Rep. Poe Says SEAL Three Should Be Sent To Capture Another Terrorist

Human Events

Rep. Ted Poe told HUMAN EVENTS he thinks the three Navy SEALs who captured terrorist Ahmed Hashim Abed should be sent back out to capture another terrorist. The SEALs face court martial after Abed accused them of punching him.

Poe isn’t necessarily buying Abed’s story, especially since Abed didn’t launch the accusations until after the SEALs surrendered him to the Iraqis (he supposedly underwent further questioning by the SEALs, while technically remaining in Iraqi custody).  According to the Al Qaeda training manual released by the U.S. Justice Department, members of the organization must complain of torture and mistreatment inflicted on them.

“I think they ought to give them medals, send them out to bag another one,” Poe said of the SEALs. “I think they showed great restraint. We are at war.”

Complete Story:

No Taxation with Misrepresentation?

American Thinker

By Rosslyn Smith

If Congress passes a takeover of health care via dubious means, flouting the consent of the governed, the consequences may be far more profound than dreamed by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama. In addition to violating the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Constitution by changing the House rules to deem that the Senate Health Care Bill has passed, Speaker Pelosi is now thinking about folding the federal government’s takeover of students loans into the process. I’ll leave the discussion of the finer points of constitutionality of this power-grab to those with more expertise in the matter. My own thinking is that with this latest outrage, better political guidance may be found in the Declaration of Independence.

But when a long Train of abuses and Usurpations pursing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to reduce then under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
If the Congressmen who found their town hall meetings last summer contentious actually vote to pass this abomination, it’s a sure bet that they ain’t seen nothing yet when it comes to constituents with their dander up. Nor do I think that some citizens will be willing to wait for November’s election to let the full extent of their displeasure be known.
I am sure that I am not alone in wondering whether I have any civil obligation to obey the laws that this Congress would pass in the manner being contemplated. If they continue to express their contempt for the Constitution as they attempt to amass power, how can I adequately express my contempt with them?

For a Socialist Revolution, Control the Internet

Red County

With the rise of our big-government state, many of us have become almost used to the idea that if government regulators want to do something, then they can. Their power is often considered limitless. And it was on this assumption that President Obama, and his radical FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, based their plans for a government takeover of the internet, under the guise of “net-neutrality”.

Except a small problem for this power grab has arisen: turns out, it probably isn’t legal. In a recent paper by former Solicitor General Gregory Garr, the arguments underpinning the legality of this power-grab were demolished, and even most of the left now concede that, as currently planned, “net-neutrality” would most probably be illegal.

Essentially the issue is as follows. Currently, the internet falls under Title One of the Communications Act. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The problem for proponents of this government hijacking of power is that the power the FCC has under Title One of the Communications Act is rather limited in scope, and they most probably do not have the authority to enact the sweeping regulations that they desire under the Act.

Conceding this point, many on the left have begun to argue that, notwithstanding previous FCC rulings, and Supreme Court precedent, the internet should be moved under Title 2, which currently applies to ‘common carriers’ such as television, and gives the FCC considerably broader power to regulate and indeed micromanage production. Attempts to move the internet to Title 2 have been repeatedly proposed in Congress, and have repeatedly failed, so now the left want to use regulatory gimmickry to bypass Congress and surreptitiously reclassify the internet by Administrative fiat (a move whose legality is questionable, at best).

Make no mistake, if the radical left succeed in this goal, “net neutrality” will be just the beginning. The FCC will have sweeping, overarching, authority to regulate all content on the internet. These are the same people who impose censorship on television, and online censorship will surely follow soon, not to mention all sorts of other restrictions on freedom.

Never forget that the driving force behind this, Robert McChesney from Free Press, is the man who argued – literally – that this is a necessary prerequisite for a socialist revolution, saying “Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution”.

If the left are successful in this power grab, say goodbye to an open, flexible, consumer-driven internet, and say hello to a big-government, regulated, censored behemoth.


How To Pass Bills In Congress Without Voting On Them

In case you missed it last week, Congressional Democrats have devised a plan to pass healthcare reform without House members actually voting on the bills passage. I’ve written about it here and you can listen to David Axelrod explain why Democrats shouldn’t follow Constitutional laws here. But I ran across a great little video that easily explains the Slaughter Solution, or how to pass bills in Congress without voting on them.

Complete Story:

Obama Delays Trip to Ensure Destruction of Health Care System

Canada Free Press

By William Kevin Stoos


Well on his way to accomplishing the last of his three presidential priorities:

  1. Releasing terrorists to kill Americans again (See: Stoos, Obama’s “Adopt-A-Jihadist” Program for Gitmo Prisoners and Obama’s “Adopt a Jihadist Program” Part 2: Gitmo Honor Graduate Resumes Career);
  2. Apologizing to the world for the greatest country on earth (See: Stoos, World Groveling Tour Takes Its Toll: Obama Recovering From Serious Back Injuries) and
  3. Destroying the American health care system (See Stoos, The Future Of Medicine Under Obama Universal Coverage for Health (O.U.C.H.)  President Obama recently announced the delay of World Groveling Tour 2—his long-planned trip to Oceania.

The President announced that he intends to stay back in order to assist Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in their socialist campaign to turn America’s health care over to the government, raise taxes on the middle class, cut Medicare benefits, punish private insurers,  and reduce payments to medical providers. His plan—Obama Universal Care for Health (O.U.C.H)—appears well on its way to passage, He told his plans to veteran reporter, Hugh Betcha, during a hastily arranged private conference call to Hugh’s office at the sprawling headquarters of the Stoos Views International Media Conglomerate in Wynstone, SD—where the air is clean, the crime rate low, people vote red and the centre still holds.

“How do you plan to convince the reluctant Members to vote for the Senate draft of O.U.C.H.?” Hugh asked the President.

“Well, we have many options—as I said previously, I always have a backup plan.”

“Such as…”

“Well, we can use gentle persuasion. The Cornhusker Kickback, or the Louisiana Purchase, for example. They all seemed to work out fine. Of course, those Senators will not be reelected next time, but we got their vote at least. Same thing ought to work on the House side this time.”

“And if bribery does not work?”

“It’s not bribery,” the President retorted, “just selective redistribution of federal funds.”

“And if that does not work?”

“Well, we take to the showers,” the President said sternly.

“You don’t mean…”

“Yeah, we discuss the issues with any reluctant Members in a more casual setting.”

“Such as…”

We send a naked Rahm Emanuel into the shower room after them. Nothing more intimidating than an angry naked man with a knife standing in close proximity to your private parts.”

“Isn’t that a little cruel?”

“Perhaps, but effective. This issue is just too important. It worked on Massa after all. ”

“And if that does not work?”

“We send in Harry Reid. If a naked Harry Reid does not scare them, nothing will. Scares the hell out of me I gotta tell you.”

Repulsed at the thought, Hugh hurriedly changed the subject.

“Why a tour of the Pacific at this time?”

“Need another break—I have been working for a couple months straight now. It is clear that I am going to be a one-termer, so I have to get in as much travel time compliments of Uncle Sugar as I can. Besides, there are still a few countries in the world that I have not apologized to as yet.


“It is the cornerstone of my foreign policy and the best defense we have. I want the world to like us. If they like us, the terrorists won’t attack us anymore.  Simple as that. After all, it is better to be liked than feared.”

“What will be the theme of the tour this time?”

“FORGIVE U.S. 2010.”

“What will you do there?”

“Visit Guam and apologize for freeing them from the Japanese during World War II, visit Indonesia and assure them we are not a Christian nation; and apologize to Australia for providing the nuclear shield that has protected the Free World for 60 years now.”

“Do you plan to prostrate yourself to foreign leaders this time as well?”

“I am sure we can find someone to bow to, yes.”

“What are you doing differently this time?”

“”Packing my knee pads and back brace, just in case.”


Could this ad be Reid’s downfall?

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will soon be facing a public-relations nightmare in his bid for re-election: a TV ad campaign produced by the same strategist whose “Willie Horton” commercial spoiled Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential hopes.

Floyd Brown, author and president of the Western Center for Journalism, created the infamous “Willie Horton” commercial accusing then-Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis of being soft on crime. The ad, which focused on convicted murderer William Horton, who was granted a weekend furlough under Dukakis and who used his freedom to flee, rape and murder, sent the Dukakis campaign flailing to the defensive and is credited with contributing to the candidate’s loss to then-Vice President George Bush.

Now a pair of political-action committees have hired Brown to create a new series of independent-expenditure advertisements that allegedly expose Reid’s record of political corruption and ties to Arab money

Complete Story:

Graham blasts Axelrod: ‘Tired of this crap’

The Hill
By Eric Zimmermann

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was not happy with David Axelrod’s dismissal of Republican healthcare arguments this morning, calling it “crap.”

Appearing before Graham on ABC’s “This Week,” Axelrod had brushed off Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) criticism of healthcare reform, saying that Brown had voted for a very similar package for his home state of Massachusetts.

“Senator Brown comes from a state that has a healthcare plan that’s similar to the one we’re trying to enact here,” Axelrod said. “We’re just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have.”

That argument rubbed Graham the wrong way.

“The American people are getting tired of this crap,” Graham said of Axelrod’s comments. “No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington.”

The reform package passed in Massachusetts did include a health insurance exchange and individual mandates, similar to what Democrats have proposed on the naitonal level. But Graham said the key differences lie in how the package was paid for and what the secondary effects would be.

“They didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts,” Graham said. “They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts.”


Justice’s wife launches ‘tea party’ group

Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington

As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the “tea party” movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.

“I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you,” she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama’s “hard-left agenda.”

But Thomas is no ordinary activist.

She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative “core principles,” she said.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

“I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country,” Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great.”

The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation’s highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.

Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn’t attend the State of the Union because it is “so partisan.” Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.

Experts say Virginia Thomas’ work doesn’t violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.

“I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics,” said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. “Scot” Powe, a court historian.

He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. “I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it,” Powe said.

Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage.

“We expect the justice to make decisions uninfluenced by the political or legal preferences of his or her spouse,” said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics.

Virginia Thomas declined to comment in detail about her plans for, which she said would fully launch in May. In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.

“I don’t involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there’s a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?” she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP.

In 2000, while at the Heritage Foundation, she was recruiting staff for a possible George W. Bush administration as her husband was hearing the case that would decide the election. When journalists reported her work, Thomas said she saw no conflict of interest and that she rarely discussed court matters with her husband.

“We have our separate professional lives,” she said at the time.

In fall 2008, when Thomas joined Hillsdale College as an administrator, she called the school’s Washington campus “the safest place for me to be when it comes to conflicts.” Her new endeavor could signal a return from that shelter.