The Republic's No-Good, Horrible, Very Bad Day....and Chief Justice Roberts is a lying sack of....

In honor of the horrible, no good, crappy, dishonest, clusterf#ck of a SCOTUS opinion by that coward Roberts who stretched logic to absurd lengths to justify his capitulation of his duty, stretched it so thin that even I could tell that he contradicted himself within one paragraph, to justify REWRITING the law, and thus giving power to Congress to tax us for ANYTHING....



A RE-POST OF TWO VERY RELEVANT PIECES BY CONCRETEBOB


Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax

Heritage Foundation Morning Bell

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made imminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax, Its A Fine, Its NOT a Tax

"Legal arguments for Obamacare's individual mandate fail the 'Alice in Wonderland' test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration's legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat.

'The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,' Judge Steeh ruled.

This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday's preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress' power is far less extensive.

Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a 'penalty,' explicitly changing its description from a 'tax' that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice's admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can't 'mean so many different things' as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, 'Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing ... [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.'

Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it's not a tax.

His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it's the Obama administration's fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce."

--The Washington Times

‘Enough Is Enough’: Allen West Won’t Apologize to DNC Chair No Matter What the Black Caucus Says | Conservative Byte

‘Enough Is Enough’: Allen West Won’t Apologize to DNC Chair No Matter What the Black Caucus Says Conservative Byte

I wouldn't apologize to the DNC DFC either. Suck it up, Debbie. You're lucky. Ron Brown was head of the DNC at one time. You could get appointed to the Commerce Department.

Class Warfare Erupts in Dem Caucus, as Member Throws Pelosi's Fortune in Her Face - Nancy Pelosi - Fox Nation

TALK TO THE HAND!!!!!

Class Warfare Erupts in Dem Caucus, as Member Throws Pelosi's Fortune in Her Face - Nancy Pelosi - Fox Nation
Poor baby. maybe she should resign from Congress and get a real job. Oh yeah, she can't, because those eeeeeevuuuullll Wepubwacans have declared war on women and forbidden her from working outside the home.

Class warfare erupted in a House Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday, as Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s personal fortune was thrown in her face by a junior colleague angry about a proposal to freeze the pay of members of Congress.
Rep. Laura Richardson attacked Pelosi for endorsing the GOP-written pay freeze during a Tuesday caucus discussion of a possible Democratic amendment to the payroll tax cut, according to several sources who were in the room at the time. Both women are California Democrats.
The sources disagreed on the exact wording of the unusually direct shot at the party leader, but Richardson’s sentiment was clear: Pelosi, who is worth at least $40 million, doesn’t need the money as much as some of her colleagues, and she should have consulted with them before deciding to protect the GOP-written pay freeze.

Read more:

SOPA - Government kowtowing to Hollywood

HEY CONGRESSMAN GOODLATTE!

WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING BEING A SPONSOR OF SOPA!

This is why the GOP is known as the STUPID PARTY!

You're supposed to be part of the SMALLER GOVERNMENT party.

Freaking idiot!

Congressional Reform Act - Why not?

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the
best quotes about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a
law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP,
all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took
only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it.
That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or
less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a
minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of
those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have
the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as allAmericans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.

The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should
serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person sends to a minimum of twenty people, then it will only
take three days for most people (in U.S.A. ) to receive the message. It
is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS ………If you agree with the above, pass it
on. If not, just delete. You are one of my 20+..

Morning Bell - Undermining the Rule of Law

Congress vs. The American People

Another day, two new polls showing the American people are strongly against the health care plan President Barack Obama will sign into law today. According to CNN, 59% of Americans oppose President Obama's plan. And according to CBS News, 48% of Americans oppose the plan (with 33% in strong opposition) compared to only 37% who support it (with only 13% in strong support). Digging deeper into the CBS poll, we find that 76% of Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job on health care, 46% think Congress has spent too much time on health care, and 49% believe the rules and procedures used in Congress to get the current health care bill passed have been mostly unfair.

But the leftist majorities in Congress just do not care what the American people think. Today, the Senate will press forward with work on the proposed "fix-it" bill through the reconciliation process. You may have thought it was impossible to make the policy and process of Obamacare even worse, but that is exactly what this reconciliation bill does:

Abuse of Process:
According to the Congressional Research Service, 19 reconciliation measures have been enacted into law since the procedure’s first use in the Carter administration. The record shows that reconciliation has been used for virtually all imaginable scenarios — save one: There is no precedent for using it to enact a once-in-a-generation rewrite of the relationship between Americans and their government that appeals exclusively to one side of the aisle. But that is exactly what Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is attempting to do. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, a plurality of the American people strongly oppose this procedural tactic for this highly unpopular policy.

Even Higher Deficits:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, new entitlement spending in the reconciliation bill would cost $216 billion in 2019 alone and will increase by 8% every year after that. Now, the Democrats will tell you that the CBO has also said their plan raises enough taxes and cuts enough Medicare to pay for this gigantic new entitlement. But the CBO is obligated by law to believe whatever Congress tells them. The American people are not. According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, 76% of the American people do not trust Congress. That is why, according to the latest CNN poll, 70% of the American people believe Obamacare will cause the federal budget deficit to go up.

Even Higher Taxes on Business:
As bad as the employer mandates in the Senate health bill were, the taxes on businesses in the reconciliation bill are even worse. Companies that hire certain low-income Americans will have to pay $3,000 per employee, per year, even if the company offers insurance. And companies that employ 50 or more workers will face higher tax penalties to the tune of $2,000 per full-time employee.

New Taxes on Investments:
Investment is what creates job growth. One would think at a time of 9.7% unemployment, the government would not want to increase taxes on investment. Not this leftist government. The reconciliation bill slaps a 3.8% tax on investment income.

Cornhusker Kickbacks for All:
You may have heard that the reconciliation bill "got rid of" the Cornhusker Kickback. That is not quite true. What it really did is extend the additional Medicaid funding Nebraska got to every state. But to keep the new entitlement spending deficit neutral, the new Medicaid funding creates a fiscal time bomb for states by vastly cutting Medicaid reimbursements in 2015. This reconciliation will only further strain already bankrupt state governments.

A Government Takeover Preview:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has already announced he will vote against the reconciliation bill because of the government takeover of the student loan industry that Democrats tacked onto the health care bill in order to help pay for the new entitlement. The student loan debacle is unfortunately just a preview of the direction the left wants to see health care go. The government first justified subsidizing student loans in the Clinton administration by saying it would make college more affordable. The opposite happened. College costs have only skyrocketed, just like health care costs will only sky rocket under this bill. So now this reconciliation bill is completely nationalizing the student loan industry. Unless the direction of health care policy changes, our health care sector will not be far behind.

Richmond Tea Party Press Release

It is beyond time for elected officials to make a decision regarding their loyalties. They took an oath to obey the Constitution. They swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America.
Republican or Democrat, from this moment on, need to decide if they are politicians or Americans serving the will of the people. From my position, all I see is politicians, and I've had quite enough of the Bravo Sierra from Congress. I will make it my life's mission to replace every single politician with someone who truly understands the Founding Principles.

Richmond Tea Party News Release!
October 13, 2009
They Should Be Ashamed of Themselves
“Senators Warner, Webb, and Congressman Cantor Reject 6,000 Petition Signatures”

Richmond, VA – Six thousand Richmond area residents have signed a petition protesting nationalized health care, but Warner, Webb and Cantor refuse to personally meet to acknowledge the petition despite multiple requests.

“The petition signatures represent genuine concern of taxpayers about government take-over of our health care system. The signatures were gathered through face-to-face meet-ups at festivals, neighborhood walks and in our workplaces. We expect our elected representatives to at least feign interest in the will of the people, but when we requested meetings to personally deliver the petitions, we were rebuffed at every turn,” said Sara James of Midlothian.

“These politicians have repeatedly demonstrated no interest in the opinions of thousands of voters in their districts. Warner, Webb and Cantor should be ashamed of themselves.”

Corky Mann of Henrico, a relative newcomer to the political process, expressed dismay about the lack of response by his representatives. “These politicians seem to forget that we hired them, and we expect them to be responsive and considerate of our opinions, not to mention the fact we expect, at a minimum, a reverence for the Constitution, which these health care bills clearly ignore.”

Mechanicsville resident Kevin Dumville agreed. “The absurdity of their refusal to receive 6,000 petition signatures can be easily demonstrated by the fact that when these petitions are laid down end-to-end, they stretch longer than a football field. How does an elected representative ignore that level of opposition?”

The petition states: “We the People of Virginia demand that the Federal Government remain within its Constitutional boundaries on health care. We reject any of the following: Government-run health insurance; One-size government-dictated package of health benefits; New job-killing mandates on employers; Federal medical mandates that violate State Sovereignty; Requirement on individuals to buy medical insurance coverage; Federal institution that controls private health insurance; Government intrusion into our medical privacy; Taxpayer dollars for euthanasia, or life ending services; Medical coverage for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.”

The Richmond Tea Party is a grassroots organization giving voice to the Silent Majority. Its mission is to work to reign in a Government that Has Grown Too Big, Spends Too Much and No Longer Listens to the Will of the People.

Dissent Is Patriotic

Unless you're protesting the takeover of healthcare, bank bailouts, taxes or the current occupant of the White House....

Apparently. "speaking truth to power" is only for a selected few.

"Robust, wide-open debate." But when it happens to Democrats, it's something different: A threat to democracy, a sign of incipient fascism, and an opportunity to set up a (possibly illegal) White House "snitch line" where people are encouraged to report "fishy" statements to the authorities.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the "Tea Party" protesters Nazis, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman --forgetting the events above -- claims that left-leaning groups never engaged in disruptive tactics against Social Security reform, and various other administration-supporting pundits are trying to spin the whole thing as a deadly move toward "mob rule" and – somewhat contradictorily -- as a phony "astroturf" movement.

"Protest is patriotic!" "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!"
These battle-cries were heard often, in a simpler America of long ago -- that is, before last November. Back then, protests -- even if they were organized by the usual leftist apparatchik-groups like ANSWER or ACORN -- were seen as proof of popular discontent.

When handfuls of Code Pink ladies disrupted congressional hearings or speeches by Bush administration officials, it was taken as evidence that the administration's policies were unpopular, and that the thinking parts of the populace were rising up in true democratic fashion. Even disruptive tactics aimed at blocking President Bush's Social Security reform program were merely seen as evidence of boisterous high spirits and robust, wide-open debate.

On May 23, 2005, the Savannah Morning News reported:
“By now, Jack Kingston is used to shouted questions, interruptions and boos. Republican congressmen expect such responses these days when they meet with constituents about President Bush's proposal to overhaul Social Security.

New Cars For Everyone

I've been reading the Constitution again. I'm looking for the section that grants Congress the authority to give tax revenues to Americans so they can buy a new car. I know its in there, and I'm going to find it. It must be in there, because I'm certain Congress wouldn't do anything that ran contrary to its Constitutionally mandated powers of authority.

Maybe if the Founders had put an index or appendix or bibliography or used footnotes, it would be easier to find.

Meanwhile, I will continue to drive my Dodge pickup with the 360 cubic inch engine getting 15 miles a gallon at 80 miles an hour with Hank Jr in the tape deck and the A/C cranked up to MAX.

and I will enjoy every freaking minute of it because my truck earns more than minimum wage and most third world countries and it is tax free, BABABABABABAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!

New housing bust in on the horizon

and its being encouraged by the exact same people, with the exact same mindset, that caused the last sub-prime loan bust.

Everyone knows how loose mortgage underwriting led to the go-go days of multitrillion-dollar subprime lending. What isn't well known is that a parallel subprime market has emerged over the past year -- all made possible by the Federal Housing Administration. This also won't end happily for taxpayers or the housing market. The Wall Street Journal is on top of it. I bet this won't make the news at MSNBC.

(emphasis mine)

The financial results so far are not as dire as those created by the subprime frenzy of 2004-2007, but taxpayer losses are mounting on its $562 billion portfolio. According to Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight FHA loans is now delinquent -- nearly triple the rate on conventional, nonsubprime loan portfolios. Another 7.5% of recent FHA loans are in "serious delinquency," which means at least three months overdue.

The FHA is almost certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months ahead. The only debate is how much it will cost. By law FHA must carry a 2% reserve (or a 50 to 1 leverage rate), and it is now 3% and falling. Some experts see bailout costs from $50 billion to $100 billion or more, depending on how long the recession lasts.

Under the Bush Administration, the FHA then began a bizarre initiative to "regain its market share." And beginning in 2007, the Bush FHA, Congress, the homebuilders and Realtors teamed up to expand the agency's role.

The bill that passed last summer more than doubled the maximum loan amount that FHA can insure -- to $719,000 from $362,500 in high-priced markets. Congress evidently believes that a moderate-income buyer can afford a $700,000 house. This increase in the loan amount was supposed to boost the housing market as subprime crashed and demand for homes plummeted. But FHA's expansion has hardly arrested the housing market decline. The higher FHA loan ceiling was also supposed to be temporary, but this year Congress made it permanent.

Congress knows about this. THEY regulate the FHA. Of course it will be a great surprise to them when they spring the bailouts on us. The bailout will be needed IMMEDIATELY or the world will end! No where will they state that this had been known for months. They will need yet MORE money, in addition to what they have now. Its Freddie/Fannie all over again. Why the hell does a governmental agency need to improve "market share?" Less market share means LESS TAXPAYER RISK! And liberals love to call Bush a conservative......idiots.

h/t Founding Bloggers

Fascism - the Face of Obama

A NEW ORDER HAS ARISEN!


The Dear Leader has just fired and replaced the head of a major corporation. And now we are hearing that GM may have to declare bankruptcy ANYWAY? Why doesn't Obama and co. get blamed for wasting billions of dollars on a failing corporation instead former CEO Wagoner. The administration was told repeatedly that GM would probably have declare bankruptcy months ago. But Obama and the democrats would not listen. THEY are the ones that are bankrupting the country.


That same Dear Leader has demanded that a major corporation be given to a foreign corporation for free. Chrysler was given 30 day to finalize any deal with Fiat or face the loss of billions in government aid. Fiat will assume a 35% (possibly raising to 55%) stake in the company, debt free. Why Fiat? Simple. Small cars. Supposedly Fiat will share technology with Chrysler enabling Chrysler to market fuel efficient cars. You know, similar to all those Fiats that you see Americans driving today.....Say goodbye to the Ferrari, Maserati, and the Alfa Romeo.......Can you see anyone buying a Chrysler Maserati?
How much of the bail out will be going to Fiat? Supposedly, Chrysler is to pay back the $6,000,000,000 that it will get as a result of this deal prior to Fiat assuming control of the company. (Fat chance.)

“Almost 95% of banks in this country remain well-capitalized. Since that time, many banks have been contacted by regulators, and urged, sometimes forcefully, to participate in the [Capital Purchase Program].”
If this is the case, that means that almost ALL banks will receive a portion of the TARP money, whether they want it or not. So, that means that Congress will control the wages of the executives of these companies also. Yet again, because of greed of Congress, Americans lose. Because Congress set taxes so high, yet allowed bonuses to be taxed at a lower rate, many executives take a low yearly salary and get paid year end bonuses as compensation. Not for performance, but, as a portion of their salary. Now, Congress wants to take this away from them.


Now that the financial institutions have taxpayer's money, certain Congressmen think that these employees should be paid like government bureaucrats. Of course, no Congressman ever gets rich from the taxpayer's money.....

Jon Jacobs:

Taxpayer are now like shareholders of your company. Indeed they are. Therefore it's no surprise to see taxpayers' elected representatives demand "their" management show accountability for major expenditures past and present.

Except that we are truly shareholders in our government, and THOSE employees refuse to be held accountable.

These officials evidently feel banks, once brought under the public umbrella, should be run not like businesses but like public agencies, where salaries are set by published charts rather than managers' discretion - and where bonuses don't exist. A great many voters seem to share that view. It all sounds fair - even logical. Until, that is, you stop to ponder what's the exit strategy. If every banker's pay is effectively subject to congressional review, who will want to work for banks?

I hope these people get good jobs in foreign firms.

Congress is blind. The conceited bastards running the circus evidently believe that being the head clown in the circus enables one to run the business end of it, too......

Please look at the above links and information with open eyes. Search the web for more info. And then come back and show me where I am wrong in believing that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are not, at the very least socialist, if not fascist.

Ain't Skeered

A message for Rahm Emanuel the honorable Representative from Illinois.
I heard you accuse the Bush Administration of "scaring the American people into doing something they shouldn't do" referring to the Administration's request to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
I've heard this before. According to some of your colleagues, we were scared into supporting the War on Terror because the Administration told us we were in danger of being attacked by Muslim extremists. The fact that I already knew that because I've been paying attention apparently never occurred to you.
I pay 4.00 a gallon for gasoline. I have to, it's part of my job. I have to work. I have to drive a full-size pick-up truck to perform my job effectively and professionally. It costs me twice as much now as it did in 2006 to do my job. In two years, under your party's leadership, the retail price for the fuel we buy has doubled. DOUBLED!!!
What is it exactly that we're supposedly afraid of? We have the oppportunity to become an independent oil producing nation. The fact that we have nimrods like you standing in the way of economic prosperity doesn't scare me, it makes me furious, but it should damn sure scare you. You should be so afraid for your future as a Congressman that you put the interests of the entire country above your partisan mindset.
Do you have a vested interest in keeping oil prices high? Are you on the Saudi payroll? Do you own tankers?
If you answered "no" to the above, then I can only assume you're stupid; and you can't fix stupid. Or you're mean; and mean can be fixed.

AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS AGAIN

For your attention: Shamnesty alert!

Go to the link for more info and more links.

American Alienation

WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AND HARSH LANGUAGE AND WILL OFFEND LIBERAL APOLOGISTS

KafirAlalazoo
"My name is a pseudonym derived from the Arabic word 'kafir', which means 'infidel', and the word 'alalazoo', which is an ancient Greek military term, meaning 'to raise a war cry'.
With my videos, I hope to do exactly that. If you are educated along the way, so much the better."

An Open Mind (Redux)




American Alienation

The view of Congress from THIS vet..........

h/t The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

The National Debt Disaster and other myths

The Skeptical Optimist explains how the politicians are using our ignorance of government finance to scare us into voting for them.

The national debt will be a crushing burden on our children and grandchildren.
... Financial doomsday will be inevitable, unless we elect fill-in-the-blank to save us from that disaster.

But debt doomsday is a myth.


Check out the rest of his site for interesting info like Farm Subsidies in Manhattan and why Porkbusting for its own sake may not be the best thing to do......

Webb wants the authority to declare war against Iran

Update: At Mother Jones, (of all places), comes an analysis of the letter:

What's the significance of the letter? The answer has three parts:

1. Legally speaking, the letter has no significance whatsoever.
2. Moreover, it's legally false.
3. The legal aspect is essentially irrelevant. It's the political aspect that matters, and here it might have some impact.

Senator Webb has communicated to the President his opinion that the President has no authority to strike Iran without the consent of Congress. Apparently that authorization to fight international terrorism in 2001 has an expiration date. While I object to this belief, I am ambivalent about the Senator demanding this requirement.

The disgraceful way the Senate has been acting lately forces me to believe that, unless Iran detonated a nuclear weapon, Congress would weep and cry over ANY actions the President might take. So, the President should keep the Congress in the loop. Show them the intel. When action is needed, tell them that the strike will commence, unless THEY cancel it. If no action is taken, then if Iran develops and misuses nuclear weapons, THEY are responsible.

Another way, is to play it their way. They get to authorize the strike. They want the responsibility to declare war, since they feel that the previous authorization was not enough. So the President should go before Congress, lay out his reasons, regardless of secrets, and ask them to declare war. Bluntly lay out before the public on live TV that it is Congress that will determine the actions. Not him. That his hands will be tied if Congress does not authorize a strike. That Congress has to grow up and pay attention to something other than domestic politics. Then, no matter what happens, Congress can't bitch.

Or we can just ignore Webb for the pissant that he is.....

Notice that there are NO Republicans on this list, including RINO's. And no Senator Lieberman.
Oh, and no Dingy Harry Reid and no Obama. Didn't Obama object to even placing the Quds force on the terror list?

From Senator Webb's office:

Along with 29 co-signers, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia sent a letter to the White House today warning the President not to take offensive military action against Iran without the express consent of Congress. Designed to clarify any ambiguity as a result of a recent Senate amendment urging designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the Senators also expressed concern that the administration's increasingly provocative rhetoric has undermined diplomatic efforts with Iran.

November 1, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran. This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Sincerely,

1. Webb
2. Akaka
3. Baucus
4. Boxer
5. Brown
6. Byrd
7. Cantwell
8. Carper
9. Casey
10. Clinton
11. Dodd
12. Dorgan
13. Durbin
14. Feinstein
15. Harkin
16. Johnson
17. Kerry
18. Klobuchar
19. Kohl
20. Leahy
21. McCaskill
22. Mikulski
23. Murray
24. Reed
25. Rockefeller
26. Sanders
27. Stabenow
28. Tester
29. Whitehouse
30. Wyden

Waxman update - still a weasel, wait, that's not it....

Via CNSNews.com:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Wednesday denied that he is conducting or ever planned to conduct a congressional investigation of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin and called on a conservative magazine to retract its report that he asked investigators to compile information on the popular conservative talk radio hosts.

"The American Spectator report about a congressional investigation into talk radio is completely false," Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement to Cybercast News Service. "There is no investigation."

The American Spectator replied:
In a posting on its Web site, an unnamed American Spectator author wrote that Waxman's denial "won't sway us from our reporting of earlier this week. And we stand by our story, which was conveyed to us by an Oversight Committee staffer."

"Further," the statement says, "we have been made aware of some conversations between staff on Oversight and career staff at the Federal Communications Commission about how best to approach oversight hearings on FCC policies."

Pelosi - "They are advocates. We are leaders."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HOHOHO! wooooo, wheeee.....oh my. That was funny.
Via Dana Milbank , the Washington Post has an article on Pelosi:

Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

As opposed to camping in Texas.....

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

I thought San Francisco was all about the poor homeless....She sounds like a heartless Republican.....

Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.

"We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

Hahaha, stop it! In other words, "Who do they think they are, protesting me? Bush is the enemy. They are supposed to work for me. Don't they know their place? Don't they know that Congress has no intention of bringing the troops home? We can't be held responsible! Bush is supposed to do that so that he looks bad. Not us. We have careers in politics. What are they doing, taking us at our word?"
Hahaha! Responsible? Wooo, boy!
And that "leader" part? Who knew that she was that funny. "Leaders." That's good.....

Pelosi admitted no mistakes and claimed no regrets as she reflected on her first session in the speaker's chair. "I'm very proud of the work of this Congress," she declared. Didn't the dems go ballistic when a certain other leader would not admit mistakes or regrets......?

With all of the "successes" that she has had, lets hope the next year is identical.

Democrats take away Veterans' benefits

via Times Gazette in Ohio,
While I don't care if Filipino vets get benefits, since the Phillipines were American Territory at the time, don't take away my benefits. Cancel some pork instead.

Democrats give away veterans' benefits

Rep. Mike Turner

As a member of the House Veterans' Affairs (VA) Committee, the work of helping to ensure that those who have worn a military uniform receive the benefits and respect to which they were promised, is often rewarding.

A recent Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting took an unusual twist, which many people are surprised to learn about when I tell them.

This story is about a two-part process that led to unbelievable decisions. First, the Veterans' Committee took away benefits from some very deserving American veterans. Second, the committee gave benefits to veterans of another country who don't live in the United States, and never have lived in this country or been American citizens. I opposed both actions.

I am against the Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 760). This legislation will provide benefits to Filipino World War II veterans.

These veterans were members of the Philippines military. They fought in the Pacific Theater, presumably on behalf of their native country.

They are citizens of the Philippines and not U.S. citizens. While these Filipino troops may have fought bravely, side-by-side, with American soldiers, they should be looking to the Philippines for veterans' benefits.

The United States has obligations to American veterans. We should not be held responsible for the benefits of the Philippines or any additional countries.

The Filipino veterans' provisions in HR 760 are similar to a plan passed by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

If signed into law, it would provide full veterans' status to World War II era Filipino soldiers and even their survivors.

This would include pay for service related disabilities, survivor pay for service-connected deaths, as well as pensions and death benefits.

Those who are living in the Philippines, and are not U.S. citizens, would receive $6,000 to $8,400. Low-income widows would receive $3,600.

I have witnessed some contentious hearings in my years in public service. VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif., was determined to pass the Filipino Veterans Equity Act. When the exchanges between the chairman and ranking member (and former chairman) Steve Buyer, R-Ind., became too heated, Filner ordered a recess to plot strategy with the Democratic majority.

The measure passed on a straight party-line vote and Filner refused to recognize any additional Republican amendments.

Providing veterans' benefits to Filipino service members is only half of the issue.

Perhaps more egregious is how the Democrats offset the cost of the new benefits. Because of House PAYGO rules, any new entitlement spending (such as the Filipino Veterans Equity Act) must be funded by either a corresponding cut in existing spending or matching revenue gains.

In this case, the Democrats on the Veterans Committee voted to save nearly $1 billion by eliminating a $2,200 special monthly payment to veterans who are less than 100 percent disabled, but 60 percent or greater disabled.

Paying Filipino service members who served alongside American troops in the Philippines during World War II sets a dangerous precedent. There were certainly brave Koreans and Vietnamese who served alongside Americans during the Korean and Vietnamese conflicts.

There are some Afghanis and Iraqis who are serving nobly with their American counterparts today. The Filipino Veterans Equity Act makes it logical for the United States to pay foreign fighters from these conflicts future benefits as well.

It is outrageous that U.S. veterans who have a high level of disability have lost up to $2,200 per month in benefits.

Rather than using U.S. tax dollars to pay American veterans who have sacrificed, Chairman Filner and the Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee decided that paying non-U.S. citizens was a more important national priority.

This does not serve our nation.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, represents Ohio's Third Congressional District.