Just a quick not to say that blogging will be light for the next three weeks as I am home from Iraq for a three week vacation with my beautiful wife and our four great boys!!!
I am sure this is no surprise to anyone out there, but the US House Democrats (to include all of the Democrats from Washington State) have passed Kucinich’s Resolution (HR1345).
This vote is to refer an article of impeachment resolutionto the House Judiciary Committee, but the Democrat House leadership has already stated in no way will they actually pursue impeachment of the President. Instead; they have decide to hold an election year review where they will trot out witness, experts, moonbats and anyone else who has a bone to pick with the President during these so called hearings. They may even televise it on C-SPAN.
At a minimum this is a waste of both time and money and worst it could be called an abuse of the party in power in Congress. This stunt is nothing more than political posturing prior to a Presidential election. especially when we have much more pressing matters such as high fuel prices driving up costs on all goods and services which is a direct result from the lack of a viable energy plan. Perhaps the Democrats are hoping that this side show event will deflect the public’s attention away from the lack of energy planning the Democrats have produced and at the same time pander to the B.D.S. suffers that they are counting on to vote for Obama in November.
I urge everyone to contact their Representatives and let them know how displeased they are with this waste of taxpayer money. I have already contacted my Representative Brian Baird and let him know that this kind of political stunt is not what he was elected to do as our Representative. I also feel that the more we can get the word out about these ridiculous upcoming hearings and how the time would be better spent working on a viable solution to on energy issues, which would seriously help the economy and keep the unemployment rates from skyrocketing (can anyone say economics) the more voters will realize what this spectacle is really about.
I just thought I would share this letter to the editor that I wrote (and suprisingly enough the Olympian printed)
Recently in a news conference, Gov. Chris Gregoire had the following to say: “We have hit rock bottom in this campaign, and it is only June.” She went on to say, “I call on my Republican opponent Dino Rossi to denounce the BIAW and these ads and instead run a campaign focused on good policy and the issues.”
Well, a week later Gov. Gregoire launched her own attack ad against Dino Rossi.
It would appear to me that Gov. Gregoire is being a bit hypocritical if she can launch an attack ad a week after she demands that Dino Rossi denounce the BIAW attack ad against her.
Yet; that is not the only story I see here.
Gov. Gregoire stated that she wants both parties to run on “a campaign focused on good policy and issues.” Here are my questions to Gov. Gregoire: How is it good policy to accept money from tribal gambling to pay for the 2004 recounts and then reach a gambling compact that eliminates any type of revenue sharing?
How is it good policy to receive third-party PAC help from a PAC (Evergreen Progress PAC) in which one of the biggest contributing members (who donated $545,000 from SEIU) you are currently negotiating pay and benefits contracts?
It appears to me that to Gov. Gregoire, conflicts of interest and hypocrisy are going to be part of her quid pro quo campaign.
Matthew Fritch, Yelm (currently in Iraq)
Recently the Democrats in Congress have made the claim that we can not drill for oil in our own country whether it offshore, the continental shelf or in ANWAR, as it would take 7-10 years to see any relief at the pump.
Well this argument could be made against alternative fuels too. How long will it take to develop and bring online a new fuel source? Could it take 7-10 years to do this?
With the Democrats making the 7-10 year argument they have basically said that we need to stick to the status quo of purchasing our oil from foreign governments and that we should not develop any new fuel sources or oil fields as it will not bring immediate relief to the pump.
Even if we did decide as a nation that we would only develop alternative fuel sources it would not alleviate our costs as the Democrats claim it will. For example, let’s say that we take and build nothing but alternative fueled cars in the near future. How many average Americans are out there that can afford to spend the $20,000 – $30,000 for a new car that runs on this new fuel. My guess is not many.
This is why we need to take and combine both drilling for oil in our own country and to continue to develop alternative fuel sources. This has a win win situation as we would reduce our dependency on foreign oil and we would introduce healthy competition into the market that would not only reduce the price of both traditional and alternative fuel cars, but in the long run we would see lower fuel costs. By reducing the fuel costs this way we will also see a reduction in prices for goods and services across the board as the fuel costs for businesses will also be reduced.
By drilling and developing we could see our Country’s economy flourish as consumers will have more money to spend and we will no longer be held hostage by the likes of OPEC. Of course this could take 7-10 years, but if we do not start now we will never get there.
With all the flip-flops by Obama I have come to start calling him the “Change”ling and figure that his message of “Hope and Change” is that he hopes no one will notice his change in positions be it months, weeks, days, or even hours. Take for example Obama’s back and forth yesterday on his comment about refining his Iraq decision:
Obama’s original plan (form his website) states, “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
Then in an earlier press conference on the 3rd of July Obama made this comment, “When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies,”
Yet later on the same day Obama said, “”We’re going to try this again. Apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. … I have said throughout this campaign that … I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.
Sounds to me like Obama is confused on where he stands on the issue and apparently so are some of his supporters.
Sen. Clair McCaskill told MSNBC Tuesday, “NO, No, he will not (change his Iraq Policy)…. Now is the time that we need to carefully and reasonably withdraw.”
Yet Obama’s foreign policy advisor Susan Rice told the same network on the same day that the 16-month plan was a :timetable”, not a deadline, and that Obama would listen to commanders to devise his Iraq strategy. (source FoxNews.com).
Sounds to me like Obama’s “Hope and Change” strategy is catching on.
With the discovery of the meaning of “Hope and Change” I thought I would share this post from Weapons of Mass Discussion on all of Obama’s “Changes” on the issue. I have listed just some of the top “changes” to Obama’s position here. Follow the link above to see the full list.
1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.
2. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.” (ed. To be fair McCain has also flip-flopped on this issue too).
3. Running for President or Vice President of the United States: On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange: Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’” Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.” Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?” Obama: “I will not.”
4. Single-Payer Healthcare: On January 22nd, the Hillary Clinton Campaign releases a video that proves that Obama lied about his position on “single-payer healthcare.” The video compares statements Obama made during the January 21st Democratic debate with those he made to an AFL-CIO conference in June 2003 while campaigning for the Senate. Contradicting what Obama said at the debate, the old footage shows the senator saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.” At the debate, Obama stated: “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer (healthcare).”Single-payer healthcare is an euphemism for socialized medicine.
5. NAFTA: On February 29th, the Obama campaign told Canadian Television (CTV) that no message was passed to the Canadian government suggesting that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated. However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. CTV didn’t stop there. They announced that their sources, at the highest levels of the Canadian government,” reconfirmed the story to CTV and one of their primary sources provided a timeline of the discussion to CTV.
6. Donations from Lobbyists and Special Interest PACS: Obama say he doesn’t take money from DC lobbyists and special interest PACS. This is the type of double-talk “politics of the past” rhetoric Obama rails against. While his claim is technically true, what he does do is take money from state lobbyists and other big money contributors who have substantial lobbyist machines in DC, like law firms and corporations. In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign Finance Institute’s Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: “He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different. … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.” The Capital Eye reported that “[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007.”
7. Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Barack Obama repudiated what he called “inflammatory and appalling remarks” made by his Chicago pastor. Obama said he had not been present during the sermons in question. Obama told MSNBC, “Had I heard them in church I would have expressed that concern directly to Rev. Wright.” Please note, he says that he would have expressed concern, not repudiate, the words. (Source: Audacity of Hypocrisy) Previously Obama had said “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
8. Jerusalem: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.
9. Meeting with Foreign Leaders: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions
10. PAYGO: Obama promised to “restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency—called Paygo—that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue.” but now Obama says he’s not going to sacrifice his domestic priorities for deficit reduction. Universal health care, renewable energy, and all he rest won’t be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO.
11. FISA I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people – not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
This week, after the FISA compromise keeping telecom immunity, Barry says: But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.
The list goes on and on, the only question is will the MSM and voters take notice before November?