Particularly, he’s concerned that Tea Party and right-wing rhetoric will fuel the flames for domestic terrorism attacks like the one in Oklahoma City fifteen years ago.
First, a history lesson. Murrah was not a reaction to some right-wing media show. It was a reaction to the Waco, Texas massacre. It was a very direct reaction. The government attacked Waco, Timothy McVeigh struck back in Oklahoma City. If Bill Clinton wants to use Oklahoma City as an example, so be it. But, get it right. It was not an example of a lack of government censorship, it was an example of an overly-imposing ruthless federal government. Using Timothy McVeigh as his example, it can be argued that so long as the federal government doesn’t massacre 75 innocent women, children, and men, we should be safe.
Second, the hypocrisy on display is galling.
If Nancy Pelosi doesn’t agree with you, you’re un-American.
If you disagree with her, you’re a Nazi.
If you don’t think Obama’s telling the truth, Hank Johnson says you’re a white hood wearing racist.
And of course, we have to have some anti-Zionism.
Bill had no comment on any of those comments. And, there are lots more of them from the left.
Now, this is the stuff that many conflicts have been made from. It split our country in half for four years, and has created deep wounds for two hundred. It has created problems for mankind throughout history.
What has not created problems throughout history is people speaking out freely about practices their government does that they don’t agree with.
So, Bill, you’ve got it about as wrong as you can get it. Sure, the right-wing has said some inflammatory things, but the left wing is saying much worse right now and they ARE the government. Big difference.
This doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone I’m sure:
In his defense of supporting Obamacare, Congressman Phil Hare states very assuredly he doesn’t care about the Constitution on this issue. Mainly because we’re assured of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But none of that really matters because people are going bankrupt paying for health care.
Let’s play a game. See how many of these you can get right:
If you guessed Democrat, you’re right. the next one is a little tougher:
Anything other than Illinois would be wrong. Why are there so many socialists from Illinois? Do the lessons of socialist societies of the past not mean anything to these people? Do people from Iliinois make their candidates take a stupid test? What?
If you’ve made it this far, try one more with me:
Tough one I know unless you read the story. He’s a union boss. Anyone surprised someone who’s career is usurping individualism for collectivism has no concern at all for individual rights?
First of all, it’s possible to fix health care without trampling all over the Constitution. Second, this is their cause celebre for trampling all over the Constitution, what if the next party in charge picks one Phil Hare doesn’t like? That’s the POINT of respecting the US Constitution. Once that respect is gone, it’s gone for EVERYONE. People just don’t get that. It protect everyone by keeping the government off their backs. Rather than super-imposing federal government all over every single aspect of health care, if we had simply scaled back the federal involvement we probably could have gotten the cost down to provide a lot more services. That makes a LOT of sense to someone like me. It’s totally alien to someone like Phil Hare because in order to get the end result of everyone having health care, he would have to give up control. Small minds can’t think that way.
Now this is where it gets real fun:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
That is what each Congressman swears to do when they become a member of Congress. Now, if you don’t support the US Constitution, as Phil Hare states, then you are an enemy of the US Constitution. It is now the obligation of Congress to defend the Constitution of the United States. I won’t even take a poll on the chances Nancy Pelosi will do what she is obligated to do by the contract that defines her position. However, from this point forward, Phil Hare stands in treason. If I suggest he should be shot, then all the left wing nut jobs will have an orgasm. So, I’ll just suggest he should be removed from office by the Attorney General. That would be be, drum roll please, Eric Holder, rim shot.
11
Mar
Got this from a well-respected person I know via another well-respected person I know via a probably less well-respected person they know, but who has a better humor:
A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist who was badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.
The Marine reported, “I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.
I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable, lowlife scumbag who got what he deserved. And he yelled back that Barack Obama is a lying, good-for-nothing, left wing Commie who isn’t even an American. So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, mean spirited lesbian! He retaliated by yelling, “Oh yeah? Well, so does Nancy Pelosi!” “And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.”
OK, so some economist said a whole bunch of people might lose their jobs. Then, the actual numbers came in less than what might have been.
Harry Reid was thrilled. You can see the excitement in his eyes. You can hear it in his voice:
Now, this is where it gets dicey. The immediate assumption by Harry and supporting media is that since things didn’t get worse, they have to be getting better. Yeah. History, please:
| Year | February | March | Change |
| 2000 | 4.1 | 4 | -0.1 |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 0 |
| 2003 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 0 |
| 2004 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 0.2 |
| 2005 | 5.4 | 5.2 | -0.2 |
| 2006 | 4.8 | 4.7 | -0.1 |
| 2007 | 4.5 | 4.4 | -0.1 |
| 2008 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 0.3 |
| 2009 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 0.4 |
Six out of the last ten years, that’s 60 percent, March was worse than February. To put it in a little more perspective, since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the spending process in Congress, they’re 0 for 2.
That’s zero percent. Nevermind that, everyone should party since only 36,000 more people lost their jobs “today”.
Nancy Pelosi bitched for a decade about how unethical the Republicans were. The Democrats were all puritanical and could do no wrong. On a weekly basis since Nancy was put in charge of ethics of Congress, we’ve had to deal with one flap after another. William Jefferson got the ball rolling, and it’s rolled since. This week we’ve had to deal with Charlie Rangel getting convicted of ethics violations which prompted him to be kicked otu as Chairman of the House Ways and Means. And, oddly enough, it wasn’t because he was charged with not paying taxes to the IRS, which, of course, is overseen by the House Ways and Means Committee. Nancy Pelosi of course could never have seen that one coming even though the rest of the world did.
So, Charlie Rangel stepped aside, temporarily. Of course, “temporarily” in DC almost always means forever. So, Nancy is faced with the daunting task of replacing someone of the cailber of Charlie Rangel. Given her record, it would have to be the most illogical choice a person could imagine. It would have to be someone who’s values totally contradict the intent of the organization. A tax cheat in charge of the IRS was a perfect example. I’m not sure she has any more tax cheats with the tenure of Rangel tho. She’ll have to look for other qualifications.
First of all, her list is made easier because there seems to be one criteria, she is simply replacing a member from this group:
- The Speaker of the House
- The Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor
- The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
- The Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services
- The Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security
- The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
- The Chairman of the House Small Business Committee
- The Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
- The Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means
OK, that narrows it down a lot. That group has a very specific political agenda:
(1) Promoting Decent Work:
- Target government assistance to increase employment for disadvantaged youth and former prisoners.
- Promote unionization, expanding the childcare tax credit, and expanding the earned income tax credit. These steps taken together will ensure that all workers earn enough to meet their basic human needs.
(2) Providing Opportunity for All:
- Pass legislation that will increase class mobility by making sure that all individuals have access to class-advancement opportunity. This includes access to quality education and job training programs.
- Comprehensive immigration reform legislation which would include a path to citizenship in its provisions.
(3) Ensuring Economic Security:
- Ensure that all people have opportunities to gain quality employment, and that they are paid a living wage.
- Establish an unemployment insurance system that would allow individuals to live decently as they prepared to reenter the workforce.
(4) Helping People Build Wealth:
- Help Americans accumulate wealth and build assets. Encourage asset-building as a necessary and effective strategy to reduce and prevent poverty, as well as to protect families from potential bankruptcy due to medical emergencies or layoffs.
- Focus on asset-building as a key to upward mobility, making it possible for families to send their children to college, or put a down payment on a home.
That group, of course, is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. That is the spin-off of the Democratic Socialists of America. One of the publicly stated members of the members of the Democratic Socialists of America is Charlie Rangel. Nancy Pelosi is rumored to be receommending he be replaced by Pete Stark. You guessed it, another member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
And people crucified Spencer Bachus for even hinting there might be Socialists in Congress. But, of course, the bottom line has to be the standard set by Rangel in being squeaky clean ethically:
Stark, D-Calif., saved about $3,800 in 2007 and 2008 through a tax break reserved for those whose primary residence is in Maryland. He received the credit even though he took no affirmative action to get it.
Following passage of a 2007 law, Maryland sent Stark an application to determine eligibility, and he initially indicated he was registered to vote at his Maryland address. That would help make him eligible to continue getting the tax break
The panel cleared the California Congressman for filing for a tax break in Maryland by stating the California Congressman was a registered voter in Maryland. That part he definitely did do. They couldn’t find intent to defraud.
He’s an avowed Socialist and he’s got questions about his taxes. He’s in.
Quickie update, no sooner than I clicked publish, Nancy did a head-fake and with Sander Levin. He’s not been investigated for trax fraud as far as I can tell and the Socialist Equality Party hates him. That’s a couple of pro’s for the guy. I’m sure there’s some scandal he’s involved in sometime, somewhere. I just haven’t found it yet.
26
Jan
A full year into Obama‘s four year term, he’s still passing the buck:
“Today’s report from C.B.O. confirms that the recession inherited from the Bush Administration continues to erode the budget’s bottom line,” said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., the Democrat of South Carolina who is chairman of the House Budget Committee.
From the start of his administration, Obama promised to cut the $1 trillion deficit he inherited in half by 2012.
President Obama’s team may well have prevented the collapse of the nation’s banking system from a crisis the president inherited,
On and on and on it goes. Can’t blame Democrats because Obama inherited this mess. Only problem with that scenario is it was the Dems, not Bush, that created the mess in the first place.
That’s what’s happened since Nancy Pelosi and the Dems took over the spending and budgeting process. The economy was cruising along in one of the longest growth periods in the history of the planet. Then thing got bumpy in 2007. The big spike around January 2009 was not the beginning of the chart, it’s the MIDDLE of the chart. Obama was part and parcel to the problem as a member of the controlling party. The mess he’s complaining about is the mess him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid created with their spending plans.
Where it gets really pathetic is Obama blaming the minority party in Congress for not allowing the Democrats in Congress to spend the money as they see fit now. That’s what this is all about. So, if the President can’t control what Congress is doing in 2009 and 2010, how was the President in 2007 to blame for what that Congress did then?
Seems kind of obvious, in-your-face kind of stuff to me. But, no one in media can see that. They just keep repeating the Democrat Holy Grail over and over and over, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Meanwhile, they lost two Governor’s races and a long-time solid blue Senate seat. Last week the 12th incumbant Democrat retired rather than face the voters again. Was that a clue that the blame game wasn’t working any more? No, they blamed those losses on, you guessed it, the economy they inherited.
And the media sang backup.
Now Obama is saying he wants to freeze federal growth after spending a trillion dollars to stimulate it. But, he’s not sure he can do that. It may not be possible due to, drum roll please, the economy he inherited.
That would be yet another campaign promise broken.
And the media will blame it on the economy he inherited.
And the Democrat losses in November will multiply.
And Obama will blame it on Bush.
And the media will back him up.
16
Jan
Transparency is a word that wasn’t used a whole lot up until a couple of years ago. Convinced Bush and his cronies were making all the important decisions behind closed doors, Obama started preaching about the need for transparency. A lot of people took it to mean that if elected, Obama would open his doors to anyone so that they could see how honest and forthright he truly was. Very quickly Obama assured people that’s not what he had in mind. The culmination of that was Joe Biden having a meeting on transparency. That meeting of course, was closed to the media. People immediately started saying things to the effect of “WTF”. How can you possibly have a closed door meeting on transparency. It’s simple. Let’s go back to what Obama actually said about transparency:
I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.
No guarantees he would be transparent there.
We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties.
No guarantees he would be transparent there.
I fought in the Senate for the most extensive ethics reform since Watergate. I have refused contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs. And I have laid out far-reaching plans that I intend to sign into law as President to bring transparency to government, and to end the revolving door between industries and the federal agencies that oversee them.
He doesn’t say WHICH government he expects to be transparent now does he?
In the more than two centuries since then, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson – self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen.
He clearly states that he expects YOU to be transparent as a citizen. However, as Clinton clearly demonstrated, Presidents are not citizens.
So, there you have it. Obama said he expected business to be transparent, citizens to be transparent, some agencies to be transparent, and some government to be transparent. He never stated HE would be transparent, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be either. So, having closed door meetings to discuss transparency makes all the sense in the world. If anyone infers otherwise, Obama supporters will think of clever insults to taunt you.
OK, so here’s the beef C-Span, and a few other people have:
This stems from:
President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders agreed Tuesday to bypass a conference committee and keep negotiations to reconcile the Senate and House health care reform bills a closed-door affair.
They concluded that the House will work off the Senate’s version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting.
Obama held an Oval Office meeting Tuesday evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin joined in by phone.
Now, some people would contend “transparency” and “closed-door”, or “private”, conflict. Not Nancy Pelosi. Her response to the C-Span request:
“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”
and
“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.”
OK, there’s more change you can believe in. I truly love Pelosi’s ability to say things so stupid the press has no ability to pursue questioning any further. How do you follow that up?
Pelosi, who has warned of “serious unrest” among House Democrats about Afghanistan, said Wednesday that she intends to live up to that vow on the upcoming supplemental bill, which will require $30 billion to $40 billion for the additional 30,000 troops.
“We have to do this for the new president,” Pelosi said Wednesday, recounting her conversation with Democrats in June. “Then he will come up with a plan, and then it’s up to him to ask you for your support. What I’ve told the members is to give the president room, to listen to what he has to say, that we will provide the briefings and they will have the information. But I can’t — this, for members, is a vote of conscience. War votes are votes of conscience.“
I hate that argument. It implies that people who “support” war do so because of their conscience. Pardon my French, but that’s just bull s**t. Pure, utter, bs.
Some people live in fantasy worlds that are totally isolated from reality. Others see the reality for what it is and deal with it. There are those who are convinced that not dealing with aggressors makes the aggression go away. Then, there are people who realize the only way to know peace is to have a bigger gun than the guy who wants to kill you because (insert reason here). Nancy Pelosi is just not going to talk radical terrorists into sipping tea to some Bach and discuss prosperity for all in an economically friendly way. It just ain’t gonna happen. Period. Since I am so thoroughly convinced Nancy’s not going to talk the terrorists into ditching a philosophy they are willing to die for, then she needs a backup plan for my security, I’ve never heard one from her.
Now, ya gotta understand. The US Constitution assures the federal government only does one thing. It can do other things, but Congress must do one thing:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Nancy Pelosi, by urging Congress to surrender Afghanistan and Iraq, with no plan to assure peace, has violated the only thing the US Constitution assures. By urging surrender to an aggressor, she is in effect:
…”assisting its enemies in war.”
That is otherwise defined as “treason”.
Unfortunately, the best she would get would be life in prison. Which, of course, wouldn’t shut her up. Given that, and the fact that Democrats are loathe to prosecute anything a fellow Democrat does, and that the people of San Francisco won’t vote her out, and the fact they can’t blame her on Bush, nothing will ever happen.
Seriously tho, she needs to understand that being a Congressman is not about her. It’s about the welfare of the United States. When someone attacks us, it’s not a matter of whether she can in good conscience do what it takes to prevent it from happening again. She has sworn to protect us from our aggressors. She has abdicated that role. She needs to be held accountable.
But, outside of Fox, it won’t happen.
The Republicans are pushing a measure to end TARP and return unspent funds to lower, make that, not increase, the national debt.
I am betting Nancy Pelosi will not allow this subversive effort to limit her ability to spend huge amounts of money to occur. Any takers?
