2 posts tagged “democratic”

I started out digging into the story behind Nancy Pelosi.  Twana had asked me to do an expose` on her but as I dug in, I found that Nancy is straight up Democrat Party hack to the core.  She has a further left voting record than Barak Obama.  Where Obama's voting record shows he has voted along party lines 96% of the time in the Senate (more than any other senator, Nancy has voted along party lines 98% of the time in the House of Representatives.  The further I dug, the more I realized that all of Nancy's astoundingly stupid moves have not been Nancy moves but Democratic moves.  She is simply following the party line and agenda.  The astounding dangerous games with national security and foreign policy are founded and supported by the Democratic version of wisdom.  So, here is what I've learned.

In the House of Representatives, the captain of the football team or the quarterback is the speaker of the house.  The position is the third highest in the U.S. government after the president and the vice president which means if anything should incapacitate both the president and the vice president, the speaker would assume the position of president until an emergency election could be held to fill the position again.  The fourth would be Harry Reid, president pro-tem of the Senate.  A Speaker of the House is elected by the elected Representatives.  So, when Democrats won the majority in 2006, Nancy assumed the position by House vote.  In this position she controls which bills come before the House of Representatives to be debated and voted on.  In essence as long as the bill is in the house, the speaker controls the political football.  The most visible responsibility of the Speaker is wielding the gavel in the House to allocate time for opposing parties to argue their points over each bill and to keep the order in the House.  This position requires a certain decorum.  One has to be fair to the minority party delegates with regard to counting votes and declaring wins or losses.  Often these are made verbally in the interest of expedience, but are sometimes disputed and so go to a recorded vote.  What happens if the speaker is less than honorable?

I'm using the game metaphor because that is the way the Democrats have been treating the policy making process.  Partisanship and political strategy takes priority over any other factor whether foreign policy, national security or issues of morality being legislated by our policy makers.   It doesn't matter if its pulling our troops out of Iraq or if its embryonic stem cell research or economic stimulus efforts, self defense via citizens legally arming themselves, or corporal punishment.  Results don't matter, good intentions are what matter to Democrats.  In my estimation, they don't believe the American voters' attention span is long enough to notice the damage done by their policies or agenda.

One demonstration of this strategic partisan games playing with foreign policy especially  in regard to national security and the war effort in Iraq was Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria to engage in talks with a hostile government for the express purpose of undermining White House efforts designed to put pressure on Syria to disengage from support for Muslim insurgency in Lebanon as well as material support for insurgency into Iraq.  The Wall Street Journal called this visit 'Dangerous' and 'Foolish.'  This gaming with policy in relation to hostile forces in the region does not just undermine the Bush administration, it undermines national and ally interests by emboldening our enemies making our national will appear divided and weak.  This puts our troops in the battlefield in greater danger and makes their mission that much harder to accomplish.

So why would Nancy be willing to play partisan politics on issues as important as national security?  A short look at her bio tells me a lot.  Nancy was born into politics and has had as her goal in life nothing but politics.  She is a political hack from the district that is furthest left in a state that is competing for the title of furthest left.  She is dependent on her base in San Francisco, California to stay seated in Congress.  As demonstrated by her base, if she wanders too far from their ideals, they loudly call her out any variance from the party line.  But that isn't all.  I submit to you that she is acting in line with the Democratic agenda to undermine president Bush at any cost for simple political clout.
http://www.petitiononline.com/everyman/petition.html

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

PELOSI, Nancy, (daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr.), a Representative from California; born Nancy D’Alesandro in Baltimore, Md., March 26, 1940; A.B., Trinity College, 1962; chair, California State Democratic Party, 1981-1983; finance chairman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 1985-1986; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundredth Congress, by special election, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of United States Representative Sala Burton, and reelected to the ten succeeding Congresses (June 2, 1987-present); minority whip (One Hundred Seventh Congress); minority leader (One Hundred Eighth and One Hundred Ninth Congress); Speaker of the House (One Hundred Tenth Congress). (Source.)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

Nancy Pelosi has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 98.1% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Pelosi did not vote. See a list of her votes against her party since 1991, a list of all Representatives in the 110th Congress with a similar score, or a full list of party voters.

As Barak Obama has the highest record voting along party lines with 96% in the Senate, so Nancy holds the highest record voting along party lines in the House.  What this means is a party hack with the most extreme leftist voting record is the third highest power in the land.  At the same time the fourth highest position of power in the land is occupied by Harry Reid, at the same time the highest party line voter in the Senate is the DNC pick for the Democratic presidential candidate.  If successful, the most extreme Leftist body in Washington will have full control of two of the three branches of government with the last one (the Supreme Court) having a history of taking specific cases to write laws by precedent and move our government and culture to the left.  This means, should Barak Obama win the presidency, for the first time in American history the dissenting voice of conservatism will have been shunted to the sidelines for at least two years and more likely as many as eight years of one sided power control.

What's at issue with partisanship is this self destructive nature of the Democratic agenda.  From national budget issues to workers' rights to human rights, every vote and every bill authored will be cementing into our governance further and further socialist action than we have ever known in America.  Nearly every position is either detrimental to freedom, to human rights, to societal health and strength, to even naming evil and will have no check or balance to limit this agenda.  The liberal mind is either dead set on destroying the greatest force for good in recorded history or simply doesn't believe our system is fragile enough to crumble under the weight of selling national pride for political currency.  Instead of defending the reputation of America's efforts to bring good and right into the world, they are celebrating its decline..

The greatest sin of the second Bush administration is poor communication with the people of the United States.  I understand why they have done such a poor job of it, but it is the greatest failing of George Bush's presidency.  The Main Stream press have continually worked to discredit him and have joined the Democratic party in undermining his credibility and have thought nothing of the damage to national security or the morale of our military in a war time effort.  In publishing military and national secrets during war, in seeking only the worst stories for the front page and spinning every event to make the US look as bad as possible in an international light, by burying positive news deep in the mid to back pages of the papers they are complicit in harming the reputation of the US and encouraging the enemies of freedom and Democracy.  David Horowitz is a great communicator and should be the Republican Party's spokesman on the war against Radical Islam.  He was giving a speech introducing his new book, "Party of Defeat" when he spoke these words:

The opposition party has full access to our secrets and our intelligence.  They conducted a campaign beginning in July 2003 to attack the United States and its commander in chief.  That is the position of the Democratic party.  That is a national disgrace.  We went into Iraq in March 2003, we liberated Baghdad in April 2003 with 139 casualties.  It was July (that's three months or so) after we liberated Baghdad.  We were winning the war.  But when the resistance was starting from the al Quaeda terrorists and the Baathist Fascists in Iraq and our young men and women were in harm's way that the Democratic party ran a national TV ad.  And the TV ad said "Read his lips, President Bush deceives the American people."  President Bush is a war criminal, that's what that was saying.  What change was there in American policy between April and July?  There was none.  The Democratic party, you'll remember, had a presidential primary at this time.  I can't think of anything lower than selling your country out.  Selling your young men and women who are on the battlefield out.  Selling the security of 300 million Americans out, because you wanted to win the Democratic presidential primary.  Now, let's look at a couple of these lies that the Democratic party has based their campaign against America, against the American people, against the Iraqi people, and against the war on terror.  The first is that Iraq is no threat, or was no threat.  Was Afghanistan a threat?  Afghanistan is a much poorer nation than Iraq.  Afghanistan has no oil.  Its got half the population.  Its virtually all tribal.  Baghdad was a pretty modern city.  Of course, that's the whole point of the Bush doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq.  That 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland.  Something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do.  Something the Japanese could never do.  Something no enemy in the last 150 years could do.  And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Because Saddam Hussein had put... after the Gulf war had put Alahu Ackbar into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo-fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy.  America, the great Satan.  He had tried to assassinate the president of the United States, he had held international conferences for terrorists, he had hosted abu Habbas and abu Nedal, and Musab al Zachari, and Ansar al Islam.  All of this Saddam Hussein had done.  And so, if you look out at the world, with any modicum of responsibility on 9/11, you would see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States.  I tried to lay out here, why Iraq should have been considered a threat, but you don't have to take my word for it.  You can go to Al Gore.  On February 2, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech.  Now this speech followed a speech... the state of the union that year by George Bush.  And that was the axis of evil speech.  And many Democrats were in a rage over the use of the term evil to describe Iraq even though the regime had murdered 300,000 Iraqis and put them in mass graves, even though it had dropped poison gas, a wmd, on an ethnic population (the Kurds) even though it had invaded two countries within recent memory, even though Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf war truce, Al Gore gave a statesmen like speech and he defended Bush's use of the term evil because it was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  And this is what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat.  Instead of saying it posed no threat and would cause us to be judged harshly by history, what he said was, and this is an exact quote, "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself."  "a virulent threat in a class by itself, and the United States would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down."  That's what Al Gore said.  So this book I've written, "The Party of Defeat" is about a party that betrayed its own war.  that betrayed its own country, and that betrayed its men and women in the field.  Don't let anybody tell you that you can support the troops but not the war.  If you support the troops, you support their mission, because when you do what John Kerry did, and say, "Its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" you send a demoralizing message to our troops and an encouraging message to our enemies.  On the WMD's, Saddam Hussein lost the Gulf war.  When he invaded Kuwait, the first George Bush organized an international coalition to stop him.  But actually, that coalition was a little too multi-lateral, because it included the Arabs and the Arabs said you cannot remove Saddam Hussein.   What ended the Gulf war was a truce.   It said Saddam Hussein can stay in power but these are the conditions.   And the conditions were UN resolution 687,  and UN resolution 689.  The Gulf war truce UN resolution 687 and 689 said "You will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build weapons of mass destruction.  and you will allow UN inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you're not doing it, because nobody in his right mind can trust you."  Those two UN resolutions which were followed by fourteen others, were there to keep Saddam from doing what he wanted to do, and what we know he wanted to do, which was to build weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam Hussein systematically violated these resolutions until a day came in 1998 when he actually threw the UN inspectors out.  Iraq was always on the U.S. government's mind.  Hillary Clinton in one of her statements said that she... not only did she vote for the war when she was defending her support for the war, not only did she support the war because of the intelligence that Bush gave her, but the intelligence she got from the Clinton administration.  Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Now, this is what George Bush did, he gave a speech identifying Iraq as a national threat, part of an axis of evil.  And then George Bush in September went to the United Nations and spoke to the general assembly and said, "There are 16 outstanding resolutions which are arms control agreements which are part of the UN truce with Saddam Hussein that kept him in power.  Either you will enforce your word, or you will be seen to be irrelevant."  Which the UN is.  "And we will do it for you."  That's what George Bush said.  And then he went to Congress and he got the authorization for the use of force.  So the very opposite of what the Democrats claim is the truth.  George Bush did not violate international law, he tried to enforce it and the Democrats didn't support him.  The Bush administration made a diplomatic mistake, which was to go back to the UN.  Once they had the resolution, they should have acted on it.  And Tony Blair begged the Bush administration to go to the UN again and get another resolution.  And unfortunately, the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell and did so.  And Colin Powell got what he deserved for this.  Because, what he did, go to the UN to sell the war.   And the way he sold it was to imply that Saddam had more weapons capability than he had.  And that's why people say its about WMD's.  No it isn't!!  It wasn't at all about the weapons of mass destruction.  It was about his potential to build those weapons and his programs to do so, and his intentions to do so.

Now, if there is any doubt left that the Bush administration lied to the American public, to the Congress or to the UN or that we were justified in invading Iraq, or that we could afford to allow that tyrant to continue in his plans to help work destruction on the innocent people of America, please, tell me what it is.  More, if there is any doubt that the actions of the Democratic leadership is not traitorous in their actions against our national security and against our men and women in the field at war, please, inform me.  If there is any doubt that these actions expose the complicity of the American main stream press, please, tell me what doubts you can dredge up.  This is not patriotism to act this way, careless of the effects on our security or that of the troops, or their morale.  If the Democrats win this election with this for credibility, I am without hope for our nation and its future.  John McCain is a moderate.  He has worked across the aisle enough times to anger most Republicans and only got the nomination because the more conservative Republicans were split between the two more conservative candidates.  Barack Obama is a radical leftist and his voting record proves it.  He is unvetted and has zero accomplishments to point to, much less working with the opposition, so how can he fulfill his promises to be the agent of change and hope?  Hillary Clinton is running on her husband's experience.  She voted for the war before she promised to abandon the war.  This isn't flip flop, this is pandering to the base merely for the seat of power.  The Democrats are proven traitors and deserve nothing less than a trial for treasonous act against national security in a time of war.  We cannot afford to put into office any member of the party of defeat, and of enmity with the nation that grants that power voluntarily.  We have to have a Chief that isn't moved by every wisp of breeze of political winds.  We have to have a leader with the vision and the steadfast resolve to meet every challenge with the grace and assurance of having practiced what's right and good.  No promise of benefits is greater than the value of assured security to continue in our existence as a nation of freedom and democracy.  The only issue on the ticket this election has to be the security and continuance of our great culture.  Everything else pales in comparison.  Without that security, there are no human rights protection, no freedom of speech, no opportunity to succeed in business, no opportunity to live in peace and security, no opportunity to participate or not participate in the religion of your choice.  Do not reward the party of defeat this election year.  Don't even encourage them to speak until they get this one issue right.  National security is tantamount in politics.  Everything else is secondary.