Mitt Romney And Tax Cuts
Here is an article about Mitt Romney and his position on tax cuts and the economy, from washtimes.com:
Romney Bets On Tax Cuts To Win
By Donald Lambro
After his well-received speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference here last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met with two key leaders in the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.
Mr. Romney’s dinner guests were Jack Kemp, the architect of the Reagan tax cuts that lifted the economy out of a deep recession, and former Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, a key leader in the Opportunity Society band of House warriors who fought for lower tax rates to spur economic growth and entrepreneurial expansion. Read more…
Democrats Set Timetable For Retreat And Defeat
Well, it looks like the house Democrats have finally agreed on a way to lose the was and aide the enemy. Unfortunately for the Dems, this appears to be headed the same way every other bill they have passed this year has gone. NOWHERE. The house Democrats had their first 100 hours where they passed their domestic agenda. It looks good on paper but every bill stalled in the senate. It’s their way of accomplishing alot and nothing at the same time. Hopefully if this somehow passes the senate, the president will stick to his guns and veto it.
From politico.com:
The House Democratic plan for funding the war in Iraq could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday.
Even under the least aggressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008. Read more…
Is It Illegal To Be A Republican?
Below is an article from America’s favorite woman. No, not Hillary, Ann Coulter. Regardless what you may think about her or her writing style, this article points out the hypocracy in the way criminal prosecutions are handled( or not handled) depending on whether it is a Democrat or Republican being charged.
Here it is:
Shooting Elephants In A Barrel
By Ann Coulter
Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.
It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame‘s name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department’s Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.
With no crime to investigate, Fitzgerald pursued a pointless investigation into nothing, getting a lot of White House officials to make statements under oath and hoping some of their recollections would end up conflicting with other witness recollections, so he could charge some Republican with “perjury” and enjoy the fawning media attention.
As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson (news, bio, voting record) was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.
This makes it official: It’s illegal to be Republican.
Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do. Read more…
The Problem With Hillary
From unionleader.com:
Like A Warped Bell, Hillary Clinton’s Tone Rings Untrue
By KATHLEEN PARKER
IS HILLARY Clinton’s inevitability less inevitable?
The growing consensus seems to be that the former first lady’s ascendancy as first woman President of the U.S. is less assured than previously thought, thanks in large part to the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama.
This is polite talk from the emperor’s court. The naked truth is, Hillary has a bigger problem than Obama. Anyone who has heard her speak knows what it is, so we may as well talk about it.
That voice.
Every time Hillary opens her mouth, Americans are reminded of two things: (1) she’s not Bill, and (2) she’s as tone-deaf in the presence of human beings as she was singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Iowa recently.
Until that moment, it was not known that anyone could sing that badly.
To her credit, Hillary has since poked fun at herself, offering to step away from the microphone, for example, when a group was about to sing “Happy Birthday.” No one can help the voice they’re born with — much. But they can learn to adjust the volume, and to take the temperature of a room before speaking. And especially, to avoid faking a local accent, pretending to be something they’re not. Southern, for instance.
In Selma, Ala., last weekend at the “Bloody Sunday” commemoration, Hillary auditioned for a dual role — not just Southerner, but Southern preacher in the style of a Martin Luther King Jr.
That dry rustling you hear is the sound of millions of people cringing.
It was clear that Hillary was trying to imitate the oratorical style of her black predecessors to the pulpit — something no white person should ever attempt. But what she must have imagined sounded like passion was to mere mortals the screech of an angry woman.
Her audience, nevertheless, was polite and affirming (Southerners are like that), even as she turned on the worst fake accent since Kevin Costner played Robin Hood. Shouting the words from a gospel hymn, Clinton was so off-key that anyone tuning in would have assumed it was a joke — a parody of a politician speaking in native tongues, Granny Clampett auditioning on “American Idol.” “I DON’T FEEL NO WAYS TIRED,” she said with the robotic twang of a computer generated Southerner. “I COME TOO FARRRR FRUM WHERE I STARTED FRUM. NOBODY TOLD ME THAT THE ROAD WOULD BE EASY.” Somewhere deep in the brains of every man listening was a little lizard shouting: Somebody hit the mute button, for God’s sake, hit the mute!
In politics, we’re not supposed to talk about style over substance, especially when it comes to women. But no male politician would get away with what Hillary pulled in Selma. Moreover, speaking style is not irrelevant to leadership, as Americans have noted the past six years.
Tone. Voice. Cadence. These may seem superficial, less important than the substance of a candidate’s message. But they suggest something innate about the person speaking — awareness (or the lack thereof) and the ability to merge with an audience, to persuade, calm, inspire and reassure.
Or not.
When a person’s style distracts from substance, we have a problem.
When a person’s voice makes listeners recoil and want to be somewhere else, that person is not going to be an effective communicator.
But what about substance? What was Clinton thinking when she hijacked a gospel hymn and effectively mocked her audience? Her speech exposed not just an incompetent ear, but disrespect for the people gathered.
Would Clinton affect a Brooklyn accent with a Jewish audience remembering the Holocaust? OY VEY, LEMME TELLYA, HONEY! The female Clinton, unlike her husband, simply lacks a feel for communication, no matter how many hugs she delivers. While President Clinton could become one with his audience — his slightly hoarse voice conveying so much empathy that the hungry wanted to feed him — Sen. Clinton’s voice sends mannequins into a fetal curl. She is the rain to Bill’s parade.
It may not be Hillary’s fault that her voice sounds like it was fashioned from metal, but it is her fault that she sounds like a car alarm when she’s handed a microphone.
It is her fault that she panders — badly — to her audiences.
Her performance last weekend in Selma revealed more than atonality.
Like a warped bell, Hillary Clinton rings untrue.
Kathhleen Parker’s e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com
Some Signs The Surge Is Working
This is a blog entry from two Muslims who are blogging from inside Baghdad:
Notes From Baghdad
Open liquor stores and other signs of the surge’s success.
BY MOHAMMED FADHIL AND OMAR FADHIL
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST BAGHDAD–The new strategy to secure Baghdad has been dubbed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as “Operation Imposing the Law.” After weeks of waiting and anxiety it is finally under way, and early signs are encouraging.
The government information campaign and the news about thousands of additional troops coming had a positive impact even before the operation started. Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country. Diyala province, to the east of Baghdad, was the destination for many Sunni extremists, while Shiite militiamen went to Babil and Diwaniya in the south. Some higher-ranking members of Shiite and Sunni militant groups fled to Iran and Syria respectively. This migration motivated the government to announce supporting security measures in five provinces around Baghdad, to make sure that fleeing bad guys do not regroup in other cities. Read more…
Send Gitmo Detainees To The United States?
This is just making my blood boil, congress is now going to try to have the Gitmo detainees sent to the United States. These people being held are POW’s, enemy combatants. They were picked up on the battlefront fighting American soldiers. When has America ever sent POW’s to America during wartime? This is preposterous. The Democrat party cares more about the rights of POW’s than they do about winning the war. These detainees have no rights under our constitution, the US constitution applies only to Americans ( I can’t believe I actually have to type those words). The Democrats want to try them in American courts, they don’t even have that right. When the war is over these people should either be tried in military tribunals for war crimes, or released. NOT BEFORE THEN.
From politico.com:
Democrats Want Gitmo Prisoners Sent to U.S.
Key House Democrats plan to insist the Pentagon shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are contemplating the relocation of many of the 385 or so remaining terrorist suspects to military brigs along the East Coast — including Quantico, Va., and Charleston, S.C.
“It sets us back in the war on terrorism to be maintaining Guantanamo,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who’s heading an investigation of the facility for the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
“It will enhance our reputation to close it down and to apply our system of justice to all of these detainees,” he added.
After two trips to Guantanamo, Moran told The Politico that he’s recommending Congress cut funding to the detention center at the end of summer 2008. The men held there should then be released, tried or moved to the United States, he said.
A Democratic official involved in developing the Guantanamo strategy said the Democrats, who control the new Congress, expect Republicans to object to bringing the detainees onto U.S. soil because their attorneys would surely argue they were entitled to myriad new rights.
The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Democrats are planning hearings in April or May to “build a record” that closing Guantanamo would be beneficial and that it would be legal, as well as logistically feasible, to bring its detainees to the United States. The hearings would start with panels of lawyers, some of whom are convinced the plan is workable and some of whom represent detainees now at Guantanamo.
And to make the measure more palatable to Republicans, Moran said he would suggest the detainees be transferred to military bases that would allow them to be tried in federal courts under the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Republicans certainly could not consider that a mollycoddling, liberal bastion,” Moran said. “The 4th Circuit is as conservative as you get. But the whole world would see that the United States stands for the rule of law. And I think the high-value targets would be shown to be people who undoubtedly should be detained and prosecuted.
“But you’ve got to distinguish among these people,” he said. “We have to prove they actually did something that was designed to hurt American citizens.”
A senior administration official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was puzzled by the Democrats’ frequent discussion of closing Guantanamo.
“While we want to bring these guys to trial as quickly as possible, where do Democrats believe we should keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot?” the official asked. “Which American city will they choose to place America’s most wanted terrorists?”
The Democratic official said the plan would be to relocate the terrorists to military brigs that have suitable courtrooms. In addition to Quantico and Charleston, many could go to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., or to the Norfolk Naval Station, which has four courtrooms.
Still other possibilities include the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, S.C., and Fort Gordon, Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, all in Georgia.
In the flush of taking control of the House in January, Democrats had talked about pushing to close Guantanamo immediately, perhaps as part of the emergency wartime funding bill that is now pending. But they had trouble settling on a strategy for that bill and now are considering a shutdown directive in the overall defense appropriations bill for the 2008 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The prison camp at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay has been a constant headache for the Bush administration, which has been accused of holding innocent people there indefinitely. Hunger strikes, suicides and accusations of inappropriate interrogations have plagued the facility, home to what the White House calls some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.
U.S. allies abroad have complained about Guantanamo as well. And the president has said that he would like to close it down but that there is no other place to hold the detainees.
Asked about the furor that could erupt in local communities chosen to receive the detainees, Moran noted that the brigs were secure and that most of the detainees had not “been involved in any combat.”
“Many of them have never engaged in any act of violence,” Moran said. “Some of them hold beliefs that are anathema to ours, but we have a tradition that we don’t punish people for their beliefs but rather for their actions.”
Bill To Ban Credit Cards For Illegals
It’s hard to believe that a law has to be passed to prevent banks from giving credit cards to illegal immigrants, but at least somebody is going to try and stop Bank Of America from doing just that.(See here https://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/credit-cards-for-illegals/)
From commercialappeal.com:
Blackburn seeks to close loophole in U.S. banking
By Bartholomew Sullivan
sullivanb@shns.com
March 6, 2007
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., introduced legislation Monday that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving credit cards from American financial institutions.
The Photo Identification Security Act would require banks to use what Blackburn calls “secure forms of identification” to obtain credit. In a statement put out by her office, she says that Bank of America “has come under fire in response to reports that it allows illegal immigrants access to credit cards without proper documentation.”
Bank of America spokesmen maintain that they follow the letter of the law in permitting customers to use the forms of identification permissible under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. That includes matricula consular cards issued by the Mexican government.
“The American people deserve to know that the integrity and security of our financial institutions will remain intact,” Blackburn said in a statement Monday. “This bill closes a critical loophole that banking institutions have used to circumvent the letter of the law they have used to target illegal aliens as a new source of revenue. It says to banks and illegal immigrants alike, ‘You can’t get a Visa, without a visa.'”
Bank of America issues the secured, or collateralized, credit cards only after a customer has established a deposit account, and to get a deposit account, the company requires a Social Security number, proof of U.S. government federal taxpayer status, or other documents listed as identification by the Patriot Act.
— Bartholomew Sullivan: (202) 408-2726
Conservative Democrats And Republicans Run Congress
It’s time to talk about the myth that the American people voted against the war in Iraq last November. While it has been touted by the Democrats and the media that the Republicans lost the house and senate because of the war, I don’t believe that’s true.
I believe there are two main resons the Republicans lost.
One:
The scandals of Tom Delay, Mark Foley, and the CIA-Scooter Libby scandal. I am not even going to talk about Libby, because we all know of the hit job done on him. As far as Foley goes, when the story broke remember it was said he was involved with underage male pages. Come to find out that while his actions were very inappropriate the pages were not underage. The Democrats(the party of inclusion,sensitivity and caring for the needs of others), just assumed because he was gay he was a pedophile. The Democrats also knew about this scandal before it hit. Remember Nancy Pelosi said as soon as the scandal made news that the Republicans knew about it for a long time. How did SHE know that? Because the Democrats knew about it also. Anyway I didn’t mean to spend that much time on this, so here is number…
Two:
The Democrats ran a bunch of conservative Democrats in vulnerable Republican districts. While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the far left hid out of sight, conservative Democrats won the seats of Republicans who had strayed from a true conservative agenda. The theory being even though they ran as conservatives, they would have to fall in line with Nanci Pelosi or they would not get the support of the leadership when re-election rolled around.
Well not so fast, here is an article from breitbart.com:
Conservatve Democrats Assert Power
| By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS Associated Press Writer |
WASHINGTON (AP) — When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced scorn from fellow Democrats during a recent closed-door meeting for not moving more aggressively on Iraq, it was conservative Blue Dogs _ her ideological opposites _ who rose to defend her.The unlikely support reflected an emerging dynamic in the House, where the 43 right-of-center fiscal hawks are increasingly asserting their power, working to moderate the policies and image of a party with a liberal base and leaders to match. Read more…
Democrats Alter Plan To Restrict Iraq War
This would be funny if it weren’t such a serious matter. The Democrats are simply floundering on what to do about the war.
First they pass a spineless, gutless,useless non binding resolution about the war.
Second, Murtha unveils the slow bleed plan. An effort to take away the supplies and equipment the soldiers need to survive, virtually insuring more American casualties.
Now a new plan. This plan places restrictions on President Bush’s ability to fight the war,but allows him to waive the restrictions in a matter of national interest. First of all congress doesn’t have the authority to determine how a war is fought. That is up to the commander-in-chief. Congress cannot legally micro manage the war. The only power they have is to cut off the funding. Secondly, this war in itself is a matter of national interest. The Democrats might want to keep their heads in the sand but there are people who want us dead, that sounds like a national interest to me.
So once again the Democrat party offers a gutless, useless proposal that will neither accomplish anything, or appease anyone.
Below is an article from washingtonpost.com about the Democrats new proposal:
Waiver for Bush, Benchmarks Sought
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 6, 2007; Page A01
Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush’s ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.
Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January. Read more…
This is from drudgereport.com:
PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ETThe Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined
Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.
In the letter, PETA points out the following:
· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.
· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.
PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.
“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”
