Impeach Pelosi? Why Not...

I just got an email about how Pelosi could be convicted of a felony for her little visit to Syria under the Logan Act and was gonna post on it, but in doing some research, it appears Hot Air beat me to the punch, you know, 13 days ago when the story was still relevant.

Don't blame me, I think I was taking a blogging break back then...

Anyway, here's the text of the email:

Pelosi arguably committed a FELONY when she traveled to Syria and whispered behind closed doors with Bashar al-Assad, Syria's terrorist-loving leader.
First, the U.S. Constitution implicitly gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy.

In order to make that responsibility explicit, in 17[99] President John Adams initiated the Logan Act, which forbids any American -- "without authority of the United States" -- to communicate with a foreign government with the intent of influencing that government's actions in any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

VIOLATION OF THE LOGAN ACT IS A FELONY! Upon conviction, an offender can be sentenced to prison for up to three years. If she was just a regular person like you, Nancy Pelosi would be a prime candidate for a prison cell.

Why should Speaker Pelosi, third in the line of Presidential succession, get away with blatantly undermining U.S. Foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism? Why aren't our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

Allah seems to think it's a long shot, and he's probably right. In some 200+ years, no one's been prosecuted. But this might be a good card to keep up our sleeves in case those power-drunk, trigger-happy Dems try and impeach Bush (as they so want to do) or Cheney (which they're now threatening). And it all has even more importance with Madame Speaker planning a similar trip to Iran.

CNN Called Clinton's Mass Attorney Firings A 'Clean Sweep'

News Busters has dug up a CNN report on Clinton's mass attorney firings, in which they show just how balanced their coverage is:

...an April 12, 1993 CNN special report where reporter Ken Bode called it a “one-day clean sweep.” Reno declared: “I have asked for their resignations at the request of the President…It’s important that we build a team that reflects our desire to have a Justice Department marked by excellence, marked by diversity, marked by professionalism, and integrity. I want teamwork where we’re both interested in achieving justice throughout America.”

It just so happens that in order to build diversity, Clinton had to fire every single hold-over attorney from a Republican President. The media ignores this story, Clinton firing every single Republican attorney at once (all 93 of them), but talks of how GW's firing 8 random attorneys calls for an investigation "all the way to the top?"

Here's the video from News Busters:

Dems Itching To Stop Corruption, Even If It's Made Up

This annoys me to no end.

Liberals and the mainstream media are whining and moaning that GW has fired a handful (8) of US attorneys while completely ignoring the fact that Clinton fired 93 of them!

And of course, ABC’s "justice correspondent" Pierre Thomas was quick to note:

Democrats suspect key White House advisor Karl Rove played a role in the firings and they want to investigate whether Republicans on Capitol Hill also were at play.

ABC is playing this as a scandal with the makings for "a trail that points straight to the top." However, no crime was committed here! Sound familiar (I'm looking at you, Ms. Plame!) Drudge today links to the very law that clearly states "United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President."

What is it liberals don't get about this! You waste people's time when you investigate things that aren't illegal! If the Democrats are so itching to take down corruption, they only need to look within their own party! Alcee Hastings, John Murtha, Harry Reid, William J. Jefferson, John Conyers, and Alan B. Mollohan, to name a few.

And now it looks like GW may have to throw a loyal staffer to the wolves. From Mexico (where he's busy promising Mexicans open borders), GW said "...mistakes were made and I'm frankly not happy about them." Of course, he's not referring to the firing of the attorneys, because absolutely nothing was wrong with that. He's referring to how the political "fallout" was handled.

Now, with Rummy gone, libs are itching for a new public enemy number one, and it looks like they may have found their man in Alberto Gonzalez. They've already started calling for his resignation. How long until he gets sick of the bitching and gives in like Rummy did?

Liberals are literally crippling our country's ability to defend its self. They pointlessly drag members of the Bush administration to court for hearings investigating events that aren't even crimes. They actually charge Scooter Libby for forgetting some dates while being investigated for an act that, surprise, wasn't a crime! They bitch and bitch until members of GW's cabinet resign. Can't they just let the government do its job; defend America? Apparently votes are more important to them than the lives of Americans.

Iraqi Troop Surge Already Working

What do you know, the surge in Iraq is having a "positive impact." Reports The Financial Times:

The top US general in Iraq said on Thursday that the military surge would continue “well beyond the summer”, as leading Democrats in Congress vowed to press ahead with legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

General David Petraeus said in Baghdad that there were “encouraging signs” the military escalation in the Iraqi capital was having a positive impact...

Hmm, a General saying something good about Iraq. Why isn't the media reporting this? They seem to report every ex-General who thinks things are going poorly. It's almost as if the mainstream media is biased. But that can't be, can it? Someone would have said something!

I liked this hidden gem:

The Pentagon this week said 2,200 military police would be sent to Baghdad to help deal with the increased detainee population that is expected as US and Iraqi forces clamp down on sectarian militias.

It's always nice when we anticipate capturing so many terrorists that we need an extra 2,200 MPs to detain them.

And showing that they either have their heads buried in the sand or are, in fact, invested in defeat, the Democrats chimed in:

Just hours after Gen Petraeus gave his first press conference since the surge began, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, said the party would push legislation that would require US combat troops to leave Iraq by August 2008 at the latest, and earlier if the Baghdad government did not make more progress.

They truly want us to loose in Iraq, don't they? Screw the 26 million Iraqis who could be oppressed yet again by a terroristic regime that takes over once we leave, if the Dems make GW look bad it's good for them. And what's more important than winning elections? Apparently, to the Democrats, 26 million Arabs aren't.

And what is this about leaving earlier if the Iraqi government doesn't shape up? I understand the importance of accountability (however, since when do the Democrats?), but is that really a good idea? The Dems are basically saying unless you learn to handle the terrorists yourselves, we're leaving. But if they can handle the terrorists themselves, they won't need us. If they can't and we leave, they'll all die. Great logic, Madame Speaker!

Another little sign of the working surge:

US officials say there has been a fall in the number of bodies discovered in the capital, and Iraqis say that in some districts families driven out by insurgent and militia threats are returning.

I think that line deserves it's own story. If a few Iraqis are murdered, it's a sign of civil war. If the murder rate drops, it shows that the surge might have a "positive impact." Again, what media bias?

All-in-all, positive signs that the surge is already working, and will do great things once in full effect. Hopefully we'll be able to finish our job in Iraq before the Dems pull the rug out from under our troops feet. 26 million Iraqis are counting on it. The question is, what's more important to the Democrats; 26 million lives, or a few political points? Sadly, I think they've already answered the question, and it looks like they prefer genocide to losing elections.

***Update, 6:49pm***

Pathetic, this is how the mainstream media reports this story: "Iraq War Commander: Military Alone Won't Win: Nevertheless, Gen. David Petraeus Says Troop Surge Won't End Anytime Soon." Ah, to be invested in defeat...

The story opens:

As additional U.S. troops continue to flow into Baghdad, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, warned that force alone would not get the job done.

"Any student of history knows there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," said Petraeus. "Military action is necessary to help improve security … but it is not sufficient."

But in his first public comments since taking over, Petraeus made it clear the surge of more than 20,000 additional combat troops won't be over any time soon. After all, he said, all those troops won't even be in place until this summer.

Unreal. Not once did the ABC story mention a single one of the quotes above highlighting the success of the surge. The story closed with this carefully chosen quote:

Petraeus today did not rule out asking for even more troops down the road. He said there are no immediate requests, but that he would not hesitate to ask for more if needed.

Of course he didn't rule it out! As the original, unbiased story from The Financial Times quoted him as saying:

“Right now we do not see other requests [for troops] looming out there,” said Gen Petraeus. “That’s not to say that some emerging mission or emerging task will not require that, and if it does, then we will ask for that.”

Edwards To Boycott Democrat Debate On Fox News

John Edwards knows that he really has not shot at the Democrats' presidential nomination, and so he continues to take a wild shot by trying to appeal to the extreme left of the party:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards won't participate in a debate co-hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party, his campaign said, as party officials tried to settle a dustup over their partnership with the cable network.

Edwards' campaign said the involvement of Fox News, which is often accused by liberals of having a conservative bias, was part of the decision to pass on the Aug. 14 debate in Reno.

"There were a number of factors and Fox was one of those. We're already planning to participate in a jam-packed schedule of debates across this country ... we can't attend every single debate and forum," the campaign said in a statement.

Other factor that have convinced him to skip the first debate: he doesn't want to win. While it may be a good move in some ways to appeal to the nutroots and moonbats and what-not, I think the other candidates have probably realized the best way to win support is to get out your message and distinguish yourself from the other candidates.

See if you can catch the conflict of opinion and truth in the next chunk of article (bolded to help you out):

The two Democratic presidential frontrunners, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have not indicated whether they will attend the Nevada debate. Fox boss Rupert Murdoch threw a Senate fundraiser for Clinton, and is said to have a good relationship with the former first lady.

Online activists and bloggers quickly hailed Edwards' decision as a victory in their campaign to urge Nevada Democrats to drop Fox News as a partner.

MoveOn.org Civic Action says it has collected more than 260,000 signatures on a petition that calls the cable network a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel."

Yeah. Clearly Rupert had the intention of creating a "mouthpiece for the Republican Party" when he founded Fox.

Fox is and will always be a right-wing bogey man to the left, who feel the need to place all of the blame for their failing party on someone or something.

Osama Hussein's Finances

Obama's fuzzy investing:

Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

What to make of this. Some - mostly on the right I'm sure - will see this as evidence that Barrack is as corrupt as Harry Reid. Hell, maybe even getting up there with the big boys like Hillary Clinton (yes, "boy." She has a penis, after all.)

Me? I'm more inclined to see this as two coincidences in what is most likely the gigantic portfolio of a millionaire. Hell, I may even buy the excuse the Obama camp is putting out there:

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.

The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.

“He went about this process to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and he had no knowledge of the stocks he owned,” Mr. Burton said. “And when he realized that he didn’t have the level of blindness that he expected, he moved to terminate the trust.”

To me this is what should be a non-story. But here I am, living in a country of liberals that cook up bizarre, out of the way conspiracy connections like: "Bush was on the same board of trustees as this guy who once worked for a company that once employed someone who was at another time employed by another company that was partially funded by some Middle Eastern guy who owned shares in another company that Osama Bin Laden's brother-in-law's dad once owned."

The left loves to play "10 degrees of George Bush" to tie him to the most heinous criminals, terrorists and despots of our time and then they expect us to just brush something like this under the rug. Well, I'll chock this little Obama fiasco up to a blind trust, but it's a good thing to have in mind the next time someone tells you that "Bush's brother's wife's dad's uncle bought stock in Halliburton - only five years before we invaded Iraq! Coincidence? Please."

Side note: Why on earth is this story in the New York Times. It's either that the NYT has decided that they would prefer Hillary to Obama for president, or, more likely, they feel the need to get the story out there and provide the usual ten paragraphs defending Obama to ever one criticizing him before a more fair and balanced news outlet can crack the story.

John Edwards and Jesus

John Edwards is talking about Jesus, which as any conservative knows, Democrats + Jesus = foot-in-mouth disorder.

The moronic thing that Edwards said:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school.

It's nice to have some Freudian proof of John Edwards' lack of belief in Jesus. And where is that proof you ask? In his wording: "Jesus would be ..." Anyone who actually believes in the Risen Lord, Jesus Christ would have said, "Jesus is no doubt appalled ..."

Just another example of some secular humanist Democrat invoking Jesus in the Bible Belt because they think that the people there are so dumb they'll think, "Hey, I like Jesus too. I should vote for this guy."

Bryan over at Hot Air says about this quote:

Keep in mind that among the rationales for the Iraq war is that it would alleviate the Iraqi people’s suffering under Saddam. Keep in mind that Edwards chides America for ignoring the suffering of others. Keep in mind that Americans are consistently the most charitable people on the planet. And keep in mind that Edwards thinks the Iraq war, for which he voted, was unnecessary. America ignores suffering even though it leads the world in charity, but goes to war unnecessarily to alleviate suffering, and that’s also bad. Keep all that in mind. Congratulations! You have cognitive dissonance just like John Edwards!

I think Democrats should just follow their guts and avoid Jesus.

'Let Them Eat Tofu!'

Coulter has a good article this week (or I guess it's from last week):

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Read it here.

Who's Really Looking Out For 'The Poor'

By: Shane

Since LBJ first had the idea of a Great Society and began to implement massive socialist reforms, the Left has vastly redefined poverty to further their socialist agenda and welfare policy.

As the Washington think tank The Heritage Foundation points out, a rich man used to own a horse, and a poor man had to walk. These days a rich man owns a BMW and a poor man makes due with a used Buick. The difference between rich and poor in America has become merely aesthetic. When we think of poverty, we imagine people who are homeless and starving to death. This just isn’t the case. Liberals and the media have redefined poverty to include anyone who can’t afford to buy the luxury items that the average working American enjoys.

The Heritage foundation's data shows that “Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.” On top of that, 76% of “poor” households have air-conditioning, 75% own cars, 97% have colored televisions (more than 50% own two or more colored TVs), 78% have VCRs or DVD players, 62% have cable or satellite, 73% have microwaves, more than 50% have stereo systems, and 33% have dishwashers.

Welfare isn’t just going to people who could actually use it - the people who are starving on the streets with no place to sleep at night. A vast majority of it is going to people who are simply too lazy to find work. And why would they want to work when they can have a higher quality of living than the average citizen of Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe without lifting a finger?

The Left thrives on creating class warfare; convincing people that they are victims who need the government’s help. This is how they get votes, basically buying them by promising people who feel a sense of entitlement government paychecks for doing absolutely nothing. While the Left is exploiting the poor to gain power, you and I are paying for it through the countless taxes the Left has placed on practically everything, including sales tax on the things we buy, sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, taxes on services such as auto repair and movie tickets, and taxes on our income, among many others.

If you want a government handout, you’d better actually need it, and not just be sitting in a nice house with the AC blasting watching your TV or driving to the mall to pick up some new clothes (and grabbing some groceries with your food stamps while your out). When a vast majority of welfare recipients have a better standard of living then most Europeans, you know the system is no longer helping those in need, but has become a means of redistributing wealth that's so sneaky Lennon, Marx and Mao would be impressed.

If the Left really cared about the poor they would stop stifling economic growth in America with their incessant taxes and regulations. Cutting taxes not only increases government revenue, but it allows the private sector to flourish, creating more high paying jobs, effectively reducing poverty. Government enforced minimum wage laws lead to an increase in unemployment, hurting the poor. Instead of making $5 an hour like they would before a minimum wage increase, many low skill workers would be fired by employers who couldn't afford to pay the new higher wages. Then they make no money at all; how does that help them? By attempting to restrain an increasingly intrusive government from hindering the free market, conservatives are the ones who are really looking out for the poor. Liberals have simply locked America's poor in a vicious cycle of poverty, and all so they could get a few more votes. Ask yourself; who's really helping the poor?

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

We Support The Troops

A cartoon from the IBD editorials:

Liberman May Switch Parties

Is Joe Lieberman finally going to jump ship and join to Republicans? It's a "remote possibility."

"Independent" Sen. Joe Liebeman [sic] receives a mini-profile titled "What Joe Wants," a key question since he is "the Senate's one-man tipping point." Republicans, the magazine says, are "courting him" and Lieberman "has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie."

Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin claims that his side still "counts on him as a friend" even though it is "a little painful and awkward."

Last month, after Lieberman told Democratic chief Sen. Harry Reid that he had "stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time," Time's Massimo Calabresi reveals. "Lieberman has started attending again." But Lieberman also keeps in touch with Bush aide Stephen Hadley "every week or two."

Meanwhile, Hot Air adds this bit of info from Politico:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties, but suggested Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind…

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

“I hope we don’t get to that point,” Lieberman said. “That’s about all I will say on it today. That would hurt.”

It's too bad I'd rather a funded war than a split Senate, but it's good to know that if the Democrats ever get the balls to go through with their real goal of cutting off funding, they may pay the price with control.

Edwards Doesn't Apologize

The third Democrat in so many days to completely eat his words regarding the affairs of the Middle East and the War on Terror:

WASHINGTON John Edwards' presidential campaign wants to make it clear that he doesn't consider Israel a threat to world peace.

A spokesman for the 2008 Democratic candidate issued a statement today denying such a report on Variety.com.

Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Edwards' spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Poll Finds Americans Don't Support Pulling Out Of Iraq

So, here are some interesting poll results:

In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.

• By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
• By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
• Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.
• While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
• By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
• When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.
• 27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
• 23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
• 32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."
• 17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."

The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.

Good to know that the Dems have no mandate. Not that this will change there behavior. Hat tip to wizbang!

New Assault Weapons Ban Before The House Judiciary Committee

A new bill, HR 1022, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007," is set to go before the House Judiciary Committee. It's sponsor is Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]. Some highlights of the bill include:

Instead of banning rifles with 2 evil features, it’s one evil feature. Said evil features are:

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

Expands the list of rifles banned specifically by name.

Bans possession of conversion kits (example, you couldn’t own a rifle and a bayonet lug even if the two weren’t attached).

Transfer of grandfathered weapons would have to go through a FFL.

Bans transfers of grandfathered semi-automatics with regular capacity magazines.

This bill is particularly ugly, folks.

Update: Seems the ban on transfer provision is there to prevent people like my from going out and stocking up on evil black rifles. This happened quite extensively prior to passage of the 1994 ban. Manufacturers cranked out weapons that look like assault weapons and regular capacity magazines in droves. People bought them up and some turned a profit. I personally sold an Oly Arms AR for $1,300 after spending $700 on it two months before.

Update 2: Make sure you write or call your Congressmonkeies and tell them oppose this bill.

Yet another bill that aims to protect law enforcement, how? By banning certain guns based on their aesthetic features? Shows you how much liberals know about guns.

**Update, 5:55pm***

Here's my letter to my Congressman, if you want/need to steal ideas:

Representative Upton,

I would be lying if I said you didn't let me down in your recent vote to condemn the administrations planned "troop surge" in Iraq. But that is behind us now, and I'm am writing you in concern to a completely different issue.

From what I've been told, H.R. 1022, "the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007," is now before the House Judiciary Committee. I beg you to do everything in your power to defeat this bill.

This is classic liberal scaremongering; nothing good will come out of banning guns based solely on their aesthetic qualities. I would remind you that Michigan is state where we understand our rights and have a particular affinity with the Second Amendment. Every American has the right to bear arms, no matter if those arms have a "pistol grip," a "barrel shroud," a "forward grip," or any other merely aesthetic feature.

Once again, I'm urging you not to be part of this liberal assault on the rights of Americans. We need every conservative member of Congress to stand up and show that they won't break under the pressure of liberal scaremongering. Please, do what is right and fight to defeat H.R. 1022.

And even though I linked to it up there in the block quote, here's where you can contact your Congressman electronically (here for snail mail, or by phone).

Peters On The Non-Binding Resolution

PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

Go on. Read the whole thing.

Isle-Crossers

The House passed their little non-binding resolution condemning the Troop Surge, you know, the one that's been working. Anyway, there aren't any articles on that story worth posting, but I thought you might want to know the names of the 17 Republicans that crossed the isle to vote for the resolution:

Reps Mike Castle of Delaware, Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tom Davis of Virginia, John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, Bob Inglis of South Carolina; Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois, Walter B. Jones Jr. of North Carolina, Ric Keller, Fla.; Mark Kirk of Illinois, Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio, Ron Paul of Texas, Tom Petri of Wisconsin; Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Fred Upton of Michigan, and Jim Walsh of New York.

Fred is my congressman. I'm pissed. Someone's getting a very angry letter.

You should also know the 2 Democrats who voted against the resolution, "Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi."

Nancy Continues To Clean Up Congress

Nancy continues to reform her House to represent a less corrupt Capitol:

After being videotaped accepting a $100,000 cash bribe by the FBI and busted with $90,000 worth of loot in his freezer, Democratic Congressman William Jefferson--currently facing an ongoing federal corruption probe--is being awarded a seat on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Hat tip to the Political Pit Bull.

Just a reminder of Pelosi's attempts to clean up Congress: first she supported John Murtha for Majority Leader, and he would of gotten it to, if it weren't for that pesky video of him chomping at a bribe being dangled by an undercover FBI agent (posing as a sheik). Next Nancy wanted Alcee Hastings to lead the Intelligence committee, until there was an outcry from the public who were reminded by the right-wing media of Hastings past as a federal judge, impeached for accepting bribes.

Edwards - Pull Out (You've Got Enough Children)

Here's a little insight into one of the many men who wants to be the commander and chief of our armed forces:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Wednesday that he would immediately pull about a third of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq if he were president.

Congress should also cut military funding to force President Bush to do so, Edwards said.

Edwards is going a step farther than rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who want to cap the number of troops in Iraq to prevent Bush's increase, but are reluctant to cut funding while soldiers are on the ground.

"At this point, the escalation is under way, so blocking it is not enough," Edwards told reporters in a conference call. "So what I'm doing today is calling on Congress to take the next step, which is to cap funding."

Ellison Taddles On Tancredo

Hat tip to Allahpundit over at Hot Air:

This is how it all went down. On Wednesday evening, around 6 p.m., Tancredo was preparing for his trip to Mississippi. And as he so often does, he was unwinding with a cigar.

Soon enough, however, a police officer walked in to check on the smoke. The officer told Tancredo that the officer came because he was required to do so and not because the officer wanted to. The officer had already told Ellison that Tancredo was permitted to smoke in his office. The visit was more a formality.

Tancredo said he would not stop smoking in his office. “Heck, no!” he said. “If he [Ellison] would have [had] the courtesy to say something I’m sure I would have been more accommodating to his wishes.”

To help keep his office free of impurities, Tancredo has three air purifiers. And he has no plans to meet Ellison anytime soon. “I’m sure we will, but I’m not going to make a point [of it],” the presidential hopeful said, adding that he supported Ellison’s right to be sworn in with the Quran.

In other words, Tancredo was smoking a cigar in his congressional office - which is completely legal - and Ellison, rather than asking him to stop (which would have made him enough of a pussy) called the cops on him. Someone needs to remind Ellison that we're not under Sharia law quite yet.

The Democratic Devotion To Failure

From the WaPo:

Democratic congressional leaders vowed today to keep the House debate over the war in Iraq going until midnight, despite a dangerous ice storm that closed the federal government and schools throughout the area.

These Dems really take their job seriously. The only thing that could ever stop them from their mission of serving the people in Congress would be if there was a football game on or something.