Why should I pay?

Obama has proposed a huge mortgage bailout that begs the question:

Should hardworking, faithful mortgage paying Americans pay for the bailout of mortgages of those who unwisely chose a home more expensive than they could afford?

I say "Let them lose their homes and fall on their butts financially until they get it! Bad choices have bad consequences! Time to learn personal responsibility!"

Bad choices have bad consequences? Hmmmmm......Stimulus package? Bailout of banks and the car industry? Mortgage Bailout? Delayed market correction?

America, watch out! Your leaders (Congress and the President) are making bad choices!

Pelosi still not saving the planet!

Today, August 1, 2008, Pelosi and the Democrats turned off the lights and microphones and adjourned the House while the Republicans were still debating the drilling issue. Please view the Video update.

Rep. John Culberson reports on the debate on the need for an energy plan, which the Democrats ignore. All they want is a vote, but Pelosi must know that most Democrats would agree to drilling.

UPDATE: Rep. Culberson is using Twitter to keep the world informed about the historic debate.

Pelosi not out to save the Planet - Updated

Pelosi's adamant refusal to bring the issue of drilling for oil on the continental shelf to a vote is not so much about saving the planet as it is about saving Democratic backsides.

UPDATE: Today, August 1, 2008, Pelosi and the Democrats turned off the lights and microphones and adjourned the House while the Republicans were still debating the drilling issue. Please view the Video update.

If Democrats don't have to publicly vote for or against increasing American oil production, the "great unwashed populus" of the United States does not need to know where they stand. If the masses don't know for sure that Democrats would rather the United States remain dependent on other countries for oil (much the same way they want the American people dependent on a 'nanny' government for basic needs), then they will not do any damage to the great Obama's (bow down, unworthy ones!) chances for winning the Presidency - not just of the US but of the WORLD!

Pelosi would rather our country lurch leftward and toward second world status in the name of "saving the environment" with a socialist/Marxist leaning President than for our country to regain and maintain greatness and strength among the nations.

Last Word on the Fairness Doctrine

Diane Feinstein was photographed leaving Congress after the Fairness Doctrine was voted down.

More Government Welfare From Pelosi

I am very disappointed in the performance of our current Speaker of the House. It seems that the directions Nancy Pelosi and her cronies are trying to take Congress are disasterous, and the approval ratings for Congress is now lower (the approval rating for Congress stands lower than Mr. Bush's, at 23%) than those for President Bush. And that is no mean feat!

Nancy Pelosi's latest act of entitlement is to demand that lawmakers’ adult children tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free. And why should this be, seeing that you have to be very rich to be a member of Congress, and thus able to afford the occasional airline trip for your family members? Mike Soroghan of The Hill gives the answer:

Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers’ spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments.

What the Heck! We did not elect the spouses and adult children of lawmakers to Congress! We elected the Representatives and Senators for who they were and for their expertise and ability to make wise decisions and legislate.

Pelosi is only seeking more perks from the government. She has almost all the power she ever dreamed of having (short of being president), and she is using her power to soak the government, believing it is her due. It is part of her socialist beliefs in a cradle to grave welfare state.

Expect congressional approval ratings to continue to drop as Pelosi and her cohorts repeatedly push for more undeserved and unnecessary government benefits.

Can there be any doubt???

Some people say that Islam is the "Religion of Peace." I know a few muslims who live here who are "peaceful." That is because they appreciate the freedoms and lifestyle of the United States of America. Sheik Ahmad Bahr would be killing them if he were here right now. In fact, Bahr wants all of us dead. Every American and Israeli. And they call them selves adherents of a "Religion of Peace."

Here are his very words. Read them and shake yourself free from ignorance. Realize that there is no possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Realize that there is an aggressive contingency prepared to behead you and destroy your loved ones simply because you are not a Muslim.

Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."

What will you do? Can there be any doubt that we have an enemy? Any Democrats listening? Pelosi? Reid? Clinton?

Pelosi in Chains?

Looks like Nancy Pelosi overstepped her bounds as she traveled to Damascus, Syria to play diplomatic games. Unfortunately for her, and she should know better, the United States is to present a unified diplomatic front to the nations of the world, and by freelancing Pelosi presented a different view from current State Department and international policy. The UN and State Department have determined that Syria is a brood of vipers harboring terrorists.

There is a law in place to deal with issues like rogue diplomats. It is called the Logan Act. The Logan Act makes it a felony for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States" and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years.

Even though Nancy Pelosi wanted to follow the guidelines of the ISG report that suggests more communication with Syria, she is foolish and idealistic to think her input would benefit the current situation in the Middle East. Not only is she a very high ranking official going to visit our enemies (third in line to the presidency) without the current administration's blessing, she is presenting a view different from what our State Department presents, AND she botched a supposed message from Israel.

When she comes home, she should be censured severely at the very least, and should possibly lose her position as Speaker of the House if the Democrats have the cojones to deal with her behavior. Perhaps, instead of the witch hunt against Scooter Libby, prosecutors should face a real lawbreaker like Pelosi!


HERE is another article about the Logan Act and whether or not Nancy Pelosi should be arrested for her actions.


Radiant Times

UPDATE:

Is it me, or is there a Pelosi blackout in the Media today? Hmmmm.
We wonder if she's given secrets to the enemy, and personally would not put it past her.

Ecstatic or Disappointed

If you are a Democrat, you are either Ecstatic about Nancy Pelosi now, or very concerned and Disappointed.

Pelosi has embarked on her own taxpayer-funded fool's errand of trying to out-state department the State Department by going to Syria to meet with their dictator Bashar al-Assad. Problem is that Syria is one of the biggest terror supporters in the region, being the home location of Hezbollah's (or hez-bullies, as I like to call them) Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and other terrorists.

Here is a quote from the Washington Post article "Pratfall in Damascus":

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East.

Pelosi's ill advised personal foray into foreign policy begs the question - who should be getting impeached or at least censured for this Fol-de Rol? Did she do this for her own personal pride? Or is her idealistic view of those who support our enemies blinding her from common sense. Has Pelosi forgotten that the approval rating for Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, is LESS than that of the President.


Charles Hurt of the Examiner writes:

"Back home, conservatives and liberals alike criticized Pelosi's diplomatic freelancing as naive, sloppy and dangerous."

Dangerous indeed, Nancy. Now come home and face the music.


UPDATE

Here's another article on the issue:

When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah


PERSONAL UPDATE:

I condemn Pelosi's actions, but I ALSO condemn the five Republicans who went with her. Doesn't the President have authority to have the whole delegation arrested for making a "diplomatic" visit to a country with whom we are having very restricted diplomatic relations??

What are Democrats trying to accomplish?

I am an unabashed conservative. Not a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. Not a right wingnut. Not a Phred Phelps Pflamer. Just a conservative leaning toward moderate that is trying to understand what is happening on the political scene.

I'm one of the people that Democrats would want to woo to their side. I'm not enamored with Bush, although I have supported him and do support (with only a little reservation) the war effort. I'm not happy with the leftward swing of those who call themselves conservative. I have strong feelings about social issues and care about the environment.

But I have to wonder what the Democrats are doing to attract people like me. First consider their leading presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, based on her past baggage and association with "only the second president to be impeached in all of US history" (I'm quoting my dear husband), with her failed health care plan from the Clinton administration, and with her socialistic leanings does little to inspire trust in voters like me. She might rise to the occasion if she were elected, but she has no clue what to do with the war. Nor do the other Democratic candidates. It's complicated, but there is no "plan," as Kerry would say, on the Democrat side to end the war (nor any clear vision of the consequences of such action) outside of the "death by a thousand cuts" agenda.

Barak Obama is a man with so little experience who got lucky to be catapulted to national attention. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and the church he claims to belong to has a statement of faith that appears to promote a bigoted form of reverse discrimination (everywhere you see the word "black" replace it with "white" and it could be the statement of faith of a racist white supremacist church.) Where DO the Democrats get these "leaders"? Don't they vet them first? Or maybe their leading candidates really do represent the views of the Democratic leadership. I find that possibility concerning!

Speaking of 'Death by a Thousand Cuts,' the flood of subpoenas demanded by the Democrats because of the legitimate firing of a few attorneys is this side of ridiculous. Here are some comments by Mark Davis:

What they seek to destroy is this presidency they loathe with their every breath. Mr. Gonzales has plenty to answer for, but the elevation of these attorney dismissals to a Watergate-caliber controversy is wholly without basis.

Add the irony that the voices stoking the scandal imagery are from the same congressional and journalistic outposts that have sugar-coated the Clinton years for more than a decade, and the spectacle borders on the obscene.

I've not even gotten into the shenanigans of Pelosi, (Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation) Murtha and Dean, but to me they are equally disappointing for their pandering to the left wing of their party.

I'm not one of those voters who decides to skip voting in despair and disgust, but it may be that, again, I vote for the lesser of two evils in hopes that some real leadership will rise up in the next six years.