Following the Supreme Court’s idiotic ruling giving terrorists the same rights as a street criminal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is now saying that Gitmo was a blight on the integrity of the United States. Here’s what she said specifically:

“Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has proposed closing the prison complex.

This is typical Democrat thinking on foreign policy. They say these things because they’re more worried about being popular than respected. In fact, they worry more about being popular than being safe. Their go-along-to-get-along attitude isn’t keeping American safe.

What’s keeping America safe is George Bush’s policy of attacking terrorists where they live. President Bush hasn’t given the terrorists any breathing room. As a result, we’ve gone almost 7 years without a terrorist attack. That didn’t happen by accident. Because President Bush had the wisdom to implement this aggressive policy, we’ve been protected. (continue reading post »)

According to this Redstate Action Alert, Democrats have slipped the AG Jobs bill into the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Why we care is because the bill has an amnesty provision in it. Here’s an overview of that provision:

Blue card status:
Authorizes the granting of temporary “blue card” status to an alien who pays a $100 fee, and who DHS has determined to:

• have performed agricultural employment in the United States for at least 863 hours or 150 work days (one work day is defined as 5.75 hours, so this is the equivalent of 21.5 40‐hour work weeks, or less than half of a standard 50‐week work year), whichever is less, during the two‐year period ending December 31, 2006;
• have applied for blue card status during the 18‐month application period beginning on the first day of the seventh month after enactment;
• have not been convicted of any felony or a misdemeanor involving bodily injury, threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property exceeding $500; and
• be otherwise admissible (with specified waivers available);

• Caps the number of aliens to be granted blue card status in the five years following enactment at 1.5 million;
• Requires each employer of a blue card alien to annually provide a written record of employment to that alien and to provide a copy of that record to DHS (lest the employer be fined up to $1,000 per violation), but sunsets that obligation six years after enactment; and
• Requires DHS to provide each blue card alien with a secure, biometric identification document (e.g., encrypted identification strip, biometric identifiers).

Do we really want to reward people for breaking the law? If you’re opposed to rewarding illegal behavior, call your senator at (202) 224-3121.

It’s time that we reminded the politicians that We The People oppose this ban in huge numbers.

Technorati Tags: Amnesty, Farm Bill, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Larry Craig, Illegal Immigration, We The People

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

I wish that were the case but it isn’t. That said, Obama delivered a hard blow to Hillary’s chin if this Mo Dowd column can be believed. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Making an economic speech in Knoxville, Iowa, earlier that day, the New York senator had touted her own know-how, saying that “there is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for, that’s the job of our next president.” Her aides confirmed that she was referring to Obama.

Pressed to respond, Obama offered a zinger feathered with amused disdain: “My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don’t know exactly what experiences she’s claiming.”

If Hillary wants to claim credit fo running the Clinton War Room, I’m ok with that. If she wants to claim credit for the various appointments to second-tier DOJ jobs, most of whom didn’t make it through, I’ll stipulate to that. If she want to take credit for the Clinton economic policies, I’ll laugh in her face. Tony Blankley’s latest Townhall column pokes fun at her experience claim, too:

What plausible claim does Miss Hillary have to experience in managing a national
economy, balancing a budget or fixing income inequality? Even on health care, according to her husband, the aspiring “first louse (he wants to be called first laddie, but I think the derivation from first spouse works better) claims that she didn’t have much to do with Hillary Care — it was his fault.

Is the national media actually going to accept without even a murmur of skepticism Hillary Clinton’s claim to possess all the experience gained by her husband as president? If Obama (or for that matter any other candidate in either party) were to claim such experience, a reporter might well ask him on what basis he claims such experience.

Hillary’s only policy experience was a flop. Hillarycare didn’t singlehandedly deliver the House majority into GOP hands for the first time in 40 years but it would’ve had the House not gotten caught with the House Banking Scandal and House Post Office scandal. (continue reading post »)

Forty-one Senate Democrats signed a letter to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays condemning Rush Limbaugh for things he didn’t say. What’s most telling is that Hillary Clinton, who wouldn’t vote to condemn MoveOn.org’s ‘Gen. Betray Us’ ad, and Barack Obama, who wouldn’t vote on the resolution condemning MoveOn.org, signed this condemnation letter against Rush. Here’s what the letter said:

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

Here’s how Mark Mays responded:

Mr. Limbaugh’s comments have stirred alot of emotion, and I have carefully read the transcript from the episode in question. I hope that you will appreciate that I can not speak with authority as to whom Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were directed, or what was his intent. Only Mr. Limbaugh can speak to those issues, which he has done.

I can say, however, that over the years, Mr. Limbaugh has repeatedly praised the dedication and valor of our brave men and women in uniform. Given Mr. Limbaugh’s history of support for our soldiers, it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn’t share his own views on the war in Iraq.

Mays’ statement politely said that Reid’s insinuations were absurd. Mays’ pointing out that Rush has a “history of support for our soldiers.” Mays said that that’s the biggest reason why he couldn’t agree with the Senate’s letter. I further suspect that the hyperpartisan tone of the Senate’s letter helped Mays not take their letter seriously.

Here’s the list of Democrats signing the letter:

Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Patty Murray,
Secretary, Democratic Conference
Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Joseph
Biden
Barbara Boxer
Sherrod Brown
Robert Byrd
Benjamin Cardin
Tom Carper
Bob Casey
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Kent Conrad
Christopher Dodd
Byron Dorgan
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Harkin
Daniel Inouye
Edward M. Kennedy
John Kerry
Amy Klobuchar
Mary Landrieu
Frank Lautenberg
Patrick Leahy
Carl Levin
Blanche Lincoln
Bob Menendez
Barbara Mikulski
Bill Nelson
Barack Obama
Jack Reed
Jay Rockefeller
Ken Salazar
Bernie
Sanders
Debbie Stabenow
Jon Tester
Jim Webb
Sheldon Whitehouse
Ron Wyden

Keep this list in mind if you want a list of the liberal senators who are the most intellectually dishonest. They signed this letter knowing that Reid’s diatribe was contrived.

What does that tell you about the types of things that Democrats will attempt turning into a tempest in a teapot?

Technorati Tags: Harry Reid, Hillary, Obama, MoveOn.org, David Petraeus, Military, Mark Mays, Clear Channel, Rush

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s the title to this Washington Times’ editorial. It does a great job of laying out the great week that Republicans had thanks to Sen. McConnell.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had come under heavy fire last month for his handling of the immigration bill, has performed heroically in recent weeks on several issues, including the war in Iraq, the “Fairness Doctrine” and enemy combatants. In doing so, the Kentucky Republican has been notably successful in advancing conservative principles and illustrating the incompetence and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic leadership.

It doesn’t exactly take a miracle to illustrate “the incompetence and intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic leadership” these days but it’s always a welcome thing to read. Let’s get to the particulars though:

On Wednesday, thanks in large part to Mr. McConnell’s leadership, Senate Democrats came up eight votes short in their effort to obtain cloture on an amendment to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days. During debate, Mr. McConnell drove home a point that was clearly embarrassing to Democrats: that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin could not explain how his own amendment would work.

That isn’t just a minor oops. That’s a major blunder. Of course, the Agenda Media hasn’t printed a word about it.

Sen. Harry Reid, clearly angered by the fact that his latest legislative attempt to undermine the war effort had failed, responded petulantly, pulling the defense authorization bill from the floor. By doing so, the majority leader is holding up funding to assist wounded war veterans, and to provide mine-resistant trucks to protect American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, Mr. McConnell helped expose the fraudulence of Mr. Reid’s argument that the Democratic Party opposes the war but “supports the troops.” In reality, Mr. Reid and his political allies demonstrated that they are more interested in scoring cheap political points against the war than in improving conditions for American fighting men and women.

Washington Democrats are intellectually challenged at best. They’re backstabbing, hyperpartisan politicians at worst. Right now, I’m leaning towards the latter rather than the former. Reid’s pulling of the entire Defense bill shows a lack of seriousness in getting the Senate’s business done. They’ve shown where their priorities lie. (continue reading post »)

Kirsten Powers does a weekly segment on the O’Reilly Factor with superblogger Michelle Malkin. Because of those segments, I’ve come to appreciate Ms. Powers’ forsaking the typical Democratic talking points. Simply put, she’s a liberal with a coherent beliefs. That intelligence shines through in this NY Post column on the Fairness Doctrine.

LAST week, the immigration bill died a grisly death at the hands of the talk-radio listeners who have frustrated and confounded me on this issue as I have regularly guest hosted Fox News’ morning radio show.

Nearly as frustrating, however, has been the imperial reaction of elected officials to their citizen uprising. Apparently, democracy is a drag, but it’s nothing a little authoritarian censorship can’t fix.

Enter the Fairness Doctrine, which has captured the fancy of top Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who announced that she is “looking into” reviving it to target talk radio.

The doctrine, abandoned by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987, used to compel broadcast licensees, that is, radio and TV stations, to give equal time to both sides of controversial issues. The FCC dropped it after concluding it actually discouraged informed discussion.

This genie’s out of the proverbial bottle. Last Friday, we had a Welcome Home Heroes event for our local GOP legislators. One of the big topics of conversation at my end of the table was the impact ‘high tech’ grassroots activists played in collapsing the immigration bill. My friend Ed Garrett immediately agreed when I said that activism had stepped into a new realm. (continue reading post »)

Last Saturday, I called into King’s and Michael’s show like I usually do. During the first hour, Michael said that his perspective on campaigns was to “never bring a knife to a gun fight”, a position that I wholeheartedly subscribe to. In fact, when I called, I said that “We can be sure that the DFL is bringing ‘a gun’ to the campaign so let’s adopt this slogan: ‘It’s time to break out the double-barrels’”. This Hill magazine article is another reminder that Democrats are trying to silence us in a variety of ways so it’s time to break out the double-barrels. This time, our target is the (un)Fairness Doctrine.

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

First of all, the statement that “Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits…” is utter nonsense. What conservatives are upset about is that (a) the (Un)Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment, (b) it’s based on a report that presumes a number of questionable conclusions, all of which can easily be contested. (continue reading post »)

Another liberal ‘Guardian of Free Speech’ is considering how to restrict people’s First Amendment rights. It isn’t surprising that that liberal is Dianne Feinstein. Here’s what she said on her appearance on FNS this morning:

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Sen. Feinstein isn’t about providing balance. You’ll notice that the Fairness Doctrine only targets conservative talk radio because, in Sen. Feinstein’s opinion, “it pushes people to…extreme views without a lot of information.” Let Sen. Feinstein explain why the Fairness Doctrine shouldn’t apply to newspapers and magazines. Let her explain why the NY Times shouldn’t be obligated to giving equal time to a thoughtful conservative columnist for every Bush-hating diatribe column that Paul Krugman writes. (continue reading post »)

The Amboy Times linked with Sen Feinstein Lies for Amnesty...

Based on this Dennis Byrne column, that’s essentially what he’s saying. Here’s what’s at issue:

“At the time of this debate,” he recently said on the Senate floor, “I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and watch the television newscasts and shake my head…

“The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn’t believe it…So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth.”

Then, based on that misinformation, he voted nay on authorizing the Iraq War. What’s interesting is that several of his Democratic colleagues on the Intel Committee voted to authorize the war. Here’s that list:

Rockefeller, Edwards, Feinstein and Bayh

I don’t know if Senator Durbin can explain why these senators would vote for war knowing that the American people were being misled. It seems to me that his saying that the intel was being manipulated indicts Rockefeller, Edwards, Feinstein and Bayh of voting for war while knowing that President Bush was lying us into war. (continue reading post »)

I’m flabbergasted. Not long ago I posted about Senator Feinstein’s Ethics Scandal here on California Conservative. Texas Rainmaker is blogging about it, too.

In short, Feinstein was the head of the Military Construction appropriations committee. In that position she received information that told her what contracts her husbands company was pursuing. Over the course of her tenure she voted to send billions of dollars to her husband’s company, greatly enriching herself in the process.

In following up on the story, I came across this message board, linking to my original California Conservative post. Take a look at the screen shot below, and take special note of the first comment.

You need to remember just one tiny little thing - regardless of whether or not Feinstein has done anything wrong -

The REPUBLICANS were in control of Congress for twelve years - that would be 1994 to 2006.

That means that if ANYONE was allowing Feinstein to “maneuver, act with impunity”, it was the Republicans because they had the majority and they had 10 years to do something about any improper activity on her part.

But they didn’t, did they? Maybe she was doing some “pilfering” WITH some Republicans. That might explain why the Republicans never did anything about it.

So, according to bubba2, Feinstein using insider information to steer billions of dollars in military appropriations towards her husband’s company is the fault of Republicans? At all costs, no matter the circumstances, blame the republicans. I suppose it is this type of blind support from her constituents that has allowed her to do this.