About Me

Name: 84rules
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

The First 100 Hours And Ann Coulter's Latest




The Democrats now control Congress. So, what will it mean for the next two years? It will mean that Pelosi and Reid will try to force a socialist agenda on the United States, mostly within the first 100 hours of the legislative session.

In earlier blog posts, I wrote about the Dem plans for America and their alliance with the European socialists.

Michael Reagan, writing for Human Events Online, notes the following:

Madame Pelosi promises to push forward legislation that would “make our country safer; make our economy fair; make college more affordable; health care more accessible; move toward energy independence.”

She is also reported to be planning to introduce legislation that would muzzle conservative opposition. That’s scary, and indicative of the Marxian mindset of Pelosi and her far-left colleagues now controlling the House of Representatives. The legislative initiatives included in Pelosi’s first-hundred-hours program, however, are just plain demagoguery – proposals that sound good but are riddled with problems and what Heritage scholars call “unintended consequences.”

Take the pledge to increase the minimum wage. Sounds good – after all, who wants people to be denied a living wage? It raises up images in the public’s mind of employees struggling to exist on a pittance. It also ignores some very inconvenient facts Heritage scholars exposed:

• It is an extremely ineffective anti-poverty measure. It does not help the poor, low-income workers. Most minimum wage workers do not need government assistance. Less than one in five live below the poverty line, and the average family income of a minimum wage earner is almost $50,000 a year. The majority of minimum wage workers are between the ages of 16 and 24, and over three-fifths work part time.

• Many will lose their jobs because as it gets more become more expensive to hire workers, companies hire fewer of them. The bulk of research on the minimum wage confirms that the minimum wage costs jobs. Some workers may get a raise while others lose everything.

And this is just the minimum wage issue of which I have a previous blog entry here.

The Dems are also set to vote more money for stem-cell research. But what they are not saying is that it will be embryonic stem cell research rather than adult stem-cell research. You see, the leftist media and the Dems do not want you to know that the only branch of stem-cell research that has ever cured a patient is the adult stem-cell branch. Every time embryonic stem-cells have been injected into test rats, the rats developed tumors (embryonic carcinoma, the same disease that killed Chicago Bears running back Brian Piccolo).

So, if it is adult stem-cell research that has actually been curing patients and embryonic stem-cell research has been killing rats, why fund the embryonic branch? Because it pushes a pro-abortion agenda and gives the Dems an excuse to abort more babies. Even doctors are hard pressed to give any other reason why.

You can access Michael Reagan's column on-line here:

Wrong Answers
Michael Reagan
Human Events Online
January 5, 2007


And we have Ann Coulter's latest column about the Dems and their efforts over the past few decades to ensure that the United States loses any and all wars. Usually her columns are funny and witty, but this one hits the truth so hard that it is scary rather than humorous.

From her column:

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.

...

Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.

Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America's word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, "American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally." He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam—no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. Within a month of Ford's last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape.

Right now, the Dems are trying to force a similar circumstance on President Bush. It turns out that the only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is the Dem insistence that we lose the war and tarnish our international image.

The biggest advantage the terrorists currently have over us is the Democratic Party and all of its silly, left-wing socialist ideas. It is no wonder that the Islamo-fascists cheered the loudest when the dems took over Congress.

Ann's parting shot:

In addition to being wrong about Ford's pardon of Nixon, liberals were wrong about a few other things from that era. Democrats haven't admitted error in rejecting Ford's pleas on behalf of South Vietnam because there are still dangerous foreigners trying to kill Americans. Nixon is safely interred in the ground, but the enemies of America continue to need the Democrats' help.

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

The Democratic Party: A Vast Sleeper Cell
Ann Coulter
Human Events Online
January 3, 2007

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems Renege On Their Biggest Campaign Promise And Middle School Girls Gone Wild




Okay, how many of you reading this think this is any kind of surprise at all? After all of the campaign promises to build "bipartisanship" and getting input from Republicans, the Dems have decided they are simply going to push forward and force the Republicans to the sidelines.

Think this is an over-reaction to the impending disaster Pelosi is brewing for us? Read what the Washington Post (that's right, the Washington Post) has to say:

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

Just as the Dems are breaking their promise to confront corruption (e.g. John Conyers not being held the least bit accountable for his transgressions), they are now breaking their promise of bipartisanship. And they haven't even started the session yet!

It has become clear that only the most naive and gullible will believe anything Pelosi and company promise.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin
WashingtonPost.com
January 2, 2007


And here is a prime example of why you, as a parent, must play an active role in your children's lives. Writing for the New York Times (yes, the New York Times), Lawrence Downes notes:

They writhe and strut, shake their bottoms, splay their legs, thrust their chests out and in and out again. Some straddle empty chairs, like lap dancers without laps. They don’t smile much. Their faces are locked from grim exertion, from all that leaping up and lying down without poles to hold onto. “Don’t stop don’t stop,” sings Janet Jackson, all whispery. “Jerk it like you’re making it choke. ...Ohh. I’m so stimulated. Feel so X-rated.” The girls spend a lot of time lying on the floor. They are in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades.

As each routine ends, parents and siblings cheer, whistle and applaud. I just sit there, not fully comprehending. It’s my first suburban Long Island middle school talent show. I’m with my daughter, who is 10 and hadn’t warned me. I’m not sure what I had expected, but it wasn’t this. It was something different. Something younger. Something that didn’t make the girls look so ... one-dimensional.

It would be easy to chalk it up to adolescent rebellion, an ancient and necessary phenomenon, except these girls were barely adolescents and they had nothing to rebel against. This was an official function at a public school, a milieu that in another time or universe might have seen children singing folk ballads, say, or reciting the Gettysburg Address.

It would be easy to blame stuff like this on people like Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton and all of the skanky, slutty public displays they've put on. It would even be easy to blame stuff like this:

But the truth is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the above quote. It is the family. You, as adults, must take a stand with your children. You must make clear to them what is appropriate and acceptable and what is not. It doesn't mean that you have become a prude. It means that you care about the world your sons and daughters will be venturing out into and how that world will treat them.

Will your daughter be the next Sally Ride or Natalee Holloway? Will your son be the next Peyton Manning or Darrent Williams? You will have a big influence on that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Middle School Girls Gone Wild
Lawrence Downes
NYTimes.com
December 29, 2006

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dems Taking Care Of The "Culture Of Corruption"




So, after all of the chest beating about reigning in the "culture of corruption" in a Republican controlled Congress, how do the Dems handle corruption within their own ranks? They quietly forgive it and hope that nobody notices. You see, in the mind of the average leftist, it is only unforgivable corruption if it is committed by a Conservative Republican. If committed by a liberal Dem, then it is to be brushed over as quickly as possible.

Take for example the current situation with John Conyers (D-MI). He stands accused of using his legal counsel as a tutor for his children and having his staff pick the children up from school and babysit them in the office, all of this without additional compensation from Conyers. Additionally, he allowed a former top aid who had been convicted of fraud to obtain a fake passport and flee to Ghana until the aid was recaptured and extradited back to the U.S. Also, Conyers had his staff work on the campaigns of friends and relaitves without taking leave (i.e. on official Congressional time) and Deanna Maher was instructed to live in the Conyers home for six weeks while Conyers' wife took law classes. Maher quit in May of 2006.

According to the House Ethics Committee Website:

Representative John Conyers had performed campaign activity on official time and in some instances using official resources, and that some staff members may have been compelled to do campaign work or personal work for Representative Conyers. The assertions in the reports, if true, could implicate a number of laws and House rules applicable to Members, including: House Rule 23, clause 1 (requiring the conduct of a Member or employee to reflect creditably on the House of representatives); House Rule 23, clause 8 (requiring that congressional staff perform official duties commensurate with compensation); 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) and corresponding regulations of the Committee on House Administration (providing that official funds may be used only for the purposes appropriated); and 18 U.S.C § 606 (prohibiting adverse personnel action or intimidation to secure a “contribution of money or other valuable thing” including services, for a political purpose).

The Press Statement goes on:

In the course of providing information to the Committee, Representative Conyers acknowledged what he characterized as a “lack of clarity” in his communications with staff members regarding their official duties and responsibilities, and accepted responsibility for his actions. Representative Conyers also provided the Committee with documents indicating that he had begun taking steps to provide clearer guidance to staff regarding the requirement that campaign work and official work be separate.

After reviewing the information gathered during the inquiry, and in light of Representative Conyers’ cooperation with the inquiry, we have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff.

You can access this comment on-line here:

Statement of Chairman Doc Hastings and Ranking Minority Member Howard L. Berman Regarding Representative John Conyers
Press Statement Regarding John Conyers
U.S. House Of Representative
December 29, 2006

So, John Conyers is not going to be held accountable for his corruption? I guess this is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that this would be "the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” Exactly as she is quoted here:

Pelosi Announces New Majority Leadership Team
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
November 16, 2006

John Conyers notwithstanding, of course.

In fact, you can access a more complete story about this on-line here:

Rep. Conyers' Questionable Ethics
Washington Times Editorial
March 8, 2006


And not just in the House, but the Senate is starting to light up with Dem corruption as well. Apart from what we already know about the corrupt dealings of Harry Reid (D-NV) we are beginning to learn small details of trouble brewing for Barack Obama (D-IL). According to Human Events Online:

In between the “fluff and style” news items, there have been reports of Obama’s connections to Antoine “Tony” Rezko. Rezko, who was indicted in October 2006 for a multimillion dollar kick-back scheme, has been a longtime supporter of Obama. Rezko’s companies have donated large sums to Obama’s campaigns. Rezko also hosted a fundraiser for Obama. Completing the shady political trifecta—there’s even a questionable real estate deal between the two men.

Last week, Obama denied granting an internship in his Capitol Hill office to a 20-year-old student recommended by his corrupt buddy. The highly competitive internship was one of 98 Illinois spots filled from a pool of 350 applicants and Rezko wanted a friend’s son to get the job. The intern’s father is a longtime Rezko associate who, incidentally, has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama’s political campaigns.

And even if true, I doubt the Dem controlled Senate will do much about the "culture of corruption" the libs are inflicting on our government already.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethics Questions Put Obama On The Spot
Chris Farrell
HumanEventsOnline.com
January 2, 2007

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »