Conservative Rumblings

Yep, those good, upstanding people in Guantanamo Bay that the liberals want released since they’ve “done nothing wrong” are actually terrorists who, once released, will GO BACK TO BEING TERRORISTS. Amazing! Shocking!

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi.

An art therapy rehabilitation program? Are you kidding me? We released terrorists and it came back to bite us. Hmm, I swear I predicted something like that would happen and I swear we already went through this song and dance.

This is ridiculous. Once we have a terrorist in our custody, he should stay there. Oh, yes, good idea, let’s send terrorists overseas to a terrorist country to be “rehabilitated.”

Finally he makes a statement…and not surprisingly, it’s nearly as bloodless as his mind-boggling Fort Hood speech.

Here’s what we know so far: On Christmas Day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was en route from Amsterdam, Netherlands, to Detroit. As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.

Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely. The suspect is now in custody and has been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.
[…]
This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.

Emphasis added. Is this guy for real? I mean, does he even listen to the words coming out of his mouth? To call this attempted terrorist attack an “isolated extremist” is grossly incompetent and naive. Al Qaeda has already claimed credit for the attack and promises that there are others in Yemen waiting for their chance.

And what does the Great Obama, the all-knowing sage of Hope and Change have to say? It’s an “isolated extremist” and he’s “ordering a review.”

How about we review your qualifications to be commander in chief, sir. I think they are lacking.

Completely expected, of course. Silly things like the Constitution won’t stand in the way of the Progressive agenda. After all, it’s just an outdated piece of paper anyway in the Left’s eyes. The Democrats know they have an avowed Constitution-hater in the Oval Office prepared to do whatever is necessary to pass a takeover of 1/6 of our economy by the Federal government and they’ve mounted a bullet train headed to progressive/totalitarian hell. Unfortunately for us, we’re all in the passenger cars, with armed guards standing between us and the conductor.

From 1 AM votes to insane manager’s amendments that force a 2/3 vote to repeal Obamacare to bribing and threatening senators, this Congress and president have taken massively illegal and unconstitutional steps to ensure that this monstrously destructive bill is voted into law and forced upon an unwilling American public that would rather the government scrap the entire plan than pass ANY ‘reform’ this year.

During a series of seven votes wrapping up the health care debate, Senate Republicans failed in their last-ditch efforts to derail the bill.

The Senate voted 60-39 to reject Sen. John Ensign’s call to examine the constitutionality of a health care mandate central to the overhaul bill.

The Nevada Republican wanted to determine whether it was constitutional for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

The Senate also rejected an amendment by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, by a vote of 60-39.

I give kudos to the Repbulicans in the Senate for forcing the Democrats to go on record saying that the unconstitutional individual mandate in the bill is not worthy of being challenged on Constitutional grounds. Obviously, forcing Americans to buy a product (in this case, healthcare coverage) is illegal, unconstitutional and reprehensible. Basically, it’s the embodiment of this Congress and administration’s motto.

The government cannot force someone to buy something. Not only is that not a power listed in the Constitution, it’s also completely against our whole founding principle of freedom from tyranny. One of my illustrious Senators from Illinois, Roland Burris, made the idiotic argument a few weeks ago that it was the same as requiring people to buy auto insurance.

It’s not. I can choose not to drive. Under Obamacare, I cannot choose not to buy an “approved” healthcare plan. The heavy hand of the government rests on my shoulder and orders me to buy something I may or may not want.

If I don’t want to buy health insurance, THAT IS MY RIGHT as a free citizen in the United States of America. No government, be it Federal, State or Local can step up to me and order me to spend my money on a product. I have the CHOICE to not buy it.

Well, technically I DO have that choice…but if Nancy Pelosi has her way, I would end up in jail for not buying a government approved plan.

Hey Congress, you lying pack of socialists: tell me again this bill is Constitutional.

While he’s over in Copenhagen trying to apologize to the world for America polluting Africa or something, people back here are getting seriously annoyed with the green agenda. So annoyed, actually, that Obama’s support on global warming issues have dropped a net 32 points this year.

As [Obama] arrives in Copenhagen hoping to seal an elusive deal on climate change, his approval rating on dealing with global warming has crumbled at home and there is broad opposition to spending taxpayer money to encourage developing nations to curtail their energy use, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Of course, the recent climate-gate scandal may have something to do with this. These numbers also match somewhat with Rasmussen’s latest surveys, which show that only 34% of Americans believe global warming is caused by human activity and not planetary trends.

Public skepticism about the officially promoted cause of global warming has reached an all-time high among Americans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends.

Just 34% say climate change is due primarily to human activity, even as President Obama and other world leaders gather at a UN summit to limit the human activity they blame for global warming. Six percent (6%) say there is some other reason for global warming, and 10% are not sure.

Belief that human activity is the primary cause of global warming has declined significantly over the past year. In April 2008, 47% blamed human activity and only 34% named long-term planetary trends as the reason for climate change.

Pathetic. It looks like Reid has his 60 votes to push socialism onto the American public, despite the fact that the majority of Americans oppose the bill.

It appears that the White House threatening to shut down Air Force bases in Nebraska really got to Nelson.

WASHINGTON - With a self-imposed Christmas deadline at stake, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

Democratic leaders offered Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid aid Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support.

I’m disgusted. Let’s look at what we’ve learned from this Nelson debacle. As with Landrieu and the $300 million bribe she was ‘so proud‘ to take back in November, Nelson has proved that he’s just a smarmy little politician who only cares about his own personal gain.

A bribe is a bribe. As I’ve stated over and over again, Obama has brought a pay to play Chicago politics to Washington and this is just another example of it. What’s scary is the second part, the threat to shut down Nebraska Air Force bases if Nelson didn’t play ball with Obamacare.

Think about this. Barack Obama would be willing to shut down a military installation and put thousands of people out of work…for one vote on a socialist healthcare plan. How completely screwed up is this? He’s willing to endanger our national security and kill jobs. That’s not the actions of someone trying to preserve our country. Those are the actions of someone who doesn’t care about America as it has existed for the last 233 years. Those are the actions of someone who wants this country remade into his image of communist paradise and will stop at nothing to get there.

With the Obamacare bill set to pass next week (barring only a miracle that won’t happen given how bullheaded the White House is about getting this passed), a new Rasmussen Poll finds that the bill now has the highest level of opposition yet seen.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
That’s the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Yet again, it seems that the Democrats are running under the “we know what’s best for you” theories. Americans are against this bill in large numbers. So against, in fact, that 57% of voters say it shouldn’t even be passed and it would be BETTER to do NOTHING.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 34% think that passing that bill would be better.

Middle-income voters are more likely than others to say that passing no legislation is the better option.

One reason for this is that most Americans now believe they will be worse off if reform passes. Fifty-four percent (54%) hold that view while just 25% believe they would be better off.

Americans don’t want this bill. The Democrats don’t care. Why? Because this bill isn’t about reform. It’s about control.

Now that the White House’s War on Fox News and War on Edmunds have tapered off, Bobby Gibbs has declared war on yet another company…the Gallup polling company. Why? Because their numbers (which still paint a rosier picture than Rasmussen, mind you), show that Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his term.

President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama’s immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush’s support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn’t “put a lot of stock” in the survey by Gallup, which has conducted presidential approval polls since 1938, longer than any other organization.

“If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. “I’m sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.”

Emphasis added. Bear in mind, however, that Gibbs isn’t attacking Gallup for being inaccurate. He’s attacking them for the same reason the administration attacked Fox and Edmunds: dissent. It’s not currently allowed in our country to disagree with The One or The One’s Minions. Disagreement with Obama is a crime tantamount to treason and is being treated as such. It’s a strategy straight out of Saul Alkinsky’s playbook.

Regarding the actual data from Gallup, however, check this out:

When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent.

The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:

– George W. Bush, 86 percent
– Bill Clinton, 52 percent
– George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
– Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
– Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
– Gerald Ford, 52 percent
– Richard Nixon, 59 percent
– Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
– John Kennedy, 77 percent
– Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
– Harry Truman, 49 percent

Obama is at 47%. Change We Can Believe In?

Love it. The Left is gearing up to eat its own.

Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals who are vowing to “spank” the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.

In a prime-time speech Tuesday from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama is expected to announce that he is sending up to 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan beginning next year.

The figure is short of the 40,000 troops his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, requested — but enough to anger many congressional Democrats who oppose any potential troop surge, arguing that the mission is too expensive and lacks a clear objective.

“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.

“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.

This is amazing on two counts. First, it’s obvious the Far Left wants us to lose this war. Why, you ask? Simple: they’ll blame it on Bush. The deaths of American solders mean NOTHING to the radical left. They think nothing of using our brave soldiers as political capital. They want to see us lose, pure and simple.

Now, in their effort to ensure we lose the war, they want to make sure a troop surge (like the one that completely turned around the Iraq War in 2007) does not happen. If it goes through, there’s a very good chance we will NOT lose. In that regard, they are turning on Obama, which I find hilarious. He counted on the Far Left to deliver his win in 2008, and now that he’s alienated independents with his support for a public option in healthcare and obviously has no support on the right, if he loses the Far Left, well, there’s not many people left on the planet who are going to support this guy.

Keep in mind, I support Obama’s decision if he DOES send 35,000 more troops. Without these troops, it’s very likely the situation would degenerate beyond how bad it is now and we’d be in serious danger of losing control of the country.

Don’t get me wrong and think I’ve gone soft on the Ditherer In Chief. This decision is 3 months too late and cost American lives while he was whining and prognosticating, of course. It’s ridiculous to spend this long to make a decision that your generals recommended; that’s why the generals are THERE, because they are smarter than you when it comes to military decisions (when it comes to Obama this could not be more true). Our Commander In Chief’s entire military experience comes from directing militant union thugs while he was a community organizer.

It’s embarrassing.

Four Republican senators have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit senators to no more than two six-year terms in office, and representatives no more than three two-year terms. To become law, the amendment must be approved by two-thirds majorities of both the Senate and House, and by three-fourths of the states.

Senators Jim DeMint, South Carolina, Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas, and Sam Brownback, Kansas, are the co-sponsors.

The 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to no more than two terms in office. Fifteen states have term limits for various officials, as do many local governments across the country.

DeMint said the amendment is needed because the power of incumbency has grown so great:

“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power,” DeMint said.

If only this amendment had a chance of passing. Unfortunately, there are few selfless politicians; none of the entrenched lifetime politicians like Robert Byrd or Steny Hoyer would ever vote for a bill that would put them out of a job.

Term limits are completely necessary, of course. Congress has become a disgusting oligarchy filled with cronyism and wrapped in corruption. I actually have advocated in dozens of political discussions the necessity of term limits on Congressional representatives and senators, and the numbers in this amendment are exactly what I want to see.

Consider this…if these limits had been in place, who would currently not have a seat in Congress? These would be notable Senators who have served more than 12 years (i.e. more than two terms) and notable Congressmen who have served more than 6 years (3 terms).

Just imagine how great this country would be WITHOUT these people running it. It’s like a laundry list of socialists and big-government advocates.

Senators:
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
John McCain (R-AZ)

Congressmen:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
John Murtha (D-PA)

That’s literally the entire Democratic leadership. It should tell you something that their entire lead crew has been entrenched in Congress for years upon years (and in the case of people like Murtha, Dingell, Conyers, et al, decades).

Now, if term limits were put in place, would good members of Congress who actually help the country be kicked out of their seats prematurely? Absolutely, but unfortunately, we must sacrifice some time given by a few good apples to remove the hundreds of bad apples who are career politicians that care more about their personal agendas than their constituents.

Once again, foreign policy amateur hour is in full session. Barack Obama, in His Infinite Wisdom, has convinced South Korean president Lee Myung-bak that instead of being “mean” to North Korea and isolating them from the world, we should capitulate and offer them a ransom to give up their nuclear weapons program.

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea’s president says he and President Barack Obama have agreed to offer North Korea a “grand bargain” aimed at ending the North’s nuclear program.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Obama, President Lee Myung-bak said the deal would be similar to his proposal for a package of political and economic incentives in exchange for the one-step, irreversible dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program.

Lee’s grand bargain proposal stems from concerns that North Korea would continue to backtrack on promises after winning concessions in negotiations.

Obama said his envoy on North Korea, Ambassador Stephen Bosworth, will travel to the country early next month for the first bilateral talks with the communist regime since he took office.

North Korea has been pushing for bilateral talks with Washington to discuss the standoff over Pyongyang’s nuclear program. The U.S. has agreed to the talks but has stressed they must lead to the resumption of six-nation disarmament negotiations.

North Korea conducted a nuclear test and test-fired a series of missiles earlier this year.

I hope people realize that this is exactly what North Korea wanted. They held out until someone offered to give them what they were demanding. This is essentially negotiating with terrorists. Naive and dangerous, which is pretty much the hallmark of his apocalypticly stupid administration.