Lies, More Lies, and Villians

Well, they've done it.  The Democrats have lied, cheated, twisted arms, and bribed their way into passing their health care bill.

They accomplished this primarily through class warfare.  When they weren't demonizing the evil insurance industry, they were demonizing the so-called rich who could afford health care, as well as demonizing those companies that paid top-dollar  to provide their employees with top-of-the-line health insurance (the so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans, which are now being taxed - unless you're in a labor union).

Immediately after the bill was passed, the Democrats, with the aid of the mainstream media, began escalating the demonization of their political opponents.

Congressional Democrats have made accusations of racism, violence, and threats of violence, all with no proof.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) stated that Tea-Partiers had shouted the N-word 15 times at the Congressional Black Caucus as they headed over to the Capitol for the vote.  There were reporters and cameras all over the place, yet there is no video or audio to confirm this allegation.

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) alleged that a protester threw a brick through the window of his office in Cincinnati.  The press breathlessly repeated the story, neglecting to mention the fact that his office is on the 30th floor of an office building.  So, the person either had an extremely good arm, or went up 30 floors just to throw a brick through a window.  Oddly enough, after the location of Driehaus' office was reported, the brick story mysteriously went away.

But the real issue is this: if some on the Right are moving closer to violence, it's probably because those on the Left are leaving them no other options.  When conservatives protest, they're labeled as being too white, or "astroturf."  When conservatives call liberal members of Congress, they are routinely insulted, told they are wrong, or the phones are just shut off so no one can get through.  Poll after poll showed that around 70% of Americans disapproved of the health care bill, yet it has been passed and signed into law, despite protests, phone calls, petitions, letters, emails and town hall meetings. 

Polling and elections have shown that the nation is pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, but as the Democrats move the nation closer to being a socialist state, liberals are starting to see just what they've been a part of, and are moving more towards conservatism.  Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress just gave more than half of the nation the middle finger.  What did they expect would happen?  That we would just go away & let them steamroll over our freedoms and values?  I don't think so.

Any real violence or threats of violence so far have come from wackos on the right - and there are, without a doubt, wackos on both sides of the aisle & within any political group.  But as the Democrats continue their transformation of our nation, subverting the rights of citizens and trying to set themselves up as the permanent ruling class, it would not surprise me if things begin to escalate.

The Democrats are playing with fire.  They are subverting our freedoms and telling the American people that their opinion does not matter.  Meanwhile, with their push for "comprehensive immigration reform" and automatic voter registration, they are seeking to subvert our election process and establish a permanent power base for their party.

This is the stuff revolution is made of.  There has already been talk of secession, and the possibility of civil war is starting to crop up.  My fear is that the Democrats don't know what a dangerous game they are playing, and won't see the error of their ways until it is too late.

Is Health Care Dead?

We can only hope that the election of Scott Brown to the US Senate will be the end to the Democrats' plans to take over the health care system.  Nancy Pelosi is now saying that she does not have enough votes in the House to get approval for the Senate's version of the bill.

This is definitely a good thing.  Brown's election effectively breaks the Dem's super-majority in the Senate, and if Pelosi can't get the votes she needs in the House, the progressive socialists in Congress will either have to compromise, or just give up altogether (preferably the latter).

Conservatives should remain vigilant, though: the fight is not over yet.  Scott Brown's election wasn't a victory for conservatives, it was a defeat for the progressives.  We still have a long way to go - Barney Frank has already brought up the possibility of doing away with the Filibuster (a measure he would undoubtedly want to bring back as soon as his party was out of the majority), and the Dems have shown quite a willingness to change Congressional rules as they see fit.

On top of that, this election has greater ramifications.  The Democrats have lost "Ted Kennedy's Seat."  This is going to cause some major strategy shifts, possibly even to the point that they will shelve health care reform and other parts of the liberal agenda until after the midterm elections.  That way, if they are able to ride out the midterms and maintain (or increase) their majority, they can begin anew with their manufactured crises and push toward the U.S.S.A.

After all, there is still a lot of stimulus money out there that hasn't been spent yet.  They're all set to bribe as many Americans as they can as the midterm elections approach.  Conservatives can breathe a small sigh of relief, but don't get complacent.  There's a hard fight ahead.

They're All Liars

It is now officially on the record: when the Democrats took power, they did so based on lies.  When Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House, she promised that hers would be the most open, transparent Congress in history.  When President Obama was campaigning, he promised that the process to push through health care reform would be carried live on C-SPAN. 

As it turns out, they were both lying.

The head of C-SPAN sent an open letter to congressional leaders yesterday urging them to open up the health care negotiations and let the C-SPAN cameras televise the proceedings.  Obama promised as much during his campaign...but when Nancy Pelosi was asked about the letter, she lied, saying "There has never been a more open process for any legislation."  Her evidence: the town hall meetings that took place in August...the very town hall meetings where thousands upon thousands of Americans showed up to voice opposition to the health care take-over.  In fact, Pelosi was a driving force behind the liberals trying to minimize the people's voice at the town hall meetings, calling those in opposition frightening and implying that they were some kind of neo-Nazis.  And that was right before they called Congress back into session and put an end to the town halls because the liberals were getting too much bad press.

Pelosi knows that no matter what she or President Obama may have promised, the Democrat Party cannot afford to open up the health care negotiations.  The only way the health care bill passed in the Senate was through Democrat bribes (Ben Nelson) and hijacking the legislative process to shut down debate.  If they were truly being open and honest, the response from the people would be so deafening and undeniable that no Congressman who wished to stay in office would vote for the bill.  Pelosi knows that.  Harry Reid knows that.  Obama knows that.  And all of them are willing to push the bill in through the shadows and under the radar because all they truly care about is getting as much of their progressive agenda pushed through before the midterm elections.

Pelosi Proves It

Many conservatives have long known that whenever the Democrats called for bipartisanship when Republicans held the Congressional majority, they were lying. Now we have proof.

The Democrats have put forth their ultimate masterpiece in pork-barrel spending under the guise of an "economic stimulus" bill (at least it's not all attached to a military appropriations bill for a change). Now Pelosi is complaining that Congressional Republicans are holding up the process, saying that the process needs to be moved forward regardless of the level of bipartisan support. From the article:

“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,” the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.

Now, when the Republicans held the White House and the majority in Congress, the Democrats wouldn't stop whining and crying about the need for bipartisanship, even despite the fact that the Bush administration was anything but conservative when it came to spending money and they had plenty of support from Congressional RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)...but now the Democrats are showing the nation their true colors: when they're down, we have to work together, but when they have the majority, it's "to hell with the rest of you." This was further evidenced by Obama's mocking of Republicans' concerns that this 'stimulus' amounts to nothing more than a massive spending bill, saying, “What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously, that’s the point,” to a laughing audience. If Obama knew anything about elementary economics, he would know that government spending doesn't really stimulate the economy over the long term: tax cuts do. But this is what we get for electing an inexperienced liberal buffoon to be President.

Personally, I'm split when it comes to this spending bill. Part of me wants to see it pass and fail, to show the American people once and for all that liberalism is a self-destructive philosophy that cannot lead a nation into a prosperous future. At the same time, I love my country, and with the understanding that the Democrats' spending bill will hurt America, I would like to see it fail miserably and never be implemented. However, it may just be time for America to learn the lesson the hard way...and if the Democrats get their way, it will be a hard lesson, indeed.

Could a New President Tear the Democrats Apart?

The Democrat primary truly is turning into an entertaining race. Hilary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama have been in a virtual dead heat for the past several months, with Obama holding a slight lead and Clinton not far behind in the primary race. Throw in Florida and Michigan (which unfortunately don't count), and they're pretty much neck-and-neck.

So, it looks like the outcome of the Democrat primary will be determined by the superdelegates, which could very well wreak havoc throughout the party...think Florida in 2000, only on a smaller scale: in that election, the Democrats basically blamed the Supreme Court of appointing George W. Bush president (in actuality, they voted to uphold standing Florida state law, which the Florida Supreme Court violated). Instead of the people of the Democrat party choosing their presidential candidate, the candidate will be chosen by the superdelegates, essentially meaning that half of the party's population would be overruled through the hijacking of the election process. According to Chris Dodd, as well as the Boston Globe, this primary election fight could potentially shake the party to its foundations.

What's more, apparently there is some infighting between Clinton's camp and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has been urging the superdelegates to follow the voters when they vote to choose a candidate...which would essentially make the superdelegates redundant. Of course, the irony of the party that calls itself "Democratic" subverting the democratic process through the use of superdelegates even further shows the hypocrisy of the Left.

The true face of the Left

Even in the majority, Congressional Democrats have been unable to push as much of their agenda through as they would like. They claim that the '06 election was a mandate on the war, but if so, it was quite a poor mandate, especially demonstrated by the recent vote in the Senate (29-67), rejecting a bill that would force a troop withdraw by March '08.

Now, Nancy Pelosi is actively trying to silence Republicans in the House of Representatives by changing the procedural rules in the House to shut down the floor to the minority. Such a measure has not been instituted since 1822.

This, more than anything else, shows that the Democrats are bankrupt on the issues, and can only succeed by censoring any opposition to their insane socialist ideas.

Pelosi: Dangerously Close to Illegal

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and moon bat extraordinaire, has definitely been busy. After pushing through a pork-laden war funding bill doomed to face a Presidential veto, she then traveled to Syria, where she met with Syrian dictator-in-chief Bashar al-Assad. It's unclear just what went on between Pelosi and Assad while she was in Syria, but there is quite a bit of speculation that there were some backdoor dealings leading up to the release of the British Royal Marines taken hostage by the Iranian military.

Now it is looking more and more likely that Pelosi will be traveling to Iran. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who accompanied Pelosi to Syria, has indicated that he is eager to go to Iran, and has been trying to get a visa for 10 years. A top member of the Iranian parliament has stated that they are ready to talk with Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, this is because Pelosi is much more likely to capitulate to the Iranians' demands.

By traveling to Syria as she did, Pelosi came dangerously close to violating the Logan Act - a felony offense. The Logan act was passed for a reason - it is paramountly important that the United States government present one unified foreign policy stance. America's laws state that our foreign policy is to be determined by the Executive branch, primarily via the State Department. Many Americans oppose President Bush's foreign policy decisions, but presenting a single, unified foreign policy stance to the world is much, much more important than any party's political differences. If Pelosi is allowed to make unauthorized foreign policy decisions, it will potentially threaten the very fabric of our government, especially if Pelosi makes promises that President Bush and the State Department are not willing to fulfill.

Pelosi is playing at an extremely dangerous game here, and she'd do best to play carefully.

Pelosi has also been commenting on the President's impending veto of the bill funding the Iraq War. According to Pelosi, President Bush wants a "blank check" for the war. The truth is, the spending bill churned out by what Pelosi said would be one of the most ethical and open Congresses in US history was filled to the brim with pork-barrel spending. It truly is a disgraceful piece of legislation, and extremely worthy of a veto. Before the House's recess, Pelosi neglected to appoint negotiators to draft a new war spending bill...and she has called a letter by Republicans, urging her to reconvene the House in order to get this legislation moving a "political stunt."

The truth is that the Democrats are against the war, so they have decided to play their own political games with the war...and now Nancy Peolosi is trying to play games not only with US foreign policy, but with the very structure of the US government.

What happened to the environment???

For the past couple of days, Nanci Pelosi has taken heat over a request made on her behalf for a larger plane for her to use to travel from Washington, DC to her home town of San Francisco. Now, since 9/11, the Speaker of the House (being second in line to the presidency) has been granted the use of a military plane for just such a use. This request, however, is absurd. The pretext for the request is supposedly "security concerns" related to the need for a refueling stop required by a smaller plane. The plane Pelosi requested - the military version of the Boeing 757, can fly coast-to-coast without refueling. The request, however, raises a couple of questions:

• Pelosi states that she wants what the previous speaker, Dennis Hastert, had. That being the case, why is she unwilling to travel in the same plane that he traveled in?
• The reason given for the requested plane was security...but this is a military transport. Pelosi would be taking off from Andrews AFB. The refueling stop would be made at an Air Force base in the Mid-West...and there are several such bases in suitable places for just such a refueling stop. Why are they so worried about security when they'll be landing at secure military facilities?
• Before being sworn in, Pelosi promised openness and ethics under her leadership. Just the fuel for a coast-to-coast flight in the requested plane runs in the neighborhood of $300,000...that's around $1.2 million just for the fuel round-trip...and Pelosi has talked about the possibility of needing to fly to San Francisco 1-2 times per week. That's around two and a half million taxpayer dollars just spent on flying Pelosi around, and that's just for fuel - it doesn't include other expenses. How about saving a little money for us taxpayers?
  

But the most burning question is this: I thought the Democrats were the party of the environment...what happened? The emissions produced by the 757 are far worse than the G-V (or the military C-37), the next-smaller aircraft class available to Pelosi. With all of the doom and gloom being preached by the left about the dangers of emissions and global warming, one would think that the Democrats wouldn't be pooh-poohing this issue, or even fighting back, as some are doing. If the Democrats were to show anything even slightly resembling consistency, they would be condemning Pelosi, if not for her wanton wastefulness, then for trying to hasten the day that the world ends due to global warming...but the truth is that Democratic consistency is an oxymoron.


Pelosi says that she just wants what Hastert had. John Murtha even went so far as to imply that denying Pelosi the larger jet would be sexist. The truth is, Hastert's use of a G-V to travel from DC to Illinois and back was itself selfish and wasteful. But for Pelosi to defend the request of a military 757 (aka a C-32) is absurd, at best. What does she have to fear from making a refueling stop? Is she that afraid of red-state America? Or does she just have an intrinsic fear of the military (whom the city of San Francisco is notoriously hostile toward)? Either way, Pelosi's excuses for this request just do not hold water, and there is no reason that the American people should put up with it.