Since my blog has moved, I can no longer use Bloggers "Follower" gadget. If you are a part of NetWorked blogs, which includes a Facebook page, you can follow through NetworkedBlogs, and I can follow you back. Please come to my new blog - MaggiesNotebook.com, see the NetworkedBlogs widget in the right sidebar and click follow. I will follow back.
"I learned that in extreme situations when human lives and dignity are at state, neutrality is a sin. It helps the killers, not the victims." Elie Wiesel, Holocaust Survivor who lost his family in the Holocaust - Nobel Prize Author
Socialism - Liberalism Quotation
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas
American socialist, 1948
Showing posts with label Rep. Joe Wilson R-SC-2nd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep. Joe Wilson R-SC-2nd. Show all posts
House Majority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) will donate $1 million to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). In an unusual move, the "Battleground" program asks lawmakers to pool their donations to reach a $20 million goal to take back the House of Representatives in November. The Politico article linked below says while Republican have greatly increased their war chest, they still fall far behind Democrats.
The money will come from Boehner's campaign account, and will be on top of the $755,000 he's already contributed to the committee, and in addition to the $30,000 from his PAC.
Boehner's contribution could be seen as setting an example for rank-and-file members to pony up for this fall's midterm efforts.
The top House Republican has said Republicans could compete in as many as 100 congressional districts this November, and the NRCC's support could be key in converting many of those opportunities.
Boehner was joined by a number of other Republicans on Wednesday morning in pledging huge transfers of money to the NRCC, the committee charged with helping Republicans take back the House.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) delivered a $250,000 check to the committee, while Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) kicked in another $100,000.
Reps. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), John Fleming (R-La.), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) all committed to delivering anywhere between $60,000 to $100,000 to the NRCC as well.
I applaud these men for kicking-in to take back the House. They have to do this, however, because no one gives to any GOP establishment fund anymore. Unfortunately, we've found our money is best spent when it goes directly to a candidate we support.
Another party in the White House and Sir Paul McCartney was the star, but on this evening "Sir" did not fit his rude and inane behavior. The Obama's presented McCartney with the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. The whole scene is just too delicious: The Obamas surrounded by, and being serenaded by, some of the biggest names in the music industry - no captain's of industry, of course - none of those in the Obama White House. No one there really making the country run. No one there creating jobs. No one there manufacturing anything tangible. Perhaps no one there with an over-sized I.Q. but the Obama mystique was as thick as an oil spill.
George W. Bush
Adding to the mystique, Michelle wore a dress in silksatin silk (the pool reporter wasn't certain, but it looks like silk to me) charmeuse in a shade of "blush, with a jeweled belt, and here it is - the chicest touch: as The First Lady "sat, a pink petticoat peeked out. The adoration was palpable, and McCartney was soon to show his rear-end, and his I.Q. See two videos below.
After the last eight years, it's great to have a President who knows what a library is
In the video, Jerry Seinfeld is standing in the White House right next to McCartney. Anyone know why the taxpayers should be wining and dining Jerry Seinfield? Stevie Wonder was there...again. Faith Hill (she's a Liberal folks), Elvis Costello and Emmy Lou Harris were there. The bright spot of the evening (because it is always about the Obama's) was Paul serenading Michelle with "Mee-shelll."
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) replied about the G.W. comment:
Like millions of other Americans, I have always had a good impression of Paul McCartney and thought of him as a classy guy, but I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of grace and respect he displayed at the White House. I hope he'll apologize to the American people for his conduct which demeaned him, the White House and President Obama.
McCartney is the third recipient of the Gershwin Prize. Hailing from England and having earned no university degrees of his own, the Beatle may not know W. as the first American president to earn a master's degree in business administration. (The fact the MBA is from Harvard really irks the left.) Not to mention Bush is married to a librarian.
G.W. was the first and only President to hold an MBA. He also received a BA in History from Yale. Lord knows, we could use some knowledge of business and true history in the White House.
Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two—year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year's interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the minuscule degree of slack cut for even the most well—connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.
There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then—Ambassador to China (technically, head of the Beijing Liaison Office), or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a 'gentleman's C.' I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well—born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.
Hopeful Liberals can only estimate Barack Obama's intelligence "quotient," his SAT, LSAT score and his college GPA. We hear a lot of very high numbers, making Liberals go all misty-eyed and weak-kneed at thought of the capabilities of his pristine half-African brain...but there nothing - not one single thing to base it on. It's all myth, as are his policies, which have yielded nothing for this country. All of his records - that's ALL of his records, are hidden from the public. An inquiring mind would wonder why. If they were stellar, they would not be hidden. But that doesn't stop Progressives from telling us that Obama would be a member of MENSA if he provided the pertinent records and surely his IQ is in the 130 to 145 range. It's all myth.
They don't stop there. There is no information on Michelle's scores either, but this website, which writes for our gullible children, says "it is safe to say that she is just as smart as her husband." Personally, I have no doubt of that. I "doubt" plenty, but do not doubt that the two share similar brains - but don't forget, Barack gets the benefit of "the other side of Valerie Jarrett's brain (his Senior Adviser).
Obama received a J.D. from Harvard Law. He surrendered his law license. His hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, says as a civil rights lawyer, Obama was the "strong, silent type."
A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career shows he played the "strong, silent type" in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking.
Transcripts show that at court hearings, Obama identified himself, then let [Paul] Mollica begin speaking. Maria Valdez of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund sometimes spoke. The U.S. Justice Department joined in.
Letting the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments appears to have been a sound strategy -- Obama's side won, even without him talking.
Odd, because the man hasn't shut-up since the day he won the presidential nomination.
"I was one of the better writers [Obama said]. I ended up doing the more cerebral writing, less trial work," Obama added. "That's actually something I regret -- not doing more trial work."
"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.
A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: Zero.
His practice was confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- a total of 10 cases in his legal career.
Obama sued on behalf of ACORN for Motor-Voter registration. For this, he is idolized today:
Transcripts show that at court hearings, Obama identified himself, then let [Paul] Mollica begin speaking. Maria Valdez of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund sometimes spoke. The U.S. Justice Department joined in.
Letting the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments appears to have been a sound strategy -- Obama's side won, even without him talking.
Among Bush's finest attributes - he is not a lawyer. Among Obama's finest attributes, he's tall. Among McCartney's finest attribute: Penning Let it Be.
House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) said he wouldn't vote for the plan to close Gitmo "if you put a gun to my head." See an excellent video with a very pithy Boehner below (makes me want to jump-up and cheer).
John Boehner
"They want $500 million from this Congress to rehabilitate this prison in northwest Illinois. I want to see who the members are who are going to vote for this. I wouldn't vote for this if you put a gun to my head."
Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) recently said that he would vote to close Gitmo if Obama and Holder would agree to move terrorist trials out of New York City. The appropriate response from Graham would be, move the damn trials out of New York City. Period. How do you bargain one for the other?
In the video below, Boehner says he doesn't believe Congress will appropriate "one dime" to rehab an Illinois prison. See an incredulous Candy Crowley (I think it's Crowley) who simply cannot believe we would not close Guantanamo Bay prison facility, which is such a contentious image to terrorists around the world.
Note to Crowley: if Gitmo doesn't raise visions of sugar plums for terrorists, that's a good thing. Enough of the "image mongering." Guantanamo has been run with honor and millions in taxpayer dollars. Do you not know that American is hated around the world now, more than when George Bush was president? If you think Muslims are offended, what is Poland feeling at the abandonment of the missile shield program, because...because...Iran, believed to be almost at the summit of a nuclear warhead, doesn't even have a long-range missile? Closing a state-of-art prison facility because we think it "offends" Muslims is not clear thinking, and should not be an option. I like the new Boehner in this video.
There is a war for the most dramatic earmark ban in the U.S. House of Representatives. Who takes the prize: Dems or Republicans?
Democrats announced a ban on earmarks going to "private companies." Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) announced today that House Republicans are banning all earmarks for the rest of this Congressional year, in an effort to quash "back room deals" to buy votes for health care, including funds to nonprofits, such as universities:
Pence said Democrats were cutting "backroom deals" to persuade reluctant House Democrats to vote for the president's proposal, and said "the American people want us to change business as usual." Source: The Daily Caller
Democrats said their ban "is a key step in restoring trust in Congress. They think we are idiots.
It ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress.
While the story seems to be that earmark spending has little to do with reducing spending, maybe the real story is what the GOP intimated: quashing back room deals to buy votes for health care.
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) introduced a Privileged Resolution on the floor of the House today, calling for an investigation into Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and their handling of the Rep. Eric Massa scandal and claims that he had inappropriately groped House staffers.
House Democrats, armed with a thick docket of Republican ethics cases, are putting the GOP leadership on notice: Throw mud at them and they'll pitch rocks at a Republican glass house."
Boehner either didn't get the memo or is not intimidated by the Democrat's rocks.
Pelosi allegedly told Roll Call that she only learned of the accusations against Massa on March 10th, yet a report in the Washington Post on March 11th claims the Speaker knew about the sexual harrassment claims as early as October 2009.
The Privileged Resolution goes on, but the short story is, Boehner believes Pelosi may not have acted against one of her own, in an appropriate manner, and cites this House Rule:
Whereas, clause one of Rule XXXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, titled “Code of Conduct,” states “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House”
The Resolution calls for the formation of an Investigative Subcommittee, and protection from deleted emails, text messages, voicemails and other records, and the findings reported to the House no later than June 30th, 2010.
Obviously, there was no justice for the abused staffers, if there were abused staffers, and how often do you see an Ethics investigation begin, and shut down, in one week's time, with no conclusions reached - especially when the charges involve sex?
More snake oil peddled by the President today, as he told reporters at a White House briefing that he will start from scratch with the health bill...but...but...he will not ditch the bill now in existance. What?
So I am going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals," he said.
The President well knows the the positions that are not negotiable for Republicans, and he is not open about them: tort reform, no single payer, no payment for abortions and strong consideration of purchasing insurance across state lines.
Throughout this process, none of the above have been considered - even slightly, by Democrats. How many times do Republicans have to lay this out before him?
What I will not do, what I don't think makes sense and I don't think
the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan
wrangling around these issues, another six months or eight months or
nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House
and the Senate in which there's a lot of posturing."
What America doesn't want is this health care bill, and we don't want to hear anymore about it. There is nothing Obama needs to explain to us. We know the bill hasn't been read, and had it been read it was deceptive and dishonest: abortion in - abortion out, single payer in - single payer, death panels in - death panels out. We have been schooled in backroom manipulations , and we know whatever passes will be secretly amended. So start over, take some time with it, or get on with a reconciliation vote so that we show you real American rage, really is.
Yesterday, House Republican leadership sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. In short, the letter asks if we come to the table:
1) Is the President ready to start over, and if he is not, Republicans see the Senate Health Care Bill as a jobs killer.
2) Is the President ready to show good faith by declaring "reconciliation to pass the bill" off the table?
3) Will Democrats voting against your legislation be admitted to these bi-partisan meetings?
4) Will all legislation be available to Congress and the public 72 hours before a vote?
5) Will "officials and lawmakers" from individual states be invited - especially from those states which have pending legislation to disallow your mandated purchasing of government health care?
6) Among the "experts" the President says he wants to participate in this bi-partisan meeting, will those who currently say the Senate plan will raise, will the experts the Congressional Budget Office, and will Republicans be allowed to bring their own experts?
7) Will Unions and other special interest groups be invited to the televised bi-partisan meetings?
8) Will the President pledge that all future meetings be open, transparent and televised, including those on Capitol Hill?
9) And the letter expresses frustration at the Presidents continual accusations of Republican "obstruction," saying it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan talks last May - and presented their plan - which was rudely ignored.
So, that my synopsis for a quick read. Here's the letter:
Dear Mr. Emanuel:
We welcome President Obama's announcement of forthcoming bipartisan
health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May,
Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on
health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and
instead chose to work with only Democrats.
Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health
care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American
people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just
the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and
Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over
with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and
small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate
health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for
workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to
focusing on creating jobs.
Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health
care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so
that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and
confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is "absolutely not"
resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting
point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people
have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant
to participate.
Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a
bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of
relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care
reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted
recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and
Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any
time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility
of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to
Republicans and the American people.
If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at
this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and
the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.
Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills?
This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to
both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the
Senate bill.
Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?
As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state
legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the
Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no
individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance.
Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the
additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the
House and Senate bills.
The President has also mentioned his commitment to have "experts"
participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion
involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who
have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill
raise costs - just the opposite of their intended effect - and
jeopardize seniors' access to high-quality care by imposing massive
Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?
Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health
care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health
care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White
House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was
worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?
Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the
President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care
talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning,
not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the
President require that any and all future health care discussions,
including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard
of openness and transparency?
Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether
this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an
intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a
job-killing health care bill that the American people can't afford and
don't support. 'Bipartisanship' is not writing proposals of your own
behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican
support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.
These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening
gap between the President's rhetoric on bipartisanship and the
reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President's recent
bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan
attacks.
For instance, the President decries Republican 'obstruction' when it
was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last
May. The President says Republicans are 'sitting on the sidelines'
just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from
it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully
pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has
the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.
We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss
ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the
challenges facing the American people.
Sincerely,
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs followed his reponse, representing the White House.
1) The President reached out in a bipartisan manner in March 2009.
2) He has continued to reach out
3) He has been very clear about his support of the House and Senate bills
4) He looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals
5) The President is open to "including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny."
Neither Congress or the President find any Republican ideas that meet their scrutiny. It's that simple. This meeting is for show.
The best of the video is before Begala arrives, but it essential to hear Colbert confirm that this will be a one-term presidency for Barack Obama. And then there's the comment from Begala about what Obama will do to House Minority Leader, John Boehner. When Colbert mentions Strom Thurmond, remember he was a Democrat back them.
As the U.S. Senate and U.S. House craft health care bills to, supposedly, put an end to Medicare fraud, it leaves a gaping hole for some 1 million illegal aliens to receive coverage through their employer. Remember Rep. Joe Wilson's very public, televised accusation of Obama: "you lie?" uh huh. Of course, we always knew Wilson was right, and now as well as his very public accusation, he has a very public vindication.
Joe Wilson
The Wilson incident:
This, too, is false -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," Mr. Obama said.
That statement elicited an outburst of "You lie" from Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican.
Since when has a little law-breaking bothered Democrats except when
they needed an excuse to cut Medicare benefits to Seniors? They have
certainly found a way do that. More from the Washington Times:
Democrats who wrote the House bill said that employer coverage for
illegal immigrants is not intentional, but rather the outcome of people
breaking the law.
It's possible an employee could deceive an employer with a fraudulent
document, just as under current law, to gain employment, just as it's
possible for all sorts of criminal activity to occur, and why we have
law enforcement," said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who wrote the final House bill.
Republicans said that loopholes in the bill could allow
coverage to just about any illegal immigrant who wants to cheat the
system.
"This is a complete cover-all-the-gaps federal health insurance
for illegals, whether it be under Medicaid, the refundable tax credit
or whether it be under their employers who would not be able to verify
their employers unless we fix E-Verify," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa,
the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration
subcommittee.
It has just been announced that Doug Hoffman lost the NY23 special election for the U.S. House to Democrat David Owens. So be it. Message to Newt Gingrich: This is not a win for you. Message to John Boehner: This is not a win for you. Message to Eric Cantor: This is not a win for you.
The problem is, you backed the wrong candidate from the beginning, plying hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign of the wrong candidate until she quit and endorsed a Democrat.
You, the leadership, are to blame for this loss. Count the days you dithered away after Sarah Palin endorsed this conservative candidate. And take note Newt: Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker for Life. Conservatives across the country won the battle of principle tonight.
Language alert. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is having an election meltdown with Bob McDonnell, the Republican, winning the Governor's mansion in Virginia. Telling a little story about the low levels of swine flu vaccine, Olbermann calls Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) a "sanctimonious son of a bitch."
Keith Olbermann Meltdown
He moves on to name others in his recurring categories of "worse," "worser," and "worst." Of course, Glenn Beck won "worst."
Now, I don't know what prompted this. I was chatting with hubby and didn't hear the lead-in, but Olbermann ended the segment with:
...if you are envoking 9-11 just to oppose health care reform...go to hell.
The man who dared to stand on principle and tell President Barack Obama he lied, on national television, had an awesome fundraising "quarter." Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) received nearly $2.7 million in political donations, most of it after the infamous event on live television when he yelled out "You Lie."
Joe Wilson
Before discussion begins that this "disrespected" the presidency - I'll say that I'm over that. Never before in our our lifetime have we had a president stand before us so many times and lie each and every time.
Wilson's Democrat opponent, Rob Miller, reportedly raised $1.7 million in the same time period, and Democrats are vowing that Miller will succeed Wilson in the House in 2010.
Politico's Ben Smith had a moment of senility, or maybe memory loss, or - well, he probably printed exactly what he intended to print. Smith provided almost the complete transcript for Senator Lindsay Graham's response to President Obama's yet-another-health-care-speech last night. Smith quoted a half-truth, or maybe a quarter-truth is more accurate.
Senator Lindsay Graham
The first part of Senator Graham's comments were all quoted. Then when Graham was asked about Representative Joe Wilson's outburst during the televised joint session of Congress - you know, that one where Wilson yelled "you lie," Ben Smith said that Graham blamed Rep. Wilson for "partisan strife." What??? Watch the video and get the real story. Remarks about Wilson begin at about 2.22 minutes in and from 2:37 on, Smith ignored - all of which was a rousing endorsement of Joe Wilson with not a single claim of Wilson causing "political strife."
Rep. Joe Wilson apologized for calling President Obama a liar. It's a shame he had too. Here was a man emotionally invested in our country who had the guts and the passion to tell the President that he just spoke a lie. I don't know about you, but to me - wow, it felt so good and so right. U.S. Representative Joe Wilson is America's greatest living statesman at this moment. I encourage others in the Republican party to try to snatch that honor from him.
Rep. Joe Wilson
So, in America the office of the President is revered and respected. The reverence comes from the fact that this nation is free as no people have ever been free in the history of the world. The respect comes from the fact that the people choose their leader, and OUR leader should be respected because WE are a mighty people. It was right for Joe Wilson to apologize for interrupting a presidential speech, but not for calling the President a liar, because Obama did lie.
If you didn't catch the whole story, you'll hear in the second video below about the amendment offered by Republicans which would block illegal immigrants from receiving health care under the House or Senate Bills. In other words, the amendments were designed to make it clear that illegals could not be included. Democrats defeated that amendment, just as they have defeated other amendments designed to clarify murky issues. This means that illegal immigrants will receive health care courtesy of the American taxpayer. The President lied as he has become accustomed to doing. Let's face it, he can't get anything passed that he desires unless he lies about it - because Americans are appalled at his plans for this country.
On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation's estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.
In health care reform, remember that Republicans have asked for clarification and guarantees more than once: (1) stipulate illegals will not receive health care through the reform bill, that (2) end of life counseling will be voluntary and never mandatory, and that (3) abortions will not be covered under any reform Bill. Democrats refused. What's up with that?
I respect the "office" of the President and it is not an easy thing to acknowledge that my President is a "flim-flam man," who, in fact, seldom tells the truth, and certainly can never tell the the whole truth.
Reports say that Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor asked Wilson to apologize on the House floor today. Boehner will not admit it and he will not deny it, so that means he did ask for the apology. Wilson was right to refuse to apologize beyond directly to the White House. Boehner and Cantor need to know that the "WE the people" are sick of the affected postures of the Republican leadership. This is war, and it's the people's war because our elected officials do not deal well with the Democrat shuck-and-jive.
I encourage Rep. Wilson to stand strong, which is exactly what he did on Hannity tonight (second video below). The Democrats think they can bring him down. The estatic word from the Liberals is that Wilson's opponent raised $350,000 in the first blink of the eye after the speech. I believe that only if Soros handed over a check. When a lie is a lie, those speaking for us in Washington D.C. must call it a lie - not a "nuance," not an opinion, not "misspeaking." Message to Karl Rove: Obama didn't make "glaring misstatements or distortions." He lied, and you know it.
Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff said today no President has "ever been treated so disrespectfully." Remember when President Bush tried to reform Social Security, and in a State of the Union address, the Democrats booed him - more than once? Bush said SS would be bankrupt by 2042. They booed. Today, the Obama administration says Social Security will be bankrupt by 2025.
Remember when Rep. Barney Franks and Maxine Waters and Senator Chris Dodd denied Bush's claims that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would bring down the country unless Congress reformed their operations - like right now? These three clowns might have called him a liar. I don't know, but I do know that they denied he was telling the truth about it. They said he was wrong. The Fannie-Freddie duo brought the country down.
When it comes to disrespecting a President by Congress, Democrats take the honors for claiming George Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. How many times was the "lied" word used - or something equally meaningful? Watch former First Lady and Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator John Kerry, CIA Director George Tenent, and President Bill Clinton in this video shift all of their own culpability, even through they received regular security briefings. These bastions of the Senate, over and over, accused Bush of lying to the Nation. Now that's disrespect.
Come on Republicans. Grab that honor of "Greatest Living Statesman." If Wilson can do it, you can do it. Telling the truth is never the wrong thing to do unless you tell your mother-in-law that her apple pie is just the worst ever. That's a truth that must remain unsaid. Speaking of the truth, see how Politico's Ben Smith reported Senator Lindsay Graham's comments about his fellow-South Carolinian, Joe Wilson. (Ben Smith - you lie!)
The eight new jets Congress wants to ferry their members to unknown destinations will cost the Pentagon $550 million. The Pentagon wants to fund soldiers and not congressional jet travel. To fly in the face of conservatism, House Minority leader, Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) is planning a trip around the world with five other members of congress.
Congressional Jets
Congress says the jets are used 44 percent of the time for military and only 14.5 percent of the time for lawmakers. The question is, why would the military need a business-class passenger jet to ferry military officials? The requested C-40's, known as the 737 is "designed to be an office in the sky." Throughout it is configured with first-class accommodations, including a "distinguished visitor" compartment with sleep accommodations. Now what does that mean? Is Speaker Pelosi considered a "distinguished visitor," or must she sleep in her first-class, leather-clad seat.
The Obama administration pushed "lawmakers" to drop plans for F-22 fighter jets, but requested a mere $220 million to buy four passenger jets. Congress is bestowing him with double the funding and double the jets. An existing fleet of about two dozen passenger jets is currently maintained by the Air Force for Congress, the administration and military chiefs.
The Wall Street Journal says that the demand for travel by congressional officials is "growing." Another question is why?
Congressional Jet Travel (photo)
Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said the Department of Defense did not request the additional jets and does not need additional jets. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," Morrell said.
The Wall Street Journal give an example of August 2009 travel for Congress:
This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said he couldn't comment on the trip for security reasons. A spokeswoman for Mr. Shelby said the same.
I would say to John Boehner, keep your delegation at home. I also want to know what Democrats are traveling at taxpayer's expense, if not this month during their vacation, then in September or October or November. In Boehner's defense, there is no reason for him to be in the halls of Congress because there is nothing there for a Republican to do...but why a trip around the world? And why am I paying for it?
Lawmakers typically fly on military jets, where members of the Armed Services carry bags and take drink orders. When flying on military jets, lawmakers are permitted to bring along spouses at no cost.
Congress and the administration has severely criticized private business for leaving their big carbon footprint on the world through their jet and luxury car travel. Perhaps this is the most ridiculous statement out of the House in a while, other than Pelosi's "swastika" comment:
Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said the changes were part of "Congress's normal oversight responsibility" to make sure "the troops have everything they need."
The Pentagon is right to be outraged about this unnecessary spending during some very tough economic times, and it is sad to note that the Pentagon and the soldiers will lose this fight. To say that I am disappointed in Congressman Boehner is an understatement. He and his friends must cancel this trip around the globe. I also suggest that Congress serve the drinks and carry the bags for the soldiers.
Photos and graphics courtesy WSJ
Listen to Boehner tell Hoyer that Republicans were not opposed to a stimulus, they were opposed to the Democrat's stimulus. Saying that jobs should have been created by small businesses as Republicans proposed, Obama and Hoyer bray about th teachers and firefighters who have not lost their jobs.
The fact is, few jobs have been created, basically no sustainable jobs have been created, but...well one job created by stimulus funds is...innovative??? The show opens with this video within the video, of how a town used their stimulus windfall.
Rep. John Boehner key quote: "Trust small business and the American people to invest their own money."
In response to Rep. Steny Hoyer's whine that the Democrats inherited this terrible economy, my hubby points out that the Democrats had been in power for two years before Barack Obama came to the Oval Office, and sat in the Senate those two years.
The simple message for Conservatives: now is not the time to go "all wobbly." We have two years to work toward rebuilding our representation in the House and the Senate, but today, we still have a small voice in Congress.
House Republican Leader, John Boehner, in an op-ed written for RedState.com, lays out the issues we can expect the Minority Leadership to stand against. After Boehner's list you'll find links to all Senate and House Committees as well as the ranking Republican committee member for each.
* If an Obama presidency means “spreading the wealth around” by raising taxes on small businesses, families and investment to pay for more spending in Washington, DC, Republicans will have no choice but to fight it vigorously in favor of a pro-growth plan for rapid economic recovery.
* If an Obama presidency means cutting defense and troop funding while we're fighting a war against terror, Republicans will stand opposed on behalf of our military men and women and the nation they protect.
* If an Obama presidency means doing the bidding of radical special interests by taking away workers’ right to secret ballot elections, forcing workers to join unions, rolling back school choice for low-income children on behalf of powerful Washington teachers unions, and making it easier for dishonest trial lawyers to extort money through job-killing, frivolous lawsuits, Republicans will fight to put the country's interests first.
* If an Obama presidency means blocking production of American energy that would help lower costs, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Republicans will fight for enactment of an energy plan that does "all of the above" – increased conservation, innovation, and domestic production.
* If an Obama presidency means spending billions of dollars annually on wasteful pork-barrel projects, including taxpayer-funded “monuments to me” and earmarks “airdropped” into bills at the last possible minute to avoid scrutiny, Republicans will fight it vigorously.
* If an Obama presidency means repealing state and federal laws that protect the rights of unborn children and respect the sanctity of innocent human life, we’ll fight it vigorously.
If an Obama presidency means regulating free speech and stifling dissent on the airwaves [the Fairness Doctrine], Republicans will fight it vigorously.
* If an Obama presidency means forcing people out of their private health insurance and into a government-run program, Republicans will oppose it and fight for real solutions that keep Americans’ health care in the hands of patients and doctors, not government bureaucrats.
* If an Obama presidency means ignoring the looming fiscal tsunami in our entitlement programs –- ducking a problem that could eventually make the current financial crisis look like a tempest in a teacup – Republicans will have no choice but to fight it and demand responsible reforms to protect current and future generations of Americans.
* If an Obama presidency means cutting off job-creating trade with the rest of the world, Republicans will stand opposed and fight to open foreign markets to products created by American workers.
* If an Obama presidency means blocking investigation of the role Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN, and subprime mortgages played in the financial meltdown, Republicans will fight for accountability, transparency, and real reform to ensure taxpayers are never again put at such risk
If an Obama presidency means sweeping ethical issues involving Members of Congress under a rug, Republicans will fight for transparency and accountability, while holding ourselves to the highest possible ethical standards.
*****
Everything begins in Committee. Below you will find the House and Senate Committees with a link to the Committee homepage. If the ranking member, or other Republican committee members is/are not from your state, don't let that slow you down.
Pick your issues. Stay up-to-date. Make the contact. Catch the legislation early and often. Give Congress the courage to do the hard work needing to be done.
Senator John Boehner, House Republican Leader
The website for the House Republican Leader, John Boehner, should be on your toolbar or in your favorites folder for easy access.
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner or may be authorized or licensed for publication at this site only. Permission to copy, republish or reproduce such material must be obtained from the original copyright owner.
Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Important Notice
Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP. Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited. The fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
![Twitter](<a href="http://www.twitter.com/maggiesnotebook"><img src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-b.png" alt="Follow maggiesnotebook on Twitter"/></a>){kind=small}
