Monday, August 31, 2009

VIDEO: Politics on the Rocks Networking Event with Senator John McCain

Politics on the Rocks Networking Event with Senator John McCain on Tuesday, August 25th at the Intercontinental Montelucia Resort & Spa in Paradise Valley, Arizona. Also, the national launch of Republicanville.com, a social network of the people, by the people, and for the people. Invite your friends from Facebook, Myspace, and LinkedIn within 60 seconds!



CLICK HERE TO SEE VIDEO

Congressman John Shadegg Talks Health Care Reform Options on CNBC’s “Squawk Box


















Click Here to see video
Excerpt from the interview, on Tuesday, August 25, 2009:


Congressman Shadegg:
“We do not have a health insurance market in America today. Last night on television you watched three or four commercials for auto insurance. You watched no commercials for health insurance, because right now you and I as individuals can’t afford to buy health insurance. It’s tax free if our employer buys it, but not tax free if we buy it. That means we have no control over it. That means it’s not a market. That means costs, as Vic [Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR)] said, are going to keep going up and up and up. We can do some market reforms. Let me buy health insurance, let you buy health insurance on the same tax-free basis as a company, and you’ll create a market. Now also let us buy across state lines so that we’re not forced to buy from two or three companies in just one state. That’s not a real market. That’s not competition. That’s what is causing costs to go up for the 86% of Americans who have health insurance now.”

Please feel free to share this email with family & friends!

So, who has the "astroturf" protesters now?


Look at the email below. Barack Obama has to put the word out all over the country in a massively organized fashion in order to get enough pro-Obamacare people together at town hall meetings. There is no groundswell of support for ObamaCare anywhere. Compare this to the honest grass-roots groundswell of opposition among conservatives and moderates to ObamaCare.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
Monday or Tuesday: Show your support in Brooklyn
Date:
Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:52:15 -0400
From:
"Melissa DeRosa, NY.BarackObama.com"

Reply-To:
info@barackobama.com
To:
I wanted to send you an urgent invitation to two important health care town halls with Rep. Yvette Clarke this Monday, August 31st and Tuesday, September 1st.She'll be talking to constituents and gathering feedback. Whether you ask a question or show your support with a sign, attending this meeting is a powerful way to show where you stand and thank those in Congress who are fighting for reform.I hope you can join us in Brooklyn on Monday or on Tuesday.

What: Jewish Children's Museum Health Care Town Hall with Rep. Yvette Clarke
Where: Jewish Children's Museum
792 Eastern ParkwayBrooklyn, NY 11213
When: Monday, August 31st
Arrival Time: 5:00 p.m.
Start Time: 6:00 p.m.
-----OR-----
What: Flatbush Health Care Town Hall with Rep. Yvette Clarke
Where: Flatbush-Tompkins Congressional Church
424 E 19th StreetBrooklyn, NY 11226
When: Tuesday, September 1st
Arrival Time: 5:00 p.m.
Start Time: 6:00 p.m.
Please arrive as early as possible, and make sure that the most powerful voices in this debate are those calling for real reform, not angrily clamoring for the status quo.
Thanks,Melissa
Melissa DeRosa
New York State Director
Organizing for America

ObamaCare for anyone over age 50


Councilwoman Peggy Neely thanks supporters


Join Us in Supporting Peggy Neely
Endorsements continue to pour in for Councilwoman Neely

Phoenix – As the final days approach in the upcoming September 1st election, the endorsements continue to pour in for Councilwoman Peggy Neely as she seeks her third term in office. Neely’s cadre of support spans groups such as public safety organizations to elected officials and individuals from across her district and the region.

Councilwoman Neely has received the endorsement of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, as well as, the Arizona Police Association. “Peggy has been a strong supporter of public safety, especially in these tough economic times,” said Bryan Jeffries, Executive Vice President of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, “She has been a champion for protecting essential city services such as fire and police.”

Neely has also garnered support from elected officials from across the valley, who have worked with her on various regional issues. “It has been a pleasure to work with Councilwoman Neely on issues that impact our entire region,” said Mayor Phil Gordon, “She understands that through teamwork and collaboration, we can all work together to improve Arizona.”

Mayor Gordon is joined by Senator Jon Kyl, Mayor Scott Smith, Mayor Lynn Truitt, Mayor Jackie Meck, Mayor Vernon Parker, Mayor Maire Lopez Rogers, Mayor Tom Schoaf, Mayor Elaine Scruggs, Mayor Jim Cavanuagh, Mayor David Schwan, Councilman Dick Esser, and Councilman Wayne Ecton in endorsing Neely.
However, Neely counts the endorsements from her neighbors and constituents as the most important. A large list of supporters can be found on Neely’s website at
www.PeggyNeely.com.

Resident Lisa Schneider-Cipriano explains,
“I am proud to support Peggy as she seeks re-election for a third term. She has been a solid steward of the taxpayers’ money, spending money wisely while representing the needs of her
constituents.
There is no doubt that she is the right person to lead us for the next four years.”

Councilwoman Peggy Neely also announced her campaign victory party to be hosted on Election Night, September 1st, as a thank you to her supporters and constituents:

Committee to Re-Elect Neely Victory Party
Westin Kierland
Rainmakers Ballroom
6902 East Greenway Parkway
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Tuesday September 1, 2009 7:00 -10:00 PM


Paid for by the Committee to Re-Elect Neely

Obama and his Thugs By Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker


Early last fall, an old friend of mine and long-time volunteer for Republican women's associations, called me from her home in Orlando, Florida. She was quite shaken. She had just returned from what was intended to be a small, quiet McCain support outing, just like the ones she had been dutifully attending for 30 years.

The small group of middle-aged homemakers took their little signs to an approved street corner, carried their small American flags and assembled to do their hour's vote-for-our-guy walk before heading off to the nearest coffee shop to divvy up coming-week duties of stuffing envelopes and making phone calls.

But something had changed between the last election and 2008. My friend told of a morning from hell, in which the women were rudely accosted on the street by young male thugs (her word), who called them "c*nts," "whitey whores" and
"stupid bitches." These young males got in their faces and jostled them with angry shoves. My friend said that in all the years she had been doing just this simple patriotic activity, she had never had such a frightening experience.

It was to be the first of several, which have left her shaken to this day. Later on into the fall campaign, I spoke with Dr. Lynette Long, a former Hillary supporter compiling data on what she deemed, "Caucus Fraud." She referred me to a set of video testimonials, in which middle-aged women mostly, gave grizzly accounts of the same thuggery employed against them in caucus settings.

Read the Rest of the Story:

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Obama raises white flag in War on Terror



The War on Terror Is Over

Lawyers are about to smother the war on terror

by Daniel Henninger

Shakespeare wrote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
As we know, that didn’t happen. Four hundred years later, they’re killing us with the smothering pillow of hyper-proceduralism.

Now the lawyers are about to smother the war on terror. This Monday, the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder named a special prosecutor to investigate persons who conducted the CIA's interrogations in the war on terror, Scotland's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill stood before his parliament and gave this defense for releasing convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi: "It was not based on political, diplomatic or economic considerations. . . . My decision was made following due process, and according to the law of Scotland. I stand by the law and values of Scotland."

Faced with a similarly fastidious assertion of the law's triumphal self-regard in "Oliver Twist," Mr. Bumble replied: "If the law supposed that, the law is a ass—a idiot."

Mr. Bumble added something acutely relevant to what is happening to the war on terror: "The worst I wish the law," said Mr. Bumble, "is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience."

The experience of a world beset by terror eludes the eyes of a Kenny MacAskill, Eric Holder and others in the Obama administration. The rest of us may suffer for it. In a May speech at the National Archives, President Obama, mirroring Kenny MacAskill's remarks, said we had to "update our institutions" to deal with terrorism but "do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process.

"That "update" is upon us. The smothering pillows have arrived. Attorney General Holder named Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to conduct an investigation into whether interrogations
by CIA employees warrant a criminal inquiry. It has been shown repeatedly the past 25 years that an office of independent counsel or special prosecutor nearly always puts in motion an Inspector Javert-like hunt for an indictable defendant.

Mr. Holder's justification, that his own reading of the "available facts" gave him no choice, is close to a preordained conclusion that Mr. Durham will cite one of these CIA guys for criminal prosecution. The day of Mr. Holder's announcement, CIA Director Leon Panetta said his agency received "multiple written assurances its methods were lawful."

It's now clear that even playing by the rules cannot stop erosion by legal challenge.

That day also brought the release of CIA Inspector General John Helgerson's 2004 report on the agency's detention and interrogation of terror suspects. Both sides to this argument say the report supports their view of the CIA. No matter. What the release of the Helgerson report mainly does is open the dams on detainee lawsuits.

This litigation nightmare, together with the chilling effect of the special prosecutor's potential indictments, has as its goal making the price of aggressive interrogation too high under any circumstance, including a one-hour-bomb scenario. To supervise future interrogations, the administration is creating something called a High Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Interrogation techniques will be limited to those in the Army Field Manual or that are "noncoercive," which suggests more constrained than a big-city police department. Authority is being moved from the CIA to the FBI.

This means that the class of person who blows up skyscrapers, American embassies or the USS Cole would spend less time under a bare light bulb than a domestic robbery suspect. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that the goal of a proposed administration "global justice initiative" would be to get all terror suspects into a U.S. or foreign court. Eric Holder cited the Justice Department's Office of Legal Responsibility as influencing his decision to proceed with a CIA special prosecutor.

This is the legal office that is expected to release its long-awaited report on whether former Bush Justice lawyers John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury should be cited for misconduct for providing the CIA with legal opinions about these interrogations. If, as expected, the OPR cites the lawyers, legal groups will try to disbar them.

After that, no lawyer will go near the war on terror.

Individually, some of this may be arguable. In toto, it's a death sentence for an effective war on terror. It makes what's left of the war—telephone wiretaps or monitoring money transfers—vulnerable to a steady stream of congressional and legal objection.

That lets the Obama administration evade political responsibility by letting others wind down the war on terror. The message of Scotland's release and the Holder decision is that the will born in the wake of 9/11 is waning. The war on terror is being downgraded to not much more than tough talk. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranians, not yet converts to the West's caricature of its own legal traditions, will take note. In time, they will be back. The second war on terror is in the future.

Barack Obama's Civilian Army


Glenn Beck is setting the gold standard in investigative reporting, and he is being rewarded in the ratings. His time slot may not be the best on FOXNEWS, but Wednesday's show was a ratings bonanza. He beat everybody even longtime ratings leader Bill O'Reilly. I predict if he continues to produce the clear and compelling television that he has offered this week he will be moving up the dial. Here are some exerpts from his show about Obama's civlian national security force.

Prepare to be shocked. All week we've been asking tough questions -- here's one more, Mr. President:
Why do we need a civilian national security force that is
"just as strong, just as powerful" as the military? Here's why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?
It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist.


A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration--as well as the Bush administration --is that they were "vigilantes." So it's not for the border.

It can't be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren't even at war against Islamic extremists anymore.

Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

Read the Rest of the Story:

Heinrich Town Hall- "You Will Be Raising My Taxes"

Click Here to see video

The Lion of the Senate By William Warren


Public Schedule for Governor Brewer for Week Beginning Monday, August 31, 2009


Hate Speech from the Bench By HJS



HJS Comments: The liberals today are enamored with the idea of making hate speech unlawful—as long as they can dictate the terms—but they forget, what is good for the goose is also of benefit to the gander; and what is bad for the gander, could also mean the goose is cooked. If ever there was offensive speech, given that speech needs not be lengthy or deep, I would nominate the decision of this court and the statements of this guardian ad litem as hate speech. Both are clearly very offensive in meaning and content. To indicate to a child, the parents, and the American public that it is wrong to have and employ the ability and the desire to defend one’s ethics and religious beliefs whenever called upon to do so, is un-American, unethical, demeaning, and disgraceful. If that is how our legal systems have corrupted themselves over the years, I suggest we take another look at them. This decision does not even pass the nausea test.

Thursday, August 27, 2009
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Court orders Christian child into government education 10-year-old's 'vigorous' defenseof her faith condemned by judge
12:35 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.
The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

The dispute arose as part of a modification of a parenting plan for the girl. The parents divorced in 1999 when she was a newborn, and the mother has homeschooled her daughter since first grade with texts that meet all state standards.
In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

According to court documents, the guardian ad litem earlier had told the mother, "If I want her in public school, she'll be in public school."

The marital master hearing the case proposed the Christian girl be ordered into public school after considering "the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others."

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.

"The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take."

"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,'" said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

The case, handled in the Family Division of the Judicial Court for Belknap County in Laconia, involves Martin Kurowski and Brenda Kurowski (Voydatch), and their daughter.

The ADF also argued that the issue already was raised in 2006 and rejected by the court.
"Most urgent … is the issue of Amanda's schooling as the school year has begun and Amanda is being impacted by the court's decision daily," the court filing requesting a stay said. "Serious state statutory and federal constitutional concerns are implicated by the court's ruling and which need to be remedied without delay.
"It is not the proper role of the court to insist that Amanda be 'exposed to different points of view' if the primary residential parent has determined that it is in Amanda's best interest not to be exposed to secular influences that would undermine Amanda's faith, schooling, social development, etc. The court is not permitted to demonstrate hostility toward religion, and particularly the faith of Amanda and Mother, by removing Amanda from the home and thrusting her into an environment that the custodial parent deems detrimental to Amanda."

"The order assumes that because Amanda has sincerely held Christian beliefs, there must be a problem that needs solving. It is a parent's constitutionally protected right to train up their children in the religious beliefs that they hold. It is not up to the court to suggest that a 10-year-old should be 'exposed' to other religious views contrary to the faith traditions of her parents.
Could it not be that this sharp 10-year-old 'vigorously' believes what she does because she knows it to be true? The court's narrative suggests that 10-year-olds are too young to form opinions and that they are not yet allowed to have sincerely held Christian beliefs," the ADF said.
"Absent any other clear and convincing evidence justifying the court's decision, it would appear that the
court has indeed taken sides with regard to the issue of religion and has preferred one religious view over another (or the absence of religion). This is impermissible," the documents said.


The guardian ad litem had an anti-Christian bias, the documents said, telling the mother at one point she wouldn't even look at homeschool curriculum.
"I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian based," she said.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Sen. McCain Delivers Remarks at Kennedy Memorial Service

During a special memorial service held at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) paid tribute to his lifelong friend and colleague, Democratic Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy



Click Here to Watch Sen. McCain at the Kennedy Memorial Service

Friday, August 28, 2009

OBAMA WANTS TO CONTROL THE INTERNET!


Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were
alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.


They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (
excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the
threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.


"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the
Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."


Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.


A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they
claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama
acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.


Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.


The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry
Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.
"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.


Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)


"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."


Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.


The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Your Weekly GOP Trunk: So Much for Bipartisanship


Issue 25; August 28, 2009

Welcome to The Weekly Trunk - The Republican National Committee's weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. As you may know, President Obama has been traveling the country and Congressional Democrats are back in their districts to try and "sell" the American people on their dangerous government-run health care experiment that would increase health care costs, increase taxes, increase the deficit, and reduce health care choice and quality. That's why this week's "Trunk" focuses on the current health care debate, to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.

This week's issue features...

First, Do No Harm – Especially To Seniors

As President Obama and Congressional Democrats try to sell Americans their government-run health care experiment, RNC Chairman Michael Steele explains why efforts to reform health care must not be done at the expense of our senior citizens. (Michael Steele, “Protecting Our Seniors,” The Washington Post, 8/24/09)

Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights

This week the RNC rolled out the Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights, a list of six protections for senior citizens that must be included in any health care reform legislation.

Still Climbing

The White House Office of Management and Budget released it's estimates on the federal budget this past week, and the news is anything but good. (“Federal Budget Numbers Now Stratospheric,” The Associated Press, 8/25/09)

Honesty is the Best Policy

Upon the release of the Obama Administration’s Mid-Session Review on the federal budget deficit, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor makes a plea to the Obama Administration for economic honesty. (House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, “Wanted: Economic Honesty,” Politico, 8/25/09)

So Much for Bipartisanship

Senator Chuck Schumer has made it clear that he is ready and willing to jettison bipartisanship to pass government-run health care. (Michael O’Brien, “Schumer: Dems ‘Making Preparations’ To Go It Alone On Healthcare,” The Hill, 8/24/09)

The Blame Game

President Obama has a nasty habit of blaming President Bush for his problems, and now even his fellow Democrats are getting tired of it. (Carol E. Lee, “Calls For Obama To Back Off Bush,” Politico, 8/24/09)

The Old Bait and Switch

President Obama said that “cap-and-trade” would be a market-based response to climate change, but it’s just another one of his government-run experiments. (David Schoenbrod and Richard B. Stewart, “The Cap-And-Trade Bait And Switch,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/24/09)

Cash for Cons

Vice President Biden said there would be waste in the stimulus bill. He was right. (Laura Crimaldi, “Cons Cash In On Stimulus Money,” The Boston Herald, 8/25/09)

Never Say Die

George Will explains why he believes President Obama’s goal is to enact giant government bureaucracies that can’t be undone. (George Will, “A Doctrine of No Retreat,” Town Hall.com, 8/23/09)

“Divisive”

Nancy Pelosi has the lowest approval ratings of anyone in Congress, and now she is losing support from her own party. (Paul Bedard, “‘Blue Dog’ Democrat: Pelosi Is Too Divisive To Be Speaker,” U.S. News and World Report, 8/25/09)


OBAMA GOES AFTER CIA TO GAIN COVER ON THE LEFT By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN


Published on DickMorris.com on August 27, 2009

After vowing not to become involved in recriminations over the Bush anti-terror policies, President Obama has allowed his Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to dig up all the dirt he can find on the CIA and the anti-terror investigators whose aggressive questioning saved us from countless attacks.


Why the switch? Because Obama needs to do something to appease the left that elected him.

After refusing to pull out of Iraq and deciding to follow the Bush timetable for withdrawing and staying in Afghanistan and likely having to beef up our presence there, liberals might be wondering why they elected Obama.

After all, his opposition to the war in Iraq and his criticism of the Bush anti-terror policies were the hallmarks of his campaign in 2008. And, on the domestic front, Obama likely realizes that he may have to pull in his horns on health care and accept some sort of compromise which may not endear him to his constituency.

So he has decided to throw a few CIA interrogators to the wolves.

The report that Holder released to accompany his decision to name a special prosecutor itself showed the trivial nature of the charges against these patriotic anti-terror investigators. Among the allegations prominently featured in the report is that the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole was scrubbed with a rough brush in the bath so as to cause him pain. Our heartless interrogators also threatened that they could bring in his family and parents for questioning.

How do these "tortures" compare with the deaths of more than a dozen American sailors roasted to death in flames or drowned in the sea? The CIA report, also released on Monday, demonstrates, within the limits that secrecy allows, how these very interrogations thwarted serious terrorist plots against our country.

Would the public agree that if we had bin Laden in custody that it would be wrong to scrub him with a harsh brush? Or to threaten to involve his family?

Or to press his carotid artery until he was on the verge of passing out? If such techniques could have averted the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9-11, would we not all have sanctioned them?

But Obama needs political cover so he is creating a three ring circus for the media by naming a special prosecutor to conduct a likely leaky investigation designed to throw dirt at the CIA.

The exposures he is likely to make will dominate the headlines even as Obama disingenuously retreats from his campaign commitments on Iraq and on foreign policy in general.

And, the investigation may even make enough noise to permit a retreat on health care. We hope so.


Go to
DickMorris.com to read Dick's columns!

Why Americans are up in Arms By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, WorldnetDaily


Leftist elites are up in arms.


At two recent Obama town hall meetings, men exercising their Second Amendment rights were spotted carrying firearms. While we do not condone threatening the president, or anyone else for that matter, these citizens are well within their rights.

It is legal to carry a firearm while demonstrating to protect your liberties.

In New Hampshire, William Kostric showed up at a town hall carrying a pistol and wearing a shirt emblazoned with the famous Jefferson quotation, "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

Kostric had no intention of hurting the president; he was exercising his rights and making a political statement using the pistol as a visual reminder.

When interviewed by Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Kostric said he went to the town hall because he "wanted people to remember the rights that we have, and how quickly we are losing them."

After making this statement, Chris Matthews verbally accosted him and compared him to John Wilkes Booth and other fanatics.
Kostric clearly explained that he was not advocating violence, but was practicing his constitutional right to bear arms. The second incident prompted the media to erroneously pronounce the opponents of Obamacare as racist rednecks.


A young man named Chris wore an AR-15 slung over his shoulder with a 9mm strapped on his hip. Roughly a dozen others were also carrying firearms with Chris outside an Obama appearance in Arizona. Earlier, these individuals coordinated their right to openly carry firearms with the Phoenix Police Department.

They deliberately did this to show the country that the Phoenix police are very supportive of their rights to keep and bear arms. The elitist media missed the whole point and went ballistic.

Read the Rest of the Story:

A Look at Cass Sunstein by Adam Bitely

Thursday, 27 August 2009

Cass Sunstein is an Obama appointee and a truly scary man. Check out this back rounder on him from Glenn Beck:



CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO

Framing the Debate By William Warren


Thursday, August 27, 2009

REAL HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS FOR AMERICA By BRUCE ASH - AZ GOP NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN



The president and Congress have told Americans that health care needs to be totally overhauled. Democrats believe access to health care is an entitlement . Liberals believe that all Americans should be able to receive their health care for free.



We are told that if Obama Care is passed the cost of health care will be reduced and that the quality of the health care Americans receive will be improved. We all know that Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt.



Nearly 53% of all Americans receiving either Medicaid, Medicare, VA or SCHIP know the fraud, waste and lack of service are rampant in each of these government run health plans.



By definition ANY government run program is going to be run poorly and defined by politics.



Let's take a look at the Republican plan for REAL health care reform that avoids a trillion dollar price tag :





1. PROVIDE CHOICE FOR ALL INSUREDS. Why is it the democrat party talks about the privacy between a patient and doctor but pushes a health plan that would eliminate choice?



2. INCREASE COMPETITION. Rather than eliminate competition through a public option why not allow health insurance consumers to have the ability to buy their coverage across state lines in the same fashion they buy car insurance?



3. ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE OF DEFENSIVE MEDICINE. Under the current legal system doctors increase the cost of health care by running countless tests to avoid lawsuits.



4. INCREASE PORTABILITY. Since so many receive health benefits through their employer allow employees to take their coverage with them when they change jobs.



5. CONCENTRATE ON WELLNESS. Rather than paying for the high costs of bad lifestyle decisions why not focus on wellness. Why not reward doctors and all health care providers for helping their patients be healthier?



6. CREATE A SELF INSURED POOL TO PROTECT THOSE WITH PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS. So many who lack health care because of pre existing conditions. A self insurance pool would solve this problem.



7. DEVELOP NEW TECHNOLOGIES. American medicine technology leads the world. A free market system will allow America to continue leadership around the world and be an economic generator. Better technology protects patients against privacy issues and decreases fraud and waste.



Bruce Ash

AZ GOP National Committeeman

http://www.ashforarizona.com/



Kennedy Passing will not Pass ObamaCare By Robert Romano


Shameless. There’s no other way to put it.

As even the most casualavid readers of the news are no doubt aware, Senator Ted Kennedy has passed away.
While Americans for Limited Government offers condolences to his friends and family, the organization simply cannot condone the shameless political pandering that has occurred within hours of his passing.

For example, Congressman Jim Moran said in an interview,
“Maybe in his passing, he has done as much to advance his
cause, because we all know that we owe it to him to get this bill done, to make this his legacy, to name it after him so that future generations know that there was somebody who cared about them.”
And this cynical exploitation was echoed by others.

In short, Congressional Democrats are using the death of their esteemed colleague for political gain to pass legislation that they know is failing on its own merits. According to Rasmussen Reports, 53 percent of voters oppose Barack Obama and Congress’ plan to take over the health care system, with only 42 percent in favor.
Americans oppose socialized medicine because they do not want a government bureaucracy coming in between of them and their doctors. Whether or not they honor any one man has nothing to do with it. One-seventh of the economy ought not to be nationalized just “because that’s what Ted Kennedy wanted,” as Congressman Moran suggested.

In a cold calculation, members of Congress are hoping that public sympathy for the Kennedy’s in their time of loss will translate into public support for legislation that Senator Kennedy supported in life. It will not work. And it reeks of political coordination by the Democrat Party to exploit the late Senator’s death.

Yesterday Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) issued the following statement to push Barack Obama’s moribund health care bill, “In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.”

Similarly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) invoked Kennedy’s passing for political purposes, “Senator Kennedy had a grand vision for America, and an unparalleled ability to effect change. Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

And so, of course, did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), one of the most shameless politicians in Senate history, “As we mourn his loss, we rededicate ourselves to the causes for which he so dutifully dedicated his life.”

This is positively unseemly. And it could most certainly backfire. As Politico writer Ben Smith noted, conservative blogger Instapundit suggested that this tactic might be a “Wellstone memorial on steroids”, because of “the sense in Minnesota in 2002 that the Democratic Party inappropriately used the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's funeral to advance former Vice President Walter Mondale's campaign to replace him.”

Really, though, it was more than just a “sense” that the tactic was politically costly. There was statistical research done. According to the November 27th, 2002 edition of the Eugene Register Guard, “Mark Penn, who conducts polls for former President Clinton, told Time magazine he found 49 percent of voters thought the service made them less likely to vote for a Democrat. About 67 percent of independent voters felt that way, and overall 68 percent of voters had heard about the service.”

In other words, if the American people find the “do it for Ted” tactic as distasteful as they did the 2002 Wellstone “memorial,” then chances are that it will backfire politically. And it will cause Americans to believe that Democrats do not have enough faith in the legislation for it to pass on its own merits.

It is nothing short of shameful political pandering. The spectacle surrounding his death will unfortunately overshadow the celebration of Senator Kennedy’s life. And decent Democrats should seriously ask themselves, “Is this really the way to honor his memory?”

In the words of Ted’s brother, John, “Sometimes party loyalty demands too much.”
Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor.

LIEBERMAN OPENS THE DOOR TO DEMOCRATIC RETREAT By DICK MORRIS


Published on DickMorris.com on August 25, 2009

Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) criticism of the Obama healthcare initiative may prove to be a pivotal turning point in the congressional debate over the increasingly unpopular proposal.

Previous commentary about the Obama plans has focused exclusively on their impact on healthcare in America. The elderly are increasingly recognizing that, whatever its defenders say, extending coverage to 50 million new people -- without any new doctors or nurses or equipment or hospitals -- will create a scarcity that will lead to rationing, to the disadvantage of those over 65.

Defenders of the free enterprise system have looked with alarm at the socialization of one-sixth of our economy and opponents of single-payer systems have argued that government control of healthcare is the inevitable result of the plan.

But Lieberman's critique was not primarily focused on the healthcare aspects of the program, or even on its ultimate desirability, but rather on the wisdom of attempting so radical a transformation and so extensive -- and expensive -- an extension of government's role in our economy during a major recession attended by a huge budget deficit.

His go-slow commentary integrates worries about the economy, the deficit, the debt and interest rates with those about the healthcare proposal itself. In effecting this linkage, Lieberman cautions supporters of the idea and of the plan that this might not be the right time to try to do it all.


His comments come at a time when the Congressional Budget Office predicts a growth in the 10-year deficit projection to $9 trillion and when Americans are growing increasingly nervous about the massive debt we are incurring. Few buy the president's argument that spending $1 trillion extra will cut the deficit and rein in spending.

The very notion is so counterintuitive that it is hard to give it any credibility.

If the elderly are worried about the projected $500 billion cut in Medicare and Medicaid over the ensuing decade and conservatives fret over socialization of healthcare, the average American can relate most easily to the concerns over the size of the debt and the deficit that Lieberman articulates.
Lieberman's critique gives moderates a place to go in the healthcare debate.

Caught in the tug between the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries and the more conservative voices that may prevail in November, centrist Democrats can rally easily around the "not now" approach of Joe Lieberman.

It is obvious that, despite the Obama majorities in Congress, this is the exact wrong time to embark on a major new government spending program.Worries that the deficit will drive us anew into recession abound.

And, increasingly, it appears that the back end of this "double dip" will be accompanied by inflation, as happened in the '70s. Alarm mounts that the Fed will be unable to fight the inflation without hurting the economy further and, conversely, cannot stimulate a flagging economy without worsening the rise in prices. Add to all this concerns that the world might not be willing to invest further in a deteriorating dollar and we have the makings of, well, a Catastrophe!

By expressing the obvious -- that this is a time for retrenchment, not for expansion of the public sector -- Lieberman may even have given the president an avenue of escape, permitting him to accept a scaled-back, phased-in program that might attract bipartisan support.


Order a copy of CATASTROPHE -
Go Here Now!

View Dick's videos on YouTube -

Go Here Now!


Browse Dick's New Book CATASTROPHE -
Go Here Now!


Follow Dick on Twitter -

Go Here Now!

Go to
DickMorris.com to read Dick's columns!