Blue Dog Democrats Voting for Cap and Trade

26 06 2009

There are 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition.

22 of them voted Yes on Cap and Trade (HR 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act) earlier this evening, in a bill that narrowly passed the House 219-212. That’s just over 42% of supposedly “conservative” Democrats voting Yes on a VERY liberal piece of legislation than no one had a chance to even read.

Baca, Joe (CA-43)  225-6161
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)  225-3631
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)  225-3806
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)  225-5235
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)  225-6131
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)  225-4706
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)  225-4311
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)  225-1640
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)  225-2542
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)  225-4231
Harman, Jane (CA-36)  225-8220
Hill, Baron (IN-09)  225-5315
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)  225-6306
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)  225-2865
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)  225-4276
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)  225-2165
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)  225-2965
Schiff, Adam (CA-29) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA-13)  225-2939
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)  225-6401
Space, Zack (OH-18)  225-6265
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)  225-3311

If you live in any the blue areas below, and your representative’s name is listed above, you need to replace them with a conservative Republican. No excuses.

Blue Dog district map

Blue Dog district map

I count 9 that are from southern states that depend largely on farming. At least 2 others are from mostly conservative states (OH and AZ). We only needed 7 of these 9 to defeat the bill. Every one of these 22 needs be replaced in 2010.

Many are jumping on the  8 GOP turncoats who voted Yes: Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, and Smith(NJ). But these are mostly RINO’s. Are we really that surprised?

Michelle Malkin asks of the 8 GOP turncoats: “We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?” Who will ever know?

Dan Spencer at RedState is on the right track:

… it is possible to pass such a plan with a whopping seven vote margin – 219-212, with less than 4% of the favorable votes coming from the loyal opposition and more than 20% of the negative votes coming from the majority party.

It does make wonder what is hidden in all those pages that no Representative really had a chance to read, let alone study, that made the Democrats so determined to avoid a real honest to goodness debate.

I’m more surprised at the 22 of 52 Blue Dogs that voted Yes than I am of the 8 GOP turncoats. But I’m also more confident that conservatives can recruit and elect conservative Republicans in most, if not all, of these 22 districts.


Here We Go… Moving Left

21 11 2008

Barack Obama won the presidency this month by winning a handful of key states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain needed but did not get. There were several key demographics in each of those states that Obama won over to his side that I will address later. Many voters in these states were Christians who mistakenly believed Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian, would certainly not move as far left as their fellow believers were warning them. As a Christian, I must have grace for the poor judgment my fellow Christians displayed in their choice of president (no I-told-you-so’s), but in order for us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, it is important to point out these errors. 

This “non-I-told-you-so” occurrence I’m referring to is the ambushing by liberal Democrats to unseat Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) from his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee and replaced him with Rep. Harry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman’s overthrow is disturbing to many Democrats, who see the move as spurning the seniority system and an indication that Obama and Pelosi is veering their party sharply left

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats steered the House toward more aggressively tackling global warming and other environmental problems Thursday, toppling veteran Michigan Rep. John Dingell, a staunch supporter of Detroit automakers, from an important energy panel in favor of California liberal Rep. Henry Waxman.

The switch could help President-elect Barack Obama on Capitol Hill with one of his favored issues: trying to curb global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But Waxman’s combative stance on climate change and other issues also could alienate Republicans and moderate Democrats, making it harder to get the bipartisan support Obama will need.

Of course the AP release limits the scope of this leftward coup to environmental repercussions and the automotive business. And this is precisely why it was important for Christians who supported Obama to heed the warnings and not vote for him. Obama’s march leftward is a smoke and mirror show and most Obama supporters cannot tell you the other, more important reason, this appointment is important. 

The Energy and Commerce panel is one of the most important House committees, with sweeping jurisdiction over energy, the environment, consumer protection, telecommunications and health care programs such as sex education and taxpayer funding of abortions. You may remember that Waxman was the one who used your taxpayer dollars to launch unsubstantiated attacks on the validity of abstinence education and pregnancy care centers. 

According to FRC Action, the leadership will not pursue the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) next year. Democrats have decided the issue carries too much political risk. They plan to postpone the legislation until they can chip away at smaller pockets of the values movement. 

With Waxman’s appointment and today’s story that President-elect Obama is delaying the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it seems the leadership plans to attack life and family by quietly dismantling things that won’t make front-page news like increasing taxpayer funding of abortions, ending conscience protections, and inhibiting free speech. Until they’ve paved the way with these incremental changes, liberals are putting off big ticket items like same-sex “marriage,” FOCA, and gays in the military.

Don’t continue to be fooled, brethren. If you helped vote in a president who stands opposed to these biblical principles because you liked his tune on other issues, here is your proof that he IS a leftist as we said he was. And this won’t be an isolated incident.

Recycling We Can Believe In

28 10 2008

Is Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” really anything new? As I’ve noted before, it’s more of a recycling of old-time socialism first brought to political life by Woodrow Wilson and perfected by FDR and his New Deal. 

Voters who are so disgusted with George W. Bush that they will take any candidate of the opposing party need to understand what they are getting in exchange for their loathing. The fact that Obama appears charming lulls these voters into an even deeper trance. But neither hatred of Bush nor sleep-walking with the Pied Piper of Politics is an excuse for the facts.

Jonah Goldberg‘s column in the LA Times today is worth the read:

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama — all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century. Dewey held that “natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology,” and that “organized social control” via a “socialized economy” was the only means to create “free” individuals. Dewey proposed that statism be taught as a kind of civic religion in our schools so that Americans could be raised to see the government as the solution to all of our problems. 

Dewey lives on too in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, often invokes Dewey when justifying his own dream of indoctrinating public school students in “social justice.” Obama doesn’t condone Ayers’ ’70s-era bombings, but he certainly subscribes to Ayers’ educational vision. In fact, Ayers’ educational work is the primary defense for the candidate’s association with an unrepentant terrorist. 

Much has been made of Obama’s comment to “Joe the Plumber” that things are better when we “spread the wealth around.” The Obama campaign, with the usual willing accomplices, has rebuffed charges of “socialism” or “radicalism” with the usual eye-rolling.

But Obama’s words that day in Ohio were perfectly consistent with his past statements…

Read the rest. It’s a must-read.

Back to Obama’s Future

27 10 2008

What would an Obama presidency actually look like?

Focus on the Family released a chilling letter from a Christian in 2012 (pdf). 

Here is a sampling:

Far-left liberals could hold a 6-3 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court could rule same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right — in all 50 states.

Preaching from the Bible could be banned from radio and television.

States may not be able to restrict abortion, and taxpayers could be forced to fund abortions.

In several states, it could be illegal to own a gun.

Fear mongering or justified warning?

Tax Me so I too can be Patriotic

19 09 2008

Joe Biden insulted every American today with is remarks about taxes yesterday:

CANTON, Ohio — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden on Thursday called Republican John McCain’s answers to the current economic crisis “the ultimate bridge to nowhere” and said that paying higher taxes would be patriotic for wealthier Americans.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

So, the millions of Americans that are poor and middle class aren’t worthy of this “level” of patriotism, according to Joe Biden. And what about the wealthy? Since when is higher taxes (government theft of income) a prerequisite for patriotism? Patriotism is reflected more in the lives of those who have donated their time, money, and other resources to the disadvantaged. Paying higher taxes is not patriotic. It makes the wealthy a victim of theft. 

Joe Biden made $2.9 million last year and only gave $900 to charity. Talk about unpatriotic. 

Patriotism is not having more money forcefully taken from the wealthy and given to Joe Biden so he can spend it on government programs. Patriotism is about sacrifice and giving. Joe Biden obviously knows nothing about that. He could deliver one humdinger of a speech on how to hoard for oneself and spend other peoples’ money.

The scope of government, as outlined in the Constitution by the Founders, is to punish evil and commend good. Paying taxes for those purposes are patriotic. Beyond that, it’s theft and no amount of liberal government programs at the taxpayer expense justify an increased patriotism. Americans don’t want a government that will do everything for them. We don’t even want the government to “stand beside us,” as Michelle Obama thinks. Americans want the government to get out of our way. Just stay within the scope of the rights we the people grant you the government and nothing else. WE will stand beside the country, as the song goes, when need be.

Controversial California Home-School Case Dismissed

15 07 2008

The unconstitutional February 28 ruling by a California Appeals Court outlawing ALL home-schooling in the state of California has been dismissed by a family court judge last Friday, July 11. The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled improperly that California parents without teaching credentials cannot home-school their children. This occurrence likely means the Court of Appeals decision will not be resurrected. 

LA Times:

A controversial legal ruling that outlawed most forms of home schooling in California will face greater scrutiny because the underlying family court case was dismissed earlier this week.

“It should mean the whole thing goes away,” said Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Assn. “I’m very optimistic for the long haul. I don’t see how in the world this case could be upheld. That [dismissal] absolutely bolsters my optimism greatly.”

Edward Steinman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said he does not believe that the family court dismissal undermines the ruling, but it could provide easy political cover if the appellate court wants to get out of the spotlight.

California has some 200,000 children currently being home-schooled. No court wants that many unhappy families protesting their decision. But home-schoolers are not out of the clear yet: 

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said the appellate court is expected to decide in the next few weeks whether to drop its earlier ruling.

“If that were to happen, we would be back at square one as if this whole mess had never taken place — at least legally speaking — because there’d be absolutely no precedent on the books,” he said.

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said he is hopeful the court will do the right thing.

“We’ve had a tremendous alliance arguing on behalf of home-schoolers, and the case has been tossed out of the lower court,” he said. “We think the appellate court will do the right thing and settle the matter that parents can home-school in California.”

How ironic it is that the liberal mantra of rights, equality and tolerance is forced upon Americans when it comes to abortion, religion, and homosexuality. But since when does one bad home-schooling family make all the rest equally bad? There is no tolerance for the Christian worldview, especially in public schools where the state thinks it knows much better what is best for your children than you the parent does.

The New Deal 2.0

7 07 2008

If Barack Obama wins the presidency in November and retains majorities in Congress, this country will make a hard turn to the left not seen since the New Deal. Seventy-five years ago, Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days began with his March 4, 1933, inaugural, and culminated June 16 with his big push for the National Recovery Administration (NRA).

I should preface this by pointing out that the material depression was far greater in 1933 than today. Americans needed Roosevelt to act, and he did. Like Barack Obama today, Roosevelt used his rhetoric to bring Americans into his camp. But his NRA programs, plowing through Congress exploiting a 313 to 117 Democrat to Republican ratio, only exacerbated the Great Depression. 

Roosevelt pushed his unprecedented, government-growing legislation through not only because of his majority in Congress, but like Obama today, he appealed to the emotions of voters using biblical falsifications such as the government’s “duty” to seize control and expand all forms of transportation, communication, and other utilities.

Barack Obama’s vision for an increase in government power carries a Rooseveltian harmony. As evidence, I submit any supporter of Barack Obama who can’t explain his position on any major issue. These types of voters are more numerous than you might imagine. Just about every late night and political talk show has interviewed such persons on numerous occasions. They have been beguiled by the mellifluous notes of The Pied Piper’s Barack Obama’s flute. And to top it all off, they have no excuse. First, they have the failures of Roosevelt’s New Deal to look back on and learn from, and second, we are not in a depression and do not need our next president to expand government in order to survive. Obama’s ideals for government power are for his personal benefit and the good of his party, not the American people. 

In 1935, thanks to a conservative Supreme Court, the NRA was found to be an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, resulting in FDR backing off. But he cranked it back up after his reelection. And since the voters during those depression years preferred the hope the NRA paraded to the medicine GOP candidate Alf Landon offered, Roosevelt enjoyed a second term with another majority in both houses of Congress and no opposition to obstruct his liberal programs. 

What can conservatives do this year to prevent The New Deal 2.0? One way is obvious: work to elect John McCain. But if McCain appears headed for defeat, Republicans will have one other viable option: prevent a sizable Democrat majority in Congress. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund recalls what happened in 1996 when Bob Dole’s loss was imminent:

The Republican National Committee decided to take bold action by directly appealing to the public’s fondness for divided government and fear of one-party rule. It rook out ads that featured a fortuneteller staring into a crystal ball showing scenes of Biblical devastation, plague and conflict were seen. The announcer warned what could happen if Democrats swept the elections:

“Remember the last time Democrats ran everything? The largest tax increase in history. Government-run health care. More wasteful spending. Who wants that again? Don’t let (insert local state) down. Don’t let the media stop you from voting. And don’t hand Bill Clinton a blank check.”

It worked. Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and lost only a handful in the House.

Fortunately, McCain is running close enough in the polls that option one is still highly possible. But if Obama’s daily flip flops have the intended consequence of duping more voters into believing his words today over yesterday, then plan B may be our only hope for survival.