October 1, 2007
Oct 01 06:39 That's How They Support the Troops? Oct 01 07:36 Let the Voters Decide Oct 01 08:55 Viguerie Trying to Get Hillary Elected? Oct 01 11:14 DFL on Wrong Side of Minnesota CoC Oct 01 14:43 She Said What? Oct 01 23:58 I'll Buy That
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006
That's How They Support the Troops?
Forgive me if I don't buy the Democrats' mantra that they support the troops. That's insulting, especially after reading this article . According to the article, Democrats are trying to ram though the Veterans Disarmament Act through Congress. They've already railroaded it through the House on a voice vote.
Hundreds of thousands of veterans, from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom, are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.The notion that a military veteran's Second Amendment gun rights would be vaporized by this legislation is insulting. The fact that their confidential medical records would be on a public database for all the world to see is even more insulting. It isn't surprising that the bill is mostly sponsored by Democrats who "support the troops but don't support the war":
How? The Veterans Disarmament Act, which has already passed the House, would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.
This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago
when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system), prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.
The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away...forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names, like the 83,000 records mentioned above, will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.
SponsorIt's disgusting to see that three Republicans are co-sponsoring this bill. Still, I think it's revealing that high profile Democrats would co-sponsor this legislation. John Dingell, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Sherman, Jim Moran and Rahm Emanuel are somebodies in the House Democrat caucus. The sponsor of the bill in the Senate is none other than Pat Leahy.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]
Co-Sponsors
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D-NY]
Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. John Dingell [D-MI]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Dennis Moore [D-KS]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
I'm calling on Second Amendment advocates, constitutionalists and military veterans everywhere to swamp the Capitol Hill switchboard and fill their senators' inboxes with the news that this bill shouldn't see the light of day in the Senate. Let the Senate know that their debating the merits of this legislation is irresponsible and unjustifiable. PERIOD.
Simply put, it's time for activists to engage in this fight. It's a fight we can't afford to lose.
Finally, if I was a military veteran, I'd tell the Democrats that they don't need this type of 'support'.
Posted Monday, October 1, 2007 6:53 AM
No comments.
Let the Voters Decide
Somehow, I don't think this story is what they meant when they coined the hrase 'Let the voters decide.' Here's what's happening:
By the time Congress finishes a supplemental spending plan for the Iraq War, senior Democrats say, it is likely that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will have made their choice on White House hopefuls.In other words, Reps. Murtha and Hoyer agree that they're done taking heat for the Iraq war and that they want the Democratic presidential nominee to take the heat. They're also hoping that the rival factions, aka the DLC and MoveOn.org, can reach an agreement on how to declare defeat. That isn't likely to happen because MoveOn.org sees the DLC as Republican Lite. They've used the term heretic in characterizing the DLC, too. This won't sort itself in that process by a long shot.
The "Super Tuesday" primaries probably will be over, too.
That political calendar, combined with the reality of how hard it is for Democrats to get left and center to agree, has caused some senior lawmakers to conclude that Congress will soon end up letting the parties' presidential candidates take the lead on Iraq policy.
"The outcome of the presidential primaries will help to bring focus to the debate on Iraq in Congress," said Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., agreed, saying, "There's no question that the presumptive presidential nominee will carry a lot of influence on the Iraq debate."
Murtha, a close adviser to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said he has advised the leadership to put off the supplemental spending debate until early 2008 to allow time for Democrats to form more consensus on Iraq.They can wait until they're ice-skating in Hades before a consensus is reached within the Democratic Party on Iraq. It ain't happening. PERIOD.
In fact, I'll predict that John Murtha will become politically radioactive before Democrats reach consensus on their Iraq war policy.
The Democrats' stalling is meeting with resistence from both sides of the aisle:
But the push to delay action on funding has run into flak from liberal Democrats, who fear they are losing votes for their position.The Democrats' waiting until the new year is an attempt to have the presidential campaigns be the top story. Democrats don't want the Iraq debate to be the topic of conversation if it's possible. That tactic won't work. Too many people have too strong of an opinion on the subject to let go now.
"I would like to see the showdown now, rather than waiting until next year,~ said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.
Some Republicans also criticized the notion.
"I'd like to see the Democrats move the supplemental as soon as possible. They should not be playing politics with this," said Eric Cantor, R-Va., the chief deputy whip.
In other words, she triangulating on Iraq. That's foolish. Triangulation worked for Bill because he was forever dealing with nothing issues. Hillary isn't leading because she's pandering on the biggest issue of our generation. That isn't a profile in courage. It's a profile in political pandering, something that the voters won't forget. (I know they won't because I'll join with other bloggers of the Right Blogosphere to remind them or her pandering and indecision.)Clinton, New York's junior senator and the front-runner so far for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 23 that she would vote against the next supplemental "because I think that it's the only way that we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction."
But she has also distanced herself from proposals that would rapidly reduce troop levels and end the war next year.
Posted Monday, October 1, 2007 7:41 AM
No comments.
Viguerie Trying to Get Hillary Elected?
That's a question I want answered. I'm getting tired of Mr. Viguerie's attempts to create a purist Republican Party. Purist parties are minority parties. Here's why I'm demanding his answer:
Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.As an evangelical Christian, I know that Giuliani's positions on social issues are different than mine. I'm adult enough to know that I won't get my way every time. This is a time when it's worth remembering Ronald Reagan's maxim that my 80 percent friend isn't my 20 percent enemy.
The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate."
I also know that jihadists want to destroy western civilization. and that that isn't an overdramatization of the jihadists' goal. I'm confident that Rudy Giuliani will use every tool available to kill these jihadists. I'm not confident that Hillary will pursue the terrorists with even half the vigor that Giuliani will.
I know that Rudy has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges, something that social conservatives overwhelmingly support. I'm confident that social conservatives are mature enough to figure out that winning half of alot is far better than winning all of a morsel.
Viguerie was an influential man in getting President Reagan elected. Since then, he's been relegated to the fringe of GOP politics because of his ultra-purist opinions. I've said before that purist parties are minority parties. for the record, I reject the Hugh Hewitt 'Vote the Party line' perspective, too. It's time that conservatives got our priorities in order. That shouldn't be that difficult. Here's what we should stand for:
1. Defeating the jihadists, using every tool available, whether it's shutting down 'charities' that fund Hamas, using information that the NSA intercepted without a warrant, or killing the jihadists on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. Nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges.
3. Extablishing a high standard of conduct for elected officials, thereby eliminating future Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley scandals to the greatest extent humanly possible.
4. Muscular fiscal restraint that says no to bridges to nowhere but says yes to keeping taxes low while keeping the nation's roads and bridges in good repair.
If we accomplish all that, we'll be the majority party for a generation. It's that simple. It's important to remember what I said yesterday :
It's important to remember that it wasn't that people got fed up with low taxes, sensible spending priorities and a government that protected them from terrorists.I've never lost faith in the fact that principled conservatism, explained properly, is the dominant force in American politics. I've never lost faith in that because the principles that provide the underpinnings of conservatism are based on truths that've stood the test of time.
They got fed up with a spineless GOP that piled up earmarks at a rate that would've almost made Robert Byrd and John Murtha blush. They got fed up with a spineless GOP that teamed up with Ted Kennedy on a sham wrongfully titled 'immigration reform'.
Unfortunately, principled liberalism is all but dead. That's why conservatives must reject Mr. Viguerie's absolutist version of conservatism. We must reject his version because our country needs our leadership. It's that simple.
It's also worth noting that this article is in the NY Times so it shouildn't be given instant credibility. They've been known to publish a misleading article from time to time.
Posted Monday, October 1, 2007 10:40 AM
No comments.
DFL on Wrong Side of Minnesota CoC
That's the only conclusion you can draw from the fourth annual Minnesota Business Barometer Survey . In the section titled 'Barriers to Job Creation', here's something that immediately jumped out at me:
Tax burden continues as No. 1 barrier, cited by 33 percent
Taxes biggest concern among small and medium businesses, those with declining revenues
To me, it's significant that this opinion is held by a plurality of businesses from several different demographics.
Here's something else that should trouble DFL strategists:
Two-thirds say the projected $2.2 billion surplus was adequate to meet state's needs Three-fourths say inflation increases should not be automatic in budget forecastsIt's worth factoring in the fact that Chamber businesses are big users of the state's highways, roads and bridges. They thought that the surplus was sufficient to keep roads and bridges repaired and to meet the state government's other obligations. I think it's extremely noteworthy that they said that inflation increases shouldn't be automatically factored into budget forecasts.
Implied in these statistics is that the respondents didn't think the legislature did a good job of prioritizing spending. What's implied in those statistics is spoken clearly here:
almost 70 percent say lawmakers failed to address most important problemsMake no mistake about this. That answer is pointed directly at the DFL because they ran the show in St. Paul. They shot down 90+ percent of the House GOP's amendments this session. Don't think that these businesses didn't notice that aspect. It's almost a sure bet that they'll rememeber when the DFL asks for a campaign contribution. They'll certainly remember in November, 2008.
Even health care doesn't seem to be working in the DFL's favor:
"The health care system is broken," said David Olson, president of the Minnesota Chamber. "Employers' frustration is the likely cause of the survey findings. Any cure requires bold and creative solutions. The Minnesota Chamber is preparing to meet this challenge through our 'business plan for health care reform,' which we will be presenting to the 2008 Legislature."I can't imagine the Chamber's plan being a government-run system. In fact, I'd bet that it'll be based on free market principles, which is the polar opposite of the DFL's health care plan.
Combine this survey with their voting records ratings and it's impossible to think that the DFL will get significant support from the business community. I don't see any proof that would suggest that.
Originally posted Monday, October 1, 2007, revised 02-Oct 12:19 PM
No comments.
She Said What?
Americans Against Hate Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release stating that a former governmental relations intern for the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has made some rather incendiary remarks in a blog post. Here's the opening paragraphs of Kaufman's press release:
In her piece, entitled, ' Ahmadinejad Visits Columbia ,' speaking about the President of Iran's call for the destruction of Israel, she wrote, "Wiping other countries off the map? Apartheid Israel is not a country, it was created by wiping Palestine off the map; isn't all fair in love and war?" She then remarked, "Do we really have the right to be upset at Ahmadinejad for talking about wiping an apartheid 'state' off the map?"Ms. Billoo's denials notwithstanding, there is American blood on Iran's hands. Is she justifying Iran's supplying Sadr's militias with explosively formed projectiles (EFP's)? If she is, then she's implying that it's ok for Iran to interfere in another country's war. It's one thing to say that Iran has the right to defend itself if another country attacked it. It's quite another to say that Iran has a right to interfere in another sovereign nation's internal affairs.
Later, Billoo took umbrage with a City Councilman who said that Ahmadinejad had American blood on his hands. She wrote, "Iran has the blood of [sic] Ameircan soldiers on his hands? Way to pass the buck! The blood of those soldiers is squarely on the hands of Bush and Co.! Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves in the midst of an illegal war!"
Furthermore, notice the gambit she uses in saying "Excuse the Iraqis for attempting to defend themselves..." Sadr's militias used Iranian-built EFP's to kill Iraqi and MNF-I troops in direct disobedience of Maliki's government. How dare a bunch of renegades take the law into their own hands.
That isn't all she said in that post:
How dare Condee pass judgment while we are spending billions of dollars on a regular basis to ensure Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other countries stay off the map.Excuse me? Why is Ms. Billoo complaining about the the US military destroying the oppressive regimes of the Taliban and Saddam? Would she prefer seeing these regimes still in power? As for Palestine staying off the map, that's their choice. President Bush laid out a roadmap to help create two sovereign nations, Israel and Palestine.
According to President Bush's plan, that won't happen until each side meets certain benchmarks. Thus far, Hamas won't even start working on its responsibilities. Thus, they've made their choice to not have their sovereign nation.
Posted Monday, October 1, 2007 2:44 PM
No comments.
I'll Buy That
Lately, I've worried that the Thompson campaign was losing momentum, that it hasn't capitalized on its initial popularity. Thanks to Peter Mulhern's post , I'm now looking forward to Thompson's debate debut. It should make for some interesting watching. Here's the first salient point from Mulhern's post:
Thompson's view on the proper scope of federal government activities is neither shallow nor passing. It has deep roots and he can defend them against heavyweight attacks. At National Review Online last spring, Ramesh Ponnuru challenged some federalist positions Thompson took as a Senator. Thompson wrote a response which dismantled Ponnuru's arguments. Ponnuru's reply was both snarky and beside the point. It came as close to sputtering incoherence as it is possible to come in print. Ramesh Ponnuru is no fool. The man who can beat him like a rented mule in a battle of the keyboards thoroughly understands the subject of their dispute.This summer, I wrote about Thompson's interview with Peter Robinson. During that interview, I noticed something different about Fred Thompson than with other conservative politicians: an underpinning or framework from which all of his policies flowed from. When King Banaian and I talk about such stuff, we talk about underlying philosophies. When a politician has that, he'll likely get our undivided attention.
When Fred Thompson talked about reading Barry Goldwater's 'Conscience of a Conservative', I knew that I'd stumbled across an intellectual, Reagan/Goldwater-style Republican, something that's clearly missing from Mitt Romney. I don't even think that Rudy has an underlying philosophy, though it isn't that important with him because he's got such a well-defined set of goals to accomplish.
Here's another important observation about Sen. Thompson:
Thompson's reaction to General Petraeus' recent testimony before Congress suggests that he can. Before Petraeus said a word everyone knew that our efforts in Iraq have become vastly more successful under his command. Everyone understood that Al Qaeda and Iran's proxies will probably be humiliated in Iraq unless they can adjust to the tactics we are now using with such success. The $64,000 question was this: What is Iran doing to forestall humiliation in Iraq and what will we do to stop them?The thing that makes Fred Thompson a good communicator is that he's plain-spoken. When I first started paying attention to him, I was impressed with his answer about illegal immigration, saying that "It's still our house and we get to decide who we invite into our house." Talk about speaking plainly and saying what GOP activists want to hear! That was delivered with perfect pitch and with a cadence and enunciation that no other presidential candidate, from either party, could've delivered.
General Petraeus dropped some very interesting hints on this subject and Thompson zeroed in on them. His statement on the subject was simple and direct: "Gen. Petraeus' report also leaves me even more concerned about Iran's role in Iraq. Iran is headed down a dangerous path, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must understand that."
In this instance, Sen. Thompson told Ahmadinejad that he's in Thompson's crosshairs and that he wouldn't tolerate any of Ahmadinejad's shennanigans. Rest assured that Ahmadinejad doesn't want Fred Thompson as the next US president. He's the last guy Ahmadinejad wants sitting in the Oval Office. (I suspect that the only candidates Mr. Ahmadinejad doesn't want sitting in the Oval Office are Sen. Thompson and Mr. Giuliani.)
Sen. Thompson has an uphill battle but he passes the gravitas and likeability thresholds to be considered a serious presidential contender. His next real test is his performance in next Tuesday's GOP presidential debate. We'll see how that goes. I won't be surprised if he does better than expected in it.
Originally posted Monday, October 1, 2007, revised 02-Oct 12:00 AM
No comments.
