Stopping the EPA's aggression

Now that the GOP has taken over the House of Representatives, and will most likely take over the Senate in 2012, they appear to be gearing up to reign in the EPA's aggression by using a rarely used law called the the Congressional Review Act. The CRA was created in 1996 that allows Congress to veto regulatory changes that were created in the Executive branch agencies, such as the EPA.

According to GOP lawmakers, they intend to turn the EPA on its ear to include using the CRA. It allows the GOP to do an end run on democrats, because it allows them to skip Senate filibusters; which means that the GOP doesn't have to negotiate with Harry Reid to bring a vote to the floor to secure a 60 vote majority.

Due to the historic upset in the House, it's likely that some democrat lawmakers may support the GOP's efforts in curtailing the EPA's contentious regulations. With a year to go until the next election cycle, many of these democrats are supporting the effort for fear of losing their seats.

Whatever the case is, it seems that GOP lawmakers are prepared to use whatever means necessary to put the out of control EPA on a short leash.

We'll see.

Related stories: GOP plans strategy to stymie EPA

Proof positive dems heard the message, but ignoring it.

The Republican party got the message on November 2nd and so far appear to be heeding it, as some new Republican faces in the House will be in leadership positions. By contrast, the losing democrats say they got the message, but their actions are saying, "Screw you, America. We still know best."

The Hill reported today that new democrat faces are being sidelined for leadership roles, while the senior rank and file members take them over. Despite the fact that these new faces in the democrat minority haven't publicly complained...yet, there does appear to be some grumbling within. As reported by  The Hill, one democrat aide,, said “We can’t let them sit on the bench for too much longer."

Then there is the battle for minority whip in the House of Representatives between Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn. Wanna bet who will be "sitting at the back of the bus" when it's over?

Let's not forget the worst Speaker of the House in US history. Pelosi's ousting by American voters didn't seep through the botox either; despite losing the Speaker role, she has dug in her heels and will most likely get another leadership position within the hallowed halls of Congress.

If this isn't proof positive that democrats are ignoring the message sent by American voters on November 2nd, then I don't know what else would convince you. They got the message, but, acting like a spoiled brat child, are ignoring it. And they do it at their peril, because the next election cycle is going to be even worse for the dems.

It wasn't a message, it was a repudiation

People in California, Delaware and New York? You deserve everything you get. As for Nevada, what can I say except that Sharon Angle was fighting against the machine.

With still more votes to count, we may see more seats changing hands to Republicans. With a 59 seat pick up, this wasn't a message to Obama and the democrats, it was a repudiation of his agenda. Senate races in Alaska and Washington are still too close to call and still may count towards Republican gains.

And the apparatchik bloggers and the left wing media crowd are already spinning this repudiation of the anointed one's agenda as being ready to "compromise", or "reaching across the aisle" and "bipartisanship".

Not quite.

Where was this compromise and reaching across the aisle when the democrats were running things since 2006? They shoved health care down our throats. They passed Cap and Trade in the House. They passed a number of other legislation under the radar and all without compromise or reaching across the aisle.

If there was a message in last night's elections, it was one of no compromise. What's good for the goose...

Obama has two directions he can go, as I see it.

A. ) He can continue to go full steam ahead and fight the Republican led House, in which case he'll try to pin the blame of not compromising on the GOP and try to use it against them during the next election cycle in 2012.

B.) He can move towards the center, as Bill Clinton did. In this case, he'll alienate his far left base even more and dashing all hopes of a second term.

As for those incumbent senators who narrowly won, it certainly sent a message for those who will be up for re-election in 2012. When legislation is passed in the House and moves to the Senate, those senators will be thinking twice before they vote. After witnessing what happened last night, they are not about to rubber stamp Obama's agenda as they did for the last four years, knowing that they may be next for retirement.

What about those democrat senators that vote so close to the Republican line that it's hard to tell what party they are in? My guess is that they will be courted to flip sides. Then there are those two independents. They may caucus with democrats, but, Lieberman is known for voting along Republican lines quite often.

What we need to hope for in this Congressional split is gridlock. In this case, nobody can get things done, thus preventing any of Obama's agenda from getting anywhere. Gridlock is good.

What concerns me at this point are those establishment Republicans who would try to co-opt the fresh faces in the House and the Senate, such as Trent Lott. This cannot be allowed to happen. If it does, then we'll back to where we were that ultimately led to GOP defeat in 2006 when we couldn't tell who the Republicans were.

In closing, I have a message for Karl Rove. Christine O'Donnell may have been defeated, but, if she had not defeated Castle, he would most likely have lost to Coons anyway. What Christine O'Donnell did was galvanize conservatives in Delaware and proved that sticking to those principles can work wonders. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman lost, because they were willing to compromise and that's not what Americans were wanting when they went to the polls last night.

America Rising

Many attempts have been made to scrub this video from the Internet. I captured, downloaded and uploaded it to my domain.

Please, feel free to send this page to anyone you know.

America Rising

Here we go again. The misuse of Separation of Church and State

If there is one term in our lexicon that has been misused and abused more often than any other, it's the Separation of Church and State. In a recent debate in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell asked Chris Coons where in the Constitution does it say there is a separation of church and state, while the audience laughed, to which the Bearded Marxist replied, "It's in the First Amendment..."

To begin with, the term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; try as you might, you will not find it...ANYWHERE.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn't even imply such a thing. It only states that the federal government cannot favor or establish a national religion, such as the case in Europe where the church is always in the governments business. Because of the dumbing down of children in our nation's schools, a vast majority of Americans don't even realize that, prior to the colonies becoming states, each colony already had an established religion. In fact, when the colonies became states, seven of them still had established religions. Thomas Jefferson was successful at dissolving Virginia's state religion in 1786, other states following suit soon after.

As a matter of fact, While Thomas Jefferson was a state legislator, he tried to pass a bill for a state "day of prayer". When he was elected as president, he was asked if he would do the same thing and he stated unequivocally that the FEDERAL government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

Justice Joseph Story clarified this amendment when he said that religious laws are left to the states,

“It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.”

Americans must understand that simply looking at the Constitution isn't enough. They must read the Founders personal letters and arguments when dealing with these matters. For instance, James Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others. In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance", he stated,

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

In other words, if the federal government can establish a national religion, then they will have the authority to force it on others and this was counter intuitive to the stated goal of the Constitution.

How, when and why has this term come to be misused and abused?

For starters, we need to understand where the term came from. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson stated in part,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared that THEIR legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

He was talking about the "state" as a whole in regards to the First Amendment, not the individual states. Recall his attempt at establishing a day of prayer while he was a state legislator and what he said when he was president of the United States. This is where the metaphor of Wall of Separation came from.

Jefferson's terminology was perverted by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 Supreme Court ruling, Everson v. Board of Education. American University professor Daniel Dreisbach asserts that his ruling was due to his anti-Catholicism learned in the Ku Klux Klan. In the ruling, Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1,1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

To read more about this ruling, please visit, Justice Black's bigotry gets misread as Jefferson's belief: scholars challenge the theory of separation of church and state as a mid-20th century myth concocted by ideologues by Larry Witham.

So, the next time you run into another one of these fallacious arguments in regards to Separation of Church and State, refer back to this article.

Delaware is a lost cause

Sorry, Christine, but the NRSC is funding races that are tight where the Republican running against a democrat has a chance.

HotAir -

O’Donnell’s comments in her exclusive interview with Fox News followed an offhanded remark she had made in her ninety-minute exchange with Coons: “I’ve had to fight my party to be here on this stage to win the nomination, and to some extent I am still fighting my party.”…

But when this reporter asked O’Donnell herself how she is fighting her own party, the Republican nominee was ready to cite chapter and verse. The Democratic senatorial committee is running ads against me. The Democratic Party is running ads against me,” she said. “The Republican Party on the state level, or on the national level, neither have come in to help me close the gap in the polls. And my opponent, there’s so much to attack him on, yet the NRSC refuses to play, and that, that baffles me. Because he’s a – he’s a sitting duck. There’s a lot to go after him [on].”

Delaware is too blue and like California and New York, it's a lost cause.

Bill Owens (D-NY), I voted 63% of the time with...Boehner?

You just can't make this stuff up. Is this the new democrat strategy? To ride the coat tails of Republicans during the midterm campaigns?

Why doesn't he campaign on Obamacare, which he voted for?

Read the rest at Politico

Rats on a sinking ship. Dems distance themselves from The Anointed One

Ever since the midterm election campaigns started, I have yet to hear one single democrat incumbent air an ad that says they voted for Obamacare, TARP or Cap and Trade. Now, there are some democrats that are doing their best to distance themselves from Obama. Governor Joe Manchin (D-W.VA) is well behind Republican John Raese. In a FoxNews interview, Manchin says he's open to repealing Obamacare and in one campaign ad, it shows him shooting holes in the Cap and Trade bill.

"The president's plan — 'Obamacare,' as it's been called — is far too reaching. It's overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed," Manchin. "If you can't fix that, repeal the whole thing."

So, he was for Obamacare before he was against it? He also claims that he's against Cap and Trade,

"The bottom line is cap-and-trade is dead wrong and President Obama is dead wrong on cap-and-trade."

Apparently, nobody could tell what his position on the jobs killing bill he was on. According to a Hunnington News article, he seems to try and have it both ways,

That's why Governor Joe Manchin's position on one of the most important economic issues facing West Virginia--Cap-and-Trade--is so perplexing. President Obama is a staunch supporter of this effort to cap the amount of carbons used by power plants and other coal-burning facilities, all based on the questionable science of climate change.

Certainly Governor Manchin appeared to be in support of Obama's Cap-and-Trade agenda when he appeared on "Power Lunch," a CNBC talk show, just one day before the 2008 elections.

Sounds like desperation. It also appears that President Obama has all but lost his mojo.

Hypocrite in Chief? Remember the untraceable, prepaid debit cards in 2008?

The Obama administration has recently made allegations that the Chamber of Commerce has been using foreign money for campaign ads. Despite the fact that this against the law, you will recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign it was discovered that team Obama was accepting untraceable prepaid debit card contributions.

Washington Post - Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Then there's an article that describes Obama using a bogus blog post to make these allegations against the Chamber of Commerce. Of course, when it was pointed out that the blog post was baseless, he seemingly throttled back on the rhetoric.

The Daily Caller - President Obama on Sunday stepped back from categorical charges he made earlier this week that foreign money was funding conservative TV campaign ads, telling a rally in Philadelphia only that such a scenario was possible. The softening of Obama’s language reflects the impact of a Saturday report on the issue by the New York Times, which concluded that charges originally made by a blog run by a Democratic-aligned think tank were baseless.

Yet, speaking to thousands at a rally in Philadelphia Sunday, he had the gall to say, “You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose.”

Mike Pence: Odds are looking good of SCOTUS smackdown of Obamacare

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the third-ranking House Republican, who serves as conference chairman, said he saw enough votes on the high court to strike a blow to President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

"It's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not," Pence said Friday on WLS radio in Indiana.

Courtesy The Hill

That's right Michael Mann, science and politics don't mix

Science is a strange area of our world that many don't understand, some don't care and others think they know, but don't. Despite all of that, science is a necessary part of life that has put us in the world we are in today.

The problem comes when science and government collude in order to push legislation. One particular issue that's been at the forefront of Congress is global warming/climate change; a ridiculous notion that the modern human industrial population is somehow responsible for the planet's climate to change.

Climate change/global warming skeptics, which have been likened to Holocaust deniers, have always known that the science was being manipulated, we just never had concrete evidence. That is until last fall when someone had the cajones to swipe years worth of back and forth emails between scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.

One particular scientist came to the forefront of the scandal, who was investigated by Penn State University and was quickly exonerated, wrote a piece on the Washington Post today complaining that politicians need to stop attacking climate change scientists.

If you don't who Michael Mann is, just Google his name with "misused Keith Briffa tree ring data". I'm not going to get into this issue, but, there is no doubt that Mann's conclusions were completely wrong. Whether it was done purposely or not is up to you to decide, but, suffice it to say that the infamous and thoroughly debunked "Hockey Stick" was born out of it. If you want to see the email exchange between Phil Jones and Michael Mann on his "nature trick", click here.

In his WaPo article, Michael Mann bemoans:

As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.

You're right, Micheal. But, not having a stake in it prevents further grants to continue the man made climate change absurdity.

He further complains:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

You reap what you sow, Michael. I'm sure you've heard of the old saying about sleeping with the devil. As to wrongdoing, the emails make it quite clear what was going on, just looking at the data tells us that. If there wasn't anything to hide, then why force other scientists to use FOIA to get the data?

Continuing on, he talks about his quick exoneration:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Which means nothing. I wouldn't expect anything less of Penn State University to support their faculty members, particularly when it means no more government grant money if they threw you to the wolves. As for the EPA, they have the same agenda as climate change scientists do, so there's no surprise there.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

That's right, Michael. Because the questions still haven't been satisfactorily answered. We all know that it's not the emails in and of themselves, it's the data contained within those emails that screams abuse. Particularly when it's used to sway Congress to pass job killing legislation, like Cap and Trade.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don't expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Gee, I don't know Michael. How about REAL questions, instead of the likely softball queries you got from Penn State? You claim Issa wants to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, however, you fail to understand that it's not the research, it's the suspect data that is vomited from it.

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton's attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.

That was in 2005 and your point is?

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.

You just had to go there. Remember this from Congressman Ed Markey:

MARKEY:  The evidence is overwhelming.  There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.

This logical fallacy of a weak analogy is how they are trying to steer this issue. During Congressional hearings, it was discovered that the CEO's of big tobacco had lied all along about their research. This is the crux of the matter behind the anthropogenic climate change hoax, not the science, which is sound, but, the manipulation of said data from the science. Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not ten, fifty or a hundred years into the future.

The rest of his article can be read at the Washington Compost

Guess who's coming to dinner? Why, it's your friendly Hamas terrorist.

You just can't make this stuff up.

It would seem that on September 27, the FBI escorted known Hamas operative and and unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, Kifah Mustapha through the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the FBI's training center at Quantico during a six-week "Citizen's Academy", hosted by the FBI as "outreach" to the Muslim community.

According to Diana West at Townhall,

"The plugs had to be pulled on our (watch) system" just to get Mustapha in the NCTC door, Poole, writing online at Big Peace, quoted a Department of Homeland Security official as saying. After all, "the NCTC has Kifah Mustapha on the highest watch list we have."

I searched for that quote on Big Peace and I couldn't find it anywhere. If someone locates it, please send it to me.

To read the full story, visit Diana West's revealing article.

Gloria Allred all but admits her agenda

It seems that Gloria Allred is a glutton for punishment. Greta schooled her, yet again. Once you watch the video, it becomes quite clear what Gloria Allred's agenda is.

“I think she would have been a lot smarter to talk to a lawyer who worried about whether she would be deported than some sort of public statement on someone running for office… You know what Gloria? The first thing for a lawyer to do is to protect the client not throw the client out to the wolves. If you can’t protect the client you shouldn’t do the job… You can’t just keep making this stuff up.”

That's right, Gloria. A lawyers primary goal is to protect the client. Which begs the question as to why you threw her to the wolves when you outed Mrs. Santillan.

Murkowski threatens Alaska broadcasters

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK - R-ino) threatened Alaska broadcasters not to air Tea Party Express backed ads on the air claiming that they are, "littered with lies and intentional mischaracterizations" about her and her write-in campaign.

In a letter to broadcasters sent by Murkowski's attorney, Timothy McKeever on Monday said they are under a "legal and moral obligation" not to air the new ads from Tea Party Express, which is supporting Joe Miller.

The issue is an ad that the Tea Party Express unveiled Monday, entitled "Arrogant Lisa Murkowski -- You Lost!" The ad attempts to portray Murkowski as a sore loser who thinks she's entitled to the Alaska senate seat. The ad also shows that she tried to manipulate the libertarian party and that she didn't earn the seat she currently holds.

According to Murkowski, some friends took it upon themselves to approach the party to see what could be done for her name to appear as a libertarian candidate, which we know was turned down.

According to Scott Kohlhaas, the libertarian parties chairman said that party leaders waited for Murkowski to ask for a ballot line but she never did.

Sen. Murkowski Asks Alaska Stations Not to Air Tea Party Ads

Lindsey Graham Betrayed - Obama regime tanks bipartisan shot at Cap and Tax

Courtesy The Daily Caller

In a remarkable story in the New Yorker, journalist Ryan Lizza reveals that President Obama, who frequently complains about the intransigence of congressional Republicans, may have tanked action on one of his top priorities by spurning the pivotal Republican senator negotiating the bill.

Lizza’s story, which provides new details about negotiations between key Washington insiders, threatens to alter the conventional wisdom that Obama has encountered lockstep Republican intransigence at every turn.

In fact, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham spent months negotiating with the liberal Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and the more moderate independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in pursuit of a cap-and-trade bill loathed by conservatives.

Cap-and-trade is one way government could limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions scientists say are warming the planet.

But at a pivotal moment, the White House betrayed Graham by leaking details of the negotiations in a way particularly damaging to Graham politically, Lizza reports.

Update: Gloria Allred worked for Brown campaign

Anyone else not shocked?

Courtesy goes to California Watch

Gloria Allred, the attorney at the center of this week's spectacle over Meg Whitman's illegal immigrant housekeeper, spent time working for Jerry Brown's gubernatorial campaign in the mid-1970s, according to a decades-old article in an American Bar Association magazine.

Allred has downplayed her ties to Brown. But to the Whitman campaign - which released a photograph of Allred and Brown at a C-SPAN panel in 1994 - the celebrity attorney is long-time supporter of the former governor and a partisan Democrat.

It kind of reminds me of the annoying thread you see hanging on a piece of cloth. When you pull on it, the cloth starts to come undone. So it seems with this political dirty trick. Sadly, when it's all said and done, Whitman's former maid will be the one getting the short end of the stick.

Meg Whitman smear attempt blows up in Gloria Allred's face

How many cliche's can be used in this smear campaign? How about, stupid is as stupid does?

The recent smear attempt against Meg Whitman (and that's what it is) has blown up in Gloria Allred's face and is quickly unraveling. According to immigration lawyers, Whitman acted within the law by keeping Nicandra Diaz Santillan employed. If she had fired her, then she would have violated the law, the California gubernatorial hopeful would have potentially put herself in legal jeopardy.

What Meg Whitman's husband received is what's referred to as a "no match" letter from the Social Security Administration. This letter is to inform the employee that the information does not match and to verify it. Whitman's scrawl on the letter merely indicates that Diaz needed to follow up on it.

However, in light of Gloria Allred's involvement, Meg Whitman's former maid now has a big neon sign on her head that outs her as an illegal alien and potentially puts her at risk of being deported.

Watch Greta literally destroy Gloria Allred:

Et tu, Brute: Karl Rove still ain't gettin' it.

Prior to the Delaware primaries, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity that Christine O'donnell was bad for the GOP and couldn't be guaranteed to win in the general elections and Mike Castle was a shoe in. He further stated that her background was 'sketchy' and had a lot to answer for.

For example, Mr. Rove asks: Why did it take her 12 years to pay off a student loan? Why did the IRS come after her?

News flash, Karl! She is one of millions of Americans that struggle to pay off student loans and you blatantly failed to mention that the IRS admitted they made a mistake. Ergo, she's an average, everyday American that many others can identify with.

Let's not forget that Karl Rove has earned the moniker of "The Architect", but, part of that moniker was that he created the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, which currently has a stranglehold on the entire country and is bankrupting our economy. He was also the "architect", along with Ted Kennedy, of the failed amnesty bill.

The problem with Mr. Rove is that he is part of the power complex that's currently in power now and it's being threatened with extinction. Needless to say that Mike Castle's voting record says it all and for Mr. Rove to work on his campaign and try to convince the 9/12 Project, as well as Christine O'donnell to drop out of the race and support Castle speaks volumes.

Sour grapes, maybe? I think so and he needs to get over it. His language about her victory is the very thing that pushed her to the finish line. Americans across the country are very angry at the elitist, power hungry politicians that are in there now.

But, he doesn't stop there.

After Christine O'donnell's stunning upset of Mike Castle in Delaware, Mr. Rove bemoans to Hannity:

"I'm for the Republican, but I got to tell you, we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We are now looking at seven to eight in my opinion. This is not a race we're going to be able to win."

He still ain't gettin' it. He's putting party over principle and that's exactly what Americans are sick and tired of. He further whines:

Hannity: "You may be right in the end, I don't know. We can look into our crystal ball and can say things. I would argue back to you gently that I don't think we can make progress in stopping the Obama agenda with rhino Republicans that, you know are not going to be there when the solid votes are needed."

Rove: "I agree. But we also can't make progress if we have candidates who got serious character problems, who cause ordinary voters who are not philosophically aligned with us to not vote for our candidates out of concern of what they said and what they do."

Character problems? Where was this acrimony when Scott Brown and Joe Miller won in their primaries? Why isn't anything being mentioned about Rangel and his 13 ethics charges, yet still won hands down in his district? Character problems, indeed.

Here's the problem. Karl Rove is a strategist and right now he's feeling the heat from millions of pissed off Americans and he isn't liking it. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to and politicians they elect are not listening to the will of the people. He is part of the Republican party that would rather seize control, conservative principles be damned and this is what Americans across the fruited plane are removing from Washington D.C.

Senator Jim DeMint said it eloquently: "I’d Rather Lose Fighting for the Right Cause"

As Julius Caesar was being murdered by members of the senate, he says to his closest confidant: "Et tu Brute?" What's it going to be, Mr. Rove? Are you going to stand behind Christine O'donnell or are you going to sink the knife into her?

Uneducated Rep. Linda Sanchez cites white supremacist groups for AZ law

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif says that white supremacist groups are responsible for Arizona's new law that cracks down on illegal aliens. She told a Democrat Club on Tuesday that white supremacist groups were influencing lawmakers to create laws that would lead to discrimination.

Sanchez, who is of Mexican descent stated, "There's a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups. It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics." (audio)

She also claims that "It creates a Jim Crow system where based on the color of your skin you could be treated as a second-class citizen or harassed based on how you look."

What she is trying to do is divert attention away from the original topic, or a logical fallacy called a red herring where the person attempts to change the subject. Unfortunately, for her, it pulls back the curtain of just how uneducated Linda Sanchez is.

Well, Linda, let's look at some history about the Jim Crow Laws and who created them.

Many people think that the Jim Crow laws began in 1890 when Mississippi wrote a disfranchisement provision into its state constitution. This is not quite correct and actually began shortly after the Civil War when most Southern states adopted "Black Codes", to limit the freedoms of former slaves. The reason why these "Black Codes" never gained momentum is because federal troops were in the former Confederate states during the reconstruction, as well as the recent passage of the 14th and the 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1875 and the three Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871. It's noteworthy to add that the Enforcement Act of 1871 is also referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act

The Jim Crow Laws were created by the Democrat Party (The White Mans Party) and were effective in 1876 and came to an end when the Civil and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed, thanks to the Republican Party for pushing them through both houses of Congress.

Even though blacks were still elected to local offices during the 1880's, the Democrat Party were passing laws that forced voter registration and elections to be more restrictive.  As a result, participation of blacks and poor whites significantly decreased. Between 1890 and 1910, the former Confederate states enacted poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, as well as residency and record keeping requirements which disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites.

And it was all created by the Democrat Party, Linda. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know any of this because your agenda is to whitewash this history and replace with it your own.

You most likely haven't read SB1070. If you had and read our federal laws, you may just happen to notice that they very nearly mirror one another.

Here are some of OUR FEDERAL LAWS.

Sec. 273. [8 U.S.C. 1323] – Unlawfully bringing aliens to US and unlawful harboring illegal aliens. Fine: $3,000 for each alien.

Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a] – Employing, Recruiting, or Referring Illegal Aliens for Jobs.

Sec. 274C. [8 U.S.C. 1324c] – Illegally Forging Documents for Illegal Immigrants or violate Identity Theft Laws.

Sec. 277. [8 U.S.C. 1327] – Aiding or Abetting Illegal Immigrants.

Sec. 312. [8 U.S.C. 1423] – Legal Immigrants Must Know English, US History, US Laws, and Principles.

Sec. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427] – Legal Immigrants Must Display Moral Character and No Crime Record.

Sec. 335. [8 U.S.C. 1446] – Legal Immigrants Must Be Investigated and Screened for past crimes and terrorism links.

Sec. 232 [8 U.S.C. 1252] -It is Illegal For Illegal Aliens to Bypass Medical and Physical Exams for illnesses and infectious diseases.

Sec. 250. [8 U.S.C. 1260] -Illegal Aliens Deported are ineligible for readmission to US Under Current Laws.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32] – It is Illegal for Illegal Immigrants to possess a firearm or ammunition.

An Open Assault On The Constitution

Many of us Americans have said over and over that this administration has been circumventing our Constitution to get legislation passed. However, the latest brazen assault on our founding document is an outright attempt at usurping its authority and it's pass time that something be done.

The "Slaughter Solution", as it's being referred to, is a plan created by Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY). It's sole purpose is to ram this health care train wreck through both houses of Congress by ignoring the Constitution. How they are doing it works like this:

"The rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of health care to have been passed by the House. The House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself. Thus, Congresswoman Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!"

This is an outright, blatant and brazen attack on the Constitution:

Article I, Section VII, Clause II states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

This clause goes to the very foundation of how our laws are created and enacted. If these crooked democrats get away with doing this, it will create the biggest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War and would start a government that rules by fiat, better known as a tyranny.

This is proof positive that democrats will use whatever means necessary to get their way, even if it means that many of them will not be re-elected this coming November.

Luckily, the House Parliamentarian killed it.