Archive for May, 2005

The Sellout Seven

Posted: 30 May 2005 in Politics

The seven Republicans that need to be removed from the Senate: John McCain of Arizona, Maine twins Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Warner of Virginia, and Mike DeWine of Ohio.

It is time that their constituents put them on notice. Their obstructionist tactics and outright undermining of the Republican Party’s efforts to bring an out of control judiciary back to the right, is a farce.

These seven Senators sabotaged the President, their 48 fellow Republican Senators, and the American people. Their actions reflect their weakness. Their actions show that they are more concerned with the liberal media giving them face time and pronouncing them “reformers”, than following the will of their constituants.

The November elections sent a message, that apparently, hasn’t been heard by some of the Senators in Congress. Not only was President Bush re-elected, but the Republican Party picked up more seats in the Senate.

The American people have spoken. It is time for these Senators to hear our voices once again. It is time to put them on notice. It is time to fire these seven Senators. They are closet liberals and need to be replaced by true conservatives.

Here are a few articles related to this:

Nuclear Option Still on the Table

McCain Helps Democrats Drive America Left

Call Them the Sellout Seven

Chafee’s Choices

PETA Kills Animals

Posted: 26 May 2005 in Politics

Found a great website that hammers away at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

Here’s a sample from their website: PETA Kills Animals

From their site:

7 Things You Didn’t Know About PETA

1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.
2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM’s president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.

7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

I support their effort to expose PETA for what they really are; domestic terrorists.

They are an organization that routinely advocates the breaking of laws and is guilty of hypocrisy as well.

Their tax exepmt status needs to be removed immediately!

Go here to sign a petition against PETA:
The Center for Consumer Freedom

Fight back! PETA is targeting your children!

Stop them now!

Another organization that claims to be for animal rights and is a sham is the Humane Society of the United States.

Check out this site:

Newsweek must be held accountable for their obvious anti-American, anti-military story that resulted in the deaths of 16 and injured 100.

The story published in the May 8 issue of Newsweek was a blatant lie that sparked anti-American protests across muslim countries around the world.

The set back that this rag has created is treasonous.

The writers and editors of this story should be brought up on charges of murder and treason.

It is high time that the media be held accountable for their overt anti-Americanism and when this results in the death of innocent people and puts our Soldiers in harms way, they should be brought up on charges, and fined at a minimum.

Their parent company should pay the families of those that died compensation for their losses, and they should pay every time a Soldier is killed due to their misconduct.

“We regret that we got any part of the story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in the midst,” said Newsweek Editor Mark Whitaker in a note to readers.

This half-assed attempt at an apology, doesn’t cut it.

“It’s outrageous, I think it’s accessory to murder,” said Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt, now retired from the Army.

“This is a lie. This is [a] criminal act as far as I’m concerned. People died,” Hunt told Fox interviewer Geraldo Rivera. “A lot worse things should happen to Newsweek than … making this half-assed apology.”

“It’s treasonous at worst,” Hunt added. “How about not hurting the war? How about causing no harm? I think Newsweek should lose every reader it ever had.”

A statement that they “may have erred” is outrageous! “We may have erred” isn’t good enough. It isn’t even close.

Democrat Hypocrisy

Posted: 12 May 2005 in Politics

Showing the Democrat hypocrisy is an interesting and easy game to play.
Please feel free to find some of your own as well.

These quotes are from the Congressional Record.

•SEN. LEAHY: One of the things that most Republicans and Democrats ought to be able to agree on is what (then-)Governor Bush said: Do it and vote them up or down in 60 days. Let’s make a decision. (7/25/00)

•SEN. DASCHLE: Among the constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the Senate, none is more critical to the well-being of our democracy than providing advice and consent on Presidential nominations. (3/8/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: No one will be here forever. All will leave at some time. When we leave, we can only look back and say: What kind of service did we give? Did we put the country’s interests first? Or did we put partisan interest first? Did we put integrity first, or did we play behind the scenes and do things that were wrong? (9/21/99)

•SEN. KENNEDY: Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in this process. (3/7/00)

•SEN. SCHUMER: By not filling vacancies, we hamper the judiciary’s ability to fulfill its own constitutional duties. . . . This delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo. (3/7/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: I hope we will have a chance to vote on them, not just in committee . . . but on the floor of the Senate. That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do – to vote for or against. I do not question the judgement or conscience of any man or woman in this Senate if they vote differently that I do, but vote. (9/21/99)

•SEN. REED: This is one of our enumerated duties in the Constitution. . . . I ask my colleagues to take their constitutional duty seriously and vote for these nominees on the basis of their objective qualifications, and not on the basis of petty politics. This process is much too important to the citizens of this great democracy to do otherwise. (3/9/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: One of our most important constitutional responsibilities as United States Senators is to advise and consent on the scores of judicial nominations sent to us to fill the vacancies on the federal courts around the country. I continue to urge the Senate to meet its responsibilities to all nominees. . . . We must redouble our efforts . . . . That is our constitutional responsibility. It should not be shirked. (7/25/00)

•SEN. LEAHY: There are only 100 of us who are elected to represent a quarter of a billion Americans. . . . Let us not play silly parliamentary games and tell the American people we do not have the guts to vote . . . (3/8/00)

•SEN. KENNEDY: Many of us have been concerned about the Senate’s continuing delays in acting on President Clinton’s nominees to the federal courts . . . . This kind of partisan, Republican stonewalling is irresponsible and unacceptable. It’s hurting the courts and it’s hurting the country. . . . The continuing delays are a gross perversion of the confirmation process that has served this country well for more than 200 years. When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations, they never intended the Senate to work against the President. . . . (9/21/99)

•SEN. LEAHY: We are not being responsible. We are being dishonest, condescending, and arrogant toward the judiciary. It deserves better and the American people deserve better. . . . Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch. . . . We are seeing outstanding nominees nitpicked and delayed to the point that good women and men are being deterred from seeking to serve as federal judges. (9/8/99)

•SEN. LEAHY: We should be the conscience of the Nation. On some occasions we have been. But we tarnish the conscience of this great Nation if we establish the precedence of partisanship and rancor that go against all precedents and set the Senate on a course of meanness and smallness . . . . For the last several years, I have been urging the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to proceed to consider and confirm judicial nominees more promptly, without the months of delay that now accompany so many nominations. (10/1/99)

•SEN. DASCHLE: I believe there is a time and a place for us to consider any nominee and, once having done so, we need to get on with it. I cannot imagine that anybody could justify, anybody could rationalize, anybody could explain why, in the name of public service, we would put anyone through the misery and the extraordinary anguish that these nominees have had to face for years. Why would anyone ever offer themselves for public service . . . ? (3/9/00)

•SEN. HARKIN: I hope the Judiciary Committee and the leadership on that side. . .will listen to the words of Texas Governor George Bush. He said he would call for a 60-day deadline for judges – once they are nominated, the Senate will have 60 days to hold a hearing, to report out of committee and vote on the Senate floor. . . . If he said he would call for a 60-day deadline, I ask my friends on the Republican side: Why don’t we act accordingly? (10/3/2000)

•SEN. LEAHY: If I could make a recommendation, I would join an unusual ally in that. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas (stated that) presidential nominations should be acted upon by the Senate within 60 days. He said: ‘The Constitution . . does not empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation. Yet somewhere along the way, that is what Senate confirmations became – lengthy, partisan, and unpleasant. It has done enough harm, injured too many good people, and it must not happen again.’ Governor Bush is right. . . . I have said the same thing. (7/21/2000)

•SEN. DASCHLE: The Republican majority should not be allowed to cherry-pick among nominees, allowing some to be confirmed in weeks, while letting other nominations languish for years. . . . Let the Senate vote on every nomination. (10/5/99)

•SEN. LEAHY: Either vote for them or vote against them. Don’t leave people . . . just hanging forever with even getting a rollcall vote. That is wrong. It is not a responsible way and besmirches the Senate. . . . (10/5/00)

•SEN. DASCHLE: There is going to be no payback. We are not going to do to Republican nominees, whenever that happens, what they have done to Democratic nominees. Why? Because it is not right. Will we differ? Absolutely. Will we have votes and vote against nominees on the basis of whatever we choose? Absolutely. But are we going to make them wait for years and years to get their fair opportunity to be voted on and considered? Absolutely not. That is not right. I do not care who is in charge. I do not care which President is making the nomination. That is not right. (3/9/00)

More later.


Illegal Alien Invasion

Test of Hispanic boycott fails in Arizona

Alleged cop killer an illegal immigrant

Bishops want legalization of illegals

Illegal aliens invading U.S.

Illegal drives wrong way on Interstate

Court: DMV can’t revoke illegals’ licenses

Bishops want legalization of illegals

John Bolton

The Borking of Bolton

The Disappearing Case Against John Bolton

Weld Weighs In for Bolton

The Best Man for the Job

Bolton for the U.N.

It is time for the Republicans to get their act together.

One thing, the only thing, that I admire about the Democrat Party is their ability to show a united front, even when they are grossly wrong on any particular issue, and stick to their guns.

The namby-pamby, on the one hand, on the other hand, that the Republican Party (mostly rogue) Senators is damaging the Party’s efforts to get their agenda passed in the Senate.

For far too long, the Republican Party’s strategy to offer the “olive branch” to the Democrats, is not a viable option. It isn’t working. It hasn’t worked in the many years that they have been doing it.

Every time they do this, the Democrats get their way and the rest of us suffer for it.

Judicial nominees are a fine example of the obstructionist tactics that the Democrats continue to employ, while the Republicans continue to offer the “olive branch” and the Democrats continue getting their way.

The Constitutional option needs to be exercised now. The Republicans need to fight back in a manner that is beneficial to them and the rest of us who voted Republican.
We voted that way for a reason. The reason for our vote was to stop the liberal shenanigans that have continued to haunt America for far too long.

Are you listening? Hello? Republican Party are you home?

More later.
I am far from through with this one.