Mexican National Elvira Arellano and her American Citizen Son Saul
New Illegal Immigration Rock star Elvira Arellano says that it is all America’s fault before the Mexican Congress in an attempt to get her rightful government to support her in her attempt to change another country’s laws. The Mexican Congress did support Ms. Arellano and sent a letter urging Mexican President Felipe Calderon to intervene in the matter.
Yes according to Elvira because America didn’t enforce its immigration laws and because America allowed illegals to come and work, America is breaking its own laws.
Play Video
You know Elvira you do have a point and any American politician President, Senator, Congressman or Judge that has allowed this travesty to continue should be deported to Tijuana just like you.
And any Business, Corporate or otherwise, that is lurking in the shadows supporting illegal immigration should be shut down and any political action group that supports, aids and abets illegal entry into this country should be disband.
Any City that gives sanctuary to illegal foreign nationals should be cut off from any and all Federal funding.
And finally any Religious organization that gives quarter to illegal foreign nationals should lose its federal tax exempt status.
It’s good that you brought this point up Elvira because every time the American people raise it, the point falls on the deaf ears in our government. It’s such a shame that it has to came from a non-citizen before our government will hear it.
Let see now, how does that go again, its America’s fault that you stole across the U.S. border, gave birth to your son so that you could claim that he is a U.S. Citizen and it is the U.S.’s fault for deported you when you began to challenge the U.S. with your illegal status. Yeah I think I got it!
Hey Elvira I think you just performed one of those jobs that Americans couldn’t do!
You hear that President Bush Elvira Arellano says that America needs to enforce its borders and stop breaking its own laws.
I guess it doesn’t take a Karl Rove to come to that truth! By the way, why didn’t the boy genius realize this?
Rep. John Murtha, the face of Democrat cut and run
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Political Party cut and run from their policy of cut and run but Democrats seem to have accomplished this.
I came across an editorial that I’d thought I’d share with you. You know that Democrats have been calling for the immediate withdraw of U.S. forces from Iraq. Don’t win it just end it and all of that kind of John Murtha like patriotism.
I found this editorial on examiner.com it was originally published in the Washington D.C. examiner newspaper and is entitled, “Regaining their senses on Iraq.”
Regaining their senses on Iraq? Who’s senses Democrats? Yes the author was referring to Democrats as if all of the Code Pink, Camp Casey, Anti-war protest and Congressional Democrats opposition to the war was crazy and now Democrats have regained their senses about the whole thing.
And then there was this caption under a picture of Sen. Carl Levin which read, Democrats, such as Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, are injecting some much-needed realism into their party’s debate on the war.
“Clearly, there is momentum there, we visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq ... appear to have produced some credible and positive results.” Sen. Carl Levin
Whoa wait just a Cindy Sheehan minute, Regain their senses, injecting some much-need realism, it sounds to me that one party has been talking crazy about the war and now they’ve are going to be reasonable?
This is simply stunting. Democrats and liberals spent years souring Americans against the war and the President and now they are coming back to reality?
You see it was never about ending the war in Iraq, no with Democrat Party Elites it was always about ending and or damaging the Bush Presidency now seeing that he has less than 16 mos. left in an increasingly irrelevant Presidency and with most of his political advisors vanquished Democrats believe that they can finally tell you how they really feel about Iraq.
Remember Democrats planned to come back from their August break ready to roadside bomb the Bush administration with fresh criticisms about the war and now Democrats and the Republicans that they were able to persuade join their IED attacks are panicking that they will have to “Refocus” their planned assault in the face of a positive report coming from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus who's report accessing the Iraq war is due September 11 2007.
There have already been leaks that there are very positive developments in Gen. Petraeus’ surge therefore Democrats will need to prepare their own unique interpretation of what that means to their bid for the White house and hopeful increase in Congressional power.
Be assured that you won’t be hearing voices like Rep. John Murtha or Sen. “The War is Lost,” “The surge has failed” Harry Reid. Democrats will attempt to put up voices that are more connected with reality meaning that because the positive news coming out of Iraq is so inconvertible that even the staunchest of Democrat defeatists will be forced to retreat from their campaign of retreat.
Even Democrat Presidential hopefuls are now saying that it is possible to win in Iraq. A fact that was always true too bad Democrats didn’t pronounce it more.
Ironically Democrats will still get their wish to cut and run but it will only be cutting and running from their own negative assessments of America’s ability to win in Iraq and of course they will have to cut and run from their own policy of cut and run from Iraq and put their efforts into more positive pursuits such as concentrating with the rest of the country on winning in Iraq.
Thursday's late-night rumble on the House floor, when a vote was gaveled to what Democrats acknowledge was a premature close, epitomized the ugliness that has overtaken the entire legislative process. In the end, the 110th Congress headed for its August recess with civility in shreds and achievements sparse.
Indeed, the only thing that might make August look pleasant is September, when lawmakers will return to resume the acrimonious debate over Iraq policy and confront the looming end of the fiscal year with spending bills unpassed and presidential vetoes in the offing. –The Washington Post
Since such polls have been established no Congress has had a lower approval rating than the Democrat led 110th Congress.
This is a Congress of ugliness, broken promises, rancor and poisoned finger pointing partisanship. This is a Congress full of venom and vile, polarizing one-upmanship, classless crassness and demeaning disrespect for the office of the executive branch. 76% of Americans disapprove of the Democrat led Congress meaning that this Congress doesn’t speak for Americans though it pretends too.
This Congress has chosen to fight an ideologically civil war of Blue States against Red States, netroots against talk radio, earmarks against what is good for America, judicial activism against strict constructionism, and societal redefinition against traditional values.
With all the aplomb of a barroom brawl Democrats have led this country in a different direction as promised. This direction often opaque and nuanced beyond any discernable understanding because in their hearts Democrats know if they actually produced the open and transparent government which they only promised to get them elected the America people would reject that direction.
It is a direction of classic secular socialist Liberalism that even Europe is rejecting.
As Europeans attempt to adapt a more capitalist conservative political approach as demonstrated by recently elected conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy in France and other leaders, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Premier Romano Prodi and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown the world is moving closer to current U.S. policies not away from them as it seems the Party of Hillary, Harry and Pelosi is doing. Europe is slowly but surely casting off its failed socialist clothing only to have American Democrats gather them up and put them on.
Democrats such as former Senator John Edwards and now Presidential hopeful seem to pursue a pseudo but archaic Trotskyism not realizing that the opulence of $500.00 haircuts made possible by a capitalist socio-economic model is not proletarian but petit bourgeoisie.
This underlines the main problem for the Democrats though they claim to be for the people their recent Congressional dealing betrays them as a vindictive and punishing partisan power hungry Party that is attempting to deconstruct the traditional social model in America and replace it with a multi-cultural but Balkanized tribalistic paradigm that will further divide this nation and fail like Europe did.
When 110th Congress reassembles after their less than deserved August break they will have to face the fact that only 18% of the America people approves of this Congress’ fighting over everything from the war to the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Democrats will have to learn that Americans did not want to see their government torn apart because of pure Partisanism. Americans have suffered almost 8 years of partisan bantering coming mainly from the Democrats and 76% of us say enough. Get about the peoples business or you won’t have that much cherished prize of the White house that you’ve been pining almost 8 years for!
Democrats spent almost 8 years attempting to convince the American people that we had elected the worst leadership ever and you know what? 76% of us believe you!
How does one become an Illegal Alien activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents? Why, just violate a country’s immigration laws then manipulate those laws, then defy those laws and then work to undermine those laws. It’s quite simple I’ll show you!
PLAY VIDEO
Elvira Arellano became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents and various subversive immigration groups which are promoting anarchy and are using Elvira’s face in their fight with the American people and their Congress regarding the 20 million illegal aliens that are demanding the rights of citizenship in this country.
Before the tears are flowing too profusely you do know the other side of illegal immigration don’t you? I didn’t think that you did. Hundreds of not Thousands of illegal immigrates leave their families often containing young children to come to America.
America isn’t breaking up families. Immigrates who chose to leave their families behind to enter America illegally break up their own families for instance there’s 19-year-old Rosa, who left home with a plastic bin liner containing a spare pair of jeans and some toilet paper.
Nothing more - that is all she has to make the long trip to the American border. Rosa left her two-year-old child behind in Guatemala this kind of breaking up of families has been going on for years. In 2005 Voice of America reported that immigrants sent $126 billion dollars home to family members in the country of their origin. American is not breaking up families immigrates are making their own choices, sometimes they leave their children behind like Rosa and of course if caught, for being in this country illegally, because they have reinterpreted the 14th amendment so that their child are entitled to stay in America even if they are deported to their own country for breaking America’s immigration laws, they always have the choice to take their children with them!
ANCHOR BABIES AN ASSAULT ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT
Illegal immigrates and their supporters are using their interpretation of the Constitution to aid and abet the breaking of American law therefore they are advocates for anarchy.
The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days). LINK
The 14th amendment was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to foreign nationals that violated U.S. sovereignty to establish a quasi-legal claim to citizenship for their children. But Mexican Nationals and other South American people have learned over time that Americans have become less vigilant with regards to its constitutional laws and have used the American constitutional as a train ride to establish a faux claim to citizenship for their children they did this knowing that the American people wouldn’t even know the difference. And they were right!
Think about it what law is valid only after you break another law? That’s how illegal aliens and their supports are using the 14th amendment. Why— that would be akin to saying that by the law of “finders keepers” if anyone is able to rob a bank undetected they are entitled to keep any money that they take. Not good bank policy? Then why would anyone think that it would be good for this Nation to have 20 million illegal foreigners break into this country and take citizenship, jobs, and the benefits of American people?
A NATION OF LAW MANIPULATORS
I’ll tell you why, we’ve become a Nation of law breakers and law changers we’re no longer a nation of laws.
President’s Bush’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform was about law breakers being granted immunity from their crimes by changing the law to make their offenses go away by changes in the law. These law breakers are not the ones that you usually associate with illegal entry however these law breakers are usually the ones who have the power to change laws by lobbying Congress or influencing a President and thereby they make their lawlessness lawful!
That would be like a Comprehensive Pit bull fighting Reform bill put in place so that Michael Vick will not have to face charges, sentence or professional penalties for alleged (he hasn’t be charged with anything yet) dog fighting.
Vick’s U.S. citizenship is supposed to entitle him to a presumption of innocence which he is not benefiting from in the media that has already judged and convicted him.
So why not change the laws so that all of the Pit bull fighting aficionados might come out of the shadows. I’m sure we could put the old kibosh on a few more NFL teams. Players have been probably fighting dogs for years it would be ashamed to separate anyone else from their teams and families for a little illegal dog fighting now would it?
After all, these dogs are fighting fights that most American dogs won’t fight.
As crazy as that sounds, it doesn’t sound any crazier than the pro-illegal alien arguments coming from illegal alien supporters who advocate disregarding this nations laws so that lawbreakers can live unencumbered from the natural consequences of breaking immigration laws.
Imagine if we all lived thinking that laws could be broken and we would receive sanctuary, pity and support because we have children, why crime would run ramped. Oh that is right illegal entry into the United States is at an all time high now isn’t it?
So how does any judge in America find anyone guilty of violation other laws if Mexican Nationals who are in this country illegal are permitted to wantonly break immigration laws and suffer no consequence for their actions whatsoever?
Is it fair that any American, Michael Vick for instance, be tried in the Court of public opinion, be forced to self incriminate in a plea bargain deal and lose his career and freedom while millions of criminal Mexican nationals use the face and plight of Elvira Arellano and her anchor child to campaign to make illegal entry and illegal status acceptable?
I say no! Either enforce all of America’s laws or enforce none of them. What Vick needs is a sanctuary city where he go play football and not worry that anyone will ask him his status as a dog fighter.
He needs a political group behind him demanding that the laws for illegal dog fighting be changed so that he can go about his business and live as he has always done.
If the thought of that makes you retch how is it any different for the 20 million illegal Mexican Nationals who demand rights in a country that they are not citizens of? And the very first right they want is citizenship so that they can further change America’s laws to aid them with changing this country from the reason and the hope that they left their country of origin for into a country that is like the country from which they fled from.
So how does one become an Illegal Alien activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents? Simply chose a country that is not vigilant about its sovereignty, its citizens and its constitutional laws and you play on the people’s good intentions and ignorance, but mostly their ignorance!
Amity Shlaes’ “A Downturn We Don't Deserve” is an inadequate attempt to explain why global markets are topsy-turvy. What Ms. Shlaes fails to do is explain why the Bush administration is responsible for present Wall Street’s blues.
I hope that it hasn’t been lost on anyone that China threaten to crash the U.S. economy if stepped up measures to even the economic playing field between the U.S. and China’s trade deficit were pursued by a Democrat controlled Congress.
Shlaes claims that questionable lending in the subprime mortgage sector is not enough to account for the present Dow Jones crisis she says that an accumulation of policy errors by political leaders, central banks or foreign governments are what causes downturns and as her title suggest America doesn’t deserve this one.
Ms. Shlaes shows ample proof of her hypothesis regarding the Great Depression by did nothing show one iota of proof that the Bush Administration has done anything to bring the economy to this point on the contrary she shows that Bush did everything right.
There's plenty of good market news this summer. Industrial production, a vital sign for the U.S. economy, is up. Businesses are profitable. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made a career studying the consequences of deflation and bank failures in the 1930s. That's why he knew to infuse money into the system last week.—Amity Shlaes
So Ms. Shlaes question, “Is a serious downturn possible? Yes, especially if Washington makes bigger mistakes,” is totally unjustified. She didn’t show any mistakes that present Washington made. What Ms. Shlaes does show is that this down turn is what portents for a Washington that is controlled by Democrats. She said it not me!
If Democrats win the White House by turning against free trade and then pass protectionist laws, they will be pulling a Hoover. China will trade elsewhere.
Taxation is another concern. Many lawmakers want to increase taxes to cover Social Security and Medicare shortfalls. Lifting the Social Security cap, so that every dollar of income for higher earners is subject to the payroll tax, seems an easy remedy. Democrats want the Bush income tax cuts to expire.
When John Edwards advocated this last month, his words could have been taken out of a Hoover or Roosevelt speech: "it's time for us to put our economy back in line with our values." In reality, a combined change in these two levies would be a terrible blow to U.S. competitiveness, a sort of Sarbanes-Oxley of taxation. If China could no longer see a difference between the United States and Europe, it would move more cash into euros. King Dollar might lose its throne. (China has already threatened this because of Congress’ efforts to close the trade deficit.) In other words, the great U.S. downturn that everyone fears is possible -- if lawmakers get carried away with their own sanctimony. Not because we deserve it.
Ms. Shlaes lays this whole economic debacle at the feet of Democrats present and future. Whether she intended to or not Amity Shlaes’, ‘We don’t Deserve’ gave the most cogent and well reasoned argument why Democrats would be bad for Americans economy.
Amity Shlaes, the author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," is a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations and a columnist for Bloomberg News and she should know!
Democrat Presidential Candidates Obama and Clinton
You’ve been back from your Camp Casey anti-war, anti-Bush stakeout down at the Crawford ranch for a while and you got some Cindy Sheehan memorabilia you want to sell on e-bay?
Just what was all that brouhaha all about down in Texas? You were against the war, or against Bush or something like that right?
You had all the Democrat politicans promising to end the war. They told you if you elected them the majority power in Congress they would end it. They’re now promising that if you give them the Whitehouse that they would end it. In addition to that, Hillary said that if President Bush didn’t end the war if elected President she would.
Code pink, Veterans against the war and John Murtha all want American soldiers home post haste al Qaeda do whatever you want to do and Iraqis be damned!
But not so fast, all of the promises that helped Democrats win majority Congressional power seem to be off of the table. Cindy Sheehan is challenging Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi because Pelosi won’t move to impeach President Bush over the war.
And now the closer we come to the 2008 elections a unique magical change as occurred. Chickhawks are being replaced with Dem-o-Hawks.
Democrats are seeking to position themselves as being more hawkish than the Republicans and Congress has just approved the biggest military budget ever.-- Gabor Steingart
The Democrats are still critical of what they’ve labeled a failed Iraq campaign, but they are no longer opposed to the "War on Terror" in general. It has been accepted so now they want to win it not end it?
What about all of that anti-war negative energy that Liberals and Democrats have expended in this Country for the last 4 years? Two words, opinion polls!
According to Der Spiegel’s Gabor Steingart very few Americans are opposed to the worldwide fight against terrorism. Most Americans believe that the campaign against al-Qaida and its ilk is the only conceivable -- in fact, the natural -- reaction against the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The president is not faulted for his declaration of war against the terrorists Steingart believes that the polls indicate that most Americans fault President Bush for Iraq. Apparently Steingart hasn’t viewed ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN whose broadcast News claims nightly that Americans tire of the war and want its end.
In spite of that claim Steingart says,
Ninety-two percent of Americans are opposed to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and a majority doesn't want to see the US's special detention camp at Guantanamo Bay closed. At the moment, the American electorate's biggest criticism of Bush is that he has "not been aggressive enough" in pursuing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
According to Steingart, America is ruled by a Mobtocracy mentality. If that be the case what the last 7 years of the Bush Presidency has shown is that Democrats and Liberals are at the vanguard in manipulating and controlling public opinion by polling. So it should not be surprising to anyone that 7 years of anti-war by Liberals and Democrats can be transformed into Democrat candidates who are Dem-o-Hawks if the polls indicate that the America people want to win the war in Iraq John Murtha be damned!
Since the Democrat field of Presidential Dem-o-Hawks are flexing their war muscles the obvious question is which of these candidates have actually put on the uniform in service to this country, or do they expect to be Pollster-in-Chief, any time there is a change in opinion that is how they will command U.S. forces? Don’t forget we spent eight years fighting about war qualifications in the 2000 and 2004 elections if Democrats are actually going to continue the war because of polling data favorable to winning the war just which one can win it?
One thing is for certain there is not much difference between a Chickhawk and a Dem-o-Hawk both will sent your children to do a job that they as Americans won’t and wouldn’t do!
Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator has come under fire for a couple of statements that he’s made about global warming. Dr. Griffin said that he is not sure that Global warming is a problem we [human beings] must wrestle with and secondly it is not NASA’s mandated charge to spend its resources, time, materials and man power validating the theory of global warming.
Dr. Griffin was excoriated for his views called ignorant and was made to apologize to a NASA scientific community of warm-earthers or anthropogenic global warming advocates on video no less.
James Hansen being one of the NASA scientist that demanded Dr. Griffin’s apology and chief whipping boy is director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. (Note his title refers to “space studies”) Hansen is the consummate warm-earther, shill for Global warming/climate change.
And as NASA’s resident name caller he has a lot at stake in making his boss bow down to the consensus and the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Why? Because most of the global warming models are built on Mr. Hansen work and if the theory is wrong, Mr. Hansen is wrong.
But that wouldn’t bias Hansen, no way, now would it?
Hansen was once profiled on CBS' "60 Minutes" as the "world's leading researcher on global warming," [And] Hansen acted as a consultant to Al Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming. [H]e endorsed John Kerry for president, and received a $250,000 grant from the foundation headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry. –Investors Business Daily
Remember when Hansen was asked about Dr. Griffin’s remarks concerning global warming his response was, "I almost fell off my chair." "It was a shocking statement because of the level of ignorance it indicated with regard to the current situation," –James Hansen
James Hansen has the dubious distinction of being Al Gore’s brain and he is well connected in the warm-earther society enough to have received grant moneys from them but he’s not bias, nooo, because he’s a scientist. (Yeah right!)
However it’s NASA with all that rocket scientist brain power that is red faced when it comes to the controversial topic of global warming because a single retired executive, Stephen McIntyre, blogging in his pajamas discovered that the brain trust at NASA was putting out errant data in their attempts to support the theory of man-made climate change.
McIntyre discovered that NASA’s unadjusted data regarding Surface Temperature Analysis was the reason for their errant claims and called it to their attention which immediately voided the claim that 1998 was the hottest year ever. NASA responded by this half-hearted acknowledgement and correction of their mistake.
(We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)
However because of Mr. McIntyre due diligence it has been determined that three of the top 10 hottest years are in the last decade not this decade and 1998 was not the hottest year ever.
Four of the top ten are in the 1930's, before either the IPCC or the GISS really think man had any discernible impact on temperatures. Further thanks to Mr. McIntyre the correct listing for the top ten hottest days are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939. Source Link
NASA claimed, largely due to James Hansen’s work, that 1998 ranked as the hottest year ever in the United States and published that so called finding to the “ooos” and “aahs” of their fellow warm-earthers.
These findings seemed to fit quite neatly into the warm-earther theorists claims that man made activity such as recent factory output producing CO2 emissions plus the thousands of SUV’s on the roads were the primary cause for the earth’s temperature reaching dangerous levels and the Greenland glacier melt.
However, recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. Meaning that glaciers have been warming since the 1880’s (that’s 100 years, count them, of melting) that would put any melting of Greenland glaciers outside of the timeline for the claim of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions climate change.
What is so ironic about this whole sorted affair is that Dr. Griffin’s statements regarding climate change attempted to remove NASA out of the politics of global warming and into the business of space exploration which it is mandated to do and he did this graciously without attempting to prejudice anyones work.
For his efforts he was called ignorant and made to apologize. Dr. Griffin said:
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.
First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.” – Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator
He also said:
“Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change either one way or another.”- Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator
Dr. Griffin is right, James Hansen and NASA’s warm-earther contingency are wrong. As well Hansen and his colleagues are what is wrong with science, they are the epitome of what happens when scientists sell out to politically correct agendas to receive popular acclaim and grant moneys.
We demand the same treatment that was foisted on Dr. Griffin we want an apology for the wrong data that NASA published and an apology for the politicalization of the space exploration agency by shills such as James Hansen who represents a warm-earther agenda and we want it on video!
(Warm-earther – one who advocates the theories and consensus belief of anthropogenic global warming to the extreme of resisting any and all scientific proof to the contrary)
Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA, chief administrator tried to tell them. But the politically correct consensus of the warm-earther scientific community of NASA would have nothing of it.
Instead they drove him to his knees and demanded that he renounce the contrarian denier’s spirit that had obviously possessed him. They then forced him to do twenty hail warmings and 40 our father of global warming, Al Gores!
Under tremendous puerile peer pressure Dr. Griffin prostrated himself on the floor with arms out streched at his sides (looking like an airplane) he proclaimed that he was in league with the devil (or fellow deniers, they’re synonymous) and from henceforth he would not perform the witchcraft of truth telling ever again.
Even if he is again asked his personal opinion he will never venture to say anything but what is the accepted warm-earther scientific theory (based on consensus opinion) on any matter. So help him Robert Hooke or Galileo Galilei the father of modern science. (Whom you chose is depended upon whether you agree with Albert Einstein or not.)
What? You don’t believe me? They got it on video!
Well all right, they have his renouncement of what he said in the NPR interview, I admit I am speaking with my tongue-in-cheek, I doubt he really laid prostrate on the floor while he gave his confession but they do have his apology on video!
Seriously though, you and I should understand that Dr. Griffin’s acquiescing to the warm-earthers means that he never can have an independent thought ever again.
Further it means that whatever he says for public consumption from this point on will undoubtedly be in consensus with the consensus. And whatever he says will be to appease his warm-earther scientific consensus and grand inquisitor high-council housed there at NASA. Kind of Big Brother and 1984, wouldn’t you say?
Dr. Griffin was attempting to state that NASA’s proper and official role is a space exploration agency not a shiny new Sharper Image™ global warming weather vane for warm-earther fanatics and for that truth Griffin was rebuffed.
Dr. Griffin explained:
“Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another.”
What, blasphemy! Everyone knows that NASA’s primary directive coming from the politically correct warm-earthers is to provide data to support their on going theories of anthropogenic global warming, come on Dr. Griffin get with it!
So when Dr. Griffin intimated that NASA resources, materials, manpower and time where being diverted to concerns outside of the operating mandate of NASA he was called ignorant and the warm-earthers demanded an apology. And we all know what a demand for an apology means today! It is a not so subtle threat for either the good Dr. to recant his previous statements or lose this job. So Dr. Griffin do, he recanted!
This is an excerpt from the NPR interview in question:
(Q)It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
(A)I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.
(Q)Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
(A)I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.
First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.
There is nothing in Dr. Griffin’s statement that warrant’s an apology but never-the-less he was asked to renounce his personal beliefs and unlike Luther before the Diet of Worms in 1521 Dr. Griffin did!
Mr. Bush, right, followed by Mr. Rove, center, and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, left, exiting the worldstage
Effective August 31, 2007 Karl Rove will bow out of the position which he as held since 2001, adviser to the President of the United States of America.
Because he was apart of the Bush administration Democrats made him a target as they’ve done with all members of the Bush administration. And you do know that the President’s approval rates are directly a result of Democrat efforts to make everything about President Bush unpopular.
So Rove was made a target as all of the Republicans are made targets by Democrats who refused to believe that Americans rejected them in 2000 and 2004 so they declared their very own war of personal destruction against Republicans; John Ashcroft, I. Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfield, Alberto Gonzales, Tom Delay and Karl Rove. (Just to name a few)
Democrats claim that they hate Republicans and everything that Republicans stand for so they feel totally and perfectly justified in attempting to bring down or dismantling the Bush administration.
We know that all of the negatively had it’s genesis with the Democrats and that they have projected their own corruption on the Republican Party. Democrats had 49 years of corruption controlling both house of Congress before the little twelve year Republican blip on the political radar screen.
Don’t get me wrong Randy “Duke” Cunningham was corrupted and got what he deserved but if everyone in Congress got what he or she deserved I’m willing to bet that more Democrats would be looking for work in 2008 and 2010 than Republicans!
Which brings me to my point, Democrats have been hunting and hounding Karl Rove since the President won 2000 because, again as they have stated, they hate Republicans and everything that they stand for. I believe that if Mr. Rove is leaving because Democrats have successfully made him a target, a negative for the Bush administration, then he is leaving for the wrong reason. Because as long as there is a Republican that will resist the Liberalization of America that person will be hated and despised by the left.
Liberals are like misguided delinquent teens that hate and despise their parents for raising them, feeding them, clothing them and attempting to give them morals with which to live a better life.
It is absolutely stunning that Liberals can spend almost eight years making Republicans polarizing figures and then turn around and claim that a Republican such as Mr. Rove is a polarizing figure!
Thus if Mr. Rove is leaving because Democrats have made him a polarizing figure then the Democrats have won. The terrorist have won!
It’s too bad that Democrats didn’t use their abilities to demonize against the enemies of this country; bin Laden, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and terrorist. Had Democrats treated the enemies of this country like they treated Republicans we might have had a better go in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That instead of a valued Presidential adviser quitting his post under the steady drumbeat of Democrat negativity, just think maybe it would have been our enemies who are on the battle field of Iraq that would have decided to up and quit.
If just only half the Democrat's negatively was directed against our enemies; al Qaeda, terrorists and Islamic extremists maybe the suicide bombers would have decided that their deaths would be pointless and they would rather spend more time with their families and maybe just maybe it would be terrorists who would have resigned from the field of battle.
But because we have allowed one Party to totally politicize everything so that they might gain some sort of political advantage we have condoned the cutting off of our collective nose to spite our face.
Thus a valued political adviser is quitting because the other political Party ginned up enough hate to drive him away from serving America.
Whether you agreed with the politics of Karl Rove or not do we really want politics in America reduced solely to the politics of hate?
That’s intolerance and I will not support anyone or any Party that claims to be accepting of all things but hateful of White Protestant males and or Christians, or Conservatives or Republicans.
If you hate any of the above you are neither tolerant nor are you good for America.
And if Mr. Rove is leaving because of your intolerance he is cutting and running!
Anti-Iraq war advocates, US Democratic Senator from New York Charles Schumer (C) US Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (L), Democrat from Nevada, and Democratic Senator from Illinois Richard Durbin (R)
Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. -- JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA
Are you ready for the truth? No I don’t think you are. After all of the lies you can’t handle the truth!
You elected Democrats on their promise that they would immediately end the war. Thanks to you Democrats are the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Congress. So did they keep their promise?
No and as a matter of fact certain Democrats are hedging their bets, what I mean by that is, there are some Democrats finally telling the truth about Iraq and U.S. troops. The truth is that they really have no intention of ending the war rapidly.
Sen. Hillary Clinton says she would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north.
Sen. Barak Obama says he would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
Former Sen. John Edwards would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.
A Change of heart for Democrats? No a change of polling, Democrats who do nothing without consulting the polling numbers see that there is a slight change in Americans opinion about the war so they are running to get out in front of the wave.
One Democrat senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.
One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.
Just what is going on?
Democrats are anticipating the report due by General Petraeus on the troop surge word is that report could be positive not negative and if that is the case Democrats see negative political ramifications. It’s all political, is all about winning elections for Democrats and if that means losing the war in Iraq so be it!
"If we don't handle a shift in the facts on the ground in Iraq well, some of that advantage will erode, the Republican position will be strengthened, and we'll have more of a jump ball, at least in the presidential election” --Daniel Gerstein, Democratic political consultant
However if by some way the troop surge works, well hey a few well placed words so that a Democrat can claim that they were for the war all along. Well at least they will be able to say they were for a winning surge and that’s just politicizing the issue like Democrats usually do.
And you thought this was about principle? Remember for a political philosophy that believes in compromising everything even principles and even beliefs, positions and platforms are in continual flux.
You know, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." That’s the Democrats way both sides of the issue all the time. One thing that Democrats and Liberals don’t want is the truth. That’s the only thing that can explain the inconsistencies in belief, positions and the political actions of the left.
I can’t believe the gall of Vincente Fox of Mexico,being pissed at the US for causing a drop in the amount of dollars being sent from this country, by illegal aliens working here. The tightening immigration rules are finally working.
He thinks that we should continue to allow this fiasco to go on, in order to mask the deeper problems in Mexico. If the Mexican government, would get a handle on the graft and corruption that runs rampant there, they might stand a chance of keeping their population where it belongs..... at home, holding jobs and and generating some income for their government.
Stu Bykofsky’s, “To save America, we need another 9/11” is a classic example of the dumbing down of America.
In the most illogical exercise of pseudo problem solving since Senator Obama’s claim that he would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and then attack Afghanistan, Bykofsky opines that another 9/11 would unify the country again just like the days immediately following the infamous terrorist attack on America, but this fallacious fantasizing and selective memory is typical of what is wrong with this country.
Bykofsky says:
[I’m] sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.
Mr. Bykofsky way before 9/11 we were a politically splintered Nation you remember the Red state, Blue state divide that was being reported on during the 2000 elections? Enemy lines in America were drawn then much before the events of 9/11 or the war in Iraq!
This country had just gone through one of the most divisive elections in recent history. Al Gore reneged on his election night concession to George W. Bush thereby unleashing a partisan war in this country the likes which only differs from the American Civil War in that the bodies that were spewed across the American landscape were political bodies not the actual physical bodies of the original war that divided this Nation.
It is not the Iraq war which divides this nation it is the political partisan infighting that divides this nation and changed forever the way we do and view politics today. Gore and Democrats took this country on the most politically destructive course imaginable and along the way they made it their business to cast doubt upon the American election process by declaring that process fraudulent. As well some on the left, by association or by direct accusation declared an American President illegitimate.
We have had almost 12 years of this kind of political drama that is why we don’t know who the enemy is if you are a Democrat your party tells you that your enemy is a Republican. That is what started this divided nation!
What Bykofsky over looks is that 9/11 was just a brief respite in the middle of political anarchy that American partisan politics had just begun to evolve into not some mystical healing occasion for the Nation.
As proof of that, not days after that most tragic event Democrats where back at it blaming the President for not reacting and responding with appropriate command at the terrorist threat.
Bykofsk’s simplistic analysis misses that point all together. No disaster, political or natural, will bring America together again after the trauma of Al Gore’s Chadgate and the subsequent Supreme Court intervention that Chadgate caused.
An intervention, by the way, that derailed the Left’s attempt to force the Democrat Party on the people of the United States, as so many other leftist causes had previously been put upon the people. The left has forced every other one of their causes ranging from the illegitimate claim of separation of church and state to the “homosexual agenda” for constitutional rights to human caused global warming, the left has forced its agenda on the America people through the very courts a.
Another disaster will not fix this divide Mr. Bykofsky. Katrina didn’t, Rita didn’t, the felled bridge in Minneapolis didn’t, and another 9/11 won’t. The only thing that will bring this country together again is rejection of those who practice the partisan politics of personal destruction.
And just who is practicing such politics? Just listen to the debates and when you hear Bush bashing or the pronouncement that the war is lost or failed or wrong, you will more than likely find at the end of those politically charged statements a partisan that is the reason that this country is so divided.
You what to be like Europe? France and Italy recently elected Conservatives rejecting the Liberal ideology that had dominated those countries for years.
You what another 9/11 Mr. Bykofsky then let the country reject the partisan liberals that are in Congress and then let them elect a strong Conservative majority in the Senate and House, you want another 9/11, then reject the liberals who are campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President and lets all vote for a Republican for President.
I can see it now Republicans take control and both the House and Senate and a Republican President, and all liberals on the ground all across the blue states in the fetal position crying, “What happen another 9/11?”
Just drop the liberalism, you don't have to drop another bomb!
President George W. Bush China's President Hu Jintao
"If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life."—John Sherman
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph of the U.K. reports that China is threatening the United States economically. Why would they do that? Congress, it seems, is considering a law that would protect U.S. jobs and correct the current trade imbalance that the U.S. has with China and China doesn’t like it.
According to the Telegraph, [t]he Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US Treasury bonds if Washington imposes trade sanctions against them as a bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods, may do. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) called for changes in American trade policy in order to counter the unfair competition posed by countries that use illegal trade practices.
Senator Collins and Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) have introduced legislation to ensure that all countries doing business with the U.S. are operating under the same rules that help to ensure fair competition for American manufacturers.
The Stopping Overseas Subsidies Act (SOS) revises current trade laws to allow the U.S. to enforce anti-subsidy laws, known as countervailing duty laws, on all trade partners. Countervailing duty laws prohibit foreign countries from subsidizing industries and businesses in a way that allows those industries and businesses to sell their goods below the cost that American manufacturers are able to offer.
U.S. Reps Artur Davis and Phil English have also introduced legislation to deal with this the issue of trade imbalance.
An Economic Policy Institute study found that 1.5 million jobs were lost to lower-wage Chinese competition in the 14-year period between 1989 and 2003. During that time, the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion. It is expected to increase another 20 percent in 2004, to $150 billion.
What caused the trade deficit? The brilliant business interest that brought us NAFTA caused the trade deficit. The smarty pants who run U.S. Corporations thought that they could do business with communist China, a nation of 1.3 billion people whose government pays low socialist wages therefore everything that they manufacture cost less.
So the geniuses of Big Business make huge profits selling to you and me products that they buy at low socialist wages they forgo paying American wages and benefits and at the same time they uncut American manufacturers. All the while, the big picture is that, corporate greed is destroying America's economic sovereignty.
That’s not all; when these masterminds attempt to sell American made products to the communist country of China naturally the low wage earners can’t afford the American products and opt to buy their own country’s low cost products which produces a trade deficit.
The United States imports more goods from China than it exports to a tune of $202 billion dollars each year. All told, China alone accounts for nearly 26% of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit.
Interesting enough, big business also attempts to cut wages in the United States by corporate down sizing, outsourcing jobs and encouraging low wage illegal aliens and guest workers to enter into this country, Did these smart guys who run corporate America ever think that if low wage earners in China can’t and won’t buy the higher priced U.S. products, then didn’t they even consider the possibility that low wage earners in the U.S. won’t be able to buy that Ford Explorer, for instance, nor will most of us be able to buy that Cadillac Escalade?
You recall the talk about a North American Community one which the U.S., Canada and Mexico would become joined as an economic American version of the European Union. What you probably didn’t know is that the U.S. has a trade deficit not only with China but with both Canada and Mexico too!
• The goods deficit with Canada decreased from $5.8 billion in April to $5.2 billion in May. Exports increased $1.6 billion (primarily civilian aircraft, automotive parts and accessories, and fuel oil) to $21.8 billion, while imports increased $1.0 billion (primarily petroleum products, fish and shellfish, and automotive parts and accessories) to $27.0 billion. • The goods deficit with China increased from $19.4 billion in April to $20.0 billion in May. Exports increased $0.5 billion (primarily semiconductors and civilian aircraft) to $5.3 billion, while imports increased $1.1 billion (primarily apparel and household goods) to $25.3 billion. • The goods deficit with Mexico increased from $5.2 billion in April to $5.9 billion in May. Exports increased $1.1 billion (primarily automotive parts and accessories and electric apparatus) to $12.1 billion, while imports increased $1.7 billion (primarily crude oil, automotive parts and accessories and electric apparatus) to $17.9 billion. –U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics
The bottom line is that American corporate Globalist have placed the United States in a economic position that we can now be economically black mailed by anyone of our allies or by a communist country such as China. (Did I mention that China is a Communist country?) As is evident by what China is attempting to do now!
No one told you that the sovereignty of our nation would be economically jeopardized by International Globalists who are attempting to link the world economies together for their benefit and control, but it is and here we are being threaten because of what international Globalists have done.
And if a nation like China decides that they would rather wreak havoc on the U. S. economy rather than allow the U.S. to even the economic playing field with them the U.S. is vulnerable to that threat.
Such is the legacy of Internationalism, Globalism, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Community or any of these front organizations for corporate global power. We are vulnerable to threats from our enemies as well we are vulnerable to losing our sovereignty and freedoms from powerful corporate Oligarchies.
This is not what the founders envisioned, surely if they would not be ruled by a king they would not suffer kings over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life to rule over us!
Neither would they want America destroyed because of International Globalist designs and Corporate greed!
"It's Democrats, making a difference, doing the job they were elected to do. And we've only just begun,"—TV ad run by Democrats starting Thursday extolling their accomplishment this year
Democrats are Pretendocrats and Domestic warriors!
They haven’t accomplished a damn thing so they are going to run TV ads touting their non-accomplishments so that you will think that they accomplished something… Pretendocrats!
In addition to that some of the best fighting that I have seen in the 4 years that we’ve been in Iraq has occurred in Washington D.C. the Democrats war against President Bush and the Bush administration. They don’t want to fight in Iraq but they are the best damn domestic warriors that I’ve ever seen!
Two traits describes today’s Democrat Senators and Congressmen or women, two traits that our now vacationing Congress will be forever known for, one Pretending that they have accomplished something to justify your vote for Democrats and to justify a Democratic victory in 2006 and two, producing so much rancor, conflict and partisan disunity in Washington D.C. that Iraq might appear to be a suitable vacation spot for the Senators or Congresspersons wishing a nice quite place to vacation.
Democrats disclosed plans Thursday for nationwide television advertising that praises Congress for raising the minimum wage, seeking expanded health care for children and "taking on George Bush to end a war gone wrong."
The commercial will air on cable television beginning on Monday, timed to coincide with the beginning of a monthlong congressional break.
As reported by David Espo, AP Special Correspondent "The Democrats have not made good on a single promise they made during 2006, especially when it comes to fostering a more open and deliberative House of Representatives," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Instead of making the House more open and deliberative, they've gone in the opposite direction, doing things we never even contemplated during our time in the majority."
Democrats broke their campaign pledge to run a more open and honest Congress during their much-ballyhooed "first 100 hours" in power when they introduced five bills on the floor without moving them first through committee or allowing Rules Committee Republicans to dissent. But each of those bills passed the House by a wide margin, illustrating the broad popularity of the legislation. According to Josephine Hearn of Politico Democrats have only checked off on the minimum-wage hike, the anti-terrorism bill and the lobbying reform bill, three of the “Six in ’06” list of campaign pledges but nothing close to their grandiose promises to end the war.
Hearn opines that the specter of spending a month with constituents often galvanizes lawmakers into fits of productivity; passing many bills before the August recess is common . all of that legislative action yet Democrats have only had a few bills signed into law by the President.
So they have not completely fulfilled all of their campaign pledges the only thing that they’ve managed to do is polarize the politics in Washington by incessant Congressional hearings, so much so that nothing is getting done. Oh there is one other thing that they’ve done, they’ve made a television ad claiming that they have accomplished great things in hopes that you will disregard Congress’ lowest approval rating ever since records of such matters have been kept, that plus they hope you will vote for more Democrats in spite of the hate, incompetence and disfunction that a Democrat controlled congress has brought to American politics.
Pretendocrats and Domestic warriors, America deserves better we must have better!
Until 2006 Republicans had twelve years of control of the Congress. Before that Democrats control Congress for 49 years. 49 years of corruption. So much corruption that in 1994 Democrats were swept from power by an angry electorate, the “Contract with America” and the Republican theme, “Culture of Corruption.”
The more things change the more they remain the same.
“There’s a new Congress in Town,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lead her party to electoral victory in 2006 using the Gingrich play book. Why, she even retooled the corruption meme, by which, she battered Republicans senseless with her own version of the 1994 “Contract” of course you know it as a “New Direction.”
Promising a new open honest government was enough to convince the American people to hand over both houses of Congress to the Democrat Party hoping for major reforms in our government.
So did Pelosi and her fellow Democrats live up to their promises. Did they end the corruption, bribes, kickbacks, and corporate influence on Capitol Hill?
Well, we do have some spiffy new House rules that Rep. Pelosi and Democrats voted into the house to end Congressional Republican corruption. So is corruption ended in Washington D.C.?
The Democrat controlled House and Senate passed measures requiring lawmakers to certify they have no financial interest in the request, as well as attaching their name to it and identifying the recipient. Until this year, Congress didn't require disclosure of earmark sponsors. [Is this helping to reform Congress?]
No! The new rules aren't uniform and they were never meant to stop corruption. They were only meant to give you and me the impression that Democrats wanted to end earmarks and other corrupt practices in Congress, not only that, some congressional panels make it difficult to track down specifics about an earmark. But other than that are the new Congressional rules working?
Has the “Culture of Corruption” ended because Democrats are in power? Again no, corruption has only changed directions, a new direction, a direction from Republican corruption to Democrat corruption. And this is the change that Pelosi promised? It’s too bad but in spite of their promises the Democrats are no better than the Republicans!
Different Rules
The rules may have changed for sure, but the only change in Congress is Democrats re-taking the mantle of “A Culture of Corruption.” For example, the House Appropriations Committee provides the information in reports available online, although they aren't searchable by keyword. What's more, details about the projects are scattered throughout the documents. Is this the open government that Pelosi promised?
And what about the names of Democrat Congressmen whose earmarks and their sponsors are typically listed in the back of the reports, the amount of money provided for them is listed elsewhere, making identifying what Democrat is receiving earmarks a murky affair at best forcing inquiring minds to go on a laborious scavenger hunt according to Brian Faler and David Rosen of Bloomberg.com. Faler and Rosen write that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee make its earmark-request letters available only by appointment. Researchers must take notes, because the committee doesn't allow the public to make photocopies of the letters.
So they conclude that the new rules haven't stopped lawmakers from funneling earmarks to specific companies, some of them political donors, as well as to public projects such as roads, schools and parks or Democrats Senators and Congressmen haven’t stopped personally profiting from these earmarks the law is so written that you and I, the voters get the impression that Democrats have done something to change directions when actually its business as usual with Democrats now earmarking themselves into Jack Abramhoff and Randy “Duke” Cunningham like corruption.
Some companies stand to gain from Pelosi's earmarks. The California Democrat has won funding for six companies in a 2008 defense funding measure. One is a $4 million request to develop a ``novel viral biowarfare agent'' for Prosetta Corp., based in her San Francisco district. Tom Higgins, the company's chief executive officer, says he talked to the Speaker's staff directly rather than hiring a lobbyist and hasn't given money to her campaign. ``We're just a little company,'' he says. Another of Pelosi's earmarks was $2.5 million to Bioquiddity, Inc., a San Francisco biotech company with nine employees, to continue developing drug-infusion pumps.
Bioquiddity President Josh Kriesel, who ran unsuccessfully as a Republican for the state legislature in 2002, has donated $6,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since last September. The company received a total of $3.9 million in earmarks in the last two years. Kriesel declined to comment directly on the earmarks.
Pelosi has said some earmarks are ``worthy.'' And she said there is a distinction between those for public projects, which she sometimes touts with press releases and special interest earmarks.
Finally, there very well may be a distinction between earmarks Ms. Pelosi but there is no distinction between someone who lied to the American people, as you and your Party did to gain control of both the House and the Senate, and the Republicans that Democrats replaced in November of 2006.
This is hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars Ms. Pelosi that you are throwing at your personal pet projects. And then your Party will have the temerity to stand before the American people and demand higher taxes especially if someone in your party is elected President?
Nope this is not a direction that I want to travel. And I hope the American people feel the same way too!
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, touting a New Direction
“Democracy is a contact sport, and I’m not going to be shy about asking for money for my community, my guess is that next year I’m going to be putting in more earmarks.”—Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) – Kansas, who is being given tax payer money for a prison museum in her district.
You couldn’t have possibly forgotten the Democrats political rally cry, “A Culture of Corruption!” Nor could you have forgotten Democrat’s promises to clean up politics by sweeping Republicans out of office if you would vote for Democrats for Congress.
On those two devises and the anti-war hysteria that the radical left-wing arm of the Democrat Party was able to conjure up. Democrats received enough votes to control both the Senate and the House of the U.S. Congress. Democrats increased their numbers in the House from 201 to 233 giving them a 32 seat swing and a 31 vote advantage. In the Senate Democrats increased their numbers by 7 giving Democrats a 2 vote advantage and majority status in the United States Congress.
So has Democrat control of Congress taken the country in a new direction or is it politics as usual under a new corrupt Democrat Congressional Oligarchy?
Edmund L. Andrews and Robert Pear’s New York Times report, “With New Rules, Congress Boasts of Pet Projects” tells of a Culture of Corruption but only this time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the leaders of the United States Congress and Democrats are the purveyors of the very corruption that you dear voter removed Republicans from office for.
Last year, Democrats denounced the explosive growth of earmarks as a central part of what they called the “culture of corruption” under the Republican-led Congress. They skewered the infamous $200 million “bridge to nowhere” that Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, had tried to finance.
Last year’s outcry against earmarks was fueled in part by scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist. The concerns were heightened by the conviction of Representative Randy Cunningham on charges of taking millions of dollars in cash and gifts in exchange for inserting earmarks for a military contractor.--Edmund L. Andrews and Robert Pear, NYtimes
But this year according to Andrews and Pear , House lawmakers have put together spending bills that include almost 6,500 earmarks for almost $11 billion in local projects
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million. Not to mention Senator Diane Feinstein’s Iraq war earmark profiteering that makes Halliburton look like a nickel and dime operation.
Among the thousands of earmarks tucked into House or Senate spending bills: $2.6 million for a new grape genetics research center at Cornell University; $738,000 to study cancer-fighting chemicals in raspberries at Ohio State University; a contract for Texas A&M University to study the “root causes” of post-traumatic stress disorder; and $3.6 million to design a Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in Kearneysville, W.Va.
These are tax payers dollars being used to fund private boondoggles which Democrats in control of the White house and Congress will certainly raise your taxes so that they can send your money to some private concern to grow peanuts or build a museum to honor criminals.
As a matter of fact Andrews and Pear reports that it has already been done, When Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, recently ridiculed a provision on the House floor to spend $100,000 on a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kan., Representative Nancy Boyda, Democrat of Kansas jumped to promote her district’s heritage.
Leavenworth County, she boasted, had more prisons than any other county in America. Its inmates, she added, have included Machine Gun Kelly and the Birdman of Alcatraz (before he was sent to Alcatraz).
“The local residents are proud of their heritage, and rightly so,” Ms. Boyda told Mr. Flake during a debate on the House floor. The House voted 317 to 112 to keep her earmark.
According to the Times article, Mr. Flake met similar defeat trying to block [Democrat earmarking] $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, Calif.; $150,000 for the Burpee Museum of natural history in Rockford, Ill.; $250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, Wash.; and $750,000 for the Alliance for NanoHealth in Houston.
“We’re lying to the American people when we say we’re fixing earmarks when we’re not,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, during debate this week on the Senate floor.
“This is just sour milk,” Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said of Mr. Coburn. “If he could have blocked the whole bill, he would have.”
Interesting that Senator Feinstein would defend a bill that allows Democrats to profit politically at the tax payers expense though it’s nothing new for this one woman culture of corruption. And by the way Senator the expression is Sour Grapes!
The largest percentage of earmarks this year went to the Democrat House leadership, including Speaker Pelosi, according to calculations by The New York Times and based on records assembled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Democrats have proven to be as corrupt as what they’ve accused Republicans to be. Not only corrupt but political ATM machines with your money, tax payers money.
In clear violation of yet another campaign promise, Democrats maneuvered last night to forcibly reverse the outcome of a vote that would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.
After a majority of the House initially passed the measure barring illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer funded handouts, Democrat leaders stepped-in to strong-arm their politically vulnerable members into switching their votes in order to defeat the measure and deliver benefits for illegals. And what's even worse -- they did this in the dead of the night, when they hoped no one was watching.
Democrats are quickly proving that they are politically tone-deaf to the issue of illegal immigration. Their latest move to provide illegal immigrants with taxpayer funded benefits is an outrage and we need to stop it.
Despite their claims of being in touch with the American voters on this issue, the liberal Democrat party remains out of step with the views and values of this country.
Send a clear message to Nancy Pelosi and the "vote-switching" Democrats- that we will not stand idly by while they attempt to run roughshod over the will of the American people.
Lunacy and Lunatic are the musings of a mad hatter by the name of Dan Gerstein in his column written for the Politico entitled, “Forget about a Bush impeachment -- it's Gonzales” In this column Gerstein lays out the minds of Liberal Democrats. And man is it a frightening place!
In his informative but startling article Mr. Gerstein confirms everything that sensible people were attempting to warn the country about regarding Democrats gaining political power.
Let’s unravel some of the twists and turns of a purely partisan mind, one which is partisanly delusional to the moveon.org extreme, shall we. And after that I think even the most neutral Independent voter will retch at the prospect of Democrats leading this country in 2008 especially after this candid examination of the way which ultra-partisan Democrats thinks.
Impeachment
Why is Impeachment of President Bush even a discussion in Liberal circles? And because it is, Mr. Gerstein presents an argument stating why Democrats want to impeach ergo Cindy Sheehan but can ill afford to because it is not politically expedient for Democrats to do so. Gerstein’s solution? Why simple silly impeach Alberto Gonzales!
The truth is Democrat Liberals hate Conservatives and everything that Conservatives stand for, according to Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and if it were up to these haters they would impeach the whole lot of you Conservatives! 50% of the country would be censured by Russ Feingold because if you happen to be a Conservative Republican you are criminally wrong in everything that you do and believe.
That is what this talk about impeachment of President Bush is; Democrats are criminalizing policy differences between themselves and the President. Just like their plans to criminalize all Conservative belief and religious belief.
So look for the fairness doctrine to shut up your Conservative talk radio, look for hate speech legislation to shut up your churches from speaking biblically regarding the act of homosexually and look for the quick and thorough dismantling of any sign or symbol of Conservativism when Democrats achieve control of the American Government.
Understand it isn’t actually about George W. Bush. It isn’t George W. that Democrats wish to impeach, censure or just run out of Washington on a rail, sure Democrats put in a lot of work to destroy his Presidency, but it would be the same thing if any other Republican candidate representing Conservative ideology would dare to lay claim to the most powerful elected office in the world.
Democrats can’t stomach the thought of a Conservative leading this nation. So they’ve skewered President Bush for almost 8 years and so having the chance to impeach him and drive him out of office in shame would give Democrat haters orgasmic shivers of ecstasy which even sex couldn’t duplicate for the ardent Liberal Conservative hater.
Gerstein writes,
“Is impeachment in the best interests of the country? Is the evidence strong enough to convince 67 senators that the president has shown himself to be unfit for office and/or a danger to the country? And not least of all, what are the costs to the country and to the impeaching party of bringing charges and then losing?”
You see in the mind of a Liberal Democrat when they speak about the interests of the country they are not speak for the 50% of Conservatives that reside in this country. Democrats equate this country with themselves only.
So in an almost equally split Senate Democrats would have to come up with 17 to 18 Republican senators to achieve the Democrat wet dream of impeaching President Bush.
But in a political climate that holds Congress at an all time historical low the politicizing Dems wouldn’t even think of attempting something so politically disadvantageous because according to Gerstein, American discontent is not nearly broad enough or deep enough to sustain what would start out and likely continue as a wholly partisan campaign to forcibly remove Bush from office a year early.
Dan Gerstein is an ultra-partisan who like most liberal Democrats would impeach President Bush if he and they thought that you’d let them. They’re thinking about it really hard, so hard in fact that nothing else in Congress is getting done.
Gerstein’s dilemma is that though Democrats pretend that they are the whole country they know for a fact that there are enough Conservatives in this country to stop them from winning the Presidency in 2008 and from fully controlling Congress so they won’t be doing anything to piss off Conservatives at least until they can get control of the government and then it’s Katie bar the door.
Gerstein and liberals like him understand that impeaching President Bush would create a firestorm of Conservative political action much like the immigration bill did.
Can’t have that now, huh Mr. Gerstein? Not just before Democrats get what is owed to them from 2000 and 2004 elections. So they’ll just impeach Alberto Gonzales.
Admittedly it’s not as satisfying as stripping the big guy of his executive privileges but it’ll have to do, so not to awaken the sleeping dog Conservatives before the Democrat Presidential candidate is raising his right hand on the January 20, 2009 with his hand over a Qu’ran swearing to protect and defend Liberal Democrats sensibilities, so help him international law and the Hague of which it stands three nations a North America Community with liberty and freedom to whomever comes across our borders to destroy us and destroy any traditions that made us the great country and power that we once were.
The conversation of climate change in this country and the world is an extraordinary effort in changing social attitudes by social engineering. The green movement along with its special interest and government co-conspirators is attempting to change your mind regarding how you live your life and ,as well, they intend to get into your wallet.
The whole topic of anthropomorphic climate change has been a farce from the very beginning. From Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth Alive Earth World Concerts to the Greenland glacier meltdown consensus, where everyone but deniers agree that man is the cause of global warming and because of the popular consensus everyone is expected to believe in the unproven conjecture of anthropomorphic climate change (ACC).
But what if I told you that latest scientific studies refute the theories of Greenland glacier meltdown? You are probably so thoroughly brainwashed that no amount of scientific proof will change your mind.
However, according to a Danish study researchers from Aarhus University Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years. Do you understand the implication of this? If this is the case then to connect the phenomenon of Greenland glacier melt with anthropomorphic climate change is morally and criminally wrong. Criminally wrong when proponents of climate change intend to profit at the expense of sheeplessly conditioned followers of the hype of global warming (GW).
And then there are the cataclysmic and dire forecast of monster storms in the Atlantic, FrankenStorms, hurricanes caused by ACC but where are these storms now?
During the active 2005 hurricane season, the usual doom-and-gloom prophets blamed the storms on global warming (GW). "Nature's wrath," we were told, "hath been unleashed". Aided by a complaisant media, we were told this was our wakeup call, come to punish us for our SUV-driving ways.--Dailytech.com
Once again proponents of Global warming are wrong so far.
Finally if you are a person that does not believe in ACC you could be threaten with death or the total destruction of your creditability and livelihood as Marlo Lewis was by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE).
Eckhart an apparent global warming fanatic wrote to Lewis in an e-mail,
"Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."
Eckhart seriously needs to take a chill pill! Why are these GW fanatics so emotionally disturbed regarding their defense of climate change?
The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip lead by Senator Barbara Boxer to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
Did you get that GW fanatics? In Greenland current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions and according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880's
Let’s see the glaciers have been warming since the 1880’s that would put the any melting of Greenland glaciers outside of the timeline for the claim of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions climate change. Humm, seems like the internet is not the only invention of former vice President Al Gore.
In spite of the apparent debunking of human caused global warming liberal minions will continue to buy their Priuses while defending the junk science of global warming they will do this in spite overwhelming evidence that yes climate is changing as it has done since the inception of earth and weather but as in the begin as it is now man is not the cause of weather change.
So those of us who believe in facts will continue to be threatened, defamed or financially ruined by GW fanatics like Michael Eckhart. So much for scientific method and reason for the left!
At the very least they’ve got some s’plaining to do! Democrats are attempting to beat back any positive news, message or event related to the war in Iraq or President Bush. They would love to keep the political conversation on these two subjects all negative all the time but a crack seems to be developing in Democrat strategy.
First Michael E. O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings two long time liberal anti-war critics published a piece in the New York Times that offers hope that the war can be won and possibly is being won!
And then, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Victor Davis Hanson, Clifford D. May, Senator John McCain, Mackubin Thomas Owens, James S. Robbins, Peter W. Rodman, Joseph Morrison Skelly, and Michael Yon all chime in that, yeah there are some positive things happening in Iraq.
Finally, U.S. HOUSE Majority Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third ranking Democrat in the House is interviewed by Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz of the Washingtonpost.com when asked concerning Gen. David Petraeus September progress report on Iraq the Congressman seem to view it as problematic if the General’s report would come back positive. (see interview)
The UnionLeader.com writes:
U.S. HOUSE Majority Leader James Clyburn, D-S.C., [the third ranking Democrat in the House] acknowledged on Monday that his party has called for withdrawing from Iraq while victory, or at least a better situation than exists now, might yet be attained.
If Gen. David Petraeus delivers a September progress report showing real gains, instead of the mixed report many have expected, it would "be a real big problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.
Why would American success in Iraq be "a real big problem" for Democrats? Oh, yeah. They've already called the war "lost" (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), have tried seven times this year to end it, and have staked their majority in Congress and their hopes for winning the White House on an American failure there.
But all of a sudden things are starting to look a little more positive in Iraq -- the "surge" is producing results -- and some Democrats are getting nervous. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report," Clyburn said of any more Democratic calls for specific action in Iraq.
Now there's an idea. Wait to see if the new strategy is working before demanding an end to the war. Why didn't the Democratic leadership try that before? Oh, right. Because pledging to end the war was more politically beneficial. Now that sticking around and trying to win might, just might, turn out to be the better political choice, Clyburn suggests that his party gather all the facts before making the call. –UnionLeader.com
I couldn’t have said it better myself UnionLeader! What next Democrats claiming that they always knew that President Bush was a good President?
Think about it if Democrats would not have bad mouth this effort and actually used their acumen for political fighting to work with the Bush administration instead of almost 8 years of undermining the Presidency, maybe just maybe this war could have been waged and won already with a united front.
We’ll never know. But this thing is certain if this war is won and the United States is successful in Iraq no Democrat can take any credit for it. And no Democrat should expect to be rewarded by being elected President of these United States of America because it is obvious that as, House Majority Whip James Clyburn inadvertently exposed, success in Iraq in a real big problem for the Democrats.
That is only so because Democrats chose to politicize this war, in essence hyping the negative aspects of the war for Democrat political gain. So if America wins the only ones who lose are the terrorist and the Democrats. And that’s just sad!
