Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have shown thus far, what happens when two incompetent people are placed in charge of anything. Since they took control in January they have tried to force immigration amnesty upon us, they have discussed the “Fairness Doctrine” and they want to hand our troops a defeat in Iraq. These items should give pause to any American who values freedom and believes in peace through strength. If these Bozos get their way and surrender to the terrorists we will see a bloodbath in Iraq and attacks on our home soil.

The terrorists have not given up their goal of killing as many Westerners as possible (along with a number of their own people) and they continue to develop methods to cause mass casualty devastation. In London, it is reported that a terrorist attack that could have killed hundreds was averted when an alert ambulance driver noticed smoke coming from a car. It turns out that the car was rigged with gasoline, propane and nails and could have caused widespread damage and hundreds of casualties.

The alertness of one person thwarted this potential disaster. We have thousands of men and women on a high state of alert each day looking for any indication of an attack in the US. The terrorists want to come here and attack us on our own soil. They view that as a significant blow to us and our psyche and they would love nothing more than to cause havoc in a heavily crowded area within this country in order to scare our people, break our will, and force us to acquiesce to their demands and their lifestyle.

Muslims, and make no mistake about it these terrorists are Muslims, look at fear or weakness as a sign to attack. They believe that if they attack us enough they can force us to surrender in Iraq and that victory will embolden thousands more who would love the chance to become a martyr against the Great Satan. This is what Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and the others have in mind. They want to give away the country on the home front and give it up to the terrorists overseas.

They might think they have a mandate but they will be sorry in 2008.

See Also: Video: Dems Celebrate 6 Months of Failure as Congressional Leaders

[Discuss this article with Big Dog...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

London police defused a bomb located in a car loaded with explosives, gas canisters, nuts, bolts, and a large number of nails. Officials have not confirmed whether or not this is linked with Islamic terrorism but the way the car was rigged is similar to the way radical Islam rigs cars. If I had to guess I’d say that this is linked to radical Islam, but I won’t jump to conclusions, we will wait and see.

LONDON - British police defused a bomb found in a parked car in central London on Friday, and the new government called an emergency meeting of senior security chiefs to investigate what many feared could have been a planned terror attack.

A British security official told The Associated Press that the car was packed with explosives, gas canisters and nuts and bolts and would have caused “significant damage.”

He said there were similarities between the device and vehicle bombs used by insurgents in Iraq.

“Forensic staff are still examining the device, but once we know more about it, we’ll know more about what type of individuals are behind this,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the security details.

UPDATE: Authorities are looking at a second car in an underground parking garage that they say is linked to the first car. The second car is located near London’s Park lane and may have been the terrorists get away car.

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said that Park Lane was closed at Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner and a 200m cordon put in place.

It would also affect part of Oxford Street and people were being asked to leave the street but were not initially being evacuated from buildings in the area, said the spokeswoman.

Sources close to the investigation said that the Park Lane closure is linked to the discovery of a vehicle at an underground car park.

It is also believed to be linked to the investigation into the Haymarket car bomb.

At the moment it is not known if the vehicle at Park Lane contains a device. - BBC News

Authorities believe this is part of an international terrorist plot. The Guardian Unlimited is characterizing it as being “inspired” by al-Qaida.

Most alarming is that Scotland Yard had no intelligence indicating that this was in the works.

The security services and police have been trying to boost the intelligence they have about violent extremists. But this attempted attack was “off the radar”.

Scotland Yard’s head of counter-terrorism, Peter Clarke said: “There is no intelligence whatsoever that we were going to be attacked in this way.”

Lord John Talyor from the House of Lords appeared on Fox news and said prevention must be the course of action. He wants to remove the word terrorist and call them criminals, which is disappointing, but he does want to get tough on hate speech in mosques.

This find is a great one with respect to forensic evidence. They should be able to trace much of this back to cells with luck.

Update II: The car that was parked in front of a busy night club, wired with explosives, was stolen in early June. It appears that they have pictures of the terrorist; he was arrested a few years back for a similar charge, but was released due to lack of evidence.
The car bomb was wired to two cell phones and apparently they were both called fifteen minutes before the bar closed; thankfully the detonators malfunctioned.

The second vehicle, which was towed to Park Lane Car Park, may have also been loaded with explosives. There are reports that after the vehicle was towed, the people at the car park lot smelled gas and called authorities.

Update III: Bump to top - ABC News is reporting that surveillance cameras caught a photo of the driver of the Mercedes and he appears to to have a close assemblance to an al-Qaeda operative who is behind bars.

Al Qaeda’s mantra, “If at first you don’t succeed, try again,” appears, according to officials, to be behind today’s foiled car bomb plot in London with the same kind of bombs aimed at the same kind of targets by, officials say, apparently some of the same kind of people.

British authorities tell ABC News a “crystal clear” surveillance photo of the driver of the silver Mercedes, discovered early Friday morning, bears “a close resemblance” to one of the associates of an al Qaeda operative now behind bars.

Officials say a surveillance camera caught the suspect “staggering from the Mercedes” shortly after parking it outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Piccadilly Circus at the heart of London’s nightclub and theater district.

Last year, al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot was convicted by a British court for a plot to use limousines to carry similar bombs as those defused today to similar targets as the nightclubs allegedly targeted today.

In his own personal manual, Barot described how the cylinders, “if carefully orchestrated can be as powerful as exploding TNT,” and “are easily available to the general public,” designed for a “synchronized, concurrent (back-to-back) execution on the same day and time.”

Videos posted on al Qaeda Web sites also show in full detail how to rig propane and butane cylinders as powerful bombs.

I’m not sure what close resemblance implies but it is interesting that ABC also links up an article that claims there was no connection between the bomb plot an al-Qaeda because a password protected jihadi message board posted a statement that “London shall be bombed,”. They are dismissing the connection because the message appeared in a general section and not on the admin pages. This seems like a stretch to me but you can read their synopsis for yourself.

The statement, “London shall be bombed,” posted on a jihadi Web site last night and first reported by CBS News is unlikely an official claim of responsibility by an al Qaeda group.

While the message was found on a popular password-protected jihadii Internet forum, “al Hesba,” it was found in the general section not known to be used for a major public statement.

Messages from al Qaeda and other groups are usually posted in the “statements” section of the Web site by its administrators.

The message was posted by a frequent writer who has never previously acted as a spokesperson for any al Qaeda group or been the source of al Qaeda material.

The user who posted the note identifies himself as “Abu Osama al Hazin,” i.e. the sad Abou Osama. According to the Web site’s available information, he joined the forum in November 2005 and has 500 postings. Judging by his previous participations, it’s clear that “Abou Osama” is supportive of terrorist groups, but unlikely that he has direct connections to any.

[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (9 Comments)

Tony Blair’s seat as Prime Minister of Britain is still warm, and he has moved on to take the new position of special envoy to the Middle East. In reality, he will be assisting the Palestinians.

Blair moving to Jerusalem !!!!

Blair’s new post will be based in Jerusalem, with a potential second office in the West Bank, and will be assisted by a team of experts. (JTA via Batallion of Deborah)

Tony Blair will be moving to Jerusalem to become the Quartet’s special peace envoy to the Middle East. — A statement released Wednesday by U.N. headquarters in New York confirmed Blair’s appointment, which was reportedly agreed upon yesterday in Jerusalem at a meeting of the Quartet, the diplomatic grouping made up of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.
As envoy, Blair is charged with mobilizing international assistance to the Palestinians, securing support for the institutional governance needs of the future Palestinian state, promoting Palestinian economic development, and coordinating Quartet objectives with other countries. (JTA via Batallion of Deborah)

Just what is it that the Palestinians stand for, what do they really want, and why in the world is Tony Blair now their shill?

Abbas, appearing on a podium alongside Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, said Hamas had committed “crimes, murder and aggression against everything Palestinians stand for” in its takeover earlier this month of the Gaza Strip.

Pardon my ignorance here, but, what is it exactly that the “Palestinians” stand for? The only standard I know that they carry is the “Run Israel into the sea” banner. Homicide bombings, corruption, despotism, poverty, hatred are all things I see coming out of “Palestine”. Is there anything positive?

I am no longer for the two state solution. The “Palestinians” have proven time and again that they lack the faculties and the desire to run their own state. (Gentile Warrior via Dhimmitude News Network)

All this needs to be taken into consideration when we view the car bombs threats in London early this morning.

See Islam and the culture of hate, Confessions of a Closet Republican

Check out a new site, YellowShare, a brand new artblog project where people from all horizons submit “yellow notes*” on which they have written personalized messages depicting what they like or don’t like in their life. Sounds interesting.

Also check out Swiss Confederation Institute,
it looks to be very interesting and informative.

Don’t miss Islam and the culture of hate, Confessions of a Closet Republican

[Discuss This Article With Debbie Hamilton at Right Truth]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Harry Reid appeared alongside Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to mark their accomplishments from their first 6 months in Congress with a new slogan draping the background, “Delivering on America’s Priorities”.

That slogan of course is a new promise because up to now the Democrats haven’t delivered on much of anything other than increasing minimum wage. The failed immigration reform bill is simply the exclamation point that caps off 6 months of failure and empty promises. What better way to celebrate this lack of accomplishment than falling back on an Iraq surrender plan?

When Reid took the podium he launched a volley of lies and half truths. He whipped out everything from the same old Democrat play book from Katrina to “The Culture of Corruption”. He even mentioned the discredited Lancet study of 600,000 killed in Iraq. More proof that when they don’t have any facts to rely on the Democrats will simply make the numbers up.

Perhaps the most unbelievable theme that came out of both Reid and Pelosi’s collective mouths (today) is that Republicans prevented the Democrats from meeting the promises they made to the vapid nutroots that put them in charge. This makes me yearn for the good ol’ days when Reid and Pelosi were making the same speech from in front of the MSM cameras, only back then they couldn’t deliver on their weaken America first agenda because Republicans were in charge. Now that the Dems are in charge Republicans are still to blame according to them. This my friends is a look into the minds of the Keystone Dems. What a pathetic bunch of losers.

The following video clips highlight key sections of the Democrat press conference.

One would think that Democrats would want to ride to victory in 2008 based on the accomplishments of what they did after taking control of Congress. Surely that would be a platform to run on. But instead they are going to have to fall back on the tried and true blame Republicans game due to the Democrats own ineptitude as leaders. I’m still waiting for them to implement that plan that Schumer, Pelosi, Reid and Durbin marketed for years leading up to the last election. Come to think of it I can’t remember what that plan actually is.

The following lies and half truths were covered in Reid’s dull speech.
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (27 Comments)

Many in our country see immigration amnesty as a natural good for this country. The well-to-do [from both parties] require domestic workers to keep their lawns looking good and to watch their offspring while mom and dad attend their country club meetings. Many Americans, especially those born in the last few decades, do not understand the history of immigration, especially amnesty packages that usually accompany them.
Kennedy

There are many arguments against the immigration amnesty bill. It rewards lawbreakers, it dilutes our nation, it allows unskilled or low skilled workers to take jobs from Americans at lower wages and as a result suppresses wages. Republicans want it because big business likes the cheap labor to pad the profit margin and Democrats want it because they want the cheap domestic labor and the increased voter block (that votes heavily Democratic). Supporters of this bill say that it provides for the security of this nation and it will secure our borders. The amnesty bill that just died its second death is thicker than the Bible and contains so much legal mumbo jumbo that it would be hard to enforce and Americans have no real reason to trust Congress to uphold their end of the deal. Supporters talk a good talk but once they get these ILLEGALS on board and have waved the amnesty wand they will find a number of reasons not to secure the borders. We will be told that it is now unnecessary because we have absorbed the ILLEGALS. Ted Kennedy is the sponsor of this bill and he is pushing hard for it. In defeat he asked what we are to do now. During the debate he told us that the border was a jungle and border patrol agents wasted time catching landscapers rather than terrorists. NOTE: If the border is a jungle and agents are catching landscapers, why not put them to work landscaping the jungle?

Kennedy has been through all this before and each time Americans have been promised that the amnesty would have no impact on us, that it would not take jobs from Americans and even, that there would be no further amnesty. For those who were not around and for those who have not read about it, I present the history of Kennedy immigration amnesty through his quotes:

1965: “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

1986: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

2007: “Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system.” NRO

Conservatives know that you get more of what you pay for, therefore it was absolutely incorrect when Kennedy said in 1965 that we would not be flooded with immigrants or that our ethnic mix would not be upset or even that the standards would not be relaxed. We have an entire southwest that is changing into a Hispanic country within a country and the ethnic mix in California is quite pronounced. We have gone from the under 200 thousand a year that were allowed here in 1965 to 12 to 20 million living here illegally, so we were flooded with immigrants. The legal Hispanic population has increased greatly since that time so that Hispanics make up a larger portion of the population than blacks (and only second to European whites). We see that the government failed to secure the borders or enforce the laws which certainly relaxed the standards and, there can be no doubt, that Kennedy’s last sentence about taking American jobs was dead wrong.

In 1986 Kennedy told us that we would only be giving citizenship to under 1.5 million people and that there would be no further amnesty bills [like this]. Since 1986 the number of ILLEGALS in this country went from 4 million to 12-20 million and the newest Kennedy fiasco seeks to give them a path to citizenship. Perhaps Kennedy was drunk or hungover when they taught math in school but this number far exceeds the number he touted a mere 21 years ago. Additionally, the newest attempt to legalize immigrants is an amnesty bill and while Teddy might argue that he escaped with the “like this” clause, the fact is the previous amnesty bills came with promises that were not kept.

Those who oppose this new bill are labeled as racists, xenophobes, and (as I was) nativists. The fact of the matter is, this is our country and we have a right to say who gets to come here and under what circumstances they get to do so. Americans, who overwhelmingly do not support this bill, want other measures taken before we deal with those who are here ILLEGALLY. We want a moratorium placed on immigration so that we can get a handle on the people who are here. We want tough penalties and fines for employers who have ILLEGALS on their payrolls and we want the border secure. By cracking down on employers the market for jobs will dry up and ILLEGALS will go elsewhere as evidenced by the crackdown in Panama City Florida. The sheriff has been showing up at construction sites with 5 or 6 cars and watching for people to run. They then pick them up for trespassing or speeding (as they ran through someone’s property or sped off) and report them to Immigration. The result is that ILLEGALS are leaving because employers are not hiring them. This can work across the country if we just enforce the law.

Once we have a cooling period where we have secured the border (with a fence or a wall as San Diego did), once we have weeded out the ILLEGALS from the job market by cracking down on employers and once we have a handle on what we have in this country (which should reduce through attrition as ILLEGALS find it more difficult to get work) then we can get to work on a truly comprehensive bill that would allow seasonal and guest workers to do some of the work we do not have enough people to accomplish. During that down time we can also clear the nearly 4 million person backlog of those waiting to get here legally.

One very important thing that needs to be done with regard to immigration is for Congress to revisit the 14th Amendment. I have written before discussing the 14th and how it was designed to confer Citizenship upon former slaves and their natural born children. The authors of the Amendment never intended it to confer Citizenship on children born to people who were here ILLEGALLY or to parents who are not citizens of our country. This has been discussed at length and the author’s own words clearly spell this out. However, the statement “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been misinterpreted and misapplied. It means you must be a subject of the state (and therefore the country) and have an allegiance to the US as in being a citizen or emancipated slave. We can clear this up if Congress passes a law that says one must be born to citizens to be a citizen and then invoke Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to exempt the law from judicial review. This would allow the stated intent of the 14th to be carried out without activist judges interpreting it to fit their points of view and keep people from having “jackpot” or “anchor” babies to game the system.

America is not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation that came from immigrants but the majority of us came from families of people who, for generations, were born here. We welcome immigrants who come here legally with open arms and expect them to assimilate into our society, just as our founders intended. The melting pot took people from all places and molded them into Americans. This is an absolute must if we are to maintain our identity and our sovereignty as a nation.

Americans do not trust Congress to do what is right. They [Congress] have demonstrated that they can not so what is right and have failed miserably the other two times they had the chance. Now, instead of lumping everything in one bill, we want them to take baby steps. Do the right things that are needed first and then we can figure out how to handle the issue of the people involved.

That, Senator Kennedy, is where we go from here.

As an aside, does anyone see it as wrong that Ted Kennedy was involved in the first amnesty and 42 years later he is still at it? If ever there was a poster child for term limits, Kennedy would be it.

[Discuss this article with the Big Dog...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

I have a friend who is not a political animal. She keeps up, vaguely, with what’s going on, but long ago made the decision that caring about politics was too painful and, when the politics got serious, too frightening. Still if something is important enough to be “in the air,” she picks up on it and forms opinions.

I therefore asked her what she thought about the fact that the Immigration Reform Bill went down in flames today. “It’s terrible,” she replied. This actually surprised me, because I didn’t know that she was so strongly committed to immigration reform. So I asked, “Why is it terrible?” The answer: “Because something needs to be done about it. We can’t have all these immigrants sneaking in.”

In other words, her understanding was that the Immigration Reform Bill’s primary purpose was to stop illegal immigrants at the border. She was surprised to learn that Immigration Reform, as envisioned by Congress, extended beyond border policing and into policies aimed at putting illegal immigrants on a fast track to citizenship, one that could take years, but would still place them in line ahead of other people who have gone the legal route. She and I talked it through, and were able to agree on a few overarching principles:

1. We have no problem with legal immigrants, regardless of their country of origin. The only caveat to that is that we feel that legal immigrants from terrorist rich environments (e.g., Iran or Iraq or Egypt), even if they’ve spent a few refining years in Germany or England first, should be closely scrutinized before they can come into this country.

2. We accept that the 12 million immigrants that are here cannot be shipped back to their countries of origin, simply because it’s not feasible to move so many people simultaneously — and an attenuated deportation is meaningless. In any event, with the border currently so porous, it’s a pointless exercise. In that regard, it put me in mind of the Rev. Sydney Smith’s comment to the effect that “Dame Partington . . . was seen . . . with mop and pattens . . . vigorously pushing away the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean beat Mrs. Partington.” Until we build a viable wall, shoving the illegals south for a few minutes, days or weeks, is about as fruitful an activity as Mrs. Partington’s efforts against the Atlantic.

3. In light of the above consideration, we believe that meaningful immigration reform can only begin with meaningful borders. There has to be a wall, not to keep Americans in, of course, but to keep illegal immigrants out.

4. As for the 12 million here, they have effected a fait accompli, and we may as well recognize that by giving them workers’ visas, so that they become visible and don’t skulk in the shadows where they can get into trouble. However, to the extent that they wish to obtain citizenship, they need to go to the end of the line, after all of the legal immigrants seeking citizenship have had first crack at it. In any event, I think they need to sit up and really beg for citizenship. My friend and I take serious issue with the concept that citizenship should be an automatic outcome of their being here. Citizenship should be earned, not just by making money, but by buying into being an American citizen and accepting the full American culture, including speaking English.

[Discuss This Post with Bookworm at Bookworm Room]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Russia had its first successful submarine missile test launch after several past failures. Russians are touting the missile as having a capability of traveling 6,200 miles and holding an additional six individually targeted nuclear warheads.

MOSCOW - Russia said a new sea-based ballistic missile made its first successful test flight Thursday after several previous failures, in what was the country’s second major test of new rocket technology in a month.

Capt. Igor Dygalo, a spokesman for the Russian navy, told The Associated Press that the Bulava missile was fired from the submarine Dmitry Donskoi in northern Russia’s White Sea and hit its target on the Pacific peninsula of Kamchatka, about 4,200 miles east of Moscow.

In other news:

Lebanese troops raided a terrorist hideout killing six members of the Fatah Islam militant group. If Fatah sounds familiar, it should; Palestinian President Abbas is a member of this fine league of upstanding individuals. How nice that our government props up people who are not only affiliated but have an ongoing membership with a known terrorist group.

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The grotesquely offensive assault on the American voters was dealt a crushing blow as clueless supporters of the Senate Immigration Reform Bill blew up in dramatic fashion when they realized that their coveted bill was going down in flames.

Some smart and many reluctant Senators voted against the attempt to end debate and essentially kill the bill by a vote of 53 to 46, a total of 16 votes short of the necessary majority to invoke cloture.

Reaction was as expected.

Ted Kennedy ironically summed up my idea of the entire state of the senate when he said “We know what they’re against — we don’t know what they’re for,”

No shit, clueless as always. So Ted Kennedy did what most clueless morons do when they fail at their attempts to pull the wool over an informed opponent, he reached for the ad hominem comparison to Nazis.

Perhaps, Mr. Kennedy suggested, the bill’s opponents envision some kind of “gestapo” to round up illegal immigrants. “That’s their alternative?” Mr. Kennedy shouted. “That’s their alternative?” - N.Y. Times

Pretty strong words coming from the only active U.S. Senator to have walked away scott free from a drowning companion, much like a heartless Nazi would have.

But Ted Kennedy wasn’t the only Senator to travel down the path less gracious in the realization that a power to the people moment was about to temporarily right a listing ship. Senator Dick “Turbin” Durbin attacked opponents of the bill as negative voices of exclusion; i.e. xenophobes and racists.

“Even if you disagree with this bill, don’t end this debate,” said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), who urged his colleagues to reject “these voices of exclusion” opposing the measure and not “say we are surrendering to these negative voices across America.” - LA Times

Senator Lindsay Graham proved why he will likely be sent packing in the next election by using scare mongering as a platform.

“remember this day if you vote no. You will never have this day again…. This is as good as it is going to get.”

I will offer an alternative to Mr. Graham, “Remember this day because you voted yes. You may never have this day again but hard working Americans will continue to push for border enforcement that will not discriminate against legal immigrants while protecting the residents of this fine land. You certainly are not as good as it gets.”

Meanwhile it appears that the writers and editors at the Washington Post simply write anything for effect.

“This immigration debate has become a war between the American people and their government,” proclaimed Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who led a small group of Republican senators who used every parliamentary maneuver they could find to stymie progress on the bill over the past month. “It transcends anything about immigration. It has become a crisis of confidence.”

Apparently the staff writers at the WaPo are too stupid to pay attention to what has actually been happening on the Senate floor. It was Harry Reid who used unprecedented methods to shelve amendments and limit debate by handpicking which ones would be included by staying on the floor thus denying all Senators except for himself a chance to offer amendments. The plan was outed on July 26th and we actually saw it in action yesterday. So my message to the Washington Post is the same as it always has been, you are full of shit, even when you get close to reporting the story correctly your classless activists in the newsroom continue to prove why American’s are turning away from the MSM in droves.

This was a victory for the American people. The issue was not partisan although democrats and republicans alike opposed the bill for different reasons. What really happened was that this issue underscored how out of touch our high brow elitist politicians are with the American electorate. Congressional approval ratings are at an all time low and this will only help get people to the polls and vote for change in 2008.

As the saying goes, you are either with us or you are against us. It’s time that our elected leaders look in the mirror real hard and decide which side of that equation they are on.

[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (2 Comments)

I had the pleasure of interviewing Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan, the authors of Caucus of Corruption, a great book that levels the playing field by pointing out the corruption in the Democratic Party. I read and thoroughly enjoyed the book and reviewed it here.

BIG DOG: Your book, Caucus of Corruption: The Truth about the New Democratic Majority, focuses on corruption within the Democratic Party. What do you say to critics who might claim the book is partisan and ignores the corruption within the Republican Party?

MATT: First, I would tell them to read the book, because we do recognize that there is corruption in the Republican Party and we do say that corrupt Republicans should be removed from power and kicked out of the party. The problem with those critics is they don’t want people to know about corruption in the Democratic Party. They’d sooner keep the corrupt Democrats in power than risk letting honest Republicans have any political advantage or control.

MARK: We can be sure that those who are accusing us of being unfairly partisan weren’t at all upset as the way the MSM - and the Democratic leadership - ruthlessly ignored the facts of Democratic corruption. One longstanding Democratic tactic in these matters is misdirection - like when Clinton was wrapped up in his adultery scandals, Democrats were all about how this or that Republican did it, too. We’re not doing that - what we’re doing is acknowledging the totality of corruption in our politics by highlighting the long-ignored Democratic aspect of it.

BIG DOG: You point out the corruption involving William Jefferson of Louisiana, a case that has been building for nearly two years. In the book you discuss the fact that the Democrats failed to remove him from his committee seat until after it was reported by the AP that a video of criminal activity existed. How do you address critics who feel Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty and that if the people of Louisiana put him back in office despite the allegations, he should be left alone unless he is convicted?

MATT: It’s amusing to see Democrats pull the “innocent until proven guilty” line now because any time a Republican is accused of wrongdoing, whether the charges are unfounded or not, they immediately label that Republican as guilty. Howard Dean was calling for Tom DeLay to go back to Houston and serve his jail sentence four months before DeLay was even indicted… and it was a bogus indictment no less.

MARK: There is also a matter of our good judgment; while Democrats were scattershot in their condemnations of any hint of GOP scandal, what people really need to do it take a look at the situation and see what sort of action is warranted. In DeLay’s case, the specious nature of the accusations coupled with the clear partisan bias of the prosecutor should, in the minds of rational people, have resulted in everyone ignoring the charges or at least questioning their validity - in Jefferson’s case, the fact that two people have already pled guilty to bribing him, plus the videotape evidence puts the accusations against him in a much stronger light, and bring with it the requirement for much sterner action to protect the people against corruption.

BIG DOG: So many supporters of the Democratic Party seem to buy into the idea that their elected leaders have done no wrong and that anyone who questions their acts is just launching a partisan attack. To what do you attribute this blind loyalty?

MARK: Obviously people want to believe their party holds the moral high ground, because they’re the ones that best represent their beliefs in Congress. The problem is when party loyalty blinds you to the truth about those people who are supposed to be representing you. We would like to believe that Democrats will read our book with an open mind and then ask themselves if they really want these crooks representing them.

MATT: We know this is wishful thinking given the track record rank-and-file Democrats have in re-electing people who are demonstrably corrupt.

BIG DOG: As you point out in the book, generally, when elected Republicans are caught doing something wrong (or even accused as in the case of Tom Delay), Republicans across the country join Democrats in calling for them to be held accountable for their wrong doing. With the Democrats, we do not see this same call for justice with regard to elected Democrats who commit crimes. Do you think that the proliferation of social entitlements and the lax moral values (abortion, same sex marriage) espoused by the Democratic Party has numbed their constituency with regard to what is right and what is wrong or, in your mind, is there some other reason they ignore Democratic wrong-doing?

MARK: That pretty much explains their thought process; lay down with dogs, come up with fleas. If you are a person who not only commits adultery but thinks it not that big a deal, then you’re probably going to excuse it in others. For Democrats, the worst sin is hypocrisy - and this comes out in a demand that those who have high standards rigidly adhere to them, while those with lax standards be allowed to get away with them.

BIG DOG: In Caucus of Corruption, you point out that corruption runs across party lines with each party having its share of corrupt politicians. I know that ideally you both would like to see more conservative Republicans in office but, if the next election guaranteed that everyone in Congress (who is up for reelection), corrupt or not would be replaced, would you be happy with that even if Democrats held a majority of the House and Senate?

MARK: I’d be happy to see the corrupt politicians go, regardless of which party ended up with majority status. Of course I’d prefer to see the Republicans in the majority - and in addition to getting rid of corrupt politicians, we must bear in mind that we must also get people who will fight against corruption tooth and nail; the Jefferson’s of the world would not be as damaging as they are if everyone was on the lookout for them.

MATT: Based on our research, and from the examples we’ve seen of Republicans being accused of wrongdoing, I think if all corrupt politicians (Democrat or Republican) were magically booted out that Democrats would not end up with a majority.

BIG DOG: Your stated goal is to level the playing field and report the other half of the problem of corruption in Congress, the half largely ignored by the mainstream media. Why do you feel the media ignores the ethical problems of the Democrats while gleefully reporting any instance of Republican wrong doing?

MARK: Recent reports suggest that 9 out of 10 journalists donate to Democrats. That explains it pretty well. Additionally, reporters tend to be of a liberal social ideal, and thus they just don’t get worked up over corruption they way you’d think. We’re all deeply flawed, but most MSMers add to this the additional flaw of thinking that the concept of “flaw” is old fashioned.

BIG DOG: Lacking a platform, the Democrats ran the 2006 election based largely on the Republican “culture of corruption.” Putting aside the corruption you exposed in your book, what is your assessment of the performance of the Democrats, after nearly six months in the majority, with regard to their pledge to run the “most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history?”

MATT: It seems clear to me that the Democrats were - and are - unready to govern. As we pointed out in Caucus of Corruption, back in 2005 Harry Reid was saying it would take a miracle for Democrats to win a majority in 2006. The so-called miracle happened but this didn’t change the fact that even now they are back in power they have absolutely no leadership. Worse yet, Democrats spent no time in their years as the minority reassessing their views and adapting their liberal platform to modern reality.

MARK: If such a thing is possible - but, possible or not, it is dead certain that if corruption were off the table in 2006 and Democrats tried to run on, say, their 2004 party platform, they would have got creamed… not just failing to get a majority, but they would have lost seats. As a for-instance, the Democratic party is still committed, in their platform, to federally-funded abortion-on-demand. Whatever one might think of the merits of that position, the fact remains that it is supported only by a tiny minority - and that provision was first inserted into the platform a generation ago.

Democrats want power, but they don’t even know anymore why they want it, other than it is “cool” to have the perks of power. In my view, after a quarter-century of observing politics, I’ve never seen a worse party leader than Nancy Pelosi; and I do believe she will be rated the very worst Speaker we’ve ever had. She couldn’t even corral enough votes to raise the minimum wage without attaching it to a war-funding bill - and this in a time when in State after State in 2006 the American people voted to increase the minimum wage! Core party issue, popular with the people, hold a majority in Congress… still couldn’t get it done.

BIG DOG: Matt, the Senators from your home state of Massachusetts [John Kerry and Ted Kennedy] are the standard bearers for the Democrats in the Senate and their combined service in the Senate is nearly 70 years. What, if any, ethical issues or acts of corruption did you discover involving either of them? Regardless of what you might or not have found, why do you think the people of your state keep putting them back in office?

MATT: Besides killing someone and accusing American soldiers of war crimes?

If there is an argument for term limits, then Senator Kennedy is it. If I could explain why he keeps getting reelected, I would. But it is beyond comprehension. Of course, recalling that Gerry Studds got reelected six times by the voters of his district makes me believe that the most simple explanation is that Democrats just don’t care about having corrupt and immoral leaders in their party.

BIG DOG: Mark, Senator Harry Reid of your state has a whole chapter devoted to him in Caucus of Corruption. How do the people back home perceive him and why do they keep putting him in office, especially considering Nevada is a red state?

MARK: The usual way for a red State Democrat: don’t tell anyone at home what you’re doing in DC. Reid campaigned for reelection in 2004 as an “independent for Nevada”; nary a mention of his party affiliation and he wasn’t exactly out there front and center helping other Nevada Democrats in their campaigns… and I don’t recall much help to Kerry that year.

The perception of Reid is changing, however, and there is some speculation that he won’t try for re-election in 2010. The stories of his crooked land deals as well as his advocacy of defeat in Iraq are souring the people of Nevada on him.

BIG DOG: You guys have worked together for several years on Blogs for Bush and now you have co-authored a book that should be quite successful. Do you have any plans for a future project and if so, what are they?

MATT: Trust me, we’ve only just gotten our feet wet with the first book!

MARK: We have a couple book ideas percolating in our heads right now, but we’re really concentrating on Caucus of Corruption at the moment. The blogging will continue because we both enjoy that very much.

BIG DOG: OK guys, thanks for taking the time to answer a few questions. Good luck with the book and I look forward to reading your next one.

MATT: Thank you. Our pleasure!

I highly recommend Caucus of Corruption to members of either party. Mark and Matt are right, we need to get rid of the bad politicians regardless of their party affiliation. As they say to those with substance abuse problems, recognition of the problem is the first step to recovery. Caucus of Corruption provides the tools for the electorate to recognize the other half of the corruption problem. Once the problem is recognized we can put our country on the path to recovery.

[Discuss this interview with the Big Dog...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Michelle Malkin is reporting that as of 11:30am Eastern time the Shamesty bill is dead.

The people have spoken with such fervor and because of that we are victorious.

Others:
Flap’s Blog,Right Wing News,Bill’s Bites,Blogmeister USA

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)