Blogs For Victory

Rep. Bill Foster, D-IL. put out a press release blasting the Democratic leadership and their proposed budget.

“I can’t support a budget, from either party, that raises taxes on the middle class. This bill hurts families all across the 14th District by eliminating the 10-percent bracket for lower-income taxpayers, reinstating the marriage penalty and increasing taxes on small businesses and investments.

Foster’s admission contradicts Nancy Pelosi, who recently said on the House floor that “this year’s budget plan does not include a tax increase.”

At least someone on the Democrat side of the aisle will admit it. Congratulations, Rep. Foster.

Fred Hiatt, writing for the Washington Post, notes how Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, has been erroneously fueling the “Bush Lied” meme:

Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

Despite the rhetoric of Rockefeller and other liberals desperate to hold on to the long-debunked notion that Bush lied, Hiatt points out that when you actually read the report, their rhetoric doesn’t match the report’s findings (emphasis mine):

[…] dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt also debunks the left’s claim that Bush misrepresented intelligence.

In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”

This is not the first time Rockefeller has signed his name to a report with findings that A, B, and C, but then went off to the media saying the findings were X, Y, and Z. The fact is this isn’t even new information… There have been several past investigations/reports that have all come to the same conclusion: there was no manipulation of intelligence prior to the Iraq war. Rockefeller is unfit to be the chairman of the intelligence committee, and the “Bush lied” crowd has to come to terms with the fact Rockefeller and other anti-Iraq war Democrats lied… not President Bush.

President Bush, thanks for speaking out for sanity.

(CNSNews.com) – “The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market,” thereby easing gasoline prices for hard-working Americans,” President Bush said on Monday.

He reminded Congress that he has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Continental Shelf to domestic oil drilling — something that would “help us through this difficult period.”

You almost had, it, Mr. President. If you had pushed harder on what you proposed earlier in your presidency, we would be nearing the end of this mess in which we find ourselves, or at the very least we’d be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. But after the usual suspects of enviro-whackos, along with their willing shills in Congress did their normal routine of wailing and gnashing of teeth, instead of holding your ground on the matter, you backed off. Rather than rallying the American people to the need for harvesting our own domestic energy reserves, you instead took a page from the Eisenhower playbook and played golf with regard to the issue. You even went so far as to play right into the envirowhackos hands, simultaneously increasing the credibility of their argument while weakening yours.

And you almost had it today, Mr. President. You almost had it on the nuts.

But then you went and said this:

“We remind our friends and allies overseas that we’re all too dependent on hydrocarbons, and we must work to advance tech that help us become less dependent on hydrocarbons,” Bush said on Monday as he headed out to Europe.

One step forward, three steps back.

Mr. President, now’s not the time to humor the delusional fancies of the crazy uncles in the attic making life a living hell for the rest of the family. You’re damned right we’re
“addicted” to oil; in much the same manner as we’re “addicted” to air and to food. So what? We’ve got plenty of it if our legislators would finally quit kowtowing to the crazy uncles in the enviro-whacko movement and act in the interests of the American people for a change.

Screw the enviro-whackos. When the hell were they ever right? About anything?

We have the technology to harvest our own resources in a way that minimally disrupts the surrounding environment; in many cases augmenting it.

Mr. President, you have a nation that’s bleeding from the ears economically, and you have it within the scope of your office to issue executive orders to stop that bleeding. May I add that, given that we’re in the midst of an economic emergency, and given that our nation’s economic security is at risk, it would not be a misuse of your power under executive authority to do so.

And what greater a presidential legacy to leave your fellow Americans, than to decrease their dependence on foreign oil?

I’ve been out of it a bit this weekend, of course. The third birthday party went off splendidly – the “adorable” quotient was very high amongst all concerned, though we favor the grand-daughter for “most adorable”. Meanwhile, I understand some other, rather more ho-hum stuff has been going on…some nonsense about an ultra-leftist extremist wanting to be President, or some such thing.

Discuss that and anything else you’d like.

‘Cause its a bit messy, on that side of the aisle:

A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival’s first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.

“I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant,” Percival, 25, said. “Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.”

A short time after the abortion, Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach. She went to the doctor for a scan and discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

The news story concludes by stating the baby is expected now to live a normal life – in other words, the baby they tried to kill today over worry about tomorrow, is goinng to be fine. How many women abort a baby for this reason? And how many of them would have turned out fine.

You see, life isn’t a cut and dried thing – and, also, none of us are even promised tomorrow, so there isn’t too much advantage in worrying about it. We should deal with the things of today, today; deal with tomorrow’s problems, tomorrow. From what we can gather the preganancy, itself, was low risk…going along just fine. And each day that the pregnancy was fine, the only thing which should have concerned the parents on that day was to keep it going fine. They could not more control the next day than they could control the stars in the heavens. The strong, modern desire to control tomorrow, however, nearly resulted in a murdered child, who has turned out fine.

Choose life – its for the best, always.

…because integrity isn’t important and corruption doesn’t matter to Democrats.

MORE: Is Al Franken really the change Democrats are looking for?

UPDATE: DFL feminist leader resigns over Franken Endorsement

It’s stories like these that prove that Obama’s general election electability has been grossly overestimated by his loyal followers.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who wrapped his party’s presidential nomination just this week, is already besieged by liberal constituencies demanding that he cut military spending to boost social programs.

Two influential liberal groups have sent the presumptive Democratic nominee a letter pressing him to support cuts to defense programs to pay for universal preschool, relief for Americans facing foreclosure on their homes and expanded benefits for military veterans.

The demands carry weight because the groups, the Black Leadership Forum and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), represent two constituencies that are important to Obama’s political strategy: blacks and Hispanics.

Their calls for defense cuts have drawn the support of leading House liberals, many of whom gave Obama crucial support early in his contest against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
[…]
Since clinching the party’s nomination on Tuesday, Obama has already tacked to the right on security issues in preparation for the general election. During a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Wednesday, Obama proposed sanctions on Iran that analysts viewed as far tougher than what he suggested before.

Now Obama must balance tough talk on national security with the desires of many Democrats to slim American military power.

Of course, his desire for tea parties with terrorists isn’t exactly what I call tough talk on national security, but the point is still relevant. Liberal special interests don’t want our country to be a military power — and I’m certain Obama doesn’t either, but he can’t be too honest about it on the campaign trail, especially now that he needs to appeal to general election voters, not just the far left voters of the Democratic Primaries.

I think that the closer we get to Election Day, the more Obama will have to find some balance between his far left ideology with general election rhetoric. How can he please the liberal special interests while maintaining electability in November? He can’t.

Obama won’t be just feeling pressure from liberal special interests, but from within the Democratic Party itself.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the rapid growth of defense spending compared to domestic spending in recent years is “outrageous.” She wants to slim defense programs and boost education and healthcare funding.

Lee and other House liberals would like to see about $60 billion in defense spending cuts. Specifically, they want to steer money away from what they call “Cold War-era” weapons systems, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Liberals have also called for cuts to the ballistic missile defense program, the F/A-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer.

“This is one of many issues the caucus will be talking about to him,” Lee said of plans to press Obama on defense budget cuts. “I’m definitely going to present this.”

And we’re definitely going to be interested in Obama’s response.

From Canada:

What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?

It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.

The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.

Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.

It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.

I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:

In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…

That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.

Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.

So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?

Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.

But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.

But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.

She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.

A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.

Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States – and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.

Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.

Considering Obama’s positions on many issues… I would say DeLay is spot on.

Former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay (Texas) called Barack Obama a “Marxist” on the Mike Gallagher radio show Thursday.

Explaining that Obama clinching the Democratic nomination is a good thing for John McCain, DeLay said Obama’s “weakness” is that “nobody knows him.”

“And if McCain does not define him as what he is — hey, I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist,” DeLay said.

The radio host agreed with DeLay, who is facing money laundering, charges [and will never go to trial because the charges are bogus –ed.] saying Obama is “desperately trying to cover up what seems to be the kind of old school Marxist radical liberal failed ideology.”

“Absolutely,” DeLay said. “No doubt about it.”

Prior to having to swallow her pride and endorse:

I think that there is a certain phenomenon associated with his candidacy, and I am really struck by that because it is very much about him and his personality and his presentation. And that’s perfectly legitimate in politics, or any other walk of life, but I think it dangerously oversimplifies the complexity of the problems we face, the challenge of navigating our country through some difficult, uncharted waters. We are a nation at war. That seems to be forgotten.

Forgotten, indeed – by Democrats and their MSM cheerleaders. But this is the real world – not liberal-land – and we will have a real campaign where there will be a man, John McCain, who is massively better qualified and, additionally, unafraid to keep calling to mind Obama’s manifest unfitness for the most powerful office in the world.z