Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

(from Wordnet; ’scourge’: lay waste to: cause extensive destruction or ruin)

Neither major political party has done anything one can notice about ending politics as usual in Washington and the ever present plague of lobbyists. Some argue that lobbying is simply engaging the process and the public’s right to make their preferences known to politicians. But everyone knows lobbying is simply buying influence.

GOP still dominates drug lobby

By CHRIS FRATES | 3/12/09
With Democrats in charge of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, this really ought to be a no-brainer: Should GlaxoSmithKline put a Democrat or a Republican in charge of its Washington lobbying shop?

The in-house lobbying shops of at least eight of the nation’s largest drug companies are still run by Republicans, even as the industry’s major trade association, PhRMA, is desperately trying to cozy up to Democrats who now control both the Congress and the White House.

“They’re dealing with us the same way they dealt with us when we were in the minority, and we’re not,” said a Democratic House health staffer. “We literally don’t know where all the different companies stand on anything, so we just don’t care.”

Obama has set his sights on healthcare among other things. With another of his campaign promises tossed in the trash any optimism that politics as usual would end, including lobbying, has been reduced to a laughable footnote as expected for 21st century governing.

A Republican Congressman who is an outspoken critic of earmarks, Jeff Flake, (R-AZ) has a resolution in Congress related to lobbying. Here is an excerpt.

Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that `a top defense-lobbying firm’ that `specializes in obtaining earmarks in the defense budget for a long list of clients’ was `recently raided by the FBI.’;

Whereas the Associated Press reported on February 25, 2009 that the `FBI searched the lobbying firm … and the residence of its founder … .’;

Whereas The Hill reported on March 4, 2009, that the firm `has given $3.4 million to 284 Members of Congress’;

This resolution is to accomplish what exactly? Obama said no lobbyists will work in his White House. Really? How many lobbyists now work in the Obama Administration? Last tally taken through reports from various outlets suggested the number was at least a dozen.

GOP targets Dems for ethics complaints

March 10, 2009
WASHINGTON, Mar 10, 2009 (UPI via COMTEX) — Congressional Republicans are filing ethics complaints against Democrats in an effort to put pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., analysts say.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has filed three resolutions calling for a House ethics committee investigation centering on the relationship between Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and PMA Group, a lobbying organization raided last year by federal authorities, the Washington publication Politico reported Tuesday. The House defeated one of the resolutions last week and is set to vote on the re-filed resolution later this week.

Liberals can raise the issue as is mentioned in the report above of the Tom Delay saga and conservatives can beat the drum over Murtha and PMA Group. But this is just another partisan mud slinging contest which serves no useful purpose. You either put an end to lobbying or you do not. It is that simple.

To dismiss the case against lobbying as merely a part of doing business is tantamount to admitting the purchase of public officials has Congressional approval. Which draws the logical conclusion that therefore the principles documented in the founding of our nation only receive lip service from those elected or appointed to act on the citizen’s behalf in governing the United States of America.

The dishonesty of lobbying or paying to play or buying executive, judicial or legislative outcomes cannot be overstated. Until this practice is eliminated the tainted legacy of Washington politics will continue to overshadow those ideals for which many have fought and died during the short history of this republic. Again, to merely dismiss this practice as the cost of doing business is a slap in the face to those whose legacy includes the ultimate sacrifice.

For public officials to have no shame in this regard serves as an indictment of who they are and the lack of character of those elected to serve in the public interest. It also adds to the suspicion other citizens of the world may have regarding our sincerity to do the right thing. If the current Administration and both major political parties are truly intereested in improving this nation’s image around the world this would be an excellent place to start.

But most of you know the odds of that ever happpening.

Here’s a tidbit related to the recent lobbying fiasco in the news.

The announcement comes as news broke on Monday that the FBI raided PMA’s offices in November.

Magliocchetti was a long-time aide for Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) on the House defense appropriations panel. PMA specializes in obtaining earmarks in the defense budget for a long list of clients.

Like other vermin in nature when exposed these fine examples simply start another company and business continues as usual buying outcomes from elected officials.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Hmmm: Obama technology official’s office raided by FBI; employee charged in bribery sting (Michelle Malkin)

In her own words and as of this writing still published on speaker.house.gov, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi documents, for all to see, her long standing and steadfast support for the Democratic party’s surrender agenda as well as other failed initiatives that provide nothing positive for the United States of America.

In addition to the failure of a 100 hour, day, month, lifetime, whatever legislative agenda her promise to drain the swamp and end the culure of corruption in Washington which she blamed entirely on the GOP has not been honored. The leading Democratic party Presidential candidate has since embraced lobbyists as real Americans and been shown to accept campaign contributions from numerous criminals with no intervention from Pelosi or her party. The swamp endures.

With a press release title like, ‘Pelosi: Bush and His Republican Allies Are Preventing Extra Funds from Reaching Our Troops’, Nancy Pelosi continues to adhere to her surrender strategy even after the Congressional approval rating has fallen to the lowest level in many years. There is no evidence to support her claim that the American people desire surrender. To attempt to shift the blame for not providing timely appropriations to the troops on President Bush is as shameless a tactic as her surrender strategy which this latest ploy supports.

Here is a review of the surrender strategy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends:

source: speaker.house.gov
11/21/2006
“The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said. “We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq.”

Apparently Nancy Pelosi only considers the like minded far left fringe as ‘the American people’. Anyone who supports the troops and their mission for victory in Iraq is not included by Pelosi since they oppose surrender.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/05/2006
“We predicated some of the conversation in a letter that Senator Reid, myself and others in the leadership sent to the President on October 20. At that time, we reiterated our concern that ‘stay the course’ was not a strategy, but a slogan. We urged the President to work with us in a bipartisan way and we presented four changes to current policy: first, redeployment and transition of our troops out of Iraq; second, disarm the militia; third, have an international conference to discuss with the countries in the region the stability and reconstruction of the region, especially Iraq; and fourth, to amend the constitution to relieve some of the civil strife and to spread some of the political advantages that the elections there promised.

The last two excerpts are from just after the 2006 midterm elections. From the beginning the Democrats as stated by Pelosi above have steadfastly supported surrender in Iraq. Their first of the four misguided policies above calls for ‘redeployment and transition out of Iraq which is plainly surrender. That is followed by a near impossible task after a suggested surrender, an appeasement and unnecessary meddling in Iraqi affairs after departure. But that is the way of the Democratic party, now and in the past.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/06/2006
“The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President’s Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.

“Months ago, House and Senate Democratic leaders suggested to the President that he implement one of the Study Group’s chief recommendations – to change the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and support, which would enable the redeployment of U.S. forces to begin. Now that the Study Group has endorsed this proposal, I hope that the President will recognize that he must take our policy in Iraq in a new direction.

Pelosi touts the Iraq Study Group as well as the recommendations of the 911 Commission Report. Funny how she makes no mention of Section 4.5 of the 911 Commission which details failures of the Democratic party against terrorism and Osama Bin Laden leading up to the attacks on the WTC in September 2001. That report details the failures of the Clinton Administration in stopping Osama Bin Laden and perhaps the 911 attack. The ABC airing of the ‘Path to 911′ was met with oppostiion from those associated with or involved in that failure. But the docudrama was derived from the 911 Commission Report and you can read it for yourself.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and friends have supported surrender in Iraq and still do. Even with the success of the troop surge that they have criticized for nearly a year they continue to be fully invested in surrender and appeasement of terrorists. Do they even know how silly they look?

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, Church and State, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

One headline reads ‘Democrats Split on Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants.’ Another one reads ‘Black Groups Split on Obama, Clinton.’ Then you have the revelation of Jack Murtha that the troop surge in Iraq is working. But Jack Murtha is split too. Jack Murtha is split with Jack Murtha. Or was his statement clarification more about Reid and Pelosi telling him what he thinks?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably still unable to reach a decision on driver’s licenses for illegals. Or perhaps she will use a different answer for each audience as with her other positions. The Christian Post calls her ‘gutsy’ for appearing before conservative evangelicals this week. What’s gutsy about offering a 20,000 count congregation $50 billion for their votes? Not to be outdone and to lessen the impact of Clinton’s quid pro quo with this group of evangelicals, President Bush called on Congress to increase spending on HIV/AIDS. Everyone is going crazy but then politics can do that to people.

The headline stating that black groups are split on Obama and Clinton was really unnecessary. While Clinton has the lion’s share of the national polling numbers for Democrats, Obama is a serious threat to the often described Dems default nominee. And the headline does not take into account that not all blacks are Democrats and not all women are planning to vote for Clinton or Obama.

Even last summer enough Democrats voted against amnesty to split the party. Enough Dems are split on issues to increase the effectiveness of the veto pen for President Bush. The long standing opinion that the Dems do not have focus and sufficient support for a coherent agenda is reflected in their inability to achieve their 100 hour agenda in the 110th Congress or to maintain an approval rating above basement level.

Now for the fighting part, a headline today mentions the Dems candidates fighting over universal health care when what they are really doing is fighting over different insurance plans. Hillary Rodham Clinton complained about an Obama ad she says implies coverage for everyone with a mandate. So Clinton admits her repackaged failure from the nineties is government control of health insurance. As stated here in a recent post on the topic, none of the plans really solve anything about health care. They may do something for providing health insurance for the presently uninsured but that is about it.

The fighting before this week’s health care spat of course involved HRC’s contention that Obama is naive and irresponsible on at least foreign policy and affairs. The folly with these arguments is that Clinton claims the foreign policy experience by virtue of sharing ‘the residence’ with husband Bill during his administration while Obama claims life experience living in Indonesia and having a foreign born parent. Can you say ludicrous?

By far the most amusing headline is about the fear factor. ‘Dems fear Hillary Clinton’s certainty of winning is a big blunder’ is a headline the contradicts the commentary of those who preach the no need for an election theory for they claim they are convinced Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next President. Are they trying to convince the rest of us to believe that or are they merely trying to convince themselves?

While those opposed to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her pursuits in the 2008 campaign often point to the Clinton history as the reason for their opposition, others who refer to those opposing HRC as Hillary haters is a bit over the top. At least from the view on this blog, Hillary and Bill’s records which won’t be again reviewed in this post, provide ample reason for this opposition. To suggest the opposition is based on hate is absurd. But if you want to suggest those opposed to Hillary Rodham Clinton hate the combined records of the two Clintons you will find no argument here.

sources:
Democrats split on licenses for illegal immigrants USA Today
Abundance of Warmth At Democratic Forum Washington Post
Democrats in Iowa Battle Ice, Each Other The Associated Press
Jeers for Hillary, cheers for Obama
Black groups split on Obama, Clinton Houston Chronicle,
On Clinton and Obama: Even Jacksons divided Baltimore Sun
Ala. Black Group Endorses Obama Washington Post
Moving beyond the bind of race
Democrats fight over universal health care Newsday, NY -
Clinton blasts Obama health care television ad Newsday
Obama v. Clinton on “Universality”The health-care primary, part 6. Slate
Clinton Mad At Obama Campaign Ad
Clinton’s ‘Gutsy’ Church Appearance Softens Evangelicals Christian Post -
Clinton vows to fight AIDS Los Angeles Times
Clinton Builds On HIV/AIDS Plan With Global Development Agenda Media For Freedom
Clinton, Democrats find religion, court evangelical voters
Dems fear Hillary Clinton’s certainty of winning is a big blunder
Murtha Clarifies Iraq Statement

What has Barack Obama done? He knows that, based on race, color or creed, not to mention a host of other demographic details, the race card is always available for counter-attack on anyone who expresses objections on an issue or proposes solutions that annoy the left. That’s right. If you have no substantive argument and therefore can only offer race card rebuttals, you are free to say whatever you want. Even if what you say is as racist as those you accuse of being that way.

On a radio program this morning, a talk show host and his guest were discussing this story. The question came up on why Obama is using this particular stand and why now? The guest answered that the left’s 43 year exploitation of civil rights issues as a manufactured wedge against the right is their standard approach. Use this emotional theme to gain support from those who feel ‘disenfranchised’. The left fringe including Hollywood celebrities and other guilt-laden rich employ public relations strategies of appearing concerned about the less fortunate to improve their status. Other less wealthy left-leaning ideologues find these false causes appealing to enhance their standing among certain groups.

The theory here would be that Obama realizes that his fears of losing a Presidential run were based on his lack of experience, any relevant history and only a weak campaign strategy of relying on his public speaking skills. He continues to worry about setting himself apart from other candidates without a convincing strategy or anything more than he has already presented. Obama knows he needs something more and he just doesn’t have it. This is real simple politics. So what do you do? Raise a fabricated issue and try to make it hot button. It must also be something only you can use. What better choice than the race card. Speak of Katrina, Rodney King and race riots.

The masks are coming off the Democratic candidates. Edwards is all about betting on trashing the troops as a winning strategy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is all about socialism and the impossible task of reinventing your deplorable personal history. And now Obama stoops low enough to use the race card as his central theme. The GOP may have their own demons to exorcise. But at least that possibility still exists. As a matter of fact, most voters can get a real sense of practical solutions and good old-fashioned American leadership in candidates like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The lack of realistic criticism for these candidates causes opponents to reach for imaginary problems as their weapons. Those attacks are easily dispatched.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama fears frustrations will lead blacks to violence

Associated Press
Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2007
HAMPTON, Va. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a “quiet riot” among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.

Never ceases to amaze. As if Stephanopoulos wasn’t the poster boy in a suit for the liberal fringe, they pair him up with Murtha to ask the leftie fringe question blaming the Iraq war for ‘homegrown terrorism.’ Some reports have all but one of the four involved in the JFK airport bomb plot as being from Guyana and Trinidad. And the one from the US was not born here. Of course, presently, with all the media frenzy about who to blame for the bomb plot besides the four, it is time consuming finding fact.

One fact is the left side of the discussion would be the first to stomp on the intel community for 9/11 and the Iraq war, but any time a plot is thwarted, they must find another of their targets to be the fall guy. How about someone got it right this time? How about it may not be luck that we have not been attacked again since 9/11 and numerous similar events were avoided by someone doing their job?

Nice going Stephanopoulos and Murtha. You just can’t find enough people to blame for anything you view as a problem. Why don’t you try complaining about the UN? Or maybe you could focus on the ACLU? And why don’t you ever get worked up about the Clinton clan and all the misdeeds in their lives? Hey, George, Jack, that was a rhetorical question. And get a life. That was a request.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Murtha: Iraq War incites homegrown terror groups

David Edwards and Josh Catone
Published: Sunday June 3, 2007

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), on ABC’s morning news show This Week, argued that the US presence in Iraq is being used by al Qaeda as a recruitment tool.

When asked by host George Stephanopoulos if “homegrown terrorist plots,” like the one to attack JFK airport, were “being inspired by the US work in Iraq,” Murtha responded, “Absolutely.”

CAGW Names Rep. John Murtha Porker of the Month

WASHINGTON, May 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today named Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.) the
May Porker of the Month for throwing a temper tantrum and threatening his
colleagues over a challenge to a $23 million pet project in the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
Rep. Murtha became infuriated by Rep. Mike Rogers’ (R-Mich.) motion to
challenge his earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) in
Johnstown, Pa. According to The Politico, Rep. Murtha, who is not on the
Intelligence Committee but does chair the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, confronted Rep. Rogers on the floor of the House and
threatened to remove both any of his earmark requests in the defense
appropriations bill and any other earmark “now and forever.” Rep. Rogers
responded, “This is not the way we do things here — and is that supposed
to make me afraid of you?” To which Rep. Murtha arrogantly replied, “That’s
the way I do it!”
Rep. Murtha also assailed Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) for voting with
Rep. Rogers against the NDIC during the Intelligence Committee markup of
the bill. Rep. Murtha threatened a Boeing project in Rep. Tiahrt’s
district.
Rep. Rogers submitted a resolution charging that Rep. Murtha violated a
House rule which forbids members from blocking earmarks based on how a
colleague votes. The resolution seeks a formal reprimand from the House.
Rep. Rogers said, “This is exactly why Americans are disgusted with out of
control federal spending. In order to restore the faith of the American
people in Congress, we must do better. We can’t allow members to be
threatened and intimidated when they stand up for hard-working taxpayers’
money.”
The Hill reported that Rep. Murtha also skirted the rules by submitting
his required earmark certification late. The deadline was March 23, but
Rep. Murtha’s letter was only sent on May 1, the day before the bill mark
up.
The Murtha outburst exemplifies how earmarks corrupt the legislative
process. The NDIC, which is funded through the Drug Enforcement
Administration, was cited last year by the House Government Reform
Committee as “an expensive and duplicative use of scarce federal drug
enforcement resources.” CAGW’s 2007 Prime Cuts and the President’s budget
both recommended that the NDIC should be eliminated. But it will probably
be funded, not based on merit, but out of fear of Rep. Murtha’s power as an
appropriations cardinal.
Rep. Murtha sees Congress as a place where threats and power plays
control spending decisions. While pushing the pork-filled 2006 defense
appropriations bill through the House last year, Rep. Murtha unleashed his
money-hungry wrath upon his colleagues, “If you vote against this bill, you
won’t have any input at all the next time.” The congressman barrels through
legislation while inserting whatever he can to serve himself and his
district. Since 2005, Rep. Murtha has obtained a total of $26,877,250 in
pork.
Rep. Murtha claims that when submitting an earmark he asks, “Is this
worthwhile not only to your district but to the country?” However, it is
difficult to ascertain what the country gets out of pork projects such as
the $194,000 he secured for the construction of a new community center in
Green County, Pa. in 2005.
For filling important intelligence and defense bills with pork and
threatening anyone that challenges his authority and arrogance, CAGW names
Rep. John Murtha its May 2007 Porker of the Month.
Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given
to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown
a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Every now and then it is nice to see someone else draw the same conclusion. The item below does a nice job of presenting the problems caused by the Democratic party after their midterm launch to majority status. Certainly the GOP had failed us in many ways and appeared unable or unwilling to make corrections. With the Dems agenda stalled or failing and that same stubborness to continue as before, 2008 may bring a swift end to any hopes they had for a long run as the majority. The country suffers from these political failures while politicians can continue or become lobbyists and cause more problems.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

And then consider the do-nothing Democrats

By DONALD LAMBRO
Posted: May 26, 2007
Americans are giving the Democratic-run Congress failing grades after five months of bickering and stalemate that has stalled or killed their chief legislative priorities.
The Democrats’ latest report card came in a recent Gallup Poll that showed their job-approval ratings had sunk to 29%, several points below even President Bush’s low job-approval numbers, which Gallup said were “holding steady” at 33% since April.
Democratic strategists and independent pollsters say their party will pay a political price in next year’s elections if they cannot show the American people they can do the nation’s business. But as Democrats near the midway point in this first session of Congress, the prospects that anything on their must-pass list of domestic legislation will be enacted appear bleak.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Blue Collar Muse, Stageleft, Maggie’s Notebook, stikNstein… has no mercy, Big Dog’s Weblog, On the Horizon, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Based on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote against funding the troops through September 2007 and her press release linked below it is clear that she supports ‘veterans and military retirees’ but not active duty personnel. Is it not the Democratic party who claimed they would not deny the troops funding to pursue their political agenda against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? To collect votes from the fringe left Democratic base, Hillary Rodham Clinton has refused to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as all other active duty service members and tries to hide that fact by describing the easy choices for other related legislation.

To support the troops only when it serves a politial advantage dishonors the military and displays a total lack of courage by someone who does not possess the character to be Commander in Chief or assume the responsibility of the Office of President of the United States.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

5/25/2007

Clinton Campaign Announces Veterans and Military Retirees For Hillary

Sen. Inouye to Lead National Steering Committee

The Clinton campaign today announced the launch of Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary, a national initiative to highlight Clinton’s support of the men and women of our Armed Services. Medal of Honor winner and Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye will lead the national steering committee, which will advise the campaign on policy and outreach to the 26 million American veterans and their families.

An example of the quantity of stories that abound regarding Murtha, Murtha and the GOP, Murtha and, well, Murtha. There are many counter-intuitive schemes and strategies in politics. Murtha is no exception. McCain represents Arizona yet seems to be at odds with common sense on immigration. All of Congress and much of hte government seem global warming crazy yet there is still the big controversy that some contend is solved.

When it defies logic, runs counter to common sense or is a departure from recent trends, it’s politics. And politics always means money. The public’s willingness to confront politicians is as limited as politician’s schemes are limitless. Is this latest Murtha v GOP feud just another distraction from what matters or is there something to it beyond the petty bickering?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GOP Target Murtha Over Spending Exchange

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans will seek a House vote next week admonishing a senior Democrat who they say threatened a GOP member’s spending projects in a noisy exchange in the House chamber, Minority Leader John Boehner said Friday. Their target is Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., a 35-year House veteran who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on military spending….

House Intel Bill Larded With Pork and Global-Warming Mandates

Human Events, DC - May 17, 2007
Even drug enforcement officials have been quoted as saying the center is basically ‘a jobs program that Mr. Murtha wanted for his district.’” …

Who Were the Democrats Who Voted Against Preventing War with Iran?

Huffington Post, NY - May 17, 2007
Murtha?! What’s that about? It was Murtha who originally proposed putting a prohibition against an unauthorized attack on Iran in the supplemental. …

The Daily Muck

TPMmuckraker, NY - May 18, 2007
John Murtha (D-PA) is accused of threatening to cut off further spending projects from Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), who recently sought to expose a $23 million …

House GOP Fails to Kill Murtha Pet Project

U.S. News & World Report, DC - May 11, 2007
But Murtha, chair of a powerful appropriations subcommittee, resuscitated the center and planted it in his own district, creating a host of logistical …

The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?

Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.

To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.

The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.

Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.

As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq

Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.

Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal

Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.

It is refreshing to hear a local talk radio broadcaster comment on something we have been emphasizing here for some time. The fact that the claim of the Democratic majority’s leadership regarding their effectiveness is your basic load of fertilizer. And it does not matter whether you favor the GOP, the Dems, or like us, neither. The truth is available in the records of Congress. As of today, the number of the 100 hour agenda items that have been enacted into law, still remains at one. And that is only if you count the House Page Board scandal as part of their agenda. Or more correctly, if you count legislation that is intended to solve any future problems from that episode as part of the 100 hour agenda. Other than that, zip, butkis, or for the open borders crowd, nada is the amount of the 100 hour agenda that has made it into law. Which means that after 100 DAYS, nothing has changed. What are they doing with their slim majority?

The only recurring activity supported by the Democrats’ leadership is efforts to politicize everything in an attempt to oppose the President and any other members of the opposing party. No serious attempt to find common ground or do anything but pander to the anti-war, open borders, pro late-term abortion, anti-religion far left wing of their own party. All of this to focus on nothing but the 2008 elections and absolutely no concern for what happens to you or me in the next two years or longer. Any chance they had to convince the majority of Americans that they may have a better plan have all but evaporated with the antics of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and company. Thus far they have failed in their stated agenda and done nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy claiming that is what is best for the American people and what they want. That is not the case for this American. I want my country back. How about you?

In terms of their continuous babble like the press release below, a responsible end to the war is not cut and run.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate Democrats are Committed to a New Direction in Iraq

April 16, 2007 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined retired Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. and retired Brig. General John H. Johns on Monday to call for a new direction in Iraq. Senate Democrats are committed to providing our troops with the resources they need, including a strategy to change the course in Iraq and responsibly end the war.
» Watch the video. (if you can stomach it)

The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.

Israel is, of course, a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim or largely Muslim nations. The differences between Israel and the surrounding nations can be characterized as being on opposite ends of a spectrum. And most people would probably agree that Israel’s neighbors have in common a strong desire for Israel to go away. Many alliances in the region have been altered with the passing of time and the distinction between allies and enemies has been blurred from time to time. The only exception appears to be Israel and the United States.

Some examples of altered relationships may be useful to consider. Prior to the undoing of the Shah of Iran in the seventies, the United States had a workable relationship with Iran. After the hostage crisis of 1979 and since, that relationship has ceased. Likewise when the former Soviet Union was in a war with Afghanistan during the cold war, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan ‘rebels’ were supported the the U.S. The United States was at one time friendly with the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Obviously, things changed for Saddam. The cold war found the former Soviet Union and the United States typically on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to relationships in the Middle East.

These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.

Which brings us up to this year and the Wild West antics and politics of crazy times and trying to determine what’s next in the Middle East. The recent entrance of members of the United States Congress into matters of diplomacy has caused quite a stir and muddied the waters significantly. As if there wasn’t already enough confusion or actions offering contradictory evidence of positions, here are some more.

Just about the time we were reasonably convinced that the one constant in the Middle East was consensus among members of the Jewish community with the possible exception of Israeli politics, these headlines and stories appear.

Speaker Pelosi’s Statement in Damascus was Reckless, Irresponsible

Contact: Executive Director Matthew Brooks
Thursday, April 5, 2007, Washington, DC… The Republican Jewish Coalition issued this statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements following her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday:

“The Speaker’s statements were reckless and irresponsible,” said RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks. “Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and an ally of Iran. Speaker Pelosi’s statement, ‘We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,’ represents a softness and a weakness in foreign policy that hurts the United States and Israel.”

Actually, the article above from the RJC is what we would have expected as a response over Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. And since this blog claims to be non-partisan and independent with a tendency to lean to the right or conservative viewpoint, this being also a ‘Republican’ Jewish Coalition was no surprise. However, the following statement was what started our head scratching.

NJDC Defends Speaker Pelosi from GOP Smear

April 10, 2007 - 9pmWASHINGTON – Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) condemned the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) misguided television advertising campaign, which smears Speaker Pelosi’s recent Middle East trip. The RJC makes the ridiculous claim that Speaker Pelosi’s trip “weakened America’s security.”

“The notion that the Speaker’s trip to the Middle East had negative ramifications for American national security is laughable,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. “If RJC wants to do something productive for our national security, they should stand with the majority of Jewish Republicans, Independents and Democrats in opposing the administration’s failed Iraq policy.”

We may be guilty of a lax approach to staying informed about the Middle East. In our defense, the conflicts in the Middle East have appeared to us to be so simple and obvious as to their nature, the need for strict, formal and immense critical research seemed unnecessary. Our consensus was no one was really interested in solving the problems so they will not be solved without opposing ideologies making mutual concessions.

After tripping over the articles already presented here, we found the following:

Pelosi’s father and the Holocaust

RAFAEL MEDOFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stepped to the podium at a Knesset dinner during her visit earlier this month, she made history in more ways than one.
Not only was she the first woman Speaker of the House to address Israel’s lawmakers, Pelosi was also addressing the parliament of a country whose creation her own father championed, at the risk of his career - and perhaps her career, as well.

Speaker Pelosi’s father, the late US congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish State.

Is someone trying to say that Speaker Pelosi’s disregard for established protocol is a genetic flaw? We could accept that but it still does not provide an excuse for her behavior regardless of motive. Here are some more enlightening excerpts from other reports.

Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby
But House speaker insists U.S. commitment to security of Jewish state is unshakable
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

(03-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby’s most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.

With the first two articles presented, this one just muddies that water a little more. But the following excerpt gives some understandable insight of Nancy Pelosi simply being a political animal afflicted with typical ambitions for power and influence of a arrogant, wealthy, misguided, selfish politician and nothing more.

To adapt, she will have to understand that today’s opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. Few in Congress have such a memory for slights and betrayals. She still bristles at the fact that when she first went to Washington, many in the Democratic establishment didn’t take her seriously and opposed her march up the leadership. As she told Time earlier this year, “They couldn’t control me, so they tried to take me down.” When her former House colleague Martin Frost was running to head the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections, she lobbied against him with a determination that all sides attributed to Frost’s challenging her for Democratic leader two years before. Asked about those conflicts, Pelosi refused to discuss them specifically but said, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.”

That first whip race intensified her rivalry with Hoyer and also cemented her bond with Murtha, who managed her campaign. Not only did he get her the votes to win that job but his support also made it possible for other old bulls in the House to begin to imagine a woman rising to the top

But Pelosi has also found a way to make her gender a weapon in political combat

All that raised a lot of new questions about Pelosi herself—about her judgment, her political instincts and her real ideology. Was her endorsement of longtime ally John Murtha over Hoyer a testament to her loyalty or proof that she is incapable of letting go of old grudges? Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwar wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left? Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn’t really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? In other words, was Nancy Pelosi really up to the job?

If it is to be attributed to her father’s influence then maybe not all about him is flowery and innocent. The next reference is the bio presented at house.gov and is also used by Infoplease offering the dry facts. That is followed by a report of an insight into Nancy Pelosi’s father and his less displayed political philosophy.

D’ALESANDRO, Thomas, Jr., (father of Nancy Pelosi), a Representative from Maryland; born in Baltimore, Md., August 1, 1903; attended the parochial schools and Calvert Business College, Baltimore, Md.; engaged in the brokerage and insurance business in Baltimore, Md.; member of the State house of delegates in 1926-1933; general deputy collector of internal revenue in 1933 and 1934; member of the Baltimore City Council 1935-1938; delegate to each Democratic National Convention from 1944 to 1968; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1939, until his resignation on May 16, 1947; mayor of Baltimore, Md., from May 1947 to May 1959; defeated for renomination in the March primary election; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1958; appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board, 1961-1969; insurance and real estate broker; was a resident of Baltimore, Md. until his death there August 23, 1987.
Tommyrot in Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 18, 1957
Baltimore’s newspapers went on a rampage last week against a startling proposal by Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr.: special taxes on advertising revenue, their main source of income. No other U.S. city, however hard up, has tried to raise cash by threatening the economic wellsprings of the press.

This ends our sad belief that dirty politics claimed as anything else are still dirty politics and the likelihood of a solution for the conflict in the Middle East in our lifetimes is remote. If you would like to present arguments or alternative opinions, fact, anecdotes or whatever in the comments, knock yourself out. Thanks for reading.
Stanford Matthews
with assistance from C. Harris
and the staff at MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Does anyone have an opinion on this? We do. Even though talk of Chuck Hagel taking a run at 2008 had a extremely low probability of success, our office poll at least suggests that low probability has vanished. Based on the personal histories of John Murtha and Chuck Hagel this is rather disappointing, not supporting the troops’ mission. But at least Murtha is a Democrat. Obviously, Chuck Hagel is not, or at least not according to that ‘R’ next to his name.

Just a reminder for you Mr. Hagel, if the military leaves Iraq before the mission is complete, it’s a defeat. If you are involved in causing them to leave before the mission is complete, there is no way to call that a victory.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

GOP Sen. Hagel sides with Dems in war vote

AZ Central.com, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory Tuesday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war. …

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

How does H Con Res 63 affect real security, protecting America and
restoring our leadership in the world? It doesn’t. (Stanford Matthews)
Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in Voting Yes on H Con Res 63
The names link to their information on Project Vote Smart (more on this later)

Representative Michael N. Castle District At-Large - US-House (R-DE)
Representative Howard Coble District 6 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Thomas M. ‘Tom’ Davis District 11 - US-House (R-VA)
Representative John J. Duncan District 2 - US-House (R-TN)
Representative Philip ‘Phil’ English District 3 - US-House (R-PA)
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest District 1 - US-House (R-MD)
Representative Bob Inglis District 4 - US-House (R-SC)
Representative Timothy V. ‘Tim’ Johnson District 15 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Walter Beaman Jones District 3 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Ric Keller District 8 - US-House (R-FL)
Representative Mark Steven Kirk District 10 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Steven C. LaTourette District 14 - US-House (R-OH)
Representative Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul District 14 - US-House (R-TX)
Representative Thomas E. ‘Tom’ Petri District 6 - US-House (R-WI)
Representative James M. ‘Jim’ Ramstad District 3 - US-House (R-MN)
Representative Frederick Stephen ‘Fred’ Upton District 6 - US-House (R-MI)
Representative James T. ‘Jim’ Walsh District 25 - US-House (R-NY)

Church and State OTA weekend Feb 16-18, 2007