DEMOCRATS PLAY SOCIAL SECURITY SCARE CARD EARLY

The Democrats had Bruce Braley deliver their national radio address Saturday. For those of you who don’t recognize his name, which I suspect is everyone who isn’t Mr. Braley’s relatives, he’s the Democratic candidate for the open House seat being vacated by Jim Nussle, who’s running for governor. During his speech, Mr. Braley brought out the formerly tried-and-true Democratic boogeyman– Social Security. Here’s what he said:

“If the Republican plan is allowed to pass, future generations both here and across the country will be saddled with decades of debt and no guaranteed retirement security,'’ Bruce Braley said in the Democrats’ weekly radio address.

It used to be that playing on peoples’ fears worked for Democrats but it doesn’t anymore, thanks to conservative talk radio and the Right Blogosphere. People simply don’t get scared when partial privatization of Social Security is brought up, thanks in large part to 401(k)’s.

I suspect that Mr. Braley’s mentioning Social Security is either a sign of desparation on his part or he doesn’t understand where the American people stand on this issue. What’s worse is that he didn’t stop there. His next quote sounds totally paranoid.

Braley said Social Security is under attack, with President Bush and congressional Republicans making privatization a top priority in 2007. He also accused the Bush administration of “plundering the Social Security trust fund while giving billions away to special interests, like big oil.'’ “They are spending the money seniors rely on while making no effort to balance the budget or protect the limited funds we have for retirement security,'’ he said.

That’s a bald-faced lie & he knows it. After getting beaten up on Social Security immediately after getting re-elected, President Bush and the GOP legislature hasn’t brought up the subject of Social Security reform.

Part of the motivation behind Mr. Braley’s diatribe is the Democrats’ belief that they can win by scaring people that Republicans are far outside the mainstream of American politics. They think that works because their Bush-hatred is that advanced. Unfortunately, that isn’t where the American people are.

Democrats haven’t come to grips with several important facts:

* Republicans are the majority party in America;
* America doesn’t hate politicians nearly as much as Democrats hate Republicans; and
* The American people won’t vote for politicians who stand for nothing but hating their opponents.

At the end of the day, I suspect that the elections won’t turn out to be nearly as gloomy for Republicans as the Agenda Media and other moonbat Democrats are predicting. In fact, I’ll predict that: (a) Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel will turn on Howard Dean for wasting a ton of cash in the Southern states where Democrats don’t stand a chance of winning and (b) the Daily Kos and others of the moonbat fringe will run a ton of conspiracy theories as to why they lost.

DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS ADMIT THEY'LL TRY TO CON AMERICANS

Folks, I was shocked! SHOCKED when I read an Associated Press news story that, in essence, told readers that the Democrat Party is cautioning their left-wing actvists to “cool it,” and start sounding as if they are normal Americans instead of the Stalinist mob we’ve all come to know and love. Well, perhaps not love, but at least we know them and their Stalinist tactics.

When I first read the article, I figured some conservative hacked onto AP’s website and planted this story of the Democrat Party’s plan of deception. But it was a genuine AP news story. Perhaps the reporter and editor were toking on some “loco weed.”

The thrust of the article was that three Democrat contenders for the 2008 presidential primary spoke with their base and asked them to start talking to “middle-class voters on religious faith, national security — even NASCAR.”

In other words, try to snooker the majority of Americans, especially those in the Red States, into believing that the Democrat Party — which is infatuated with butchering unborn babies, but frowns on getting tough with terrorists; religiously kicks God out of the public arena; tells the world that our sons and daughters in the military are cold-blooded murderers and Nazis; and always looks to surrender to US enemies at the drop of a turban — is the party to be trusted.

John Edwards, the shyster lawyer who channels ghosts during his courtroom summations, and told voters that John Kerry, if elected, would cause the crippled to get up out of their wheelchairs and walk; Mark Warner, a Southern Democrat in name only; And Joe Biden, known to many Mark Levin Show listeners as the dumbest man in the Senate; spoke at another of those two-day affairs held by a neo-Marxist group masquerading as patriotic Americans. This one being called the New Democrat Network.

John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator has made eliminating poverty his signature issue since the last campaign. His official title is director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Edwards believes he can eliminate poverty by having lawyers snatch people’s hard-earned money while keeping a third for themselves.

Behind his metro-sexual appearance is a shyster who represents other shysters who buy yachts with people’s lifesavings.

If Edwards and the others were honest, they would tell Americans that what they offer is the same old tired programs and initiatives that haven’t worked in the past, and in fact have actually caused many of the problems this nation faces.

Edwards proposed creation of temporary jobs to bolster resumes and provide experience as well as second-chance schools. He said his plan would take 30 years and cost $15 billion to $20 billion. And then Edwards attempted to sell some poor schmuck the Brooklyn Bridge.

Warner, the former Virginia governor, focused on education standards, increased spending on research and development and creating a fair shot at the American dream in a speech occasionally interrupted by applause. And why wouldn’t they applaud? There were probably many representatives from National Education Association in attendance who, when hearing Democrats talk about education, see dollar signs hovering above their heads.

When Warner tried to sound “homey,” He drew blank stares when he mentioned NASCAR driver Elliott Sadler. Warner had been describing a high-school equivalency program that involved encouraging words from NASCAR racers, according to the AP story.

He suggested that a high school dropout would pay more attention to Sadler than the governor.”If you want to get back America, you better know who Elliott Sadler is,” Warner said to laughter. Folks, they were laughing at you “yokels” who love NASCAR and who the Dems believe can be easily duped into turning over the country to a socialist regime if only they know the names of some of the top racers.

AP reported that in a freewheeling speech, Biden said Democrats have to speak to the middle class because “they ain’t voting for us, folks.” Perhaps that’s because the Dems want to say they’re serious about national security, but then nominate draft-dodgers and traitors as presidential candidates.

The Delaware senator argued that even tax policies that he claims favor the rich result in some money for the middle class. Democrats have pushed for increases in the minimum wage and college loan programs, but those policies aren’t aimed at the middle class. Cutting through all the hype, Biden was saying the Dems can’t buy off the folks with promises of social programs and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Biden said the Democratic nominee must address security and faith and that the party must be “genuinely optimistic.”

See, I told you — dumb as dirt. Biden must know that the nominees are always optimistic; it’s the regular folks who are having the problems. It may not be euphoric with the GOP in power, but put these turncoats, neo-Marxists and assorted misfits in power and watch the country slip into Third-World status in a matter of a few years.

Once in power, they will make it possible for million upon millions of illegal aliens and ex-convicts to vote and create a constituency the likes of which we’ve never seen in the USA.

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. 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. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. 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.

NORTH KOREA TARGETS HAWAII

You know that Taepodong-2 ballistic missile North Korea fired the other day that we're being told was no big deal? Well, as it turns out, had it actually reached its destination, we would have had a problem. The target for the missile was none other than the U.S. state of Hawaii. The missile didn't make it that far, of course, because it malfunctioned and fell into the ocean.

Speculation is that North Korea targeted Hawaii because that's where the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet are. So what are we doing about it? Absolutely nothing. Speaking on Larry King last night, President Bush had this to say about North Korea, after being asked why he thought The Gargoyle launched the missile: "You know, I don't know. I really don't know. I think he wants us to either fear him or pay attention to him. And I view it as an opportunity." Strong language there Mr. President!

The president went on to say that the U.S. would push the other nations involved in the six-party talks to make Kim Jong-Il return to the table. In other words, our answer to the firing of a long-range missile aimed at the United States is...more diplomacy. Unbelievable.

Now ask yourself...what do you suppose would have happened if North Korea had set up a missile aimed at us and launched it during say....the Truman Administration? Kim Jong-Il and everybody involved would be enjoying their respective dirt naps right about now. But for some reason, here in 2006, we're not doing anything about it. It's one thing to lob a missile into the Pacific. It's quite another to launch that missile toward American territory.

At what point would we act? Just how deep is the hold that the peace-at-any-price crowd has in Washington?

PRESIDENT BUSH MAY CHANGE HIS MIND ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

As the House of Representatives’ Republican leaders prepare to embark on a series of nationwide hearings that could determine the fate of the Senate “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, President Bush is indicating a new willingness to negotiate with House Republicans in an effort to revise the stalled legislation before the November elections.

Republicans both inside and outside the White House say Mr. Bush, who has long insisted on comprehensive reform, is now open to a so-called enforcement-first approach that would put new border security programs in place before creating a guest worker program or path to citizenship for people living in the United States illegally.

“He thinks that this notion that you can have triggers is something we should take a close look at, and we are,” said Candi Wolff, the White House director of legislative affairs, referring to the idea that guest worker and citizenship programs would be triggered when specific border security goals had been met, a process that could take two years.

When the House Republicans pushed through a tough immigration enforcement bill, they were lambasted by the Democrats, some GOP senators and the news media. They were condemned as being meanspirited and criticized for wishing to criminalize illegal alien workers. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) told a crowd of immigrants that the House Republicans are attempting to create a “police state.”

Not only are the House Republicans in favor of enforcement-first, several Democrats are calling for the government to first stop the flood of illegal aliens before considering other measures such as guest worker programs and pathways to citizenship.

Political analysts believe the President’s almost sudden change of heart is based on the groundswell of criticism of his “amnesty” plan by American citizens. Thousands upon thousands of e-mails, telephone calls and letters continue to flood the White House and the offices of key GOP members calling for real action on the US borders.

In May the Senate passed immigration legislation that appeared weak on border security, but would create a program permitting illegal immigrants who had resided in the United States for five years or more to “earn” their citizenship after paying a fine and back taxes, learning English and holding a job for six years.

But conservatives began digging deeper into the bill and discovered a grab-bag full of goodies — social security, wage regulations, etc. — for people viewed by many as lawbreakers. The Senate bill also would allow illegal immigrants who have resided in the United States from two to five years to apply for a guest worker program.

President Bush strongly supported the Senate’s “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. Many conservative Republicans, especially those in the House, said the Senate’s approach amounted to “amnesty” and vociferously oppose any legalization program before border security has been strengthened.

Then when the Senate “amnesty” bill arrived in the hands of the House leadership, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert proposed that GOP congessmen would hold citizen hearings all across the country in order to get citizens’ input.

Many senators at first complained that the House’s call for hearings was their way of stopping the immigration bill, but now they seem more receptive to the House enforcement
bill as does President Bush.

Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert says that the “top thing needed is to secure the borders and we need to have the law enforcement to go along with that.

Immigration is the most important issue for the Republicans and conservatives, a House Republican aide said, and will drive conservatives to the polls — unlike the recent Senate debate on gay marriage or the upcoming vote on an amendment to ban flag burning.

As evidence, House Republicans point to the victory by Rep. Brian Bilbray in a special election in California earlier this month. Bilbray ran against the approach favored by President Bush and the Senate and argued that the borders must be secured first. His opponent lost the election partly because she was recorded telling illegal aliens they didn’t need “papers” to vote.

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. 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. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. 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.

SEND HER ASS TO VENEZUELA

ONE-WAY TICKET TO VENEZUELA

By Michelle Malkin

Her heart belongs to Hugo

I've done a little browsing on Expedia for Cindy Sheehan, who says she'd rather live under Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez than in America (transcription below). (Here's the video via Allah.) Here are current one-way ticket prices from NYC to Caracas:

Fund-raiser, anyone?

Stephen Spruiell at The Media Blog has a partial transcript.

I'm adding a transcription of the soundbite of her Hugo endorsement:

MSNBC'S Norah O'Donnell: Would you rather live under Hugo Chavez than President Bush?

Sheehan: Um, yes, (giggle). You know, Hugo Chavez is not a dictator like you, like you introduced him. He's been democratically elected eight times.

O'Donnell: Saddam Hussein was democratically elected.

Sheehan: Yeah, hold on a second, though. He is not anti-American. He has helped the poor people of America. He has sent aid to New Orleans. He has sold heating oil to disadvantaged people in America, in the United States of America, at low cost. The people of his country love him.

Let's remember to buy Harry Belafonte a one-way ticket, too.

More Friends of Chavez.

***

Related: Sweetness and Light catches AP using Code Pink as a photo source.

Previous:
A closer look at Code Pink
Code Pink's photoshop perversion
Talking back to Code Pink
Code Pink beats a hasty retreat
Dems gave Code Pink disrupters tickets
Code Pink "on the other side"
A challenge to Code Pink
Howard Dean's true colors

LIBERALS WORRIED ABOUT SUPREME COURT BALANCE

Ruth Marcus’ Washington Post column is nothing without her hyperventillating over the Supreme Court’s balance. Here’s what she’s written:

The interesting, and unsettling, aspect of this term is not how Kennedy voted but what it could have looked like just one liberal retirement away. It’s not simply that four justices appear to have a far-reaching view of presidential power (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. didn’t participate in the military tribunals case at the high court, but as an appellate judge he had voted to uphold the administration’s position).

Actually, the Founding Fathers anticipated the need to wage war and codified into the Constitution extended presidential powers. That the courts and Congress have whittled those powers down doesn’t make it right.

What’s scary isn’t the fact that conservatives take the words of the Constitution seriously. I’d posit that what’s scary is that (a) 4 liberal idiots in black robes think that the Constitution means whatever they think it should mean and (b) that they can make law without going through the legislative process. I’d suggest that we’re more endangered by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter essentially making this a government of, by and for the judiciary, not the people.

The Founding Fathers worried that one branch would get more powerful than the other two. That’s what’s happening now with the Supreme Court deciding that the right of private property should be rewritten without legislative debate (Kelo v. New London), the right to speak about politics without restraint should be abolished (the Court’s upholding of BCRA as not infringing on my First Amendment rights in the name of good government) & now the 4 idiots being joined by a power-hungry semi-conservative jurist saying that presidents don’t have the power to protect us from our enemies.

This is a court that could be a single vote away, if that, from crippling affirmative action; curtailing, if not abolishing, abortion rights; dramatically lowering the wall of separation between church and state; and limiting congressional authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause to protect the environment and enact other laws of national sweep.

Heaven forbid the justices from shrinking the abuse of the Commerce Clause to be a catchall for doing whatever the federal courts want to do. God forbid that the Justices re-establish Constitutional logic to the debate on the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses concerning the practice of religion. Here’s what the relevant section of the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It sounds Ms. Marcus would prefer living in an America where people of faith wouldn’t be able to “freely exercise” their religious faith in public. Unfortunately for Ms. Marcus, that isn’t what the ruling would be if the justices used the clear translation of the Constitution.

President Bush or his Republican successor, if there is one, could soon have the chance to cement the impregnable court majority that has long eluded conservatives. By contrast, the election of a Democratic president in 2008 would probably merely halt the court’s steady drift rightward. Unless the vacancy comes from an unexpected quarter, the best a Democratic president could hope for is maintaining the current conservative tilt, and even that could be optimistic.

President Bush’s Republican successor will move the court rightward, appointing strict constructionists to the courts, thereby re-establishing Constitutional sanity to the high court’s rulings. That isn’t something to be feared. Rather, it’s something to be rejoiced over.