Dems, Rocks and Hard Places

~Snooper~

Once upon a time, in a place not very familiar to many Americans and, even obscured from view from most of the world, there is a place called the United States Senate. Close in proximity, is a place called the United States House of Representatives. Both establishments have, in the past, performed the bidding of a now obscure band of citizens, referenced to in archaic documents as "We The People". Not any longer. Through the decades, a sickness from the morphing of Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Identity Politics into the Political Farce of American Politics, orchestrated by emotionally unstable influences, has caused a condition that requires certain politicians to rely heavily on Weather Vane Decision Accountability and Authority.

This condition has so permeated itself into the framework of American Politics that if anything gets accomplished, it is only due to Blind Luck and not Reasoned Thought. Such shameful attributes are lauded as the status quo and the ins and outs can be blamed on weather vanes. This gives way to the condition of Microwave Mentality...if life and/or results of any undertaking doesn't happen within a prescribed or preconceived period of time, the effort is deemed as untenable from the beginning and is condemned to scrutiny stemming from the lethality of hindsight.

A long, long, long time ago, way back on October 11, 2002, the United States Senate, in a vote of 77 to 23, a vast majority of Senators, approved of an obscure document called the Iraq War Resolution. In a vote of 296 to 133, a vast majority of Representatives, the United States House of Representatives passed the Iraq War Resolution, giving the President of The United States authority to "wage war".

The wind direction of that time was blowing in a certain direction. As anyone knows or, should know, wind directions change from time to time. Also, it is also common knowledge, among those that know, that "war directions" also change from time to time - not as often as the direction of the wind - but it changes all the same.

On 91101, the United States was stunned, shocked, confused and angry. We were attacked on our home turf and I had an odd chuckle at that expression; home turf. Our Embassies across the globe ARE American Soil and they were also attacked and have been attacked since 1979. The age-old saying of "this could never happen to us" was eternally shattered. I suppose the difference was this; the events of 91101 took place on American Soil Proper. War was in the air. Someone was going to pay. The problem was, the people that attacked this country, died in the Act Of War against us. So, who was to pay? It was determined that Al Qaida, a terrorist cabal, was to pay.

On 91201, there was talk from all corners of the Nation of retaliation. The once Main Stream Media lauded that as well and Retaliation was in the air. The general perception was a Country United. For the most part, this was true. In actuality, however, this was not the case. Some seem to forget about the groups of people that believed before 91101, on 91101, and after 91101 that every woe on our globe we call Earth was and is a direct result of The United States of America. Such drivel came to the fore among the American Politik during the 2004 election cycle. The term "WMD" became The Issue.

Using defective and disingenuous reasoning, the Blame America For Everything Crowds have determined that since no WMDs were found in Iraq, they therefore never existed, therefore President Bush knew they did not exist, therefore, President Bush lied. That sort of reasoning is that of an intellectually void individual.

On March 19, 2003, after diplomatic channels were exhausted and Saddam Hussein would not comply with any United Nations Resolutions, military action was launched on Saddam's Iraq. I find the CRS Report for Congress has gone largely ignored by our politicians and have chosen an avenue destructive to their political aspirations. It has also most assuredly gone ignored by the alleged Peace Movements that are nothing of the sort. They are and always have been and always will be anti-Americanist groups, disclosed here and here.

[...] President Bush has repeatedly called for regime change in Iraq. In his speech before the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the President emphasized the dangers posed by Iraq's programs to develop WMD and urged the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities by enforcing previous U.N. Security Council resolutions that Iraq has ignored. On October 10 and 11, respectively, the House and Senate passed H.J.Res. 114 (P.L. 107-243), which authorized the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing Iraqi threat and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council sanctions regarding Iraq. At the international level, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, which imposed a revised and more stringent weapons inspection regime on Iraq, required Iraq to submit a comprehensive declaration of all its WMD programs within 30 days, and warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to cooperate.1 On March 19, 2003 (March 20 Iraq time), President Bush announced that he had launched military operations (known as Operation Iraqi Freedom) "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." [...]

The above is a brief snippet of the document and all six pages should be read and studied by all. Carrying on with the mantra of "illegal war" and "United States Constitution violations" is disturbingly absurd, especially since those allegations are simply untrue and have no basis or merit - except perhaps from the emotionally unstable that don't have the capability of sound reasoning and/or fact checking before they begin to ramble. I question their motives and feigned patriotism.

I have written extensively on what I call The Why we went to war with Saddam's Iraq and I also find it curious that President Bush's words are skewed and distorted to such a degree that our politicians cannot return to the original intent(s) of The Why. However, there are three key speeches given by President Bush that are a must read and, they are as follows;

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002

President Discusses the Future of Iraq, February 26, 2003

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, March 17, 2003

The above will or, should or, perhaps can, put an end to the idiots decrying the ignorant "illegal war" and similar idiocy.

Another widely ignored report comes from DefenseLink. It is ignored for one reason and one reason only. Blind hatred of President George W Bush. There is no other explanation. Or is there? But first, what constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Is it a Nuclear Weapon? Is it a Biological Weapon? Is it a Chemical Weapon? Is it a Long-Range Missile?

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 - The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. [...]

I already know the answer. Do you? This brings us to the title of this article.

The Democratic Party Leadership has boxed themselves into a sticky wicket. They have painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of without getting "dirty", as it were.

In 2004, the Democratic Party Leadership chose Sen Kerry to oust President Bush. He ran using the WMD issue and lost. He also ran on the credo that GWB "stole" the elections of 2000 and lost. The full onslaught of the Democratic Party Leadership did not fully take hold until the elections of 2006 utilizing their masters in the Leftinistra Press. They built a premise that we were losing the War In Iraq when nothing of the sort was true. The war was going poorly indeed, much in part to a defective ROE, developed and initialized by ignorance and diplomatic screed. We certainly were not losing...there. We were losing here, at home. The only thing similar to the War In Iraq and the Vietnam War were the politicians, the anti-Americanist groups and the American News Media.

The Good News flowing in from the results of the efforts by our troops under the leadership of General David Petraeus, unanimously anointed by the full Senate, is unmistakable and undeniable. Why else are there no more "woe is me" stories in the opening segments of the news hours and leading stories on the front pages? Why have the stories vanished from the alphabet news shows and removed to the back pages of the theoretical leading newspapers?

The Libocrats, both Democrat and Republican, were relying on a quick victory in Iraq much like the quick victory over the Taliban. They were not counting on the aftermath and some claim that there was no exit strategy, assuming this military action as a financial market. Exit strategy comments in regards to a war is indicative of a person and mindset that doesn't understand war and how it changes. Plan A quickly turns into Plan Z, running through the gauntlet of change.

Let us not forget the many now "anti-war" Democrats and Republicans that were once "pro-war" Democrats and Republicans. And, I find it purely disgusting that the politicians would actually invent the terms "anti-war" and "pro-war"...two terms that are so grossly disingenuous is causes my Warrior's Blood to boil. In these modern times, in this particular point in time, the only ones I know that are "pro-war" are the Jihadis. the proper terms are "anti-victory" and "pro-victory" and, this is why.

The Democratic Party Leadership in particular and the Fraud Republicans as a notice of recognition for what they are, have so invested in defeat in this war, a defeat would mean their victory in the American Political Arena. A victory in this war would be a defeat for them in the American Political Arena.

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article at NRO that I ran across several days ago. He runs through the ever changing political scene and a key point I shall never forget. The nuance will escape the average anti-Americanist:

[...] The second problem was the nature of the growing antiwar mood in the country that after the pullback from Fallujah in April 2004 became frenetic. Democrats rashly fanned this national wildfire. By 2006 the conflagration had finally led to their return to power in Congress.

Unfortunately, many Democrats saw the change-of-heart in the electorate as a blanket endorsement of their own alternate universe. But it wasn't necessarily so. The voters were not necessarily interested in new ties with terrorist Syria, restoring diplomacy with Iran, gay marriage, abortion, minority-identity politics, new spending programs, open borders, closing down Guantanamo, an end to wiretaps of suspected terrorists, or the repeal of the Patriot Act.

The people were mad at the war not because they felt it was amoral or unsound policy, or because they hated George Bush, or because they wished liberals instead to end it in defeat -- but simply because they felt frustrated that we either were not winning, or not winning at a cost in blood and treasure that was worth the effort.

That Pattonesque national mood ("America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser") is not quite entirely gone, and was entirely misunderstood by most Democrats. Somehow instead they saw their new popularity as connected to the appeal of their politics rather than their shared anger at the mismanagement of the war. [...]

Very powerful that is. And, in light of the recent developments in the War In Iraq, that sentiment marks their doom and they know it.

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place and cannot get out unscathed. They have embraced defeatist rhetoric in the hopes of political gain, self-destructive as it has become, and they have no way out and no way to recover. The elections of 2008 will be very interesting indeed.

Just a few days ago, Rep Murtha returned from Iraq and said (my paraphrase), "By golly gee! The Surge is working". This so infuriated SoH Pelosi that she put the kibosh on that almost immediately...too late it was in the coming. Murtha has some serious damage control in his own life to consider and may have been too eager to make points with the military. We may never know for sure.

Regardless, being stuck between their rocks and their hard places, they will be crushed and exposed for what they are; disingenuous cretins.

[...] Democrats have invested everything in losing the war in Iraq and blaming it on President Bush, and now they've been proved wrong. Murtha has admitted it; other Democrats, one by one, will follow.

How much faith can Americans place in a party so committed to a national failure - and now so discredited?

Exactly so. They just cannot get anything right on Iraq, can they?

Dems are on the wrong side of history and fading fast.

"But I felt kinda embarrassed telling the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here." - Democratic Congressman Norman Dicks.

The spin before was we cannot win, pull the troops out. The spin now is we won, pull the troops out.

Will Democrats ever change their course and head for victory? [...]

Only time will tell.

Sphere: Related Content

Dems Disaster Week In Pictures

The Santa Ana winds allowed an arsonist (or several) to start the tinderbox of California in a horrible conflagration of wildfires; one arsonist caught in the act, when pursued by police, was killed. Hundreds of thousands of acres have been burned; many homes lost, property damage in the stratosphere.




Due to the well practiced California emergency responders, there has been relatively little loss of life, considering the magnitude of the conflagration. FEMA is not happy because California knows what it's doing and hasn't relied on FEMA to take care of things, so they call a false press conference.




Politicians, rather than working on what they needed to work on (and succeeding in accomplishing what they have since 11/06--absolutely NOTHING), decide this is the perfect time to start playing politics yet again--blaming global warming AND Bush for the fires (in the case of Bush, Barbara Boxer taking her cues from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius and stating California didn't have enough National Guardsmen to help because resources were in Iraq--a flat out lie since California is mandated 21,000 National Guardsmen, 17,000 current Guardsmen and only 1,500 in Iraq)


Although many of the California representatives returned home to help their constituents during this NATURAL DISASTER, Pelosi and Reid decide now is the time to try to ram SCHIP down our throats again, with no substantial changes as ordered by Bush. Pelosi as SOH SHOULD have been in California with the rest of the representatives. Once again, SCHIP went through the House, but will be vetoed as the changes demanded by Bush were not made.




And we hear more of the global warming garbage as being the cause of the wildfires--particularly as espoused by Harry Reid.




In other news, Congressman Pete Stark decides he needs to make his mark with some measured insanity on the SCHIP bill, claiming Bush sends troops to Iraq to get their heads blown off for Bush's amusement.



An appropriate Dem "family portrait":


We have the defeatists still refusing to listen to any good news coming out of Iraq and living in their dream world that if we leave, all will be well.



While the defeatists are burying their collective heads in the sand, we are starting to see some of the ramifications of Pelosi's Armenian Genocide from Turkey. Our men and women are stomping out "fires", have AQI on the run, are winning the hearts and minds of the people and now, Turkey has been thrown into the mix. But Dems "support the troops".



More refusals by Dems to see the reality of the progress made and instead working off news reports almost a year old to keep emotions stirred up in those too stupid and ignorant to find facts for themselves.


Dems efforts to continue down the road to socialism in order to make us all "equal", completely ignoring the fact capitalism rewards those who succeed and the successes shouldn't have to bail out the lazy asses who rely on the government to take care of them cradle to grave. Tax the successes and reward the lazy. Good job, idiots.




What is it with the Clintons and the Chinese? What hold do the Chinese have over the Clintons? Wasn't Long Beach, CA enough for them? What other strategic US properties do they want now? Or is it more military secrets out of Los Alamos?


The GOP comes to a conclusion (also ANYBODY but Ron Paul and his white supremacists/truther friends):



Good news is no news to CBS and Couric:



Boy Scouts under fire from the gay agenda again--under fire from those who wish to strip all boys of the principles that made this country great--GOD, Country, Others, Self.



All cartoons from Townhall.com. Pictures are often far more valuable in illustrating points and idiocies than words could ever do.

It was once again a bad week for Dems. Good.

Sphere: Related Content

Fringe Fruit Loops Week in Pictures--10/13-10/20/2007

Harry Reid tries to spin his attempted suppression of a private citizen's free speech into his "partnership" for charity with said private citizen--Rush Limbaugh--and gets royally SPANKED!




Randi Rhodes, a spinmeister for Air America, gets drunk off her ass, passes out hard enough to dislodge teeth and lets her co-host spew it's part of the VRWC--because she's too "busy" to correct him.



The ideological muslim can't be bothered to even wear a symbol of the country he professes to want to lead--now he can't even stand properly at attention when the National Anthem is played--further proof he's no American, his patriotism is DEFINITELY in question, and he's not fit to lead.




New York Times and the MSM anyone?




NASCAR Cooties and the fans feelings about the dems who can't mingle with the proletariat because they might catch those cooties!





Nancy Pelosi on a good day--one where her plans to sink the troops mission and our victory is once again foiled.



More of the dems trying to sabotage the troops, the mission and our country.



New definitions for "Turkey"




The dems facetious lies exposed so well even children know they're being sold a bunch of bs!


And that's the defeatist fringe in a nutshell for this week! Thanks to Townhall.com for the week's worth of pictures!

Sphere: Related Content

Wisdom From Ayn Rand-UPDATED AND BUMPED

I originally posted this Sunday, October 8, 2007. I posted originally because a passage (quoted below) "spoke" to me about how things are going today, particularly with the islam attitude toward the Great Satan (America) and how the dems are becoming more and more communistic in their attitude.

I had no idea today was the publishing anniversary of this work.

I also got some comments calling me delusional because I didn't interpret the book the way the commenter thought I should interpret it.

Here's the comment:

It’s clear that your attempt to use Ayn Rand’s work as an analogy to illustrate and substantiate your beliefs is extremely misguided.

Although you acknowledge that the book must be “read and absorbed, thought about and ruminated upon,” it’s clear you have not been doing that. The use of that ‘conditional’ passage beginning with “If” means that you absurdly contend that Muslims can survive only by destroying all non-Muslims! Either your reading ability is extremely deficient, or your belief system is so extreme you’ve become delusional and are no longer able to differentiate your delusion from reality.

It’s also clear that you have little or no knowledge of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and what she stood for. Ayn Rand opposed US involvement in every war of the 20th century; WWI, WWII, Korean War, and Viet Nam. Since her views, especially about war and religion, are in such direct conflict with those you advocate on your website, it makes no sense that you would associate your views with anything from her.

It seems you were just trying to impress others by saying you were reading the book of a famous, though dubious, intellectual. However, you should not even attempt to do that unless you really understand the material and the person that wrote it. Ayn Rand actually wrote about her views on what is true knowledge and understanding; when the truth of a subject and one’s belief about that subject overlap. You would be doing yourself a great service by working on that problem so you can become more objective and less delusional.
Themis109 | | themis109@gmail.com | 10.09.07 - 5:36 am | #

This commenter also comes from Phuket, Thailand.

This commenter likes to post on Real Clear Politics, using "text message shorthand". He got a tad irritated with me and decided to try to post something on RCP intended to denigrate me--however, when one clicked on the link for the article, it went directly to the Wikipedia entry on Ayn Rand. Real original, huh?

The purpose of thought provoking literature is it touches something in each person--no one person is going to have the same interpretation of it. To attempt to slam someone for their personal interpretation, including name calling, is outright childish.

I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand stood for. What I do know about her is this--her formative years were spent in Russia during Russia's upheaval from a monarchy to communism. She was definitely a product of her time and yet--she was also in her own way a revolutionary. The fact she was a woman living life according to her terms, with no apologies to anyone, during the time period she lived, was remarkable. She was indeed true to herself.

To even get your head around her literature you have to have some inkling of the woman and her background. Not an easy thing to get your head around, particularly in a country where freedom is taken for granted.

Her works are visionary and sometimes frightening. We often hear about Orwell's 1984. Yes, I've read 1984 as well. I found Rand's "Anthem" infinitely more chilling. And yet, how often do we hear something called "Randian" instead of "Orwellian"?

I often bemoan the fact her works are not required reading in high schools. They are timeless and they offer much for classroom discussion. They offer a point of view not often so starkly presented. I would much rather have studied her works than Lysistrata or Dante's Divine Comedy (yes, those were on my high school reading list--of course, I was an honors student and Cliff Notes were forbidden). It would be wonderful to balance out the Greek classics with American classics such as this.

I'm still getting through this tome, and as I find passages I think are relevant, I will continue to post on them.

In the meantime, perhaps it would be prudent to take a look at your bookshelves and reading lists. Maybe, if you've already read Miss Rand's works, you might wish to revisit them--particularly in this election cycle. If you've never read them, maybe it's time to start--and give yourself plenty of time. There are too many layers to read these through quickly.

Who would have thought a book written by a woman in 1957, a communist/atheist woman who followed her own drum, during a time of McCarthy, would produce something so timeless? Something still giving insight and food for thought, 50 years later?

To still be able to challenge people to think for themselves? What better legacy can one leave behind?

My friend Spree over at Wake Up America asked me a few months ago if I had ever read "Atlas Shrugged". I hadn't, although it has been on my reading list for years. I HAVE read "Anthem", and found it to be not only a quick read, but very thought provoking, even after having read the last line over 20 years ago.

I haven't had much time for personal reading lately; I've been in a very intense study group. I have a break until after Halloween; then I have to hit the textbooks again. So thought I would FINALLY read "Atlas Shrugged".

While it "reads" quickly, it's not a book one can whiz through. It has to be read and absorbed, thought about and ruminated upon.

One passage today stood out. To me, it illustrates exactly the divide between those that recognize the true nature of the islam tide and the fact they mean EXACTLY what they say they mean regarding the annihilation of Israel and the United States--and eventually world domination under sharia law and those that want to pander to our enemies, trying to "negotiate" and use "diplomacy" with them (Read: the right who fully supports our troops, their mission and the fact our troops are protecting us HERE by fighting them THERE and the left who hasn't got a clue, preferring to live in a fantasy world with purple skies and cotton candy colored clouds).

The passage in question takes place between Dagny Taggert, Operations Manager of the Taggert Transcontinental Railroad and Dan Conway, owner of the Phoenix-Durango line, immediately after the National Alliance of Railroads has voted to abide by the "Anti-dog-eat-dog" legislation in which Dan Conway will be "punished" for being successful where the other lines are NOT succeeding.

Dagny's brother James is a major proponent of the "common good"--and everyone has to work together with some being sacrificed--punished--along the way for being successful. Sound familiar? Think Hillary's quote:

Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. [Emphasis mine]

And:

The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence! [Emphasis mine]

We are RIGHT THERE in this election and with the left's ideas toward socialism.

Here is the relevant passage:

"If the rest of them can survive only by destroying us, then why should we wish them to survive? Nothing can make self-immolation proper. Nothing can give them the right to turn men into sacrificial animals. Nothing can make it moral to destroy the best. One can't be punished for being good. One can't be penalized for ability. If that is right, then we'd better start slaughtering one another, because there isn't any right at all in the world!"

That about sums it up. We ARE on the road described in "Atlas Shrugged". The real question is, of course, how many people are going to recognize it and fight it and how many are going to follow along the left's path to the slaughter?

Sphere: Related Content

American Family Association ("AFA") Alert: Religious Words Such as God, Lord BANNED by Architect of the U.S Capitol

The Architect of the Capitol is responsible to the United States Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United States Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.

Currently, Stephen T. Ayers, AIA, AOC's Deputy Architect/Chief Operating Officer, in accordance with P.L. 108-7, is serving as Acting Architect of the Capitol until a new Architect is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The above definition of the position and current position holder of Architect of the U.S. Capitol can be found here.

Someone please tell me where it states this position has the authority to eliminate religious terms, without vetting, and simply on his "views"? Yet--that is exactly what he's done regarding certificates of authenticity for flags flown over the Capitol.

Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates.

Who gave him this authority? Who ok'd this?

Were it not for AFA, I never would have known about this--would you? With that in mind, I'm printing the entire email I received from AFA:

Religious words such as God, Lord banned by Architect of the U.S. Capitol Contact your congressman and senators today! Dear [Redacted], According to U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave, our nation's legislators are now prohibited from using references to God in certificates of authenticity accompanying flags flown over the Capitol and bought by constituents. Such references include: "under God" in the pledge, "God bless you," or "in the year of our Lord, 2007." Never before has this official prohibition been leveled. Architect of the Capitol Steven Ayers said he has removed the words because reference to God and the Lord may offend some Americans. He now prohibits them from being placed on official documents such as flag certificates. Musgrave was astonished when she flew a flag over the U.S. Capitol building as a tribute to a senior citizen, and the accompanying certificate she received was edited with all religious references removed. The congresswoman was more astounded when, upon further investigation, she discovered the certificate was censored by order of The Architect of the Capitol, an unelected very low-level official who manages the flag office. Responding to a request for a flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of a World War II veteran's 81st birthday, the congresswoman ordered the flag and a certificate to state: "This flag was flown for Mr. John Doe on the occasion of his 81st birthday, the eleventh day of July, in the year of our Lord, 2007. Thank you, Grandpa, for showing me what it is to be a true patriot -- to love God, family, and country. We love you!" When the flag and certificate came back from the flag office, each reference to the Lord and God were removed. A group of lawmakers confronted architect Stephen Ayers seeking to find where he had the authority to restrict their freedom of speech and religious expression. Ayers refused to give the lawmakers a clear justification of his authority to delete the religious references. For more information: Capitol flag policy assailed (Washington Times). Take Action! Forward this to your family and friends. Take Action Send an e-mail to your representative and two senators. Ask them to put a stop to this nonsense. A low-level employee should not have the authority to ban the use of religious words. Forward this to your family and friends and ask them to send an e-mail to their representatives and senators. If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please consider making a donation to help us continue? Sincerely, Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman American Family Association P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

*********************

Here is the article referencing Capitol Flag Policy in the above alert:

Article published Oct 6, 2007
Capitol flag policy assailed

October 6, 2007

By Audrey Hudson -

A group of Republican lawmakers is demanding the architect of the U.S. Capitol reverse a policy that bans the use of the word "God" on flag certificates sent to constituents.

Rep. Michael R. Turner of Ohio said one of his constituents, Paul Larochelle, recently requested to receive a flag that had flown over the Capitol. Mr. Larochelle's son had hoped to present the flag and the accompanying certificate to his grandfather, an Army veteran.

The Larochelles wanted the certificate's inscription to read, in part: "In honor of my grandfather, Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country and family." However, when the flag and the certificate arrived at Mr. Turner's office from the architect of the U.S. Capitol's office, which handles the Capitol flag program, the word "God" had been eliminated.

Mr. Turner said he requested an explanation from the architect's office, which cited one of its 14 Flag Office Services rules. The rule states, "... religious expressions are not permitted on flag certificates."

Mr. Turner — along with fellow Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Randy Neugebauer of Texas and Steve Pearce of New Mexico — complained in a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the architect's office had "informed several congressional offices that the use of the word 'God' violates the rule." [Emphasis mine].

"This is an abuse of power, plain and simple," Mr. Neugebauer said. "Using the nonpartisan position of maintaining the Capitol to decide what citizens can have written on their flag certificates is unacceptable."

Stephen T. Ayers has been acting architect of the U.S. Capitol since February, when his predecessor, Alan M. Hantman, retired. Mr. Ayers' spokeswoman was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The lawmakers are asking Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, to review the authority under which the architect's office made the rules and that the policy "which censors our citizens' right to expressions of their faith" be reversed. [Emphasis mine]

They also point out that as the custodian of the Capitol, the architect is responsible for a building inscribed with many religious references, including "In God We Trust" in the House and Senate chambers.

"The architect's policy is in direct conflict with his charge as well as the scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a building containing many national religious symbols," the lawmakers stated.

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said a Democratic proposal may help solve the problem. [Emphasis mine]

The proposal would have the architect certify that the flag was flown, and then a member of Congress could add the constituent's message separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. [Emphasis mine]

"It will be resolved in the near future," he said.

Lawmakers receive more than 100,000 requests from constituents each year for flags that have flown over the Capitol.

********************
Who wants to lay odds Pelosi's office won't do a damn thing? Even her "solution" of flying the flag and later inscribing the certificate with what the constituent wants doesn't address nor alleviate the fact this non-elected official has taken it upon himself to do as he pleases. She simply wants to allow him to continue to do so rather than order him to follow the rules.

Sign the petition and contact your representatives about this. Just another piece of throwing our values under the bus and play politics for the dems. Disgusting.

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

[Update] People were heard and God is once again allowed on the certificates.

Sphere: Related Content

Democratic SCHIP Bull...Lies and Distortions

Hat tip to Wake Up America.

I have to admit I haven't been following this as diligently as perhaps I should have. I do know the bill the dems want will increase my taxes significantly. I also know it's quite a bastardization, offering healthcare to middle income families and adults, and NOT solely to the poor children, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

Once again, however, the Dems, in their rabid race to once again expose their rampant BDS, have forgotten to fact check their little poster boy, Graeme Frost, the 12-year old injured in a car wreck and helped back to health by CHIP in his home state of Maryland (Baltimore, to be exact). Graeme gave the weekly Democratic Radio Address in response to Bush's veto.

One of Graeme's quotes:

“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program. [Emphasis mine]

His entire address can be read here.

Reading his speech makes me want to throw up. There is NO question he and his sister were severely injured in a car wreck. That's absolutely tragic; there is no dispute about that in any way.

What CAN be disputed is the facts regarding the family's actual need for CHIP.

The family is not qualified, in general, because it doesn't meet Federal Poverty Guidelines found here. According to the FPG, a family of six cannot make more than $27, 610. The Frost's reported income is in the $45,000 range. Dad Halsey owns his own woodworking and design company ("Frostworks"); mom Bonnie works for a medical publishing firm. Prior to working for the medical publishing firm, Bonnie worked for Frostworks as bookkeeper and operations manager. She went to work for the medical publishing firm this year, 2007.

The medical publishing firm doesn't provide health insurance for its employees. Apparently, Dad, while owning a woodworking and design company, refused to purchase/provide healthcare for himself, his wife and his employees. So, because of Dad's REFUSAL to provide healthcare, taxpayers like you and I have to pay for his and his family's healthcare.

Their financial situation is further detailed in other posts; I'll link them at the bottom, but will round up the facts here in one spot.

The Frosts live in a 3,040 square foot home in an area where a similar end unit (although only 2,060 square feet) sold for $485,000 in March, 2007. They don't live in the slums, people. The children attend a private school where the tuition runs $20,000 PER CHILD, per year. They own commercial real estate and they recently remodeled their home with expensive upgrades.

Uh huh. Ok.

So, they can afford to remodel their home, live in a home valued in the half million dollar range, send two of their four children to an exclusive private school to the tune of $40,000, own commercial real estate (in which another company may or may not rent space from them)--but they can't afford healthcare AND THEY ONLY REPORT $45,000 in income.

The math doesn't add up, for starters. They don't meet Federal Poverty Guidelines. They CAN AFFORD healthcare but CHOOSE NOT TO purchase it, preferring taxpayers foot the bill for them.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the poster family for SCHIP. This is who Dems use to "prove their point" for the underprivileged who have NO HOPE of affording their own healthcare.

I don't think so. SCHIP is meant for those who cannot afford any kind of healthcare and are not provided care through their jobs. NOT over-privileged families who can afford it and choose not to provide it to their own families, relying on the government and our tax dollars instead.

President Bush's speech regarding this issue can be found here.

Text of the SCHIP Bill can be found here.

********************
And here is another article in which the White House sets the record straight regarding Pelosi's Misrepresentation of SCHIP:

Setting the Record Straight: Speaker Pelosi Misleads on SCHIP
Congress' Bill Would Expand SCHIP Beyond Poor Children It's Intended
To Help; Move Children From Private To Government Insurance

"The policies of the government ought to be help poor children and to focus on poor children. ... Poor kids first."
- President George W. Bush, 10/3/07

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrongly stated Congress' bill is "just enrolling all of the children who are eligible" and not "expanding an eligibility" for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

• There are hundreds of thousands of children eligible for SCHIP under current law who are not signed up for the program. SCHIP was created to cover children in families with annual incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.

• Congress' bill explicitly rejects a requirement that 95 percent of eligible children from families with incomes under 200 percent of the poverty level must be enrolled in SCHIP before children in higher-income families can be covered.

• Congress' bill would also allow SCHIP to cover children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 per year – 400 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Speaker Pelosi inaccurately claimed Congress' bill is "about private medicine." (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

• Under Congress' plan, one out of every three additional children moving onto government coverage would be moving from private insurance. Of the approximately 6 million enrollees Congress' legislation would attract by 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 2 million would drop private insurance to enroll.

• The policies of the government ought to be helping people get private insurance, not Federal coverage. That's why the President believes strongly in Association Health Plans to help small business owners better afford insurance for their workers and believes we ought to change the Federal tax code to help individuals better afford insurance in the marketplace.

Speaker Pelosi falsely accused the President of "miss[ing] an opportunity to say to the children of America, your health and well-being are important to us." (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 10/3/07)

• Today, President Bush reiterated his strong support for SCHIP. THE PRESIDENT: "I strongly support the program. I like the idea of helping those who are poor be able to get health coverage for their children. I supported it as governor, and I support it as President of the United States." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Lancaster Chamber Of Commerce And Industry, Lancaster, PA, 10/3/07)

This year, the Administration will spend about $35.5 billion to provide health insurance for poor children through Medicaid. THE PRESIDENT: "In other words, when they say, 'Well, poor children aren't being covered in America,' if that's what you're hearing on your TV screens, I'm telling you there's $35.5 billion worth of reasons not to believe that." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Lancaster Chamber Of Commerce And Industry, Lancaster, PA, 10/3/07)

********************
People, get your heads in the game on this issue. This is plain and simple the first step towards socialized medicine. Aren't we taxed enough? Why should we provide healthcare to those that can afford it themselves? Why are they even receiving benefits when they don't even qualify under the FPG?

"Morally unacceptable" is how the Dems are representing the president for vetoing SCHIP as they presented it (once again, as they waited until the last minute to present it to the president and even with their foreknowledge he would veto it in the form they presented).

However, it's "morally acceptable" in THEIR eyes to cheat those who truly NEED the bill by parading a family who is far too wealthy to be receiving this care.

Who truly is risking the healthcare needed by the poor?

It's not the president and it's not those who voted against this travesty--once again, it's the Dems, playing a partisan game for politics, parading the wealthy in the guise of the poor, refusing to check facts and attempting to force their socialization on us, the taxpayer.

Others writing about this:
Wake Up America
Don Surber
Brutally Honest
The Corner
Wizbang
The Shotgun Blog
Blue Crab Boulevard
Protein Wisdom

Catch the wave!

Sphere: Related Content