Nancy Pelosi, September 17, 2009

Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt, August 23, 2008

“Security” patrols stationed at polling places in Philly, Nov. 4, 2008

Nancy Pelosi at a conference about reform, June 8, 2010

Congressman Bob Etheridge attacking a college student, June 14, 2010.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. Mocks Border Security Advocates, June 26, 2010.

Rep. Charlie Rangel Berates Luke Russert and MSNBC for Questions About Alleged Ethics Violations, July 22, 2010.

Joy Behar goes attacks Sharron Angle 10/26/2010

Joy Behar Doubles Down On Sharron Angle, Calls Her Bitch Again! 10/27/2010

SEIU Attack Black Tea Party Patriot 8/6/09

NC Tea Party Member Punched  6/10/2010

I guess, we finally know what the Hell Nancy Pelosi was talking about:

Democrat Congressmen and Liberals…

Civil discourse is our ability to have conversation about topics about which we disagree, and our ability to listen to each others’ perspectives.

The Death of Civil discourse…

You will be missed.

R.I.P.

<sigh>

Keep up-to-date with Obama accomplishments – CliffsNotes…

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS: An ongoing Saga

July 15th additions now posted.

Supreme Court 5-4 vote, if this court were actually following the Constitution that gun vote should have been nine to nothing, it should have been unanimous.

When this case was brought, a lot of people said, “What do you mean the Second Amendment might not apply to the states?  How can that be?”   Everybody assumed that the Bill of Rights applied to individuals everywhere.

That’s what this case was about.

It’s a Chicago gun case. The Supreme Court in this ruling not only confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says, but it uses discrimination and abuses against blacks after the Civil War to make the point.

The justification, in part, for the ruling is that freed slaves would not be free, were they denied the right to keep and bear arms. And so there were several rulings demanding that in addition to their new found freedom they also be granted access to the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s an amazing case when you look at this, because the conservative position, in order to be free, the Constitution must be interpreted as to what it says, and it must apply to everybody.

The Second and Fourteenth Amendments prevented recently freed slaves from remaining de facto slaves forever. If they were denied, for example, recently freed slaves denied the right to keep and bear arms, they still were not totally free. That’s what this court has said today. And yet there were four justices who disagreed with this.

Everybody who cares about how free men are kept free needs to read this ruling.

Justice Thomas on pages 42 to 46 gives a really necessary history lesson that everyone should read.

He documents how blacks were almost denied their right to keep and bear arms and thus subjected to less than full citizenship and left defenseless against those that sought to continue to control them even after the days of slavery.

The US Constitution is the greatest legal document of freedom written. It puts teeth into individual and human rights.

The left has been doing everything it can to revise and to rewrite that history and to say that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, and this ruling just obliterates their logic.

The right to bear arms, the fascinating history that accompanies it and an important role in the freeing of black Americans from discrimination and de facto bondage and slavery.

Starting on page 26 of the majority opinion, the case McDonald v. Chicago, the court supports its conclusion that the right to bear arms applies to states as well as individuals.

They demonstrate how vital the Second Amendment was to recently freed slaves:

“The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that ‘the right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.'”

In order to affirm their notion that the Second Amendment applies to everybody, not just areas of the federal government, the Bill of Rights, they cite post-slavery and the right of former slaves to have guns.

Four justices of the US Supreme Court voted as though the Second Amendment didn’t exist or as though they thought the Second Amendment was wrong or they think.

Section 14 of this ruling thus explicitly guaranteed that all citizens, black and white, would have the constitutional right to bear arms. So I guess we could say constitutional decision here, conservative court, 5-4 has used the illegal discrimination against blacks as proof of the value and intent the Second Amendment.

The liberals, if they weren’t hypocrites, ought to be cheering this reasoning and this decision. Disarming blacks post-slavery was key to preventing them from ever becoming free. The attempt was made even after slavery was declared illegal and it was ended, after the civil war they still tried to keep blacks from getting guns. And everybody back then knew, you’re not going to really be free, and you’re really not going to be an American if you’re denied the right to keep and bear arms simply because of your race.

What liberal can argue with this?

Page 28:

“In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection.Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three ‘indispensable’ ‘safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.’ 39th Cong. Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms: ‘Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open –If the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”

Page 29:

“Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: ‘Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.’
‘The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South.”

The only downside is that there were four Supreme Court justices that voted against this — voted against the Second Amendment.

If the Constitution mattered to the left and these four justices on the left may as well epitomize the rest of the left in this country and around the world.  If they had their way, it wouldn’t be 5-4. That’s how close we are to the forfeiture of our freedom.

Supreme Court justices vote on the Constitution. They determine whether something is constitutional or not. The Second Amendment got voted on today, and it squeaked by 5-4.

They don’t just want to amend it. They don’t want to go to the trouble of amending it. The short-circuit way is to get enough of Obama’s people on the court and throughout the federal judiciary so they can simply repeal it by fiat, by virtue of their rulings.

Imagine if it was the First Amendment, free speech that was voted on today and it passed 5-4.  It’s inconceivable…

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS -.PDF

Obama inherits Petraeus.

He didn’t hire Petraeus. Petraeus was there. Petraeus was hired by George W. Bush.

Obama’s constantly complaining about all the problems he inherited from Bush. Now he’s inherited Petraeus. He got Bush’s general, who his party and his voters hate.

And by the way, MoveOn.org has removed their Petraeus ad from their website.

Oh, yes. Remember that full page New York Times ad, General Betray Us? It’s gone. It’s gone everywhere. And their good friends at like-minded Google have removed the ad from their caches, so you can’t see the ad.

Look. Go look for yourself, see if you can pull it up…

They hated Petraeus, and now they’re praising Obama for one of the smartest moves he’s ever made?

And let’s not forget the media.

The media was right in there beating up on Petraeus during the hearings in the Senate leading up to the surge.

McChrystal was a four-star general. He is gone. We have not elevated anybody. We simply took  Petraeus from his CENTCOM commander’s job and sent him to Afghanistan.

They got rid of McChrystal because he was insolent, disrespectful, critical of the president’s policies.

So they go out and they get rid of him and they hire Bush’s general, and the same people who are mad at McChrystal for criticizing the policy now say they hope Petraeus can convince Obama to change the policy.

We still have incompetence, we have cheerleading on parade, we do not have serious accountability going on here, nobody’s reporting any of this accurately, because it’s all about Obama.

He hired Bush’s general.

They’re celebrating because finally he’s acting like commander-in-chief.

The New York Times hated Petraeus so much they gave MoveOn.org a half-price deal on their full-page Betray Us ad. And they’re right in there with all of the rest of them today singing Obama’s praises.

WHERE IS THE HEADLINE… OR EVEN A SUBHEAD:

“Obama Turns to Bush General.”

It’s the truth. It is precisely what’s happened out there.

Obama January 14th, 2007, during a discussion about the status of the Iraq war, and talking about the Petraeus’ surge.

OBAMA:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

Doesn’t matter how many troops, it won’t work, no matter how many troops were sent.

Biden, September 9, 2007, talking with Tim Russert on the eve of the Petraeus hearing:

RUSSERT:

General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops that we’ve not had the political reconciliation we thought we would have, been much slower, but there’s some hope. Then he said my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum. We’ve wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball, we’re driving down the field. Is that what you expect him to say tomorrow?

BIDEN:

I think he’s dead-flat-wrong. The fact of the matter is that this idea of these security gains we made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic, none, none whatsoever.

That’s the current vice president of the United States saying Petraeus has no clue what he’s talking about.

September 11, 2007, on Capitol Hill during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton said this to General Petraeus.

HILLARY:

You have been made the de facto spokesman for a failed policy. The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

She just called him a liar. She said he is nothing more than a stooge for the White House. Hillary Clinton, now the secretary of state, this was just three years ago talking about General Petraeus, who now represents the smartest move Obama has ever made.

Nancy Pelosi, August 2, 2007, PBS NewsHour:

LEHRER:

From your perspective, Ms. Pelosi, what General Petraeus says in September about the surge is irrelevant in your mind?”

PELOSI:

The purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which political progress could be made. That has not happened. The president’s own benchmarks are not being met. The surge was to make the area more secure so that the political solution could take hold and the measure will be, okay, did the surge achieve its purpose? Did the political progress occur? Amending the constitution, calling for provincial elections, having a law for the fair distribution of oil in the region, reviewing the order on de-Ba’athification, some of the president’s own benchmarks.

Nancy Pelosi, one of the many Democrats who ripped General Petraeus.

September 11th, 2007, Washington, Capitol Hill, during the Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq policy, Senator Obama said this to General Petraeus.

OBAMA:

This is not a criticism of either of you gentlemen. This is a criticism of this president and the administration which has set a mission for the military and for our diplomatic forces that is extraordinarily difficult now to achieve. And there has been no acknowledgement of that on the part of this administration so that we have the president in Australia suggesting somehow that we are, as was stated before, kicking a-s-s. How can we have a president making that assessment?

September 10th, 2007, Capitol Hill, the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Iraq. Robert Wexler questioned Petraeus.

WEXLER:

The surge has failed. In truth, war-related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we’ve been talking today. Cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth. It is my patriotic duty to represent my constituents and ask you about your argument that the surge in troops be extended until next year, next summer. I am skeptical, General —

That’s Robert Wexler calling Petraeus a liar, essentially. And now Petraeus, the best move Obama has ever made?

Harry Reid, April 19, 2007, at a press conference talking about General Petraeus.

REID:

I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, secretary of defense — and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost.

We’ve got an inept commander-in-chief. We got some of the media pretty much admits hasn’t been a commander-in-chief up until now — and I am still not inspired.

We have the Media in uncontrollable joy over the choice of…Bush’s general!

Who they all claimed to say was a lying and only doing Bush’s bidding. They impugned his honesty and his integrity. They accused him of losing the war with his strategy. Now, all of a sudden, this is the best move Barack Hussein Obama has ever made. Really??

I think the intellectual dishonesty, the void here of any media integrity whatsoever to talk about what this story’s really all about, is striking.

What Should President Obama Be Doing Differently to Promote the Clean Up of the Oil Spill?

Oil continues to spill into the Gulf of Mexico, but the Obama administration is still floundering around and putting out contradictory statements instead of organizing a coordinated, effective cleanup response. Instead of making rash decisions like the recent ban on offshore drilling, President Obama should exert strong leadership by activating local and foreign governments in the relief effort.

Utilize Local Governments

Local governments are not getting the assistance they need to help in the cleanup. For example, five weeks ago, officials from Escambia County, Florida requested permission from the Mobile Unified Command Center to use a sand skimmer, a device pulled behind a tractor that removes oil and tar from the top three feet of sand, to help clean up Pensacola’s beaches. County officials still haven’t heard anything back. Santa Rosa Island Authority Buck Lee explains why: “Escambia County sends a request to the Mobile, Ala., Unified Command Center. Then, it’s reviewed by BP, the federal government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. If they don’t like it, they don’t tell us anything.”

State and local governments know their geography, people, economic impacts and needs far better than the federal government does. Contrary to popular belief, the federal government has actually been playing a bigger and bigger role in running natural disaster responses. And as Heritage fellow Matt Mayer has documented, the results have gotten worse, not better. Local governments should be given the tools they need to aid in the disaster relief.

Take Foreign Governments Up On Their Offers for Aid

When the federal government isn’t sapping the initiative and expertise of local governments, it has been preventing foreign governments from helping. Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. Thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down.

According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill cleanup by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go at it alone. The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But, in an emergency, this law can be temporarily waived, as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina. Each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the cleanup is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.

Ban on Offshore Drilling Will Hurt the Economy

Lastly, the Obama administration’s over-expansive ban on offshore energy development is killing jobs. A panel of engineering experts–who were consulted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar before he issued his May 27 report recommending a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet–now tell The New Orleans Times-Picayune that they only supported a six-month ban on new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. A letter from these experts reads: “A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do.”

And just how many innocent jobs is Obama’s oil ban killing? An earlier Times-Picayune report estimated the moratorium could cost Louisiana 7,590 jobs and $2.97 billion in revenue directly related to the oil industry.

A Better Way: Presidential Leadership

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorizes the president to oversee the cleanup efforts of the responsible parties, and offshore this duty falls to the U.S. Coast Guard. Yet, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had to lobby the White House for weeks to get engaged on this front. It’s time for President Obama to exert leadership. If this is his top priority, he must prove it with actions, not rhetoric. The federal government has a role in the Gulf, and it’s time for the president to articulate it to the American people.

The Heritage Foundation