It appears as though the Democrats are losing momentum in their bid to manufacture a controversy with Alberto Gonzalez. This really is no surprise here, this whole controversy over the firing of United States attorneys was just an effort to illegitimize the whole presidency of president Bush. There was never any wrong doing, not even any evidence of wrongdoing.
“The list of accusations has mushroomed, but the evidence has not,” said Lamar Smith, the senior Republican committee member. “If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues.”
Exactly, don’t the Democrats have more important issues to deal with? They do have a war to lose after all.
Polygamist to Fight for Marriage Rights
Or I should say marriage rights between more than two people. Here we go, it was only a matter of time before all these other different groups started fighting for their rights also. Once you start down this path where does it stop?
Along the same lines, Henkel asserted, “marriage controllers assert that ‘society has a right’ to control marriage, that ‘democracy’ justifies infringing individuals’ rights for the supposed good of the people,” he said. “They frantically purport that society is imperiled without marriage control.”
Marriage controllers is a phrase he coined to compare this issue to gun control. This is just the beginning. While this won’t go anywhere, this is just the first attempt. The way it works is that they will keep coming back and coming back gaining more support and getting louder. Until they are able to affect change.
Henkel predicted last year that “freely consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle” after same-sex “marriage.”
He called the one man-one-woman model “marital Marxism,” saying it was established by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
“You don’t have to be a pro-polygamist to see that ‘marriage control’ infringes the individual rights of consenting adults,” the activist told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.
It’s a civil rights issue, how can we deny polygamists their civil rights? This is the problem I have with the redefining of the word marriage, it opened up all these doors and it won’t stop here. It may take years or decades but the fight will carry on until the definition of marriage is completely eroded. Notice he said the next civil rights battle, he didn’t say the last battle.
Now that the civil unions bill has passed in New Hampshire and gay couples will have the same rights as married couples once the governor signs it another issue has popped up. Of course most people have seen this coming, once you start down this road, where does it stop? The issue I’m talking about is cohabitating couples, evidentally that’s the politically correct term for people who live together.
There is speculation that cohabitating couples will sue for the same rights as gay couples. The beat goes on.
After the Fort Dix terror plot was broken up and it was revealed that three of the terrorists were illegals, congress and the president need to rethink their position that illegals should be granted amnesty.
The media really seems to be downplaying the whole terror plot. They don’t want to report anything that may propose that the president is right about this. The one part of the terror plot they are downplaying more than any other part is the fact that three of the terrorist were illegal aliens.
The arrest of six foreign-born Muslims accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix, N.J., should stop the Senate from producing an immigration bill that includes a “pathway to citizenship” or any other let-them-stay-here program, said a group that strongly opposes “amnesty” for illegal aliens.
Three of the Islamic radicals arrested in New Jersey were illegal aliens
This is the problem with illegal immigration in this country, the fact that we have no idea who is sneaking into this country. On top of the drain they are on the economy, we have no idea how many terrorists have slipped over the border and currently are plotting against us.
“Given [Tuesday’s] events, the American public has a right to demand, not ask, that Congress and the Bush administration drop all talk of amnesty and guest worker programs and get to work on the single most important priority: controlling our borders and fixing an immigration system that allows terrorists and just about anyone else to enter and hide out in this country,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.
I couldn’t agree more with that statement, it is way past time for us to secure our borders and stop the flow of illegals into this country, if not for the welfare of the American worker than for the security of the country.
You can read my previous post about this plot here.
Mickey Mouse Teaches Jihad on Hamas Television
You can read the article here, and you can watch a sample video of this here. You can also watch a video of how hate is being taught to Muslim children here.
Although the Walt Disney Company has not made any public comment on the use of a Mickey Mouse look-alike to spread Hamas propaganda,Walt Disney’s daughter is calling Hamas “pure evil” for “indoctrinating children like this.”
Diane Disney Miller, 73, told the New York Daily News that the children’s program on Hamas television is teaching children to be evil.
A Palestinian Authority (P.A.) minister said on Wednesday that Hamas – the Islamist terror group co-governing the Palestinian self-rule areas with Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah faction – has agreed to stop airing the program called “Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” but right now, it’s still on the air.
Is that so? They are evil? This is what it takes for someone to come out against Hamas, a copyright infringement?
The program was a “primitive act done out of ignorance,” Barghouti said, adding that Hamas television officials agreed they should not politicize programs for children.
So they are saying it is wrong to politicize a children’s program. They have not said that what they are teaching their children is wrong. It’s okay to teach hate and violence, just not in a children’s show. Perhaps they believe they should just teach these policies in school, not on television? The bottom line is, they are teaching their children this hatred from such a young age the children know no other way. How are you suppose to change people that have been taught to hate from the day they were born?
This is the reality in the world we live in, whether you want to believe it or not.
Al Sharpton Questions Mitt Romney’s Faith
You can read the whole article here.
This is what he had to say while debating an atheist:
“As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation,”
Romney’s spokesman responded:
“It is terribly disheartening and disappointing to hear Reverend Sharpton offer such appalling comments about a fellow American’s faith,” said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. “America is a nation of many faiths and common values, and bigotry toward anyone because of their beliefs is unacceptable.”
Sharpton tried to explain his comments:
“What I said was that we would defeat him, meaning as a Republican,” Sharpton said. “A Mormon, by definition, believes in God. They don’t believe in God the way I do, but by definition, they believe in God.”
So what he was really saying is Republicans in general don’t believe in God, not just Mitt.
Nancy Pelosi is threatening to sue president Bush over the Iraq war surrender bill.
Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement
“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”
In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.
If Democrats don’t have the votes to override a presidential veto they threaten to sue the president. If Americans really sent the president a message last November, why are the Democrats afraid to cut off funding? Isn’t it the will of the people?
In the 1970’s the courts basically ruled that if congress cannot override a presidential veto than they have to live with the results.
Either cut off the funding immediately as you have the right to do, or give the troops the money they need and let the president fight the war.
Democrats can’t have it both ways.
It appears as though Dianne Feinstein may be in more trouble than originally believed. Of course the only reason she is still a senator is because she is a Democrat. A Republican would have already been forced to resign.
If you havent been following the story:
Here is the latest part in this saga.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein may have had as much of a financial interest in two defense contractors as her husband who controlled them, according to California law.
The state’s “community property law” could be relevant at a time when the senior Democratic senator from California is facing allegations of a conflict of interest and growing calls for an inquiry.
The “community property” law in force in California says that any income earned, assets obtained or debts incurred by either partner during a marriage belongs to both partners.
She funneled millions of dollars to her husband’s company. While that’s bad enough, she is technically owner of half of the funneled money. In essence she funneled the money to herself.
“Every penny that belongs to one party belongs to the other party,” Maly told Cybercast News Service. “She gets 50 percent of all the contracts. It flows into her own pocket. She might say it’s her husband’s company. But it’s community property assets.”
“I don’t think this issue is going away for Sen. Feinstein,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Cybercast News Service. “She was involved in the decision-making process that involved her family’s finances.”
This woman needs to resign, NOW.
That doesn’t make any sense to me, does it make sense to you? You can read this twisted logic here.
Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund between presidential campaigns to learn about financial markets and their relationship to poverty—and to make money too.
“It was primarily to learn, but making money was a good thing, too,”
Hedge funds, now numbering more than 9,000 in the U.S. with assets estimated to exceed $1 trillion, traditionally cater to the rich
Edwards said it’s fair to ask questions about whether there is a contradiction between campaigning against poverty while working for a hedge fund designed to make rich people richer. But he said the job was a complement to his position as the head of a poverty center
So there it is, John Edwards decided to make a ton of money to see how it affected poor people. What a guy. I’m sure he took all the profits and gave them to the poor people. Wait a minute, he wants to raise our taxes to give to the poor. Thank God, I was afraid he was going to have to give to the poor for a second there.
