I will no longer call Obama a socialist. - UPDATED with Part 2

FASCISM - Part 2 Bumped and updated

Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.

There is no single dramatic event in Tocqueville’s scenario, no storming of the Bastille, no assault on the Winter Palace, no March on Rome, no Kristallnacht. We are to be immobilized, Gulliver-like, by myriad rules and regulations, annoying little restrictions that become more and more binding until they eventually paralyze us.


I will call Obama and his fellow travelers, the Democratic party, especially Pelosi and Reid, by their proper label:

Fascists

Michael Ledeen at PajamasMedia:
There’s a element of truth to the basic theme (although not to the headline): the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.

But that’s not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property. I haven’t heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing. What is happening now–and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article–is an expansion of the state’s role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it’s very “European,” and some of the Europeans even call it “social democracy,” but it isn’t.

It’s fascism.

Burning through the money

Look, it's Congress. With our money.

And I think you can place the Joker.....

And he's right. It is about sending a message....

GOP member objects to Rush Limbaugh description of the GOP leadership.

And for that reason, conservatives will continue to be in the minority. Rush opined that President Obama is more afraid of him than he is of the Republican Congressional leadership.
Representative Gingrey objected.

From the Politico:

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Rush responded to Politico, "I'm sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don't show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won't continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we'll know it when we see it.”

Perhaps Boehner and Cantor have gotten the message, however. They are urging Republicans to oppose the "stimulus pork, um, package."

Democrats seem nervous about a lack of support from the GOP. There are 56 Democratic Senators and 255 Democratic Representatives. They have no need for GOP support. Why are they seeking GOP support for something that they could take COMPLETE credit for. Unless, of course, some Democrats either won't support their new President or they expect the results of the "stimulus package" to be a failure.

Democrats are warning that Republicans will continue to be pegged as obstructionists and the “party of ‘no’” if they are unwilling to negotiate. (If the Democrats have a full majority, how can the GOP be obstructionists?)

“The American people rejected the Bush economic policies of the past eight years that resulted in millions of jobs lost and Republicans now have an opportunity to work with the President and Democrats to move our country forward,” said one Democratic aide. “It would be a shame if Republicans choose to promote the same policies instead of listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who support swift action on the House bill.”

The Democrats continue to use revisionist history to bolster their agenda. Nobody was complaining about the Bush economy during the housing boom. It was only after the DEMOCRATS took power that the economy nose dived. I have not heard of any majority that wants "swift action" on ANY bill. It is the Democrats that are supporting Bush's recent failed policies of bailouts and governmental interference.


Update:

Top 20 Fast Facts about the House Democrats Trillion Dollar Spending Plan

From the House Republican Leader John Boehner comes information that you won't find in the news:

For a taste of just how badly Capitol Hill Democrats have strayed from the vision of a bipartisan plan to get our economy moving again, take a look at these 20 fast facts about their bloated plan:

1. The $825 billion package slated for a House vote later this week will exceed more than $1.1 trillion when adding in the interest ($300 plus billion) between 2009-2019 to pay for it.

2. The Capitol Hill Democrats’ plan includes funding for contraceptives; regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funded contraception, there is no question that it has NOTHING to do with the economy.

3. The legislation could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the housing meltdown.

4. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats’ proposal:

· $650 million for digital TV coupons.

· $600 million for new cars for the federal government.

· $6 billion for colleges/universities – many which have billion dollar endowments.

· $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

· $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.

· $200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod.

5. The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. That means more than a third of this plan’s spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.

6. The plan provides spending in at least 150 different federal programs, ranging from Amtrak to the Transportation Security Administration. Is this the “targeted” plan Democratic leaders promised?

7. Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs.

8. Just one in seven dollars of an $18.5 billion expenditure on “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy programs” would be spent within the next 18 months.

9. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

10. The House Democrats’ bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

11. The bill provides enough spending – $825 billion – to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

12. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

13. Although the House Democrats’ proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill – or three percent – is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion.

14. Much of the funding within the House Democrats’ proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – a program that already has $16 billion on hand. States also are sitting on some $9 billion in unused highway funds – funds that Congress is prepared to rescind later this year.

15. All board members of the “Accountability and Transparency Board” created by this legislation are appointees of the President; none will be appointed by Congress.

16. A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief.

17. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes.

18. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.37 a day, or about the price of a cup of coffee.

19. Almost one-third of the so-called “tax relief” in the House Democrats’ bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package – not the 40 percent that President Obama had requested.

20. $825 billion is just the beginning – many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their “stimulus” plan. In fact, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), told Roll Call earlier this month, “I would not be surprised to see us go further on some of these programs down the line.”

Furthermore, an update at Gateway Pundit posts this from Read the Stimulus.org:
(Tell me again how the Democrats aren't weak on national security.)

Kristen wrote this after scanning the 1588 page piece of legislation:

What caught my eye on first pass was how embarrassingly miniscule is the spending for Homeland Security items as compared to spending on things related to climate change and the environment, for example, but also the multiple billions in other areas to set up more entitlement programs for Democratic constituencies.

A TOTAL of 1.1 billion is allocated for only 4 Homeland Security areas (starts 1/2 way thru pg. 103, goes to start of 105):
Customs/Border
100 million for seaports, non-invasive equipment/salaries
150 million for land border entry ports, repair/construction of facilities
TSA/Aviation
500 million for explosive detection equipment
Coast Guard
150 million to remove obstructive bridges, if they have projects ready to go
FEMA
200 million for emergency food and supply distribution
(total of 1.1 billion)

This is in contrast, for example, to....

650 million allocated for additional digital-to-analog TV converter boxes for the states (BTW, this is on top what the states already allocate themselves for this....Chicago, where I live, has a current program in place, my daughter just got a $40 box for "free"). See page 51.
Or, 400 million for ocean habitat restoration and mitigation (page 52)
Or, 600 million for addl satellites with climate sensors to mitigate climate change (52)
or, 140 million for climate date modeling equipment (52)
(total of ~1.8 billion on pages 51-52 alone)

Small peanuts, I know, compared to the multiple billions being allocated to other depts. but it does give you an idea of the mindset of Democratic House members.... "Let's use the media to lambast Bush on his FEMA debacle, his lack of attention to "our nations port security," etc., but when given the opportunity to actually improve these areas..... no priority spending needed!

Arggghhhhhh.

200 million for FEMA? Isn't FEMA that agency about which they complain couldn't get the job done? Don't they think that FEMA needs more help? Or could those complaints have just been more hot air added to the hurricanes....

Bush STILL Polling Better Than Democrat Congress

While his numbers are low for a sitting president, GWB's poll numbers are STILL higher than the democratically elected Dem congress who were going to clean things up and do the will of the people:

Via: Real Clear Politics

President Bush's Job Approval Rating:
Approve [35.4%]
Dis-approve [60.2%]

Congressional Job Approval Rating:
Approve [25.0%]
Dis-approve [63.5%]

How Have House Democrats Performed Their First Year?

Except for the "No action on the mortgage crisis" this is great!

The government has no business in fixing the "mortgage crisis."

Buying a house is not like buying a pack of gum. You sign that mortgage, its YOUR problem.

If you can't pay it, sell.

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.

More Congressional Disapproval Numbers

Here are some more poll numbers for those who just don’t believe the Democrat controlled congress is not a thing of affection to the rest of the country:

AP – Ipsos poll: "Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?" If "mixed feelings" or unsure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"
Oct 1-3, 2007 Approve: 22% Disapprove: 73% -51%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is doing its job?"
Sept. 27-30, 2007 Approve: 29% Disapprove:65% Unsure: 6% -36%

Fox/Opinion Dynamics: “"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress is doing?"
Sept. 25-26, 2007 Approve: 24% Disapprove: 63% Unsure: 13% -39%

CBS: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling it’s job?”
Sept. 14-16, 2007 Approve: 27% Disapprove: 65% Unsure: 8% -38%

Gallup Poll: “"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"
Sept. 14-16, 2007 Approve: 24% disapprove: 71% Unsure: 5% -47%

What’s America’s view of the Democrats?

The Harris Poll: “How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?”
Sep 7-10, 2007 Excellent/Pretty Good: 24% Only Fair/Poor: 70%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs?”
Sept. 7-10, 2007 Approve: 38% Disapprove: 57% Unsure: 5%

So, somehow, I don’t think that Democrats in Congress and their supporters need to use their time throwing sticks at the Administration and the Republicans in Congress (who are not in charge, by the way.) Their time would be better spent trying to get their poll numbers above 50, or at best, match the numbers of the President.

Congress Approval Rating At A New Low

Remember: Congress' low numbers are less than Bush's low numbers.
From CNN.com:

A new AP -- Ipsos poll scathes President Bush: "Only 31 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, according to the survey released on Thursday. Though his positive ratings have hovered at about that range since last year, his lowest previous approval in the AP-Ipsos survey was 32 percent, which was recorded several times, most recently in June. That is virtually even with the latest reading." So Bush's approval rating dropped one percent after about a year at near the same level. Waaaayyyyy down in the article you see this:

"Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a gradual decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. It' s lowest reading in the poll was 24 percent, recorded most recently in July. " Here is what you should get out of this:

1. After a year, people are growing less enchanted with the Democrat controlled congress, than with President Bush -- even in the face of a supposed "unpopular war," and " major credit crunch and a weak housing market."

2. Congress' rating is 9 points LOWER than the president --and is approaching the lowest rating of ANY congress EVER! -- AND THEY HAVN'T BEEN IN OFFICE A YEAR YET!

So keep in mind as you hear some Democrat pundit decrying Bush's low ratings that more people support him than currently support the Democrats who say they were put in office to send a message to Bush.

Some good news from OPFOR. Scroll through the whole site. They have info from Michael Yon that is better than anything in the media. I just wish that the rest of the media would do some research. And Congress too.

Al-Qaeda on the Run

By Richard S. Lowry

In March of 2003, Abu Musab al-Zargawi was holed up in his mountain terrorist training camp in Eastern Iraq. He had already been fighting Americans for quite some time. He had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan in 2002 but managed to escape to Baghdad, where he was treated and brought back to health in an Iraqi hospital. Once recuperated, he established a terrorist training camp along the Iranian frontier. He selected a mountain perch that would be easy to defend and would also provide a quick escape route into Iran. His men controlled a 300 square kilometer finger of land that protruded into Iran, just east of the ghost town of Halabja.

I have been told, unofficially, that Abu-Musab al-Zargawi was under direct orders from Osama bin-Laden to establish his Iraqi camp to spread the violence of al-Qaeda. I was told this by a former S-2 (intelligence) officer for a brigade that was deployed in Northeastern Iraq. I believe he knows what he is talking about but, unfortunately, I cannot divulge his name as a source. Instead, let me direct you to the work of a well-known author, Robin Moore. Mr. Moore visited Iraq shortly after the invasion in 2003. He then wrote “Hunting Down Saddam,” St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2004.

In his book, Moore writes of Operation Viking Hammer, “perhaps the largest Special Operations assault in history.” When the Turkish government baulked, and did not allow American forces to attack Iraq from the north, a large Special Operations effort was initiated in Northern Iraq and Kurdistan. Kurdish pesh merga forces, assisted by American Special Forces teams moved toward, and eventually attacked Zargawi’s hideout, east of As-Sulaymaniyah. The battle is also recounted in Linda Robinson’s, “Masters of Chaos,” PublicAffairs, New York, 2004. Ms Robinson indicates that there was an association between Zargawi’s group, Ansar al-Islam, and al-Qaeda.

The battle to neutralize Ansar al-Islam in the Iraqi mountains raged for days and was one of the fiercest fights of the war. Finally, the pesh merga and American Special Forces routed or killed hundreds of Sargawi’s fanatic fighters to find the largest terrorist training camp in the world. You all may think that I am about to go on to claim that this was an al-Qaeda training camp, that al-Qaeda was in Iraq in 2003, and that Saddam was in cahoots with Zargawi (and thus al-Qaeda). Well, I am not. I will leave that research to the reader. What I am going to do is make a prediction.

I predict that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) will beat a retreat to this same finger of land, or a similar border hideout in the same vicinity, in the near future. AQI is on the run in Anbar and Diyala Province. (According to the Multi-National Force-Iraq Public Affairs Office, “Eighteen paramount tribal leaders representing 14 of the major tribes in Diyala Province, Iraq, swore on the Koran and signed a peace agreement unifying the tribes in the battle against terrorism…on August 2nd.”) General Rick Lynch is running the enemy to ground, south of Baghdad. The Multi-National Division-North has made great strides in killing or capturing most all of the senior al-Qaeda leadership in Mosul. Soon, al-Qaeda’s only safe haven will be along the Iranian border. Soon, al-Qaeda will resort to the same tactics as they are using in Afghanistan.

The surge is working. Harry Reid – we are not losing in Iraq. General Petraeus’ forces are doing everything they can to keep al-Qaeda off the Iraqi population and, they won’t let up until they are all dead, in custody, or dug in to their last mountain hideout. We are far from victory in Iraq, but we are approaching a tipping point.

Richard S. Lowry is the author of “Marines in the Garden of Eden.” Visit www.marinesinthegardenofeden.com to read more.

Fund the Troops! Now!!!

Unfortunately, this cartoon is true. WE need to put our collective foot up the @$$&$ of the Democrats in congress and get the funding for our toops taken care of, once and for all.

Democratic Debates: Best Quote of the Night

Newsmax has some quotes from the Democratic debates last night. All the them are pretty funny (in a sad sort of way) but this one is the best to me:

MIKE GRAVEL: "We have no important enemies. What we need to do is to begin to deal with the rest of the world as equals. And we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of?"

You can't get a bigger "pre-9/11" mindset than that.

My second favorite in Newsmax's list is this one by Chris "Democrat Klansman Robert Byrd was right on everything he said at anytime in our histroy" Dodd:

"I believe that civil unions are appropriate and proper. I don't support same-sex marriage. And the distinction there I think is one of more of what's available, what the traditions are, and the _ over the years. But, basically, that's a distinction I make. Strongly support those civil unions."

If anybody ever figures out exactly what he is saying here, let me know. This political bi-polarism at it's best.

Check out the rest of the quotes.

Overall, I wouldn't let this crew captain a rubber duck in the worlds smallest bath tub.

Harry Reid must go. NOW!

The excellent blog, NeverYetMelted, linked to a fine editorial by Mark Levin at National Review(mandatory reading for all conservatives) concerning the highest ranking moonbat in the Senate, Harry Reid.

An excerpt:
...Harry Reid, who by word and action is actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.

For those who are so pre-occupied with Gonzales that they may not have heard it, this is what Reid said yesterday: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

So, Reid announces to our brave volunteers that their country is sending them to a lost war. And he announces to our enemy that victory is within their reach — just keep up the killing a little longer. During my radio show last night, I received a call from a Gold Star father. He was outraged by Reid’s comment. He has called before and has become a good friend. But I’ve never heard him as angry and frustrated as he was last night.

Rather than join the chorus demanding Gonzales's resignation, let me be the first to demand Reid's resignation.
And let's see how many pundits, conservative and otherwise, will join me.

REID MUST GO

Democrats call “War on Terrorism” a “colloquialism”

War on Terror? What war on terror?

“The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.
This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”
The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.
Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.” “There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.””

But wait, it gets better:

“Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.”

Gee, Ya Think?

Code Pink Moonbats Angry With Pelosi; She Has Them Arrested

Looks like a catfight may be brewing between Pelosi and Code Pink:

Four members of the anti-war group Code Pink were arrested outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Thursday afternoon, following an announcement that they would seek to take over the office.
The group’s members had planned to hold a symbolic “Pin the war on the Donkey” demonstration at Pelosi’s office to show their frustration with the Democratic leadership’s inaction on ending the war in Iraq.
However, Capitol Police prevented the taping of a drawn donkey to the wall.
Code Pink members were crying outside Pelosi’s office. When asked why, Rae Abileah, 24, said she was crying out of “outrage that this is all we can get from the Democrats,” referring to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, scheduled for a vote Friday.
“We’re just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush’s war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin. “We thought we were going to get a change when they came into power.”

I thought the Democrats had this "mandate by the people" to stop the "illegitimate" war? They control the congress. Why can't they get this done? Answer: because this is NOT want the American people really want. The American people are NOT calling for a cut-and-run strategy from congress. The Democrats are politicians and want to get re-elected. They know that cut-and-run would be a disaster -- one that could be easily laid back at their feet politically, and they don't want this. Only their ultra left-wing like Code Pink want this strategy, and their aren't enough of them to keep the Dems in power in a general election (congressional or presidential.) So Pelosi and her followers are trying to "ride the fence" on this issue; trying to call cut-and-run by any name possible to get it past the American people, but the people aren't buying it. So they don't try cut-and-run and thier base comes after them. I love it! This is what happens when you base your parties support on a small band of people who are on the opposite side of America's success and safety. I just love it!

The left: There Aren't Enough Troops, but Don't Send Any

Just Asking…wasn't one of the original “beefs” of the left was that there were not enough troops in the Iraqi theater? So why now, the big push to keep more troops from being sent to Iraq? Why criticize someone for not doing something, and then criticize them again for doing what you originally criticized them for not doing? That is the very semblance of a “partisan attack,” and apparently, the rest of us are not supposed to remember what the leftist Democrats were saying as recently as last November. This is a prime example of why Bush should not listen to the left – they are critics, and only critics. They have no real answers. Bush says “blue,” they say “red.” Bush says “on” they say “off.” No matter what the issue is or which side is the correct side. They are just trying to get ahead by pulling backwards those who are leading the way. Politics, pure and simple.

“Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday that House Democratic leaders are drafting their own non-binding resolution on Iraq that signifies opposition to troop escalation.

The resolution is being written by Reps. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Tom Lantos, D-Calif., chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Amendments will not be permitted on the resolution, to be debated over three days and wrapped up before the President's Day recess on Feb. 19, Hoyer said.

The House resolution will be based on a Senate model that was pushed back Monday when Republicans deprived Democrats the opportunity to rebuke the White House for President Bush's strategy to add 21,500 troops in Iraq to help end sectarian violence. House Democrats were going to wait for the Senate to act first on a resolution, and decided to go forward after Monday's Senate gridlock.

The vote on a motion to proceed was 49 to 47, well short of the 60 votes necessary to stop discussion and move toward debate of a non-binding resolution sponsored by Sens. John Warner, R- Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. Republicans opposed cutting off debate because they wanted votes not only on the Warner-Levin resolution but also on a separate resolution by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., supporting the Iraq troop surge and another one by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., rejecting any future effort to cut off funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq.”

Sunday Funnies: Dem Diva Barney Frank

Click the photo to see hilarious video of Barney
on his day job.

Hat tip to Free Republic & Hot Air
Photo of U.S. Senator Barney Frank's nightclub act by AP

“The Swimmer” calls for universal Healthcare coverage

“Mr. Submarine,” today called for universal healthcare coverage:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government should join the state of Massachusetts in enacting universal health coverage, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over numerous health issues.Kennedy's home state is the first to require everyone to have health insurance, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.
Kennedy has his own version of what universal health coverage would look like. He wants to extend Medicare to all. In his first hearing Wednesday as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat called on 10 witnesses from all over the country to talk about how to make health care more affordable.
"Insurance coverage is down. Costs are up. And America is heading to the bottom of the league of major nations in important measures of the quality of care," Kennedy said.

Told ya so. They aren’t hard to predict because they aren’t fooling me as to who they really are; liberals want higher taxes (except for themselves.)

The Case for Low[er] Taxes

Today’s Michael Medved column supports my previously stated position on tax cuts in the comment section of this post: let everyone have one. In the aftermath of last November’s election, I wrote this:

“Do you remember the antics of the Democrat[-controlled congress of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s?] Lots of people don’t. So, when you tell them what it will be like for them and their family to live under the legislative yoke of Democrat tax increases to fund ever-expanding -- and ever-failing -- social programs, they have no concept of it. But they will get a glimpse soon.
The incoming Democratic house members have made no secret of their desire to not only sunset the Bush tax cuts, but to increase many fees and taxes on the working class for the “common good.” You will see a minimum wage fight, unions rise up and demand more from workers, and a rapid expansion of social programs. You will see calls for increasing Social Security (even though Dems campaigned on the high cost of the prescription drugs program added by Bush the-younger.) A renewed call for “universal health care” and enough global warming hot air to melt the polar ice cap. This is all good for the conservative cause.”

So writes Medved:

“It took Nancy Pelosi less than a week as Speaker of the House to begin talking seriously about tax hikes. On “Face the Nation” on CBS this weekend she raised the possibility of increasing the tax burden (by “repealing tax cuts”) for “those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year.” She simultaneously promised tax cuts “for middle class families.”

The political calculation in this pitch is diabolically clever, of course. Nearly all Americans consider themselves “middle class,” no matter how much or how little they make, so her support for reduced taxes for “middle class families” sounds wonderful. Meanwhile, less than 2% of tax returns show income in excess of $500,000 a year so the Speaker is, in effect, inviting 98% of the public to improve their status at the expense of a tiny minority that’s already widely resented because of its “excessive” success.

If you’re nowhere near that $500,000 level where the Democrats say they’ll start punishing you, why should you care if Pelosi & Pals jack up the tax rates on the fortunate few who can afford to fund the rest of us?”

“Herewith” Medved follows up with “three reasons that even those who’ll never earn a half-million a year should oppose these tax hikes, followed by three powerful lessons from the current political situation.”

Hat Tip: Town Hall

Previously:
Who’s Controlling Spending Now?
Who’s Controlling Spending Now, Part II
“A Red Day, A Sore Day, And Then the Sun Rises!”

Spontaneous Combustion of Manure - 200 Acres Burn

No, this isn't a story about the new Congress.

An omen perhaps...

Who’s Controlling Spending Now, Part II

On January 2nd I wrote these words:

“After campaigning for so many months about the “massive deficit” and
faulting Republicans for massive increases in government spending, will we now
see the Democrats restore limited government spending and less pork-barrel
spending? Nope.

They will increase taxes “on the wealthy” – which for practical purposes is
every living working person – increase pork-barrel spending and begin rebuilding
the welfare state, and watch the deficit rise even farther with barely a word
said. Mark my words.”

I was scoffed at.

This flash just in from AP, via Drudge:

“Democrats are not ruling out raising taxes for the wealthiest people to help pay for tax cuts for middle-income families, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.”

Pelosi’s actual words:

“As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes a [sic] reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children.”

(Need I even point out how asinine that statement is. The nerve!)

*****

“What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year,” Pelosi said.”

(Nancy Pelosi; "Face the Nation," 1/7/07)

The big thing that you should take away from reading this article is that the American people are certainly not in the mood for a tax increase – apparently for anyone.

The days of focus groups and “polling as policy” didn’t go out with the Clintons; Pelosi would never make a statement like “it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children” if the majority of the American people were wanting to raise taxes – even on the wealthy.
If the Democrats truly believed they were on the right side of the taxation issue, they would produce plan, after plan, after plan on increasing taxes. Make no mistake; they are doing this – as her statement about “initiatives which will bring money into the treasury” indicates, but to get the American public to accept this, they have to create a “boogie-man” that the public can hate. So every one making $500,000 per year: you’re the boogie men. So for historical purposes, Nancy Pelosi has just defined who “the rich” are: those making over half a million per year.

Here’s Nancy’s plan of action as in her own words:

1. “Collecting our taxes….” (I would have love to let her defend the “our” in that statement.) Look forward to having the IRS become even more aggressive about collecting anything you owe them.
2. “Reducing waste, fraud and abuse….” This statement would be great if what she meant was the end of the proverbial “$500.00 hammer.” This, though is not what she meant. Read into it “investigate Halliburton contracts.”
3. "Investing in education...." Read; “more money into the teacher’s unions, and more money per pupil dumped into failing public schools for initiatives that have nothing to do with the “three R’s.” Can you say “increased pork-barrel spending?”

Need more evidence that you wallet in now in danger?

“Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the new chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, is seeking GOP cooperation in making inroads on bloated tax laws. ‘We have to look at all of the deductions, all of the credits, and to come up with what we think we can do,’ he said. ‘Is it going to be difficult? You bet your life.’”

Again, if you are sopping “the rich” who deserve it, why is this going to be “difficult?” Truth is those “bloated tax laws” are going to be deductions and credits that the vast majority of tax filers use, not just “the rich.” Every one will find out that you can be “rich” at $50K per year.

Remember when increased capital gains taxes were supposed to stop “the rich” from prospering? The ones who really felt the pinch were those people who sold their homes at a profit during the housing boom. The increased equity left a lot of regular working people paying a lot of money on capital gains taxes on their homes when the sale price of a rancher worth $95,000 turned into $165,000.00.

If you didn’t pay the gains taxes, woe unto you: the Pelsoi IRS Collection agency is getting ready to take you down. Hard.

I say again, for those conservatives and Republicans who stayed home to teach our side a lesson I hope you enjoy it because you’re about to pay for it.

*****
Previously:
Who’s Controlling Spending Now?