Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:08 PM

Max Baucus is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Democrat most responsible fo Obamacare’s final shape other than Nancy Pelosi.

In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the “healthcare bill” to be  “an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans.”  Baucus continued, “[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.  Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America.  This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Max Baucus on Obamacare’s hidden agenda – redistribution of wealth

Baucus’ candor is appreciated, though the fact that he waited until the bill passed to announce the real agenda behind the massive tax hikes isn’t a profile in courage.  And the seniors on fixed income who are about to lose Medicare Advantage would laugh at Baucus’ pseudo-populism.

Posted in Abortion, American Fifth Column, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Ayers, CNN traitors, defeat liberalism, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat John McCain, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, democrat spying, DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic media, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and acorn, democrats and CNN, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and labor unions, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Democrats and taxes, Democrats and the media, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, democrats socialized medicine, Democrats' Nepotism, Dennis Kucinich, Dianne Feinstein, Earmarking, earmarks, Evangelical Left, Fifth Column, Fifth Column Left, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Harry Reid, Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton Socialist, Hollywood liberals, Homeland Security, Hussein Obama, Impeach, In The News, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic immigration, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Murtha, Left wing churches, Left-wing, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, leftist fund, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, National Debt, Nazi Pelosi, Obama, Obama Czars, Obama Jackboots, Obama-Pelosi-Reid, Obamacare, partial birth abortion, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Pelosi Land, Radical Politics, Rahm Emanuel, Saul Alinsky. Leave a Comment »

Reasons for Leaving Iraq

Reasons for Leaving Iraq
By Mark W. Hendrickson | May 14, 2007

If you are reading this sentence, let me apologize for the somewhat misleading title of this article. I am not arguing for the withdrawal of our military from Iraq; rather, I am asserting that those making that argument owe it to the American people to be more forthcoming in stating their reasons why they favor that course of action.

Troop withdrawal may or may not be the right policy. I’ll take the cowardly approach and say that I favor whatever policies lead to the least loss of human life—especially American lives—in the coming years, even though I don’t know which policies those would be.

What concerns me is that some Americans advocating withdrawal are doing so for inferior reasons and without consideration of the consequences. Some are ideological holdovers from the anti-Vietnam War era who believe that America has been “on the wrong side of history.” This belief took hold in the Democratic Party and was explicitly reiterated in 1988 by Michael Dukakis in a presidential debate. What a grotesque error. We tried to prevent Indochina from being subjugated by murderous tyrants; when we evacuated from Vietnam, the dominoes fell, including the Cambodian genocide that accompanied the brutal enslavement of the South Vietnamese. Those horrors, and the illiberal ideology underlying them, were not, as Dukakis implied, the “right side of history.” While we failed to accomplish our objective in Indochina, we must never forget that we fought on the right side—the side of life and freedom. Similarly today, despite our multiple blunders in Iraq, we are fighting on the side of freedom and self-determination against murderous, potentially genocidal tyrants. We are not the bad guys.

Another factor motivating those advocating withdrawal is take-no-prisoners partisanship. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declares the war “lost,” and then strives to make his assessment a self-fulfilling prophesy by attempting to cut off funding to the military. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently refused to meet with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the current troop surge. She has already made up her mind to hang her party’s electoral future on the strategy of guaranteeing America’s defeat in “Bush’s war.”

Writing in this column in February, the brilliant Doug Bandow advocated withdrawal from Iraq so that fewer American troops would die. Here, at last, is an excellent and worthy reason for withdrawal. But was Bandow right? Would Islamist attacks against Americans cease if our troops leave Iraq, or would withdrawal precipitate a chain of events that ultimately results in greater loss of American life?

One of my students recently asked me, “What would happen if we withdrew our military from Iraq?” This is an intelligent question—in fact, it is the central question—but few politicians dare to address it. Our troops are in Iraq, whether you like it or not, whether you think we should have gone over there or not. We can’t change the past. The next step should be determined by one consideration only: What course of action will best protect American lives? Let us, then, look at a few possible (and, due to space limitations, necessarily simplistic) scenarios, some obviously less likely than others:

1) We leave. Iraq settles down, peace spreads across the Middle East, and Islamist militants beat their swords into pruning hooks. If that’s the likely outcome of U.S. withdrawal, sign me up.

2) We leave. Shiite-dominated Iran and Iraq decide to settle age-old scores with the Sunni Muslims; our nemeses, Ahmadinejad’s regime and al-Qaida, like rival mob families fighting to expand their gangland fiefdoms, annihilate each other, leaving only peaceful Muslims alive; Islam, purged of hate-consumed fanatics, makes peace with religious pluralism and the modern world. We should be so lucky.

3) We leave. As happened in Vietnam, our abandoned allies in Iraq are exterminated, imprisoned, sent to re-education camps or whatever cruel reprisals their murderous Islamist brethren can dream up, but the orgy of violence and terrorist mayhem stays confined to the Middle East. This is a tougher call. The realist, pragmatic school of thought is that the purpose of American foreign policy is to preserve the life of Americans, not foreigners; the idealist school says we have moral obligations to aid others. Where do those who advocate departure stand on this? Would they view a bloodbath of Iraqi citizens following our departure—and the concomitant massive loss of faith in the reliability of the United States as an ally—as an acceptable price to pay for bringing the troops home?

4) We leave. Moderate, democratic Iraqis are crushed, and there is a blowback effect, with Islamist fanatics believing the American spirit is broken and expanding the battlefield to our homeland. The Vietnam parallel breaks down here: We were never concerned that Viet Cong fanatics wanted to fly airliners into our buildings or wreak havoc on our cities. If withdrawal were to enlarge the American casualty zone from Iraq to the United States, then: No, thank you.

It would be a lot easier to decide what course to pursue if we knew with certainty what the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq would be. The stakes are immense. Bush believes that continuing the fight is the best of unpalatable options. Democrats are fixed on withdrawal, apparently believing that we can disengage from Iraq with no calamitous repercussions. Which side is right? We’re going to find out in the next few years. When we do, I hope it is not with regret.

Click Here to support

Your tax $$$ at liberal work

Your tax $$$ at liberal work

Ethel C. Fenig
 Graciously helping another financially struggling student get through school without breaking her parents’ bank account or causing Dad to miss any haircuts. From

National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg. . . is hiring the daughter of liberal Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards as a summer intern, and her NPR bosses “gave the green light, since the election is still 18 months away.”

Well that should certainly  be a relief to her parents who, like so many others,  have to choose between making the mortgage on their 28,000 square foot house, paying their restaurant tab or supporting their children.

You Can’t Win a Politically Correct War

You Can’t Win a Politically Correct War

Evan Coyne Maloney, Brain-terminal

[This is a great essay.]

For the last five years, it seems that every American use of force has resulted in hand-wringing and hypercriticism from the media and the president’s political opponents. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the wiretapping of phones used to call terror suspects abroad…the end result of the obsessive and overblown coverage of all this is to weaken the political structure that’s attempting to fight a war for the survival of Western civilization. Fortunately for the people we’re fighting, no abuse of human rights seems grave enough merit a many-months-long series of front page headlines and navel-gazing editorials. No, that’s a standard to which only the United States is held.

Don’t get me wrong: it is legitimate to question our conduct of the war, it is healthy to ponder the morality of our actions, but these days, that seems to be the only role played by the opposition and their allies in the media. And that has an effect on our ability to win wars.

There’s something about our psyche which seems to make self-criticism the new national pastime. Naturally, our political leaders know this. They know that when hundreds of newspapers and television stations align in a daily tearing-down of the war effort, the American people will eventually lose their nerve and want to give up. Others know this, too, which is why al Qaeda distributed copies of Black Hawk Down as a means to understand how the media can be used to amplify a relatively minor military failure and drive the United States from the field of battle. [..]

If terrorists provide enough negative footage to our media, they know we’ll turn and run. But if we fight too vigorously, that will be held up by our own media as evidence of our inherent evilness.[..]

Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess

Beware: Nancy Pelosi Is Not Just a Spoiled Millionairess

Written by Rene Guerra
Thursday, January 11, 2007
       David Brooks, the conservative columnist of the New York Times, came out with an article proposing the hypothesis that millionaire Nancy Pelosi is just another fake populist.  He portrayed her and her kind of opulent leftist Democrats, as just infants terribles engaged in a childish duel for power with their Republican counterparts. 

        But, Alas: Pelosi and her leftist brethren consider themselves part of something that resembles the nomenklatura, the top-stratum elite in any communist or socialist society (and notoriously made highly noticeable in the defunct Soviet Union) that places itself in a superior privileged position to the proletariat, or the populace.  That is, all the rest of us. 

        Those who may think it bizarre that a millionaire could spouse leftist ideas, should just remember that the best place for miscreants to hide well is among their opposites. 

        The nauseating
Wichita, Kansas BKT serial killer didn’t hide in skid row; Dennis Lynn Rader
was a model family man, an active church member, and a law enforcement officer . . . well, a dog catcher.

        Not many people would have dared to even think the terrible heresy that the sanctity of many Catholic priests was mere self-serving–until the worldwide news of raped altar boys came out in the open a few years ago. 

        The say goes: “The habit doesn’t a monk make”; affluence doesn’t make one a capitalist.  Friedrich Engels, a billionaire under current standards, is the co-author with Karl Marx of “The Communist Manifesto.”  Engels is furthermore one of the most venerated theoreticians and ideologues of the
Valhalla of the left, and he was Marx’s financier and only source of sustenance.

        Enrique Álvarez-Córdova, a Salvadoran millionaire acquaintance that I had met in my youth as a polo player, and whom I later in life met again as a colleague in the Salvadoran government cabinet of 1979, was abducted, and most savagely tortured and murdered by the infamous Salvadoran ultra-right death squads, around the end of 1980.  He had been a clandestine member of the Communist Party of El Salvador since his young adulthood, and made the lethal mistake of “outing” himself precisely at the apex of urban political violence in
El Salvador.  Sometime in December 1979, he confided to me that he acquired his leftist leanings during his college-student years at

University.  He was a warm man with a huge heart, an idealist who, unfortunately, grew to believe in communism.  He, as many, became polarized by the socio-economic feudalism and stone-age political environment that reigned in El Salvador at the time, and that fortunately ended about 15 years ago, upon the monumental collapse of the
Soviet Union.  Such a momentous event in part provided a safer environment for the broad political aperture that then started to take place in El Salvador; there were no more of Moscow’s agents roaming through
Latin America sowing Bolshevik revolution.

        Had Álvarez-Córdova lived in communism, or had
El Salvador turned communist, he would have been among the first to be purged, Stalinist style.   Paradoxically, he believed in participatory, horizontal democracy, and not in that abominable leftist contraption called “democratic centralism,” referring to the rule by the Central Committee of the Communist Party or by the nomenklatura.

        See also the case of billionaire George Soros, who uses the vast fortune he accumulated via one of the most extreme expressions of capitalism, speculating on currencies, to advance even the most bizarre leftist enterprises aimed at undermining

        What about the late billionaire Armand Hammond, the son of the United States Communist Party founder, Julius Hammond?  Armand Hammond was the most prominent purveyor of western goods and services to the Soviet Union since the times of Lenin until his, Hammond’s, death when only Russia was the leftover of the
USSR.  And he hid so well his true nature that he was a generous political donor to the Republicans, particularly to Richard Nixon.  Hammer even went to jail for illicit donations he made to the Nixon presidential campaign.  The western goods and services he provided to the Soviet Union were of great importance to help keep the
Soviet Union going.  He did a great service to Soviet communism while lining his pockets and living in opulence.

        Lenin preached to leftists to use capitalism’s proficiency to acquire and accumulate wealth, and, in the process, use it to destroy capitalism itself.  The mechanism is similar to what a virus does when taking over a healthy cell to reproduce itself many million times and in the process leach its host to total extinction.          That technique has been embraced by those sectors of the left who clearly understand that revolution by peasants and laborers in developed economies is not possible, as it perfectly is in feudalistic ones. Hence some in the left in the West, and particularly here in the
United States, morph themselves, like perfect chameleons, into apparent capitalists.  They know that words talk, but money works, and money they accumulate by tons.  They know that in a capitalist society what weighs the most is the accumulation of wealth, and that’s logically and precisely what they do to finance the advancement of their cause.  In the process they live la vie en rose.

        The leftist sector that has been in control of the Democrat Party since the mid 1960s won’t be happy until it socializes
America.  The rest of the world would then follow like lemmings jumping down the precipice.  (Well, that’s not exactly true; most of Europe is already well advanced on that route, plus most of the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of the
United States and less that a fistful of Latin American countries.)

        American leftists dream of a socialist
America, with them in the nomenklatura at the top, and the rest of us as an ant colony of androids and zombies, obeying their dictates.  They won’t relent until they see Americans queuing in long lines, with their ration coupons in their hands to get the most basic staples, or waiting for months to get a medical appointment even with the greenest physician.  They dream of all of us sharing the misery–but with them, the nomenklatura, exempted, of course.

        But the most lethal danger that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general pose to America and the free world, is that in the process of attempting to socialize America they inevitably must debilitate her to mass hopelessness and malaise.  Then they, the leftists, can come out like knights in shining armors to save America from its predicament, with the left’s destructive socialist policies. 

        And in the process of debilitating
America, leftists make her more vulnerable, than what as an open society she inherently is, to an apocalyptically deadly enemy: Islamo-Fascism.

        That’s how Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general are in effect in a symbiotic alliance with Islamo-Fascism.  The left knows that Islamo-Fascism seeks to debilitate America, and more; Islamo-Fascism knows that the left seeks to debilitate
America, and more.  Neither of the two likes what they correctly see in
America: the world’s utmost inextinguishable beacon of freedom, perpetual fountain of effective democracy, inexpugnable bastion of individual rights, and the inexhaustible mother lode of free entrepreneurship.

        What else could explain Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura and the left in general adopting attitudes, promoting policies and playing politics that in effect help Islamo-Fascists? 

        Pelosi and other millionaire leftists in the Democrat Party nomenklatura are not just the infatuated-with-power spoiled brats that David Brooks wishes they were; they are a real threat to America, and the only hope is that Democrats who at least care for America’s national security, such as Joseph Lieberman (despite that he is an abortionist, homosexualist, and big-brotherist), one day rescue the Party of Thomas Jefferson from the claws of Karl Marx. 

        And, finally, even if Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party nomenklatura were just populists, see what populists do to nations. 

        See what Juan Domingo and Eva “Evita” Perón made out of
Argentina, in the first third of last century. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, but now it is a complete basket case.  See what the arch-corrupt PRI (Partido Revolutionario Institucional or Institutional Revolutionary Party) has made out of Mexico, a country of vast natural resources, but another basket case in
Latin America.  See what Hugo Chávez is making out of immensely petrodollar and minerals rich
Venezuela.  It’s not attractive.



Then see how stagnant and stale socialists have made
Western Europe. 
There’s n

othing attractive there either! 

        No, this is not a squabble between vineyard-tycoons and cattle-ranch barons, as naively, or maybe wishfully thinking, Brooks attempts to portray it.  It is a titanic battle for
America between leftism and capitalism.  Plain and simple!

Higher Education and the Democrats

Higher Education and the Democrats
By Don Irvine | December 8, 2006

If anyone ever doubted that academia is full of leftists or Democrats the latest report from the Center for Responsive Politics covering the 2005-2006 election cycle should put all arguments on the matter to rest.

In their just released study based on FEC data, the Center reports that the education industry gave over $12 million dollars to candidates with 69% of that amount going to Democrats and just 22% to Republicans. Yet that is only the average. At the University of California for instance employees gave $406,290 to rank number one on the list with 87% of the donations going to Democrats. They were followed by Harvard University where 90% of the $314,917 contributed when to Democrats.

Other schools in the top ten in terms of total donations were the University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University with donations to Democrats at 94%, 88% and 88% respectively. Out of the top twenty schools in the report my own alma mater the University of Maryland finished seventeenth in dollar terms but placed first with the highest percentage of donations to Democrats at 97% which even beat out the University of Wisconsin which is known for its liberalism with a mere 95% support of Democratic candidates.

While this may look bad, at least there was some money going to Republicans, except at the venerable College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, a red state where there were no donations to the GOP. Zip, nada, nothing.

Even though the report is largely focused on higher education it did list the New York City Board of Education at number thirteen with 91% of their donations going to the Democrats. Probably not a big surprise, but yet another example of the problems plaguing public education.

Overall while there were some schools giving the majority of their money to the GOP, like the University of Arizona and the State University of New York, by and large the report only confirms just how out of step academia is with the general population.

Future students, Beware!

The Pelosi and Conyers Team: Helping Terrorists and Illegal Aliens

The Pelosi and Conyers Team: Helping Terrorists and Illegal Aliens

Jim Kouri, CPP


It didn’t take long before the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers started making noises on how they can further undermine efforts to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

Speaker-elect Pelosi (D-CA) is co-sponsoring the “End Racial Profiling Act”, according to syndicated columnist Sher Zieve. The proposed bill is said to have been prompted by the recent removal of six Muslim imams, who are reported to have acted in a decidedly provocative manner, from a US Airways’ flight. The problem with using this act to curb so-called profiling is that the persons who demanded the removal of the suspicious Muslims do not work for the US government.

Pelosi and Conyers are calling for the end of all racial profiling, additional severe limits placed on the Patriot Act and the implementation of broad-based US citizenship for illegal aliens.

Pelosi said, “Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct. Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal.”

However, she didn’t appear to care that millions of American travelers are routinely being inconvenienced by long lines, intrusive questioning and subjection to searches. In the world of Pelosi, in order prevent terrorists from commandeering a plane, airport security should allow Muslims to board unencumbered while grannies from Wisconsin are strip-searched and manhandled.

The other co-sponsor of the bill is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who is also reportedly preparing documents that would to lead to Articles of Impeachment against President Bush He is an interesting man.

Conyers’ congressional office manages an Arabic version of his official website. Reportedly he does the bidding of these inner-city constituents and the militant Islamist activists who feed off them.

They want to squash the Patriot Act and put a leash on the FBI agents, including stopping them from profiling Muslim suspects in terror investigations. They also want to end the use of undisclosed evidence against suspected Arab terrorists in deportation proceedings even if they are in the country illegally. And the 77-year-old Conyers has vowed to deliver those changes for them.

In January 2003 he was the only member of Congress to speak before, and lend his prestige to, an anti-war rally organized by the Marxist-Leninist, pro-North Korean front group International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Rep. Rangel also addressed the rally but not in person – via a letter read by another speaker.) Conyers embraced his comrades in this group with the same enthusiasm and support he gave during the Cold War to the Soviet-backed World Peace Council.

In a New York Times opinion piece he co-authored with Marcus Raskin, co-founder of the extreme left-wing think-tank the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Conyers asserted that “government’s responsibility is to revitalize the nation’s economy through creative forms of public ownership” – in other words, through socialism.

As I reported earlier on these pages, Rep Conyers is the highest ranking politico working to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. Conyers has been a National Executive Board member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), which was originally created as a Soviet front and still embraces its Communist heritage.
Conyers is one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC. And not surprisingly, he has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters, according to Investors Business Daily.

During the first Gulf War, for instance, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community in Detroit that were designed to gather intelligence on potential cells and protect the home front. Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats at the time, David Bonior and John Dingell, threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterrorism interviews.

The FBI met with them privately to explain the national security benefits of outreach, but could not allay their concerns. In the end, the FBI backed off. Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al-Qaeda-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.

Expect Conyers and Pelosi to kick open the doors of Congress to Islamists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other militant groups. They will have unfettered access, even though many of their leaders have been tied to terrorism (some CAIR officials have landed in the big house).

In 2003, Conyers hosted the first dinner on the Hill that celebrated the end of Ramadan for such Muslim leaders. It’s now a tradition. Incoming Democrat freshman Keith Ellison, a Louis Farrakhan disciple and first Muslim member of Congress, will no doubt expand the invitation list.

Syndicated columnist Debbie Schlussel reported that on June 13, during the Muslim American Society fundraising dinner for Islamic Relief, a charity with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Conyers and his wife were the guests of honor.

They watched and clapped as the Sanabel Al-Quds “dancing” troop from Milwaukee—featuring boys as young as seven—sang in Arabic of martyrdom and jihad for Allah and Palestine. They didn’t need to understand Arabic, as the young boys used a rifle to simulate killing and pistol-whipping, simulated throat-slittings and beheadings, and dishonored the American flag.

Another contributor to the Pelosi-Conyers Fifth Column is the mainstream news media who constantly told Americans prior to the November 7 elections that people such as Pelosi, Conyers and others are really moderating their positions. They are moderates compared to Mao Zedong.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance ( He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at

The Helpless Majority

The Helpless Majority
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann | November 29, 2006

For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that – now that it is upon us – it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.

There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.

In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush’s administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen’s filibuster applies.

The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.

In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority – 218 – to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.

Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army – disciplined, unified and determined – the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail — caucus by caucus.

First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus — hat in hand — to see if one’s bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one’s legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats — the out and out conservatives.

If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.

The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.

This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.

Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, “I didn’t even recognize myself.”

Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.

So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don’t worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel’s, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It’s not going to happen.

What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only – to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can’t pass legislation.

Click Here to support


Al-Qaida denounces Pope’s visit to Turkey, calling it part of a “crusader campaign” against Islam

Al-Qaida denounces Pope’s visit to Turkey, calling it part of a “crusader campaign” against Islam

The disjunction between the idea that he is waging a “Crusader campaign” and what he is actually doing is of Grand Canyon proportions, but when has a disconnect from reality stopped them before? “Al-Qaida denounces pope visit to Turkey,” by Maamoun Youssef for Associated Press, with thanks to CGiddens, Jr.:

CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaida in Iraq on Wednesday denounced Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Turkey, calling it part of a “crusader campaign” against Islam.In Istanbul, Vatican officials said the remark shows the need for faiths to fight “violence in the name of God.”

The trip is Benedict’s first visit to an Islamic country as pontiff, seeking dialogue with Muslims who were angered over a speech he made in September in which he cited a medieval text that linked Islam and violence.

Al-Qaida in Iraq issued its statement on an Islamic militant Web site it often uses to post messages.

“The pope’s visit, in fact, is to consolidate the crusader campaign against the lands of Islam after the failure of the crusader leaders … and an attempt to extinguish the burning ember of Islam inside our Turkish brothers,” it said.

A Defeatist Strategy

A Defeatist Strategy

By Bob Weir

The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they’re for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize “the way the war is being handled” as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.
While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a “failed policy.” The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.
First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.
Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We’ve often heard about President Clinton’s lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack. 
This obnoxious tactic of constantly carping about an issue, causing it to become unworkable, and then saying it doesn’t  work, is also on display in the capital punishment debate. Ideologues will tell us the death penalty doesn’t work, while doing everything in their power to see to it that it fails. Murderers sit on Death Row for an average of 14 years because of a liberal justice system that allows them appeal after appeal. Most die of old age before they ever pay for their crimes. If convicted murderers were taken directly from the courtroom to the gas chamber, it would suddenly become a better deterrent for the next person with homicide on the mind. But, as in the war debate, abolutists will throw every obstacle in the path of the death penalty debate, cause it to appear ineffective and then say it doesn’t work.
Thanks to these bleeding hearts, those who have been victimized by criminals become victims again when they sit through trial and appeal after appeal, with no hope of receiving justice for the pain inflicted upon them and their families. Then, in the rare occasion, when a cold-blooded killer is finally about to pay with his/her life, the handwringers are sure to be standing outside the prison decrying the “savagery of state-sponsored execution.” I suppose, in their minds, execution is okay if it’s not performed by the state, but by the psychopaths prowling around in search of innocent victims.
With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It’s often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long? America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone’s guess.
Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the excutive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. Email Bob.

Page Printed from: at November 29, 2006 – 02:10:24 PM EST