Well, we’ve been listening to you for months now—Ms. Clinton, John Edwards, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy and all the rest—about how bad President Bush is, the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan and how wonderful each of you are. And how great it will be for us when you win it all.

Let’s see. You’re going to socialize medicine with Ms. Clinton’s schemes, give every “poor” kid who’s daddy makes 80 grand a year free insurance, end the “wars” in central Asia and Middle East, quit fighting and bring the troops home, but support the troops anyway and give them all new battle gear. You intend to appoint a new Attorney General who will close ol’ Gitmo, give all the bad boys there new ditty bags to get them back home without punishment for attacking and killing American G.I’s.

Am I right so far?

You’re going to “fix” everything the current administration (and VP Cheney and AG Gonzales) did wrong, bring “spy” Valerie Plame in from the cold, raise taxes and fund a bundle of new “programs”. You’re going to stop the slide of new home sales, make the dollar good again and send all government contracts for equipment and weapons to the good ol’ boys in China to build for us (and outlaw recalls).

Immigration and illegal aliens will no longer be a problem because you’ll open the borders and give the folks already here citizenship and free social, legal and food services. Bring everybody up here for free goodies if they want to be Yankees.

Besa ma Mucho!

Castro and Hugo will be big brothers to us all, the ding in N. Korea will get a free ride, and the dong in Iran will get his, er, nukes. And you’ll see to it Mr. Putin will never again get his feelings hurt by mean Americans who want to protect Europeans and themselves from the bad boys in Iran by building new missile defenses there. (continue reading post »)

I just googled David Petraeus’ name. As I scanned the links, I noticed two editorials that essentially called Gen. Petraeus a mouthpiece for the Bush administration’s policies. Call me cynical but I’m having trouble believing that the MoveOn.org types aren’t orchestrating a campaign to discredit Gen. Petraeus. Here’s what Thomas LaPointe said in his Des Moines Register editorial:

As a former Marine, it is difficult for me to argue with a four-star general and a distinguished ambassador. However, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker failed to use their recent appearances before Congress to offer a total reassessment on Iraq. They offered an amended version of “stay the course.”

There seems to be little success getting the Iraqis to secure themselves or govern with a sense of national reconciliation. Now, even with the president’s proposed 30,000-troop draw-down, troop levels will remain at the January 2006 levels. We are where we were 18 months ago; we have not moved decisively.

Obviously, Mr. LaPointe hasn’t been paying attention to events on the ground in Iraq. In fact, I’d bet that he doesn’t realize that they’re shifting their mission from eliminating AQI terrorists in Anbar and Diyala provinces to killing al-Sadr’s militias in the south. Saying that Gen. Petraeus “offered an amended version of ’stay the course’” is insulting. It’s also factually indefensible. (continue reading post »)

In light of Osama Bin Laden’s videotaped message to the West (Or was it a press release from DNC Chairman Howard Dean?), one might be given to muse that liberal abhorrence for the President’s surveillance of incoming phone calls from known terrorists might ultimately stem from self-interest. Perhaps they simply do not want to be monitored as they share strategies and talking points with the Al Qaeda leader.

Furthermore, the DNC may decide to keep a copy of the Bin Laden tape, which could come in handy during the 2008 campaign season. Just as aspiring politicians feel compelled to pander in Spanish to the increasing numbers of “undocumented voters,” so might Dean and the Democrats want to remind those “Jihadist-Americans” in their native tongue which party will best ensure that their interests are served.

While such satire may be deemed overly harsh, in truth it fails to fully convey the depths to which the current Democrat leaders, along with their cronies in the media and the blogosphere, have sunk in their efforts to promote their anti-American cause. And as one outrageous example after another unfolds before the American people in the liberal/Democrat attempt to demean and undermine the war on terror, the case for their sedition becomes ever more crystal clear.

Among the most despicable, reprehensible, and yet entirely predictable examples of recent days was the manner in which leftist Representative Tom Lantos (D.-CA) attempted to deride General David Petraeus, who appeared before Congress to present a progress report on the current operations in Iraq. Without knowing or wanting to know the facts offered by General Petraeus, Lantos pronounced his report a fraud. Thus was an honest patriot branded a “liar” by the liberal Congressman. (continue reading post »)

There’s an old saying in politics that if you’re about to be run out of town, it’s best to get out in front and pretend that you’re leading a parade. That’s what looks like Rahm Emanuel is attempting to do with this NY Times op-ed. Earmark ‘reform’ is the subject of Rep. Emanuel’s op-ed. In it, he claims that Democrats have reformed earmarks, which is a joke considering that they’re the party of Robert Byrd, John Murtha and Jim Oberstar.

Putting all earmarks in the same boat, as critics often do, distorts the debate and does a disservice to the public. Not all earmarks are equal. For six years, some members of Congress provided secret earmarks for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, foreign trips and, in some cases, outright bribes. The core of the problem was that the earmarks were hidden from the press and the public. There was no opportunity to review either their sponsorship or their merit before their passage.

The new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified. Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks must certify that they have no personal financial interest in them. Any private entity that might benefit must be clearly reported. Each of these reforms is now mandatory, in stark contrast to previous practices.

It takes real chutzpah to say that the “new Democratic Congress now requires that each earmark be fully described and its sponsor identified” after David Obey voted for earmark reform, then refused to obey the rule he’d voted for:

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify “earmarks’’, lawmakers’ requests for specific projects and contracts for their states, in documents that accompany spending bills.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.
Such requests total billions of dollars.

I don’t know how Rahm Emanuel can say that Democrats have cleaned up the earmark process after David Obey is caught ignoring the supposed reform measure that they’d passed. As the article says, billions of dollars of requests will be added to the bills in conference. I’d like Rep. Emanuel to explain how anything has changed. Simply put, this Democratic congress is a ‘business as usual’ bunch.

Let’s also remember that John Murtha threatened Rep. Mike Rogers on the House floor after Rogers challenged Murtha’s earmark of $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA:

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Mr. Murtha allegedly told Mr. Rogers in a “loud voice.” He referred to the pet projects lawmakers often tuck into large spending bills.

“This is not the way we do things here,” Mr. Rogers replied. “Is that supposed to make me afraid of you?”

“That’s the way I do it,” Mr. Murtha said.

Does that sound like true earmark reform? If there was true earmark reform, John Murtha would have a nervous breakdown. He wouldn’t know how to function in the House. When Murtha threatened Mike Rogers, Murtha threatened a former FBI Special Agent investigating public corruption as a member of the Chicago Bureau’s organized crime unit. It isn’t smart to threaten FBI special agents, whether they’re retired or not.

It’s worth noting that most of John Murtha’s campaign contributions come from people working for companies that Murtha has directed earmarks towards.

Some members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, eschew earmarks. That is their right. But most members believe it is their prerogative and their duty to channel federal resources to important public purposes.

I wonder if Rep. Emanuel is referring to the earmarks that Jim Oberstar has put into the various transportation bills that have taken money from the Highway Trust Fund to build bike trails. If he wasn’t referring to that, then I wonder if he was referring to the earmarks that Alan Mollohan directed to charities that he created.

Emanuel’s comments notwithstanding, the Democrats’ version of earmark reform are just one reason why voters have turned against them. That said, here’s the biggest whopper that Emanuel told:

Bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process is a significant reform, a pledge we made and a pledge we kept. And it’s one we’ve extended to lobbyists, by barring them from providing gifts or trips to members of Congress and by increasing reporting requirements for their meetings and their campaign money-raising activities. To overlook or dismiss the impact of these reforms adds to the public’s cynicism about government.

Technically, he’s right that they’ve kept the pledge. It’s worth noting, though, that they had to drag David Obey kicking and screaming to the table. If they were so intent on keeping their pledge to reform the earmark process, then why did it take an offer from Porkbusters, via Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit, to sort through 36,000 earmarks?

Rep. David Obey says that there’s not time to look at the 36,000 earmark requests in the House.

Porkbusters is offering to help!

I read with interest news reports that you may only include earmarks in last-minute, un-amendable conference reports, as opposed to amendable House appropriations bills, because you and your staff reportedly need “extra time to evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests members have submitted to the Appropriations Committee this year.”

You have also been quoted you as saying: “I think we have a helluva lot more ability [to root out bad earmarks] than the individual working alone.”

Chairman Obey, I share your concern about unworthy projects receiving federal funding due to a lack of careful and thoughtful evaluation, and I agree that one individual working alone would have a very hard time completing this task in a timely manner.

Therefore, I would like to personally volunteer my time to help you and your staff in evaluating this year’s earmark requests.

As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your 36,000 earmark requests publicly, I and other taxpayers across the country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of federal funding and which may have value to the taxpayers.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I and millions of my fellow taxpayers across America stand ready to help you evaluate these 36,000 earmarks requests. After all, we are the ones who are paying for these requested projects, the least we can do is help you evaluate their merit.

The best way to think of Emanuel’s op-ed is to think of it as perfect lining for the bottom of a bird cage. Otherwise, it’s a total waste of paper.

Technorati Tags: Earmark Reform, Rahm Emanuel, NY Times, John Murtha, David Obey, James Oberstar, Robert Byrd, Corruption, Democrats, Porkbusters

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Real America’s dread of a “President Hillary,” though understandable, is not sufficient to get any Republican elected on that basis alone. Yet time and again, the standard reaction of GOP insiders to Hillary’s candidacy is to attempt to form and mold their field of candidates in direct response to her.

First we were told that Condoleezza Rice was the only viable candidate, since only a woman could possibly compete against another woman. In the aftermath of Rice’s flat refusal to consider running, the new mantra within Republican circles has been the “only a moderate can win.”

Ironically, this very response, itself a reflection of neither leadership nor boldness but of fear and capitulation, holds the greatest potential to torpedo Republican hopes for ’08.

If such thinking prevails, it will all but guarantee a “lose/lose” scenario for conservative America. This portends a particularly unfortunate possibility since all previous experience has shown the exact opposite to be true. And from the terror war to private property rights to the invasion of illegals, far too much is at stake for it to be allowed to ensue.

Nor is such a dismal scenario inevitable. Whether at the Presidential level or in the Congress, the demonstration of a stark and defining contrast between the ever-more leftist Democrats and an intransigent conservative GOP could completely turn the tides on the current momentum of the liberals. To the degree that Republicans have remained steadfast on the terror war, this case is made.

Some amazing news stories emerged this past weekend, asserting that the Iraq War is indeed winnable, and that cutting and running would be a disaster both for America, Iraq, and the rest of the free world. Still, key Democrats remain wedded to their “strategy” of pursuing defeat.

It is likely that their words may well be nothing but political posturing in order to garner the fringe leftist vote in next year’s election. Yet even if this is the case, having operated from a position of such profound weakness, they would then have great difficulty prosecuting the magnitude of war necessary to drive back the forces of terrorism, having ascended from such staunchly pacifist backgrounds. (continue reading post »)

Just when I thought politics in New Mexico could not possibly become any more bizarre—they did. The police department for the state capitol—Santa Fe—has made the decision to hire Mexican Nationals (NOT US citizens) as “law enforcement” officers. In this way, the new Mexican (not US) police officers can ensure that illegal immigrants are given the special privileges the anarchistic hordes have decided they deserve. And, New Mexico has begun the secession from the US, in order to no longer have to adhere to its pesky laws.

Considering US Senators and Congressional members’ penchant for flouting any and all US immigration laws, why shouldn’t individual states begin doing the same? Santa Fe Police Sgt. Marvin Paulk reinforced the “we don’t need no stinkin’ immigration laws” attitude, when he stated: “I know that there are state and federal laws that prohibit hiring officers who aren’t U.S. citizens, but I think that we should consider the possibility of changing these rules! A high percentage of our community is made up of Mexican citizens [note that these are not US citizens but, beholden to their Mexican citizenship], men and women who have lived a large part of their lives in this country. I don’t see why they can’t be good candidates to become police officers.” In other words, who cares about US law? An individual who has been given the responsibility of upholding the law [Police Sergeant Paulk] openly voices that he no longer cares about following the law of the land. After all, the new and improved leftist way of thinking and addressing any and all US laws is to follow them only if you agree with them—then ignore them when you don’t. Note: When law enforcement officials say they will not uphold laws, doesn’t complete chaos follow? It does.

After this new policy is adopted and passed—with the current illegals-have-more-rights-than-US-citizens position held by our “leaders” there is nothing to suggest that it won’t be—New Mexico will have taken the first official step toward ceding a US state back to Mexico and becoming its first official colony. Mexican Presidents Fox and Calderon, La Raza, MEChA, the Mexica Movement and all of the other “the United States belongs to us” foreign groups should be dancing in the streets over this proposal. Perhaps the Santa Fe PD is considering hiring MS-13 gang members. After all, they entered the US illegally—via its southern border—too. But, MS-13 members were originally from El Salvador. Will only Mexican nationals and Mexican gang members be considered? (continue reading post »)

(H/T: Captain Ed)

This USA Today article is proof that miracles happen. When Keith Ellison starts talking about what a great job the US military is doing in Iraq, you know that divine intervention played a part in the transformation. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, “we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market.”

There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.

“The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership,” he said. “So they’re not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they’re doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives.”

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with “as-salama aleikum,” meaning peace be upon you.

Obviously, Keith Ellison isn’t a big fan of the Bush administration. If he’s now saying that we’re making progress, that anti-American fervor in the mosques is dropping, that he was able to walk the peaceful streets of Ramadi, that’s proof that something dramatic has happened.

Coming a day after the NY Times published an op-ed by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack stating that progress is being made, this is a big blow against the credibility of the Democrats’ anti-war crowd. Isn’t it time for these anti-war crowds to admit that it’s worth giving Gen. Petraeus’ plan enough time to work?

It’s getting to be almost impossible for them to argue against giving him the time. Thank God for divine intervention.

Technorati Tags: Michael O’Hanlon, Kenneth Pollack, Keith Ellison, NY Times, USA Today, David Petraeus, The Surge

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Perhaps the headline should read: “Because of…”

Bloomberg.com reports: “San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is running for re-election virtually unopposed, more popular than ever, after admitting to having an affair with a top aide’s wife and entering an alcohol-treatment program.”

Newsom, whose approval ratings are running close to 80 percent, said he expects a credible candidate to emerge eventually. So far, challengers include a street-performing clown, a homeless man, an advocate for nudism, and a candidate who pledges to wear a camera so voters can monitor his performance in office.

Welcome to San Francisco!

[Pollster David] Binder said Newsom’s decision to allow weddings for gay couples was unprecedented, setting up his image as the “people’s mayor.”

What people?

Gay marriage “brought into his camp a lot of gays and lesbians and progressives who hadn’t been supportive of him,” Binder said.

The gay community has a high voter turnout rate and gives Newsom a fund-raising and volunteer base, said Scott Wiener, chairman of the San Francisco Democratic Party and former chairman of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, one of the oldest U.S. voter organizations representing lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders.

You can tell a lot about a man by those who support him. Newsom knows his base, and it’s clear that he’s willing to bend over backwards for them.

RELATED:
San Francisco Mayor Vows to Ignore Immigration Laws
San Francisco: Mecca For Homosexuals, Subversives,
Indigents, And Illegals

After Keith Ellison’s outlandish statement at the Atheists for Human Rights event, Ellison felt the need to spin his side of the story. This editorial in this morning’s Strib didn’t help him. Here’s the section that exposes Ellison’s naivete on the War for Western Civilization:

If the president had embraced the good will of the post 9/11 world to marshal an international effort to eliminate the terrorist cells responsible for this heinous act, we wouldn’t be mired in a five-year war. We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida instead of creating a virtual recruiting station for them in Iraq. As it is, we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments and other Bush administration failures.

Let’s start with his statement that “We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida…” There isn’t an American alive who isn’t for eliminating al-Qa’ida. There are people, like Keith Ellison, who haven’t grasped the reality that al-Qa’ida isn’t the only terrorist group out there and Afghanistan wasn’t the only swamp that needed draining.

The reality is that we need a comprehensive strategy to win the War for Western Civilization. The Democrats’ stated strategy for winning that war is finishing the job in Afghanistan, kill al-Qa’ida and use endless diplomacy to bring Iran and Syria over to our side. I don’t think that that’s the type of comprehensive strategy that will yield victory in the greatest challenge of our lifetime. (continue reading post »)

Based on the information laid out in Sen. Lieberman’s WSJ op-ed, it’s obvious that Iran has sent a shot across our bow with its actions. As Sen. Lieberman so eloquently says, it’s time we put the ‘fear of God’ back in them:

However, as Gen. Bergner said on Monday, “There does not seem to be any follow-through on the commitments that Iran has made to work with Iraq in addressing the destabilizing security issues here.” The fact is, any diplomacy with Iran is more likely to be effective if it is backed by a credible threat of force–credible in the dual sense that we mean it, and the Iranians believe it.

Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.

It’s time for Washington politicians to form a collective spine that says “No More” to Iran’s terrorist-supporting regime. Before our senators debate S.1545, which essentially emasculates Gen. Petraeus’s surge, we should let them know in clear, unambiguous terms that we must defeat Iran’s proxies. It’s time our politicians understood that a vote for S.1545 is tantamount to assuming the fetal position right before our enemies’ eyes. (continue reading post »)