Democrats rain on climate change bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) won't be happy about this: her climate change bill is meeting resistance from her own party, with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) leading the charge. Apparently there's some internal party conflict brewing between Peterson's camp and that of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Pelosi refuses to meet with Republicans

According to Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hasn't accepted any of his meeting requests.

This is the type of Democratic leadership in place? Bipartisanship is nothing but an empty promise coming from Democrats.

Specter masters art of rear-kissing

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) is a true politician. After switching to the Democrat Party a few weeks ago, he now kisses up to one of his many bosses, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), by defending her in the whole lied-by-CIA brouhaha:

"The current controversy involving Speaker Pelosi and the CIA is very unfortunate, in my opinion, because it politicizes the issue and it takes away attention from ... how does the Congress get accurate information from the CIA? For political gain, people are making headlines."

Nicely done, sir. Now find a towel to wipe that brown nose.

Others, like former Speaker Newt Gingrich, is calling for her resignation on "Good Morning America":

"She really disqualified herself to be the speaker. She has a unique responsibility for national security. ... She made this allegation that smears everyone who's trying to defend her."

Gingrich has a valid point. If she is playing politics about this matter, slinging mud at the CIA, and lying to the American people, then she should do the right thing and resign. Otherwise, she ought to come out with evidence to support her allegations.

The strategy should be pro-state rights

The Republicans lost badly in the 2004 and 2008 elections, handing the Democrats control of Congress and the White House. The likes of Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) dictate the legislative agenda, and a president with socialist ideology sits in the Oval Office. There was much soul searching post-elections, and even to this day some say that the Republican Party is still wandering the wilderness.

Blame Bush? Blame the media? Blame Sarah Palin? Blame disillusioned conservatives? Blame black voters? Blame young voters? Blame ACORN? Blame Iraq? ...

There's plenty of blame go go around. But as the saying goes, whenever you point a finger at somebody, three fingers are pointing at yourself.

Republican political strategists are pulling their hairs out trying to find the solution to a hard-to-define problem. Is it attracting more voters across all demographics? Or is it galvanizing the base? Or re-evaluating the overall Republican message? Or all of the above and then some...?

In light of President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget, nationalization policies, and bankrupting America, concerned citizens have spoken out on the Internet and at Tax Day Tea Parties. Although the mainstream media paints a picture of a rightwing, conservative only movement, that is not the case. Many Obama voters are showing remorse, but you're not going to see that on CNN or MSNBC. There has been many cases of such past Obama supporters calling into conservative talk shows voicing their regret for casting a ballot for Obama.

This is not about anti-Bush and pro-Obama anymore. As our financial and automobile industries crumble in front of our eyes and our neighbors lose their jobs and homes, Americans understand that we are in a time of crisis. The majority of citizens are looking for help, not handouts, but the federal government is forcing handouts down our throats whether we like it or not. The W.H. and Congress is sending money to states with strings attached, enslaving the cash-strapped states. Bank and automaker executives are getting handpicked by the administration. Favors are still shown to stubborn unions in the midst of the turmoil.

The root cause of this unprecedented expansion of the federal government is clear: the blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution by shameless politicians.

Therefore, there is a simple and coherent message the Republican Party can adopt: state rights. Review the Tenth Amendment again and study it carefully:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Washington today has lost sight of this important amendment to secure federalism principles. Congress has morphed into an unsightly assembly of ignorant, power-hungry politicians with only one thing in their minds: votes for re-election to stay in power. Laws are drafted and passed without respect to the Constitution. Think about it -- the federal government now has control over our labor, wages, retirement, education, drugs, firearms, and even entertainment!

But there seems to be hope and the tides are turning, beginning with Montana's law exempting federal jurisdiction over firearms manufactured and used within the state stamped with "Made In Montana." The law stipulates that because these firearms never leave Montana, it is not interstate commerce by nature and therefore free of federal rules. Certainly a logical and valid point, but it's sure to be tested in court. Montana has definitely made a splash about state rights, and other states like Texas, Alaska, and Utah are following suit.

Can you imagine if all 50 state legislatures pass a similar law? That would significantly limit the federal government's control of our right to bear arms and send a strong message to Washington that people are serious about the federal government meddling in their affairs.

The consequences will have profound effects and the potential to redefine the political landscape. State rights is a cause worthy of the Republican Party's attention. After all, to paraphrase President Reagan, government is the problem not the solution. The only solution is for the states to reign in Washington.

It is a concise message that people will understand. The federal government's powers are derived by the state and its people, not the other way around! Without the states there is no United States government. The Republicans need to work with all state legislatures to find kinks in this federal armor. Any Republican up for re-election needs to campaign on the message of state rights. Most voters only go to the polls once every four years to pick a president and don't quite understand how Washington works, but state politics hit closer to home and are easier to identify with. It is also a strategy that'll attract independent voters: let the state decide on the major issues instead of relying on Washington.

Will the Republicans embrace such a game plan? Is the party leadership still struggling to find footing? The great state of Montana and its people have already stepped up to face the challenge. The GOP should mobilize its resources to get more traction and preferably make a noise that the Obama administration and Congress cannot ignore.

CIA documents prove Pelosi lied about waterboarding knowledge

You won't read about this in the mainstream media...

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was briefed on the controversial interrogation techniques since the beginning and had no objections. She knew all along!

But she acted shocked when she learned about it later. Maybe it's the excessive Botox that makes her always look surprised.

Pelosi knew about waterboarding years ago

Apparently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) isn't being truthful about her pre-existing knowledge of CIA's harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding. In September 2002, a few members of Congress, Pelosi among one of them, were briefed by the CIA about the classified overseas detention sites and the interrogation techniques. At that time, no objections were made to what the Democrats label as torture now.

It's suffice to say that the Obama administration and Democrats' efforts to expose these CIA techniques and perhaps even release photographs of such "abuses" are politically motivated to further dig at the Bush administration and appease the liberal base. Never mind that these tactics kept America safe post-9/11. If these Democrats had at least the heart to acknowledge this fact, I wouldn't be so hard on them. But no, they refuse to give Bush and his CIA any credit, and since taking power in Washington, continue to go down a path of political revenge and kissing up to the liberal nutcases.

The Democrats simply have no intention of safeguarding our republic. Their latest actions only speaks of their immaturity and spitefulness.

Keeping score at the White House

President Obama to Rep. Peter DeFazio: "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

It's a subtle warning to the Congressman about his vote against the stimulus bill, and a reminder that this White House keeps tabs on such breaks with the administration.

Will this turn off some Democratic House and Senate members? When Obama was elected, both House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke out publicly that they do not work for the President, so I wonder if they are keeping score on the White House, too?

Enemy combatants coming to a neighborhood near you

Attorney General Eric Holder says to expect some suspected terrorists in your friendly neighborhood:

Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Get that warm and fuzzy feeling about your government yet? I bet somewhere in Congress there's a Democrat thinking up a bill to provide government-subsidized foreclosed housing to these detainees, and wrap that in a fancy economic stimulus package.

Actually, I have no problem with this if these Gitmo detainees are released into the neighborhoods of Pelosi, Reid, etc.

Pelosi the real un-American

Enforcing existing immigration laws is un-American? That's what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families:

"Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? It must be stopped....What value system is that? I think it's un-American. I think it's un-American."

She's a career politician who's risen to the top as the historic first female House Speaker. She ought to know that being American means living within the rule of law on American soil. For those legal immigrants she spoke to, what will they think? Legal immigrants have to fight through the bureaucracy, paperwork, fees, and wait years just to become a U.S. citizen. Nobody enjoys that process, but it's the path that must be taken if you truly want to be eligible to carry a U.S. passport and participate in America's elections.

Illegal immigrants are un-Americans. Does Pelosi want to be labeled that way too with her careless remarks?

Lean, mean, talented Obama?

President Obama demands passage of the stimulus package. Now he's on the offensive, pointing fingers at Republicans for the "same old distractions." The leftosphere (the left-leaning blogosphere) is falling in love with Obama all over again because of his partisanship:

I will note that compared with the solid but lacking passion speech that the President gave earlier in the day at the Department of Energy, this speech truly demonstrated the enormous talents of the President. This was the Obama that spoke from the heart, not the cool, calm, collected one we often see and hear. This speech had cadence, it had fire in the belly, it had soul. He spoke to me as an American and as a Democrat. This is the real deal. This is how politics is played. To win by getting things accomplished.

Oh, please: the "enormous talents" of the President?! Since January 20, I haven't really seen much talent from the President except his ability to deliver speeches (but we'd already known that since the campaign).

Does he have a talent for party leadership? Not from what we've seen with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, marching to the beat of her own tune in the House, completely ignoring Obama's message of bipartisanship.

Does he have a talent for reaching across the aisle? Certainly, but the failure of his negotiation skills was exposed when the House Republican members stood united to oppose the stimulus package.

Does he have a talent for picking good cabinet nominees? Look at what happened to Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis, and possibly more candidates.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

Nationalized health care snuck into stimulus

The Democrat-owned stimulus package is nothing more than a $900 billion bribe for votes. It's low on tax cuts where money is put into people's pockets and high on large government spending. Paul Krugman of the NYT cannot wait:

The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Kimberley Strassel points out in the WSJ:

It began one week after the swearing-in, when Nancy Pelosi whipped through a big expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Schip bill was Democrats' first stab at stealth expansion, unveiled in 2007, though vetoed by George W. Bush.
...
Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.
...
The "stimulus" also hijacks Cobra, a program that lets the unemployed retain access to their former company health benefits -- usually for about 18 months. The new stimulus permits any former employee over the age of 55 to keep using Cobra right up until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. And here's the kicker: Whereas employees were previously responsible for paying their health premiums while on Cobra, now the feds will pay 65%. CBO estimates? Seven million Americans will have the feds mostly pay their insurance bills in 2009.

Thanks to Strassel for shedding light on this. It further illustrates the Democrats' nationalization agenda disguised as a bill to stimulate the economy.

Pelosi: stop making babies, help the economy

Can you believe what's coming out of the Democratic leadership's mouth?

King Obama, monarch of United Kingdom of America

Even the Brits are noticing the inauguration events are looking more and more like a coronation of a king. Millions of dollars are being spent on Inauguration Day events, and this during a recession. All I can say is that there better not be a crown placed on his head when he's taking the oath of office.

Funny enough, King Obama may face some cold shoulders in his own royal court of Democrats. To his credit, many people think he really means it when he said he wants to change Washington, be bipartisan, reach across the aisle, etc. And yes, his selection of inauguration speakers, cabinet members and inner circle advisors have illustrated that. But the Democrats in Congress seems to be drunk on majority power already, their leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi publicly reminding folks that they don't work for the king. Minority Republicans may end up being Obama's closest allies in his first term. After all, the king needs friends to counter the influence of Reid and Pelosi.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard has some fears about Obama -- and rightly so, now that we've come to know PEBO a little better. My greatest fear is that the likes of Reid and Pelosi, with the help of the media which packaged Obama into a pop star, will decide that this president is their puppet and overstep their authorities.

Pelosi meets her match

After reading this piece, I think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may actually wish Rahm Emanuel gets caught up in the Blagojevich scandal and ends up outside of the White House and maybe even Congress.

Impeachment to save the economy?

For some people BDS is deeply ingrained in their soul that nothing will cure them. That's the only way I know to describe Rochelle Riley after reading her article in the Detroit Free Press. She's even turning against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and idolizing socialist Rep. Dennis Kucinich, calling him "the bravest member of Congress." Of course, she has to sneak in a wise remark that President Bush "could also pardon every appointee and employee he has ever had -- and their dogs." With reporters like Riley, who needs cartoonists?

Instead of Congress and the White House focusing on the economic crisis at hand, Riley would rather see lawmakers debate and push for an impeachment. Go right ahead. Never mind that the Democrat controlled Congress has an approval rating lower than the President. Voters would love their representatives to argue about President Bush's "crimes" while losing their homes, retirement savings, and jobs. The Democrat Party ought to pick her as a strategist!

No love from anyone for Big Auto

Wow, even the Democrats are giving Big Auto a hard time! The CEOs have appeared before Congressmen to beg for a bailout loan to no avail. Then today the Democrats voted to oust John Dingell (D-Mich.) from chairmanship of the powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, replaced by Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

Dingell was chairman for almost 28 years and one of Big Auto's best friends in Congress. His removal from the committee sends a clear signal that Pelosi and friends are ready to impose stricter regulations in the auto industry and align with the environmentalists. Rep. Waxman has always been a supporter of legislation to curb global warming, and this latest move in House politics will be welcomed by many environmentalists.

Latest bailout saves UAW, not Big Auto

Another bailout package is in the works in Congress, one that's even less popular but that's not stopping the Democrats from pushing for it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a government lifeline would be provided only if the auto industry meet new fuel-efficiency standards and restructure to limit executive compensation. Of course, there is no mention of concessions from the United Auto Workers (UAW) union.

We all know that the Democrats are good buddies with the UAW. This bailout will infuse fresh blood into the dying General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler so that the UAW can drain them some more. Big Auto already knows to make better, fuel-efficient cars. They came late to the green game and are paying the price. But the root of the problem is unionized labor in the auto industry. It's interesting how Jeffrey D. Sachs never mentions this in his Washington Post article. Michael E. Levine, writing for WSJ, is on the right track: Why bankruptcy is the best option for GM.

Moderate House Democrats want leadership roles

It's not just the Republicans and conservatives who are worried about the gains liberal Democrats made in Congress. Moderate, or Blue Dog, Democrats are vying for committee leadership positions in a Pelosi-run House. They warn that if their voice is not respected, then there will be seats to lose in 2010.

What will Pelosi do? I think she's drunk with power and will ignore the Blue Dogs. Like many in the Democrat leadership, she sees her party's seat gains as a mandate to stride towards the left, quickly. If she's smart she'll heed to the moderate voices in the House. After all, there is another election in two years...

What's worse than an Obama presidency?

Mona Charen paints a bleak picture of an "Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime." Riding on Obama's surging popularity and the worsening economy (by the way, notice the correlation), the Democrats are within reach a super-majority in Congress, having enough seats to be filibuster-proof. If that scenario comes true, then the country will be looking at some very liberal changes in government which will trickle down into society, affecting the lives of everyone.

Democrats want bigger government, and obviously to support that you'd require more taxes. How else can government fund nationalized healthcare? How else can government give credit for college education?

These points seem lost to Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post, who writes:

...the Reagan-Thatcher faith in unregulated capitalism, to which every GOP presidential candidate was pledging allegiance just last winter, has collapsed? The doctrine of laissez faire has been so dominant, so pervasive over the past three decades that hundreds of Democratic politicians can deliver a paean to the market at the drop of a hat, but not a single Republican pol can plausibly defend government as a check on capitalism run amok, even at the drop of thousands of points in the Dow.

The truth is that laissez faire works. The credit crisis that's going on occurred because of government intervention in the first place! The government interfered with free market principles by passing legislation which created a subprime mortgage market. Any bank in its right mind would never offer loans to people who cannot afford to pay back. Yet the government forced banks to lend to subprime borrowers, then created Fannie and Freddie to back those loans, and look what happened...

The issue is beyond nationalizing banks and injecting trillions into the economy. Mr. Meyerson fails to point out that government was the problem, and now government still is the problem.