May 2, 2007
May 02 00:07 President Vetoes Defeat In Iraq Bill, Pelosi & Reid Whine May 02 02:50 CSM Misses the Point May 02 04:07 Gov. No, No, No??? May 02 05:11 What a Concept!!! May 02 05:56 Reid, Pelosi Demagogue Presidential Veto May 02 20:42 Soros, MoveOn.Org Give Dems Their Marching Orders
Prior Years: 2006
President Vetoes Defeat In Iraq Bill, Pelosi & Reid Whine
That's the unvarnished truth about what happened today in Washington. Here's the AP's take:
President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate. In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.Of course, Sen. Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn't take that sitting down:
"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."
"The president wants a blank check," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., moments after Bush's appearance. "The Congress is not going to give it to him." She said Congress would work with him to find common ground but added that there was "great distance" between them on Iraq.Of course, Pelosi isn't above mischaracterizing President Bush's request. She says that he's asking for a blank check when the truth is that he's asking for Democrats to give the troops a chance to win. As for Reid, I'm getting sick of him talking about President Bush not changing direction. That's really euphemism for "President Bush won't sign off on Democrats declaring defeat."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Bush has an obligation to explain his plan for responsibly ending the war. "If the president thinks by vetoing this bill, he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken," Reid said.
Let's ask a simple question regarding how people support the troops. How many Americans think that "the troops" want to lose the war they've been told to fight? Does anyone in their right mind think that even 1 percent of the troops don't want to defeat AQI and the insurgents?
Let's pose another question to Sen. Reid and Ms. Pelosi. Do they think that the terrorists currently in Iraq and Iran won't see this retreat as the best recruiting tool that they've had in ages? Why would Pelosi and Reid think that our pulling out won't totally destabilize the region?
The truth is that they aren't thinking about those considerations. They're doing this because Gen. George Soros is giving them their marching orders. The dirty little secret is that BCRA destroyed the parties and gave Soros control of the Democratic Party. If he says jump, Reid and Schumer, Pelosi and Emanuel better ask how high.
That's why they've abandoned what I call the Lieberman Democrats. Soros hates sane-thinking liberals like Sen. Lieberman because they stand in the way of his agenda.
The key to understanding the Democrats' agenda is in understanding that they're merely mouthpieces for George Soros.
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:08 AM
No comments.
CSM Misses the Point
The Christian Science Monitor's article about the Flying Imam Fiasco simply gets it wrong. Here's their first mistake:
Take the controversy over six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight last October, and their recent decision to sue for discrimination, not just the airline and its employees, but also some passengers who complained about their preflight behavior.With all due respect, the "heart of the controversy" doesn't include concerns about "ignorance of Islam". Nor does it center on "constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and speech." I've been watching this story since it broke. I've written about it numerous times. What's at the "heart of the controversy" are the activities of a group of terrorist-sympathizing imam acting in a very suspicious manner. What's at the "heart of the controversy" is the possibility of them acting this way deliberately so they can evoke some sympathy.
At the heart of the controversy are Americans' concern about terrorism, ignorance about Islam, and constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and speech. In the middle are the airlines, which are charged with the difficult task of sorting out legitimate complaints about unusual behavior from those based on prejudice and fear of people's appearance, and to do it in a short period when dealing with a particular flight.
They'd likely then use that sympathy to get their legislative agenda passed, which includes the End Racial Profiling Act, which is co-sponsored by Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers. It would also include legislation that would give special civil rights protections to Muslims. It might even include legislation that would gut the Patriot Act.
The imams' lawsuit, brought in March at the federal district court in Minnesota, presents a thorny problem. On one hand, if individuals can be sued for making complaints that turn out to be false, it may discourage others from reporting suspicious activity. On the other, some people "still act out of prejudice," says Penny Edgell, a sociologist at the University of Minneapolis.With all due respect to Ms. Edgell, this isn't a thorny issue. These imams' behavior was suspicious. Several of them bought one way tickets, which is something that raises red flags. That was further accentuated by the fact that several of the imams didn't have baggage of any sort, raising another red flag. Even more worrisome was their behavior on the plane. Sitting in the same formation as the hijackers was guaranteed to set off lots of red flags, as was their asking for seat belt extensions even though several if them were positively skinny.
"What we need to do is to figure out ways to encourage people to make responsible complaints," she says. "Part of that is training those in the airlines to ask questions to help them sort out the basis for the complaints, whether it was a genuinely suspicious behavior, or is it simply a bias complaint motivated by somebody looking different."
The truth is that the airlines' training is just fine. It was the imams' behavior that needs further scrutiny. Here's another problem with the article:
The October incident sparked outrage among civil libertarians, Muslim-Americans, and others who thought it was un-American for five US citizens and a legal resident, who'd all been thoroughly screened by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to be suddenly taken off the plane as it sat at the gate because their behavior and Middle Eastern appearance frightened a few passengers.With all due respect to Ms. Marks, the "October incident happened just before Thanksgiving, after the midterm elections, after Keith Ellison became the first Muslim elected to Congress. When a high profile media organization makes that big of a mistake, they lose all credibility with me. I'd cut them some slack if there weren't any special events to use as 'historical landmarks'. You'd think that the midterm elections and Thanksgiving would be good reminders of when something happened.
The men were returning from a religious conference in Minneapolis that focused , among other things, on religious tolerance. After they went through the TSA screening process for passengers, they went to the gate for their 5:45 p.m. flight to Phoenix. It was time for afternoon prayers and so, according to the imams' complaint, three of them went to pray while the other three watched their bags.I'd like to point out that this wasn't a conference that actually focused on religious tolerance. That's just part of their PR spin. If they cared about religious tolerance, they wouldn't have invited known religious bigots like Wael Hamza Julaidan, Mazen Mokhtar, Abdullah Azzam and Siraj Wahhaj.
Here's a little background on them:
Wael Hamza Julaidan is a "a former colleague of Osama bin Laden". Abdullah Azzam is bin Laden's mentor. Mazen Mokhtar is a web designer for Al-Qaeda and who has proclaimed his support for Hamas, which isn't exactly a tolerant organization. That's alot of religious intolerance before we even get to Siraj Wahhaj, whose name appears on the "U.S. Attorney's list of unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center attack."Considering who participated in this conference, I'd suggest that if these imams want to preach about religious intolerance towards Muslims, then they'd first better practice tolerance towards Jews and Christians. The fact that Julaidan, Mokhtar and Azzam have been associated with bin Laden tells me that they aren't very tolerant people.
The fact that Ms. Marks wouldn't know these basic facts leads me to believe that she simply didn't do her homework on this article, which isn't a crime but it is a little disturbing.
The other thing I'd ask is why didn't all of the imams pray? You'll notice that it says that three prayed but the other three stayed to "watched their bags."
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007 2:51 AM
No comments.
Gov. No, No, No???
According to this Strib article, that's the name that Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark is calling Gov. Pawlenty. It was part of her lament that he'd vetoed the pork-laden bonding bill. The DFL-dominated legislature passed a bill costing $334 million, a stark contrast to the $71 million emergency bonding bill that Gov. Pawlenty proposed.
"The DFL majority is utterly incapable of exercising any restraint," said the Republican governor. Noting that the bill is more than four times as expensive as his $71 million bonding proposal, he said it is "too large" and "not acceptable."Gov. Pawlenty proposed a 9.8 percent spending increase for this biennium's budget & a $71 million emergency bonding bill. The DFL said that neither was acceptable, instead passing legislation that would increase the state budget by 17 percent & the aforementioned $334 million bonding bill. Here's how Tarryl responded:
But Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said the veto will engender "a lot of disappointment, frustration and maybe anger" from communities around the state that would have benefited from building projects in the bill. She likened the governor to "a 2-year-old just saying 'no, no, no.' "Tarryl, perhaps he wouldn't just say "'no, no, no" if you didn't keep sending him bills that increased spending by unsustainable rates. You started with a $2.2 billion surplus, passed spending bills that devoured that surplus in a single gulp, then passed tax increases to spend billions more.
Tarryl has lost her way since the days when she made these quotes:
"Incoming Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, wasn't available, but his top deputy, Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said: 'This forecast does not represent a heyday for people looking for money.'"Perhaps she lost her way because all she had for a compass were mirrors. Let's hope she refinds that 'moderate' compass soon.
'But we want to be prudent. The good news is, it's not a deficit,' Clark said. 'We want everything to be sustainable so this isn't a smoke-and-mirrors session.'"
The bill could be revived by a veto override, which requires two-thirds votes by the House, then the Senate. But House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, promised that first step won't happen. No House Republicans voted for the bill on Monday, and none will vote to override their party's governor, Seifert said. That would leave the DFL at least five votes short of enacting the bill over Pawlenty's objection.Rest assured that if House DFL freshmen vote for the bloated bonding bill, the vast majority of them won't get a second term.
Langseth, meanwhile, said Pawlenty hasn't proposed that help for Browns Valley. "But the governor says he's for all these things, then he vetoes them," Langseth said.Mr. Langseth, when did Gov. Pawlenty say that he's for "all these things"? Let me rephrase that. Mr. Langseth, why don't you prove that he's for "all these things"? If you can't prove your statement, then perhaps you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
Then again, when has a liberal ever needed proof before he made an accusation?
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007 4:07 AM
No comments.
What a Concept!!!
Anyone who cares about education policy, as opposed to the education budget, needs to read this LTE in today's St. Cloud Times. Robert Strack, the CEO of Strack Companies, is the author of the LTE. Here's the most refreshing line in the editorial:
Simply, I feel that the public education system must adapt to the changing needs of its customers.Education Minnesota will say that they support this concept & are always looking for ways to improve the product but it's mostly lip service. The truth is that most education unions believe that the product that they're producing meets society's needs. Obviously, Mr. Strack doesn't agree with that opinion. Here's a recommendation that's sure to meet with Education Minnesota's disapproval:
Policymakers need to define outcomes for the education systems and challenge them to deliver services more efficiently in all areas. If a program doesn't achieve the specified results, change it or eliminate it.This runs contrary to bureaucracies' rule of thumb. That's why I appreciate the recommendation.
I strongly recommend that you read the entire editorial. I'll bet that it'll get you thinking.
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:11 AM
No comments.
Reid, Pelosi Demagogue Presidential Veto
Check out this transcript if you want to see Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's latest mindless diatribe. Here's the first example of their idiocy:
A bipartisan majority of Congress sent the president a bill to fully fund our troops and change the mission in Iraq. The president refused to sign this bill. That's his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.This is really stretching the imagination. Two Republican senators voted with Senate Democrats in passing the bill. It's amazing how Harry Reid defines bipartisan. The truth is that he wishes it had bipartisan support. Now, Democrats have to defend their voting for defeat.
As for President Bush explaining "his plan to responsibly end this war", I hope Sen. Reid isn't serious about expecting that explanation because President Bush doesn't believe in defeat. I suspect that he believes that there's more than enough defeatists in the Democratic Party so there's no need for Republican defeatists.
In the coming days, we'll continue to reach out to the president, and we hope congressional Republicans who remained silent, congressional Republicans through this whole debate, will work with us as well.Sen. Reid's bluster notwithstanding, defeatist Democrats have already signaled that they're about to fold like a cheap suit. This fight is over except for a few daily soundbites.
But if the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken.
Now let's direct our attention to Ms. Pelosi's mindless drivel:
Earlier today the leader and I sent to the president a bill that made a strong commitment to support our men and women in uniform and a strong commitment to honor our promises to our veterans.Funny how Ms. Pelosi didn't explain how funding defeat supports our military in Iraq. Perhaps that's too complicated for her. As for their "strong commitment to honor" the promises made by Congress, doesn't winning the war constitute a commitment? I can't imagine Ms. Pelosi voted to authorize war in Iraq with America's defeat as her goal. I can't picture a more important commitment to keep. Nor can I think of a better way to honor veterans who've fought for Iraq's freedom.
This is a bill that was worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. It was a bill that honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq, again, out of respect for the wishes of the American people.What Ms. Pelosi really means when she says that this vetoed legislation respects "the wishes of the American people" is that this legislation excites the Insane Left. This legislation has nothing to do with pleasing the American people.
We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that a bipartisan legislation, supported overwhelmingly by the American people, deserved.TRANSLATION: We'd hoped he'd cave into our demands but he didn't.
Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does. This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the president more than he asked for for our troops, and well they deserve it.Ms. Pelosi says that President Bush misrepresented what was in the legislation but she doesn't offer any specifics on what he misrepresented. As for the legislation giving "the president more than he asked for", I'd sadly agree with her, though much of the "extras" have anything to do with the troops. The extra things have more to do with earmarks to buy votes for her defeatist agenda.
If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, then it is clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him.As I predicted here, Ms. Pelosi would ignore what's happening in Iraq. Here's one of the reports:
Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat. "Many people are challenging the insurgents," said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, "We know we haven't eliminated the threat 100 percent."Add to that the fact that sectarian violence has dropped by two thirds and it's impossible for an intellectually honest person to say that progress isn't being made. That, of course, is Ms. Pelosi's loophole. She's anything but intellectually honest.
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:57 AM
No comments.
Soros, MoveOn.Org Give Dems Their Marching Orders
That's what I said yesterday in this post. Now I have proof:
According to sources within the House Democratic leadership, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has denied the request for a meeting with Uribe when he comes to Washington next week. Uribe's staff has attempted to set up a meeting with Pelosi, offering to come to her offices with Uribe if necessary. Pelosi has refused the meeting.In her short stint as Speaker, Ms. Pelosi's record is one of a foreign policy disaster. Prior to this, her highest profile blunder was traveling to Syria, then telling Bashar Assad that she carried a note from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert's response that he hadn't given Ms. Pelosi that message was seen as a major foreign policy mistake.
"She has third parties who have encouraged her not to take the meeting," says a leadership aide, who said a coalition of labor organizations and MoveOn.org had been pressuring her to not meet with Uribe. "We've never seen anything like it. It's not like we're talking about some family from San Francisco who stopped by her office unannounced. This is the president of a country."
Now she's ignoring one of our closest allies in the Western Hemisphere because MoveOn and George Soros told her to. I predict that this will turn into a huge outrage. This type of pandering to the Democrats' money man comes at the expense of maintaining vital relations with our allies. This if further proof that Democrats don't put a high priority on foreign policy. It proves that they're only interested in it if there's a political advantage to be gained by it.
This is unacceptable because we're living in historic times. Whatever happened to the Democrats' mantra that we can't fight the jihadists without allies? It's obvious that that's just a cute sounding line used for political gain. If they meant it, they wouldn't be shunning such a close ally as the Columbian president.
In Colombia, Uribe has been struggling against communist terrorist groups financed by Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, as well as leftist political pressure internally. All while attempting to work with the U.S. against narco-trafficking. "He's a friend and an ally," says a State Department source, who was unaware of Pelosi's snub. "I'd be surprised that one of our national leaders would not meet with a strategic partner of the United States of America."Think of the implications of Ms. Pelosi's snubbing a reliable South American ally. As this points out, Ms. Pelosi would rather follow MoveOn's orders than help strengthen the relationship with someone fighting on the front lines in the war against the jihadists.
Ms. Pelosi's unconscionable conduct must stop. The best way to do that is to elect a Republican majority and a Republican president in 2008.
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007 8:43 PM
No comments.
