Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Constitutional Chaos From the Left

Recently my wife’s uncle, Roger Fitzpatrick, made a run for Congress in the new 9th district in northeast Georgia. The focus of Roger’s campaign was the Constitution. (How sad that that need be the case!) As he saw it, many of the problems currently facing the U.S. are a result of an abandonment of our founding documents. We were very close to the campaign, as my wife Michelle was Roger’s unofficial campaign manager.

Though Roger lost in the primary, his effect on the race was significant. After his late entry into the race, much of the focus of the debates and forums in which the three candidates (Roger, Doug Collins, and Martha Zoller) participated centered around the Constitution.

Never has a focus on our Constitution been more necessary and appropriate. Several recent events highlight this.

First of all, there is Boston mayor Thomas Menino. Practicing his version of “tolerance” and completely ignoring the First Amendment, Menino threatened Chick-fil-A after its president Dan Cathy declared his support for traditional (biblical) marriage. The threat wasn’t personal. Menino stated that, “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult—unless they open up their policies.” What’s more, Menino also penned a letter to Cathy, urging him to forego plans to open a restaurant in Boston. “There is no place for discrimination along Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” he wrote.

Not recognizing the hypocrisy and Constitutional disregard, Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, along with a Chicago Alderman, doubled down on Menino’s threats. Alderman Proco Joe Moreno stated that due to Cathy’s comments, he would not allow Chick-fil-A to open a location in his ward. Emanuel backed up Moreno by announcing that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.”

Completing the “tolerance trio” was San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee. Lee tweeted “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

Then there’s Senator Harry Reid. Last week, in an interview with the eagerly complicit Huffington Post, Reid claimed that about a month earlier, a Bain investor called him and told him that Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years, and that was the reason behind Romney’s refusal to release further tax returns.

Reid shamelessly added that, “You guys have said his wealth is $250 million—Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars.”

A couple of days later, Reid took his accusations to the Senate floor. There he boldly declared that, “the word is out that [Romney] hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn't. We already know that from one partial tax return that he gave us, he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and a Swiss bank account.” In other words, the presumption of innocence and due process be damned; “Dingy Harry” put the accusation out there, and now it is up to Romney to prove it isn’t true.

Now we have another wicked maniac with a gun, killing innocent Americans. After the shootings at the Sikh temple on Sunday in Wisconsin, liberal pundit Jay Bookman of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution declared that, “the tragedy in the Wisconsin case is compounded by the fact that its victims were gathering in a place of peaceful worship, and were apparently targeted because of their faith...Hate crimes that target groups have a much longer list of victims than do acts of blind, random violence such as that in Aurora.”

Bookman concluded that, “the Wisconsin shooting should serve as a caution to those in public life who stoop to targeting religious or ethnic groups in their irresponsible rhetoric, and who by doing so validate the anger, fear and resentment that apparently motivated this tragedy.”

Of course the implication here is that the shootings in Wisconsin are more tragic than those in Colorado because the Wisconsin gunman was acting out of “hate” (another term liberals have hijacked and turned into a “snarl-word”). Also, another implication, just as Obama made after the Gabby Giffords shootings, is that we (conservatives) need to tone down our “dangerous” rhetoric.

It is this kind of thinking that led to “hate-crime” legislation, which is nothing more than criminalizing thought and speech. What a dangerous slope this places us on, because, of course, many liberals would love nothing more than to criminalize words such as those spoken by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy.

All too often, today’s liberals are engaging in willful ignorance or blatant disregard when it comes to our founding documents. I’m not just talking about your run-of-the-mill liberal neighbor with his “Hope and Change” bumper sticker, or even prominent liberal talking heads. When we have the highest ranking democrat in Congress, and a Mayor who was formerly the U.S. President’s Chief of Staff, along with other leading liberal politicians, so blinded by their “progressive” political agenda that the U.S. Constitution is an after-thought, where are we as a nation headed?!

Yet, no matter such egregious Constitutional errors, come November at least 40% of Americans will vote for the party behind this nonsense. There’s no way around it: America needs a constitutional revival (along with a spiritual one).

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, April 11, 2011

Efforts to Defund Planned Parenthood Must Continue

The recent failure of the GOP to achieve the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood should not deter further efforts to remove taxpayer funds from the largest abortion provider in the U.S. In fact, the issue should remain front and center at every level in the 2012 political campaign.

Make no mistake about it, as Jordan Sekulow noted just prior to the latest federal budget deal, Planned Parenthood (PP) owns the Democrats. Therefore, for the Democrats, shutting down the federal government was worth it as long as it ensured continued taxpayer funding for PP.

In the middle of March of this year, when asked about amendments that would defund PP, Harry Reid was quoted as saying “not only no, but hell no.” Just hours prior to the budget agreement, Reid declared that the only issue holding up a budget deal was funding for PP. He declared, “Republicans want to shut down our nation's government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need.”

It’s amazing that a U.S. senator can use the phrase “health services” in describing an organization that is dedicated to ending human life. However, this is how the liberal mind of the leader of the U.S. senate works.

Joining the chorus of PP supporters was the number three ranking Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. “The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate,” said Schumer. Giving his best Winston Churchill impersonation, Schumer added, “Let me repeat that, so all those who want to stomp on women’s health and women’s rights can hear us loud and clear. The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.”

He may be right about this Senate, but the next one will almost certainly be a different story. In the 2012 election, the GOP has to defend only 10 U.S. Senate seats, while the Democrats have to defend 23. Of the 10 seats the GOP defends, six of them are from GOP strongholds (AZ, MS, TN, TX, UT, and WY). Of the other four seats, two have been in GOP hands for at least three election cycles (18 years). The other two seats belong to Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.

Of the 23 Democratic seats (two are actually independents who caucus with the Democrats), three are from GOP strongholds (MT, NE, ND), eight are from states that elected GOP governors in 2010 or 2009 (FL, MI, NJ, NM, OH, PA, VA, WI), and six are from states that elected a GOP senator in 2010 (FL, MO, ND, OH, PA, WI).

Thus, with the Republicans needing to flip only four seats for control, it is highly likely that the GOP will take charge of the U.S. senate after the 2012 elections. (Notice that FL, OH, PA, and WI elected GOP governors and senators in 2010.) If this happens, Republicans should act quickly and make Schumer eat his “never, never, never” declaration.

In light of the current economic climate, there has never been a better political climate for cutting off the over $360 million in federal funds that PP receives. Besides, our federal government has no business being in business with an abortion provider. “But no taxpayer funds are used for abortions—federal law already prohibits that,” PP supporters say. This is an asinine and absurd argument. With around 1/3 of its budget coming from taxpayer funds, it is clear that federal money enables PP to function and do what it does “best:” provide abortions.

Of course, with President Obama on record supporting what many consider infanticide, even if congress passes a bill defunding PP, he would almost certainly veto it. According to The Susan B. Anthony List, almost all current GOP candidates for president support defunding PP. This is an issue that pro-lifers need to keep a significant part of the 2012 campaign. In more ways than one, the U.S. federal government cannot afford its relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, April 29, 2010

"Demonizing" Democrats

The following shocking statements were directed at the President of the United States:
 
“It is a disgrace. This administration is a disgrace.”
 
“(He) is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people.”
 
“He's embarrassing... He's not my president. He will never be my president.”
 
“You (and your administration) are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings.”
 
“I hate (him). I despise him and his entire administration — not only because of its international policy, but also the national.”
 
“I don't want add fuel to the fire, but I don't know what it's going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers.”
 
Boy, did the liberals hate George W. Bush. That’s right—every one of the above statements was directed at President Bush. The rage on display here was not conjured up by everyday Americans, such as those attending the TEA parties, but by celebrities such as Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Joy Behar, and Jessica Lange.
 
In other words, these comments were made by those who have a much larger microphone than the Americans participating in the TEA parties that many liberals now seemed so concerned about. Liberals then were not so concerned with “demonizing the government,” as Bill Clinton recently put. (I suppose it matters who you imagine as a “demon” for there to be concern.)
 
What’s more, YouTube is replete with videos of protests during the Bush administration that show protestors brandishing signs that say things like: “George W. Bush is a terrorist!”; “Team Bush: The True Axis of Evil”; “F-ck Bush”; “Dead or Alive” sign with the name “George W. Bush”; and so on. Then there was the Bush Assassination film.
 
This slander and violence was at least ignored, and at worst parroted, by a media that showed no concern about “inflammatory” or “inciting” statements directed at the President of the United States.
 
But it wasn’t just the kooky celebrities and deranged protestors on the left who were unhinged in their anger. Take note of some of the comments made during Bush’s eight years by leaders of the Democratic Party:
 
“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”—Al Gore
 
“The man's father is a wonderful human being, I think this guy is a loser.”—Harry Reid
 
“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.”—Nancy Pelosi
 
“We will take to the streets right now. We will delegitimize (him), discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”—Jesse Jackson
 
“Regime change! (Do you think this bothered Chris Matthews?) Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor…”—Ramsey Clark
 
“American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot.”—Dick Durbin
 
“In the last six and a half years we have seen a dangerous experiment in extremism in the White House.”—Hillary Clinton
 
“I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.”—John Edwards
 
“There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”—Hillary Clinton
 
“President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”—Harry Reid
 
“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”—Nancy Pelosi
 
“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”—Howard Dean
 
“No president in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security…”—Ted Kennedy
 
Barely two years from the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2003, writing for Time magazine, Charles Krauthammer notes that, “Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around.” As a result of this behavior, Krauthammer discovered what he considered to be a psychiatric syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
 
The TEA Party protests have miles to go before they approach the vitriol that was directed at Bush over a period of several years. And once again the mainstream media finds itself shamefully guilty of the hypocrisy and bias that it is so frequently accused of.
 
Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas