Congress acomplished?

1. They raised the minimum wage.
2. They...ummm...did I mention that they raised the minimum wage? Yes, okay.
3. They...They...ummm oh yeah, what Harold Meyerson said, passed a greatly watered down and impotent version of an "ethics and lobbying reform" so full of holes as to be useless.
4. They...oh yeah...expanded SCHIP to include millions of illegal aliens at tax-payer expense. How generous they are with our money.
5. Did I mention they raised the minimum wage? Okay, just wanted to make certain you got that.
6. Oh wow, I almost forgot their greatest accomplishment of all, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in pointless, politically motivated investigations...with zero results.

Well I'm certain they have done something else, afterall they promised America that they would be the most productive Congress. Of course they also promised to be in session more than any Congress in history. Well I guess no one is perfect; Democrats certainly have at least met that expectation.

Is Pelosi happy she made the choice...of course she is where else can she get her ego stroked so regularly by the mainstream press for accomplishing so little.

What do you think?

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