Barack Obama's Courtship Of Radical Islamists And His False Charge Of Pro-Lifers Lying

If B. Hussein Obama is this clueless about the company he keeps here in the United States, then how clueless would he be when it comes to dealing with Islamists (especially extreme radical Islamists) on the world scene? The answer to that would be "extremely clueless" as well as "extremely dangerous."

This whole question came about after Obama attended Rick Warren's forum this past Saturday in an effort to prop-up his image as a Christian.

Frank Gaffney Jr. over at TownHall takes a look into just how B. Hussein Obama is running his affairs and with whom:

It is, therefore, curious in the extreme that he is giving a prominent role at next week’s Democratic convention to a leader of an organization identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing conspiracy. Dr. Ingrid Mattson is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization created by the radical, Saudi-financed Muslim Students Association. She will represent the Muslim community at the first-ever interfaith prayer service at a Democratic nominating convention. Now, we know from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that ISNA is one of many Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups operating in America. We also know from a Brotherhood document entered into evidence in that case (which is currently being retried after the first prosecution resulted in a mistrial) that, “The work [of Brotherhood members] in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Yep, you read that right. Islamists think the United States is a "miserable house" and are committed to "destroying Western civilization from within." And B. Hussein Obama apparently has no problem at all cozying up with them.

More:

Whatever the reasons for the Democratic presidential candidate’s sensitivities about the Islamic faith, he has an obligation to make clear his attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood, its mission in America and his willingness to be associated with its front organizations. It is still the case that most Muslims in this country do not want any part of Shariah law. It behooves Sen. Obama to make known now whether he is willing to embrace those who do, and his true attitude towards their ambition to impose the Islamists’ barbaric code here through such subterfuges as Shariah-Compliant Finance.

Why do the Democrats still insist on believing we are stupid enough to let news items like this somehow slip our notice?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Islamist Problem
Frank Gaffney Jr.
TownHall.com
August 18, 2008

---

And here is another reason not to trust B. Hussein Obama: He has been accusing Pro-Lifers of "lying" about his abortion record despite the fact that the evidence shows the pro-lifers are telling the truth.

From Amanda Carpenter at TownHall:

Obama made the aggressive attack when Christian Broadcasting Network Senior National Correspondent David Brody asked Obama about documentation the National Right to Life Committee recently obtained of a 2003 committee vote on “born alive” legislation that would have required medical officials to give life-saving care to babies who survived abortion. Obama has said again and again he voted against versions of that bill as an Illinois state senator because it did not include language to protect Roe v. Wade, as the federal version did which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. The committee report, however, shows a 10-0 vote in favor of an amendment to add the same language to protect abortion rights that was added to the federal bill. That same committee report subsequently shows Obama voting the kill the bill in a "final action" vote.

No lie there. The records clearly show that the Pro-Lifers are absolutely accurate in their portrayal of Barack Obama's abortion views. The Associated Press verified it:

Associated Press Story

And yet here is what Obama says about it:

Obama said the NRLC “have not been telling the truth” and launched into some of the most vicious language he’s ever used against his opponents. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying,” he lectured. “It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond,” Obama said. “It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice; it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.”

But, once again, as the record shows, it is B. Hussein Obama who has been misrepresenting himself. The NRLC simply exposed the truth and exposed Obama to be the liar.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Calls Pro-Lifers Liars
Amada Carpenter
TownHall.com
August 18, 2008

Pelosi And Pickens, Investment Partners

This little tidbit from the Washington Examiner serves to highlight the fact that Nancy Pelosi may be illegally invested in T. Boone Pickens' windfarm and that she may be using her power as Speaker of the House to influence the outcome of that business venture.

[I]n May 2007, Pelosi invested between $100,001 and $250,000 to purchase public common stock in Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (CLNE). Pelosi's CLNE investment was first highlighted by the Michigan Taxes Too Much and #don'tgo blogs. CLNE is a cog in Pickens’$6 billion plan to build a massive wind farm in west Texas and to switch millions of vehicles on American roads from gasoline to natural gas. Pelosi’s CLNE purchase is listed on her most recent congressional personal financial disclosure form, which can be viewed at Opensecrets.org. A search of Pelosi’s official web site found no announcement of the investment in the Pickens operation. A request to the Speaker’s official spokesman yesterday for information about the investment went unanswered. Coincidentally, Pelosi’s investment came the same month as the House passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which she hailed as making the Congress over which she helps preside “the most open and honest in history.” There are numerous ways Pelosi could provide assistance to CLNE and Pickens, including helping secure federal tax advantages. Pickens expects at least 15 percent profits on the wind farm and associated initiatives. At CLNE’s $14 per share value, Pelosi appears to own between 7,000 and 17,000 shares.

And as I noted earlier, this is a story that needs to be investigated even further since Pelosi's refusal to bring domestic oil drilling up for a floor vote could spur a large profit on those CLNE shares.

I believe Nancy Pelosi is engaged in illegal activity and should resign her office.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pelosi and Pickens, Investment Partners
The Washington Examiner
August 18, 2008

Senator John McCain Blasts NBC, And The Washington Post Looks At Five Ways To Wreck A Recovery

Well, we've known for a long time that Old Media outlets like NBC are biased in favor of leftist (i.e. Democrat) candidates. The question was actually one of how long it would take before Republicans would get a pair of cajones and call them on it.

Looks like John McCain has finally lashed out. From the Politco:

McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis asked Sunday for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is "abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race." Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to counter news coverage he considers critical. In this case, the campaign is objecting to a statement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press" questioning whether McCain might have gotten a heads-up on some of the questions that were asked of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was the first candidate to be interviewed Saturday night by Pastor Rick Warren at a presidential forum on faith. ... Here is the text of the letter: Steve: We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain. Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell's comments on "Meet the Press" this morning. In analyzing last night's presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he "may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." Here are Andrea Mitchell's comments in full: Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/17/08) Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of "Meet the Press" viewers with no indication that 1.) There's not one shred of evidence that it's true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren's idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;" 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot. Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

This happens so often that it is beyond ridculous for Mitchell to even try to deny it. Anytime Old Media gets a chance to hurt John McCain and/or help Barack Obama, they do it.

It would probably be best for everyone if Old Media stopped pretending to be objective and just admitted their bias.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Protests NBC Coverage
Mike Allen
The Politco
August 17, 2008

---

And even the left-leaning Washington Post is starting to understand what Socialist policies means to the American economy. They actually allowed a column by Amity Shlaes (author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression) to be published.

Amity writes about five lessons we need to remember from the Great Depression. Here they are:

· Giving in to protectionism. In Herbert Hoover's time, Sen. Reed Smoot and Rep. W.C. Hawley proposed a tariff that was to raise effective duties by as much as half. More than a thousand economists signed an open letter warning that the duties would "raise the cost of living and injure the great majority of our citizens." ... Yet again, one party -- the Democrats, this time -- is cavalier. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is blocking passage of these bilateral agreements. And another ambivalent politician -- Sen. Barack Obama -- has sent mixed messages to Canada about just how much he wants to roll back the North American Free Trade Agreement. · Blaming the messenger. Punishing the stock market for the 1929 crash was popular in Washington in the early 1930s. Lawmakers attacked the practice of short selling; Senate Banking Committee counsel Ferdinand Pecora hauled J.P. Morgan and other Wall Streeters in for hearings. ... Today, too, a "Blame the Street" mood prevails. SEC Chairman Chris Cox has criticized "naked shorts," an attack with a legitimate anti-fraud component. But targeting short-selling also generates uncertainty. The investigations of Bear Stearns and Freddie Mac are just the beginning; more prosecutions are likely. Like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed Enron's accounting meltdown, this cleanup will send companies and jobs abroad. · Increasing taxes in a downturn. Hoover more than doubled income tax rates, taking the top marginal rate to 63 percent from 25 percent. FDR hiked the top rate to 90 percent. Perhaps worse, Roosevelt's Treasury crafted taxes to punish business, including an undistributed profits tax and an excess profits tax, that ultimately sucked cash from a capital-starved economy. Today, Democrats are planning tax increases that make Bill Clinton's hike look mild. The proposals start with lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes -- an effective increase in the top marginal tax rate of 6.2 percent, or for some 12.4 percent, all by itself. Add in the promised repeal of the Bush tax cuts and you have an additional 4.6 percent increase. Effective top rates approach 50 percent. There are also proposed increases for dividends and capital gains. Taken together, these will make the U.S. economy sluggish and more like that of Europe. · Assuming bigger government will bring back growth. There's a sense today that Washington has retreated too much from daily lives. ... Such state solutions tended to suppress the creation of long-term private-sector jobs, as did the aggressive Wagner Act for organized labor. The National Recovery Administration, the New Deal's centerpiece, favored large businesses at the expense of small fry. The new Tennessee Valley Authority and Roosevelt's repressive Public Utility Holding Company Act combined to crowd out private utilities that hoped to light up the South. As for Wall Street, those New Yorker magazine cartoons were accurate: Wall Streeters retreated into their martinis and country houses rather than rebuild. This yielded the "Depression within the Depression" of 1937. · Ignoring the cost of inconsistency. FDR spoke of "bold persistent experimentation." Obama speaks of "change." Both can do damage. What's more, the list of experiments is always finite. Our bailouts look reassuring, but even Washington cannot rescue the entire economy. And foreign investors wonder where Washington will stop. Already concerned about the inconsistent dollar policy, China is now troubled by the inconsistent rescues.

One of the most level-headed arguments against the Socialist policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats.

I've read The Forgotten Man and strongly encourage everyone to read it as well.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Five Ways To Wreck A Recovery
Amity Shlaes
The Washington Post
August 18, 2008

If Any Of These Apply To You, You Might Be A Liberal

From John Hawkins over at TownHall:

* You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun. * You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states. * You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party. * You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal. ... * You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda. * You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount. * You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action. * You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas. * You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help. * You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights.

You can read them all on-line here:

25 Reasons You Might Be a Liberal
John Hawkins
TownHall.com
August 15, 2008

Obama Details Raising Taxes On Gains, Dividends And Threatens The U.S. Economy

B. Hussein Obama has let loose a little more of his economic plans for America, and they are not good. Deborah Solomon over at the Wall Street Journal takes a good look into this story:

Sen. Obama outlined a plan Thursday to raise tax rates on capital gains and dividend income from 15% to 20% for individuals and families making more than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively. He also detailed a plan to levy payroll taxes on earnings above $250,000 at a rate between 2% and 4%, though that increase wouldn't occur for at least a decade. Right now, payroll taxes, used to fund retirement benefits, are levied on income up to $102,000. Jason Furman, Sen. Obama's economic-policy director, said the plan would cut taxes to less than 18.2% of gross domestic product. "That's lower than the level of taxes when Ronald Reagan was president," he said.

But it is still a tax increase. And as the U.S. learned in 1932 and 1936, raising anyone's taxes during an economic downturn is the absolute worst thing that government could do. Back in the 1930's it caused the Great Depression to last years longer than it should have. Today, B. Hussein Obama's economic policy could very well trigger a second Great Depression.

More:

"The U.S. economy is in a weak state. We've got a credit crunch, high oil prices...this is not the time to be raising anybody's taxes," said John Taylor, a Stanford University economist who is advising Sen. Obama's rival, Republican Sen. John McCain. "When the investment tax rate is higher it affects behavior because we see a retrenchment of companies paying dividends," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president of government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Dividends and capital gains lure investors to participate in the stock market, and their investment provides capital for companies to use to expand their business. A reduction in that capital could hurt business and the U.S. economy, Mr. Josten said. He said the business community also is concerned that Sen. Obama's broader tax plan would remove more individuals from the income-tax rolls, a situation that could lead to future tax increases on wealthier Americans.

But it goes deeper:

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group, criticized the proposed investment-income tax increases as dangerous. "The next occupant of the Oval Office is going to face some tough choices on fiscal policy, but raising taxes on capital gains and dividends will only further endanger an already-weakening economy and punish the more than half of all American households that are invested in the stock market," said Travis Larson, a spokesman for the group.

Less investment = less capital. Less capital = fewer jobs. Fewer jobs = lower tax revenues. Lower tax revenues = Dems calling for higher taxes on those who do have incomes. Then we are right back to less investment.

It's a pity the Dems are completely unable to understand this Socialistic economic cycle.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Details Raising Taxes On Gains, Dividends
Deborah Solomon
The Wall Street Journal
August 15, 2008

Republicans Are Set To Let The Offshore Oil Ban Expire. And, What Would Happen In A World Without America?

Terry Kivlan of the National Journal looks into the newest round of punches being thrown on Capitol Hill. Republican lawmakers are ready to allow the offshore oil drilling ban expire on October 1, 2008. But the Dems are already parsing words, preparing to throw the well-being of Joe and Jane Average American under the bus in the name of some misguided Socialist policy.

From his column:

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has announced that 36 of the 49 GOP senators had signed a letter to Senate leaders supporting the designation of Oct. 1 - the deadline for renewing the ban for the 28th straight year - as "American Freedom Energy Day" and opposing the extension of the prohibition. The letter, addressed to both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also targets the ban imposed last year on oil shale leasing. "Many people aren't aware that these bans on drilling must be renewed every year, and that all we have to do is to allow these prohibitions to expire on Oct. 1," DeMint said in a statement released Tuesday. "In just 50 days, Americans will have the freedom to pursue their own energy resources here at home," he added. DeMint argued that it was "irrational to say 'no' to American energy" because it was needed to reduce independence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices. Today, the senator announced he will begin a tour across South Carolina Thursday to promote greater dependence on domestic energy supplies. "The only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower prices at the pump is for America to rapidly pursue our own energy sources," DeMint said. "America should remove barriers to a wide array of new energy supplies ... The first step to lower energy prices is to allow the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale to expire on October 1st," he said. Aides to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said 136 House Republicans had signed a similar letter that the Texas lawmaker started circulating on July 23.

But Harry Reid (D-NV) was quick to bring the Dem talking points into the fray:

A spokesman for Reid was quick to warn that, because the bans are attached to annual appropriations bills, an attempt to block them could lead to a reprise of the 1995-1996 government shutdown that resulted from an impasse over government spending bills that pit President Clinton against congressional Republicans, led by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

So, the Socialist Dems want to shut down the government in order to make sure that American families will continue to pay higher energy costs? How stupid is that?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Republicans Threaten Renewal Of Offshore Drilling Bans
Terry Kivlan
National Journal
August 13, 2008

---

And Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at the future of globalism and what would happen in the world if we Americans backed down from all of our convictions.

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions: First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth. Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Moammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, or the Taliban. Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But we cannot keep up this pace, especially when so many within our own nation are trying to force us to become weaker (e.g. Congressional Democrats who continue to block all viable efforts at relieving high energy prices). It is causing us to turn inward with the possibility that we may be going back to the mindset of the 1930's.

More:

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free-trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America’s immigration attitude. Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantánamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia’s democracy and bombing its cities. Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants. It has been chic to chant “No blood for oil” about Iraq’s petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China’s sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur. Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized. So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

So, what would happen if the United States simply turned its back on the world the way the world has been turning its back on the United States? Just this:

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite. If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause. If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won’t listen to the United Nations, the European Union, or Michael Moore. Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Brave Old World
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
August 14, 2008

How Nancy Pelosi Will Make Obscene Windfall Profits If Energy Prices Remain High

"Culture of corruption." Sound familiar? Two years ago Nancy Pelosi promised to clean it up. Instead, she has been adding her own filth to the cess pool and she has been looking to T. Boone Pickens to help her do it. Apparently, the big reason for her not allowing an up or down vote on domestic drilling is because if that particular energy bill passes, then she stands to lose a great deal of money. However, if she can prevent that vote from taking place, she stands to gain a huge windfall.

This is a story that isn't going to go away no matter how hard Old Media tries to bury it. It can't be done. The scenes and the action have been out in the public spotlight for too long for anyone in the Dem party to deny it. In fact, I think what Pelosi is doing is worse than John Edwards having an affair.

Nancy Pelosi is profiteering and using her power as Speaker of the House to ensure her monetary gains!

Yes, I said it. I think that this is more than enough to demand that Nancy Pelosi resign as Speaker of the House and to resign her Congressional seat as well. For her to remain would be to foster the culture of corruption that she knowingly and willingly takes part in.

Michelle Malkin breaks the story in her latest column over at TownHall

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes "hand maidens of the oil companies." Let's call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers. Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a "hoax" this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out. Which brings us to Madame Speaker's 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and 'Unearned Income'" of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. -- Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens -- former oilman turned wind-power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos. Pickens and Pelosi share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America's transportation needs.

T. Boone Pickens has been on so many radio and TV commercials that everyone knows what his business is all about.

So, what's so bad about that? Read on:

Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi's friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies. Pickens is banking on 'em. And Pelosi is banking on him. As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering: "She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive." CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi's home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives -- namely, natural gas and wind. Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist's terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with The Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion dollar wind farm investment: "A lot of what he's trying to do is add value to a stranded asset he's obviously got millions of dollars on the line."

This is why she has been working to prevent a vote on a domestic drilling bill. The higher energy prices go, the more money she and T. Boone Pickens stand to make together at the expense of the American consumer and taxpayer.

This is not only untheical but also immoral. Nancy Pelosi promised us an open, corruption-free government, and all she did was use it to her own personal advantage and add to the corruption.

She needs to respect the dignity of her office and resign.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Pelosi And The Big Wind Boone-doggle
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
August 13, 2008

---

Plame Lawsuit Dismissed And The Fairness Doctrine Could Be Used To Control Web Content Too

Would someone please head over to the home of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame so as to inform them that their fifteen minutes of fame ended back in 2004? These two are such shameless attention hounds that they will do anything to keep themsleves in the news, including launching a frivolous lawsuit against Vice President Cheney and other members of the Bush Administration.

Fortunately, a rationally thinking judge finally ended this whole non-scandal affair by throwing out the lawsuit. From NewsBusters:

Valerie Plame was dealt another setback Tuesday when a U.S. court of appeals upheld a federal judge's decision to dismiss her lawsuit against members of the Bush administration. Given the media's fascination with this former CIA operative who has claimed for years she was illegally outed by the White House for political reasons, it will be interesting to see just how much attention this ruling gets in the next 48 hours.

And according to Reuters:

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former CIA analyst Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and several former Bush administration officials for disclosing her identity to the public. [...] Plame and [husband Joe] Wilson sought money damages from Cheney, Libby, former White House aide Karl Rove and former State Department official Richard Armitage for violating their constitutional free speech, due process and privacy rights. But a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld a federal judge's ruling that dismissed the couple's lawsuit. The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters.

Memo to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame: Valerie was not covert at the time of her non-outing.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Plame Lawsuit Against Cheney Et Al Dismissed, Will Media Care?
Noel Sheppard
NewsBusters.org
August 12, 2008

---

And the possible effect on Talk Radio is not the only reason we should all be opposed to the mis-nomered "Fairness Doctrine." The fact that you are reading this on the Internet means you too can be affected by it. According to the Business & Media Institute:

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.” FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks. The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

This isn't China with it's massive human rights violations. This is the United States where we have Free Speech and Free Press.

Controlling web content is something that Google helps the Chinese Communists do.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FCC Commissioner: Return Of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
August 12, 2008

Boehner: They're 'Gonna Hang' Pelosi

Pitchforks and tar and feathers, anyone? Could be. The American people are pretty fed up at this point with high energy prices and the fact that the Dems went on vacation without even a cursory attempt at fixing the problem.

And now, Pelosi shows her ultra-Socialist side by hinting that there could be a special session of Congress in which every issue on her Socialist agenda will be discussed but not the one issue causing Americans the most grief today. John Boehner made a pretty profound comment about that:

From the Chicago Tribune blogs:

"She's gonna bring us back and not deal with it?" asked the Ohio Republican, as quoted by Politico. "The American people are gonna hang her."

Count me in as one of those who will be wielding a pitchfork in front of the Capital soon.

But, the Dems are never the type of party to pass up an opportunity to say something stupid, as evidenced by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

[T]he Maryland Democrat said. "I hope the Minority Leader will apologize for his remarks, and work with Democrats in a bipartisan, constructive manner to increase our domestic oil supply, invest in renewable energy and end our dependence on foreign oil."

Memo to Steny: bipartisan efforts can only be made when both parties are present in Congress and both parties are discussing the same issue.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Boehner: They're 'Gonna Hang' Pelosi
Matthew Hay Brown
The Swamp at the Chicago Tribune
August 11, 2008

Republican Energy Fumble: Five Senate Republicans Stab The GOP In The Back With 'Gang Of 10' Dagger

I simply could not believe this when I heard about it. The energy issue was the one defining issue that the GOP had that could make national headlines and definitively underscore how inept, incompetent and out-of-touch the Dems were. So, what do Republicans Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson do with this potent ammunition? They throw it all away for nothing in a deal that will only hurt the GOP and the American consumer.

That's right. These five RINOs teamed up with five Dems in the Senate and worked out a bill that gives the Dems everything they want and simply screws the GOP and more importantly, the American people.

From Kimberly A. Strassel over at the Wall Street Journal:

This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver. That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

In other words, these five Senators agreed with the Dems that there should be no drilling in any area where oil actually exists.

Further:

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies!

So, not only will there be no new exploration nor new domestic production, but we consumers can look forward to higher prices since the oil companies are simply going to pass those new taxes on to us consumers at the gas pump!

What were these five thinking? This has got to be the biggest bone-head play in the history of the Senatorial GOP! Not only have they agreed to screw-over the American people with higher gas prices, but they have also cut their own party off at the knees!

Read on:

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage. In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. As two of the GOP's most vulnerable senators, both might well have run for cover with the Gang of 10. Instead they're fighting on the merits. The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him.

Effectively say "no" to new domestic energy production? Push gas prices higher by raising taxes in order to pay for research on technologies that don't exist on any usable scale for viability as an alternative?

These five are going to have a lot of explaining to do. And they may have to explain it to a filibuster-proof Senate that will be nothing more than an economy destroying Socialist rubber-stamp to America's next Socialist President: Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Republican Energy Fumble
Kimberly A. Strassel
The Wall Street Journal
August 8, 2008