January 21-23, 2007
Jan 21 12:29 Lieberman Refuses to Cut & Run Jan 21 16:41 Good Riddance Jan 21 23:59 Lovie Smith, Tony Dungy, Colts Rewrite History Jan 22 12:47 Pelosi's Hundred Hours Scams, Incompetence Exposed Jan 22 16:26 GRAB YOUR WALLETS!!! Jan 23 04:27 Disaster Avoided Jan 23 12:14 Liz Cheney's Op-ed
Prior Years: 2006
Lieberman Refuses to Cut & Run
With people from both political parties willing to cast votes on a superficial, non-binding resolution, Joe Lieberman refuses to waver. To this day, Sen. Lieberman refuses to consider an Iraq policy that doesn't include total victory over al Qa'ida in Iraq, the Iranian-financed Mahdi Army and former Ba'athists. Here's a Lieberman quote from this OpinionJournal.com article that is both powerful and persuasive:
"If you still think, not only that the original purpose of going in was right, but that how it ends will have a significant effect on American security for a generation or more to come, then you don't back away." And that, he says, counts even in the face of faltering public opinion. "I think we are elected to lead...Americans are understandably responding to the carnage they see on TV every night, and what we have to urge them is not to surrender to the people who are causing that carnage."This is how I wish President Bush would lay out the argument for continuing the fight in Iraq. John McCain and others have rightly said that we can't afford to lose in Iraq from as far back as two years ago. They were right then and they're right now. There's more compelling reasons now to keep fighting than there were then. The biggest reason we must fight and win in Iraq is because Iraq would become Iran's 'branch office' if we left without winning. Another important reason to continue the fight is so that Iraq doesn't become al Qa'ida's newest training ground/state sponsor.
Sen. Lieberman is also right in taking a shot at the politicians that have, to use a Thatcher phrase "gone wobbly", saying that politicians were "elected to lead", that they weren't elected to moisten a finger & thrust it skyward to find out which direction the political wind is blowing.
Al Qa'ida just suffered a crushing defeat in Somalia. They've been run out of Afghanistan. Iraq's been liberated. Libya surrendered their WMD's and the programs that produced them. There isn't a Democrat who thinks that we can win in Iraq. Shame on them.
What's most frustrating is seeing a wobbly Republican like Chuck Hagel getting quoted by the Agenda Media. We expect Democrats to surrender like a Frenchman but we expect more from Republicans. They should know better than to turn into surrender monkeys. Shame on him for not having the backbone to stand for what he should know is the right policy.
Frankly, I'd trade Chuckie Hagel to the Democrats in a heartbeat for Joe Lieberman. Hagel is as clueless about the need to win in Iraq as your average moonbat liberal. Lieberman understands the need to win in Iraq as well as anyone in the Bush administration.
Rush made a point of talking about how the Agenda Media always includes the phrase "possible presidential hopeful" when talking about Hagel. I've spoken out about that before but Rush's statement got noticed by a bigger audience than when I spoken about it.
In fact, Powerline's John Hinderaker pointed that phrase out on their portion of the NARN yesterday, saying (I'm paraphrasing here) "Not in my party he isn't. It's more likely that he'd be tarred and feathered if he showed up to speak to the party faithful." Follow this link to listen to the first hour of that podcast.
I wholeheartedly agree with John's calling for Nebraskans to boot Hagel from the Senate in 2008. I'm certain that John would agree with me that it's best if the GOP faithful in Nebraska did that in a primary rather than relinquish that seat to a Democrat in the general election.
Posted Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:31 PM
No comments.
Good Riddance
That's my reaction to an editorial in the Baltimore Sun titled The Wal-Mart law, RIP. Here's the opening paragraph:
The decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week to uphold a lower court's decision declaring Maryland's Wal-Mart law unconstitutional was greeted with a collective yawn in Annapolis. Small wonder. Few expected a reversal by such a conservative court. But more important, the debate over health care has moved on; it's gotten bigger than that.Before you start thinking that the Baltimore Sun thinks of this as a victory for the people of Maryland, I'd ask you to read this from the editorial:
Universal health care advocates fought hard to pass the Wal-Mart law but show little interest in resurrecting the issue today. The debate now focuses on Massachusetts, which has taken a much broader approach to solving the uninsurance crisis. It includes widening Medicaid coverage, placing a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance, and requiring most employers to make a "fair and reasonable" contribution toward health insurance coverage.It's obvious that the Baltimore Sun hasn't given up on the idea of universal health care coverage. They 're simply admitting that the Maryland legislature's vendetta against Wal*Mart didn't work. In the Baltimore Sun's thinking, they merely have to pursue a different course of action to achieve their goal.
The 4th Circuit struck the Maryland law down because it was an act of attainder, not because the 4th Circuit was "a conservative court." Here's Wikipedia's explanation of bills of attainder:
Bills of attainder evolved into a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all.Because the Maryland legislation singled out Wal*mart and because the legislation sought to confiscate their money, this was relatively straightforward. Money is certainly property, which was the entire focus of the legislation. Only the 9th Circuit might have sided with Maryland's legislation, which would've only led the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling and the legislation.
The Baltimore Sun reports on how the legislature will try to achieve the liberal goal of universal health care coverage:
A proposed $1-per-pack increase in the tobacco tax would allow the state to provide Medicaid coverage to thousands of uninsured adults with children. It would also raise enough money to provide significant tax credits to small employers who want to make health insurance available to their workers.If you can't get a activist courts to ratify socialist policies, then revert to the time-honored liberal technique of taxing the job creators, then offering them part of their money back if they act as Big Government dictates. With that state reverting back to its imperialist leftist ways again, there's no doubt that they'll soon be driving out small businesses.
Businesses are fleeing California because of their fiscal insanity. Is there much doubt that businesses will flee states like Maryland for more business-friendly states?
Posted Sunday, January 21, 2007 4:43 PM
No comments.
Lovie Smith, Tony Dungy, Colts Rewrite History
History was made today in the NFL when Lovie Smith became the first African American head coach to guide his team into the Super Bowl. Hours later, Smith's former mentor and friend Tony Dungy guided his Indianapolis Colts past Bill Belichick's Patriots to become the second African American coach to guide his team into the Super Bowl. Tony Dungy isn't the only Colt to get the proverbial monkey off his back with the win. Peyton Manning displayed a type of poise today that I'd never seen in him before.
Peyton Manning didn't just show poise in a tightly fought game. Peyton Manning showed poise in completing the biggest comeback victory in NFL championship game history. Early on, Manning and the Colts were missing on at least four of their eight cylinders. When Logan Mankins recovered a botched handoff between Tom Brady and Laurence Mauroney for a Patriot touchdown, announcers Jim Nantz and Phil Simms wondered aloud if this wasn't more proof that this wouldn't be Manning's day.
When Asante Samuel intercepted Manning's pass and returned it for a touchdown, the Patriot lead was 21-3 with precious few minutes left in the first half. If ever there was a time when you wondered whether Manning would stumble, this was that moment. He didn't stumble. Instead, he led his team to a field goal just before halftime. Then he guided the Colts to an second half-opening touchdown drive, their first touchdown since the Chiefs playoff game.
After the Colts defense stopped Brady's bunch, Manning led the Colts on another impressive march, this time capping it off with a 1 yard touchdown pass to defensive lineman Dan Klecko. Klecko was in as a blocker. Instead, he caught the pass on a tackle eligible. Manning hit Marvin Harrison for the dramatic two point conversion.
Tom Brady and company weren't going to go silently into that good night, at least not without a knuckle-busting fight first. Ellis Hobbs took the ensuing kickoff 80 yards to the Colts 21 yard line. Tom Brady capped the drive with a 6 yard TD pass to Jabar Gaffney, making it 28-21 Patriots.
The Colts then retied the game when center Jeff Saturday recovered running back Dominic Rhodes' fumble in the end zone, making him the third lineman to score in the game. (Who's writing this script? Simply unbelievable!!!)
When rookie Stephen Gostkowski drilled a 43-yard field goal, the Patriots led 34-31 and the clock showed just 3:49 left. Manning mixed in a dramatic 52 yard pass play to tight end Dallas Clark with some physical running plays. With the Patriots' defense reeling, rookie running back Joseph Addai took in the game-winning touchdown with exactly 1 minute left on the clock.
Tom Brady's last chance at a dramatic comeback victory ended when cornerback Marlin Jackson intercepted Brady's pass. Jackson returned in a couple yards, then fell to the ground. With the Patriots out of timeouts, Manning took a knee and history was written.
I'm happiest for Tony Dungy, who has strong Minnesota ties, first as the University of Minnesota starting quarterback, then as Denny Green's first defensive coordinator with the Vikings. If Tony Dungy isn't the classiest sports figure in Minnesota history, then he's at least within whispering distance of it. Simply put, Tony Dungy lives his Christian faith for all the world to see in a humble, dignified manner. If you can't cheer for a man like that, then you're hopeless.
Congratulations, Tony and Peyton. You've earned it. I hope you win it all.
UPDATE: Follow this link to Captain Ed's post on the game.
Ed, I agree. Colts by 7.
Originally posted Sunday, January 21, 2007, revised 22-Jan 12:47 AM
No comments.
Pelosi's Hundred Hours Scams, Incompetence Exposed
If you believe as I do, then you believe that a simple floor speech is all it takes to demonstrate Democratic hypocrisy. Such is the case with the Democrats' fake student loan legislation. Here's what Bob Novak said about that legislation:
Democrats last Wednesday were extolling their student loan bill for opening college to modest-income Americans when Rep. Tom Price, a second-term Republican from Georgia, took the House floor. "If only this bill did what they say," Price declared. His admonition constituted more than the usual hyperbole of congressional debate.In other words, Tom Price simply walked to the microphone and told the world that Democrats were scamming the very people that they're supposedly helping. Tom Price simply strode to the microphone and told anyone who would listen that Democrats had reduced the interest rates. They just reduced them gradually. They also made certain that only 29 percent of the college students were eligible for these gradually reduced interest rates.
The bill, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan House vote, was headlined as reducing the interest on federally subsidized student loans from the present 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Actually, it gradually reaches the 3.4 percent level on July 1, 2011. A student taking out a loan July 1 this year would pay 6.12 percent after graduation. Only 29 percent of all students getting loans would be eligible for this gradual cut. Other student loan programs will be cut to help pay for the $7 billion cost over five years. And, contrary to Democratic implications, the bill does nothing to slow skyrocketing college tuition.
Another Pelosi scam that got exposed was the minimum wage bill that Minnesota's Tim Walz sponsored. Here's what World Net Daily wrote about it:
But while the proposed change in law adds American territories to the minimum wage requirements for the first time, American Samoa remains exempt. That's where Del Monte's brand name StarKist tuna has a huge plant, employing thousands of workers who would have been affected by inclusion in the minimum wage plan.Ms. Pelosi started backtracking as soon as this information became public. Here's how she's tried spinning it:
"And now her people are saying that, you know, she has never been influenced by StarKist at all but other people are saying, hey, this is a little bit of hypocrisy because how can this particular group of people benefit by not having to pay the new minimum wage which is almost $2 more an hour," she said.Because Republicans exposed this hypocrisy, the bill that passed won't be sent to the Senate for their approval. Instead, it's being returned to the House so this exemption is eliminated.
--------------------
Pelosi later told reporters she would try to work to see if "all territories" could be included in compliance requirements for the new law.
Frankly, Ms. Pelosi's first days as Speaker (and Speaker-in-Waiting) have been filled with mistake after mistake. She endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader only to see Steny Hoyer picked. She prevented Jane Harman from chairing the Intelligence Committee, first toying with the idea of impeached Judge Alcee Hastings for the job before picking Silvestre Reyes for the job. Rep. Reyes later made a fool of himself by not identifying al Qa'ida as being made up of Sunni Muslims and not knowing that Hezbollah is a Shi'ite Muslim organization.
Later, Pelosi stood by John Conyers as Judiciary Committee Chairman after he admitted to ethical violations. Here's what the Hill Magazine reported:
"The Hill reported last March that two former Conyers' aides alleged that repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children. Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill."In other words, Nancy Pelosi's decisions have consistently been disastrous to the Democratic Party on multiple levels.
Don't expect Pelosi to retain the House in 2008 if she continues displaying this level of incompetence and this level of cronyism.
Posted Monday, January 22, 2007 12:49 PM
No comments.
GRAB YOUR WALLETS!!!
That's Rep. Steve Gottwalt's advice in an email that he just sent me. Based on what he's told me, I'd say it's advice worth taking. Here's two warnings in Steve's email:
The governor released his budget proposal today, and it contains a great deal more spending than I consider prudent. I support Governor Pawlenty, but I certainly wish we had his support in trying to curb state government, and provide real tax relief. The governor's proposal represents a 9.3 percent increase in state spending, and that's just too much. How many of our families or businesses could afford that kind of increase?Frankly, this type of budgeting isn't acceptable. Few families could justify annual 9.3 percent increases in their spending. Gov. Pawlenty is ceding ground to Democrats without them having to hardly negotiate anything.
The next legislation the DFL will push (aimed at building a case for more spending) is to have an automatic inflator put into the calculation of the state budget forecast. They want to pass this before the February calculation. It would virtually erase any projected surplus, giving the DFL grounds for arguing in favor of major new spending above and beyond the projected surplus.
That's bad enough but Democrats pushing to install "an automatic inflator put into the calculation of the state budget forecast" ain't gonna fly. This is something that should be rejected before it's ever proposed. There should be a public outcry against this type of reckless spending. We should recognize this scheme for what it is: an attempt to codify into law liberalism's dream of ever-increasing taxing and spending.
I'm strongly recommending that my readers contact their legislators. Tell them that they'd better reject this type of irresponsible spending if they don't want to be rejected at the polls the next time they're up for re-election. Tell them that they'd better not think of Minnesota's taxpayers as a revenue source to be tapped whenever they want to go on another spending binge. Tell them that they'd better expect a revolt by Minnesota's taxpayers if they attempt a power-grab of this magnitude.
Here's a final cautionary word from Steve:
Watch your pocket books! According to our DFL friends, there's no issue or problem that can't be solved or addressed through more government spending.Steve, that's great advice. I'll let my readers know of this confirmation of Democratic spending habits. I'm sure most already suspected.
By the way, it's time that people realized just how hard our House GOP is working to cut taxes and prevent irresponsible spending. Laura Brod and Steve Gottwalt are two of the heroes thus far in that fight. Let's continue encouraging all of the GOP legislators so that we can have an veritable army of fiscal heroes.
If Steve's information is right, which I'm confident it is, that Democrats plan on pushing that automatic inflator, then this exposes Margaret Anderson Kelliher as telling a tall tale when she said this:
"We're a fiscally moderate caucus," Kelliher said of the sprawling 85-member majority that now includes significant numbers of moderates from the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.We don't need further proof that DFLer's aren't fiscally moderate. We can't afford their idea of 'moderation'. Their type of moderation will send businesses fleeing the state while ruining our economy. It's that simple. Adding an inflation escalator also assumes something else that should frighten every Minnesota taxpayer because it says that the budgeting process is on autopilot.
- That means that once spending is approved once, it's approved forever.
- That means that oversight into budgets would become a thing of the past.
- That means that waste would be codified into the budget.
If the day comes that budgets are put on autopilot, does that mean that that's the day we don't need legislators?
Posted Monday, January 22, 2007 4:26 PM
No comments.
Disaster Avoided
Thank God we didn't strategically 'redeploy' ourselves out of Iraq. This story should make everyone pause before thinking about a 'phased withdrawal' from Iraq.
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."The implications of this document capture are pretty straightforward. If we'd listened to John Murtha, we wouldn't have captured these documents because we would've pulled out of Iraq before the raid was conducted and the documents were captured. If we hadn't captured these documents, we wouldn't have known the specifics on how AQI was planning on conducting terrorist activities within the US.
Anyone who's telling you that leaving Iraq won't have severe consequences simply isn't telling the truth. This article proves that leaving Iraq would have disastrous consequences. This next bit of information should get everyone's undivided attention:
Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas, the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11.I agree with the Powerline guys when they say:
It's hardly surprising that al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, like those elsewhere, will try to strike in the U.S. if they can.The bigger point is that the capture of this information prevented another major terrorist attack inside the United States. The biggest point is that this exposes the Democrats' utter ineptitude in formulating a coherent national security policy that would protect us from future terrorist attacks. This strikes at the heart of their multitude of policy bromides for Iraq. This event says that we need to stay there & defeat the terrorists, that it's going to take alot of time and that we'd better get used to a long fight. The capturing of this information shouts that we can't take a short term view of Iraq because there's too much of a chance of it literally blowing up in our faces here in America.
For all of Hillary's hopes of hiding her national security policy failures, the truth remains that she hasn't put together anything remotely approaching a strategy to win the GWOT. Those in her party that are even further to the left than she is won't let her cobble together a coherent strategy to win in Iraq. The frightening truth is that she likely thinks of foreign policy in much the same way as Bill Clinton did: as something that isn't taken seriously.
The prevalent mindset of the 1990's was that we could take a "holiday from history". That mindset came a screeching halt when the terrorists crashed the jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We can't afford a return to the 1990's because our civilization is literally riding on dealing with reality. We can't afford to ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room just because we'd rather deal with the so-called 'Mommy Issues'.
Posted Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:28 AM
No comments.
Liz Cheney's Op-ed
Writing an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Liz Cheney shows that she's as formidable intellectually as her parents.
We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.In their "race to the bottom", most Democrats and a handful of wobbly Republicans avoid the reality of the situation. They're showing their willingness to prove bin Laden right. They're willing to prove that we'll eventually abandon our allies and shirk our responsibilities to ourselves. Almost no consideration is given to national security. Almost no consideration is given to the fact that abandoning Iraq would embolden the terrorists, create an Iranian puppet regime in Baghdad and give terrorists a training ground.
Frankly, the thought of a Speaker Pelosi is frightening, especially with her saying that terrorism is a "situation to be solved." That's dangerously naive. It isn't a situation to be solved. It's a war we must win. PERIOD.
When al Qa'ida crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was a genuine act of war. We didn't talk then that the terrorists behind 9/11 were a "situation to be solved." The vast majority of Americans then thought that bin Laden's bunch of terrorists were scum of the earth that had to be killed ASAP. Al Qa'ida still wants to kill us. That means that they're still the scum of the earth who still need to be killed ASAP.
Here's a couple other key points that Ms. Cheney makes:
Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.Last night, I wrote about an ABCNews article here, which said:
Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.
Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas, the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11.This is hard proof that al Qa'ida is still plotting terrorist attacks against us. This is hard proof that al Qa'ida still hopes to kill us by the hundreds and the thousands. What part of that doesn't Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi understand? If they want to take the approach that this is an optional war with little impact on national security, why haven't they cut off funding for this war? Why should they be putting forth non-binding resolutions on the war? Shouldn't they be proposing genuine budget restrictions that force the President's hand?
The truth is that Democrats prefer not taking a principled stand on the GWOT. They prefer simply disagreeing with anything that President Bush says. That isn't leadership. That's intellectual cowardice. They're no longer willing to acknowledge that Iraq is part of that GWOT. Remember numerous Democrats saying that (I'm paraphrasing here) "al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded." Implicit in that statement is that these Democrats knew that al Qa'ida was a threat to Iraq's government and our national security. Now they're tired of the fight and want to quit. They just don't want to use that word because they don't want to be thought of as losers who quit the moment the going gets tough.
Posted Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:15 PM
No comments.
