Category Archives: Politics

Immigration, Politics, War On Terror

Sneaky Amnesty Tricks, Version 3

Those Democrats and RINO’s are at it again. This time making an Iraq Supplemental Bill also an immigration slash amnesty bill with a guest worker program that is not needed, because there already is one called an H-2B visa. The other nifty thing it does, you know, in support of the troops in Iraq, is to create more corporate welfare for agriculture in the United States. If this isn’t the definition of useless politicians I don’t know what is.

The measure, called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act, was added to the War Supplemental bill in a 17-12 vote last Thursday.

Known as the AgJob amendment, the Feinstein-Craig measure revived instantaneously the controversy that caused conservatives to lash out at the White House and Congress last summer.

The measure would grant temporary legal status to 1.35 million illegal immigrants and their families currently working in the agricultural field. The legislation was passed out of committee at the request of agribusiness interests who have been insisting that they need illegal aliens to harvest crops and run horse shows. The legislation is nothing less than “comprehensive immigration reform” on a smaller scale.

Your senators need to be told to not pass that bill with this amendment and corporate welfare in it. As it is right now, there is no money for Iraq. Only for immigrants and BIG AG. This shows how and why the left likes the military. The troops are useful in loading up their support bills with political pork and social engineering projects. Yeah, we love our troops.

Sorry I don’t have a bill number yet, but you know as much as I do and enough to inform your senator about. Get on it because it is expected to be voted on this week, maybe even tomorrow.

related link: Sneaky Amnesty Tricks In Iraq Supplemental Bill

Update: The bill is H.R.2642. War Supplemental Bill Tests Different Approaches of Byrd and Obey

Politics, Race Relations, Uncategorized

John Langston, African-American Hero, Republican

On this day in 1870, African-American law professor John Langston delivered an influential speech praising the civil rights policies of Republican President Ulysses Grant. Langston (R-VA) would later serve as a diplomat in the Grant administration and then be elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This and more history of the GOP that you won’t find in history books in government schools can be found at Michael Zak’s Grand Old Partisan blog. He also wrote the book, Back to Basics for the Republican Party, on the history of the GOP.

2008 Election, Immigration, Politics, Uncategorized

Should Republican Leadership Resign?

That’s an interesting question, one I’ve never given thought. Until now. The way ‘the party’ is going today, with the growing separation of conservative principles from its platform and their votes in Congress, it seems to me that the Republican party has left me behind. They’ve crossed the aisle on principles, making them about the same as Democrats that have none.

The troubling thing about this separation, which was really highlighted by the two attempts to legislate amnesty for illegals, is that these same republicans that we thought were conservative were simply riding the Reagan wave. That controversy exposed the ‘establishment’ republicans, who give conservatism a bad name. In reality, these folks were looking at conservatives as tools who brought them to power, and for that reason only. For them, ideology was a matter of convenience. Now that they are there and it is time to stand up for what they were chosen to do, they morph into Democrats to the point that ‘conservative democrats’ (I know, that’s why it is in quotes) are beating republicans in congressional seats that have been solidly republican for decades.

The base is ticked off. Having learned nothing from the shellacking they got in 2006 is reason enough to justify a (dare I suggest) CHANGE. Maybe they should all resign. Could it be any worse than what we have now?

related links:Republican Leaders Must Resign | H/T D equals S

2008 Election, Iran, Media, Politics, Uncategorized, War On Terror

Obama The Pot, Bush The Kettle

Not satisfied that he has made a big enough fool of himself over Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset by behaving like HE was the focus of the speech and not the appeasers of 1939 or today, the presidential wannabe and Democrat front-runner Barack Obama is now accusing the President of “dishonest, divisive” attacks, all in the context of that speech. And Democrats are circling the wagons around him.

Obama has now become the pot calling the kettle black. How presidential? The fact that there was no attack on Obama personally or Democrats as a party isn’t going to prevent Obama to flat-out lie to the dumb masses about it. The media doesn’t think Bush was talking about Obama. Just Obama and democrats think this is the case.

The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals – comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them.

After lying about Bush’s motivations for that speech, he continues . . .

“They aren’t telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits,” said Obama. “But it’s not going to work. Not this time, not this year.”

I thought Obama was done with debating? That’s what he told Hillary Clinton a few weeks ago. And someone should tell Barack that Bush is not running. McCain would be the best one to debate with. Or for a real challenge, Sean Hannity. But I digress. . . Who is ‘they?’ And what lies have ‘they’ said? Obama did not say either who was lying or what the lie was. And who is the ‘you’ in ‘fool you .. scare you?’ I don’t think the Knesset felt like Bush was trying to fool them or scare them. They know, more than he, what it is like to have to live with missiles and suicide bombers ruining your day.

So the one who is lying and dividing here is Sen. Barack Obama by taking this speech and telling us that it was directed at him and his party, and that it was done to divide the country. Is this Commander In Chief material?

related links: Seattle Times

2008 Election, Iran, Politics, Uncategorized, War On Terror, Whiners

Obama The Negotiator Has Lots Of Company

So why would Sen. Barack Obama think that President Bush was talking about him? Well, other than to make himself a victim again and rouse up the lemmings. Please find below a short list of some prominent democrats on the subject of negotiating with terrorists or terrorist states. H/T to Kathryn Jean Lopez . . .

The president could have been speaking of any number of Democrats. Say, Jimmy Carter, who in April, 2008 said: “Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders [Hamas and Syria], it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.”

Or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, freelance diplomat, who in December 2007 said: “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.”

Or, perhaps he meant Speaker Pelosi in April 2007: “I believe in dialogue. As my colleagues have said over and over again, unless you communicate, you cannot understand each other. You cannot reach agreement.”

Or maybe he meant recent Obama endorser and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who, according to his own press release in February of last year, believes “the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria.”

Or Bill Richardson, who has said, about meeting with Iran and Syria: “They’re bad folks … But you don’t have peace talks with your friends.”

It could have been about Congressman Henry Waxman, who in April said: “A Democratic administration would go back and try to open that possibility up for discussions [with Iran] of a grand bargain of one sort or another … Democrats would certainly have seen that as a missed opportunity.”

Or Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “I can go to Syria. I can go to Iran and work to craft a path towards peace. And I will … How can you change peopled minds if you don’t meet with them?”

Or former Democratic presidential candidates and senators Chris Dodd and John Kerry, who met with Syria’s al-Assad and said: “As senior Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, we felt it was important to make clear that while we believe in resuming dialogue, our message is no different: Syria can and should play a more constructive role in the region … We concluded that our conversation was worthwhile, and that … resuming direct dialogue with Syria should be pursued.”

Or the former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, from April 10: “[Diplomats] can deliver some pretty tough messages … You don’t begin with a president of the country, but you do need to talk to your enemy.”

Those democrats.

related link: Obama And Democrats Demand That The Shoe Fits

2008 Election, Politics, War On Terror

Obama And Democrats Demand That The Shoe Fits

President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset today as part of his Middle East tour that included Israel’s 60th birthday. In his address, Bush recounts Israel’s history and WWII. Pointing out how, in history, there were (as there always are) some people who thought Hitler could be talked to and negotiated with. With history behind him, Bush points out how that kind of thinking was just as wrong then as it is in dealing with the Islamofascists of today, otherwise called the ‘war on terror.’

From the transcript, in speaking about the war on terror, here is what Bush said. Look for a reference to Democrats or Obama.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

OK fine. So what does the left do with that statement? They are making an issue out of whole cloth with this, accusing Bush of attacking Obama. Aside from the fact that Bush was talking about Israel and all its enemies, Democrats are circling the wagons around Barack Obama as though protecting him from an ‘unprecedented attack.’ These democrats and the Obama campaign are jumping up and down screaming, YES, the shoe fits just fine, yet they don’t like it.

What is most interesting is that Obama is showing his thin-skin, his amateur and naive approach to world war and peace, and his downright arrogance that anyone who articulates what amounts to his policy beliefs is attacking him. As opposed to suggesting that McCain is ‘loosing his bearings’ I guess. That’s different. What it is, is an attempt to condition you to believe that articulating a policy position is an attack, irregardless of the fact that no names were, or even have to be, given.

related links: Bush Speech Criticized as Attack on Obama | Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement | President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset | A Whole Wide World Beyond Obama

afterthought: The last para is the one that is giving Obama and Co. the heartburn, but the preceding para sets up the last one. Does this mean they will demand an apology for being referred to as ‘good and decent’ people?

2008 Election, Media, Politics, Uncategorized

Does McCain-Feingold Work?

Since its inception three years ago, the bill that was supposed to take the corruption out of Washington politics has done everything but. It has done exactly what critics of the bill said it would do. That is, it silenced certain political speech while at the same time giving exponential power to the media in political campaigns.

The ‘unintended?’ consequences of McCain-Feingold are no better explained than Ann Coulter’s column called ‘HOW TO KEEP REAGAN OUT OF OFFICE.’

How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate for president?

What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media’s picks! It’s uncanny — almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)

By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media — which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn’t have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a “maverick” 1 billion times a year.

McCain-Feingold ought to be repealed.

related links: HOW TO KEEP REAGAN OUT OF OFFICE | Questions For John McCain and Russ Feingold | Way More Than The Lincoln Bedroom | FEC Fines Democrat 527’s

Politics, Venezuela

Chavez Nationalizes Steelmaker Ternium-Sidor

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took over, stole, nationalized the largest steelmaker in Venezuela, Ternium-Sidor. Chavez’s minister of basic industries and mining, Rodolfo Sanz, has been appointed as the new company president, and has given the company until the end of June to hand it over.

In the past two years the Venezuelan state has taken over foreign-controlled companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) including cement, telecoms, oil, gas and electricity firms, print and broadcast media. Now the hemisphere’s idiot, President Hugo Chavez, is taking over the steelmaker after trade union talks broke down last month. The workers wanted better pay and benefits.

A better example could not be made to highlight the failure of socialism and communism. While sitting on one of the worlds largest supplies of natural resources, the Venezuelan people can’t afford what little food is still on shelves in the grocery stores, some of which have also been nationalized.

And yet, he is still the dictator that Democrats love to coddle.

related links: Venezuela takes over steel firm

2008 Election, Media, Politics

Rush, Happier Than A Pig In

Rush Limbaugh has got to be feeling good nowadays. Especially since not very long ago, the media was out there downplaying Rush’s affect on the political process and trying to put him out of business. Limbaugh? Yea, he’s an entertainer, a wacko, and the adjectives continue. Then, borne totally out of his genius in knowing Democrats like every square inch of … you may have heard it. I just can’t type it. Rush coins ‘Operation Chaos.’

Things are beginning to change in the eyes of the media. Now his ‘operation’ appears successful if you listen to Chris Matthews, who said that people who voted to be mischievous in the democrat primary, an open primary, ought to be ashamed of themselves. I don’t know where Chris was during voting in the New Hampshire primary when people were bussed in from out of state, Massachusetts, to vote for McCain in the republican primary. Democrats and the media ended up choosing the Republicans’ candidate. It was not a big problem back then. No laws were broken, just the Republican party.

The point is how well Rush knows Democrats. He knows what makes them tick and how they will react and, he knows the ‘Clinton machine’ and how it operates. Thus, the birth of Operation Chaos. All he had to do was call it, and take credit for what he knows will happen and what the Clinton’s will do. And it is all happening before us.

The more Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is spoiling their party the better. As he has said many times before, they’ll open the door on their nose every time there is an opportunity, this time by pointing fingers at everyone else but themselves for their troubles.