DNC Superdelegate is selling his vote for $20mil

Not for profit, of course. Oh no. He's selling his vote for charity... or something...

[O]ne superdelegate is courting the candidates. He says he'll sell his vote for a price. A very high price: $20 million.

Steven Ybarra of Sacramento says that eight-figure price is peanuts for the presidency.

When asked whether it was right to offer what is clearly a quid pro quo, he responded, "yeah, absolutely. People do it all the time," answered Ybarra.

But not like this. Not in public and not for such big bucks. It begs the question: Is he crazy?

"Nobody's said I'm crazy," said Ybarra.

Ybarra wants every cent of the $20 million to go towards registering and educating eligible Mexican-American voters, who he calls the key to the White House.

"And I keep asking the question of the DNC: 'why won't you earmark money for these voters?' And their answer is, 'oh, we can't do that' Which is a lie," said Ybarra.

With the Democratic National Committee saying 'no,' Ybarra waits for a 'yes' from already cash-strapped Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Would he accept less? How about $5 million?

"No, $5 million is nothing," said Ybarra.

It might be a moot point as neither campaign has come calling.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Does it surprise anyone? I mean, really now.

And only a DNC Superdelegate would be concerned with making sure only minority Americans get educated and registered to vote. White male voters need not apply!

Of course, who's to say this guy won't just pocket the cash? In either case, this is pretty damn ridiculous. What's really sad is how very little this story surprises me. Only the DNC would make a wackjob like this guy a superdelegate.

Video of the Day

Here's a great video I came across on Right Wing News:

File this under "Unsurprising"

You might have noticed it when you first heard of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You might have noticed it when you heard Howard Dean's scream heard 'round the world. Maybe you read Michelle Malkin's book Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Maybe you figured it out when you heard lefties calling Cindy Sheehan the "Mother Theresa" of the anti-war movement.

However or whenever it was, most of us have long known that the left has become completely, moonbat crazy.

Unsurprisingly, there is now evidence to confirm just that:

Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

The basic data -- based on an aggregated sample of more than 4,000 interviews conducted since 2004 -- are straightforward.

Is there anyone shocked by this? I don't think lefties themselves will even be surprised by this. While we have looked at them this entire time knowing that there is something very, very wrong with the left, and that they need mental help, they tend to blame it on other things. They'll say it's all because of the state of the country today, things like CHIMPY McHITLERBURTON!! BLACKWATER!! GLOBAL WARMING!! IRAQ QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE!! ABU GHRAIB!! MILITARY RAPISTS MURDERERS BABY KILLERS!! GUNS BAD!! NO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE!! YEAAARGGGHHHH!!!!

And these are the people we should put in charge of our country? Yeah, right.

Hat Tip: Liberty Pundit

Dems wave that white flag higher and higher

What do you do when you've staked your political career on a loss in Iraq? You're pandered to the crazies at Code Pink, you've promised your voters you'll pull out, and you've tried multiple times to bring about a loss.

But surprisingly enough for you, we're winning. Violence is dropping. The surge is working. The Iraqi Army is becoming more functional and independent every day. There are stories of Muslims and Christians working together, Iraqi citizens helping our troops, forming groups to help weed out Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and an Iraq victory is now no longer a probability -- it's simply a matter of time.

But you've invested yourself in defeat. You've made proclamations about how horrible this is going to be. You extol how "troops are dying!" and that Iraq will be a "quagmire!". You proclaim that the war is lost and you try to cut the funding to our heroes fighting in the sandbox.

So now what do you do?

If we aren't going to actually lose in Iraq, you try to undermine the effort. You try to sabotage our troops by cutting off funding and supplies. You try to bring about a loss any way you can, no matter what it may mean for our national security, for Iraq and the Middle East, and for the War on Terror.

Welcome to the Democratic Party, folks.

House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren’t giving up.

“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”

The President promised a veto, and the bill rolled forward to the Senate.

Unfortunately for the defeat-at-any-cost Dems, Republicans kept their promises about backing the President and filibustered.

The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal that would have paid for the Iraq war but required that troops start coming home.
The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," Reid said.

Republicans said Democrats were being irresponsible.

"We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We need to get it to them right now."

Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was the lone Democrat opposing it because he said it did not go far enough to end the war.

At some point, would it be possible at all for this 11% approval rated Congress to do the right thing? Of course not, because they've simply got too much invested in defeat and loss. They don't feel any loyalty to the United States (it's a global order now, they answer to the U.N.), so they certainly aren't concerned with preserving our national security. They need us to lose, regardless of the cost. Once upon a time, what they're doing would have been called "treason". But of course, not anymore.

Just remember, don't question their patriotism.

Ready to start stocking up on white feathers?

Joe Biden tells the truth

While we all know that Democrats think of us regular people as blithering idiots (who probably worship Jesus too much and government not enough), it's strange to see one of them actually own up to it.

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Asked if he thinks, as he suggested recently in another interview, that the other candidates tend to think the American people are stupid or easily fooled, he said, “Well, I do.”

“It’s not even so much they don’t trust, which is a piece of it,” he said. It’s that they think that “the way to win is the Bill Clinton triangulation and the Karl Rove angering.”

“It’s the thesis that you go to your base because people don’t vote. Well, why don’t they vote?” he asked. He said he thinks people don’t vote because they’re tired of the way politicians treat them.

He said Democrats would do better if they stopped dividing the electorate by playing to their base and instead brought people together. He criticized the left wing of his party for demonizing the rich and Republicans.

“Rich folks are as patriotic as poor folks, but we don’t talk that way,” he said.

I don't normally have much nice to say about Joe Biden, but wow -- did he hit the nail on the head, or what?

See, to liberals, we're all idiots. We can't take care of ourselves, we can't make rational decisions, and if the government was left in our hands, it would be a catastrophe. This inherent mistrust and condescension is easily seen by the very insistence of a liberal, socialist nanny-state -- and goes against everything this country was built on. If libs thought we were intelligent people capable of running our own lives, why would they insist on putting us in a cradle-to-the-grave nanny state which does everything for us?

They want us to remain "stupid" and reliant on the government, thus the denial of the voucher system, for example. They want us to be mindless drones who worship at their altar and utterly rely on them to take care of every single little thing for us. Then, they can be the powerful, important elites looking over the masses. Then, they can celebrate themselves as champions of the "little people" and the "oppressed". People actually thinking for themselves and being self-reliant is the worst nightmare of Shrillary, Pioneer Pelosi and crew.

As Bryan said at Hot Air:

The Democrats’ default attitude is to take power from the people rather than entrust power to the people. Biden is on to something in saying so.

And by the way -- yes, Joe, we are sick of the way politicans treat us. I think most of us are just sick of politicians in general, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on.

The Pete Stark Rant

Well, everyone's heard of the Pete Stark Rant, but if you haven't, here it is:



Here is, of course, the money quote:

"You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." -- Democrat Pete Stark on the House Floor.

A lot of people are acting shocked and apalled by what he said, and while I certainly think it was offensive, the first thing that came to my mind when I heard him speak was not shock.

No, as soon as he started speaking, I thought, "Wait a second... no way... is he... is he drunk?!"

Seriously. Maybe he and Ted Kennedy had a wild night or something, but the way he was speaking... what he was saying... he had to have been wasted. He's practically slurring his speech! The entire time he was talking I was waiting for him to lose his balance and fall down. It may not be the most intelligent observation out there, but honest to God, it was my very first thought.

And personally, I agree with Neal Boortz -- don't ask the scumbag to apologize. Condemn what he said all you want, call him a flaming asshole if you're so inclined. But demanding an apology is futile. If he does then apologize, you know it doesn't mean anything because he isn't genuinely sorry. It's because he wants to save his ass. So rip him to shreds all you want, but demanding an apology is about as worthless as asking Ted Kennedy not to have another drink.

Why the Democrats mascot is a donkey

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Murtha threatens to withhold funds from "Republican" war

In yet another (unsurprising) move to remind voters that Democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq, Rep. John Murtha has decided that he wants to withhold funds from this "Republican" war.

Calling Iraq a "Republican" war, an angry Rep. John Murtha today joined several top Democrats in threatening to withhold the nearly $200 billion in emergency military spending that President Bush has requested.

"It is the Republicans in Congress who continue to hand this president a blank check with no policy restrictions for the war in Iraq," said Mr. Murtha, D-Johnstown, who chairs the powerful House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. "This is their war."

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee, said he and Mr. Murtha would try to use their power of the purse to force President Bush to change course.

"I have no intention of reporting out $200 billion," Mr. Obey said.

The chairman also said he will soon introduce legislation for a war tax surcharge for all Americans -- except members of the military and their families -- to cover the conflict's huge costs. The tax, he said, could add as much as 15 percent to the federal income tax bills of the wealthiest Americans, while low- and middle-income Americans would pay about 2 percent.

Mr. Obey predicted that such a tax would collect as much as $145 to $150 billion each year, near the annual price tag of the Iraq war.

"If you don't like the cost," he said, "then shut down this war."

Mr. Murtha angrily denied that their approach would imperil soldiers already on the battlefield, saying Congress could provide enough funds for basic needs through the annual defense appropriations bill currently under consideration.

"We're going to take care of the troops. Period," he said.

Yes, because cutting off the funding to our troops is how they need to be taken care of.

They're really grasping at straws, aren't they? Anything to cut and run, and if they can't get their way, they'll slap a war tax surcharge on us -- that way, they can force us to surrender. Obey said it himself -- if you don't like the cost, shut down the war. The consequences of doing so on our national security and on the people of Iraq are inconsequential to him and the rest of the surrendercrats.

And didn't Murtha just put it perfectly? This really is the Republican war. The vast majority of Republicans are for keeping the United States safe and not plunging Iraq into turmoil, most likely causing civil war and genocide, and giving Iran and Al Qaeda a new safe haven from which they can more easily attack the United States.

The Democrats' war, however, is on the United States itself. They'd much rather we plunged the United States into dhimmitude and all live under Sharia law, as is rapidly happening in Europe. Defend the United States? Please. What could a liberal possibly find that would be worth saving here? They want to ruin everything about this country that is great to turn it into their own elitist and socialist paradise, and have no qualms about letting Al Qaeda and the terrorists win.

He really couldn't have put it any better. Republicans = winning in Iraq. Democrats = surrender.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Kucinich: I won't bless that occupation with my presence

Let us all hail to the almighty altar of Dennis Kucinich, Democratic presidential candidate whose presence is such a gift and blessing to us all!

Apparently, our troops in Iraq are not worthy of the wonderful and magnificent Kucinich's presence (emphasis mine):

After praising Syria following a meeting in Damascus with President Bashar Assad, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich declared he will not visit troops in Iraq during his Middle East tour because he considers the American military presence in Iraq to be illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," Kucinich said in Lebanon, according to the Associated Press. "I will not do it."

The Ohio congressman accused the Bush administration of destabilizing the Middle East and praised Syria for receiving Iraqi refugees.

"What most people are not aware of is that Syria has taken in more than 1.5 million Iraqi refugees," Kucinich said, according to the AP. "The Syrian government has actually shown a lot of compassion in keeping its doors open and being a host for so many refugees."

Those soldiers are just beneath him, see? Unworthy to lick his boots, let alone lay eyes on him.

Visit Iraq... sheesh. Why on Earth would a wonderful Democrat like him do that, when he can visit a terrorist state like Syria and undermine U.S. policies instead? I mean, Syria is right there with Iran in aiding terrorists in Iraq, not to mention giving all kinds of support to Hezbollah and Hamas. No wonder Kucinich loves them so much! They want to destroy the United States, too!

Again... this is what we call treason. Giving comfort and aid to enemies of the United States used to land you in front of a firing squad.

Not so in the kinder, gentler United States. Larry Craig is dangerous, and Kucinich isn't.

We should all kneel at his altar, and pray to be worthy of him blessing us with his presence immediately... or maybe we can pray at a different altar for him to come to his senses, resign, and apologize to our troops and the American people for being such a traitorous asshat.

Obama: Our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians

You know, I think liberals were right when they said Iraq is just another Vietnam. We've got liberals insulting our troops right and left, with politicians clamoring for defeat while crying "QUAGMIRE!" and simultaneously smearing our troops with this kind of garbage -- just like in Vietnam.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was warned by a friendly voter Monday to avoid public spats with his Democratic rivals - but remarks he made later could add fuel to the criticism against him.

Maggie North of Claremont told Obama he risks becoming part of the usual political scene if he keeps being drawn into well-publicized disputes with rivals. He and chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have jabbed at each other over foreign policy, the war on terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons.

...

But during a later appearance before about 800 people in Nashua, Obama made a comment likely to further the spats he was warned about.

Answering a question on how he would refocus U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism, he said, "We've to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Earlier this month, Obama drew criticism when he said he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission, if warranted.

John Kerry did it and won the Democratic nomination. Maybe Obama thinks it will work for him, too. After all, every Dem thinks crap like that of our troops, because they hate them. It's just that most of them are seasoned politicians who are smart enough not to say it out loud (most).

However -- that anyone would say something like that, let alone say it to gain political profit, about our troops in Iraq is despicable in my book. There is nothing lower than insulting, smearing, and debasing the sacrifice of the men and women over there risking their lives for Obama to act like a donkey's ass. They protect his right to slander them, yet this is how he repays them?

There really is nothing lower.

How liberals became extremists

Rich Lowry has a great piece about how the liberalism of the 60s gave birth to the monster that is liberalism today:

From a distance of nearly 50 years, the liberalism of 1960 is hardly recognizable. It was comfortable with the use of American power abroad, unabashedly patriotic, and forward-looking. But that was before The Fall.
...
The real John F. Kennedy wasn't the paladin of liberal purity of myth. He was friends with Joseph McCarthy. In his 1952 campaign for Senate and his 1960 presidential campaign, he got to the right of his Republican opponents on key issues. "Kennedy did not want anyone to tag him as a liberal, which he regarded as the kiss of death in electoral politics," Piereson writes. As president, he was vigorously anti-communist, a tax-cutter and a cautious supporter of civil rights.

His kind of liberalism -- "tough and realistic," as Piereson puts it, in the tradition of FDR and Truman -- was carried away in the riptide of his death. In a crucial and counterintuitive interpretive act, the nation's opinion elite made JFK a martyr to civil rights instead of the Cold War. Kennedy had been killed by a communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, who a few years before had tried to defect to the Soviet Union. Liberals nonetheless blamed the assassination on, in the characteristic words of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots."

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Daily Kos: They compassionately hate the troops!

I love when liberals blather on about how tolerant and compassionate they are. Usually, this is either immediately followed or preceded by said liberal doing everything in their power to silence their critics or those who have different viewpoints as them.

It's no secret that they hate the troops. Why, they just openly admitted that they hoped Gen. Petraus came back with a negative report from Iraq, because a positive one would be bad for them politically. The various liberal bastions of America -- like San Francisco, for example -- do everything in their power to demoralize, insult, shut down, attack, and antagonize anyone or anything associated with the military.

And what is the best example of this? Why, popular liberal blog Daily Kos. Actually, popular doesn't quite cover it. Daily Kos is the most visited liberal website in the world. And no one hates our troops and the Iraq war effort more than the Kos Kids.

Statements like this are the norm there:

"...I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

"Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned.. damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul. On the other hand, noncompliance will lead to that of being court-martialed."

And that's just the beginning. I would say that the Kos Kids are just following Washington's lead, in the footsteps of great American leaders such as James Clyburn, House Majority Whip:

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

But no, it is sadly the other way around. Washington is following the example of the Krazy Kos Kids, latching onto their moonbattery with all they've got.

Witness how Barack Osama Obama, Shrillary Clinton, and John "Silky Pony" Edwards all couldn't get in line fast enough to go to the YearlyKos convention to pander to the extremists. Like it or not, folks, the Kos Kids are mainstream. Welcome to the Democratic Party.

And how did a soldier get treated at YearlyKos when he dared offer a different opinion from the rest of the moonbats?

He got shouted down. Here's video:



Now, a few weeks ago, Daily Kos diarist AWhitneyBrown decided to share his thoughts on our "morally retarded" military (emphasis mine):

Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should. But what about those troops who are not so brave? Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex. Suddenly they find themselves in Iraq for the fourth or fifth time and they’re not so brave. In fact they're crapping in their pants. Shouldn’t we support them just as much? I think we should. In fact we should support them more, because a brave man does but once, whereas a coward dies a thousand deaths.
...
But to answer the question, what I mean when I say I support our troops is that I actually pay for their food, their ammo, their upkeep, transport, everything. I pay for all of it.
And I do that not only because I’m a patriotic American, although I am, but also because they take 35% out of my check every week and if I don’t pay it I will end up in jail.
That is what I mean by ‘I support our troops’. I mean I am involuntarily, under threat of prison, forced to pay for their support. Now do I resent that?
You’re damn right I do. Because it is stupid as hell. Other countries pay taxes, but they get something for it, like health care. What do I get? I get to kill a bunch of Iraqis. Whoopdeedoo.
...
So yes, I resent my support for the killing of Iraqis for which I get not even a memento or trophy. But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country?
No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded.
Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?"
That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for.
A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head.
So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You.

More recently, he's decided to keep up the asshattery, claiming his hatred for our military is because he's compassionate (emphasis mine, again):

Michelle Malkin just mentioned on Fox that I called our troops 'morally retarded".
But her criticism was mild compared to what I received here.
I was not misunderstood nor taken out of context, an attempt at humor did not go astray, no, the truth is my view is genuinely despised. I can understand why. Nobody wants to think of themselves or their loved ones morally deficient.
Nevertheless, I admonish not from anger or to mock, but from compassion.

Get it? He only insults the selfless sacrifice of our troops because he cares. Sniffle. Let's carry on, and I'll spare you all of his drivel about how he thinks the military chain-of-command works, and skip right to the good part:

To surrender the judgement of that most critical question, who should I kill today, would be irresponsible in the extreme, in such a case.
Such recklessness would indicate a fundamental failure of the innate moral facility. That is what I mean by morally retarded.
For this view, I have been called Anti-Military.
My response is this: Who on earth could be Pro-Military! The purpose of a military is to kill. It is at best a necessary evil. Necessary only because someone else has a military that threatens our survival.
Pro-Military? That's like being Pro-Abortion! Or Pro-chemo-therapy!
A military is an extortion demanded of us by other militaries, a practical acquiesence to the world as it is, but only a sadist, a brute, a glory-monger, a thief or a tyrant can look at a military as a good thing, noble in itself.
Only a society blind with avarice or fear would see a military as anything other than an indictment of our inability to persuade! And yes, an indictment of our courage to try.
Meanwhile, I still, under threat of prison, involuntarily, support our troops with 35 percent forcibly taken from every paycheck.

Don't it just fill your heart with pride?

Maybe it does for a certain type of person (three are running for President), but not me. I think it's disgusting, despicable, and if this... the urge to use a much worse word is overwhelming, but I'll stick with asshat doesn't want to support our troops, then why doesn't he just leave? If he's got such a problem with it, he can leave. No one will miss ya, buddy.

Yet, Shrillary, Osama Obama, and the Breck Girl are groveling at the feet of the Krazy Kos Kids.

Yes, this is exactly who I want running our country -- people who will grovel at the feet of Markos Moulitsas and his Krazy Kids.

But, you know, don't question extremist liberals' patriotism or anything. Because they just LOVE America AND our military.

Previous:
But STILL don't question their patriotism!

The tactics of Nancy Pelosi's ethical Congress

Silly, silly Democrats. Do they really think they're going to get away with stuff like this without it getting out? Even if no one in the House talks, there's something called CSPAN -- remember? And stuff like this always gets out, especially if it's been videotaped.

Eric Cantor explains what happened:

High drama on the house floor tonight. Dems brought an Agriculture appropriations bill to the floor greatly expanding government programs, yet again. Republicans moved to recommit the bill to committee, in order to add language prohibiting any taxpayer funds under the agriculture programs from going to illegal immigrants.

The Democrat chair closed the roll call when Republicans had won – as the electronic voting tally indicated enough votes to return the bill to committee. Shouting erupted on the floor, as the Democrats attempted to change the outcome of the vote after the gavel had come down – the vote was closed.

Republicans attempted to adjourn, but we were ruled out of order. Confusion set in as members waited at least five minutes for the chair’s decision.

Republicans members then began to leave the floor in protest, after Democrats proved they would go to whatever lengths necessary to further their agenda. A bad call by the chair, the vote was closed. Then the Democrats allowed their members to continue voting to change the outcome. An outrage. Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

All but a few Republicans refused to vote on final passage since it became obvious that a fair vote would not happen.

UPDATE:Republicans are conferencing this morning after the travesty that occurred last night on the floor of the house. The overwhelming sense of the members is, we have to stand up and reject the democrats manipulation of the rules of the house to further their attempts to thwart Republican efforts to stop government benefits from flowing to illegal immigrants. Republican house members are demanding that democrats right their wrongs.

That is SO ethical! Pioneer Pelosi is right. Most ethical Congress ever.

The Politico has more:

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call - a strange development in itself.

Whatever the final tally, acrimony quickly exploded between lawmakers on either side of the aisle as Democratic leaders tried to plot a solution, while parliamentarians on either side argued over protocol.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) eventually offered a motion to reconsider, according to floor staff on either side, ostensibly giving members a chance to recast their votes. But the maneuver sparked a chorus of angry protests from the Republicans, yelling “shame” on Democrats, while they returned fire with angry volleys of their own.

When Democrats finally moved to consider the spending bill as the last vote of the night, furious Republicans left the chamber en masse to protest the maneuver. The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result.

Best part of all?

It was caught on camera. All of it:



Here's Eric Cantor reacting on the floor:



You know, are the Dems really this arrogant? It seems they must be. I mean, you've got them publicly admitting that they want failure from Iraq because it would benefit them politically, and now you've got Pioneer Pelosi's most ethical Congress ever using strong-arm tactics to cheat on a vote, all of which is caught by videotape and aired on CSPAN. I mean, are they idiots? Their approval rating is lower than George Bush's (and that's saying something!), yet they keep acting as if the American people are too stupid to catch onto what they are doing! It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen! I mean, how much more blatant can you be? At least attempt to hide your bullshit. But, in their arrogance, they don't think they have to.

And the vote the Dems so furiously wanted to defeat? It would keep illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer funding in the agriculture bill.

Man, they sure do love America, those Dems.

As Kathryn Jean Lopez noted, is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

But STILL don't question their patriotism!

They really, really support the troops! Really, they do!

These idiots keep blathering on about how they don't want us to win in Iraq, and then get furious when we call them cowards, traitors, and defeatocrats (emphasis mine):

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

So basically, he is rather blatantly admitting that he doesn't want there to be positive signs of progress from Iraq because it would hurt the Dems politically.

Haven't we conservatives been saying that all along? And now, he just proved us right.

But don't question their patriotism, oh no. It's patriotic to wish for your country to fail, don't you see? It's a good thing for the terrorists who want to attack and kill us to win in Iraq. They love America SO much!

As Misha from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler says,

Try them, convict them and execute them for treason.

Or, if that’s too rough for you, let’s just cram them into container ships and send them off to whichever totalitarian dystopia they’re worshiping at the moment, because a free country has absolutely no use for them. Whatsoever. They’d probably f*ck up the harvest if we used them as fertilizer.

Hat Tip: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

Previous:
Democrats side with terrorists
Did you get your white feathers yet?
Navy SEAL memorial dedicated over liberal protests

The Breck Girl goes paranoid

Apparently, a bunch of unnamed people want to silence him, and that these mysterious people will control the media. They want to keep him quiet, he says, so that his message about poverty (at $55k a message) and universal healthcare cannot be heard. He says people who make $100 million a year (who are these people??) don't want this stuff to be heard. But he's a WARRIOR, and he will NEVER be silenced!! NEVER!



Just out of curiosity, can anyone remind me who supports silencing voices in media due to "fairness" and who doesn't?

Um... isn't it... the Democrats?

Come on -- how much more biased to the left does the media need to be before the Breck Girl considers it "fair"?

And really, how much more hypocritical can the multi-millionaire Breck Girl be? He bashes the rich, when he was an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer who picked cases with the highest possible rewards, while charging astronomically huge fees to his clients. Now, he has an income of over $400k a year, probably a large portion of which comes from his poverty speeches, which he charges $55k for. He's worth approximately $70 million. He has a 28,000 square foot mansion which has an estimated worth of about $6 million. It is a 102-acre estate with a private gym, pool, a basketball court and racquetball court.

HuffPo, of course, claims that the Breck Girl is not a hypocrite at all:

It is not hypocritical for rich people to help the poor. It is kind and generous.

John Edwards is constantly attacked by the right-wing for fighting poverty while at the same time ... wait for it ... being rich! How dare he?!

So, what is he supposed to do? Hide his money and keep it from everyone else like a good greedy, conservative? It wouldn't be hypocritical to be greedy with your money if you're rich, but it would be hypocritical if you tried to help others? How dumb do you have to be to think that Republican talking point makes any sense

Uh, no. It's not hypocritical for the Breck Girl to be rich and to donate to charity or "fight for poverty". It is hypocritical, however, for him to bash rich people and capitalism, claim he looks out for the "little people" while charging ridiculously high fees in his trials (supposedly anywhere between 30-40%) and freakishly high fees to speak about poverty. It's hypocritical to be railing on about "Two Americas" while spending $400 on haircuts, or $225 in "services" from a salon called the Pink Sapphire.

Then there's also the private jets. There's the Wal-Mart bashing, even though he made sure to be one of the first to get a PS3 there, and apparently, even owned stock there at one time. His son makes fun of kids whose parents aren't rich and therefore have to buy shoes from Wal-Mart, a story Edwards himself told to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call. Yet he lectures us about the great divide in classes, leading to his famous "Two Americas". He rails against hedge funds, but simultaneously invests in them.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

So, with all of this against him, no wonder the Breck Girl is terrified about being silenced. Although, you know... it might only be beneficial to him, when you think about it...

Hat Tip: Iowa Voice

Democrats side with terrorists

Remember the Flying Imams? For those who aren't familiar, let's recap from a column I wrote in December:

By now, everyone has heard the story of the six Muslim passengers escorted off a United Airways flight, after making numerous passengers and crew nervous through their incredibly suspicious actions. Prior to boarding, the six men gathered together in the waiting area to pray – twice – before yelling, in a quiet environment, “Allahu Akhbar!”. In case anyone has forgotten, those are the infamous words also spoken by the hijackers on the four planes as they were taking over the flights. It is also what was shouted as Nick Berg was beheaded. I could go on and on, but why bother? That’s not a real offense, when you think about it. Enough to make you nervous, sure. But nothing to get kicked off a plane over, right?

The story only gets more bizarre.

The six men, who waited together, prayed together, and boarded together, proceed to spread themselves out along the plane – very similar to the positioning of the terrorists on the fateful 9-11 flights. An Arabic-speaking passenger reported that the men repeatedly invoked the name Osama bin Laden and spoke of terrorism and condemned America for “killing Saddam”. This same passenger was one of the passengers who pulled a flight attendant to the side and reported what he had heard. Several of them also asked for seatbelt extenders, only needed for passengers 280 pounds or more. One of the men told police he was, in fact, 280 pounds – but weighed in at much, much less (201 pounds). In fact, none of the men were 280 pounds – the weight of the men ranged from 170 – 250 pounds. Passengers reported that none of the men even fastened the seatbelt extenders. They placed them underneath their seats. What, pray tell, did they need them for? And yet another passenger reported to police that one of the men complained that some nations did not follow “shariah law” and that his job in Bakersfield, CA was a cover – for “representing Muslims in the US”.

Oh, another fun fact – all of the men had one way tickets and no baggage.

The captain made the decision to have the men escorted off the plane based on many complaints from many different passengers, as well as consulting a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline’s security office in Phoenix.

And now, of course, the Muslim men are crying foul. They are saying they were removed from the plane on a basis of racism, and that they disturbed no one on the flight.

A US airways investigation, as well as two other independent investigations, have determined the crew handled the situation correctly.

Of course, they six flying imams flipped out. They filed lawsuits against US Airways and the "John Does" who reported the suspicious activity, CAIR had a field day, and if I remember correctly, even had a Muslim pray-in at the airport to "combat racism" because they weren't acting suspiciously at all, and the people who reported them were being racist.

This prompted Michelle Malkin's John Doe Manifesto. I'll post a few little excerpts here, but make sure the read the entire thing.

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

...

I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

...

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Pass it on.

Anyways, all of this culminated in a "John Doe" Amendment to protect Americans from frivolous lawsuits who report suspicious activity.

Guess who voted it down in both the House and the Senate.

Yep, Dems. In the Senate, NO Republicans voted against the amendment. Surprisingly, Shrillary voted for it while Obama sat out.

House leaders reacted:

"This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists," said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. King and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the provision after a group of Muslim imams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against US Airways and unknown "John Doe" passengers. The imams were removed from US Airways Flight 300 on Nov. 20 after fellow passengers on the Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight complained about the imams' suspicious behavior.

"Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement," Mr. King said. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."

“We have always said that any discussion of September 11 in any way, shape or form would be made on sacred ground, with reverence to those who were lost,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

“We promised you answers, and we promised you a safer America. Hopefully, this legislation will fulfill the rest of the promise,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

Florida Rep. Adam Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said failure to enact the provision will hold "the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people."

"Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Putnam said.

Nancy Pelosi is promising a safer America while simultaneously refusing to protect Americans for speaking up?!

If Dems had their way, United 93 would have been successfully hijacked. Richard Reid would have blown up that plane midflight over the Atlantic. People will be much less willing to speak up or act against suspicious behavior when the threat of litigation is hanging over their heads! And for actual terrorists, they know that if their act is foiled, they can just sue us and claim innocence.

And they wonder why we question their patriotism, despite their siding with the enemy time and time again.

It's not over yet -- Republicans have sworn to reintroduce the amendment. Therefore, keep the pressure on. Contact your Congressman/woman and your senators. Contact Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Since they aren't willing to act based on what is in the best interests of the country, then hit 'em where it hurts and protest. Let them know this can and will hurt their political career.

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
Harry Reid’s office: 202-224-3542


Image from Justin at Right on the Right

John Kerry supports "Fairness Doctrine"

Ugh.



I am so sick and tired of liberals harping on, all shrill and hysterical, about talk radio being overwhelmingly conservative. So what? The answer is a government-enforced legislation requiring there to be a "balance"? Like the mainstream media is fair and balanced, right guys? Whoops, gotta be politically correct. Right, people?

Well gee, government enforcing what can and can't be said in the media. Call me crazy, but doesn't that go against something called... freedom of press? And there was liberal talk radio -- Air America. It had a grand total of what, five listeners? It tanked, and that's why talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative -- because liberal talk radio was a disaster. A quagmire is perhaps a better word to use, since liberals are so fond of that particular word.

Hate to tell you this, but the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is not at work here. If it was, believe me, we'd have a monopoly on all media, not just talk radio. I mean, liberals have the upper edge in almost every other forum, from newspapers to television to the blogosphere (and you don't know how much it pains me to have to write that last one). We have the upper edge in radio, one out of four widely used news sources, and they're getting their panties all in a bunch. Conservatives don't get all hysterical about ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, The NY Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post... well, so on and so forth... being "balanced". Conservatives aren't shrieking about how we need legislation to fix that -- because that just serves to further undermine our Constitution and one of the inalienable rights housed within it. The government has no right to enforce what can or cannot be said in media -- period.

And besides, what is so bad about conservatives getting their message out somewhere? Liberals' message is overwhelmingly heard. Are they that insecure that they can't even listen to an opposing thought?

Wait, that was a dumb question. I take it back.

Oh, and wait, I forgot. Conservatives like our Constitution. My bad.

It's just another hole. They poke holes into our "inalienable" rights one by one, until the Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper some dead guys wrote a long time ago. They want to take away our freedom of press with the "fairness doctrine". They want to take away our right to bear arms any way they can, such as by imposing outrageous bureaucratic red tape on gun shops, and they want to take away our freedom of speech with "politically correct" speech requirements, hate speech enforcements, and other things like the McCain-Feingold Act.

A little at a time, they'll keep punching holes. How long will we allow it to happen?

John Hawkins interviews Bernard Goldberg

I love Bernard Goldberg's books. I think he's a great writer, and he's got a way of putting things just perfectly. And I absolutely cannot wait to read his new book, Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve.

So when John Hawkins, my absolute favorite blogger, interviewed Bernard Goldberg, one of my absolute favorite writers, I knew it was a must read. And it did not disappoint.

Here is one of my favorite excerpts:

John Hawkins: Well, let me ask you this: what has happened to the Democratic Party? How is it that they've gotten so far away from what people like you believe in, in so many areas?

Bernard Goldberg: That's a very good question. I think it started -- I don't want to do a history thing here -- but I think it started with McGovern. That's when the party became elitist. That's when the delegation to the National Democratic convention, for instance, the Iowa delegation, didn't have any farmers. But, they had more than a few people who had graduate degrees. I'm not against a lot of education…but I think that's when the party started to become too elitist for my taste.

Then, we'll just bring it up to the current day and skip over all the middle stuff... I think with the election of George Bush in the year 2000… that's when liberals said he stole the election, and they've never really gotten over it. That's when liberals who used to be the upbeat ones, the optimistic ones, started getting angrier and angrier. That's when they started losing people like me.

My story resonates with millions and millions and millions of other Americans who started up on the left, and wound up on the right because they didn't feel comfortable in the Democratic Party anymore. It became a party of grievances. You know, in the beginning, I was for civil rights... I still am. But, being for civil rights at some point wasn't good enough, now I have to be for racial preferences. I have to be for a system that decides who gets into college, who gets government jobs, and gets government contracts largely based on the color of their skin. What's liberal about that? That's not liberal. That's the opposite of what Martin Luther King talked about, judging people based on the content of the character, not the color of their skin.

I was for women's rights, but then that wasn't enough, and I had to be for the right of a woman to be firefighter, if she wanted to be, even if she wasn't strong enough to carry a man out of a burning building. I don't think a woman has an inalienable right to be a firefighter.

Free speech, that's what liberals were really about. Look at any college campus today where there's a demonstration against somebody speaking, where they shout down somebody speaking because they don't like what that person is saying, and inevitably, the people doing the shouting down will be liberal students.

I said, "You know what, that's not for me anymore."

Read it all here.

If you listen to Rush, then you can die for all they care

Can liberals sink any lower? Is it possible? Wait a second, I shouldn't say that. As soon as I begin to think that, they do.

From Broward County in my home state of Florida, Democrats are refusing to put emergency broadcasting on a local radio station because it began airing Rush Limbaugh:

Rush Limbaugh has long been a thorn in the side of liberals, but now, because of him, some Democratic politicians don't even want to join with a local radio station to broadcast hurricane information.

Radio station WIOD, AM 610, has been the official channel for emergency information from Broward County government for the past year. The County Commission, all Democrats, balked at renewing the deal Tuesday, unable to stomach the station also being home to Limbaugh's talk show.

Commissioner Stacy Ritter said she did not want to support a station that's out of step with area politics. Ritter, a Democratic stalwart in the state Legislature before being elected to county office, cited talk shows hosted by Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and WIOD's partnership with Fox News.

"They have every right to speak, but we don't have to do business with them," she said.

Limbaugh has long been a fixture on WIOD, but no county official raised an issue about him or the other shows when the deal was approved for the first time a year ago.

Ken Charles, WIOD's director of AM programming, said the station's talk show lineup has no relationship with its news coverage and that the county should focus on the benefits of teaming with the station.

"It's a shame that people would let politics get in the way of saving lives in a hurricane," Charles said.

Ritter's concerns were echoed by Commissioners Ken Keechl, a former president of the Dolphins gay Democratic club, and Suzanne Gunzburger, who served on the vote-tallying board that recounted the 2000 presidential election.

But Commissioner John Rodstrom, a one-time young Republican leader who later became a Democrat, said the county should not politicize emergency management.

"If we are going to start censoring what people write in the paper or speak on the radio or television, that's a slippery slope," Rodstrom said. "This is necessary. It's something we need to do for emergency response."

Well, at least there's one sane Democrat there, Commissioner Rodstrom. But honestly, that just floors me. Well gee, you're a Republican, so we aren't going to warn you when a hurricane's coming, or some other dire emergency. We don't like Rush Limbaugh so this is your punishment for airing him. Honestly -- only liberals. Funnily enough, if the situation were reversed, you just know that liberals would be howling about how it is censorship, calling the ACLU, and holding massive press conferences whining about how "we need to protect our first amendment rights!".

Ritter says she does not want to support a station "out of touch" with area politics (meaning, of course, her's). What does that have to do with it? Liberals carp on and on about how much they cherish free speech and diversity, but they only mean free speech in the sense that they get to say whatever they want in front of adoring audiences chock full of impressionable college students and fellow Democrats, and only skin deep diversity and never ideological diversity. It's the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen, watching them talk about free speech and censorship. These are the idiots who go on national television and whine -- in front of hundreds of TV cameras -- that liberals are censored and can't get their message out because of evil conservatives. Which is why, if a conservative board of anything ever did something like this, there would be such a fuss raised they'd be hearing about it on the moon.

But... wait... where's the ACLU when liberals try to censor conservatives? Where's the national media scandal over this? Anyone? Anywhere?

Do I hear crickets chirping?

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Edwards just doesn't know when to quit

If you could see me right now, I'd be shaking my head in disgust.

From The AP:

Presidential contender John Edwards on Thursday disputed Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that the U.S. is safer since Sept. 11 and contended GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani will never win if he embraces President Bush's policies.

Speaking on the New Yorkers' home turf - and not far from Ground Zero - Edwards dismissed Clinton's comments in Sunday's debate in which she said the nation is safer now that it was before the terrorist attacks. Clinton's other top rival, Sen. Barack Obama, also has challenged her claim.

"Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies," Edwards said at a news conference. "There was no group called al-Qaida in Iraq before this president's war in Iraq."

He never mentioned Clinton by name but the subject was obvious.

Edwards also assailed the Republican candidates for their tough talk on Iraq and global terror, arguing that they were trying to be "George Bush on steroids." He singled out Giuliani, the former New York City mayor widely praised for his leadership after the attacks.

"If Mayor Giuliani believes that what the president has done is good ... and runs a campaign for the presidency saying 'I will give you four more years of what this president has done,' he's allowed to do that. He will never be elected president, but he is allowed to do that," Edwards said.

In response, Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Katie Levinson said, "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."

Maybe all those $400 haircuts and highlights and "services" from spas and salons have started seeping chemicals into his brain. I don't like everything George Bush is doing right now (immigration, hello), but you can't argue with the fact that he has kept this country safe in the six years since 9-11. What would John Edwards have done as president, anyways? Curled up in a fetal position underneath the desk in the Oval Office, frantically applying strawberry lip gloss as he cried? Or would he be too distracted by the many ambulance sirens? I can just imagine it: "Which one do I run after? WHICH ONE!?"