Gabrielle Gifford's Response re: Defeatism

Another patronizing, condescending letter received regarding her defeatist attitude. Do they think we can't see through them and their posturing?

April 3, 2007

Dear Certified (This was the third letter and she couldn't even get my name right!),

Thank you for contacting me about President Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq . I have grave doubts about whether this latest plan can succeed. Another Pelosi/Reid lapdog--she's a freshman and follows her leash training well!

Serving on the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, I have been participating in many hours of hearings with Administration officials and policy experts. At briefings with top-level military leaders, I have been asking tough questions. These experiences have made me more confident than ever that the global war on terror and the situation in Iraq are more complicated than President Bush seems to recognize. Actually, they're a lot more complicated than YOU seem to realize and Gen. Petraeus told you exactly what was needed. I'd say he was pretty high ranking!

Common sense dictates that in order for any plan to succeed, it must require the Iraqi government to calm the sectarian violence and unify behind a workable political structure. Without the serious involvement and motivation of Iraqi political and religious leaders, the President's proposal to send more American troops into harm's way amounts to having 21,000 more soldiers stay the course. This I cannot support. I'd be willing to bet you support your "feminist rights" along with the gays and abortion mills--guess what, those won't exist anymore if you have your way!

The President should consider the views of the many active and retired military generals, and the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group such as: He has--that's why he's the President and you're NOT!

-- Keeping rapid reaction and special operations forces in the region to strike Al Qaeda militias and train the Iraqi army to take over combat operations; And what do you think they're doing--sitting on their thumbs playing poker while "escorting" you and the other defeatists around when they could be accomplishing something more productive?
-- Setting performance benchmarks for the Iraqi government to create an oil revenue sharing program, reform of the de-Bathification laws and develop processes to amend its constitution and hold provincial elections; Real life doesn't follow utopian timetables
-- Starting a direct dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East ; WHAT??? ARE YOU NUTS??? and
-- Providing economic assistance to Iraq that will help create jobs, strengthen infrastructure and improve the Iraqis' capacity to be independent and stable. Again, we're already doing that--or was it not in your MoveOn.org talking points?

I strongly support our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to protect and defend our nation. Our armed forces must have the tools, training and support they need to be successful in any mission. I have serious concerns that our Army, along with Guard and Reserve forces, is being stretched too thin. As the traitor you are, this is a lie, particularly since you supported the pork laden troop funding--funding that should have gone for the troops and veterans EXCLUSIVELY. You don't support anyone but the almighty dollar.

Instead of sending 21,000 more soldiers to Iraq as part of his same failed strategy, the President should focus on the global war on terrorism and deploy our troops in a more targeted fashion. And I believe that we need to work more effectively with other countries in order to face challenges and threats to our global economy and security. This dire situation in Iraq will remain a primary focus in my committees; I will continue to be actively engaged in trying to find solutions. The solution is the one that's working, the one the President and Gen. Petraeus presented to you and you refuse to acknowledge because it would mean we are winning--you can't accept that and prefer defeat.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. It is an honor to serve and represent you. Please visit my website at www.giffords.house.gov to sign up for e-mail updates and for more information about issues affecting Southern Arizona and our country. I didn't vote for you in '06 and I will never vote for you. I keep track of your voting record and will endeavor to keep that voting record in the public's view so they know that you, who ran as a Blue Dog Democrat, are truly nothing more than a Yellow Dog. This will be accomplished through blogs such as mine and the Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com).


Sincerely,
Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress

Again, more of the Democratic Defeat our troops and our nation are struggling against. Don't it make you proud? NOT!!!

Sphere: Related Content

Raul Grijalva's Response to Pork Spending

I received this condescending, patronizing letter in my email from Congressman Grijalva (I call him "Pancho Villa" and it's NOT a compliment). I will highlight certain areas so you can see how this man's mind is twisted in his Democratic, Defeatist, BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)mentality.

Dear Miss :

Thank you for taking the time to communicate with me regarding the supplemental spending bill for the Iraq War.

Since my arrival in Congress, I have voted against every single previous bill to fund this war. I have opposed this war from the beginning and I want to see our men and women in uniform withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as is practically feasible. As a member of the Progressive Caucus, I support an immediate commencement of a withdrawal to be completed within six months. In other words, you're a coward who wants his rights protected but no one else's and you don't have the stomach to support those who fight to protect your rights along with everyone else's.

Accordingly, I have co-sponsored a number of bills to bring this war to an end, foremost among them HR 508, the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007. I am well aware of your voting record--I subscribe to two voting services that keep me apprised of your self-serving interests.

However, in making my decision on the supplemental, I had to take into account that any bill that could pass this House would have to be the product of negotiation and compromise among a number of incongruous groups with often incompatible philosophies and goals. Furthermore, there are a number of provisions in this bill that are desperately needed and that I wholeheartedly support. These include fulfilling our moral obligation to properly fund medical care for our nation's veterans, increasing the minimum wage, restoring the people and communities of the Gulf Cost region, addressing health care needs for our children, and low income energy assistance. The troop funding is not the place to put your pork and special interests. It should have funded the troops and veteran's EXCLUSIVELY.

Still, I was disappointed with the end product of this House's legislative process. I felt, and I still feel, that the schedule for withdrawal in the bill is far too long, and that the benchmark formula in the bill will be easily manipulated by an Administration that has demonstrated a willingness to deceive the Congress and the American people with regard to the situation in Iraq . Still, the bill did set a precedent by declaring a date for withdrawal, however distant. I don't see that you've ever had any military service, although you talk a big game. You're a coward, plain and simple, and can't stand there are positive things happening in Iraq.

Ultimately, I was faced with the option of voting for the bill or voting against it and seeing the Congress' first attempt to bring the War in Iraq to an end fail, thus delivering a victory for the Bush Administration and an even larger defeat for the peace movement. NICE TO SEE THEY ADMIT DEFEAT FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT!

I will tell you in all sincerity that this choice was extremely difficult. Sure it was--until you got your pork and appropriate bribe in the pork--what was your bribe to get you to sell out the country?

But in good conscience, I could not sit on the sidelines, with the vote as close as it was, and witness a result that would, in effect, enable this administration's desire for war without end. I voted to pass this bill. You have no conscience and you have no morals or you would have demanded a clean bill for troops and veteran's alone instead of all the pork and your bribes.

If I had the opportunity, I would have voted for an amendment offered in Committee by Representative Barbara Lee, to fully fund a withdrawal of US forces and bring the War to an end. This remains my preferred policy.

I am certain that this will not be the last word by this Congress on Iraq . Ultimately it is the American people who have pushed their government to face reality with regard to Iraq , and their sustained pressure which will continue to move this debate forward. The reality is if we don't finish in Iraq, we'll be fighting here at home. The reality is the surge is working. And the reality is, the last word will be held by the true President, not the 535 pretenders such as yourself.

I will continue to fight to bring this tragic misadventure in Iraq to an end, and I hope I will retain your confidence in this struggle. Fighting for your rights is not a tragic misadventure. You, however, are a tragic excuse for an American.

Sincerely,

Raul M. Grijalva

Member of Congress

This is what the troops are facing in the 110th Congressional mindset, not to mention the treasonous behavior and fiduciary mismanagement encouraged by Pelosi and Reid.

Sphere: Related Content

Keeping Up the Pressure on the Pelosi Worm

Thanks Snooper (Capitalism or Socialism...You Decide) for this article!

Opinion Derived From Fact...Unlike A Leftinistra

Did Nancy Pelosi Violate the Logan Act?Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

That is the complete text of the Logan Act, passed by the U.S. Congress on January 30, 1799, and in force to this day.

Did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and others) violate that act during a much-publicized, self-authorized trip to Syria?

The answer, like the law itself, is simple and straightforward: YES

Nancy Pelosi qualifies as "any citizen of the United States," with no exemption as Speaker of the House.

Nancy Pelosi acted "without authority of the United States," which, in matters of foreign policy, resides solely and exclusively in the executive branch of the U.S. Government, meaning the President of the United States and his designees. The President of the United States specifically disapproved of the Pelosi trip to Syria, asked her not to go and criticized her thereafter.
Nancy Pelosi directly commenced "correspondence or intercourse" with officers and agents of a foreign government.

Nancy Pelosi, by her own statements, intended and attempted to influence the "measures or conduct" of that foreign government. Those measures and that conduct directly relate to disputes or controversies with the United States (and its allies).

That the measures and conduct of Syria are among the worst of nations is of considerable concern from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but is irrelevant from the standpoint of the Logan Act, which does not grade the behavior of countries or delineate among them for the purposes of its strictures.

That Speaker Pelosi says she said nothing on her trip that differs from the positions of the President is also irrelevant, from the standpoint of the law, and either woefully ignorant or ignorant and spiteful, from the standpoint of international relations.

The current policy of the U.S., as made by the executive branch, is to isolate Syria. That may be right; it may be wrong; it may not even matter. It is not, however, anywhere within Speaker Pelosi's prerogative to tangibly interfere or even interpose herself by meeting directly with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the purposes of any "diplomacy."

Pelosi's defenders make much of the fact that she is Speaker of the House of Representatives and only behind the Vice President in order of succession to the Presidency. That may get heads nodding on television talk shows, but falls with a thud against the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, recognizing the "exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations" or "the decision of the executive is conclusive."

(Contrary to the mistaken assertions of some, presidential succession is not specified in the Constitution, but in statutory law made by Congress, subject to change, as it has changed in the past. No Speaker has ever succeeded to the Presidency. Even if one ever does, that will never make the legislative branch the executive branch or allow anyone in the legislative branch to adventure past the separation of powers that is one of the cornerstones of our government.)

It is far more pertinent to ask another question regarding Pelosi's role as Speaker of the House. What does it say to this country that she openly violates a law made by the very legislative body of which she is the putative leader? If she disagrees with the law, for any reason, it is her job to try to change it, not to violate it, no matter how much she may disagree with the foreign policy positions of a duly-elected President.

The Logan Act may be old and no one ever before prosecuted for violating it. But it is neither ill-founded nor archaic, particularly in a time of world unrest and significant domestic tension regarding U.S. policy toward that unrest. The law does not preclude all legislators' discussions with foreign leaders, such as fact-finding, but only those which have the unauthorized intent to influence those leaders.

As recently as September 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House issued a memo to all members and officers that cautioned against activities that implicate the Logan Act, albeit intended as a warning to outgoing members. Similarly, in February 2006, the Congressional Research Service prepared a survey of the Logan Act for Congress. While neither document is particularly respectful of the law, there should at least be no one in Congress claiming not to understand it (including Speaker Pelosi's Republican fellow travelers).

There is no question that many Americans and many in Congress disagree strenuously with foreign policy positions of the Bush Administration. Any and all, including Speaker Pelosi, may say so, loudly and often, in Congress, in the public square. But none of us, including Speaker Pelosi, has the right to conduct any foreign policy, without specific authorization of the President.

Now, Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are openly discussing a diplomatic trip to "dialogue" with Iran. In the Byzantine world of foreign relations, that's like trying to dismantle a nuke wearing only a head scarf for protection.

The Washington Post called Speaker Pelosi's mission to Syria "foolish." Vice President Cheney called it "bad behavior." We call it FELONY.

Sphere: Related Content

The Democratic Follies

Three articles today; one from Townhall, one from NewsMax and one fron CNS News.

When one is President of the United States, it's understood you often have to deal with difficult people. Those people don't really care which "party" you represent; to them, you represent an entire country. These people don't care if the media has a particular "bias" you don't care for--if you profess to that being an issue of yours, they see it as a weakness to exploit.

As the leader of the free world, you are expected to deal with all issues that come your way, whether you like it or not. You are expected to deal with people whose ideas and idealogies you don't agree with. And you'll be doing it on a very public stage.

These people, who also represent countries or factions of their own, may loathe you. You have to deal with that. However, when they deal with you, they want to know they are dealing with YOU--not your puppet-master.

John Edwards has shown not once, but twice, he won't deal with people he perceives as "different" or "having a conservative bias", mainly Fox News. He is shown to be wearing the strings of his puppet-master, George Soros of MoveOn.org.

How are we the people to have any faith in him being President, being the leader of the free world, if he won't even debate on a news network he perceives as too conservative? How are we to believe he's free of his strings and will truly represent the interests of the country rather than Mr. Soros?

We can't. He doesn't. And, as such, he doesn't deserve the office of President. How will he deal with the thugs, tyrants and dictators of the world if he's afraid of conservatism? His actions show his complete cowardice. That is not good, no matter how you paint or spin it, for this country.

Here's the Townhall article: "Brave John Edwards Ran Away"
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonSanders/2007/04/09/brave_john_edwards_ran_away

In another item from Newsmax, Elizabeth Edwards isn't capable of dealing with neighbors and their opposing viewpoint. While we empathize with the Edwards' family regarding Elizabeth's cancer, she has chosen to stay on the campaign trail, with the support of her family. Her illness doesn't excuse such idiotic ramblings, imagined "fears" and outright prejudice she professes regarding her Orange County neighbor.

Directly across the street from their McMansion is the home of Monty Johnson. Mr. Johnson is a Republican. Mr. Johnson protected his property (albeit not the best way) by chasing people off his property while waving a gun. The Edwards' reaction doesn't bode well for the 2nd Amendment and leads us to extrapolate the common citizen won't be allowed to defend his or her property, a typical democrat attitude leaning towards socialism/facism/communism and the belief we all need "nannys" to watch over us.

Mr. Johnson has a business on his property, leased as a car shop. Mr. Johnson doesn't have hordes of landscapers and builders, so his property, bought during the Great Depression by his family and worn with time, is considered "slummy" by the Edwards', who claim he keeps it that way on purpose to, basically "spite" them. I prefer Mr. Johnson's response, "I have to budget. I have to leave within my means," Johnson said. "I don't have millions of dollars to fix the place."

MOST of our First Lady's (I really don't count Billary) have a modicum of class and are not quite so transparent with their paranoia. The fact we're seeing such prejudice and paranoia coming from Elizabeth shows what kind of First Lady she would make. It's not a pretty picture. If her husband isn't running from debates, she's making polarizing/divisive/prejudicial statements about the opposing party.

Nice act guys--glad to see it materialized before you got elected.

Here's the NewsMax Article: "John Edward's Wife Scared by 'Rabid Republican'":
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/9/103709.shtml?s=al&promo_code=320E-1

Our third article comes from CNS News and relates to Steny Hoyer's (Pelosi's lapdog) meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood--the parent organization of Hamas. This on the heels of Pelosi's attempt to do the Secretary of State's job in Damascus (and failing miserably, even to the point she didn't see she was being ridiculed to her face for "mis-reading" the signs).

So, now we have the SoH dealing with Hezbollah and the House Majority Leader dealing with Hamas. But the defeatists (leftists, liberals, tree-huggers, traitors, you pick the adjective) would have us believe there's nothing wrong with this. Maybe the only way they'll ever learn is when we have yet another terrorist incident on US soil. Unfortunately, if they have their way, there won't be a military to defend them and their rights to spew the filth and hate they can't seem to contain, said liberal leanings being recently seen to be a mental illness such as Tourette's.

Here's the article: "Top Democrat Meets With Radical Islamists":
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070409b.html

Here are other articles along the same lines of Democratic Leaders meeting with terrorist organizations:

"Hamas Confirms Meeting With Group of Democrats (Leader claims U.S. party willing to hold dialogue with terrorists)":
http://www.israelnetdaily.com/redir.php?headline=95344

"Report: Hamas Ministers met With US, EU Officials":
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3337041,00.html

And these so-called leaders don't want us to know these things or will brush them off as "diplomacy", something best left to appointed diplomats. Dealing with terrorists at OUR peril. Yet, half the country thinks this is okay. They call themselves Democrats.

Please explain to me why it's "okay" to deal with terrorist states/leaders who have made it clear they want to annihilate us? Please, explain to me why these Democrats think "talking" will work with these terrorist nations against all proof to the contrary? What is it they just don't get? Or is their arrogance too overwhelming in their minds they think all countries will bow down to them? Are they truly that delusional?


God help us all if they take over the White House in a time of war.

Sphere: Related Content

More Nancy Pelosi Fallout

This picture says it all (courtesy of Family Security Matters at this link:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=872954

It seems she received a letter from the President today. There have been a LOT of fingers flying over the blogs and the MSM has gone banana-cakes over her terrorist-loving self, but the letter is priceless. Here it is from Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm):

GOP SLAMS PELOSI: GET BACK TO WORK
Mon Apr 09 2007 10:28:28 ET

Today, GOP Leaders from both chambers urged Speaker Pelosi to call the House back into session immediately to finish its work on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops. Speaker Pelosi neglected to appoint House conferees before the two-week break, further delaying negotiations on a final bill. The joint letter to Pelosi is attached. Text follows:

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are writing to urge you to call the House back into session immediately so that Congress can finish its work on the emergency legislation to fund the Global War on Terrorism. This funding request has been pending since February 5, but your leadership team chose to leave town for more than two weeks rather than completing this bill. As a result, our troops have been put at risk.

We are especially troubled by the House's failure to appoint conferees. The Senate appointed conferees on March 29, moments after passing its bill, but the House never did so despite passing the bill a week earlier. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate that he hoped the House-Senate conference would begin on March 30. That hoped-for progress has been thwarted by your failure to act.

It should go without saying that our military leaders are in the best position to know the needs of our troops, and they have left no doubt that this funding is needed urgently. General Peter Schoomaker, United States Army Chief of Staff, has written that, "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our Soldiers and their families." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has also emphasized the dangers of delay: "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."

Our troops need this funding, and they need it soon. The Senate is in session and ready to work. We respectfully request that you cancel the remainder of your break, call the House back into session, appoint conferees promptly, and work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bill that the President can sign as soon as possible. Every day we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened.

Her lapdog Steny Hoyer visiting Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55087

The Democratic Progressive Caucus:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497

Pelosi's Office Calls GOP Demand For Action on Iraq Bill 'Political Stunt':
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264964,00.html

Arab Media Reactions to Nancy Pelosi's Visit to Damascas:
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ArchDetails.aspx?id=174 and
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ArchDetails.aspx?id=175

Pelosi's Diplomacy: She Speaks Only for Herself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813967/posts

Pelosi's Middle East Tumble:
http://wpherald.blogspot.com/2007/04/pelosis-middle-east-tumble.html

And, finally, IF you have the stomach for it and won't lose your lunch, here's a little ditty from the moonbats:

The Media's Ideological View of Pelosi's Trip: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070409/cm_thenation/7183655
There's just one problem with this article, however--the Constitution (and said Separation of Powers listed within and how those apply to Pelosi's gross over-stepping those powers) is conveniently omitted by author Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Stay posted for more! This isn't going to blow over like Botox Queen wanted and could have serious effects on the Democratic party--more serious than they either wanted or expected.

Sphere: Related Content

Impeach Nancy Pelosi!

Nancy Pelosi has done more harm in 4 months than anyone could ever imagine.

She and her ilk are continually screeching for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Why? Because these two men have the audacity to stand firm in the face of ridiculous criticism from burned out hippies and because they refuse to allow non-combatants to micro-manage a war. In other words, this harpie can't stand the thought of mere men standing up to her. Nor can other "enlightened" women, such as Hillary.

Further, these man haters can't stand the thought there is a REAL woman who wields a big stick and speaks softly, one with true power, as well as maintains her complete femininity all the while showing herself to be the true lady she is--educated, eloquent, trustworthy, and, yes, attractive. THAT woman is Dr. Condoleeza Rice. They would love to impeach her, as well, I'm sure.

However, when it comes to TRUE high crimes and misdemeanors, we need only look to Pelosi.

First, there is a video in my video section here regarding Democrats and their views on Saddam Hussein, WMD and the war. Pelosi WISHES this video would disappear, but in this age of the internet, that's not going to happen.

Then we hear all about how she "supports the troops but not the war". If the bills she's trying to pass, laden with pork and withdrawal dates (thus emboldening the enemy and further endangering our troops) is any indication of her "troop support", we can do without her support, thank you very much.

How about her choice for her lapdog, John Murtha? He of ABSCAM fame and a disgrace to his marine uniform? A criminal? Not that Steny Hoyer is any better, but MURTHA??? C'mon!

And the stink about Air Force 3. Along with her demands that AF3 be made available not only to her but her entire family. At taxpayer expense.

The non-binding resolution? That whole mess was also a complete waste of taxpayer time AND money, simply to get across an opinion.

Now, Syria. Was she authorized to go to Syria? NO. And, one of her tagalongs was Keith Ellison, a muslim congressman whose loyalties remain to be seen. After all, the Koran demands total obeisance above all else. His presence in her entourage is highly suspect.

She was told not to go. She is fully cognizant of the current state Syria is held in, that state being a terrorist state and sponsor of terrorism. She knows Iran and Syria are in collusion with Iraq and in the continued murder of Iraqui civilians and our troops. Yet, she thumbed her nose at the President and tried to do Dr. Rice's job. That is not part of her job and steps way over the boundaries of decorum for the SoH.

And the ultimate pratfall of the trip? Giving Syria a "message" from Israel, one Israel never gave to her. Oh, and of course, wearing a hijab as a fashion statement.

Pelosi is the one who should be impeached. For sedition, treason, aid and comfort to the enemy, fiduciary misconduct (wasting taxpayer money), flat out lying as to her intentions in getting elected, collusion and finally, violation of the Logan Act. She has no business trying to play with the "big boys". She's still in kindergarten when it comes to politics. However, she has let her blind hatred of the administration guide her actions, simply because the administration won't cave to her foot-stomping temper tantrums and LISTEN to her.

Over at Victory Caucus, there are several links to excellent articles about her behaviour. I'll list them here and let you be the judge.

Links:

"Terrorists Agree: Nancy's Da Bomb": http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25032_Terrorists_Agree-_Nancys_Da_Bomb&only

"Pratfall in Damascus--Nancy Pelosi's Foolish Shuttle Diplomacy"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306_pf.html


"Speaker Pelosi's Adventure in Damascus Has Cost Her a lot of Political Capital": http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-editorial1apr08,0,117465.story?coll=all-opiniontop-hed

"Nancy Pelosi Should Resign"; http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/6/151249.shtml?s=lh (This one is written by a Democrat, no less!)

"Pelosi Defends Visit to Mideast"; http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070406-115248-8516r.htm

"Pelosi Mideast Trip Strengthened Ties"; http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OB9KC80&show_article=1

These are the links in just TWO threads at TVC!

Bottom line is, Pelosi's gotta go. 'Nuf said!

Sphere: Related Content

Primer of Necessary Definitions--of me and of Law

Unless otherwise stated, all definitions are from Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, edited by Bryan A. Garner.

That opening line should tell you something about me.

Most people own a Webster's Dictionary. I own a well-used, often-referred-to Black's Law Dictionary. No, I'm not an attorney.

I am, however, a paralegal with a certification equal to a Master's Degree, will be starting on my certification equal to a Ph.D in two weeks (by the way, our certification classes last 5 months, in which we cram six years of study--definitely not for the faint-hearted; further, only 10% pass their certifications on the first try--I am part of that 10%).

I am also the niece of a retired Federal Judge and a cousin to a Brig. General (Army, Ret.).

I have hung up on judges who copped an attitude, usually after laughing at them. I have stood toe to toe with armed officers and told them to get the hell out of my way and change their attitude or they will not receive the information they need. I have looked down the barrel of a .38 loaded with wadcutters, lived to tell about it and prosecuted that criminal to a term of four consecutive life terms. I also drove a cab in Vegas for close to four years, had gang members as regular passengers--gang members who operated by MY rules in MY cab--and earned their respect and free passage through their territory.

I have suffered radiation poisoning while working for my father--after he ticked off the government. That radiation poisoning took years from my life, but I'm here. My father is not.

Threats don't work with me; nor do orders. If you want something from me, you ASK me--NICELY.

In short, I don't tolerate fools, imbeciles, idiots, boneheads, milquetoasts, lunatics, moonbats, or blathering, slavering, rabid dogs (leftists).

I don't tolerate those that cannot make a point, argue in a circular fashion with no sense of logic, or blindly repeat propaganda they've been brainwashed with. They are beneath me in the food chain and in life. Nor will I rise to any bait they may throw in my path.

They aren't worth my time, my energy or my superior intellect.

People who suffer from delusions, whether it be of purple skys with cotton candy pink clouds, utopian societies based on Marx, Stalin or Lenin, delusions that terrorists are our friends and we can talk to them and negotiate peacefully or delusions they are God, ruler of all, need to be locked up for their own safety and that of society.

Their particular brand of poison is akin to a festering pustule on the ass of society, just waiting to burst and spread their infection in all directions. Such is the current state of the RNC/GOP Blog.

Which brings me to these interesting definitions derived from Black's (17 words, not such big words, after all). All--ALL--well versed, true blue, Patriotic Americans should KNOW these terms, backward and forward. For the sake of brevity, these definitions have been confined to the main definition. For those that don't and want to have them on hand, feel free to cut and paste.

1). Accessory: n. 1. Something of secondary or subordinate importance. 2. Criminal Law. A person who aids or contributes in the commission or concealment of a crime. An accessory is usually liable only if the crime is a felony. Cf. PRINCIPAL (2). [Cases: Criminal Law key 68-77; Homicide key 573. C.J.S. Criminal Law sections 137-142]--accessory, adj; accessoryship, n.

2). Ambassador: 1. A diplomatic officer of the highest rank, usually designated by a government as its resident representative in a foreign state. Ambassadors represent the sovereign as well as the nation and enjoy many privileges while abroad in their official capacity, including immunity. Ambassadors are distinguished from ministers and envoys, who represent only the state where they are from and not the sovereign. Ambassadors are also generally distinguished from certain legates who have only ecclesiastical authority. But the papal nuncio and some legates, such as the legate a latere, bear the rank of ambassador. See NUNCIO; LEGATE. [Cases: Ambassadors and Consuls sections 2-32.] 2. A representative appointed by another. 3. An unofficial or nonappointed representative.

3). Bribery: n. The corrupt payment, receipt or solicitation of a private favor for official action. Bribery is a felony in most jurisdictions. See Model Penal Code Section 240.1. Cf. KICKBACK. [Cases: Bribery key 1. C.J.S. Bribery sections 2-3, 5-8, 10-11.]--bribe, vb.

4). Constitution: 1. The fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, defines the scope of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees individual civil rights and civil liberties. [Cases: Constitutional Law key 1.1.] 2. The written instrument embodying this fundamental law, together with any formal amendments.

5). Diplomacy: n. Int'l law. 1. The art and practice of conducting negotiations between national governments.
Open Diplomacy: Diplomacy carried on with free access to interested observers and members of the press.

Parliamentary Diplomacy: The negotiations and discussions carried out in international organizations according to their rules of procedure.

Secret Diplomacy: Diplomacy carried on behind closed doors. Also termed quiet diplomacy.

Shuttle Diplomacy: Diplomatic negotiations assisted by emissaries, who travel back and forth between negotiating countries. In legal contexts, the term usually refers to a similar approach used by a mediator in negotiating the settlement of a lawsuit. The mediator travels back and forth between different rooms, one of which is assigned to each side's decision-makers and counsel. The mediator relays offers and demands between the rooms and, by conferring with the parties about their positions and about the uncertainty of litigation, seeks to reach an agreed resolution of the case. The mediator does not bring the parties together in the same room.

2. Loosely, foreign policy. 3. The collective functions performed by a diplomat. diplomatic, adj; diplomat, n.

6). Hudna: Arabic word often translated as "cease-fire.- Historically used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition. (Definition provided by The Israel Project; http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=886017&ct=1181591)

7). Injurious Falsehood: 1. DISPARAGEMENT (3). 2. TRADE DISPARAGEMENT.

8). Libel: vb. 1. To defame (someone) in a permanent medium, especially in writing. [Cases: Libel and Slander key 1, 25 C.J.S. Libel and Slander; Injurious Falsehood sections 2, 5-6, 10, 47-52.] 2. History Maritime Law. To sue in admiralty or ecclesiastical court. This use of the term was eliminated with the merging of the Admiralty Rules into the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1986.

9). Misprision of Treason: Concealment or nondisclosure of someone else's treason.

10). Positive Misprision: The active commission of a wrongful act .

11). President: n. 1. The chief political executive of a government; the head of state. [Cases: United States key 26. C.J.S. United States sections 45-47.] 2. The chief executive officer of a corporation or other organization. 3. CHAIR (1) 4. See CHAIR (3). See (in senses 3 & 4) presiding officer (3) under OFFICER (2); presidential, adj.

12). Secretary of State: 1. The member of the President's cabinet who heads the U.S. Department of State. The Secretary is the first-ranking member of the cabinet and is also a member of the National Security Council. He or she is fourth in line of succession to the presidency after the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate. [Cases: United States key 40. C.J.S. United States sections 58-60.] 2. A state government official who is responsible for the licensing and incorporation of businesses, the administration of elections, and other formal duties. The secretary of state is elected in some states and appointed in others.

13). Sedition: n. 1. An agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against the public authority. 2. Advocacy aimed at inciting or producing--and likely to incite or produce--imminent lawless action. At common law, sedition included defaming a member of the royal family or the government. The difference between sedition and treason is that the former is committed by preliminary steps, while the latter entails some overt act for carrying out the plan. But of course, if the plan is merely for some small commotion, even accomplishing the plan does not amount to treason. Cf. TREASON. [Cases: Insurrection and Sedition key 1. C.J.S. Riot; Insurrection section 29.]; seditious, adj.

14). Slander: n. 1. A defamatory assertion expressed in a transitory form, especially speech. Damages for slander--unlike those for libel--are not presumed and thus must be proved by the plaintiff (unless the defamation is slander per se). [Cases: Libel and Slander key 1, 24. C.J.S. Libel and Slander; Injurious Falsehood sections 2, 5-6, 10, 47.] 2. The act of making such a statement. See DEFAMATION. Cf. LIBEL--slander, vb.; slanderous, adj.

15). Speaker of House: [Speaker] 1. One who makes a speech . 2. The presiding officer of a large deliberative assembly, especially a legislature's more numerous house, such as the House of Representatives . See CHAIR (1). [Cases: United States key 7.1. C.J.S. United States section 16.]

16). Subversion: The process of overthrowing, destroying or corrupting .

17). Treason: n. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which one owes allegiance, either by making war against the state or by materially supporting its enemies.--Also termed high treason; alto proditio. Cf. SEDITION. [Cases: Treason key 1. C.J.S. Treason sections 2-3, 5.]--treasonable, treasonous, adj.

Jimmy Carter; Howard Dean; Bob Jefferson; John Kerry; John Murtha; Nancy Pelosi --ALL are guilty of one or more, or a combination thereof, of the above definitions.

RNC/GOP Blog--guilty as an accessory of allowing slander upon their blog without monitoring their site. Good thing we have records of it.

Sphere: Related Content