Dingy Harry Is Getting Forgetful

or is it Alzheimer's?
Or is he just stupid?
or maybe he JUST DOESN'T GIVE A FURRY RATS BUTT!!!!

Either way, this should be justification enough to give him a pink slip and send him back to the Pussycat Ranch.

Its Easy To Blame the Rich Guys

PRUDEN: Calling in the clowns to reform Wall Street

It's easy to beat up anyone who works for Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street houses. The partners pull down salaries and bonuses that are unimaginably large to most of us; how many Kobe steaks, how many $500-a-bottle French wines can a Wall Street broker consume? How many Manhattan apartments and vacation homes in the South of France can a Goldman Sachs chairman live in? President Obama, ever the nanny, said Wednesday that "at a certain point you've made enough money." He didn't say how much is enough, and who would decide how much is enough, but it's scary to think what Saul Alinsky's disciple might have in mind for all of us.

Mr. Levin and his conspirators in the Senate are trying to make Wall Street in general and Goldman Sachs in particular responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. Investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission have accused Goldman Sachs of selling $150 million worth of instruments backed by worthless mortgages to a German bank without disclosing exactly what the bank was buying.

The senators deduced from that that Goldman Sachs was trying to rig the market in subprime mortgages and thus set off the great meltdown of '08. The law assumes that not every investment banker is a virgin and does not require that Goldman Sachs relieve its institutional customers from their common-sense duty to know what they're buying. You could argue that what Goldman Sachs and other investment houses are doing is not nice, but it's not against the law. Carl Levin could work to fix that, but screeds are more fun.

There is more at the link. You should go read the whole thing.

20 Ways To Lose Your Freedoms

Here are the first five of the twenty ways ZeroCare will take your freedom.

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
By David Hogberg

If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care.

We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin's adage, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status?
Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

The rest are here.

Get educated; get involved; get tough.

The Hammer-Weekly Standard Blog

MKH has a great article in Townhall Magazine this month.
The title is cool:

"Sell Crazy Someplace Else", and discusses the media's portrayal of conservatives as insane unbalanced and ignorant; but we all know its not the Right that has problems with tolerance or diversity or inbalance.

Meanwhile, just two hours ago, MK was busy posting this about the greedy little beeeatch Senator from LA.

I give this a 20 lb splitting maul rating.

The Audacity of Buy-Offs
Mary Landrieu was awfully upfront about her $100 million vote in Senate debate Saturday:
“I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” Landrieu told reporters after her floor speech. “But that is not why I started this health care debate; I started this health care debate for all the reasons I just mentioned in my statement” on the floor.

She blamed "very partisan, Republican bloggers" for reporting on that section of the bill, but it was first reported by the well-known, right-wing outlet, ABC. The nerve of any of us to insinuate she could be bought for a measly $100 million.

Hey, thank God for algore.

Landrieu's justification for the extra money for Louisiana is that federal emergency aid surrounding Katrina had incorrectly inflated Louisiana's per-capita income for a short time, thus leading to insufficient Medicaid funds for the state, due to the federal government's calculation based on per-capita income.

She followed up with another odd assertion:
"Our state is still as poor as it was, if not poorer."
Perhaps not the thing to highlight so dramatically, when you're a senator who's been serving for 12 years.

Landrieu said her yes vote Saturday, to proceed to debate on Reid's health-care bill, should not be construed as a vote of support for the bill in its current form.

Sen. Mary Landrieu said that Reid wouldn't have 60 votes unless Democrats agree to weaken the government plan so that it is triggered if private insurers don't reach certain benchmarks.

Arrogance Has Its Own Payback

Family Research Council

Waiting On Mr Write

"Americans resent being ignored by arrogant politicians who think they know better how to run our lives than we do," columnist Connie Hair wrote on the Human Events website. As it turns out, even politicians resent being ignored by other arrogant politicians. Last month, eight Democrats sent the Majority Leader a formal letter demanding that the Senate--and public--have access to the bill for at least 72 hours prior to its first vote. Initially, Sen. Reid agreed.

They're Allowed To Lie-They're democrats

And since we know that going in, we know how to act.

Family Research Council
Harry Reid's Shell Game

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health care bill wasn't exactly popular in the House, but sources say it's even more disliked in the Senate. So much so that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scrapped the idea of using PelosiCare as the shell for his legislation. Instead of making H.R. 3962 his vehicle for debate, the Majority Leader will try to put some distance between his version of reform and Pelosi's.

Under the U.S. Constitution, tax and revenue-raising bills (like health care legislation) have to originate in the House. Fortunately for Sen. Reid, it doesn't specify which tax bill. To comply, the Majority Leader can take up a House-passed bill--any bill as long as it's a tax bill--gut the text and insert his own. Of course, that implies that Sen. Reid actually has health care language, which, as of this morning, he didn't. His plan is still being hatched in the leadership's top secret meetings.

In the meantime, a cluster of Democrats are making their intentions known on the bill's abortion ban. One of them is President Obama. The same man who said, "No one is pro-abortion," is proving to be the most rabid supporter of it in White House history. According to his staff, the President is so violently anti-life that he may be willing to kill his biggest domestic policy goal if it doesn't force Americans to pay for
the slaughter of innocent unborn children. If that's not "pro-abortion," then what is?

David Axelrod, the President's senior advisor, broke the news that the White House wants to break with more than 30 years of tradition and introduce taxpayer-funded abortion in health care. To do it, they'll have to strip the Stupak amendment which passed in the House with overwhelming support from both parties.

Today, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the amendment's author, told FoxNews that the White House had better brace for a fight. "They're not going to take it out," Stupak said, "If they do, health care will not move forward"--a prediction that Sens.
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) are prepared to back up.

"We won fair and square... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about... The majority has spoken. Most people agree--do not use public funds for abortion," Stupak said. "You're not going to summarily start dismissing amendments which the majority of the House of Representatives wanted because some person, David Axelrod or [whoever], doesn't like it."

It Will Still Raise Taxes

Family Research Council on the Senate version of the takeover of 20% of the Nation's economy.

.....The CBO managed to put the bounce back in Baucus's step after it announced that the Committee's idea would cost less than $900 billion over the next ten years without adding to the nation's monster $1.4 trillion deficit.

If the news sounds too good to be true, that's because it is. What the American people may not realize is that the CBO's score is only a partial estimate, because no one has seen an actual bill. The Committee and the Congressional Budget Office are working entirely from a concept. Even the CBO acknowledges that most of this is an educated guess. Its report warned of "significant changes" to the estimate when the language is finally released.

Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R) urged voters not to be fooled by the CBO's report, which the Wall Street Journal blames on "new math." "What we know at this point is that [their idea] cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and increases insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans. We need to see the actual bill... and know its exact [wording] before we begin a lengthy debate about whether it's the right direction for our country."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) dismissed the news altogether. "This Finance Committee proposal will never see the Senate floor," he said, "since the real bill will be written by Democrat[ic] leaders in a closed-to-the-public conference room somewhere in the Capitol." He's pointing out, as FRC has, that what comes out of the Senate Finance Committee is not nearly as important as the final product, which will be merged with the radical version from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

"The real bill will be another 1,000-page, trillion dollar experiment... that vastly expands the role of the federal government in the personal health care decisions of every American," Sen. McConnell said.

If the fine print of the Baucus plan actually existed, Americans might be surprised to see how the Committee plans to pay for its reform.

The Washington Times blog uncovered a "new mommy tax" that would help Uncle Sam cover costs. Sen. Baucus has recommended that the government hike taxes on Class II medical devices--which includes basic necessities like breast pumps, pacemakers, ventilators, wheelchairs, needles, and much more.

Wanda Moebius, a spokeswoman for the Advanced Medical Technology Association, just shook her head. "Health care reform is supposed to make it more affordable, not raising costs... on the end user."

Heritage Morning Bell

The Baucus Bait And Switch
Throughout the health care debate, President Barack Obama repeatedly promised the American people that his health care plan “will help bring our deficits under control in the long term.” Problem is that the White House could not get the Congressional Budget Office to cooperate. Throughout the summer the CBO issued report after report showing that the versions of Obamacare working their way through Congress all added to the deficit.

First, CBO found that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) bill would increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Three weeks later, the CBO released a report on a revised bill showing HELP 2.0 only raised the deficit by $597 billion. The House then got a little clever and tried to game the CBO scoring system by phasing in the major spending of their bill over time, but even that maneuver left them with $245 billion added to the deficit in the first ten years (with crippling deficits to come as the entitlement spending ramped up in the out years).

Enter Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) who was determined to manipulate the CBO’s scoring system as best he could and deliver a deficit neutral version of Obamacare. After months of working directly with CBO staff, Baucus scored a victory for Obamacare yesterday when the CBO released a preliminary analysis purporting to show that the Baucus bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion over the next decade. The New York Times awarded Baucus with the headline that the White House has been searching for since the debate first began: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” But this headline and the accompanying article are fundamentally dishonest. As the Politico reported yesterday: “While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a “score” or “cost estimate,” today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in “conceptual,” or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a “preliminary analysis.” For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.”

Indeed, the CBO went to great pains to emphasize this fact in their letter to Congress: “CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language.” But this isn’t even the most deceptive part of what the left in Congress is trying to pull on the American people. Not only does the Baucus bill not even really exist, just a Vapor Bill filled with conceptual language, it is about to be completely thrown out the window when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) merges it with the deficit busting HELP bill to move it to the Senate floor.

Then the real deception begins. Majority Leader Reid will then move to proceed on a House passed TARP tax bill, completely gut it, and insert his version of Obamacare. After the Senate passes the bill it will go to the House where if it is approved without amendment, it can then proceed directly to President Obama’s desk for signing. Throughout this whole time, the White House and the left in Congress will be using headlines like the one from the New York Times this morning to claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Baucus bill is the only version of Obamacare to get anything close to a deficit neutral nod from CBO and even that is done through creative deception. When it is combined with these other bills, Obamacare is certain to become an even greater budget buster once again. But the left’s entire strategy is to move fast so that a true CBO cost estimate of what Congress is actually voting on never happens.

Conservatives are fighting to make sure this deception is not perpetrated on the American people. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has introduced legislation that would change Senate rules to require a 72-hour waiting period and an official CBO cost estimate before the Senate was allowed to consider any legislation. If President Obama’s promises to the American people about ethics and transparency mean anything, then he should insist that Congress take its time and allow for a full CBO scoring of health reform.

Vapor Bill

Vapor bill:

A bill which moves through the legislative process in one or more houses of the U.S. Congress without legislative language. The best example of a Vapor Bill is the Senate Health Care Reform bill, which has no legislative language, but has been amended in the Senate Finance Committee. The term Vapor Bill was derived from the word Vaporware, a term coined during the dot-com era to describe all-singing-all-dancing software that was not written yet.

Here is how Brian Darling of the Heritage Foundation describes the Vapor Bill:

President Barack Obama’s push for a sweeping health care overhaul is going to be voted upon in the Senate Finance Committee this week and nobody has read the actual bill yet.

The Washington Post reported last Friday that “Senate Finance Committee Releases Its Final Text of Health-Care Bill,” yet you click on a link to the “Bill” referenced in the Post article and all you get is a 262 page description of the legislation. There still is no actual legislative language being given to Senators, Staff or the American Public. That is why many are calling it the “Vapor Bill.”

Why It Matters:

A bill without legislative language cannot be accurately scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Its impact and effects cannot be judged, nor can it be accurately evaluated without the legislative language. The end of life counseling in the House bill was discovered by reading the bill — as were many other objectionable ideas and issues.The Vapor Bill is part of a key Senate Democratic Leadership strategy to bring a blank bill before the Senate — in this particular case — the AIG Bonus bill.

How You Can Stop It:

Call Your Senator’s right now and demand that the legislative language for the health reform bill be available for 72 hours before the Senate begins consideration of the bill, and that CBO Scores the bill by evaluating the legislative language — not a literary work that is not the language that will become law. The phone number for the Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121 and if you tell the operator which state you live in, they will connect you with your Senator’s office. Call the Democratic Senator first. They are the ones that need to hear the following message:

Vote against cloture on the motion to proceed until the bill’s legislative language has been scored by CBO and the language has been available on the internet 72 hours before consideration of the bill begins.Are we losing control of our democracy, if such far reaching legislation can be hidden from the public? If you answered yes, call your Senators NOW.

Idiots

They're all idiots.

The Real 'Torture' Disgrace
The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country.

The release of Carl Levin's report on the Bush Administration's alleged "torture" policies was a formality: The Senator's conclusions were politically predetermined long ago. Still, the credulity and acclaim that has greeted this agitprop is embarrassing, even by Washington standards.

According to the familiar "torture narrative" that Mr. Levin sanctifies, President Bush and senior officials sanctioned detainee abuse, first by refusing to accord al Qaeda members Geneva Convention rights, and second by conspiring to rewrite the legal definition of torture. The new practices were then imposed on military leaders and spread through the chain of command. Therefore, Mr. Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their deputies are morally -- and legally -- responsible for all prisoner abuse since 9/11, not least Abu Ghraib.
Nearly every element of this narrative is dishonest. As officials testified during Mr. Levin's hearings and according to documents in his possession, senior officials were responding to requests from the CIA and other commanders in the field. The flow was bottom up, not top down. Those commanders were seeking guidance on what kind of interrogation was permissible as they tried to elicit information from enemies who want to murder civilians. At the time, no less than Barack Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, was saying that terrorists didn't qualify for Geneva protections.
This was the context in which the Justice Department wrote the so-called "torture memos" of 2002 and 2003. You'd never know from the Levin jeremiad that these are legal -- not policy -- documents. They are attempts not to dictate interrogation
guidelines but to explore the legal limits of what the CIA might be able to do.
It would have been irresponsible for those charged with antiterror policy to do anything less. In a 2007 interview former CIA director George Tenet described the urgency of that post-9/11 period: "I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again . . . Plot lines that I don't know -- I don't know what's going on inside the United States."
Actionable intelligence is the most effective weapon in the war on terror, which can potentially save thousands of lives.
We know that the most aggressive tactic ever authorized was waterboarding, which was used in only three cases against hardened, high-ranking al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah after he was picked up in Pakistan in 2002. U.S. officials say the information he gave up foiled multiple terror plots and led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11. As Dick Cheney told ABC this week, "There was a time there, three or four years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al Qaeda came from one source" -- KSM.
Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before "torture" became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object. In fact, Congress has always defined torture so vaguely as to ban only the most extreme acts and preserve legal
loopholes. At least twice it has had opportunity to specifically ban waterboarding and be accountable after some future attack. Members declined.
As for "stress positions" allowed for a time by the Pentagon, such as hooding, sleep deprivation or exposure to heat and cold, they are psychological techniques designed to break a detainee, but light years away from actual torture. Perhaps the reason Mr. Levin released only an executive summary with its unsubstantiated charges of criminal behavior -- instead of the hundreds of pages of a full declassified version -- is that the evidence doesn't fit the story. If it did, Mr. Levin or his staff would surely have leaked the details.
Not one of the 12 nonpartisan investigations in recent years concluded that the Administration condoned or tolerated detainee abuse, while multiple courts martial have punished real offenders. None of the dozen or so Abu Ghraib trials and investigations have implicated higher ups; the most senior officer charged, a lieutenant colonel, was acquitted in 2006. Former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger's panel concluded that the abuses were sadistic behavior by the "night shift."
Now that Mr. Obama is on his way to the White House, even some Democrats are acknowledging the complicated security realities. Dianne Feinstein, a Bush critic who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, recently told the New York Times that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said (our emphasis). Ms. Feinstein later put out a statement that all interrogations should be conducted within the more specific limits of the U.S. Army Field Manual but said she will "consider" other views.
But that is already the law for most of the government. What the Bush administration has insisted on is an exception for the CIA to use other techniques (not waterboarding) in extreme cases.
As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants.
As Mr. Levin put it in laying on his innuendo this week, a commission "may or may not lead to indictments or civil action." It will also encourage some grandstanding foreign prosecutor to arrest Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush officials like Pinochet if they ever dare to leave the U.S. Why John McCain endorsed this Levin gambit is the kind of mystery that has defined, and damaged, his career. We hope other republicans push back.
Mr. Levin claims that Bush interrogation programs "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives." The truth is closer to the opposite. The second-guessing of Democrats is likely to lead to a risk-averse mindset at the CIA and elsewhere that compromises the ability of terror fighters to break the next KSM. The political winds always shift, but terrorists are as dangerous as ever.

The Reid-Pelosi Massacres

Thompson/Cornyn 2008

(all of the below comes from Kesher Talk)

Ralph Peters: (of NRO)

I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq.

This has been the Bush-Cheney War. But it will only be fair to call the carnage after we run away the "Reid-Pelosi Massacres."

Senator John Cornyn (who was also clear about the Fairness Doctrine) wants to hold Senators accountable for their votes:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said today that in the midst of the current debate in the Senate on Iraq, the critical element missing is a serious review of the potential consequences resulting from a failed state in Iraq. . . .

Sen. Cornyn announced that he has filed an amendment to the bill in the form of a Sense of the Senate resolution which would put every Senator on record in acknowledging the consequences of their vote for or against a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. [emphasis mine - JSW]

Sen. Cornyn continued, “Those advocating retreat will not, or cannot, answer critical questions on the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. For example, if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves, will this strengthen or weaken Al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadists in Iraq, and across the region? Will Al-Qaeda and other terrorists then follow us here to the United States? How will we address Iran’s continued support of Iraqi insurgents and terrorists now that we have definitive evidence of their involvement? Will Sunni majority nations outside of Iraq stand by and let Shiites massacre Sunnis in Iraq, or will this turn into a regional war? What is the scope of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that will ensue when the U.S. suddenly withdraws from Iraq? And perhaps the most important question that must be answered by those advocating withdrawal is — what is your plan for the ‘Way Ahead’ in Iraq and the Region? These are but a few of the many important questions that every Senator must ask of themselves during this important debate.”

Ward's View of the Senate Slumber Party

In case you missed it, What To Do At A Senate Slumber Party, is absolutely hilarious.

Hillary and Obama: Support The Troops, Leave Them Broke

Here's more from the Democrats who want your vote in November '08:

"WASHINGTON - Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.
"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.
"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."
Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal."

Now where did I put those John Kerry flip flops....

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.

Biden: We're Going to Shove It Down His Throat

Joe Biden must have eaten his Wheaties this moring. He's feeling so frisky that he thinks he can MAKE the President sign their surrender package. Via Drudge:

" "Blunt talk from Joe Biden, picked up by C-Span answering a man's question at Jim Clyburn's fish fry April 27 in Columbia, S.C.
Biden is asked what he'll do when Bush, as is expected, vetoes the Iraq funding bill.
First, he talks about his son, and the equipment soldiers need -- "The idea that we're not building new Humvees with the V-shaped things is just crap. Kids are dying that don't have to die."
And: "Second thing is, we're going to shove it down his throat." "

This is what happens when a liberal can't win an argument or force you to do what THEY think you should do: the purveyors of peace advocate violence.

Empy words from an empty-headed man.

Just sickening.

Anyone who cares: Biden's contact info.

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

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 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.)

Blacks Help Make Ex-Klansman 3rd In Line to Presidency

It’s been a long-standing fact that the vast majority of voting blacks in America vote Democratic – in the 90 percentiles, if memory serves. One of the un-true “rule of thumbs” regarding why blacks have this dedication to one political party is that voting Democrat is a vote against racism. Take David Duke for example. Well, it looks like all that has changed. To get a Klansman elected all they really need do is have him run as a Democrat.

Looks like former Klansman Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia will be third in line to the Presidency in the new incoming Democrat congress.

No black (or white person, for that matter) who has paid attention to politics for more than 20 minutes would ever vote for David Duke because of his past affiliation and endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan – even if he now claims not to feel the same way. So what is the big disconnect with Robert Byrd? There have been no strong words or condemnation of Byrd’s new position from the NAACP, ACLU, Congressional Black Caucus, or any other organization that supposedly looks out for individual rights.

Congratulations, black folks; you have helped your own nightmare come 3 steps closer to reality.

Hat Tip: LGF

Webb (X) to Vets: No Plane, No Show, No $, No Go

It seems Jim Webb (X) dissed the Vets in Hampton Roads before his famous tantrum in D.C. Also please note that this Veterans event was held on the Saturday after the election.

The Virginia Pilot Online:

The story starts this summer when local veterans groups in Hampton Roads invited Webb, then a mere candidate, to be part of the Nov. 11 Veterans Day festivities planned for Virginia Beach.

Back in August, well aware that he might be Virginia's next senator, Webb agreed to attend and give a speech. Priscilla Bede, the Virginia Beach doyenne of parade planning, launched into overdrive. With limos rented, hotel rooms reserved, programs printed, press releases flying and eager vets primed for Webb's speech, the newly minted senator backed out with less than two days to go, blaming his new Senate responsibilities

The Vets:

Patrick Callahan, combat vet and president of a local Vietnam Veterans of America chapter, is one of the angrier bunch. "Ditching us was uncalled for and it will not be forgiven," he says. "I can't tell you the number of vets who came up to me and said, 'Where's Webb?' I just didn't have a good answer to give them

Count Larry McCauley, a Navy vet, among those who are more than a little miffed. "I did something I never did before - voted for a Democrat," he says, "He owes us. We busted our asses to get him elected."

The Senator-elect Webb (X):

However, the extension of the time period in the election results, which carried forward until Thursday afternoon, was an unpredictable circumstance. And the logistics involved in getting from Northern Virginia to the event and then back again (four hours drive time each way - there was never an offer by the event's organizers to fly me there, or otherwise take care of transportation expenses), would have eaten up the entire weekend.

And quite frankly I am rather perplexed that there would not be a greater understanding of the circumstances that caused me to miss it.

Oh, boo-freakin'-hoo!