Obama’s Katrina

Obama’s own Katrina… Where is the outrage  from the Bush critics…

Change You Can Believe In!

HOPE/CHANGE!!! Obama And FEMA Leave Americans To Die In Kentucky

Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear declared a state of emergency on January 27th.

Obama, on his website, scolded the Bush administration for poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Where is he now? Where is the MSM?

I suppose hopey/changey administration is too busy pushing the stimulus pkg to worry about Americans freezing to death in Kentucky.

Local officials were growing angry with what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In Grayson County, about 80 miles southwest of Louisville, Emergency Management Director Randell Smith said the 25 National Guardsmen who have responded have no chain saws to clear fallen trees.

“We’ve got people out in some areas we haven’t even visited yet,” Smith said. “We don’t even know that they’re alive.”

Smith said FEMA has been a no-show so far.

“I’m not saying we can’t handle it; we’ll handle it,” Smith said. “But it would have made life a lot easier” if FEMA had reached the county sooner, he said.

More from Jammie Wearing Fool

Update: Gov. Steve Beshear called up his entire Army National Guard on Saturday. Three days after issuing state of emergency.

Again, Obama and the MSM …MIA.

via The Jawa Report: HOPE/CHANGE!!! Obama And FEMA Leave Americans To Die In Kentucky.

Team Obama 180

Team Obama has done a full 180 on the Auto Industry/Colombia trade pact negotiations between Bush and Obama… Caught in a lie, they instead of owning up to it, deny that it ever happened…

This stinks of political posturing on Team Obama’s side… Knowing he cannot achieve what he claimed in order to get elected, he is now making sure that blame falls solely on Bush instead of Congress.

More Change You Can Believe In!

Barack Obama’s transition team described as inaccurate news reports that irked President Bush claiming that the two had been horse trading over signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal. 

President Bush did not offer a “quid pro quo” linking relief for automakers to a Colombia Free Trade deal in his meeting on Monday with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, the president-elect’s transition team leader said Tuesday.

John Podesta said he wanted to clear up misreporting by newspapers that detailed a leak of the on-on-one meeting between the president and president-elect.

“While the topic of Colombia came up … there was no quid pro quo in the conversation,” Podesta said. “The president didn’t try to link Colombia to the question of an economic recovery package going forward. They talked about both of them.”

Podesta added that the reports were “not accurate” and the Obama team has “cleared up the confusion” after the White House complained that Bush was irked by news that the conversation had been cast as a trade-off between Bush signing a second stimulus package in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade Act.

Senior aides to both men said the two issues were part of a long discussion about automakers and the ability of the trade deal to help not only the economy but also a key ally.  

Obama had asked Bush to help the sagging auto industry during their private meeting in the White House, senior aides to both men said. Bush stressed the need to work with Colombia, but said efforts to make it sound like a horse trade were unfair and inaccurate, an aide told FOX News. 

Bush aides said the president was also unhappy that the conversation between him and Obama was leaked to the media at all, and insisted the two leaders were not engaged in a trade-off.  

“President Bush did not suggest a quid pro quo. Both leaders discussed ideas for the economy. The president has long said free trade helps create jobs and opens markets to our businesses. We believe the free trade agreements can and should pass today on their merits,” said press secretary Dana Perino.

A senior administration official suggested that Obama be careful to keep his counsel and perhaps is unfamiliar with the long-held tradition of keeping confidential conversations between presidents.

Asked if the leak affected what appears to be a very smooth transition so far, the senior Bush aide said, “It won’t affect what we have to do … but it was disappointing. I think the Obama folks will be backing off this pretty soon.”

Podesta did just that later in the day. 

“I think we’ve agreed to move forward in that same spirit that we have been working,” he said.

An Obama transition team spokesman said the president-elect did raise the need for urgent action on an economic recovery plan that would create jobs and relieve the squeeze on families.

Obama urged help for automakers, including accelerating the $25 billion Congress already passed, exploring other authorities that exist under current law and identifying someone who would have the authority to bring about reforms that would lead to an economically viable auto industry.

The Bush administration, along with Congress, negotiated a $700 billion rescue package last month for the financial industry, but federal officials are resisting Democratic calls for a similar bailout for automakers, despite warnings that General Motors might not survive the year.

Democrats want a second stimulus that would include aid to Detroit’s big three automakers, unemployment benefits and infrastructure projects.

The New York Times had reported Tuesday that neither Obama nor congressional leaders are willing to concede the Colombia pact to Bush and may choose to hold off on a new stimulus bill until Obama becomes president on Jan. 20.

But aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday afternoon that she intends to seek legislation to provide relief to the auto industry, and wants it done in a post-election session of Congress that could be convened next week. The aides did not say how large the package would be.

According to Bush officials, the administration has gone as far as it can when it comes to the $700 billion bailout. Under the bailout law, relief money is intended for financial services, not industrial sectors. Aides said if lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to rewrite the law, they will reconsider it, but they can not divert the money now. 

Deutsche Bank on Monday downgraded GM to sell from hold, with a price target of $0, saying the carmaker may not be able to fund its U.S. operations beyond December without government intervention, FOX Business Network reported.

Deutsche Bank said it believes the U.S. government will be compelled to intervene through a capital infusion or loan. 

“Without government assistance, we believe that GM’s collapse would be inevitable, and that it would precipitate systemic risk that would be difficult to overcome for automakers, suppliers, retailers, and sectors of the U.S. economy,” the broker said. Even if GM avoids bankruptcy, equity shareholders are unlikely to get anything back, it added.

Meanwhile, Bush’s desire to pass the Colombia Free Trade deal on its merits is no secret, a senior White House aide told FOX News. That deal has been frozen by the Democratic majority in Congress. 

The U.S. and Colombia are close allies, and the president wants to increase trade between the two countries. But Democrats say a deal would mean more jobs being exported, which is taboo for a party supported by a heavily unionized workforce that elected Obama.

Democrats say they also object to the human rights climate in Colombia, which union leaders have described as seriously threatening to workers. Colombia’s government says such claims are blown out of proportion and workers are protected.

Barack Obama’s Camp Leaked Details Of Private Meeting With Bush

Again Barack shows his inexperience and inability to be President of the United States. He should immediately fire anyone in his team that leaked this information out. When leaders talk in confidence to each other under the premise of private, then both parties need to respect that. I would venture to say this was done intentionally on the part of Camp Obama to damage the remaining days of Bush’s term. The difference in what was discussed and what was released appears to be politically motivated and distorted.

Obama shows his lack of respect for the sitting President of the United States, the people of the United States and his own future seat as President of the United States.

More Change You Can Believe In!

Administration aides say President Bush is unhappy that his discussion Monday with President-elect Barack Obama was leaked and cast as a horse trade between signing a second economic stimulus bill in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade deal.

President-elect Barack Obama asked President Bush to help the sagging auto industry during their private meeting in the White House, senior aides to both men told FOX News on Tuesday.

But Bush administration officials said the president is unhappy that the conversation between the two leaders has been cast as a trade-off between Bush signing a second stimulus package in exchange for congressional passage of the Colombia Free Trade Deal.

The Bush administration, along with Congress, negotiated a $700 billion rescue package last month for the financial industry, but federal officials are resisting Democratic calls for a similar bailout for automakers, despite warnings that General Motors might not survive the year.

Democrats want a second stimulus that would include aid to Detroit’s big three automakers, unemployment benefits and infrastructure projects.

Bush’s desire to pass the Colombia Free Trade deal on its merits is no secret, a senior White House aide told FOX News. But that deal has been frozen by the Democratic majority in Congress. 

The U.S. and Colombia are close allies, and the president wants to increase trade between the two countries. But Democrats say a deal would mean more jobs being exported, which is taboo for a party supported by a heavily unionized workforce that elected Obama.

Democrats say they also object to the human rights climate in Colombia, which union leaders have described as seriously threatening to workers. Colombia’s government says such claims are blown out of proportion and workers are protected.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Democrats have suggested that neither Obama nor congressional leaders are willing to concede the Colombia pact to Bush and they may choose to wait to hold off on a new stimulus bill until Obama becomes president on Jan. 20.

Bush aides said the president is unhappy the conversation between him and Obama was leaked to the media at all, and insisted the two leaders were not engaged in a quid pro quo between the automakers and a free trade pact. 

Both were discussed, but to make it sound like a horse trade is unfair and inaccurate, an aide told FOX News. 

“President Bush did not suggest a quid pro quo. Both leaders discussed ideas for the economy. The president has long said free trade helps create jobs and opens markets to our businesses. We believe the free trade agreements can and should pass today on their merits,” said press secretary Dana Perino.

Senior aides to both men said the two issues were part of a long discussion about automakers and the ability of the trade deal to help not only the economy but also a key ally. A senior administration official suggested that Obama be careful to keep his counsel.

Deutsche Bank on Monday downgraded GM to sell from hold, with a price target of $0, saying the carmaker may not be able to fund its U.S. operations beyond December without government intervention, FOX Business Network reported.

Deutsche Bank said it believes the U.S. government will be compelled to intervene through a capital infusion or loan. 

“Without government assistance, we believe that GM’s collapse would be inevitable, and that it would precipitate systemic risk that would be difficult to overcome for automakers, suppliers, retailers, and sectors of the U.S. economy,” the broker said. Even if GM avoids bankruptcy, equity shareholders are unlikely to get anything back, it added.

FOX News’ Bret Baier contributed to this report.

 

US Military Operating Under Secret Orders

Well the news itself is no surprise, but what the fact that the mass media is reporting it is. As usual, journalistic ethics are out the door. The media loves to report anything classified, top secret etc… As long as they can get it out to the people who should know… Bullshit.

Operations are on going, as in the recent Syrian raid, which is mentioned in the article, and the publication of news like this only puts our troops in danger. It also escalates tensions between countries because now things are public knowledge, instead of being handled by the respective powers and counter parts in the countries involved.

I guess that is why the UK is looking to censor media outlets from reporting on items that compromise national security. Maybe we should consider doing the same thing, and make it a criminal act… And when items involve national security and put soldiers lives in danger, I think the anonymous sources excuse used by the media must be abolished. If there is no national security issue or potential to put soldiers lives in danger, then fine, let them use all the anonymous sources they want.

The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.

These military raids, typically carried out by Special Operations forces, were authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President George W. Bush, the officials said. The secret order gave the military new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.

In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants’ compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission — captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft — in real time in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center at the agency’s headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away.

Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the CIA, according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of CIA-directed operations.

But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.

More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.

Apart from the 2006 raid into Pakistan, the American officials refused to describe in detail what they said had been nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries. They made clear that there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

According to a senior administration official, the new authority was spelled out in a classified document called “Al Qaeda Network Exord,” or execute order, that streamlined the approval process for the military to act outside officially declared war zones. Where in the past the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days when there were only hours to act, the new order specified a way for Pentagon planners to get the green light for a mission far more quickly, the official said.

It also allowed senior officials to think through how the United States would respond if a mission went badly. “If that helicopter goes down in Syria en route to a target,” the official said, “the American response would not have to be worked out on the fly.”

The 2004 order was a step marking the evolution of how the American government sought to kill or capture Qaeda terrorists around the world. It was issued after the Bush administration had already granted America’s intelligence agencies sweeping power to secretly detain and interrogate terrorism suspects in overseas prisons and to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and electronic communications.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush issued a classified order authorizing the CIA to kill or capture Qaeda militants around the globe. By 2003, American intelligence agencies and the military had developed a much deeper understanding of Al Qaeda’s extensive global network, and Rumsfeld pressed hard to unleash the military’s vast firepower against militants outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official said.

Even with the order, each specific mission requires high-level government approval. Targets in Somalia, for instance, need at least the approval of the defense secretary, the administration official said, while targets in a handful of countries, including Pakistan and Syria, require presidential approval.

The Pentagon has exercised its authority frequently, dispatching commandos to countries including Pakistan and Somalia. Details of a few of these strikes have previously been reported.

For example, shortly after Ethiopian troops crossed into Somalia in late 2006 to dislodge an Islamist regime in Mogadishu, the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command quietly sent operatives and AC-130 gunships to an airstrip near the Ethiopian town of Dire Dawa. From there, members of a classified unit called Task Force 88 crossed repeatedly into Somalia to hunt senior members of a Qaeda cell believed to be responsible for the 1998 American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

At the time, American officials said Special Operations troops were operating under a classified directive authorizing the military to kill or capture Qaeda operatives if failure to act quickly would mean the United States had lost a “fleeting opportunity” to neutralize the enemy.

Occasionally, the officials said, Special Operations troops would land in Somalia to assess the strikes’ results. On Jan. 7, 2007, an AC-130 struck an isolated fishing village near the Kenyan border, and within hours, American commandos and Ethiopian troops were examining the rubble to determine whether any Qaeda operatives had been killed.

But even with the new authority, proposed Pentagon missions were sometimes scrubbed because of bad intelligence or bureaucratic entanglements, senior administration officials said.

The details of one of those aborted operations, in early 2005, were reported by The New York Times last June. In that case, an operation to send a team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers into Pakistan to capture Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, was aborted at the last minute.

Zawahri was believed by intelligence officials to be attending a meeting in Bajaur, in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command hastily put together a plan to capture him. There were strong disagreements inside the Pentagon and the CIA about the quality of the intelligence, however, and some in the military expressed concern that the mission was unnecessarily risky.

Porter Goss, the CIA director at the time, urged the military to carry out the mission, and some in the CIA even wanted to execute it without informing Ryan Crocker, then the American ambassador to Pakistan. Rumsfeld ultimately refused to authorize the mission.

Former military and intelligence officials said that Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, who recently completed his tour as head of the Joint Special Operations Command, had pressed for years to win approval for commando missions into Pakistan. But the missions were frequently rejected because officials in Washington determined that the risks to American troops and the alliance with Pakistan were too great.

Captain John Kirby, a spokesman for General McChrystal, who is now director of the military’s Joint Staff, declined to comment.

The recent raid into Syria was not the first time that Special Operations forces had operated in that country, according to a senior military official and an outside adviser to the Pentagon.

Since the Iraq war began, the official and the outside adviser said, Special Operations forces have several times made cross-border raids aimed at militants and infrastructure aiding the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.

The raid in late October, however, was much more noticeable than the previous raids, military officials said, which helps explain why it drew a sharp protest from the Syrian government.

Negotiations to hammer out the 2004 order took place over nearly a year and involved wrangling between the Pentagon and the CIA and the State Department about the military’s proper role around the world, several administration officials said.

American officials said there had been debate over whether to include Iran in the 2004 order, but ultimately Iran was set aside, possibly to be dealt with under a separate authorization.

Senior officials of the State Department and the CIA voiced fears that military commandos would encroach on their turf, conducting operations that historically the CIA had carried out, and running missions without an ambassador’s knowledge or approval.

Rumsfeld had pushed in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks to expand the mission of Special Operations troops to include intelligence gathering and counterterrorism operations in countries where American commandos had not operated before.

Bush administration officials have shown a determination to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a legal rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.

Several officials said the negotiations over the 2004 order resulted in closer coordination among the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, and set a very high standard for the quality of intelligence necessary to gain approval for an attack.

The 2004 order also provided a foundation for the orders that Bush approved in July allowing the military to conduct raids into the Pakistani tribal areas, including the Sept. 3 operation by Special Operations forces that killed about 20 militants, American officials said.

Administration officials said that Bush’s approval had paved the way for Defense Secretary Robert Gates to sign an order — separate from the 2004 order — that specifically directed the military to plan a series of operations, in cooperation with the CIA, on the Qaeda network and other militant groups linked to it in Pakistan.

Unlike the 2004 order, in which Special Operations commanders nominated targets for approval by senior government officials, the order in July was more of a top-down approach, directing the military to work with the CIA to find targets in the tribal areas, administration officials said. They said each target still needed to be approved by the group of Bush’s top national security and foreign policy advisers, called the Principals Committee.

America The Beautiful – Hope For The Rest Of Us

This first post is a great look at what has happened to this Country. The second post furture down express how I feel about the election results and was also well written by an American in Italy. 

“The sun will come out tomorrow,” Little Orphan Annie sang in “Annie,” the long-running Broadway classic.

Well, on the morning of November 5, the sun wasn’t shining for over 55-million Americans, including me, who voted for a McCain-Palin administration. But the sun was blazing in another way for the historic election of Barack Obama as the first person-of-color to be elected President of the United States.

For those who witnessed, as I did, the violent racial strife of the 1960s, the assassinations of the most ardent advocates of minority civil rights, and also the redemptive messages and effective actions of Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, it is stunning to realize that, not 40 years after blacks were being murdered for aspiring to equality, a person-of-color has been elected to the highest office in the world.

And for those of us lucky enough to have also witnessed men walking on the moon, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the invention of the Internet, President-elect Obama’s election is yet another affirmation of the exceptionalism of America – its limitless opportunities, God-given freedoms, bountiful generosity, and the essential optimism and decency of its citizens.

For nearly two years, our electorate has watched and listened as the candidates presented their versions of the American Dream, explained or rationalized their past and current associations, and defended their stupefying verbal gaffes.

Like other conservatives, the American Dream I prefer is about small government, low taxes, a free-market economy, domestic-energy independence, a judiciary that strictly interprets the Constitution, and value for the life of the unborn. But the American electorate – besieged by a shaky economy and entranced by a charismatic “change” agent who stood for none of these values – strangely opted for a candidate who touts big government, high-taxes, strict curbs on domestic drilling (and the destruction of the coal industry), leftwing Supreme Court justices in the mold of Ginsburg and Stewart, and a remarkable distain for the value of in-utero infants.

It almost makes you believe that the people who voted for Obama have been living in an alternative universe. After all, under the first six years of President Bush’s stewardship, the economy soared to heights previously unknown, consumer confidence was at an all-time high, unemployment levels were unprecedentedly low, and the affordability of both gas and food was never a topic of conversation. But from the minute Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006, the downward spiral began:

  • Consumer confidence plummeted.
  • The cost of regular gasoline soared.
  • Unemployment escalated by 10%.
  • Households saw $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate through stock and mutual fund losses.
  • Home equity dropped by trillions of dollars and untold numbers of homes are in foreclosure.
  • Food prices skyrocketed over 30% in 1 year.

In spite of this, our electorate selected a man who promises a trillion dollars in new spending and draconian tax hikes on the most productive members of our society. His election inspired plenty of dancing in the street – both here and overseas – but the stock market reacted by taking the greatest plunge in history after a presidential election. It’s going to take a whole lot of “hope” to get us out of this Democrat-created mess!

That said, if the Supreme Court decides that Mr. Obama meets the Constitutional mandate of being a legal citizen of the United States – an issue that has still not been resolved – I wish him good health, as well as wisdom and strength, in the daunting tasks that lie ahead of him.

If The Supreme Court Decides…?

At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1. At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond.

If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.

“I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power – even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”

Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.

Giving Credit

Mr. Obama’s victory on November 4 has been attributed not only to his own personality and message of “change” and “hope,” but also to a highly efficient ground operation, an uncritical – indeed fawning – leftwing media, and the ability to raise a staggering $650 million (much of it from foreign sources, the names of whom have still not been reported). Also unreported, but a crucial part of his success, has been the heroic work done – historically – by Republicans.

It was a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, who sacrificed everything – including his life – to fight a Civil War that ended slavery.

As documented by Diane Alden for Newsmax.com:

  • During the Civil War, Republicans planned the most significant amendments ever to our Constitution and enacted – despite fierce opposition from the Democrats – the 13th Amendment to ban slavery, the 14th Amendment to protect all Americans regardless of the color of their skin, and the 15th Amendment to extend voting rights to African-Americans.
  • “Every man that wanted the privilege of whipping another man to make him work for nothing, and pay him with lashes on his naked back, was a Democrat.Every man that raised bloodhounds to pursue human beings was a Democrat.Every man that cursed Abraham Lincoln because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation was a Democrat,”wrote Robert Ingersoll in 1876.
  • For its first 80 years, the Republican Party was the only one to provide a home for African-Americans.Until well into the 20th century, every African-American member of Congress was a Republican. The same was true for nearly all state legislators and other elected officials.
  • In 1888, Republican Senator Aaron Sargent introduced the “Susan B. Anthony” Amendment to the Constitution, according women of all races the right to vote.Strong Democrat opposition to what would become the 19th Amendment delayed ratification until 1920.

But that’s ancient history, you say. Okay, how about the 20th century?

  • In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of their votes, while the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. See here and here.
  • When President John F. Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he could have voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, but he didn’t. This Act only passed with the help of Republicans. After JFK was elected president, he failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962.
  • In 1963, Kennedy decided to act on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but faced a filibuster by southern Democrats. Republicans favored the bill, which would have failed without their votes.
  • Hubert Humphrey, a member of Congress when Democrats held both houses of Congress, admitted that, “without the leadership and help of Republicans,” legislative efforts “would have been watered down or failed because of obstinate Democrats – i.e., the Dixiecrats.”
  • The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity,” Alden says.
  • The Republican Leader in the Senate, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), wrote the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and was the person most responsible for defeating the Democrat filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed the House of Representatives with 80% Republican support but only 61% of Democrats.
  • In the Senate, 82% of Republicans supported the bill compared to 69% of Democrats.
  • Similarly, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was supported in Congress by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats.Democrats vigorously opposed Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of African-Americans, from Reconstruction until well into the 20th century. In much of the country, racist Democrats virtually destroyed the Republican Party, which did not become a force in those areas until President Reagan’s message of freedom and equality prevailed in the 1980s.Today, the Republican Party continues its historical commitment to civil rights at home and around the world.
  • In 2004, [America celebrated] the 150th anniversary of the GOP as well as the 50thanniversaryof Brown v. Board of Education – a watershed of the modern-day civil rights movement.In May 1954, former Republican Governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Earl Warren, appointed Chief Justice by Republican President Eisenhower, wrote this landmark decision declaring that “separate but equal” is inherently unconstitutional.To help enforce this principle, the Eisenhower administration drafted the 1957 Civil Rights Act and guided it to passage over a Democrat filibuster.

The Four S’s

In Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, Frances Rice, Chairman of the National Black Republican Association, tells us that, “in that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.” Rice continues:

  • It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
  • The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks.
  • The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
  • It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools.
  • Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
  • President Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.
  • President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
  • In 1968, after riots broke out in Tennessee where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
  • Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
  • It was Republicans who founded the historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  • Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
  • President Johnson, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights.Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”
  • Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Republican Senator Strom Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

“Today,” Rice says, “Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats.” In 2004, they blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. They are opposed to school-choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools, and they blocked Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
 
“Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years,” Rice adds, “and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars has been spent on poverty programs…with little, if any, impact on poverty.”

These are facts – you know those pesky little things that liberals abhor. But in spite of the Democrats’ historical racism, their abominable record in serving the needs of the black community, and their obvious inability to handle our economy, there’s a new Democrat in town, once again promising the moon.

Will The Sun Come Out Tomorrow?

Mark Alexander, the publisher of http://www.patriotpost.us/, quotes George Washington, who said: “We should never despair. Our situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.”

Alexander, ala FDR, calls the election of Barack Obama “a date which will live in infamy.” “Liberals have elected a Socialist with deep ties to cultural and ethnocentric radicalism, and his executive and legislative agenda pose a greater threat to American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great republic.“Obama has twice taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” He has never honored that oath, and, based on his policy proposals and objectives, he has no intention to honor it after again reciting that oath on 20 January 2009. Obama seeks to, in his own words, “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

My perspective is not so bleak. We still have an influential conservative media, a growing number of exciting conservative stars on the political horizon, and an electorate that voted in huge numbers for a Republican candidate who was outspent by multimillions, shamefully savaged by a biased media, and distrusted by many of his fellow Party members. We won’t make that mistake again! And we won’t make the mistake of not reminding the electorate just how contributory we Republicans have been in fighting the Democrats to bring about true racial justice in our country.

Until and unless the socialists among us take away our rights, my country will always be America the Beautiful to me.

Joan Swirsky (http://www.joanswirsky.com/) is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com.

I’d like to say from a PUMA in Italy.

By Sara In Italy, Guest Author

Posted Wed. Nov. 5 2008, at American Puma In Italy

Watching the Obama supporters last night, with tears streaming down their faces, their screaming, clapping, dancing and fainting, I have to admit I was a bit emotional myself. I appreciate what this means to African Americans, you could see it on their faces. Juan Williams cried through his whole commentary.

And, as opposed to an Obama presidency as I am, I still hold dear, and respect and value the Office of the Presidency, the symbolism of that office. These kinds of things make me weepy, as does the National Anthem. I can’t help it.

And, although many of you might disagree, I am not bitter, or angry. I am just interested, opinionated, and involved, and I supported and voted for someone else. But as much as I can understand what this means to his supporters, it is unfortunate that what this year meant to those who supported Hillary Clinton or John McCain and Sarah Palin, wasn’t understood.

I’d like to say that I think Obama transcended race, and is truly a new kind of Politician. But, then I remember the number of times people who opposed him were called racist. I can’t forget the Clinton’s painted as racists, her supporters, then Palin, and McCain themselves, as well as their supporters. I can’t forget the number of times I was called racist on my blog, or online from the very first day.

I’d like to say that as I watched Michelle on stage last night, that I felt pride that she will be our first African American First Lady. But, I can’t forget the times she said she was for the first time, proud of her country. A country that afforded her an Ivy League education, a country where her family prospered and excelled. I can’t forget her saying that America is a mean country. I can’t forget when she said that she would have to think long and hard before she would support Hillary, should she be the nominee. I can’t forget when she said that *if you can’t run your own house, how can you run the White House*, such an affront to women everywhere.

I’d like to say, as I watched those adorable two girls on the stage last night, the opportunity that lies ahead of them, and all young women. But then I couldn’t help think of the attacks on the children of Sarah Palin. I couldn’t help think of the attacks on her, her 17 year old daughter, and Hillary Clinton, and her female supporters. I can’t forget the public acceptance of the effigy of Sarah Palin, or the Clinton Nutcrackers, or the Sarah Palin is a cunt t-shirts, or the many, many sexist attacks. I couldn’t help remember the nasty comments coming from the left that she should have aborted Trig.

I’d like to say, as I watched the supporters, running through the streets celebrating, that they deserved it, that they worked hard, and put up an honest fair political fight. That they just wanted it more. But then I couldn’t help think of the personal attacks on me, from the day I typed *I support Hillary*. I can’t forget the anonymous personal attacks, and death threats and worse, left on my blog, for discussing the race. I couldn’t help but watch the crowd, and think, “are they someone who called me a whore or a racist c*nt?” I can’t forget the caucus fraud that was witnessed all over the country in the primary. I can’t forget the attacks on African Americans who didn’t support Obama. I can’t forget that someone told Soldier4Hillary that they hoped she died in Iraq, because she supported Hillary. I couldn’t help think of the Black Panthers I saw, in Philadelphia standing in front of the polling place, threatening voters. I can’t forget the death threats on Tavis Smiley for criticizing Obama. I can’t forget the Super Delegates who received death threats for supporting Hillary.

I’d like to say as I watched Hillary and Bill cast their vote yesterday that I believe they supported Obama. But, I can’t forget what Hillary said during the primary, questioning Obama on Rezko and Ayers, and Wright. I can’t forget the constant insults from Obama about the Clinton presidency, and Hillary personally, and professionally. I can’t forget Biden, Edwards, Dodd, and more, tell the American people that Obama is not ready, and not tested. I can’t forget his refusal to release his Senate records, his college transcripts, or his passport.

I’d like to say, as I saw Obama standing there last night, in front of a wall of American flags, giving his speech, that he truly loves America, and is a man of his word. But I can’t forget his excuse for not wearing the Flag pin, and then his political expediency in wearing it. I can’t forget the photo of him not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. I can’t forget the photo William Ayers standing on the American flag. I can’t forget his refusal to release his birth certificate, something that was demanded of Mccain.

I’d like to say, as I watched Obama vote for himself as President yesterday, that I appreciated what an out of body, overwhelming experience that must have been, the pride and excitement he must feel. But, then I saw William Ayers go into the same polling booth, as did Farrakhan. I was reminded of what Obama did early in his career, to get to this point, who he considered appropriate to associate with, to befriend, and to partner with to further his political career. I can’t forget how he exposed his opponents in Chicago, and personally attacked them, to get them removed from the ballot. I can’t forget how he ran his Chicago Districts and his dealings with Rezko, and the state of despair his districts are in. I can’t forget that he didn’t leave that church.

I’d like to say that as I watched him walk to the podium, to give his acceptance speech that he worked so hard, and that he earned this. But I can’t forget what little he has actually accomplished. Yes, he ran a good campaign, he spent more days campaigning then he has ever held a job. I can’t forget all the articles I have read, about his start in the Chicago Senate, and how he was handed bills, to further his career, how his mentor carried him, made himself a Senator. I can’t forget the articles I read how Obama would catch Dodd or Kennedy in the halls and cling to them as they went to present bills, and adding himself to their accomplishments. I can’t forget that he has campaigned longer then he has actually served in the Senate. I can’t forget how he himself said, in 2004 that he was not ready.

I’d like to say, as I saw him standing there, that the people have spoken, and the best man won. But, I can’t forget the thousands and thousands of fraudulent voters registered, the buses of homeless and drug addicts that were driven to the polls. I can’t forget the Obama supporters who have been caught voting twice, the people on the streets saying they voted multiple times, the overseas ballots that have been tossed out. Those four delegates. I can’t forget the actions of the DNC and how they treated the Clintons. I can’t forget the efforts to shove Hillary Clinton from the race.

I’d like to say that as I saw him standing there, and even as I listened to him, and was moved to tears, that he deserves it. I couldn’t help think of the man that did not win. A man who has courageously served his country since he was 17 years old. A man who fought, and almost died for his country. A man who spent five years in a prison in Vietnam, at the same time one of Obama’s neighbors and friends was bombing the Pentagon, and Capital. I couldn’t help remember that Obama gave a book review to Ayers, whose other book was dedicated to the man that murdered Robert Kennedy.

I’d like to say that, although my candidate lost, I trust that Obama will follow through with his promises. But I can’t forget the broken promises he has already made, and the lies that he has told – looking into the eye of the American people. I can’t forget the sliding numbers for his tax cuts.

I’d like to say that as I was watching McCain give his concession speech, that he lost after a good fight. But I can’t forget that McCain couldn’t even fight. His every move, every attempt to put up a good fight was chastised in the media, screams of racism were thrown at him. Even having to fight his own party. As I watched Sarah Palin standing behind him, I couldn’t help think how close we were to having a woman in the White House. As I watched her fight back her tears, I couldn’t help think of all that she has accomplished in her life, being only two years older then me. I can’t forget all the disgusting insulting attacks thrown at her, and how she stayed strong. I can’t forget all of the attacks coming from so called feminists, and how far this election has set us back, as women. And apparently, we really have not gone that far. I can’t forget members of her own party calling her a cancer. I can’t forget the attacks on her and her family, a sitting Governor who has served the people of Alaska, who was asked to join the Republican ticket. The respect I felt for McCain and Palin standing there, moved me to tears. He is a true American Hero, and his service to his country should never be forgotten. I can’t forget the attacks I have read, from the left, on his service.

I’d like to say that Obama is truly a man who was supported by the American people. But I can’t forget the broken promise to accept campaign finance. I can’t forget the millions of dollars of overseas money he as illegally accepted, the millions he has had to return, the unchecked prepaid credit card donations. And his refusal to release the donor list. I can’t forget the millions he has raised and spent, and the promise he broke to get there.

I’d like to say that Obama will be for all people. But can’t forget the personal attacks on Joe the Plumber and anyone who opposed Obama. I can’t forget his pandering to Christian Conservatives in some states, including the gay bashers, his opposition to gay marriage, or his refusal to speak out against the sexist attacks on Clinton and Palin. I can’t forget that Obama pays his female employees less than the men. I can’t forget his double talk regarding Israel. I can’t forget his is associations with Farrakhan, Wright, Khalidi, Meeks, Moss, Dhorn, Ayers, ACORN.

I’d like to say that Obama will help the economy. But I can’t forget his share of the responsibility in the collapse of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. I can’t forget all of the experts telling us how his spending and proposals are going to add trillions in more debt. I can’t forget that he is second only to Dodd, in his two short years in the Senate, for taking money from them.

I’d like to say, as I watched the members of the media praise him, and talk about what a great story this is, that I think it is. But I can’t forget the attacks that they launched on Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, their supporters, and Bill Clinton as well. I can’t forget their utter failure to do their job, to report the facts, not to create the story. I can’t forget their complete and utter bias. I can’t forget their cover ups, and failures to vet this candidate. I can’t forget their personal attacks on an average citizen.

I’d like to say that this proves that America is not racist. But I can’t forget that 95% of the African Americans voted for Obama. For half of the country, their opposition to Obama was not about race. It was his judgment and his character. It was his policies. And for conservatives, it was everything he and his party stands for. White Americans, Democrats, embraced him. He won cross over votes. But those who didn’t vote for him didn’t do so because of his skin color. But those who did?

I’d like to believe that when Obama said that *out of many, we are one* that were true. But for those who did not support him, from the first days of the primary, were told to for example *keep the fuck out of my country* were treated anything but.

I do understand what this means to his supporters, to African Americans, and to people around the world. I do. As I said, I could see it in their tear streamed faces. And it saddens me that I can’t share gleefully in this moment in history.

As much as I want to welcome this idea of change, this new age of politics, this giant step for mankind, this great leap of faith, this huge movement forward in race relations in America, I just can’t forget how we got to this day.

Will Obama live up to *the promise*? As they say, time will tell.

And as far as the DNC now controlling all three branches?

Gird your loins my friends, gird your loins.

Bush Tells Ahmadinejad in UN Speech

If only Bush could say this…

Explaining The Issues For The Obamaphites – Black & Right of NMATV

So Easy A Crack Head Even A Can Understand