The Talk Show American

THE TALK SHOW AMERICAN: 11/12/2006 - 11/19/2006

Friday, November 17, 2006

Dem Agenda Aready Under Fire

Donald Lambro has a great piece on Townhall.com about the Dems Agenda, here are excerpts below:

When the Democrats were campaigning to take over Congress, they benefited from a tidal wave of political anger aimed at the Republicans who had been in charge for the past 12 years.

But as the Democrats prepare to take control of the House and Senate, it is their legislative proposals that are in the spotlight, drawing much closer critical scrutiny than they received in this year's election. As one top GOP political strategist told me, "They are the ones who are in trouble now." The Democrats won't assume power until January, but their proposals to pull out of Iraq, slap a higher minimum wage on small businesses and raise taxes, including the tax on dividends and capital gains, are already taking hits.

In some cases, the criticism is coming from people who were among the Republicans' severest critics. People like retired Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, who called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation and has been a critic of the conduct of the war. Zinni thinks the Democrats' proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within four to six months would be a disaster.

The Democrats' reasoning behind their plan, if you can call it a plan, is that the prospect of troop withdrawal would put pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to take more aggressive steps to combat the terrorists and end the sectarian violence there.

"Well, you can't put pressure on a wounded guy," Zinni told The New York Times last week. "There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence."

One of the Democrats' major campaign promises is to raise the federal minimum wage to more than $7 an hour, but small-business lobbies are already gearing up to battle the proposal they say would hurt smaller enterprises that have been the engine of job growth in the United States.

This would be a job killer, plain and simple. If it became law, millions of small businesses would find ways to trim their employment force, reducing the number of entry-level jobs that are critical to helping people get on the first rung of the economic ladder.

The businesses most severely hurt would be the younger start-ups that are still struggling to get established and that have not built up their payroll capacity to the much higher levels the Democrats would mandate by legislative fiat. Economist John Cogan at the Hoover Institution said, "This would hurt small businesses, especially in the South" where wages tend to be lower than in other regions of the country. But Cogan thinks the Democrats' plan would face numerous hurdles in Congress and very possibly from Democrats themselves, particularly in the Senate.

"There will be Democrats who don't want to stick it to small business," Cogan told me.

Democrats also hope to repeal the capital-gains and stock-dividend tax cuts that Republicans passed and President Bush signed into law, reforms that unlocked needed venture-capital investment that created jobs, lifted the stock market to record levels and boosted worker pension wealth.

Hundreds of companies have begun offering dividends as a result of the GOP's pro-growth initiative, and the lower tax rate on capital gains has made it more profitable to sell stock, spawning increased tax revenue that has helped to shrink federal- and state-budget deficits.

If Democrats vote to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, they are going to encounter fierce opposition from two powerful constituencies, many of whom voted for them on Nov. 7: Millions of retirees and those soon to retire who depend on a lifetime of stock investments for their income; and the financial industry and investors who have plowed larger capital gains into new investment opportunities, boosting the nation's economy in the process.

The Democrats' campaign mantra that it's time for a change apparently appealed to a lot of dissatisfied Americans. But once these voters learn the fine print in the Democrats' plans, many may begin to think this wasn't the change they had in mind.

Detroit Airport Arrest Reveals Nuclear Info

A man was arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after officials say they found him carrying more than $78,000 in cash and a laptop computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide.

Sisayehiticha Dinssa, an unemployed U.S. citizen, was arrested Tuesday after a dog caught the scent of narcotics on cash he was carrying, according to an affidavit filed in court.

When agents asked him if he had any cash to declare, he said he had $18,000, authorities said. But when agents checked his luggage, they found an additional $59,000. When they scrolled through his laptop, they said they found the mysterious files.

At a court hearing Wednesday, Dinssa was ordered held in custody until at least until Monday at the request of prosecutors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leonid Feller argued Dinssa was a potential risk to the community and federal agents want to get a warrant to search his computer more thoroughly, The Detroit News reported Thursday. U.S. Magistrate Donald Scheer approved Feller's request to detain him.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Majority Doubt Dem Have Plan for Iraq

Iraq remains the top priority coming out of the midterm elections.

That's according to a new A-P-Ipsos poll that shows 37 percent of all adults believe the war in Iraq should be the main focus of Congress next year. It also found that terrorism was the second-ranked priority at 15 percent.

Nearly 60 percent of Americans indicated while they liked the Democrats' pre-election mantra of changing course in Iraq, they doubted party leaders have a plan to deal with the war. That could indicate that voters heard President Bush's campaign attack that Democrats could only criticize what he had done in Iraq, but had no plan of their own.

The poll of just over one-thousand adults was conducted between November tenth and 12th, after Democrats won a majority in both the House and Senate.

Dems Elect Hoyer as Majority Leader, Not Murtha

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was elected House majority leader this morning, defeating Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi's candidate, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

Hoyer won the No. 2 leadership job easily -- 149 to 86. But the showdown divided the Democrat House caucus only a week after its party won a majority of seats in the Congress that begins meeting in January, and prompted numerous complaints that Pelosi and her allies used strong-arm tactics and threats to try to elect Murtha to the job.

Murtha, 74, a former Marine who was among the first on Capitol Hill to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, may have hurt his own chances Tuesday night when he derided the Democrats' ethics and lobbying package before saying he will push for its passage anyway out of deference to Pelosi. His statement, at a gathering of conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, was cited by Hoyer backers as further proof that Murtha's controversial ethics record disqualifies him to lead the party in a new political era.

Pelosi's aggressive intervention on behalf of Murtha baffled and angered many Democrats, who said she unnecessarily put her reputation on the line out of misplaced loyalty to a friend and because of a long-standing feud with Hoyer, the minority whip. Pelosi pushed Murtha's candidacy at social events, in private meetings and with incoming freshman Democrats; they were called to her office to discuss committee assignments, only to hear first that she needed Murtha in order to be an effective leader.

One conservative Democrat said that a Murtha-Pelosi ally approached him on the House floor and said pointedly: "I hope you like your committee assignment, because it's the only one you're going to get."

In a phone call initiated by Murtha that same day, the lawmaker told the longtime politician that he had already signed a letter of support for Hoyer. The congressman said he was stunned when Murtha told him, "Letters don't mean anything."

Hoyer's supporters complained about such tactics.

"Commitment is something of value in this institution," said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.). "If you have somebody in this race saying, 'Oh, your promises don't really mean anything in a secret ballot,' that bothers me, and it should bother a lot of people."


Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the powerful Appropriations defense subcommittee, has been dogged by allegations that he has skirted ethical boundaries and has thwarted efforts to tighten rules on lobbying. Those questions were amplified yesterday after at least three attendees at the Tuesday-night meeting of Blue Dog lawmakers complained that Murtha had disparaged the Democrats' ethics and lobbying package.

"He said, 'You know, I believe it's total crap, but Nancy supports it, and I'm going to push it,' " said a senior Blue Dog Democrat and Hoyer supporter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging comments from a closed-door meeting.


Pelosi aides stressed that Murtha remained dedicated to the package's passage, but the dust-up rekindled memories of past Murtha votes. He was one of 12 Democrats to vote against campaign finance legislation written by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), and he was one of four Democrats who opposed an ethics package earlier this year that was designed to contrast the Democrats' tough stance with a weaker Republican bill. He also pushed a rules change to block outside groups from filing complaints to the House ethics committee.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Dem Senator resigns over page scandal

Where's the media outrage?

A state senator accused of sexual misconduct with an 18-year-old page resigned Tuesday rather than be judged by his colleagues, but said he intends to show up for the new South Dakota legislative term that begins in January.

Democrat Dan Sutton's lawyer said the lawmaker did not want to be judged by a lame-duck Senate in a special session led by some of his political enemies.

The session had been scheduled for Nov. 27 to look into allegations that Sutton groped a male high school student who served as a page.

Lawmakers could have expelled, censured or otherwise disciplined or exonerated Sutton.

Despite the allegations, Sutton, 36, was re-elected last week to a new
two-year term with 57 percent of the vote.

The new Senate seated in January can take up the issue.

The scandal arose while Congress was investigating Mark Foley's sexually
explicit computer messages to male pages. The congressman resigned over the furor.


So, where was the main stream news media outrage on this one ? We all know what happened here, he was a democrat so the media buried the story until after the elections.

Dem Site: 10 Reasons to Impeach Bush/Cheney

The website Democrats.Com recently posted:

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming
.

"Doc Farmer" Tells them why they support the impeachment of Bush/Cheney for ten BOGUS reasons:

1. Bush/Cheney did not use fraud to launch a war against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. They used intell data that ALL nations had - and WMDs had been found there in Iraq, including a nuclear program. Furthermore, WMDs were not the ONLY reason for the war, as the motion in the Congress proves. By the bye, Congress AUTHORSED Bush's actions TWICE, and Bush acted well within the Constitutional and legal boundaries of his position as Commander in Chief of all United States Armed Forces. Look it up, unless you only want to be spoon-fed lies from the lib/dem/soc/ commies. Saddam violated 16 previous UN Resolutions, and 1441 provided for the use of force if Saddam broke number seventeen. Also, Bush did not act in a "unilateral" fashion. The Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to take action against Saddam. Further, the "Coalition Of The Willing" comprised over FIFTY nations providing support, with more than THIRTY providing boots on the ground. Want to impeach all of those leaders too?

2.Bush didn't "torture" anybody. Torture - REAL torture - isn't putting panties on somebody's head, or spraying water up their nose (look up how Muslims perform pre-salat ablutions), or making them stand in a cold or hot room. REAL torture is what Saddam did. REAL torture is what the Viet Cong did. REAL torture is what Hitler/Tojo did. There is a marked difference between interrogation techniques which use intimidation, and torture. You little wimpy (Nancy Boys)lib/dem/soc/ commies don't want to face the ugly fact that to get information that saves YOUR miserable hide, you have to use techniques that go beyond tea and crumpets. Also, the ICRC have NOT been denied access to battlefield prisoners (NOT prisoners of war, since they did not wear any uniform nor did they belong to any organised or recognised armed military group under any national flag), they've been to Club G'itmo several times.

3.What part of "we're at war" escapes your admittedly limited comprehension? We can very easily detain "non-Americans" when we pull them off a battlefield where they are SHOOTING AT AMERICANS. Non-Americans who are terrorists or even suspected terrorists don't get the protections of the US Constitution, and never were intended to. Due process? They DO get that in military courts under Genev� Conventions and UCMJ, but only IF they are legal combatants. In other words, actual military personnel captured during or after battle. Terrorists get NO such protection, and were never intended to. They're like spies. We (and any other signatory of the Conventions) can summarily execute them on the spot if we so wish.

4.We're targetting journalists? Gee, I thought it was the journalists who were commissioning video tapes from terrorists who were targetting US troops. There is NO evidence - NONE - that proves your thesis that US troops have specifically or deliberately targetted journalists. If that were the case, Horrendo Revolver would've been shot in the first week of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also, we're not violating the Genev� Conventions. We're NOT targetting (deliberately shooting at) civilians. Now, sometimes civilians are killed in a war - by accident on our part, but by design on the enemy's part. You gonna hold the terrorists to the Genev� Conventions? Want to impeach Usama bin Laden or Muqtedar al Sadr? How about Saddam Hussein? No? I guess that you must think they're ALLOWED to specifically target civilians (because they do), or specifically target journalists (because they do). As for white phosphorous, uh, that's TRACER rounds, you ninnyhammer. And the bullshit about depleted uranium has NEVER been banned by the Genev� Conventions. Try READING the Genev� Conventions instead of buying some lib/dem/soc/ commie "interpretation" of the documents.

5.You don't need a warrant to wiretap a foreign-terminated communqu�. If one end or the other is outside the United States, it is NOT "domestic spying", it is international intelligence gathering, and such actions are normal and accepted during a time of war. I'd also remind you that during WWII, FDR's administration would regularly violate "privacy" (which does NOT exist under the Constitution) by opening, reading and censoring paper mail, as well as wiretapping ACTUAL domestic communcations. I don't hear you lib/dem/soc/ commies complaining about that, though...

6.Really? Presidential orders have been a mainstay of the Executive Branch for DECADES, and do NOT violate the law, the Constitution or the actions of Congress. Clinton used plenty of them, as did Carter, LBJ and Kennedy. So, also, did Bush41, Reagan, Ford and Nixon (and many before them). This has been upheld by SCOTUS.

7.Uh, you WON in 2006. How is that obstruction? Further, there is NO legitimate proof that Bush/Cheney or their agents violated the Laws or the Constitution of the United States. You're just pissed off that your side lost for so long. Now you're bitching when you WON?

8.Really? Where? When? How? Who has been indicted and or convicted for such actions? Please provide specifics - REAL specifics, not pie-in-the-sky analyses of non-events.

9.Boy, you're dumb. When it comes to the Executive Branch, the President IS the Unitary Executive. It's not a theory. It has been a fact of this nation since it's inception. Clinton used Unitary Executive power when he went into Bosnia WITHOUT UN OR CONGRESSIONAL approval or even consultation. I don't hear you complaining about that. Furthermore, for the Legislative branch to try to interfere with the Constitutional activities of the Executive branch, THEY are in violation of the law and the Constitution. Want to impeach/eject Pelosi or Murtha or Kennedy or Clinton?

10.FEMA was putting repair and recovery operations in place within 36 hours after the storm had passed. Granted, they could have acted more effectively and efficiently, but so too could have the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana. American Taxpayers have poured billions into that Socialist city on the Sea, and what have we gotten in return? Greater corruption, crime, racism and stupidity, coming not from the Federal Government or from Dubya, but from New Orleans, not to mention the ones who were exported to Houston and decided to increase the crime rates there.


"Doc" Takes 'Em to the Woodshed....'nuff said..."J.R."

Murtha 'Most Corrupt'

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's, D-Calif., commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to be majority meader of the House of Representatives.

Murtha was listed in CREW's report, "Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch)." As reported in the study and by the news media, Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to-play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha.

"Future House Speaker Pelosi's endorsement of Rep. Murtha, one of the most unethical members of Congress, shows that she may have prioritized ethics reform merely to win votes with no real commitment to changing the culture of corruption," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said Monday. "How can Americans believe that the Democrats will return integrity to the House when future Speaker Pelosi has endorsed an ethically-challenged member for a leadership position? Rep. Murtha is the wrong choice for this job."

Not only is Murtha beset by ethics issues, the New York Times reported on Oct. 2 that he has consistently opposed ethics and earmark reform. Sloan continued, "Rep. Murtha's opposition to ethics reform does not bode well for future Speaker Pelosi's promise to enact ethics legislation in the first 100 hours of the new Congress."

CREW's report can be found at http://www.beyonddelay.org.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Terrorists announce plans to attack U.S.

Four terror groups, including militants from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, which the U.S. considers moderate, warned today America is now officially a target for attacks both in the region and abroad.

The terror groups blamed the U.S. for "attacking Muslim land" in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, and for providing support to the Israeli Defense Forces, which last week accidentally hit a residential area with artillery fire while trying to stop rockets from being launched from the northern Gaza Strip into nearby Jewish communities.

Several Palestinian terror leaders in Gaza said their organizations will soon lead attacks against U.S. interests.

"We call upon all mujahedeen in Palestine and around the world to start hitting Americans without mercy. The Americans are destroying Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and are bombarding our Muslim land," read a statement signed by Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees, the Fatah-affiliated Abu Rish Brigades, and a new group calling itself the Brigades of the Believers.

Meanwhile Palestinian terror groups said their organizations will lead attacks against the U.S.

Abu Ahmed, a senior leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, told WND, "We asked the Palestinian people and the mujahedeen to target Americans. American targets will very soon be subjected to our military plans inside Israel and the territories. We are still deciding whether to only target U.S. interests in Palestine or also abroad."

Abu Ahmed said some cells of the Al Aqsa Brigades don't support the call to target Americans, but the majority of the Brigades agree the U.S. should be attacked.

"Most members (of the Brigades) will participate in attacks within Israel and the territories even if some members of our organization don't like this new development (of targeting Americans)," Abu Ahmed said.

The Al Aqsa Brigades is the declared "military wing" of Abbas' Fatah party. Abu Ahmed is a member of Fatah, which the U.S. largely considers moderate. The U.S. has provided large sums of aid, weaponry and advanced military training to Fatah militants.

"We will reach Americans either inside or outside. We will not hesitate to target the U.S.," Abu Abir said.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Election Losses Blamed on Conservatives

My good friend and colleague Jim Kouri wrote an interesting article on the recent elections, below are some excerpts.

Without indepth analysis or examination of what caused the loss of control in the House of Representatives and possibly the US Senate, a moderate Republican group is blaming GOP defeats on Conservatives.

�Tonight the American people made it clear that our party�s decision to ignore the middle of the American electorate was a disastrous one,� said Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

�For the last two years centrist GOPers have warned the leadership of our party of the consequences of pushing a legislative agenda cow-towing to the far right in our party. Our warnings were ignored, and now our party is paying a devastating price.�


�Republican candidates all across the country were hit by Democratic ads attacking the GOP for failure to raise the minimum wage, failure to advance embryonic stem cell research, and failure to pass strong ethics and lobbying reform,� continued Resnick.

But political analyst Mike Baker disagrees with Resnick�s assessment.
�Quite simply, she is wrong. The GOP lost seats in both houses of congress because it got more difficult for voters to see much difference in the two parties thanks to so-called moderates and liberals such as Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snow.�

Using the same language as liberal-left Democrats to describe members of her own party, Resnick said;

�What the extreme right of our party has worked to destroy � centrist Republicans will now step in and rebuild.�

If the GOP allows the moderates and liberals to take total control of the party, look for more defeats of Republican candidates. A conservative revolution may be what�s needed to create the elusive �third party.�

Dems Will Push For Iraq Withdrawal

The "Cut and Run" Party is already chompimg at the bit as evidenced below:

Democrats said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.

"First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.

Democrats will press President George W. Bush's administration to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was "not open-ended, and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said on ABC's "This Week" program.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said "we need to redeploy," but that the decision should be made by military officers in Iraq.

He said on "Face The Nation" program on CBS that he would not insist on a specific date for drawing down troops, but that a withdrawal should start within the next few months.