It is not the Party’s Fault; It’s the “Isms”

This is in response to a Letter to the Editor blaming Republicans for all America’s economic woes throughout our history:

I could not help but response to David B. Munsey revisionist history of the role Republicans played in the economy. But in order to fairly represent the true nature of the discussion, the dialogue should really focus on the difference between the “ism” that controlled the debate at the time of the economic up or down. Was it progressivism or conservatism that was the overall guiding principles? By worrying less about the party affiliation, and focusing more on the reining “ism,” you start see an obvious trend.

First, Mr. Munsey ignores the Great Depression of 1920. That’s right 1920, not 1931. The WORSE economic crash to occur in modern record keeping was the crash under progressive Woodrow Wilson (D). Wilson applied a high tax rate (upwards of 70%) and massive deficit spending (spending outpaced tax revenues X 3). The fastest recovery out of a major economic downturn occurred under the great “forgotten” President, conservative Calvin Coolidge (R). President Coolidge reduced the tax rate to 25% and cut spending by a whopping 50%! It is the combination of a fair tax percentage and STRICT spending controls that resulted in higher tax revenues and unprecedented employment (98.1 % employment). Under Coolidge’s conservative leadership we saw the largest increase of the middle class in history.

The next economic downturn, 1929, which contrary to misconception, was not the start of the “Great Depression.” However, the downturn of 1929 was the result of the progressive policies of President Herbert Hoover (the “forgotten progressive”) (R). Hoover ignored the lessons of the Wilson administration and abandoned the conservative principals established by Coolidge. Hoover initially maintained the lower tax rate, but increased spending to record deficit levels (much like we saw under Bush 43). Also under Hoover, we started to see the heavy hand of government being applied to business. Lo and behold, the economic collapsed, eventually leading to the depression of 1929.

I noticed that Mr. Munsey ignored the next two great dips in our economy, 1931 (the Great Depression) and 1938, probable for good reason; they would not play very well into his argument of Democrat (good) versus Republican (bad). The Great Depression was the direct result of heavy taxation, deficit spending, confusing government control, and lastly, Hoover and the Congress trying to “spend” their way into prosperity (sound familiar?). Policies that would be continued under FDR.

1938, America saw another major economic downturn with high unemployment (19% ), out of control spending , a punishing tax code (67%), the heavy hand of government entanglements within the market, and continued attempts by the US government to spend their way into prosperity. In fact FDR’s attempt to “control” the economic resulted in the comment made by FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, "We've tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work."

I could go on, but why bother. When our government is guided by progressive policies, economic downturn will follow. Whenever the government is guided by conservative principals, true economic prosperity follows. Mr. Munsey is simply reciting from the playbook of the “new progressives,” which currently exist in both major Parties.

40% of all Americans identify themselves as Conservatives, and for good reason. They understand that both deficit spending and a punishing tax code are immoral. They also understand that government should function the same way a responsible household does; with a balance check book and by not stealing from your neighbors to make up for a lack of fiscal responsibility. It is progressive policies that have failed us, and both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty.

Battle of the Bulge: Pregnant Soldiers in Combat

Recently much has been made about female soldiers becoming pregnant while serving in a combat zone. Maj. General Anthony Cucolo III, determined to maintain combat readiness, has made clear that there would be repercussions (for both male and female soldiers) should they chose to engage in behavior that removes them from their duty:

"Anyone who leaves this fight early because they made a personal choice that changed their medical status or contributed to making someone no longer deployable is not in keeping with a key element of the Army's warrior ethos – 'I will always place the mission first,'" Cucolo said. "I believe there should be professional consequences for making a choice like that."

US general in Iraq defends tough pregnancy rules

It is important to note that the soldiers are not being punished for being pregnant; they are being reprimanded for violating their oath, and committing to actions that made the solider unable to perform their assigned duties. I understand, primal urges are hard desires to resist; but that is what we ask of our soldiers every day, to be at the optimum of their mental and physical best.

There is nothing new with the military, and by extension combat commanders, taking steps to ensure full combat effectiveness. Pregnancy is just another in a long list of physical and/or mental changes that are known to deter fighting readiness, and can result in punitive actions against the solider:

Being overweigh, excessive drug or alcohol use, self-injury, reckless behavior, even getting a sunburn (if it affects the soldier’s ability to perform their duties to their fullest) can result in an official warning.

Unfortunately, the debate has taken a wrong turn. Pro-abortion groups, liberal feminist organizations (such as NOW, which called the policy "ridiculous.” “How dare any government say we're going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant," NOW President Terry O'Neill said. "This is not the 1800s."), anti-war groups want to somehow make this an issue about choice in favor of pregnancy (a hard sell considering their fanatically support for abortion at all cost). Each of these groups has ulterior motives, none of which have anything to do with the combat readiness of the US Military.

But the most operant intervention is when politicians decide to intervene for self-seeking motives, and not in the best interest of the combat status of a unit serving in a hot zone. Four US Senators, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-California), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) prematurely sent a letter in opposition to General Cucolo’s orders:

"We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child," the senators wrote to General Cucolo. "This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy."

The heavy tone of the letter is not only indicative of the Senator’s misunderstanding of the true role of the US Military, but the factual crisis General Cucolo was trying to address…….the selfish actions of a few soldiers under his command that were jeopardizing not only the mission, but the lives of fellow soldiers. It is the actions of these soldiers, some more than likely getting pregnant to avoid a long deployment, which “defies comprehension.”

Additional links:

Senators Demand General Rescind Order on Pregnant Soldiers

Knocked up and deployed: A Combat Commanders Point of View

UK Military Concerned About Pregnant Female Soldiers

Chavez Believes That “Venezuelan Socialism” Has Reached the U.S.

In Hugo Chavez’s own mind, he believes that oil is not the leading Venezuelan export to America. It’s the ever popular Venezuelan version of Socialism:

Hugo Chavez Says Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun to Reach U.S. under Obama

Is President Chavez's starting to believe his own propaganda, or is there any truth in his statement?

Congressional Legislators Received Briefings Regarding Interrogation Techniques

In a Sgt. Schultz moment (“I see nothing, I hear nothing!”), we learn that Democratic members of Congress received over 30 known briefings from our intelligence agencies regarding the interrogation techniques they are now condemning:

Top legislators knew of interrogations

“Between 2002 and 2006, the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees "each got complete, benchmark briefings on the program," said one of the intelligence sources who is familiar with the briefings.”

Do the Democrats really want to go forward with “show” hearing, which will not only harm America, but exposed the Democrats for the bankrupt party that they are.

No One Expects The Obama Inquisition!

President Obama appears to be truly bipolar. The “citizen of the world” Obama is playing kissy face with the world worst tyrants, allowing them to walk all over us, while the “conscience of America” Obama is releasing CIA memo’s and skipping to the beat of those on the Left.

President Obama, along with some in Congress, is doing the bidding of the lunatic fringe on the Left that own them. We are about to let our country attack, malign, and ruin the reputation of those that helped to keep this country safe after 9-11. President Obama’s actions are not only making us weaker, but doing a disservice to those that served their country.

Obama and the CIA
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture

Dennis Prager vs. Perez Hilton: Newsflash - Hilton Is An Idiot

The Conscience Clause: Doctors Will Not Have A “Choice!”

“If I am faced with the choice between losing my job or being forced to perform an abortion, I will leave the practice of medicine. And I have to wonder, if we are chased out of medicine, who will step into the gap? - Dr. Sandy Christiansen”

Let’s say you’re a very satisfied patient of Dr. Christiansen, and you have a relationship you want to maintain. Let also state that you are pro-abortion, but abortion was never part of your treatment plan with Dr. Christiansen.

You meet with Dr. Christiansen for your annual examine and at the conclusion of your appointment, you are informed that Dr. Christiansen has decided to leave the medical profession. Dr. Christiansen informs you that the reason for her departure is due to the repeal of conscience clause:

CBN Report: Where's The Choice

Now let us pretend you are the parent of a child applying to medical school, and the following happens:

"We're having report after report of medical students not being able to get into school," he explained. "Because they're asked the question: 'What if you had a 14-year-old come in and was pregnant, how would you handle that?' in their admission interview and if you don't offer abortion as an option, you don't get in." - Dr. David Stevens, head of the Christian Medical Association

I am confused, where does "choice" fit into all of this, and is it fair for the goverment to force medical professionals to perform a procedure they are oppose to?

Harry Knox: Intolerant Hetrophobe and Christian Basher To Join The Obama Administration

Taking a queue from some gay rights extremist , I thought the headline fit the warp sense of piety on displayed by Mr. Knox. I do not know what is more insulting, President Obama appointing a divisive individual such as Knox to the Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; or that the very entity that once was so despised by those on the Left (when it was created by President Bush), somehow is deemed noble with the appointment of Knox. It must be calming to live in such a fantasy world.

"The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives.”

On Mar. 19, Knox told the San Francisco-based gay newspaper The Bay Area Reporter, “The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case [Proposition 8], they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.”

The reality is that President Obama just doesn’t care. He has no problem slapping the face of those of faith with this appointment. If President Obama did care, he would have made a more moderate selection, but instead he chose one of the most militant, gay activists he could found. Not sure how that fits in with “working with both sides?” Just keep saying to yourself, Change and Hope…..just words.

This is just another disastrous appointment on the part of President Obama. For any of you that were still clinging to any illusions that President Obama was going to be a uniter, and not a divider , you may now join the crowd still clinging to their “guns and Bibles,” because you have just been Obama’d.

Forget the fact that a very liberal professor, who has spent years studying AIDS in Africa, agreed with the Pope:

Harvard Professor: Pope Is Right

No that does not matter to Knox and other serving their own self interest….not at all. Or that Congressman Pence has called on President Obama to withdraw the Knox nomination:

Pence Calls on Obama to Withdraw Pope-Basher’s Appointment to Faith-Based Program

Or that 54% of self-described Catholics voted for Obama. None of these things matters. But if none of these matter, what does?

University Of Maryland and Porn: Terrapin’s In Raincoats

What message are we sending, or allow to be expressed, when some students at a State college see nothing wrong with showing a pornographic movie publicly.
The reason, because “they sent it to us…..”

Baltimore Sun: It Was Free, Why Waste It

This is the same college that protested and signed a petition when the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) came to their campus. Free speech on their terms.

Representative Luis Gutierrez: Blame The Victim, Not The Criminal

Forget the fact that time and time again members of Congress have directed divisive language against conservative groups. Forget that more witnesses than I can count have appeared (with the full support from Left leaning legislators) and made wild accusations. Yes, for this one brief moment let’s forget the double-standard the Left lives by.

The father, Ray Tranchant, whose daughter was killed in a “traffic accident” because of a drunk illegal alien, appeared before a congressional committee to tell his story. After his testimony, Mr. Tranchant was lectured by Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois):

Congressman Reprimands Father of Teen Killed by Drunk-Driving Illegal Alien for Calling Criminal Aliens 'Banditos'

Just a word of advice to Representative Gutierrez, stay focused, show some empathy, and keep the priorities straight next time….if that is even possible.

Liberals Lie: I’m Shocked!

For those that have read my blog in the past, and for those that are new to it, you know that I have very little tolerance for the dishonesty displayed by many on the Left. There are two things that I have learned when dealing with Liberal lies:

1. It is important for conservatives to not only known the historical truth, but to know the truth as liberals see it. Many liberals believe what they believe because they are just repeating fallacies that have been offered to them. Nothing shuts a liberal up faster than the FACTS. Facts are to liberals as garlic is to vampires.

2. Never, ever let a liberal get away with a false statement. I do not care where you are, and who it is, letting Liberals get away with a false statement is like letting your puppy poop on the rug. If you don’t correct them, they will continue to defecate all over the place! Now I am not saying that you have to get into a heated exchange. It could be as simply as saying “that’s not true,” and point the misguided individual to the truth. Or better yet, challenge the person to “explain” their statement, example:

SLS (Stupid Liberal Statement): “If we had more regulations, we wouldn’t be in this financial mess! This is all President Bush’s fault.”

ICR (Intelligent Conservative Reply): “Really, what are the regulations now, and what regulations would you proposed that would have stopped this?” Were you aware that President Bush and now ex-Senator Sununu recommended changes that would have prevented much of what we are dealing with now? Have you ever heard of defeated Senate Bill S.190? No, maybe you should do your homework before you hurt yourself. Push for details.

You know you have won when the Liberal says one of the following: “bigot, fascist (or Nazi), neocon (which most Liberals are unable to provide a proper definition for), Bush lover (or fill in the conservative of choice),” or my all time favorite – “I really don’t want to get in an argument (liberal translation: I have no idea what I am talking about).”

Democrats count on the fact that liberals, like parrots, will just repeat what they are told. Liberals also believe that if enough people repeat the lie, then eventually it BECOMES the truth….AMAZING! Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying all liberals lie; some actual believe what they are saying. I am also not saying liberals are stupid, but as Ronald Reagan once said (about liberals) – “They know so much that just isn’t so.”

The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives

What If Liberals Ran The World

Obama’s War On The Rich: Disney Class Envy

There are too many people in this country who have taken to vilifying the rich. The chief pitch-fork shaker being our very own President:

The Scrooge McDuck Myth

The myth starts when people arbitrarily determine who they perceive to be rich, and then start to crave what their neighbors have earned. Is that what America is closer to becoming?

The Pope And An “Ardent, Practicing Catholic Walk Into A Room…

House Speaker Pelosi and her husband had an audience with the Pope on February 18, 2009, which was followed by a “private” meeting between the Pope and Pelosi:

Pelosi and the Pope: Not A Sitcom on NBC

Oh, to be a fly on the wall during the private meeting. Based on the vastly different statements made by the Vatican and Pelosi, I have only one observation. The Pope explained the Catholic Church’s position regarding the sanctity of life, and Nancy Pelosi complimented the Pope on his hat.

Rules for Radicals: Why read the book, when you can watch the mini-series?

For those of us who know our socialist history, we are well acquainted with the “philosophies” of Sal Alinsky. But for those of you who are not as familiar with Mr. Alinsky, or think he was just another vaudevillian comedian, you will find Phyllis Schlafly’s recent article enlightening:

Phyllis Schlafly: Community Organizing Explained

Sal Alinsky was unapologetic in his methods; methods that were fueled by promoting class envy, promoting unity amongst one group of people (“the have nots”) to be used against another group of people (“the haves”). We see Sal Alinsky’s methods being successfully employed by people such as Al Sharpen and Jesse Jackson, and by groups such as ACORN. But Sal Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” has also become the field manual for the Democratic Party. Two of Sal Alinsky’s most famous disciples, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, are the living embodiment of Alinsky’s “model” agitators.

There is nothing “radical” about Alinsky’s ideas; they are nothing more than the continuation of the “beliefs "of Lenin, Marx, Hitler, and Mussolini to name just “a few.” One only needs to see the results of each of these individuals’ actions to fully “appreciate” the damage that “community organizing” can cause in the hands of radicals.

Democrats Plan On Passing Ledbetter Act

In move that will open a floodgate of lawsuits, most of them frivolous, the Democratic leadership plans on reintroducing the Fair Pay Restoration Act (Fair Pay Restoration - The Myth of Equal Pay), also known as the Ledbetter Act:

CNS News: Democrats Resurrect Ledbetter Bill

The Democrats are willing to bring the business community to a gridding halt for the fairy tale of a false injustice. Jobs will be lost and businesses will close because of this act.

Republican Cao Defeats The Corrupt Jefferson

In the wake of a Conservative victory in Georgia, Republican's continued their winning streak with the defeat of Democratic incumbent William Jefferson by newcomer Anh "Joseph" Cao for Congress:

Yahoo News: Cao Defeats Jefferson

Some in the press have described Cao as a moderate, even though Mr. Cao’s only real platform position is his strong opposition to abortion. And that makes him a moderate how?

The fact that Jefferson’s defeat was deemed a “surprise” by some in the media, as well as the Democratic Party, once again demonstrates how out of touch both are with Americans. I see Mr. Cao’s election as a statement by the voters that "the content of a persons character" does matter. However, leave to some in the press to “spin it” this Democratic defeat as something entirely different.

Adam Nossiter, of the NY Times, took a ridiculous position in an effort to try to explain Jefferson’s defeat:

NY Times: Angry White Voters Elect A Vietnam Immigrant?

Angry white voters, combined with disenfranchised Black voters, were the reasons for the demise of Jefferson? Forget the fact that Jefferson was ethically challenged at best, and Cao was seen as a well-respected community organizer, who promised to return integrity to the Congressional seat that Jefferson tarnished. Moreover, how did Congressman-elect Cao’s pro-life position play into his election?

This election was not an issue of race, either on the part of the voters or the candidates, and any inference (such as the one brought forth by the New York Times) is idiotic! This election was about character, and should be seen as an affirmation that the electorate would rather have an inexperience honest person representing them, than an experienced crook.

Congratulations to Congressman-elect Cao and his family.

Coming Soon To Your Neighborhood: The Liberal Shakedown

We have known for a long time that many Liberals have been trying to circumvent the Constitution by suing individuals and private companies into submission. Some on the Left are not satisfied with the erosion of the Constitution; they want to force the acceptance of their dogma into every part of society, thereby falsely believing that their way of live has been validated. Well, Liberals activist can add another notch to their perverted sense of piety:

Michelle Malkin: The eharmony Shakedown

Let us be clear, e-Harmony is a private company and has violated no laws, and the result of plaintiff Eric McKinley actions should frighten everyone. Just as Muslim jihadist strap bombs to themselves to commit acts of terrorism, the modern Liberal jihadist straps on a lawsuit and tares away at our society one court case at a time.

This lawsuit is just another example of what happens when appeasement is the course taken, even if it is counter to what we know is right. I do not know who I am angrier at, the selfish actions of McKinley, e-Harmony for abandoning their principals, or the NJ Attorney General for being a willing participant in this shakedown.

Liberals Are Sharpening The Blades Of Their Guillotines

Amazing how quickly the rally cries from the Left of “Change We Can Believe In,” have been replaced with “Let their heads roll!” Like the Left-leaning mobs of the French Revolution, the “Obamamanics” have gathered their pitchforks and are preparing to storm the “Capital.”

The hate and unjustified angry from the Left will never go away. The election of Barrack Obama has only served to embolden many Liberals in their belief that they can now act out their delusional agenda, and in the process put America through an unnecessary “act of redemption.“ Too many on the Left actually believe the lies they have been spewing about the current administration, they are prepared to tear this country apart for their own selfish motives.

In what is shaping up to be the 21st Century equivalent to the Salem Witch-hunt’s, the Left wants the head of President Bush on a platter, along with many of his senior advisors. Their hysterical dissent is being fueled by partisan legislators such as Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

I received two E-mails and read a local editorial, all with similar themes, that President George Bush’s departure is not enough, that false retribution is DEMANDED!

An E-mail being distributed by www.deomcrats.com and www.afterdowningstreet.com

Nadler Introduces Resolution Opposing Possible Bush Pardons of His Own Subordinates for Crimes He Authorized

Here's a resolution, hot off the presses from Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee: H.RES.1531, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days of his term of office," Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 11/20/2008). There is a petition promoting this resolution, through which you can write to your representative and senators at http://democrats.com/nadler-pardons

Senator Russ Feingold editorialized against these possible pardons at Salon.com yesterday; please urge him to introduce in the Senate the same resolution that Nadler has in the House.

Never before has a president pardoned himself or his subordinates for crimes he authorized. The idea that the pardon power constitutionally includes such pardons ignores a thousand year tradition in which no man can sit in judgment of himself, and the fact that James Madison and George Mason argued that the reason we needed the impeachment power was that a president might some day try to pardon someone for a crime that he himself was involved in. The problem is not preemptive pardons of people not yet tried and convicted. The problem is not blanket pardons of unnamed masses of people. Both of those types of pardons have been issued in the past and have their appropriate place. The problem is the complete elimination of any semblance of the rule of law by pardoning one's own subordinates for crimes you instructed them to commit.

Yes, of course, there's something absurd about knowing that a president authorized crimes, not impeaching him, not prosecuting him, not proposing any action with any teeth at all, but formally objecting to the idea of him issuing pardons of his own subordinates for crimes he authorized. But this is where we are. State, local, civil, foreign, and international prosecutions are likely ways of holding Bush, Cheney, and gang accountable, and pardons can't interfere with them. Pardons can't interfere with impeachment. But if we allow these pardons, we not only guarantee no federal prosecutions, and not only give Congress an excuse to drop its investigations, but we also establish the precedent that from here on out any president can violate any law and then pardon the crime. This is simply to end the idea of law. We cannot allow that.

We need to work with Congressman Nadler and Senator Feingold to promote awareness of what is wrong with self-pardons. In this way we can prepare the American public for the appropriate response when the pardons come. The appropriate response will be to demand:

1. Immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney, even if they are out of office.

2. Overturning of the pardons, as Bush's lawyers told him he could do to Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, which was a far more minor abuse of the pardon power.

3. Legislation banning self-pardons and pardons of crimes authorized by the president.

4. A Constitutional Amendment banning self-pardons and pardons of crimes authorized by the president.

5. Prosecution of Bush, Cheney, and their subordinates for their crimes.

From the Portsmouth Herald, Portsmouth, NH

Impeach Bush for harm he has done the nation
Nov. 19 — To the Editor:

We have lived with Bush for two terms and he has bankrupted our Treasury, killed and maimed our own soldiers, along with destroying Iraq and killing women and children. He has destroyed our image throughout the world, caused rifts between both parties, lied to the American people — that led us into war in both Iraq and Afghanistan — tortured and held prisoners at Gitmo against the Geneva Convention and our Constitution.

Outed a CIA agent and has led our country into a deep recession and God knows another Depression. All of this and more while he basked in luxury at the White House playing president and now wants to pardon all those involved or connected with torturing — including himself. If I walk across the street on a green light I can be arrested for jaywalking, and he can just walk away from all the harm he has done to everyone in the United States. I say, "no way — impeach him!"

Frederick Glynn York Harbor, Maine

Many on the Left, like Glynn, are nothing more than self-loafing sycophants who are determined to rip this country apart in their belief that their actions are serving to unify us. Sadly all that I can say to those on the Left who are committed to this course of action is “They Have Eyes, But They Cannot See.”

Obama and McCain: How The Media Ignored The Truth

What does integrity mean to you? Do you believe honesty is subjective, something that bends in many directions depending on a person's point of view? Or is honesty absolute, which becomes corrupted by ones own selfishness? Is the omission of facts the same as lying? Is ignoring accuracy to ensure your viewpoint triumphs nothing more than an act of deceit? The sad reality is that depending on the "content of your character," the answers may vary, and that is disturbing.

Journalist Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, is concerned for his colleagues in the Fourth Estate. He is troubled that they may be ignoring the many truths about John McCain, Barrack Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, and that the media may be willing accomplices in a fraud being perpetrated against the American people:

Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

What about the American people who choose to ignore what is happening before their very eyes? What role did they have in the death of the truth? And if what appears in print must always be looked upon as suspect, then can we finally admitted, that except for a few outlets, that objective journalism is dead?

To think that many on the Left feared censorship from their own government, only to now realize that the attack on truth would come from within. Who would have thought that the demise of journalistic integrity would be self-inflicted?