MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
DarcPrynce (aka Edward L. Daley)

Edward Daley


Last Updated: 11/18/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: In a Relationship
Age: 46

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
The way I see it, there are ten important things that most Americans want their government to "change" for the better in the next few years, and they are as follows... in no particular order.

1.) Our skyrocketing health care costs.

2.) Our soon-to-be bankrupt social security system.

3.) Our failing public education system.

4.) Our appalling lack of energy production.

5.) Our illegal immigration crisis.

6.) Our crippling national debt.

7.) Our war in Iraq.

8.) Our crumbling manufacturing base.

9.) Our corrupt lending institutions.

10.) Our bloated and ineffective federal government.

Now, before any of you reading this list begin complaining that there's a whole bunch of important things I've left off it, let me just tell you that I'm well aware of that fact. The thing is, I only felt like addressing these particular issues today, so please don't go busting my balls because I didn't include your pet topic here. This is my list and if you don't like it, go make your own.

Ok, so where am I going with this article, you may be asking. Well, since the majority of voters in this country just cast their ballots for a devout Marxist, I thought it would be a neat idea to take a look at how Senator "change" will likely deal with these ten issues as president.

Let's start at the bottom of my little list and work our way up, shall we?

Number 10 - Ouch! So you wanted a smaller, more efficient government, did you? That's a shame, because Marxists don't believe in limiting the power or scope of government. They seek to expand government in every respect, and the larger government gets the more inefficient it necessarily becomes, so you can kiss that dream good-bye until at least 2013.

Number 9 - Hmmm... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by liberal government officials and former liberal government officials who, coincidentally, gave big bucks to Senator Obama. He still thinks they're swell folks, and I don't believe I'm the only person wondering how many of them will end up in his cabinet come January. All the other bankrupt lending institutions that weren't directly run by leftist political hacks, were stiff-armed by them into playing their politically correct, socialist games, and while I don't think it's fair to refer to all of them as corrupt, they still suck in a big way. But regardless of what you may think about these institutions, practically all of them will be getting untold billions of taxpayer dollars for many years to come, primarily because there aren't enough conservatives in Congress left to turn off the monetary spigot.

Oh, and before I move on to the next topic, I should probably point out that I understand George Bush too is all for bailing out the entire money lending industry, as well as all those people who recklessly signed onto home loans they couldn't possibly afford to pay back, but then, who said Dubya was a conservative?

Number 8 - I was going to write fairly extensively here about how Marxism will utterly destroy our manufacturing base by, among other things, eliminating competition - which is the hallmark of capitalism - but if you haven't figured that out already you're too stupid to live. Of course, placing American companies in a position where they have to compete with foreign ones which employ workers for $6 a day to do what Americans won't do for $6 an hour is equally suicidal, but few people in either party seem to care about that fact anymore. Of course, the unreasonable demands of America's many labor unions in recent years certainly don't help matters any... but I digress.

Number 7 - Barack Obama has stated publicly that he wants to bring our brave soldiers home as soon as possible from the battlefields upon which they now stand. Apparently, things like achieving victory first and securing a democratic society in Iraq aren't on his list of considerations in this regard, but hey, why sweat the small stuff? You want the war to end, right?

Number 6 - Three words... TAX AND SPEND.

Number 5 - Believe it or not, there are still some people in our government who want to prevent illegal aliens from voting, deny them welfare payments, punish the companies that knowingly hire them, and build a security fence along our southern border. Unfortunately Barack Obama is not among them, and neither is any Democrat in Congress who matters.

Number 4 - Let's see, Mr. Obama is against drilling for oil in ANWR and off our nation's coasts. He's also against extracting oil from shale, coal mining and building nuclear power plants. However, he is for constructing more windmills and solar panels, so I see no reason for anyone to be concerned about the future of American energy production. [sarcasm off]

Number 3 - For the past four decades, Marxists like Barack and his friends have slowly but steadily infiltrated America's public education system. Prior to this, ours was the best education system in the world. Now it rates among the worst of all the industrialized nations, even though we pay ten times more money for it than we used to. Need I go on?

Number 2 - To be honest with you, I don't recall Mr. Obama ever talking about the social security insolvency problem to any major degree, but if his plan for dealing with this issue is similar to the one embraced by the Democrat party since I was a child, you can count on him doing exactly NOTHING about it.

Number 1 - Barack Obama's "affordable health care" plan is essentially the same one Hillary Clinton championed back in the '90s. In case you forgot, her blueprint for socializing the health care industry was so alarming it was rejected almost unanimously by her own party, and that was before we understood just how horribly similar schemes were working in places like Canada and Great Britain.

Well, that's all I've got to say right now. Feel free to viciously attack me over what you perceive to be my most absurd statements, or praise me for my keen insights and brilliant observations. Either way, I'm good to go.
3:23 AM 
22 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, November 07, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
I've been noticing that a lot of my fellow right-wingers are congratulating the Obama camp for their electoral victory of Tuesday last, and I keep hearing that this is the right thing to do... you know, in the spirit of fair play and all. At the end of the day we're all Americans, right? And even though we're relatively certain that had Obama lost this race, his most fanatical followers would have rioted in the streets while loudly declaring that the election was stolen by corrupt, rich, white people, we conservatives are above that sort of thing. We need to set an example for our political foes to follow in the future by not behaving like the sore losers we know they are. That's the honorable path to take, and as a Christian I need to remind myself that Jesus of Nazareth, were he alive today, would almost certainly agree with this course of action.

That's what I've been told repeatedly over the past few days, anyway, and if that's the way you choose to look at the situation, so be it. As for me, I'd rather be shot in the head than extend my hand to a mindless Obamabot at this point. Does that make me a spoiled sport? A lot of people would say yes, but I don't think so, and I'll tell you why. When I was a kid I too learned to be gracious in defeat and to congratulate those who vanquished me in honest competition. I still believe that's the noble thing to do, and that we should all teach our children to behave accordingly. That having been said, this election was not some football game or spelling bee, and its contestants were not playing for a shiny trophy or sports league bragging rights. No, this was but one of many battles in an ongoing war between two opposing ideological camps, and the stakes are your children's future!

Indeed, this is an epic struggle between those of us who still believe in our Constitution, individual liberty and personal responsibility, and everyone else in America who thinks the federal government is the answer to all our prayers. This is a war, not some sporting event in which the rules remain the same from year to year, and your opponent pats you on the back and buys you a consolatory beer after having bested you. The pugilist code of the Marquis of Queensbury doesn't apply in this case, and neither does the concept of good sportsmanship, because the object of this fight is not merely to have your hand raised in victory, but to destroy your opponent - or at least his ideology - utterly.

Barack Obama's ideology is one of Marxism, and it leads ultimately to the decimation of not only the American dream, but the human spirit itself. It is based not in the belief that the individual is endowed by God with certain unalienable rights upon which no earthly authority may rightly encroach, but rather in the notion that the needs of the collective necessarily override such rights, and that a select few within the highest ranks of the political class should be empowered to decide for the collective what is and is not in its best interests.

Suffice it to say that charming Barry and his cohorts know best what is fair, equitable and morally right, and for this reason they and they alone are qualified to determine under which laws you and I should live. When you elect them to positions of governmental authority, you automatically empower them with the right to manipulate our Constitution as they see fit. That's why they insist upon calling it a "living, breathing document" instead of a contract between the American people and their government, which is what it actually is and was always intended to be.

These neo-communists seek to promote the idea of an all-powerful federal judiciary that's free to make moral judgments on behalf of the entire American population, regardless of whether or not the Constitution -  which every member of this judicial body has sworn to uphold - allows for such judgments. When all is said and done, it's not the rights we say we have that matter, but the ones we're willing to defend with your very lives that really count, and with every Obama-like-minded politician you elect, you take one step closer to necessitating armed revolution among those faithful few American patriots who still value the rights bestowed upon them by their creator.

Don't ask me to congratulate the people who either intend to reshape my country into a Marxist state which bears little resemblance to the America I grew up in, or who are so blinded by fanciful words and pretty faces that they fail to recognize the dangers inherent in embracing the policies of the left, because my response to you will be a resounding GO FUCK YOURSELF! Again, you're free to do whatever you think is right and honorable, but if you're among the folks who think Barack Obama and his ilk are in any way deserving of kind words and a hearty handshake, I suggest you keep your opinions in this regard to yourself .

Maybe Jesus Christ would take the side of the let's-take-the-high-road crowd in this dispute, but I never claimed to be the Messiah - unlike some people I could name - and if God thinks I'm an asshole for refusing to let go of my red-hot contempt for the left, I'm sure he'll let me know eventually. Until that day, however, you can tear up my invitation to your Mr. Nice Guy convention. When it comes to combating fascist left-wingers, I ain't a nice guy, and if I have to take up arms one day to defend my way of life against such parasites, the very last thing I'll be concerned with is how fair-minded I'll look to my fellow Americans once the shooting has stopped.

In the words of General George S. Patton, "Nobody ever defended anything successfully. There is only attack and attack and attack some more!"

That is the philosophy I embrace, and it's one which has served me well over the course of my 45 years on this Earth. I have absolutely zero tolerance for pacifism in the face of tyranny, and I don't think I'll ever be able to respect anyone who would choose to substitute bared fangs for half-hearted niceties, when the former of these two options is clearly called for. But that's just me.

May God bless America, and may He imbue each of us, our children, and our children's children with the wisdom of our nation's Founding Fathers.

P.S.

People like Barack Obama become Marxist politicians because they can't do what the man in the following video can. His name is Paul Robert Potts, and he's got REAL hope. He promises you nothing, yet he delivers near-perfection. When was the last time a politician did that?



2:50 PM 
28 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, October 24, 2008 

Category: Life
...or so say many Christians I've known. And I guess they're right, because I have recently accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and I must admit that the road I've followed to get here has been one painful motherfucker indeed.

Hey, I never said I was a good Christian, but I'm working on it... so cut me some slack.

By any means, lots of you well established Christians out there won't like certain parts of the movie I'm presenting to you below, but if you hang with it, you'll find this semi-comedic psychodrama to be fulfilling in the end...

I promise!  :o)

"Infinite goodness means creating a being that you know in advance is going to complain." - Captain Billy Cutshaw (character from the movie 'The Ninth Configuration')



THE NINTH CONFIGURATION

























7:07 AM 
10 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, October 09, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
Subject: Re: Your Fixation On Our Economic Troubles

Dear Glenn,

I've been listening to your radio program fairly regularly for a few years now. By fairly regularly, I mean almost every morning. For most of that time I've found it to be informative, humorous, and yes, even enlightening. That's the good news. Here's the bad... I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

On what day of this year did you wake up and decide to be the prophet of economic doom for America? For the love of God and all that's holy, PLEASE STOP opening every show with a tedious monologue about how completely screwed this country is. Guess what, the vast majority of us (sick, twisted freaks) know the country is screwed. We get it!

At first it was refreshing to hear you try to explain why our monetary system is on the decline and who's to blame for it, but at a certain point, any alarm one decides to sound begins to be just another loud, obnoxious noise that only serves to annoy those who hear it, regardless of the crisis about which it warns.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that you completely ignore the day-to-day activities of the financial markets or the government. That would be irresponsible, but so is dwelling on the most wholly depressing economic news stories for days on end, and then adding to them your own personal (and even more dispiriting) opinions of our nation's imminent financial perils.

You've managed to take a program that I used to look forward to hearing and transform it into one which, frankly, makes me want to slash my wrists after five minutes of tuning in to it. If I wanted to spend my days brooding over America's monetary woes, I'd watch Neil Cavuto, Jim Cramer or some other cable news network host who specializes in making Americans feel like crap about their collective economic future. By the same token, when I want to be entertained, I'll tune my radio to a station that airs stimulating talk programming... either that or catch the latest rerun of All in the Family on TVLAND.

In essence, I don't want to watch a rodeo clown (your words, not mine) try to be a bull rider, and vice versa. The day that Alan Greenspan starts making wisecracks and talking in silly voices is the day I'll know that the world has gone completely mad and begin tuning in to your show for economic news and information. Until that day comes, however, I strongly encourage you to lighten the -bleep- up!

Oh, and please allow me to state that my name is Edward and I'm NOT an alcoholic, so do you think you could refrain from telling me about your drinking problem once a day, every day? Ironically enough, listening to your show in recent weeks has made me want to drink more than just about anything else I can think of, but thankfully my radio has a tuning dial on it, so I have the option of listening to someone who doesn't plunge me into the depths of despair on a regular basis.

In conclusion, while I am still making an effort to listen to your show, I'm finding it harder and harder to do so. I'm sure you've heard the complaints I've voiced in this letter before from other listeners, and perhaps you believe that the information you provide on the subject of our economy is more important than your ratings. If that's the case then I applaud you for at least having integrity.

That having been said, I also need to warn you against becoming so immersed in the subject that you lose sight of the fact that most people simply don't want to be reminded every day that their country is spiraling down a long, dark tunnel toward imminent disaster... especially when they're already painfully aware that it is. Practically everyone I know who listens to you on the radio tells me that you're fast becoming the guy who can't seem to stop beating dead horses, and that Mr. Beck (if, indeed, that is your real name) is truly a shame.

Sincerely,

Edward L. Daley
12:40 PM 
18 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, October 02, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
I was reading an op-ed the other day in which the author (who's name was not attached to it) wrote that getting rid of corporate taxes as a means of helping to shore up our economy was a bad idea because some 25 percent of all income taxes are paid by corporations. He (or she) went on to state that it'll be the average American worker who has to make up the difference if we stop taxing corporations, but what the author didn't point out was that the average American, by and large, already pays the taxes our government levies on corporations. How can that be? Because the people who work for corporations, own stock in them, and purchase their goods and services are mostly average citizens. Remove from the equation the upper managerial staff of just about any a large, publicly traded company, and what you have left are mostly middle class employees and stock holders who bear the brunt of the corporation's tax burden through lower wages, less benefits and smaller stock dividends than they would otherwise be afforded. After them, it's the consumers who finish paying the government's bill when they patronize that corporation.

What the author of the op-ed in question also failed to mention was that eliminating corporate taxes would incentivise untold numbers of American entrepreneurs to start new businesses, while enticing foreign corporations to move their headquarters to the United States. This would rapidly stimulate economic growth, putting more American workers into higher paying jobs, and consequently, increasing income tax revenues over time to such a degree as to offset the initial loss in corporate tax receipts. As it stands, the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and as we're all painfully aware, good companies and the employment opportunities that go along with them have been leaving our country in droves for decades now. With our already massive debt steadily expanding to nightmare proportions, the last thing we need is punitive corporate taxes that only serve to drive major business interests away from America and into the waiting arms of competitor nations like China, which already owns a substantial portion of our national debt.

What is truly disquieting (and may prove to be catastrophic where future governmental policy is concerned) is that far too many Americans tend to think of corporations as soulless, faceless entities that should be punished for the gross incompetence and, at times, felonious activities of their executive officers. While there has certainly been mismanagement and outright criminal behavior within the corporate world over the years, and while such acts have led to average workers losing their jobs, their relatively high standards of living, and even their retirement incomes, taxing those corporations does nothing to repair the damage done as a result of past ineptitude or corruption. Indeed, raising corporate taxes only further burdens the people who have already been harmed by the aforementioned shenanigans of corporate big-wigs.

Taxing corporations doesn't punish the people at the top, it punishes everyone below them, and inevitably leads to economic distress at all levels of the private sector. While left-leaning American politicians and their lapdogs in the mainstream media have been busy pointing their hypocritical fingers at "evil" business enterprises like Exxon-Mobile and Wal*Mart - which are among the few remaining major corporate success stories in this country - and talking about the most effective way to punish them, other countries have reduced their corporate tax rates and are, as a result, eating our lunch on the global economic stage.

The most formidable barrier standing in our way as we (true American capitalists) seek to eliminate our nation's corporate tax burden isn't - as one might suspect - leftist politicians, although they certainly do not help matters any. No, the greatest obstacle is the average American voter, who has not been properly educated in basic economic theory, and as a consequence, is easily manipulated into believing that taxing "rich" corporations will somehow benefit working-class citizens. It will not, and anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of our economic system will tell you so. This is why education along these lines is so crucially important to the future well-being of our nation. If we continue to allow the socialist doctrine embraced by individuals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to fester within our education system, as has been the case for the past 40 years or more, politicians of their ilk will continue to ascend to high levels of political power in this country, and that will inevitably lead to economic disaster.

The neo-Marxist ideologues who currently run the Democrat party, and have begun to infest the GOP as well, exhibit no appreciation whatsoever for the historical fact that pure capitalism - unencumbered by punitive tax policies and the over-regulatory nature of government - is by far the superior model for stimulating economic growth and prosperity among every income class in America. They embrace a socio-economic theory which has been proven time and time again to be an unmitigated failure, and with every step we take as a nation toward their ultimate goal of a primarily government-controlled economy, the closer we get to the next great depression.

Oh, and by the way, if you thought the last one was bad, keep in mind that back in the 1920s and '30s our country wasn't trillions of dollars in debt, and practically everyone was used to getting along without outside assistance... especially the sort of government-provided assistance that tens of millions of Americans have since grown accustomed to. A full-blown depression at this particular time in America's history would be devastating in ways we cannot even comprehend, and no amount of political wrangling or finagling of the government's books will be able to right our economic ship once the iceberg of socialism has breached its hull.
6:17 AM 
28 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, September 29, 2008 

Category: Sports
Of the following NFL franchises, which is the worst of all time?

Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals
Win/loss/tie record (468 - 669 - 39)
Playoff win/loss record (2 - 5)
Super Bowl win/loss record (0 - 0)
Last championship win - 1947
Winning seasons since 1967 - 8

New Orleans Saints
Win/loss/tie record (256 - 371 - 5)
Playoff win/loss record (2 - 6)
Super Bowl win/loss record (0 - 0)
Last championship win - Never
Winning seasons since 1967 - 8

Detroit/Portsmouth Lions
Win/loss/tie record (488 - 559 - 32)
Playoff win/loss record (7-10)
Super Bowl win/loss record (0 - 0)
Last championship win - 1957
Winning seasons since 1967 - 13

Atlanta Falcons
Win/loss/tie record (260 - 380 - 6)
Playoff win/loss record (6 - 8)
Super Bowl win/loss record (0 - 1)
Last championship win - Never
Winning seasons since 1967 - 7

 Of the following NFL franchises, which is the best of all time?

Dallas Cowboys
Win/loss/tie record (420 - 302 - 6)
Playoff win/loss record (32 - 24)
Super Bowl win/loss record (5 - 3)
Last championship win - 1996
Losing seasons since 1967 - 10

 San Francisco 49ers
Win/loss/tie record (492 - 395 - 15)
Playoff win/loss record (26 - 18)
Super Bowl win/loss record (5 - 0)
Last championship win - 1995
Losing seasons since 1967 - 16
Pittsburgh Steelers
Win/loss/tie record (512 - 486 - 20)
Playoff win/loss record (28 - 19)
Super Bowl win/loss record (5 - 1)
Last championship win - 2006
Losing seasons since 1967 - 13

 Green Bay Packers
Win/loss/tie record (641 - 505 - 36)
Playoff win/loss record (25 - 15)
Super Bowl win/loss record (3 - 1)
Last championship win - 1997
Losing seasons since 1967 - 16
New England/Boston Patriots
Win/loss/tie record (370 - 351 - 9)
Playoff win/loss record (21 - 13)
Super Bowl win/loss record (3 - 2)
Last championship win - 2005
Losing seasons since 1967 - 16

Washington Redskins
Win/loss/tie record (533 - 488 - 27)
Playoff win/loss record (23 - 17)
Super Bowl win/loss record (3 - 2)
Last championship win - 1992
Losing seasons since 1967 - 13
3:43 AM 
36 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, September 26, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
1) Cite one of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments since he became a U.S. Senator.

2) Describe the tactics Barack Obama has employed during this election cycle which have inspired hope and unity among Americans in general, or that constitute a genuine change in Democrat political campaign strategy.

3) What exactly are Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials?

4) Name one person closely associated with Barack Obama (other than a member of his family or fellow legislator) who isn't either an anti-American zealot, a racist, a hard-line Democrat party hack, a terrorist, a communist or a felon.

5) Explain how Barack Obama's tax proposals will punish only wealthy Americans, and not the middle class and poor people who work for them, buy goods and services from them, rent property from them or own stock in their companies.

6) Describe Barack Obama's moral stance on partial birth abortion.

7) Name one organization Barack Obama has been involved with in his adult life (aside from the Illinois or U.S. Senate) that is inherently pro-American or pro-capitalist.

8-A) In what way does Barack Obama's claim that "health care is a right" differ from the following claims?
* Food is a right.
* Clothing is a right.
* Housing is a right.

8-B) If your answer to the above question was that these things are all essential to a long and healthy life, and therefore, there is no substantive difference between them, why then shouldn't the federal government be allowed to exercise the same kind of control over how farmers, tailors and carpenters conduct their businesses that Mr. Obama proposes it exercise over the medical profession?

9) Explain precisely what Barack Obama did as a community organizer in Illinois, and how his activities in this regard enhance his qualifications for the office of President of the United States.

10) Name one foreign terrorist group, terrorist-supporting regime or communist dictatorship (which has made its preference known) that supports John McCain's presidential bid over Barack Obama's.

11) How do Barack Obama's views concerning the regulation and manipulation of financial institutions by the federal government differ from those of his economic adviser, Franklin Raines, who is as responsible as anyone for the recent sub-prime mortgage market collapse?

12) Define the word 'socialist' and explain why Barack Obama isn't one.
10:06 PM 
43 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
Not long ago, after most of the Democrat party leadership was forced to admit that the troop surge in Iraq had actually achieved it's military goals, it immediately - and predictably - changed subjects, focussing instead on the lack of political progress in that country. Of course, some Democrats have yet to admit that the surge has been successful at all, in spite of the overwhelming supporting evidence, and Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to credit IRAN for what our brave soldiers have accomplished. But hey, what can you expect from traitors... other than treason?

Nonetheless, most of the top leftists in Congress - and even Barack Hussein Obama himself - have finally acknowledged that the surge strategy has worked, at least to a certain extent. What they won't say is that the surge has done more than simply put down the insurgency in Iraq. No, the liberal elitists in America just can't bring themselves to admit that our military strategy has improved the lives of average Iraqis ten-fold over the past year, and has allowed the government of that country - at every level - to finally begin the long and arduous task of building a truly unified political structure.

The reason for the left's myopia in this regard is fairly easy for anyone with an IQ over 60 to understand. In essence, liberals have been invested in our nation's defeat for so long now that for them to suddenly admit we are winning on all fronts would cause their heads to literally explode.

Moreover, they know that there is so little reporting on the actual progress taking place in Iraq's government that they can simply claim it's a disastrous situation, and few people in the media will even try to prove them wrong. But what they haven't considered is the fact that their own legislative efforts since taking over the house and Senate have been even more dismal than those of the Iraqi government. So while we're on the subject, let's take a quick look at Iraq's political progress of late and compare it to the "accomplishments" of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress.


This is a March, 2008 article from the on-line version of Foreign Policy Magazine

Iraq's Unheralded Political Progress

Five years into the Iraq war, the original goal of standing up a stable liberal democracy in the Arab world seems as distant as ever. There's no question U.S. troop deaths are down and Iraqi civilian casualties have dropped precipitously. Yet, as many observers have noted, it's hard to find measures of success that don't have "Petraeus" written all over them. The violence may have lessened, but what about national reconciliation?

Amid the recriminations for the lack of political progress, few seem to have noticed what may have been a watershed moment for Iraqi democracy. Indeed, February 13, 2008, might someday be remembered as the day Iraq's political class finally showed itself capable of compromise and accommodation.

On February 13 the Iraqi parliament simultaneously passed three new laws: one that sets the relationship between the central and provincial governments, a second giving amnesty to thousands of detainees, and a third setting the 2008 national budget. Each piece of legislation is important in its own right, but how the overall compromise came about may prove even more significant than the laws themselves.

First, Iraqi lawmakers deployed a technique familiar to anyone who lives in a developed democracy: logrolling, the essence of political compromise. Iraqis bundled together three laws that each constituency - Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds - prioritized differently. By treating the three issues as one legislative package, each group could make trade-offs to get what it wanted most. Kurds supported the amnesty and provincial-powers laws in exchange for a budget law that included a 17 percent allocation for the Kurdistan region. Arab lawmakers had been arguing for 13 percent, but Sunnis supported the higher figure in exchange for the amnesty and provincial-powers laws. And most of the major Shiite players - the Sadrist, Fadhila, and Dawa parties-supported the 17 percent figure in exchange for Kurdish support for their top priority, the provincial-powers law. Everyone, in short, could return to their constituents declaring victory.

For Iraq, this was a radical departure from the issue-by-issue approach that failed so spectacularly in 2007. Last year, Iraqis failed to achieve consensus over such critical, contentious matters as the hydrocarbon legislation, the constitutional review, and resolution of the disputed territories. Like the laws passed on February 13, these issues are connected in a way that could lead to a larger compromise. For example, Iraqi Arabs might find the Kurds' annexation of Kirkuk more palatable if the Kurds agree to let the central government manage natural resources and give it more leeway to coordinate national legislation. In this way, the February 13 compromise could serve as a road map for resolving other deadlocked disputes and moving forward on national reconciliation.

Second, the maneuvering of the participants themselves is also encouraging. Iraqis are beginning to sort themselves based on ideas and interests rather than on simply their ethnic or sectarian identities. A year ago, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was being accused of sectarian cleansing of Sunnis. But on February 13, the Sunni coalition and Sadrist party stood side-by-side to push for a stronger amnesty law. In the debate over provincial powers, Sunni, secularist, and Shiite parties (including the Sadrists) came together to form a powerful "centrist" political bloc advocating greater centralized control over the provinces. The largest Shiite party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and the Kurds maintained a "federalist" coalition calling for greater provincial autonomy. Iraqi politics to date have been dominated by a Shiite-Kurdish alliance that has been accused of marginalizing Sunni interests and ignoring their concerns. But the fact that several Shiite parties defected away from the Supreme Council, choosing ideology over sect, suggests that new intersectarian political coalitions may be emerging that could make national reconciliation easier.

Finally, the process that led to the February 13 compromise suggests a growing respect for the rule of law, and not just the rule of men. Throughout the debate, "centrists" and "federalists" alike went to great lengths to frame their positions on the basis of popularly agreed-upon constitutional principles. When a constitutional dispute stalled the provincial-powers bill in the summer of 2007, for instance, lawmakers looked to the Federal Supreme Court for guidance. The Supreme Council framed its objections to the law in terms of "contradiction[s] with the Constitution," while its proposed amendments were designed to "ensure the constitutionality of the law." Of course these positions were based on political agendas, and one should therefore be cautious not to draw too far-reaching a conclusion from one parliamentary debate. But in a nation with scant experience with liberal democratic governance, Iraq's newfound reliance on the Constitution and independent judicial institutions should provide some hope that a new political culture is beginning to take root.

It's too early to tell just how much, if at all, the February 13 compromise will transform Iraqi politics. Anything could happen on the security front. One well-timed bomb could easily undermine whatever political progress has been made. Formidable economic challenges remain as well. But something very encouraging just took place, and if Iraqis can build upon the February 13 compromise, someone other than General Petraeus may claim a success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a July, 2008 article from McClatchy Newspapers on-line

Sunnis Rejoin Iraqi Government, Raising Reconciliation Hopes

In a shift toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism, Iraq's largest Sunni bloc ended a nearly yearlong boycott Saturday and rejoined the cabinet, retaking six ministry spots.

Until now, some Iraqis questioned how well Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Shiite-led government represented the nation's Sunnis, who were part of the ruling class under Saddam Hussein. Only two of the 38 ministries were given to Sunnis even though they make up 20 percent of Iraq's population. Many hope that new posts will symbolize that the government is committed to much-needed reconciliation.

Reconciliation could lead the Iraqi government to find the economic and political means to maintain the recent security gains. While Iraqis nationwide celebrate the improvements, they believe their government is too divided to compromise across sectarian lines.

The largest Sunni bloc, the Iraqi National Accord, said they rejoined the government because the schism between the party and Maliki had diminished and that many of their demands had been met.

"The Maliki government is working on the positive side, but we still have some unresolved issues. We still have sectarianism in the government. So we want to make sure there is a balance," said Dhafar al Ani, a parliamentarian and a member of the bloc. The Iraqi security forces, he added, "still randomly detain people. And they still have secret interrogations. And there are issues with the amnesty program."

The bloc suspended their membership from parliament and withdrew from Maliki's government last August because they said the Iraqi security forces was sectarian, Sunni Arabs were being unjustly thrown into jail and Maliki was ignoring the needs of the Sunnis in favor of his fellow Shiites. The parliament members returned a month later, but not the ministers from the bloc.

There had been several efforts in the past months to fill the posts but the warring political factions could not agree on the names. Before, the parliament would erupt into shouting matches over who should fill the vacancies. And as recently as last week, there were disagreements within the bloc itself. But on Saturday, the members were conciliatory as the candidates gave a brief speech introducing themselves to the parliament before the legislators voted by raising their hands.

The parliament named Rafeh al Issawi the new deputy prime minister. The other posts included the ministries of higher education, state for foreign affairs, culture, communications and state for women's issues.

The Sunni decision to rejoin Maliki's government and the Shiite's willingness to accept them was driven by this fall's scheduled provincial elections. The Sunni bloc expects to lose power to their provincial rivals, so it wants to retain as much power at the national level. And the Shiite politicians want to claim they are successfully reconciling with their one-time Sunni opponents.

Sunni members have said Maliki's decision to launch an offensive last spring against Shiite militiamen in the southern port city of Basra was a key pivot point for them, saying that decision convinced them that Maliki could put aside loyalties to attack rogue Shiite groups.

The parliament also agreed to fill four other ministry posts that members of firebrand cleric's Muqtada al Sadr's party left last year with technocrats. They include the ministers of transportation, tourism, state for provincial affairs and state for civil society.

Also Saturday, British Prime Minster Gordon Brown made an unexpected visit to Iraq, saying he would not adopt an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of the remaining 4,000 British troops.

Brown is expected to make a presentation to British lawmakers next week about how he plans to drawdown troops there. And while the U.S. announced Friday that it had agreed with the Iraqi government on a "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, Brown said after his meeting with Maliki that he had no plans to make such assurances.

"It is certainly our intention that we reduce troop numbers, but I am not going to give an artificial timetable at the moment," Brown told reporters in Baghdad during his third visit here since becoming prime minister.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an August, 2008 article from Citizens Against Government Waste

CAGW Names Speaker Pelosi And Majority Leader Reid Porkers Of The Month

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) its August Porkers of the Month for leading a do-nothing Congress into a five week vacation.

Congress left for its traditional August recess after accomplishing nothing.  Of the 106 bills enacted since January, 94, or 89 percent were to name government buildings or lands, extend or make technical corrections to existing laws, or passed either by unanimous consent or with less than 10 dissenting votes.  The accomplishments included "Frank Sinatra Day," National Plumbing Industry Week," and "National Day of the Cowboy."

The deadline for passing the 12 annual appropriations bills has been deliberately ignored.  Only one of the bills has passed the House, and only four others have been approved by the House Appropriations Committee.  In the Senate, nine have been approved by the Appropriations Committee but none have reached the floor.  There are two reasons for this failure to act.  First, the Speaker and Majority Leader appear to be waiting for the presidential election to decide what to do with these bills, hoping that the winner in November would favor higher spending and more earmarks.

Second, the moratorium on offshore drilling expires on September 30, and it is usually renewed through the appropriations process.  However, both Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are opposed to lifting the moratorium.  Rather than allowing a vote, they shut down Congress.  House Republicans took to the darkened House floor, demanding that Congress go back into session and hold an up-or-down vote to lift the drilling ban.

The Speaker's first response was to continue her taxpayer-financed vacation to promote her new book.  She has since indicated some willingness to consider a vote, but only tied to a larger (and costly) energy package.  Majority Leader Reid's response has been to threaten to shut down the government by refusing to allow any appropriations bills to reach the Senate floor, including a continuing resolution that would allow agencies to operate at the fiscal year 2008 spending levels.

For leaving town after Congress has spent nearly all of its time on frivolous legislation, failing to address critical issues, and threatening a government shutdown, CAGW names Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid its August 2008 Porkers of the Month.

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.  Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an August, 2008 article from the on-line version of National Review Magazine

Do Nothing Congress? Let's Hope

When chosen as speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi promised sweeping changes - many of which would supposedly be enacted within 100 hours of her opening gavel. Her most serious pledges, perhaps, were aimed at making "our economy fairer" and beginning the immediate "redeployment and transition of our troops out of Iraq."

Luckily, Speaker Pelosi's leadership emerged at the same time George W. Bush discovered his veto pen, and the Speaker has been unable to push much of her agenda through Congress.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal summed up Congress's actions since inauguration day in January 2007: "In two decades of record keeping, no sitting Congress has passed fewer public laws at this point in the session - 294 so far - than this one." Only weeks before, Time made a similar observation: "The 260 laws passed by the 110th Congress represent a 30-year low, and they include the naming of 74 post offices, not to mention the nonbinding resolutions designating July National Watermelon Month and recognizing dirt as an essential natural resource."

But the inaction of Pelosi's Congress has not come without recourse, at least for the Speaker's own political well being. According to the RealClearPolitics poll average, only 18 percent of the electorate approves of the 110th Congress. And a recent Rasmussen poll discovered that only 9 percent of respondents "say Congress is doing a good or excellent job."

The Washington Times, NPR, and pundits of the Left and Right alike have cast aspersions on Congress, but Pelosi deserves credit for congressional inaction. When the Democrats swept into power in the 2006 election, Congress was fired up. Perhaps under different Democratic leadership, the electorate would have been saddled with a long list of "reforms" that would have turned the current economic slowdown into a deep recession. While the economy has not exactly been booming as it is, a "fairer" policy would only have resulted in higher taxes or larger deficits, either of which would have serious damaged the economy.

And imagine if the Democrats' plan to withdraw from Iraq had succeeded. The troop surge would not have happened, and war historians would not now be calling the war a victory.

So, this hostility toward the Democratic-controlled Congress simply misses Speaker Pelosi's political virtue. "That government is best which governs least," Thomas Paine famously wrote in Civil Disobedience.

But make no mistake: The 110th Congress has not been perfect. Irresponsible largesse and wasteful legislation has squeaked through in the form of, to name only two, the Farm Bill and the minimum-wage hike. Congress has declined to approve free-trade agreements, and has left military personnel wondering whether they will receive proper funding to fight the War on Terror.

But overall, quite apart from its lofty and noble-minded rhetoric - in spite of it, in fact - the 110th Congress has done well. It's just too bad that 40 percent of polled voters are under the illusion that the Republicans still run Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an August, 2008 article from Congressman Terry Everett

Do-Nothing Congress Holds Americans Hostage

It's been nearly two weeks now since the Democrat-led U.S. House of Representatives left Washington for a five week recess, ignoring Republican lawmakers' plans and the American public's pleas for action on energy. The liberal-controlled Congress is AWOL on more than just turning around high gas prices. It is deliberately stalling federal budget action in order to prevent a vote on more energy drilling here at home.

Under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Congress has plummeted in popularity to the lowest level in American history. Currently, congressional approval ratings are hovering near the single digits, yet Pelosi and her followers seem uninterested in doing much other than perpetuating a leftist agenda. They've convinced themselves that by doing nothing this year they are somehow acting in the public's best interest.

They've taken this position to an extremist point of view by essentially ignoring legislative action on over 90 percent of the new federal budget. To date, only one of 13 total annual federal spending bills that fund the U.S. Government has been passed by the U.S. House. The House liberal leadership has made no secret of their reason for blocking votes to fund just about everything except veterans programs and military base construction. They don't want conservatives in the House to attach any amendments to funding bills that would force Congress to agree to more energy exploration at home. They know that such an amendment would pass.

In effect, Speaker Pelosi has stopped work on nearly the entire federal budget because of one issue - energy. If she cannot get her way, then no one will play. What Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat Congressional leadership don't want to acknowledge is that their refusal to act is causing harm to the economy. As Americans are forced to reduce driving and cut back on spending, our economy continues to weaken. Furthermore, our national security is threatened as oil producing nations, many of which are hostile to our interests, control the majority of our energy supply.

Fearful of efforts by both Democrats and Republicans who want to see America regain energy independence through a balanced domestic energy policy, Speaker Pelosi abruptly adjourned the House on August 1st. She set out on a book selling tour while millions of Americans had to cut back on their personal vacations due to $4 a gallon gas.

So here we sit. We are being held hostage to a radical leftist agenda sponsored by Speaker Pelosi and her leadership. Government budget bills are stalled, the nation remains at the mercy of foreign oil, our economy is slowing and Americans are getting socked coming and going.

As Speaker Pelosi shut down the House and turned out the lights on August 1st, I voted to keep the House in session. Furthermore, I joined with the Republican leadership in calling for an emergency session of the House to vote on the American Energy Act, which would increase the production of American-made energy in an environmentally-safe way. It also promotes new, clean and reliable energy alternatives - an all-of-the-above strategy that makes America more secure. The American people demand action now. Speaker Pelosi, let's have a vote!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If only our liberal legislators had the work ethic of the Iraqis, they might actually have passed a viable energy bill by now, or at least attempted to deal with the healthcare crisis, social security insolvency, illegal immigration, or any of a dozen other pressing issues facing our nation. Instead, the Democrat leadership concluded the latest session of Congress early last month without addressing ANY of these topics in earnest, and took a nice 5-week vacation at our expense.

And these weasel bastards have the audacity to point accusatory fingers at the Iraqi government?
1:32 AM 
6 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, September 04, 2008 

Category: News and Politics

RUDY GIULIANI
"Then he [Barack Obama] ran for - then he ran for the state legislature and he got elected. And nearly 130 times, he couldn't make a decision. He couldn't figure out whether to vote yes or no. It was too tough. He voted - he voted present. I didn't know about this vote present when I was mayor of New York City. Sarah Palin didn't have this vote present when she was mayor or governor. You don't get present. It doesn't work in an executive job. For president of the United States, it's not good enough to be present. You have to make a decision."

FRED THOMPSON
"To deal with these challenges, the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president - history-making in that he's the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently - apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress - history-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history."

SARAH PALIN
"This is a man [Barack Obama] who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word victory, except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot... when that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"
10:47 PM 
14 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, September 03, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
Résumé: Governor Sarah Heath Palin

Born: February 11, 1964
Birth State: Idaho
Spouse: Todd Palin
Children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig
Religion: Christian (Pentecostal)
Political Party: Republican
Education: BA, Communications/Journalism, University of Idaho
Work Experience:
Alaska Governor
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Chair
National Governors Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee Chair
Alaska Conference of Mayors President
Alaska Municipal League Board Member
Wasilla City Mayor
Wasilla City Council Member
Hockey Team Manager/Coach
Sports Journalist
Commercial Fisherwoman
Community Involvement:
Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc. Director
Alaska Resource Development Council Member
Valley Hospital Association Board Member
American Management Association Member
Alaska Miners Association Member
Chambers of Commerce Member
Alaska Outdoor Council Member
Salvation Army Board Member
Iditarod Parent-Teacher Association Member
Valley Youth Sports Member
Youth Court Steering Committee Member
National Rifle Association Member


Sarah Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She grew up hunting with her father, whose living room wall is densely populated with trophies and antlers. She attended Wasilla High School in Wasilla, Alaska, where she was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter at the school and the point guard and captain of the school's basketball team. She helped the team win the Alaska small-school basketball championship in 1982, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds of the game, despite having an ankle stress fracture at the time. She earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" because of her intense play and was the leader of team prayer before games.

Sarah went on to study journalism and political science in college, graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987. Along the way she competed in the Miss Alaska contest after being chosen Miss Wasilla 1984. In the talent portion of the show, she played the flute and won the title of Miss Congeniality.


She eloped in 1988 with her high school sweetheart, Todd Palin, who is a commercial fisherman, an oil field worker, a member of the United Steelworkers and an Alaska Native. Todd has worked 20 years on Alaska's North Slope for BP, where he has continued to work as a production operator. He is also a four-time winner of the Iron Dog, the 2,000-mile snowmachine race from Big Lake to Nome along the Iditarod Trail and then on to Fairbanks.

Sarah held a succession of jobs before making her way into politics, such as commercial fisherwoman and sports journalist for KTUU-TV in Anchorage.


In 1992, she won her seat on the Wasilla City Council by opposing tax hikes, and later reduced property taxes by 40 percent while increasing the budget for roads and sewers at the same time. Four years later, she was elected mayor of Wasilla, one of Alaska's fastest-growing communities, by knocking off a three-term incumbent. In October 1996, she asked the police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign. She also reduced the mayoral salary.

After Governor Frank Murkowski resigned from his long-held U.S. Senate seat in mid-term to become governor, he considered appointing Sarah to replace him in the Senate, but instead chose his daughter, Alaska state representative Lisa Murkowski. He later appointed Sarah as Ethics Commissioner on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, but she resigned a year later in protest over what she perceived to be the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders including the Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich.

Sarah then filed formal complaints against Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes. She accused Ruedrich of doing work for the party on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating. Ruedrich and Renkes both resigned and Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.


On Dec. 4, 2006, Sarah made history when she took office as the first woman Governor of Alaska. In office, her top priorities have been resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development. During her first legislative session, Sarah's administration passed two major pieces of legislation - an overhaul of the state's ethics laws and a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline.




Sarah made national news when she stopped work on Ketchikan's Gravina Island Bridge, also known as the "Bridge to Nowhere," a move that earned her admirers among earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.

Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program that provides support for low-income older Alaskans. She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to provide oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and the Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.


Sarah is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multi-state government agency that promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and the environment. She was recently named chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee, which is charged with pursuing legislation to ensure state needs are considered as federal policy is formulated in the areas of agriculture, energy, environmental protection and natural resource management. Prior to being named to this position, she served as co-chair of this committee.

Sarah will be the first female vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party when she is formally nominated Sept. 3 at the party's convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. She is staunchly pro-life, and has suggested requiring parental consent for abortions to be added to Alaska's constitution. Sarah supports capital punishment for some crimes, and has stated that: "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."


Sarah supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, and does not believe that global warming is human-caused. She opposes federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

She opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Sarah is a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, and strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. Sarah also supports gun safety education for youth.


She has run a marathon, pilots her own seaplane, and enjoys hunting, ice fishing and snowmobiling. Her youngest son, Trig, was born with Down Syndrome this past April, her oldest daughter, Bristol, recently announced that she is pregnant, and her oldest son, Track, enlisted in the US Army in 2007 and is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq this month. Sarah's other two daughters are Willow and Piper.

Sarah is also the best-selling author of 'Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear' (currently sold out on Amazon) and a poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008, showed Sarah's approval rating as Governor to be 80 percent.





Sources:
National Governors Association
Project Vote Smart
Anchorage Daily News
Real Clear Politics
Wikipedia
Amazon
2:00 AM 
37 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate