Friday, January 05, 2007

Democrats Declare “A New Era”

January 5, 2007

In an email received just today from Democrats Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel declaring “A New Era,” we read, “Democrats swept to a historic victory by promising the American people an end to the gridlock and the mindless partisanship that was slowly destroying our nation.

Naturally, the statement is followed by the obligatory “We intend to keep our promise” [this time] (added).

So, how does this “New Era” begin? In a move to end gridlock, Democrat Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi uses a House rule to deny Republicans any input or comments whatsoever on their bills they are currently ramming through the House without even Committee reviews.

It is certainly an end to gridlock, but hardly what I would call “bipartisan.”

If we really want an idea of just what this “New Era” will be like all we need do is look back prior to 1995 when Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Maybe if the Congressional Republicans had looked back at how America turned away from those actions instead of mirroring them themselves, they might not have lost political power.

In labeling this “New Era” as “Historic,” left wingers seem to forget that Democrats controlled the House for 40 years prior to 1995. Of course, seating “Stretch” as Speaker of the House is a first in that a female has never held that seat before. But seriously, a politician is a politician, male or female, especially when it comes to left winged liberals like “San Fran Nan.”

In her declarations of “the most ethical Congress in History,” the first two or her nominees for leadership positions both have extensive scandalous and ethical histories of their own. In her nomination of chairman of the House Intelligence Committee she passed over the Democrat “female” Jane Harman, who has sat on the committee for some 8 years and was the ranking Democrat on the Committee, in favor of Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) a male. Maybe “Stretch” only has room for one “historic” moment at a time.

Missing from this “New Era” and “historic” takeover were the comments from our allegedly unbiased lamestream media pundits as to what Republicans must do to return to power next election, as we heard immediately after every election in which the Democrats lost since 1995.

Comments heard on NBC’s Today Show were, "Look, it's a very historic day on Capitol Hill. Nancy Pelosi the first woman to become Speaker of the House. I'm excited as a woman to see that happen." Meredith Vieira.

"It's a history making day on Capitol Hill. Democrats take control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12 years and they're set to elect a woman, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker for the first time ever." Natalie Morales.

Comments from NBC’s Today Show this time in 1995 were, "You are sounding very moderate this morning. You and I both know that a lot of Democrats and, frankly, some moderate Republicans are suggesting that ultimately your tongue will cost you." Bryant Gumbel to Newt Gingrich.

"Is someone, anyone, going to have to muzzle the new Speaker a bit?...But should Newt Gingrich watch himself?" Katie Couric to Bob Dole.

"Mr. Gephardt, you called Gingrich and his ilk, your words, 'trickle-down terrorists who base their agenda on division, exclusion, and fear.' Do you think middle class Americans are in need of protection from that group?" Bryant Gumbel to Dick Gephardt.

"By June or July, though Tim, this 100 day edict will be long gone. Is this smart to put the 100 day deadline on the House of Representatives. Are they trying to have expediency at the risk of well thought-out legislation?" Katie Couric to Tim Russert.

I imagine Pelosi’s “100 hour” push of her agenda doesn’t qualify for “expediency at the risk of well thought-out legislation.”

Another part of this “New Era” is John Murtha’s declaration of Extensive Hearings on Iraq. He promises to hold hearings on “accountability, military readiness, intelligence oversight and the activities of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, everything except TO WIN.

Winning the ongoing war against terror in Iraq seems to be the one thing not in the cards with Democrats and their “New Era.”

House Speaker, Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid today sent their Letter To President Bush in which they say, “ No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq,” and “ we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months,” and, “ only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.”

Don’t forget these are the same Democrats who were recently up in arms over the Iraqi’s execution of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein because they didn’t follow a U.S. model.

The letter continues, “Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq.” What they refuse to take into account are calls from the troops of Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”

We have seen this “New Era” once before. In the early 1970’s under pressure from the anti-liberty pundits of both parties, we initiated a “peace with honor” “responsible redeployment” from another ally in need of our help from falling victim to Communists, South Viet Nam. As the former Soviet Union and Red China rebuilt and resupplied the forces of the invading North Vietnamese Communists our Democrat led Congress refused to help the struggling country of South Viet Nam in any manner. We totally cut them off and left them all alone, leading them to fall and the Communists to take over in April of 1975 and making a mockery of 58,000 brave Americans who sacrificed their lives to keep Viet Nam free, not to mention the rest of the 2.5 million of us who served there and survived.

“New Era” Democrats in the 1970’s brought up to the highest inflation rates we have ever seen as a nation and the embarrassment of being labeled a “Paper Tiger” by our enemies over our refusal to help a friendly ally. It brought us to attack and hostage taking of our embassy in Tehran, Iran which is directly the start of today’s War on Terror, when we finally fought back under President George W. Bush.

Today’s “New Era” Democrats wish to repeat the folly of abandoning another friend to radical Muslim terrorists in their false belief of “if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.” As has been repeatedly said, “if we leave, they will follow us.”

As we end up with ever rising taxes, higher gas prices, increased unemployment and most likely another horrific terrorist attack somewhere, all I can say is “don’t blame me, I voted Republican.” For Republicans that decided to “teach the GOP a lesson,” thanks for nothing. Your day of realizing My God, What Have I Done? is coming too.

Lew

UPDATE: A Seattle Times article yesterday, One man’s obsession with Iraq informs us of even more lunacy from the Democrat party. It seems that Dal LaMagna, Maria Cantwell's campaign co-chairman and Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott both flew to Amman, Jordan to meet with members of the Iraqi parliament and others.

McDermott is trying to gain Visas for two unidentified Iraqis to travel to Washington D.C. with the express purpose of telling Americans to "get out of Iraq." McDermott and LaMagna claim they have developed a plan they say reflects what Iraqis want. They want U.S. troops out of the cities and sent to close the borders with Iran and Syria. They also want the Iraqi constitution rewritten and the former Baath party government brought back to run things. To protect the country, the old Iraqi army must be reconstituted and rearmed.

In other words, these two Democrats desire to undo every advancement made in Iraq in favor of restoring it to what it was prior to our invasion and the desposing of Saddam Hussein.

I wonder if they also plan on resurrecting Saddam to lead the country and murder, rape and gas his own citizens, all over again.

4 comments:

Toni said...

OMGoodness! What a terrific and accurate run down of potential future. I LOVED IT! I voted republican too by the by. I have no problem 'staying the course'. I'd rather it be us that sets the course than us be the course!

On that next day that lives in infamy maybe John Murth, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan and the rest will all have front row seats for an up front and personal experience of the road that leads from radical fascists of any kind to the land of stars and stripes.

Of it all, I dread most any reversal of our economy. The markets are a harbinger of the possible things to come! I just hope the next president's last name is the same as the former Mayor of NY in 2001!

Lew Waters said...

Hi Toni, I haven't chosen a candidate to back yet, too far out for me.

I fear this is gong to be a evry rocky two years while we wait to see who next sits in the White House and who controls Congress. So far, it looks dismal for the country.

For more info on what we can expect, check out the update I posted above. Hard to believe someone as Baghdad Jim McDermott (D. Wa.) is called an American or holds any seat of power within our government.

coboble said...

I intend to write my congressman about the lockout. This disgusts me.

But as far as anything else goes, I am adopting a "wait and see" attitude.
I was too quick to anger over the idea they would choke funds as a tool to stop the war, and this was pre-mature.

As far as reversal of our economy goes, I was better off 6 years ago. I was seeing pay raises which had caused my pay to double in 3 years. I have not had a pay raise in 6 years. I had really good job security, now I fear loosing my job on a pretty regular basis.
So from my little corner of the world, the economy is worse. I get that this is a narrow view of things, but as long as I am going to decide it is o.k. to fight a war, to protect my own country (at a cost to other countries), then why not desire economic policies which reflect my own personal economic security at a cost to other people's. (I am sort of kidding, but the selfishness level of my views do waver a lot).

Lew Waters said...

My fear on funding the troops is if the Democrats play hardball with Bush on proposed tax increases he would most likely veto. Speculation on my part, but I can forsee them stalling funding bills if Bush threatens vetoes on tax increases.

Both parties play politics this way and personally, I don't care for it.

Democrats are "strongly urging" a "responsible redeployment" of the troops, which any way you cut it is a retreat, a withdrawal. Just this morning on Foxnews, the new head of the House Homeland Security Committee was being interviewed about the 3 middle eastern men being stopped at the Port of Miami, 2 hiding and the driver not knowing what his cargo is (waiting for more information on this one) and he was asked about the "redeployment."

Of course, he agrees with Pelosi and Reid about pulling out soon. In standard Demo-speak, he said about the proposed troops surge, "that's not the answer."

I'm still waiting to hear, what is the answer, then.