Think Progress Used A Heavily Edited Video To 'Prove' Tea Party Is Racist

But they didn't show the full video nor did they mention that the subject of the video was a Democrat plant sent in to stir up controversy. That man was a well-documented Tea Party crasher.

In the Think Progress version of the clip, you only see one or two seconds of this man claiming that he is a white racist. This is due to the editing that Think Progress did to reduce the six-minute clip down to only those parts they could use as propaganda. In other words, Think Progress is deliberately misleading their viewership.

Here is the full video and proof that the Tea Party is not tolerent of racists in their midst:



Also note that Think Progress used another video to claim Tea Party racism but retracted it when it was learned that the video footage they were using was from 2006, three years before the Tea Party revolution began.

Any members or supporters of Think Progress are welcome to address this post and give their side of the story.

Democrat Supervisor Doesn't Know That Arizona Is A Border State

America, meet the Obama voter. Willing to believe anything desite the facts against it.

(Yes, Arizona really is a border state. Go look at a map of the Southwestern United States.)

“If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.”

Of course, the Dems will ignore this comment and replay the old news of Rep. Barton's apology.

Democrat Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Assaults Student On Street

Uh-oh! The Dems are really getting nervous now as November approaches and the mid-term elections are now being billed as a referendum on Obama's radical agenda.

So, it is no surprise that a Democrat Congressman from North Carolina would react in such a vile and uncivil manner to being asked a simple question by a couple of students on the street. However, this does not make his act any less illegal than it was. Etheridge assaulted and illegally detained a young man. (He grabbed the student by the arm thereby arresting his movements and then grabbed him around the neck.)

I doubt you will see this on ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN nor will it be on the front page of either the Washington Post or New York Times. You see, Etheridge isn't a Conservative Republican.

Book Review: COMMON SENSE By Glenn Beck

The out-of-control government spending we are witnessing right now began under George W. Bush. That much is true. But, just because Bush did it does that mean that it is okay for Obama and the Dems to accelerate it? No, absolutely not. If Bush was wrong for running up a $2 trillion debt, then Obama is five and a half times as wrong for wanting to run up an $11 trillion debt. (For those of you who don't understand the math, here is the equation: 11/2 = 5 1/2.)

That basically sums up Glenn Beck's thesis in his #1 bestseller Common Sense. Taking some inspiration from Thomas Paine, the author of the original Common Sense, Glenn has built up an argument that shows us why we, as a nation, are on the wrong path, what will likely happen as a result of going down this path and why we should hold those in power (both Democrat and Republican) accountable for what they've done.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution knew what dangers there were in a government that over-reaches its powers. Glenn reminds us of this throughout the book with passages such as the following:

Thomas Jefferson knew that government debt was not only bad economic policy but also morally unacceptable because it effectively makes your children responsible to pay for what you bought. He said, "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." If that wasn't clear enough, he also said that politicians should consider themselves "unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves ..."

I am not aware of any other commentator who even knows about that quote from Jefferson much less actually reminds us of it. But, since most of us don't know the numbers or don't seem to care enough about what those numbers mean, we simply let it go and expect someone else to handle the problem for us.

That is not possible in the current situation. Here's why: Our interest payment to service our debt stands at $26 billion per month. That's right, per month. That's money that is sent to our creditors rather than going to upgrade schools or roads here in the U.S. Multiply that by 12 and you get $312 billion per year. If the government taxed away the total profits of Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, Wal-Mart and IBM, we wouldn't even have enough to pay one-third of the interest payment on the debt much less pay down the debt! Where is the rest of this money going to come from? Small businesses? Higher taxes on the middle class? (As I write this, the Dems in Congress are already working on several new plans that will raise taxes and depress our economy even further which means even less ability to pay down the debt.)

With this type of insanity going on in Washington D.C., Glenn asks another very important question: "Why do we keep sending these bozos back to Congress?" Therein lies the crux of the title of this book. Sending the current crop of politicians back to D.C. defies common sense.

And here is another good excerpt:

President Obama announced that his 2009 budget was projected to produce a $1,700,000,000,000 deficit. If you break that down you find that we're spending $4,657 billion every day for a year, which breaks down to $53,906.64 per second.

Our government is spending in one second what most Americans don't even make in a year! How sustainable is that? It isn't, which is why all of this fiscal madness is only going to bring us to economic disaster and ruin.

And this brings us to one of the most poignant questions any commentator has ever asked:

Borrowed money has to be paid back - but it won't be us who will have to do it. Our children will question our sanity for spending money we did not have on "bridges to nowhere," skateboard parks, tattoo removel, and other pork-laden projects that politicians stuffed into "must pass" legislation. They will wonder why we tolerated such reckless behavior from our elected leaders instead of holding them accountable. How will we respond?

Indeed, how will we respond? More specifically, how will you respond if your child or grand-child comes up to you after they've turned 18 and asks why they are working to pay off a debt that they didn't vote to incur and from which they are getting no benefit at all?

I doubt anyone will have a good answer to that question. I know I don't.

I highly recommend this book to all Americans whether Democrat, Republican, Lbertarian or otherwise. The issues brought up by Glenn Beck are not political so much as they are national concerns that will touch every single one of us in very negative ways.

Each of us has a choice. Either a) stand up and finally tell Congress to bring spending under control or risk losing their next elections, or b) just sit back, do nothing and wait until the dollar collapses and our children wake up to find themselves up to their foreheads in a debt that they did not incur but will be held responsible for.

I'm sure that you can see choosing the latter will mean that you waited too long to become active.

John Fund: Obama Was Mute On Illinois Corruption; Who Is The "Specifically Named Individual?"

I am not sure if Patrick Fitzgerald meant for it to happen, but as more people research the criminal complaint against Rod Blagojevich, more tidbits of information come out, many of which were unexpected and quite possibly deeply embarrassing to those who would like to appear as if they weren't involved in anything.

John Fund doesn't directly say this, but his column in the Wall Street Journal sets up the scenario for just such a story. From his column:

This week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on charges that he conspired to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat, among other misdeeds. At first the president-elect tried to distance himself from the issue: "It is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment." But it quickly became clear that Mr. Obama would have to say more, and yesterday he called for Mr. Blagojevich to resign and for a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat. What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media's "almost willful" fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago's political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin's Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama's Chicago connections.

We all knew that the leftist-leaning media was in the tank for Obama. What the media didn't know was how badly it would all explode on them if something like the Blagojevich scandal came up. Now, the media looks at least as silly as Blagojevich does since they can no longer claim to be the "watchdogs of government." If I had watchdogs who were so incompetent as to miss this, I'd have them put down and get new watchdogs. If the media had done their job during the 2008 campaign, we'd have known about the corruption in Illinois long before any of this happened.

More:

Mr. Obama has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics. "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News months ago. Though Mr. Obama did support ethics reforms as a state senator, Mr. Stewart noted that he's "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

Yes, it is that Democratic Culture of Corruption that the Democrats refuse to clean up. The hypocrisy of the Dem party is staggering.

But this also sets up a new story that comes from the criminal complaint filed by the FBI against Rod Blagojevich. Section 101 of the complaint states:

b. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked what he can get from the President-elect for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that Governor General Counsel believes the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate. Governor General Counsel asked, “can [the President-elect] help in the private sector. . . where it wouldn’t be tied to him? . . . I mean, so it wouldn’t necessarily look like one for the other.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife suggested during the call that she is qualified to sit on corporate boards and has a background in real estate and appraisals. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked whether there is something that could be done with his wife’s “series 7" license in terms of working out a deal for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be Governor for the next two years.” c. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherf*cker [the President-elect] his senator. F*ck him. For nothing? F*ck him.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give f*cking [Senate Candidate 1] a f*cking Senate seat and I don’t get anything.” (Senate Candidate 4 is a Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois). ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he needs to find a way to take the “financial stress” off of his family and that his wife is as qualified or more qualified than another specifically named individual to sit on corporate boards. According to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, “the immediate challenge [is] how do we take some of the financial pressure off of our family.” Later in the phone call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that absent getting something back, ROD BLAGOJEVICH will not pick Senate Candidate 1. HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability. HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.

Well, who are these people?

Senate Candidate #1 is Valerie Jarrett, an Obama advisor who also served as Daley’s Chief of Staff. Jarrett is very close to the Obamas.

Senate Candidate #4 is either Dean Martinez, Bob Greenlee or Louanner Peters, all of whom are Deputy Governors of Illinois.

Who is the "specifically named individual?" That answer comes from Truthteller at No Quarter Blog.

It is Michelle Obama, the soon-to-be First Lady of the United States of America.

No Quarter notes that Michelle "was appointed to to the Board of TreeHouse Foods, a WAL-MART vendor, on June 25, 2005, even though she did not have experience in the private sector previous to the appointment." A link to that news story is here:

Michelle Obama's Ties To Wal-Mart Cut
Lynn Sweet
Chicago Sun-Times
May 23, 2007

Those ties were cut in 1987 due to Wal-Mart's ongoing conflict with organized labor and the Obama campaign didn't want the conflict of interest. But even so, Michelle got quite a bit of cash out of the deal. According to the above article, compensation was "$51,200 from TreeHouse in 2006. She leaves the board with an option to buy 2,266 TreeHouse shares at a strike price of $29.65. Shares closed at $28.10 Tuesday."

So, why is this relevent? No Quarter quotes Section 87 of the criminal complaint:

87. By law, after the President-elect’s resignation of his position as a U.S. Senator, which was effective on November 16, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has sole authority to appoint his replacement for the two years remaining of the President-elect’s Senate term. See 10 ILCS 5/25-8. During the course of this investigation, agents have intercepted a series of communications regarding the efforts of ROD BLAGOJEVICH, JOHN HARRIS, and others to misuse this power to obtain personal gain, including financial gain, for ROD BLAGOJEVICH and his family. In particular, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has been intercepted conspiring to trade the senate seat for particular positions that the President-elect has the power to appoint (e.g. the Secretary of Health and Human Services). ROD BLAGOJEVICH has also been intercepted conspiring to sell the Senate seat in exchange for his wife’s placement on paid corporate boards or ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s placement at a private foundation in a significant position with a substantial salary. ROD BLAGOJEVICH has also been intercepted conspiring to sell the Senate seat in exchange for millions of dollars in funding for a non-profit organization that he would start and that would employ him at a substantial salary after he left the governorship.

No Quarter goes on to say:

Blagojevich, in other words, assumed Obama would appoint his wife to a Board for the political favor of selecting Valerie Jarrett for the Senate seat. Blagojevich is not a stupid man. Indeed, he only assumed Obama would participate in this “pay to play” scheme, for he knows Obama is acutely aware how the game is played in Illinois and in Chicago. This explains why Blagojevich mentions Michelle Obama and her lack of qualifications to serve on the Board of TreeHouse Foods when he discusses how Obama could appoint Mrs. Blagojevich to a Board for the political favor of appointing Jarrett to the US Senate seat. Michelle, after all, was appointed to sit on the Board of TreeHouse foods AFTER Obama was elected to the US Senate. Moreover, Michelle Obama’s salary at The University of Chicago nearly TRIPLED after her husband gained the power to submit earmark requests on her employer’s behalf. Just appoint the spouse to a Board and increase his or her salary if you need a political favor from an Illinois politician. That is how the “play to pay” game is played.

Now, this in no way says that Michelle Obama is involved in the Blagojevich scandal. But it does show how scandals like this can bring certain facts and information to light that the people involved do not necessarily want brought out. Michelle Obama's high-paid employment at jobs for which she had no experience is a prime example of such information.

I am sure that Barack Obama would have preferred that this remain covered and hence his desire to remain "mute," because now it puts his wife and her business affairs into a spotlight that cannot be turned off. If something comes up from Michelle's past to haunt them, it is not something that either one of them can claim they had no knowledge of.

You can access the two articles on-line here:

John Fund: Obama Was Mute On Illinois Corruption
John Fund
The Wall Street Journal
December 11, 2008

Palin Saboteurs Want To Kill Her Career Now

In the current political climate here in the United States, it is pretty easy to see who the effective politicians are and who the potential movers and shakers may be. Given the attacks made against Sarah Palin in the days and weeks after the election, it is pretty clear the the Alaskan Governor is among the most effective politicians in the GOP and her potential to move and shake things is nothing short of awesome.

That is why some people are trying to kill her career right now. Mostly these attacks come from Democrats who simply cannot accept a strong, independent woman in politics. But some attacks do come from within the GOP from people who are afraid of losing their own power within the party.

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown have penned an excellent column about this over at Town Hall. Here are a few of their observations:

Attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin by McCain campaign staff at first appear to be a case of making her a convenient scapegoat, but the attacks have a more devious motive. This post-election barrage is the first volley of the campaign to choose the Republican nominee in 2012. The Washington, D.C. based establishment that rules the GOP wants her career over now. She threatens them.

Yes, I agree. Sarah Palin is a big threat to those put party before country, whether Democrat or Republican. That is one of the reasons we like her so much.

Sarah Palin brought a vibrant, fresh face to the Republican Party. The GOP elitists saw how she easily connected with voters. Palin drew huge crowds of up to 30,000 people anxious to see and hear her. The crowds flocking to see Gov. Palin bond with her culturally. She has the potential to garner Obama- or Reagan-like devotion. The Republican Party needs this grassroots energy and her reform agenda after a decade of broken promises and the disappointing Bush presidency. Looking back at history, you see resemblances of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in Palin. Both Thatcher and Reagan were dismissed and insulted by their own party stalwarts. "Useful idiot" was a term once leveled at President Reagan.

Sarah Palin is not an Ivy League lawyer nor is she anything like the elitists of either party who have completely lost touch with the American people. She is one of us; one of the common people; someone who knows what it is like to live in Main Street America.

That is why she is being attacked.

Remember the Shakespearean play Henry V? Henry actually disguised himself and walked among his troops in order to get a better understanding of what they were thinking and what they believed. Sarah Palin has not only walked among us, she has lived among us and that makes her the most influential politician in the GOP and America in general right now. That also makes her the biggest threat to the political elite.

That is why the Dems and certain Republicans are so scared.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Saboteurs Want To Kill Her Career Now
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
TownHall.com
November 14, 2008

Top Ten Things To Expect From An Obama Supreme Court And The Dems Energy Charade

One of the biggest issues facing Americans today is where the Supreme Court will be headed in the next 4 to 8 years. It took over 30 years to undo the Court that back in the 60's and 70's rode roughshod over the American public and forced upon us many ill-advised liberal policies that resulted in the coddling of criminals and walking all over the victims of crimes.

Committee for Justice Executive Director Curt Levey wrote supporters an email which Amanda Carpenter over at TownHall has partially reprinted. Included is a Top Ten list of what we can expect from an Obama Supreme Court. Here they are:

10. Expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences 9. Creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning 8. Expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations 7. Prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools 6. Banning the death penalty 5. Requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights 4. Creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs 3. Stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance 2. Eroding property rights 1. Ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage

Pretty interesting list, especially for those of us who remember how chaotic the 70's were with respect to criminal justice.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Top 10 Things To Expect From Obama Court
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
July 28, 2008

---

And the Democrats still don't get it when it comes to energy. What are they thinking? That we won't see through their smoke and mirror tricks?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, deconstructs the Dems energy non-policy very nicely and in accurate detail.

From the WSJ:

Consider the details of Drill. It would not have opened new lands to energy exploration. Instead, it would have increased the number of lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR's) sister territory on Alaska's North Slope -- from one lease sale every two years to one every year. The problem here came in the fine print. The bill would have mandated that leasing be done in an undefined, "environmentally responsible" way. ... The Democrats' focus on the National Petroleum Reserve is also striking. While it contains comparable known reserves to ANWR -- 10.6 billion barrels compared to an estimated 10.4 billion barrels in the wildlife refuge -- its fields are spread over 23 million acres. The portion of ANWR territory that should be opened to exploration covers a mere 2,000 acres. The National Petroleum Reserve's fields are a little over 250 miles from the current pipeline infrastructure, while ANWR is only 75 miles away. To top it off, currently there is no production in the National Petroleum Reserve because of ongoing litigation. By focusing on a patch of Arctic tundra more spread out than ANWR, a greater distance from current pipelines, and subject to lawsuits not addressed by the legislation, the Democrats chose to respond to American cries for expedited drilling in such a way that would have made it harder to produce energy. There's more. The Drill Act included "use it or lose it" restrictions that prohibit the federal government from issuing new exploration or production leases anywhere, unless the applicant can certify that every lease currently held is being "diligently developed" (again, to be defined later by lawyers) to produce oil or natural gas. Any lease not meeting the yet-to-be-determined standards would have to be relinquished.

Clearly, the Dems are scambling to at least present an illusion that they are doing something about soaring energy prices. But they are insulting our collective intelligence by using these idiotic tricks and thinking that we won't see right through them.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Democrats' Energy Charade
Michele Bachmann
Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2008

Compare The Presidential Candidates' Positions On Illegal Immigration

This should be an eye-opener to many people. Do you think you know how your candidate would address the issue of illegal immigration? Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure?

Check out the following links and see where your candidate stands on 16 different immigration related issues:

Click this link to see the Republican Candidates
Americans For Better Immigration
As of Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Click this link to see the Democrat Candidates
Americans For Better Immigration
As of Wednesday, January 02, 2008

I'll bet you dollars to navy beans that Old Media isn't covering this issue this closely.

If you disagree with how this comparison was conducted, please contact the NumbersUSA Staff through Americans For Better Immigration with your concerns.

Social Conservatives 'Mad As Hell' And Congress Gets An 'F'

If you are anything like me (and the fact that you are coming here and reading this blog usually means that you are, at least, a little like me) then you have been watching the GOP primary and seeing the front-runners go up and down like yo-yos. Not a very promising start to the 2008 campaign season, but at least it is entertaining.

That is where the positive spin ends. The GOP has a real problem, one that it has ignored for far too long. Paul Edwards' latest column explains what this problem is. There is a schism within the ranks of the GOP and no one seems willing to admit it or to do anything about it. But really, what can be done?

We are stuck between giving up our priciples in order to maintain a good economic status or giving up our fiscal beliefs in order to see our social ideas have a chance. Why can't we have both?

Edwards writes:

The Republican establishment has looked down its nose at social conservatives far too long, tolerating us because they need our votes. But now the tables are turned. The grass roots are looking up at the establishment with the will of a Lech Walesa, demanding that fiscal issues take a back seat to moral issues for a change. It’s long past time for the moral and social issues of our times to be given more than just lip service. It’s now time for our fiscal policies to be informed by our social policies rather than sacrificing our morality to our economic standing in the world. Don’t expect the Republican establishment to take this lying down. The New Media tanks are already rolling in to suppress the revolt.

So, which candidate is going to take advantage of this? I don't know. I just know that whomever follows the philosophies of the Republican Party most closely should win:

I'm a Republican Because... I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least. I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

You can access Mr. Edwards' complete column on-line here:

Social Conservatives Are “Mad As Hell”
Paul Edwards
TownHall.com
December 25, 2007

---

And now that the end of the year is close at hand, we can look back at what our Democrat controlled Congress has done and effectively grade them.

Here is what Jennifer Rubin has to say over at Human Events Online:

The Democrats in Congress, despite a year in the majority and facing a president whose approval ratings are historically low, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving items both small and large on their agenda. A combination of overreaching and incompetence on their part and savvy prevent defense by President Bush and Congressional Republicans has spared the country untold grief. Most striking was the Democrats utter failure to live up to the key promise of their 2006 campaign: “ending the war in Iraq.” First, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petreaus (who had committed to a Surge strategy) by an 81-0 vote in late January. Despite more than 60 votes to withdrawal or limit U.S. forces in Iraq, Democrats could not win a veto proof majority to begin retreat in Iraq. This included a 108-day fight over the Defense Department Supplemental spending bill. Although the demise of the “Surge” policy was widely anticipated in September, testimony by General Petreaus and Ambassador Croker shifted the tide -- with help from a backlash over the ludicrous and outlandish MoveOn.org attack on General Petreaus -- and drowned out Democrats demands that U.S. forces close up shop. ... Democrats also failed on other priorities held dear: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, elimination of secret ballots for union elections, hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals (tucked into a defense authorization bill), voting rights for the District of Columbia, and government price setting for Medicare drugs. Even the pettiest of goals --working five days a week -- could not be achieved. On the SCHIP -- the Dems’ plan for a first middle-class entitlement program -- President Bush and Congressional Republican stared down the Democrats’ threats to expand this poverty program to millions of middle class Americans, not just the “children” that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid paraded before the cameras. On immigration after the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill failed Democrats could not even achieve victory on a more limited measure --yes, for the “children” -- the DREAM Act. They likewise failed to pass a separate immigration bill for agriculture. Although Democrats swore that hard line Republican views on immigration were a losing proposition and contributed to GOP losses in 2006, they had no stomach after the immigration fight for any more immigration “reform.” (“Blue Dog” Democrat Heath Shuler, who apparently learned a different lesson, did introduce an enforcement only measure which quickly gathered over a hundred co-sponsors.) ... Democrats got an energy bill, but not the one they envisioned. In June and again this month Republicans refused to agree to a bill that would have resulted in millions in new taxes for energy companies. Republican also achieved outright wins: a seven year extension of the internet tax ban and utter rejection of Charlie Rangel’s “mother of all tax bills” (which never received so much as a committee vote) that would have “solved” the alternative minimum tax issue by raising billions in new taxes. Democrats cherished “Pay Go” (their self imposed rule that all tax reductions must be “paid for”) just went.

And why did all of this happen?

First, the Democrats badly misinterpreted the results of the 2006 election. Had the vast majority of the country wanted amnesty, defeat in Iraq, socialized medicine and the like, the elected representatives in Congress on both sides of the aisle would have felt the heat and voted accordingly. Second, divided government may be a powerful argument for the GOP presidential nominee. If it were not for the presidential veto -- actual or threatened -- much of the Democratic agenda could well have slipped through. The GOP nominee will be greatly aided by a simple argument: “Do you want Nancy and Harry to have their way?” Finally, Republicans do best when they do not “split the baby” (e.g. give Rangel half of his tax increases) but instead say “no” and force Democrats to vote on measures unpalatable to most voters. In that regard, 2006 may have made 2008 a far easier year -- provided Republicans stick to their guns for one more year.

You can access Jennifer's complete column on-line here:

Democrats' 2007 Report Card
Jennifer Rubin
Human Events Online
December 21, 2007

And more evidence of a deserved 'F' comes from the Associated Press:

President Bush, successful in forcing the Democratic Congress to bend to his will, complained Thursday that lawmakers had wasted time and taxpayers' money. His aggressive stand set a confrontational tone for Bush's final year in the White House. Bush used a year-end news conference to scold lawmakers for stuffing 9,800 special-interest projects into a $550 billion spending measure. He directed his budget director to explore how to erase what Bush considers wasteful spending. What began as a troubling year for Bush, facing a new, energetic Democratic Congress, ended in triumph for the president as frustrated Democrats nursed their losses. Democrats failed in their No. 1 objective to stop the war in Iraq and bowed to Bush and his veto threats on tax policies, energy legislation, children's health insurance and general spending.

I seem to recall the Dems claiming back in 2004 and later on that President Bush was "stupid" or "dumb" or "not intelligent enough" for the Presidency.

Well, maybe someone should add up the collective IQs of the Dems in Congress and compare it to the IQ of President Bush, and then answer why the Dems lost so many intellectual fights.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Congress Wasting Time, Money
Terrence Hunt
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 21, 2007

Nancy Pelosi Was Okay With Waterboarding Back In 2002 And Dems Concede Tax Increases

So, the Dems were okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique back in 2002 but waited until 2007 to come out against it? Why? Due to the secretive cloak that the Dems use to surround their true agenda, we may never know. But Fox News has this:

Four top members of Congress, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday. On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," one official is quoted saying. ... "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Perhaps a member of Old Media will go back and ask Pelosi about her reaction during these briefings and then ask to reconcile that reaction to the fact that only one member of the Congressional delegation raised any objection at all: Democrat Jane Harman.

But then, that would require integrity on the part of the Dems and on Old Media.

Not likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report: Top Members Of Congress Were OK With Waterboarding In 2002
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2007

---

And the Dems are quickly knuckling under as it has become apparent that the American people do not want higher taxes nor more government spending.

From the Associated Press:

Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues. The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues. Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.

And the Dems also think we are stupid enough to buy their criticism. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many have taxed themselves into poverty. Thus, no tax plan that includes higher taxes can ever be called "prudent." Too bad the Dem leadership just doesn't seem capable of grasping that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Cry Uncle On Taxes, Spending
Charles Babington
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 7, 2007