Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Fret Not About Speaker Pelosi

POLITICS / FRET NOT ABOUT SPEAKER PELOSI

Alains Newsletter

Smiley Flag Waver

Now that Nancy Pelosi has shattered the gender barrier, glass ceiling, and incredulity index all in one fell swoop, ordinary Americans are starting to worry that she may be just a tad too liberal to be second in the succession line for the U.S. presidency.

After all, Comrade Nancy does hail from San Francisco -- the only American city that once tried to join the former USSR, but was rejected because Moscow found folks here too far to the left.

My Fellow Americans: Fret Not About Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi

John W. Lillpop
Tuesday 14 November 2006

After all, Comrade Nancy does hail from San Francisco -- the only American city that once tried to join the former USSR, but was rejected because Moscow found folks here too far to the left.

Rest assured fellow citizens, Speaker-elect Pelosi poses no threat to the America that we all know and love. At least not yet, that is.

For the purpose of calming the minds and stomachs of those fearing the worse once Nancy Pelosi is crowned to take over, several common myths and exaggerations concerning San Francisco liberalism must be debunked.

To wit, contrary to popular belief:

It is NOT a felony to vote Republican in San Francisco, although it is a misdemeanor to register with the knowing intent of voting for a Republican at a future date.

A special permit is NOT required to fly Old Glory—except on Cinco de Mayo and Fidel Castro’s birthday.

Speaking English is NOT a hate crime, except at fast-food restaurants, car washes, emergency rooms, and when speaking to Hispanics obviously here illegally.

Displaying the logo of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines does NOT violate city ordinances, unless one does so with an arrogant, “America First,” G.W. Bush-type of attitude.

Attending a Christian church does NOT automatically subject one to higher property taxes: There is an appeals process available.

Law enforcement job applicants are NOT required to prove that they are transvestite, gay, handicapped or a racial minority to qualify.

Refusing to smoke marijuana when ordered to by an uniformed police officer is NOT a felony, except for anyone foolish enough to sport a “Bush-Cheney” bumper sticker.

Working at Wal-Mart is NOT against city law, provided one can prove he or she is an illegal alien from Mexico.

Abortions are NOT available on those fabulous cable cars, but may be arranged at most self-serve gas stations and progressive piano bars.

Young Middle Eastern males who speak Arabic are NOT a protected minority until they have first been arrested and charged with a terrorist act(s).

Being a straight, white, employed Christian male does NOT require one to notify the police before moving into a new neighborhood, or to be listed on a government web site.

Securing a driver’s license does NOT automatically enroll one as a dues-paying member of the ACLU, and

Convicted sex offenders moving into San Francisco are NOT automatically registered to vote as democrats: They have 30 days in which to join the party and register.

So while liberalism is a severe mental disorder that will significantly impact Nancy Pelosi’s judgment, the good news is -- heck, there is no good news!

Run for your lives!

John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal, "clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal!

E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Post Election Dis-illusion: Unanticipated Change

POLITICS / POST ELECTION DIS-ILLUSION - CHANGE IN THE WIND - BUT NOT THE KIND OF CHANGE VOTERS ANTICIPATED

Dorothy Seese

Smiley Flag Waver The public voted in enough Democrats to speak its mind and hand control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to the Democrats.

It is possible that such an outcome was the only route left if America is to retain the appearance of having two modes of thought expressed by a two party political system.

There is change in the wind, but it may not be what the American people felt they were voting to obtain.

BEWARE OF HIGH HOPES

~ Dorothy A. Seese
November 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

The illusionists are masters of deception, and deception rules the age in which this world spins. Post-election euphoria has not yet pulled one American soldier out of the Middle East, nor can it remove from power those who really control the opinions of the public, American, European, Middle and Far Eastern, the people we call the "shadow government" comprised of the industrial billionaires and world bankers.

If the elections held in the United States in November, 2006, had been presidential, there is little doubt that the country would now be looking at an incoming administration run by a Democratic Party president. Instead, the public voted in enough Democrats to speak its mind and hand control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to the Democrats, thus forcing an arrogant, stubborn president to replace his Secretary of Defense with someone who appears to be more moderate. It is possible that such an outcome was the only route left if America is to retain the appearance of having two modes of thought expressed by a two party political system. The Republican National Committee knew this, the president knew it and so did the Pentagon officials. There is no exit strategy from another quagmire "war" on either side, but the expression of discontent by the popular vote gives the appearance that change is in the wind.

There is change in the wind, but it may not be what the American people felt they were voting to obtain.

A new balance of power in the House and Senate will permit the US to develop an exit strategy from Iraq, which has proved to be a lost cause in the midst of its own civil war and inability to handle a democratic form of government. The same may be true of Afghanistan. The American public, tired of seeing American lives wasted on a no-cause conflict of cultures, gave the government a save-face way out by changing the guard to the more "liberal" side of a political structure in which the terms liberal, conservative, moderate, centrist and right-wing have little to no meaning. A cursory reading of the speeches made by Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy make them sound like right-wing patriots compared to today's so-called "neo-cons."

While the war of words continues in the arena of rhetoric, look at the United States as a whole:

* American jobs are still being lost by the thousands as industry downsizes or moves overseas;

* America's fiscal condition appears terminally ill, with trillions in debt being reserved for another Great Depression or a selloff of American resources to foreign powers to operate with greater efficiency;

* The borders are still wide open to whoever wishes to cross;

* Morality is at an all-time low, having taken a forty-five year tumble since 1961;

* Every Executive Order signed by President Bush is still in effect and available for use;

* Political correctness and its companion, hypocrisy, still stalk the city streets laden with snoop cameras;

* Free speech and the remainder of the Bill of Rights appear to have been given a mortal blow with no chance of recovery or survival;

* The Constitution is still regarded by most courts, including the Supreme Court, as an historic piece of paper;

* Social Security for the elderly is still a mythical lockbox that the nation could not afford before the Iraq incursion and claims are always made that the country cannot afford its elderly while adding non-Americans to the benefit rolls;

* Hundreds of millions are committed to the federalized education of students from pre-kindergarten to the colleges where education now demands loans that would buy a new house, yet we have some of the least educated graduates in the world who have no idea how to think for themselves unless taught at home;

* Freedom has been minimalized to the point where most Americans would rather trade all their freedoms for what they deem to be "security" and security can be guaranteed by no person or government, as anything from asteroids to weather can destroy human lives in a matter of minutes.

* The sanctity of life is in total disregard except where convenient for media exploitation on behalf of some agenda where public outrage is needed for a few days.

And that is a very short list of only the most obvious. America has become a nation where Americans cannot afford to live, other nations are being sought by those who wish to find a place where retirement dollars will buy both food and medicine, not more bureaucratic red tape.

So what did the election accomplish? The appearance that the will of the people has been accomplished, a new era is beginning, America will build back from the Bush years, and the people still have power. That is precisely what anyone could have predicted, given the irritation over the Iraq war and the Bush administration for the past six years.

Is it realistic to believe that America will return to the nation it was in the 1950's, when government intervention in private lives (right down to your cholesterol level, flu shot or your choice to smoke a ground up leaf) would have caused a genuine revolt among the people? Hardly. Is it reasonable to believe that morality will improve, among both the unchurched and leaders of religious bodies? Not really, when money, power, sex and self-gratification are the Baals that line the halls of America from school to church to political office to home.

Is it reasonable to believe that the Republicans are relieved that they have been booted off the hot seat over Iraq and now the world will give America time to get another act together, since hope springs eternal? Yes. That's what this changing of the guard, in appearance more than substance, was all about.

So, considering the above, did anyone win the election?

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Dorothy Anne Seese has been working since she was three and a half years old, but not as a journalist.

Her career began as a child actress in the 1939-1942 "Five Little Peppers" film series produced by Columbia that mercifully ended with the nation's involvement in World War II, although she did do small parts in a few films until 1953. By that time, she was a student at U.C.L.A. where she received her liberal arts degree in Political Science.

E-Mail: carrot710@yahoo.com

E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Radical Pelosi To Block Conservative/Moderate Dems

POLITICS / RADICAL LIBERAL EXTREMIST PELOSI WILL BLOCK APPOINTMENTS OF MODERATE AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS

Jim Kouri

Smiley Flag Waver "Did anyone really believe Rep. Pelosi reinvented herself into a moderate? Pelosi is the most extreme leftist to ever hold the Speaker's gavel in congress,"

"Democrat control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus"

While the liberal-left wing of the Democrat Party and the MoveOn.Org crowd are celebrating "their victory," they appear to already forget that the Democrat candidates who unseated Republicans usually ran to the right.

"Pelosi and her ilk used these moderate-to-conservative Democrats to grab into more power and now they want to deny centrists important congressional positions."

PELOSI TO BLOCK APPOINTMENTS OF MODERATE DEMOCRATS

~ Jim Kouri, CPP
November 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

The new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) plans to block committee appointments that elevate Democrat moderates and conservatives into important chairmanships, according to Insight Magazine.

Their sources claim that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a six-term member of Congress, who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, will be a priority target for Pelosi's iron-fist approach to leadership.

"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership told Insight.

"If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session," said the source.

As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman was the logical choice to become chairwoman of the powerful committee. In fact, she was always a strong supporter of national and homeland security and even chastised the New York Times when its reporters published government secrets in their news stories.

But Rep. Pelosi may pass over Rep. Harman, showing preference for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second-ranking and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence committee.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to become chairman. Earlier this year, the caucus was upset by Ms. Pelosi's decision to expel Rep. William Jefferson from the committee after he was accused of accepting bribes.

Congressional observers believe she expelled Jefferson only to avoid the question of Democrat corruption so close to the elections, since the party's internal polls showed intense dissatisfaction with congressional corruption.

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee," Ms. Pelosi announced. "The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people."

The same sources told Insight that the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the leftist Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration's policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They added that Pelosi recently rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

"Did anyone really believe Rep. Pelosi reinvented herself into a moderate? Pelosi is the most extreme leftist to ever hold the Speaker's gavel in congress," political analyst Mike Baker told this writer.

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute told Insight.

Meanwhile, Rep. Harman, who is credited with actually writing the Democrat Party's national security agenda for the campaign, said she hoped to remain a leading voice on defense issues. She said her California constituents want her to be on the House Intelligence Committee.

"House Intelligence Committee activities are directly relevant to the major concerns of my constituents," Ms. Harman said.

"Pelosi and her ilk used these moderate-to-conservative Democrats to grab into more power and now they want to deny centrists important congressional positions."

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.

E-Mail: COPmagazine@aol.com

E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Fatherhood: Obstacle To Social Welfare State

SOCIETY / LIBERALS VIEW FATHERHOOD AS AN ANACHRONISM AND A STUBBORN OBSTACLE TO THEIR UTOPIAN VISION OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE STATE

RealityCheck

Smiley Flag Waver Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.

There is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.

Carey Roberts

Fathers No Longer Cost-Effective?

~ By Carey Roberts

I’m not one who is prone to get misty-eyed, but Tim Russert’s latest book did it.

Two years ago Russert penned a moving tribute to his own father, Big Russ and Me, which quickly became a New York Times best-seller. Russert was inundated with so many poignant letters that he decided to compile them into a sequel, Wisdom of Our Fathers. Now that book has become a run-away top-seller, as well.

There’s a message here: persons have an enormous sense of gratitude for the many things -- big and small -- that dad did for them. I know, that’s exactly how I feel about my father.

But there is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.

When one million children experience divorce each year, and when custody is awarded to mothers in 85% of cases, you can see the scope of the problem. If you want to scale down male influence in a society, what better way than to bar fathers from seeing their own sons and daughters?

So this past spring, Mitch Sanderson of Grand Forks, North Dakota set out to make things better for kids. He canvassed voters throughout the state, collecting signatures for a measure on the November ballot to promote shared parenting. The petition stated that in the event of divorce, “each parent would be entitled to joint legal and physical custody unless first declared unfit.”

One of Sanderson’s most vocal supporters was grandmother Myrna Meidinger, who explained, “If you don’t have shared parenting like I went through, it’s hard to see your grandkids.” Before long over 17,000 signatures were gathered, proving that the shared parenting idea enjoyed support throughout the state.

But what happened next is comprehensible only if you remember the old saying, “Follow the money.” Under federal regulations, states stand to gain millions in federal incentives and reimbursements by increasing their child support rolls. If kids spend equal time with dad and mom, child support payments are reduced accordingly.

So in July, Thomas Sullivan of the federal Administration for Children and Families (the gargantuan federal agency that runs our child support apparatus) sent a letter to state senator Tom Fisher. Since the measure would reduce federal largesse by $70 million, citizens should vote against the pro-child ballot initiative, Sullivan argued.

Since when are green-visor bureaucrats allowed to lobby state legislators?

As columnist Stephen Baskerville lamented, “federal bureaucrats are now using taxpayers’ money to strong-arm citizens from democratic decisions that, by relieving a serious social problem, threaten to render the bureaucrats redundant.” [www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16538]

Then North Dakota Human Services director Carol Olson weighed in with the same Chicken-Little message, raising the specter of federal cutbacks. How could anyone so brazenly ignore the well-being of children?

This catapulted Mitch Sanderson’s sleeper initiative into the most-debated topic throughout the state. Soon former governor Ed Schaeffer announced his support for the shared parenting measure.

Schaeffer also chastised the lawyer-dominated state legislature for dragging its feet on the issue. Remember, when divorcing couples litigate high-priced child custody disputes, it’s the lawyers who make out like bandits.

Proving Mr. Schaeffer’s point to be true, the North Dakota bar association soon jumped into the fray. The attorneys hastily assembled a front organization known as the North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights. Soon the group was resorting to scare tactics such as the claim that shared parenting would “dismantle the current child support system.”

Huh?

Two years ago a similar ballot measure was presented to the voters of Massachusetts, where 85% of the electorate approved the idea.

But this time, the lawyers, social workers, and others who profit from family break-up succeeded in sowing enough confusion to tip the balance. This past Tuesday, the shared parenting measure was defeated by a 56% to 44% margin, thus dashing the hopes of Mitch Sanderson, Myrna Meidinger, and the many kids who, like the persons who wrote loving tributes in Tim Russert’s book, long to see their daddies.

Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.

Usually the Lefties work their mischief behind closed doors. But this time around, the rats came scurrying out of the woodwork.

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, RenewAmerica.us, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, researcher and consultant.

E-Mail: CareyRoberts@comcast.net

Carey Roberts is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.

The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org

E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Pelosi To Fight DC Corruption With More Corruption

POLITICS / RADICAL PELOSI TO FIGHT D.C. CORRUPTION WITH MORE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION

The Washington Times

Smiley Flag Waver "How can Americans believe that the Democrats will return integrity to the House when future Speaker Pelosi has endorsed an ethically challenged member for a leadership position?" said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Representative Murtha is the wrong choice for this job."

More Liberal Democrat Politics As Usual ...

Pelosi Draws Fire For Backing Murtha

~ By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2006

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is under fire from fellow Democrats and outside liberals for publicly backing Rep. John P. Murtha's bid to become majority leader, saying that the presumed speaker's acts have cast doubt on her party's promise to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Washington.

"How can Americans believe that the Democrats will return integrity to the House when future Speaker Pelosi has endorsed an ethically challenged member for a leadership position?" said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Representative Murtha is the wrong choice for this job."

Most notably, Mr. Murtha was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Abscam scandal of the 1980s when FBI agents posed as emissaries of an Arab sheik and lured several congressmen into a Capitol Hill town house to hand out $50,000 bribes. Mr. Murtha was among those offered money, but he declined.

"I'm not interested. I'm sorry," he said, adding: "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't."

The following year, the ethics panel in the then-Democrat-controlled House declined -- on a "near party-line vote," according to press accounts at the time -- to file ethics charges against the Pennsylvania Democrat.

More recently, according to press reports and a dossier compiled by CREW, Mr. Murtha abused his position as ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee to benefit clients of his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, who is a registered lobbyist. The $417 billion defense appropriations bill that went through the subcommittee in 2004 benefited at least 10 companies represented by Robert Murtha's firm, which lobbied the congressman directly, according to the group.

"Future House Speaker Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. Murtha, one of the most unethical members of Congress, shows that she may have prioritized ethics reform merely to win votes with no real commitment to changing the culture of corruption," Ms. Sloan said.

Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider dismissed the concerns and said Mr. Murtha "has addressed these issues."

"Leader Pelosi will show that Democrats will change the way business is done in Washington," Ms. Crider said.

But many Democrats adamantly oppose Mr. Murtha and say Mrs. Pelosi blundered badly by throwing her public support behind a tainted figure just one week after winning so many campaigns that promised to clean up corruption in Washington.

"This is cloakroom conversation," one Democrat said. "This sends a very bad message as the first thing she's gotten involved in. The whole Abscam thing is a problem, and so is the whole wheeler-dealer thing."

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who now holds the whip position, has said he has the votes needed to win the majority-leader post in this week's elections among Democrats. Hoyer allies say he has the support of 13 of the 19 top Democrats in the House and public statements of support from at least 28 of the 40 new members.

In addition to concerns about Mr. Murtha's background, many Hoyer supporters also say they are concerned about too much power in the hands of Mrs. Pelosi and one of her closest confidants -- Mr. Murtha. Mr. Hoyer provided a counterbalance as a Pelosi rival in past leadership elections, they say, which is why so many committee chairmen-to-be support him.

Many centrist Democrats, whose ranks ballooned in the last election, also support Mr. Hoyer.

"If moderates don't feel they have a voice in the leadership, Pelosi will have a problem because the moderates will revolt," one Democrat said.

While Mr. Murtha has fewer public supporters, he's picked up one of the most influential.

"I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election," Mrs. Pelosi wrote in a personal letter to Mr. Murtha. "Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy ... . The enthusiastic response of Americans all across this nation gave an enormous lift to our Democratic efforts, and your unsurpassed personal solicitations produced millions of dollars."

Republicans, meanwhile, sat back and enjoyed the first fight inside the new Democratic majority.

"If this is the way Nancy Pelosi plans to clean up Washington, Republicans could be back in the majority sooner than they think," said one Republican staffer.