ALERT! Waxman, Pelosi, RINOS Will Try to Ram Healthcare Bill Through

2 special news alert items just came in concerning the Obama plan for a government takeover of healthcare.

Henry Waxman says a bill will be ready by Wednesday, and Pelosi says she will schedule a vote for Friday if this comes to fruition.

Second, secret negotiations have been occurring in a Senate panel concerning a compromise healthcare bill that both Democrats and RINOS can support.

Read the details of this important news bulletin at Columbia Conservative Examiner, and ACT!

Free Market Solutions for Healthcare

One of the things you have not heard much about in the current debate raging over the nation's healthcare is that free market solutions exist, and they work.

Barack Obama and the Democrats, however, had just as soon you not be aware of those wonderful alternatives...not even the so-called 'blue dog Dems' who are themselves proposing a version of 'government takeover light.'

Read my latest discussion of these solutions in my column today at Columbia Conservative Examiner, entitled, 'Free Market Solutions to Healthcare, but What Will the Blue Dogs Do?'

Spread the word!

DEMS LIE TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ON HEALTHCARE

Just yesterday we saw a graphic display of just how scandalous the House Democratic leadership can be when committee chair Henry Waxman threatened to move to a floor vote on the government takeover of healthcare that very same day.

Conservative 'blue dog' Democrats were outraged and stormed out of a special meeting with Waxman, stating that he had 'lied to them' that they were merely trying to 'save their Party.'

As if this were not enough, White House henchman Rahm Emanuel told reporters yesterday afternoon that in spite of announcing to the public that there would be no vote on the healthcare legislation until the Fall, the House Democratic leadership is, indeed, planning a vote next week--BEFORE the recess.

From NPR:

The House of Representatives does plan to vote on health legislation before leaving for its August recess, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told NPR.

Emerging from several hours of meetings Thursday with House leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel told NPR's Steve Inskeep that "their intention is to go next week and she is working toward that goal."

So much for open, honest, ethical, and transparent government...

UPDATE! Blue Dog Dems Storm out of Committee!

Stating that they had been lied to by House Committee chair Henry Waxman, D-California, a group of conservative 'blue dog' Democrats stormed out of a meeting with Waxman concerning bringing the government takeover of healthcare to a floor vote today.

This report was filed by The Hill.

The Blue Dogs contend that the House Democratic leadership, Waxman in particular, ceased to negotiate with them 'in good faith,' and that they (the conservatives) were merely trying to 'save their Party.'

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.

Obviously, the Democrats are in complete disarray over this monstrous plan that has sharply divided their own Party.

Exposing Gore's Lies, Defeating Cap and Trade

The tide is turning as the Cap and Trade battle moves to the Senate. Due to the massive outpouring of citizen protest, some Senators are saying the bill is dead on arrival. We'll see.

Here is my comprehensive analysis of the issues related to the bill at Columbia Conservative Examiner.

The rationale given for the bill is based upon lies. We expose them. We also publish the names of numbers of 8 RINOS who voted for it, and 22 blue dog Democrats who also voted for it. They are turncoats.

Be sure to read and tell a friend.

Are 'Blue Dog' Dems Claims Holding Up?

But most of the time, the large majority of Blue Dogs have been enablers of the Big Government agenda. Ultimately, the extent of their alliance with House uber-liberals reflects the Democratic leadership’s most remarkable and overlooked accomplishment: the use of a form of legislative triage. On the big issues, the Democrats quietly condone the loss of an “acceptable” number — but only an acceptable number — of Blue Dog votes.

Thus, it would seem that the claim of the 'Blue Dog' Democrats that they are 'conservative' simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Talk is cheap. The proof is in the votes. Read the entire National Review report here.

Blue Dog Democrats Struggle With 'New Dems'

Blue dog Democrats who are known for being more socially and fiscally conservative than their colleagues are finding themselves in a struggle for power with so-called 'New Dems,' according to The Hill.

The 55-member coalition of moderate Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives may have caught the attention of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but the members of the 'New Dems' say they do not wish to be defined by the principles espoused by the Blue Dogs.

One key reason, obviously, is the fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House. Obama has clearly embraced an extremist agenda, and most Dems in both the House and the Senate have been more than willing to jump on board the Obama program.

Frankly, the Blue Dogs have very little power in the House due to nothing more than the sheer numbers. They are simply overwhelmed and out-voted by the more liberal element in the Party.

Even some of the Blue Dogs themselves have abandoned their principles and jumped aboard the Obama bandwagon.

Pelosi Keeps 'Blue Dog' Dems Under Her Heel

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, many had hoped that the more conservative 'blue dog' Democrats would have a major impact on the direction of their Party.

Those hopes have been largely dashed.

If the blue dogs have made any progress toward having a moderating impact on the Democratic leadership either in the House OR the Senate, you certainly can't tell it by the actions of either chamber.

In fact, in the House, for example, ultra-liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi has only solidified and strengthened her iron-fisted grip on her underlings.

According to an analysis conducted by The Hill, during the last 2 years Pelosi has emerged as the undisputed head of the Democrats in the House, and she is not afraid to use her power to punish blue dogs and reward the like-minded liberals who do things her way.

And the blue dogs simply acquiesce.

Pelosi, the unquestioned leader in the House whose enormous power seems to grow by the day, has sought to placate both factions. And to this point, she has succeeded.

Few members clash publicly with Pelosi. Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who were at odds with Pelosi over the last few years, were stripped of their top committee posts.

Centrists are grumbling that their growing ranks aren’t represented in the leadership team that Pelosi shaped through back-room arm-twisting. The so-called Blue Dogs, while publicly celebrating President-elect Obama’s commitment to “pay-go,” are wondering when the stimulus balloon stops expanding.

Dingell in particular was one of the few Democrats in leadership positions who supports gun rights. But Pelosi ditched him in favor of one of the most liberal anti-gun nutcases in the House--Henry Waxman.

So much for the 'power and influence' of conservatives within the Democratic Party.

Dems Condemn Supreme Court Ban of Barbarism

Washington, DC (TLS). In a stunning victory for pro-life forces, the United States Supreme Court yesterday banned a procedure that critics have long designated as an unnecessary, gruesome, and barbaric attack against unborn children.

The high court banned the procedure known as 'partial birth abortions,' a late-term procedure during which the child is partially delivered, killed by drilling a hole in its head and sucking out the brain, and then delivering the rest of the child dead.

Republican Presidential candidates praised the decision of the Court.

Democrats, on the other hand, condemned it.

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, D-California, took to the floor of the Senate to deliver a lengthy diatribe against the court's decision, claiming that it took away all the progress toward 'women's rights' that we have made over the past 30 years.

Excuse me, Senator, but how does a ban on barbarism set back human rights? In addition, you should be under arrest at this very moment in order to face charges of war profiteering--a scheme during which you sent to your husband's companies millions of dollars' worth of military construction contracts while you were the Chair of the very committee that approved those contracts.

Hillary Clinton, as expected, condemned the decision, as did Barack Hussein Obama. No surprises there.

John Edwards, however, issued a most stinging rebuke, stated that he 'could not disagree more strongly' with the decision.

In that one single statement alone, Edwards betrayed his upbringing and the values of his home state of South Carolina. As a native of Seneca, which is located in the upstate of S.C. where people value faith, freedom, the rule of law, and traditional family values, Edwards demonstrated today he has little regard for those values.

Let the record show for all to see that every single Democratic candidate for President is on the record for supporting one of the most blood-thirsty, gruesome, chilling, and barbaric procedures ever devised in the demented minds of abortion doctors.

The Jim Webb Gun Controversy

Washington, DC (TLS). U.S. Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, finds himself embroiled in a controversy involving firearms and a top personal aide. The aide was arrested by Capitol police for bringing a concealed handgun into the Senate office complex.

Upon his arrest, the aide claimed that Senator Webb had given him the weapon and that it belonged to Webb. Webb has permission to carry a concealed handgun into his office.

Wasting no time in going before the cameras, Webb held a brief news conference during which he denied giving the gun to the aide.

This controversy has raised several interesting, key issues revolving around the national debate on the right to carry, the D.C. law banning guns (which was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal court), and the problem with politicians such as Jim Webb.

Webb ran as one of the so-called 'blue dog Democrats,' who openly defied their Party's leadership by embracing conservative issues such as gun rights. Once elected, even Nancy Pelosi, the quintessential socialist of the People's Republic of California, embraced these conservatives, stating that they would not be pressured to vote for any issue that their constituents back home deplore. On the Senate side, Harry Reid echoed Pelosi's sentiments.

Yet no sooner had Pelosi and Reid took the gavel to open the session of the new Congress than the inexperienced freshman Democrats with a conservative bent found themselves totally overwhelmed by the 'big guns' of the Democrat Liberal Establishment. Bills were introduced to silence free speech. Another bill was introduced to scale back Second Amendment rights (this one, H.R. 1022, now has nearly 40 sponsors).

The 'blue dogs' suddenly found themselves under heavy peer-pressure. After all, how can a first-term conservative Senator from a largely rural state find the intestinal fortitude to go head-to-head with one of the Party's perennial stars, such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy?

The huffing and puffing of Senator Blowhard is enough to send inexperienced freshmen Democrats scurrying for cover.

So here is Jim Webb facing the cameras with the dilemma of his life. He clearly has a much more conservative viewpoint on the Second Amendment than most of his Democrat colleagues. Yet his top aide has been arrested for committing the unpardonable sin as far as some in his Party are concerned--he brought one of those evil, concealed weapons right into the Capitol!

Webb has yet to strongly defend the actions of his aide. Yet he has not condemned him, either. Walking this tightrope is the curse of being a conservative in a Party run by extremist Liberals and who get most of their money from those who are even MORE extremist than they are.

The flip side of this controversy has to do with the reaction, or lack thereof, by the Senate leadership.

Suppose this had been Trent Lott's aide. Or Orin Hatch.

I can just hear it now. The Democrats would have hit the airwaves that very day to condemn the practice and use it to showcase why we need more gun control in the United States of America. There would be calls for endless investigations into the incident, including why the top aide of a top Republican Senator would be bringing a concealed weapon into the Senate (probably even hinting that since Senator Lott and Hatch are religious conservatives, they were probably part of an evil fundamentalist Christian terrorist plot to blow up the Senate office building).

But because this is DEMOCRAT Jim Webb, what have we heard from the Senate leadership about this incident? Nary word.

And we won't.

The Democrats can ill-afford to further alienate that part of the voting base that values the Second Amendment yet holds a vague distrust for Republicans, and they can ill-afford to rattle a freshman Senator who hold a seat they sorely need to keep and who tends to blow his stack at the drop of a hat.

It is to be remembered that Webb has a penchant for volatility. This is the same man who refused to shake President Bush's hand in a serving line at a White House reception given in honor of the newly elected Congressmen. Set this guy off, and the Dems are likely to be the recipients of a stream of projectile venom aimed straight at the Party leadership.

Why, he may even whip out his gun.

The bottom line is that the blue dogs are in a precarious position in a Party that is clearly out of touch with most Americans. But they are not dumb. As much as the Democrat leadership despises the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they dare not make an issue out of Webb and his aide's views on guns.

Webb could help himself by coming clean about all of this. Let the country know that he backs his aide's right to carry. Let the country know that he backs Second Amendment rights, and that he finds the law banning guns in D.C. to be a travesty and a sham...particularly when one must break the law in bringing a gun through D.C. in order to legally hold it in the Senate office complex.

How much sense does that make?

Webb could do himself and all freedom-loving Americans a big favor by living up to the way he portrayed himself during the campaign. The problem is he would immediately become a pariah in his own Party, and frankly, I don't think he has the guts to do it.

'Tis the Season When Candidates 'Get Religion'

Saluda, NC (TLS). The first World War provided the backdrop for a new phrase to be added to the modern vernacular: 'There are no atheists in foxholes.' The reference, of course, was to the innovative development in waging war that utilized the digging of trenches in the ground to provide soldiers with extra protection from enemy fire.

While 'trench warfare,' as it was called, represented a major step forward in waging war, the fact was that troops by the millions died just as effectively while embedded in a foxhole as they did in an open field. The scene was frightening as scores of young men watched as their fellow soldiers died all around them from bullets, mortar, grenades, and the like--all of which was made even more poignant by the close proximity of soldiers huddled together like sardines in a can within the trenches.

It was said that many a prayer went up to heaven from those foxholes as soldiers petitioned the Almighty for a safe passage back to America. Even the hardened of the non-religious were said to begin a very active, devoted prayer life the first time they heard bullets whizz passed their heads while embedded in a trench.

This year in the life of our nation we see the political candidates for national office already beginning their long, uphill climb toward the primaries in early 2008. The brave souls who dare to announce their bid for the Presidential nomination are in many ways like those soldiers down in the trenches. The first shots have already been fired from the media, opponents, and the voters themselves out on the stump.

Thus, most candidates 'get religion' in a hurry.

Of course, I use this term as a metaphor for the tendency of most candidates to begin to truly listen to the voters and make some concessions that belie their record.

We need look no further than John McCain to see an example of this phenomenon. In Iowa over the weekend McCain, when dogged by questions concerning his indefensible position on opting for a program of open borders in response to the problem of illegal aliens, stated that he 'may be forced to rethink his position on the issue.'

The question is, is McCain truly beginning to 'get religion' or is he merely engaging in the suspicious practice of 'deathbed repentance?'

It is not that McCain is unique in this regard. Politicians have long been known to suddenly see the light on issues when they are forced to face the voters in an election. The problem, historically, has been that once they get elected they forget all about their promises to the electorate, thus making their claim of seeing the light on certain issues nothing more than an excercise in pandering to voters and betraying their own true thoughts and feelings.

The perfect illustration of this phenomenon is the story of two men who were stranded on the open seas in a small row-boat. Without water or food, the two were near death. The weakest of the two knelt down in the bottom of the boat to pray while the other looked through binoculars to see if he could spot land.

He said, 'I am not a praying man, but if it works in getting us out of here, I'll do it.'

About a 5 seconds later the other said, 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! You don't need to do something stupid like praying now. I think I see land!'

'Seeing the light' and 'getting religion' is a convenient, opportunistic ploy of seasoned politicians who have amassed a record of votes on issues that do not resonate with the public. Such a politician can face the voters and claim a 'change of heart,' or a 'sudden recognition that they had been wrong' in the past, or even better, my favorite excuse--'I have grown and matured since those misguided days of my youth.'

The gullible fall for this balderdash and re-elect the repentant, only to be fooled again when the politician in question resumes his or her old tricks, securely ensconced in office and insulated from the public for at least 2 years, sometimes 4 or 6.

Thus, Hillary Clinton can claim, 'If I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted in favor of the Iraq War.' Barack Hussein Obama can embrace an evangelical Christian group, talk about Jesus and such, while conveniently hiding the fact that his voting record is the most Leftwing of all of the candidates. Rudy Giuliani can claim that the only reason his record on gun rights is so dreadful is that NYC needed extreme measures to reign in the crime spree. Mitt Romney can talk about how he has progressed from one who supported abortion rights to one who is solidly pro-life.

This is not to say that some candidates are not being honest when they claim a progression in thought and feeling through the years. We all change with time in certain ways. However, as my old Baptist preacher used to say in my youth, 'The ONLY instance of genuine deathbed repentance in the Bible is the thief hanging beside Jesus on the Cross.'

The message in this, of course, is that genuine deathbed conversions are possible but rare.

So, who do you trust?

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Many of those running for President have been around a very long time. It should be clear to most who have eyes to see and ears to hear that most of these simply cannot be trusted. They will say anything to get elected, and then, once in office they unleash a steady stream of legislative initiatives and policy statements that make everything they said during the campaign a lie.

One need look no further than so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' who ran as conservatives but once elected proceeded to march in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi's extremist, Leftwing agenda.

But after all, it's all about nothing more than getting elected, isn't it?

Webb Seeks To Tie Bush's Hands on Iran

Washington, DC (TLS). Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, has introduced a bill in the Senate that would tie the President's hands in dealing with Iranian terrorism and its attacks against our troops in Iraq. The freshman Democrat from Virginia introduced legislation that requires the President to 'seek authorization before using force against Iran.'

Webb stated, 'This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own. We need Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent from an attack from the other side or a direct threat.' Further, Webb maintains, 'this bill denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place.'

It is no secret that Webb carries a deep-seated, near-pathological disdain for George W. Bush, refusing to shake his hand at the White House reception for incoming Congressmen and Senators. Despite the President reaching out to the toddler who obviously needed a diaper-change, Webb gave an abrupt retort to the President when Mr. Bush asked about Webb's son.

Yet Webb has the unmitigated gall to claim the President 'shoots from the hip.'

Obviously Mr. Webb is too dumb to know we now have confirmation that Iran is sponsoring the terrorist attacks on our troops and on Iraqis inside Iraq. And apparently the Senator from Virginia is too ignorant to realize that Iran is one of the biggest threats in the world to the security of Israel, Europe, and the United States. Further, the cry-baby tantrum-throwing Junior Senator from Virginia is woefully uninformed about the grave danger a nuclear Iran would pose to the entire world.

Or maybe he knows all of these things but simply doesn't care.

It is no secret that Webb lied to the public to get elected. Portraying himself as one of the so-called 'blue dog Democrats' who are conservative and would stand against the ultra-Liberalism of Nancy Pelosi. these 'blue dogs' proceeded to be a part of a Democrat majority that has proposed some of the most tyrannical legislation in the history of the Republic. They have marched in lockstep with Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Reid, Conyers, and Hillary.

So much for the 'blue dog conservatives.' Not a single Democrat in either chamber of Congress has stood valiantly for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, or any other basic liberty the Constitution protects.

As far as we can tell, the blue dog Democrats are just as rotten to the core as the rest of the lot.

They are a part of the Democrat gang of thugs that has tried to unleash a massive assault on individual liberty, even to the point of making it a hate crime to even speak against homosexuality.

As far as I'm concerned, this was absolutely the last straw. This gang of thugs has got to go. And when we finally grab them by the seat of the pants and the nape of the neck and toss them out the door in 2008, we need to make sure their lying 'blue dogs' are thrown out with them.

I have very little tolerance for the forces of anti-freedom. And this bunch has pushed my last button.

Have I said that Webb is an idiot yet?

Nope, so here it is.

The bottom line? Webb is an idiot who is an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate. What is it with these Virginia Senators, anyway? Even the Republican senior Senator from Virginia, John Warner, has turned yellow-bellied when it comes to fighting terror and holding back Iran.

Has Cindy Sheehan been polluting the water up there with a substance that zaps otherwise sane people into pacifistic ultra-Liberals?

The President doesn't need approval from Congress to go after Iran. They attacked us first, and they have persisted in attacking us. Webb simply needs to go get his pacifier and shut up. He should leave the security of the nation and the free world to the grown ups.

Read more here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070306-122217-9622r.htm

'Blue Dog' Democrats Lied to the Public

Washington, DC (TLS). In the 2006 election cycle a number of Democrats were elected to the House and Senate on the basis of portraying themselves as 'conservative.' These so-called 'conservative' Democrats were tagged in the media as 'blue-dog Democrats' supposedly to designate their departure from accepted Party dogma.

Many of these candidates claimed to be 'pro-life,' 'pro-gun,' 'traditional family-friendly,' and the like, all in order to distance themselves from the liberal ideology of the Party elite. They promised the voters back home to be independent-minded, to vote their conscience, and to resist the pressure of Party leaders to 'tow the Party line' on issues.

So, how do these 'blue dog Democrats' score so far?

Not good at all.

In spite of the fact that all of these supposedly 'conservative' Democrats were elected to Congress, the House and Senate still managed to promote legislation aimed at limiting the free-speech rights of individual citizens, particularly bloggers who encourage readers to contact Congress concerning issues. In addition, Democrats have proposed the 'McCarthy bill,' H.R. 1022, that would broadly expand the definition of 'assault weapons,' thus posing the single biggest threat to 2nd Amendment rights since the last time Democrats controlled Congress. Rep. McCarthy proposed yet another bill, H.R. 1167, which would remove 2nd Amendment rights from any citizen who happens to show up on an airline's no-fly list or who is convicted of a crime in a FOREIGN court.

Thus, if you ever happen to get arrested and convicted of a crime in Saudi Arabia, where women can be beaten to death for failing to wear veils, you can forget about owning a gun in America.

Take a quick scan of these other stellar proposals that have come out of the Democrat-controlled Congress: expansion of 'hate crimes' laws, laws that protect against 'gay bias,' proposals for tax increases (as Hillary Clinton stated, 'We are going to have to take some things from you for the greater good'), proposals to reintroduce the so-called 'fairness doctrine' to silence conservative talk radio by demanding equal air time for liberals (in spite of the fact that liberals already get free air time each night on CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN News), the Kennedy bill to ease immigration requirements and grant amnesty to illegal aliens, the Pelosi proposal to ease tuition fees for illegal aliens, and the goal of cutting off funding for our troops in Iraq...a proposal that has Connecticut Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman talking about becoming a Republican.

And this is only for starters.

Emboldened by the Liberal power in Washington, Democrats on the local level have proposed some outrageously extremist legislation, such as the suggestion by New York City Democrats that illegal aliens should be allowed to vote in municipal elections.

So, my question is, where are all of these 'blue dog conservative Democrats?'

It doesn't take much digging to see exactly where they are--marching in lockstep to the extremist, Leftist, ultra-Liberal agenda of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Barny Frank, John Kerry, Barack Hussein Obama, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And thus, the blue-dogs lied. They deceived their constituents into voting for them on the basis of conservative principles.

So far, there are no conservative principles among the Democrats in Washington.