• IN THIS SECTION

June 26, 2008

Exclusive: Thursday, June 26

Presidential Watch

See "Speaking Democrat!" - Speaking Democrat: A Primer by Rep. Thaddeus McCotter GO HERE.

Obama's $845 Billion Secret - Watch video - HERE.

See Chandler's Watch Marines' response to Dem "McCain Wants to Kill my Baby" ad - CLICK HERE.

Democrats Will Lose White House and Congress

CA Political News.com

Early this year it looked very bleak for the Republicans.

Now that the Democrats, like Clyburn, Jefferson and Richardson have been found to be two bit crooks, corruption is now a GOP issue.

In 1952 the big issue was "Who lost Korea?" It was the Democrats and the GOP for the first time in 24 years won the white House.

This year the issue will be, "Who caused the Energy Crisis?" and on that issue alone Senator McCain and the GOP will win.

The energy crisis has caused high unemployment, redistribution of trillion of U.S. dollars to foreign nations. The Al Gore wing of the Democrat party has stopping drilling for oil of the coast and in ANWR, stopped the development of oil shal and nuclear power plants.

The Democrats have created a food shortage and high food costs.

As we get through the summer an energy costs hit families and businesses hard, it will become apparent that the Party that caused all this is Obama's Party. Remember in 1996, Bill Clinton vetoed the oil drilling bill. today we are paying the price, a high one. Read article.

Dem sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product - $845 billion of U.S. taxpayers' funds.

WND.com

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can - and must - make ... a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot." Read article.

Oil Crisis Is Solvable

Linda Chavez, Yahoo News.com

There is only one way to drive down the rising cost of gasoline for the long term: significantly increase the domestic supply of oil. We are the only nation in the world with access to known oil deposits on our own land or off our shores that essentially refuses to tap those resources.

The main stumbling block is a lack of political consensus, which is in especially short supply in an election year. Instead of coming up with real solutions to our growing energy crisis, the Democrats in Congress would rather rail against the oil companies. But oil company executives don't set the price of oil - and taxing their companies more won't do anything to lower the cost of gasoline at the pump.

Advances in technology have now made it possible to explore for oil in ways that are less damaging to the environment, protect delicate coral reefs, and reduce the chance of environmentally disastrous oil spills. But the ban on exploration remains in place as if drilling today were no different than it was a quarter century ago. Estimates are that offshore drilling could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil, but we won't really know until we launch full-scale exploration.

By far the most promising source of domestic oil can be found in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains, but here, too, Congress has put up impediments to getting access to that oil.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was quick to condemn the president's proposals, calling them "the same old ideas meant to pad the pockets of Big Oil." But that kind of rhetoric won't do anything to bring down the rising price of gasoline, which threatens not just family budgets but the entire U.S. economy. It's time Congress put election-year politics aside and get serious about allowing domestic oil production to solve this crisis. Read article.

High Gas Prices and the Marxist tactic of Crisis revolution

AWR Hawkins, American Thinker.com

In much the same way that Clinton spoke of gun companies in the 1990s, today's Democrats demean oil companies with their "shame on you for what you're doing to the American people" approach, while simultaneously refusing to allow domestic drilling, to increase offshore drilling, or to drill in ANWR.

Like Clinton, the Congressional Democrats, who have created the current crisis, will allow a certain degree of suffering on the part of the people in order to insure their agenda is furthered. They will continue to blame and punish "big oil" for the rise in gas prices just as Clinton blamed and punished Smith & Wesson for the violent crimes that took place while he was in office.

Moreover, like Lenin, these Democrats will try to push their agenda through even if many of their countrymen fail to place the blame on "big oil." With the backing of the federal government, today's Marxist/Leninist leaning Democrat party will implement their agenda through "crisis revolution" at the expense of the people by using scare tactics, and raw force when necessary, to silence their detractors.

We must pay attention to the history of Marxist/Leninist ideology and methodology. Lenin's revolution gave the people death instead of power, Clinton's pursuit of gun control endangered American lives instead of curbing violence, and the current path of today's Democrats will only result in even higher energy prices and therefore less discretionary spending by the citizens, which will result in a subsequent drag on our economy that could bring us down a notch from our superpower status; the latter of which has been the real goal of the Left all along. Read article.

What Do The Democrats Take Us For?

IBD Editorials.com

The public wants more oil, but Democrats keep offering the same solutions, not one of which includes drilling and all of which are asinine. Do they think the American people are fools?

An online petition circulated by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's American Solutions group and urging Congress to "Drill Here, Drill Now" so consumers can "Pay Less" has reached 1 million signatures.

Meanwhile, a new Reuters/Zogby poll found that 60% of the public is in favor of increased drilling and refining, while two-thirds responding to a Rasmussen poll - including 46% of those who call themselves liberal - think drilling should be allowed offshore.

Not to be outdone, a Gallup poll discovered that 57% are in favor of a new wave of drilling "in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits."

It seems Americans are well aware that members of Congress, not the oil executives they've demonized for decades, are to blame for the punitive prices we are having to pay at the gas pump. They want lawmakers to do something about it.

But as long as Democrats remain in the congressional majority, it's unlikely that prices will fall even modestly. The solutions the party is offering are, at best, useless. Actually, we're being overly generous, because the Democrats' answers to the oil issue are childish responses that would do more harm than good.

At some point, Democrats are going to have to understand that their prospects for retaining their congressional majority and gaining the White House are directly tied to easing the energy burden on American families. Their current positions, however, are directly at odds with the public they think is so easily fooled. Read article.

Going Green = $4 Per Gallon

Tom DeWeese, News With Views.com

Going green (its real name is sustainable development) has led to Orwellian regulations resulting in the destruction of American businesses and the jobs that go with them, including manufacturing and industry; the locking away of American natural resources like oil, timber and minerals, forcing expensive imports; the near abolishment of private property, the bedrock of any economy's source of wealth; and massive invasion of the farming industry to assure it is "sustainable," including the mandated use of corn for the making of ethanol, leading to food shortages and higher prices.

Above all, the "go green" mindset has resulted in a refusal by political leaders and Congress to even consider anything but renewable fuels as a legitimate source of energy. Last year's Energy bill, supposed to be the guideline for energy policy for coming years, literally made no mention of any kind of energy but alternative fuels like wind power, solar and ethanol. And the American people, buried under an avalanche of environmentally-correct propaganda, have blindly accepted the go green mantra, missing its connection to their economic woes.

At a time when the nation is facing an economic meltdown because of rising gas prices, oil use is ignored in the most important energy policy in the nation.

Astonishing.

Barack Obama says "tax the oil companies," as Congress begins a witch hunt on them, pledging the get to the bottom of their "excess profits." In all of this rhetoric, notice how NO action that includes the drilling of oil is considered. It's taboo. Off the table. Suffer America, because the wisdom of the day is that oil is out. Alternatives are in. Go green! This, of course, completely ignores the fact that the U.S. uses oil for 85% of its energy needs.

Such policy is driven by the Sustainable Development lobby, led by massively wealthy and powerful special interests like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the National Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, to name a very few. Read article.

Farewell, New Democrats

Kimberley A. Strassel, Online WSJ.com

Listen closely to all those cheers for newly crowned nominee Barack Obama, and in the background you'll catch the notes of a funeral march. Resting, if not in peace, are the New Democrats.

The Illinois senator's primary victory marked the end of many things, and one looks to be his party's 20-year experiment with ideological centrism. The New Dems are still out there, still urging their party to fight its natural liberal instincts. But who's listening? Buoyed by the Republican implosion, wild for their retro nominee, the intellectual soul of the Democratic Party is now firmly left.

The New Democrats were born in the 1980s, in response to Ronald Reagan's triumphs. Prominent Democrats worried the party was out of touch, and created the Democratic Leadership Council. Its members were foreign-policy hawks, unafraid of cultural conservatism, and preached economic centrism. Their poster boy: Bill Clinton.

The 1990s were their midlife heyday, though even then the New Dems struggled. Party liberals despised Mr. Clinton's embrace of free trade, hated his accommodation of welfare reform, cringed when he pronounced "the era of big government" over. But no one could deny his success at giving the party its first two full terms in the White House since FDR. So they shut up and went along.

When Mr. Clinton left, so did the most prominent New Democratic voice. Party liberals have been reasserting control ever since. Howard Dean's 2004 consolation prize was the Democratic National Committee. Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker in 2006, and gave back committee chairs to the old 1960s liberal bulls. And now comes Mr. Obama, the party's most liberal nominee since Hubert Humphrey.

What's left of the New Democratic agenda? Read article.

Obama's Red Roots

IBD Editorials.com

Election '08: The word is that Barack Obama is a mainstream politician who sometimes attracts fringe leftists. The record tells a different story - that he has sought out radicals. What does that say of his agenda?

It's natural to be skeptical of excessive claims about Obama's radical associations. After all, there are so many. But one bears attention - because it helped him get his start in politics. In 1996, he won an Illinois state senate seat on a "fusion" ticket of the Democratic Party and leftist group called the "New Party."

The New Party, founded in 1992 with 7,000 members at its peak, had been an explicitly anti-capitalist party of ex-Communists, socialists and activists from ACORN, the hard-left group that's constantly in trouble over voter fraud. The New Party didn't ask for Obama's association; he asked for the New Party's endorsement.

Blogger Rick Moran of the American Thinker has found disturbing particulars. First, the New Party didn't give its support and campaign volunteers to just anyone. Obama actually had to audition for it. According to a September-October 1995 update on the New Party-aligned Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Web site:

"About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to . . . to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates."

Anyone wanting a New Party endorsement had to "be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP," the Web site said.

So Obama signed on with this group and now remains in its debt. Read article.

Putting Obama and the Dems on the Defensive

Patrick Casey, American Thinker.com

Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats find themselves in a no-win situation.

We awoke this morning to the reports that a compromise has been reached between the Bush Administration and Congress on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The best reporting that I've seen on this so far is from the Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman (Deal Set on Domestic Spy Powers). The best (and most humorous) analysis that I've see is at RedState by Moe Lane (The FISA Controversy, in tedious Question and Answer form).

It really is a win for the Bush Administration, and a loss for the Democrats, including Barack Obama. The Dems have been screaming for years about this illegal domestic spying program -- this bill puts the lie to that theme. It acknowledges that FISA warrants were never before required for eavesdropping suspects overseas, but that with new systems that routes world-wide communications through the United States, it was time to allow for FISA to be updated to reflect the realities of the latest technologies.

The government will be allowed, in circumstances that dictate it, immediate authority to commence wiretaps as long as they notify the FISA Court within 7 days. The Court would then have 30 days to approve a warrant, during which time the surveillance can continue. Read article.

Fred Thompson: Obama Should Stop Apologizing for America's Attempts to Protect Itself

Michelle Oddis, Human Events.com

Sen. Fred Thompson is back in the game: he participated yesterday in one of the McCain presidential campaign's conference calls with Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann.

The call was held to discuss Sen.Barack Obama's recent remarks on terrorism and the Supreme Court decision in the Boumediene case last week to allow enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in federal court (Habeas Corpus).

"On the issue of national security, I believe that it's very clear to me that it was a wrong decision of the Untied States Supreme Court," McCain said Wednesday in Springfield, Missouri.

Obama, unlike McCain, supports the recent Supreme Court decision.

"This is a much broader issue than this specific case and something that we have been discussing in this country for quite some time...something that I think clearly shows the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama," said Thompson.

Thompson said that the decision was "basically equating the rights of foreign terrorist held abroad with those of American citizens." Read article.

Iraq Fairy Tales - The Need to Believe We'll Fail

Ralph Peters, NY Post.com

Since 9/11, I've seen and heard no end of my fellow citizens' arguing from blind passion and utterly refusing to ingest facts that didn't match their prejudices (left or right). Since the turnabout in Iraq began a year and a half ago, the rejection of reality has become an outright pathology for the quit-Iraq-and-free-the-terrorists set.

I've watched millions of my countrymen and countrywomen insist that fantasies are real. In a classic through-the-looking-glass reversal last year, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus, the man who turned Iraq around, that his reports of progress were fairy tales. It was the world turned upside down.

The key to understanding the aging activists' bitterness toward the military (disguised as concern for the common soldier) and their obsession with the rights of terrorists is that this cobbled-together cause gives them one last chance to rise above their disappointing lives and to recapture, for one Viagra-assisted moment, their glory days of raised little fists and bell-bottoms.

Reality proved bitter for this bunch. In an infuriating turnabout, it was the nerds in the comp-science classes, the geeks with punch cards in their shirt pockets, who changed the world (and became billionaires). It just doesn't seem fair that the folks with multiple degrees in Comparative Literature ended up, at best, with tenure at an obscure college, serial divorces and a failed book or two.

My generation's sense of entitlement is, of course, legendary. But most of us got jobs and got on with our lives. Only a soured minority never got over that brief moment in the sun before the communes fell apart because someone had to do the dishes (and pay for the penicillin). Read article.

The Facts in Iraq Are Changing

Michael Barone, Townhall.com

As we enter the second half of the campaign year, facts are undermining the Democratic narrative that has dominated our politics since about the time Hurricane Katrina rolled into the Gulf coast -- most importantly, the facts about Iraq.

During the Democratic primary season, all the party's candidates veered hardly a jot or tittle from the narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn't work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination -- but it was poor prophecy.

I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon's orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.

That's not true of all critics of the Bush administration and its military leaders, and they have not been unwilling to take Obama to task for his inattention to American success. Obama, the Post noted tartly on June 7, "has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country -- a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained."

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" What say you, Sen. Obama? Read article.