Democrats Plan to Continue Partisan Witch Hunt

Yippee - the NY Slimes is reporting that the turd sucking leaders in the DNC Congress are planning on continuing their quest for the Holy Grail after President Bush leaves office. The investigations into rumor and innuendo and tinfoil hat charges will continue...

"The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.

"I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced," said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration."

Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.

Are these fools just really trying to see how low they can get their approval rating before the country kicks them in the gonads? More wasted time and expense for more CodePinko inspired foolishness...

Personally I say BRING. IT. ON. I would love for a precedent to be set that will apply to ALL former Presidents especially after the 4 years of BO. Then maybe we could get the truth about his ties to Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi and even his REAL birth certificate.

While we're at it - let's include those members of Congress that have pending issues hanging over their heads. For instance, Cold Cash Jefferson, the Dodd/Frank/Emmanuel fannie mae connections, Pelosi's fundraising for her husband's business, Conyers and his wife's babysitting scam, Feinstein's husbands business development and Claire McCaskill's husband's addiction to prostitutes, etc.

So let me get this straight.... our economy is in the toilet, Barney and friends want to "chavez" our country and BO is going to make us all slaves to the government via community service projects. Meanwhile Conyers and his islamofascist supporters want to investigate the President after he leaves office. Is this part of the Hopey and Changey cult? Sounds like more of the same crap that they've been dishing out for past 2 years.

Obama's Chief of Staff Pick a Freddie Mac Alum - Will Media Notice?

Rep. Rahm Emanuel held paid position on troubled GSE's board from 2000-2002, when Freddie Mac was accused of accounting and campaign finance irregularities.

He’s President-elect Barack Obama’s new chief of staff, according to various Nov. 6media reports, but Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., also has some baggage pertaining to the financial crisis. Will anyone in the media take note?

Emanuel, who was a senior adviser for former President Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s, was appointed to the board of Freddie Mac upon his departure from the Clinton administration.

“Clinton’s going-away gift to Emanuel was a seat on the quasi-governmental Freddie Mac board, which paid him $231,655 in director’s fees in 2001 and $31,060 in 2000,” Lynn Sweet wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times on Jan. 3, 2002.

During the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandal involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. Freddie Mac and its sister organization Fannie Mae were taken over by the federal government in September 2008 after years of mismanagement and scandal. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put the two beleaguered GSEs into a conservatorship, stripping common stock shareholders of their rights to govern the companies.

In 2006, Freddie Mac was forced to pay a $3.8 million fine to the Federal Election Commission to settle allegations it illegally contributed to congressional candidates between 2000 and 2003 – while Emanuel was on the board and running for and serving in Congress.

“Freddie Mac was accused of illegally using corporate resources between 2000 and 2003 for 85 fundraisers that collected about $1.7 million for federal candidates,” an Associated Press story from April 18, 2006 said. “Much of the fundraising benefited members of the House Financial Services Committee, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac.”

And, since his successful run for the House of Representatives in 2002, Emanuel has been the beneficiary of campaign cash from Freddie Mac and its sister organization Fannie Mae – $51,750 according to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site OpenSecrets.org.

Gonna be a real messed-up four years...

Source

Blacks Protest Against Obama- Where Is The Media? Why Are They Hiding This?

YouTube Video Here:
Blacks Protest Against Obama

Bear cub shot dead in Obama protest

A BEAR cub was shot in the head and dumped, draped in Barack Obama campaign posters, on the grounds of a US university.

Police at Western Carolina University said maintenance workers found the carcass of the 34kg bakc bear cub yesterday morning, the Asheville Citizen-Times website reported.

“It looked like it had been shot in the head as best we can tell. A couple of Obama campaign signs had been stapled together and stuck over its head,” said university police chief Tom Johnson.

“Someone evidently was wanting to draw attention to the election. If we find out who they are, we'll make sure they'll get some attention themselves,” Mr Johnson told the paper.

The university called the incident deplorable and troubling.

“We cannot speculate on the motives of the people involved nor who those people might be, said associate vice-chancellor Leila Tvedt.

Paul Cox, a spokesman for the Obama campaign in North Carolina, would not comment.

Source

Pelosi's stretched mouth gets her into trouble once again

Just couldn't leave it alone could you, Nancy?

Your eagerness to blame the republicans and Bush for this economic fiasco that the Democrats setup years ago, made you show your true colors when it comes to "bipartisanship."

Although the bill is a piece of crap as it is, simply a rubber stamp to bail out the fat cats, most republicans were about to vote for the good of the whole, until you stepped up and spewed your canned, "Bush Sucks" rhetoric that has made you so popular with your San Franfreako constituents.

I know the republicans can't blame their decision solely on your speech but I would have done the same thing if I heard someone say what you did against my party.

What the hell were you thinking? Were you so paranoid that the people would blame your party for this mess (which they do) so you decided to do some damage control?

To paraphrase your chosen empty suit, NoBama..."You must think we're stupid."

The bill will be written again, in a more acceptable way, and the banks will be saved somehow. Saved, and freed to run amock without, "control" and "discipline," which is the responsibility of YOUR party leaders.

Maybe next time you can take a minute to learn what bipartanship means and hold your distaste for conservatives for at least AFTER you finish your speech.

I shouldn't really expect much though, since you have to live up to your 10% approval rating.

Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush administration

Here's what we can expect if NoBama and the Scranton Scrapper get elected.

YOU want four more years of this?

Biden says criminal violations will be pursued

· Democrats have issued subpoenas to Bush aides

· 3 staffers have been held in contempt of Congress

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.

Biden's comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.

"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

"[i]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. "You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."

Congressional Democrats have issued a flurry of subpoenas this year to senior Bush administration aides as part of a broad inquiry into the authorisation of torturous interrogation tactics used at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Three veterans of the Bush White House have been held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to subpoenas: former counsel Harriet Miers, former political adviser Karl Rove, and current chief of staff Josh Bolten. The contempt battle is currently before a federal court.

Source

DNC calls for probe of McCain public funds withdrawal

Hey,
Been awhile since I posted here. Not because the Moonbat Dems aren't still relentless in their "Get Bush" crusades, but because I've been busy. Here's another one:

The Democratic National Committee is calling for a full investigation by the Federal Election Commission of Sen. John McCain’s withdrawal from the public matching funds program.

FEC commissioners are meeting Thursday to consider a staff recommendation that McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was within his rights to withdraw from the program. The DNC filed a complaint in February this year, arguing that McCain was not allowed to do so because he never formally asked the commission if he could withdraw.

Joe Sandler, the DNC’s general counsel, wrote a letter to the FEC Tuesday night arguing that the commission should not consider McCain’s decision to exit the matching funds program because there is no pending request from his campaign. Instead, the FEC should conduct a full investigation before they vote on their complaint as required by law, according to Sandler.

“The American people have a right to know whether the John McCain who once championed himself as a reformer saved his campaign by breaking the laws he helped craft. We are calling on the FEC to promptly conduct and conclude an investigation into the complaint we filed four months ago so that this issue can be resolved in the appropriate manner,” Sandler said.

Democrats argue that McCain secured a loan that helped save his campaign by offering federal matching funds as collateral. The FEC certified McCain for the program in December and the Arizona senator, had he accepted the matching funds, would have been bound to a spending cap of $54 million for his primary run until the Republican Party’s convention in St. Paul, Minn.

By February 2008, after primary victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, McCain had withdrawn from the program. That removed the spending cap, and the senator’s campaign proceeded to spend above the cap.

The saga continues.

Why do Europeans Love Obama?

Let us count the ways:

1) Obama’s tax code, support of big government programs and redistribution of income, and subservience to UN directives delight the European masses—especially at a time when their own governments are trying to cut taxes, government, seek closer relations with the US, and ask a petulant, pampered public to grow up.

2) He offers Euros a sort of cheap assuagement of guilt—in classic liberal style. When Obama says falsely that he does not look like other Americans who have addressed Germans (cf. Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice who have represented US foreign policy abroad the last 7 years), Europeans feel especially progressive—and therefore need not worry that no one of African ancestry would ever become a European Prime- or Foreign-Minister.

3) Europe is weak militarily and won’t invest in its own defense. But with Obama, they believe the US will subject its enormous military strength to international organizations—usually run by utopian Europeans. So they will play a thinking-man’s Athens to our muscular Rome. They especially lap up Obama’s historical revisionism in which he lectures about the world’s effort to feed Berlin or tear down the communist wall, never the solitary, lonely efforts of a Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan to confront the evils of communism when almost everyone else preferred not to.

4) Style, style, style. Remember socialist Europe is where we get our designer eyeglass frames, Gucci bags, and French fashions. Instead of a strutting, Bible-quoting Texan, replete with southern accent and ‘smoke-em’ out lingo, they get an athletic, young, JFK-ish metrosexual, whose rhetoric is as empty as it is soothing. The English-only Obama lectures America on its need to emulate polyglot Europe; while a Spanish-speaking George Bush is hopelessly cast as a Texas yokel.

5) Obama reassures Europeans that they, not American right-wingers, “won” the classical debates of the 1990s over economics, foreign policy, and government. He is a world citizen, who buys into human-created massive global warming, wind and solar over nuclear and clean coal, high taxes, and cradle-to-grave entitlements, and resentments of the rich. There is a certain European “We told you so” that comes with his election. In short, we elect a world citizen with a European view, and put behind us the embarrassments of a Texan or cowboy actor.

The final irony?

The hated George Bush is still around; Chirac, Schroeder, Villapin et al. are history. Iraq is secure. Iran is becoming isolated. North Korea supposedly is denuked. And America is reassuring a jittery Europe that we will stick by them in a world of bullying Russians and Chinese.

A Modest Prediction

In 5 years, Europeans will prefer George Bush to a “We are right behind you” Obama.

What a difference a year makes!

A little more than a year ago most Americans—and nearly all the Democratic opposition in Congress—opposed the surge of troops into Iraq and Gen. David Petraeus’s change of tactics.

The conventional wisdom after four long years of war was that we were stuck in the middle of a hopeless civil war. There was no American military solution to quell the violence. The Iraq government was not only incompetent, but proof that democratic government itself was incompatible with Middle Eastern culture and religion.

Pundits were advocating trisecting the country into separate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish enclaves. Our presence in Iraq caused us to have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, while empowering Iran, and helping al Qaedi to gain new recruits in a new theater of operations. Democratic presidential candidates were hammering each other over Iraq and demanding that those who had voted to authorize the invasion apologize for their vote. Barack Obama wanted all American troops out by March 2008.

A New Political Reality

And now? July is closing with the fewest number of American combat fatalities since the war started. There is no civil war. The Maliki government has put down Shiite militias and won back Sunnis into the elected administration, and, as an autonomous and confident government, is in tense negotiations with the US over future basing of American troops. Al Qaeda has been humiliated and routed from Iraq. American troops, versed in counterinsurgency, are being redeployed to Afghanistan to reapply what worked against jihadists in Iraq. Iranian-backed militias are being disbanded or have fled back into Iran. The additional surge troops are now out of Iraq. Democratic opponents suddenly concede that the withdrawal of American troops should be predicated on conditions on the ground. Anti-war activists critique Iraq more as a possibly successful war not worth the human and material costs rather than an effort long ago lost.

What Happened?

So what happened in the last twelve months to cause such a radical turn-about in Iraq and here at home? The surge added some needed troops, but more importantly sent the symbolic message that the United States was not leaving, but determined—militarily—to defeat terrorists and give the Iraqi government critical time to consolidate its authority.

The so-called Anbar awakening in which Sunni tribal leaders turned on al Qaeda and joined forces with us was not caused directly by the surge, but would have failed without the confidence more Americans were on the way to support their fight against al Qaeda. Americans began to turn from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency tactics that meant dispersing combat troops out of compounds and into Iraqi neighborhoods where they could protect Iraqis who resisted terrorism.

Don’t Forget …

Two critical developments are relatively unappreciated, but likewise proved critical. The first was the continual growth and improvement in the Iraqi security forces that now include many veteran units that have learned to confront and defeat terrorists.

Second, between 2003-7 American forces took an enormous toll on jihadists. We have heard mostly how many Americans have been lost, rarely how many of the enemy they have killed or wounded—but the aggregate number is in the tens of thousands. Even in postmodern wars, there are finite numbers of skilled combatants—and many of them simply did not survive their encounter with American troops.

Nothing New

None of this volatility is new in American military history. The American Revolutionary War ebbed and flowed for nine years, variously pronounced won, lost, and won again. The Union thought it had won, then had lost, and finally won the Civil War during the last 16 months of the conflict. The Philippine insurrection, in various phases, lasted 14 years, often praised as won and condemned as lost. No war was more mercurial than the Korean between 1950-53, in which the American public was convinced the war was hopeless before it ended in1953 with the preservation of South Korea.

In most of these struggles, the efforts of just a few rare individuals—a Washington, Grant, Sherman, Ridgway—proved crucial. We remember their names, not the thousands of pundits who declared them incompetent and their wars lost. Long after a Seymour Hersh, Moveon.org, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid and others are forgotten, Americans will still remember what David Petraeus did for our country. Amen to that!

Pelosi calls on Bush to release reserve oil

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday urged President Bush to release crude oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat high prices, a call Republicans used to bolster their push to increase domestic production with more drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

The Department of Energy plans to suspend this delivery of the 70,000 barrels of oil per day currently going into the SPR - per a law Congress passed in May that required the suspension until the end of 2008. But many Democrats want Bush to go further.

Pelosi sent a letter asking the president "to draw down a small portion" of the SPR's more than 700 million barrels of oil "to help reduce record prices that are helping push the economy toward recession."

"Releasing oil from the Reserve is a tool to manage our national and economic security, and when judiciously used will in no way jeopardize national security," the California Democrat wrote.

Call for more drilling

The SPR was established in the aftermath of the oil embargo in the early 1970s and is intended for use in case of a disruption in oil supplies. Suspending or drawing down supplies from the reserve is not typically done to regulate prices, but Pelosi noted that crude prices have dropped when the United States has opened the spigot on the SPR in the past.

Still, the White House rejected the speaker's call, saying that using the reserve to manipulate prices was "ineffective."

"It's unfortunate that the only place Democrats in Congress can find to explore for more resources is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. "It is time to put aside these politically-motivated band-aids offered by the Democrats and do something that will improve our energy security in the future like expanding access to American energy in" the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Without directly opposing her proposal, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said that Pelosi's call to release supplies from the SPR meant that she "is admitting yet again that increasing the supply of oil will help reduce the price of gasoline."

"I agree, and so do my House Republican colleagues who have been arguing for decades in favor of more American energy production," he said.

House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, R-Florida, and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, have pledged to force a vote on bills to allow offshore drilling and exploration in ANWR before Congress leaves for its month long August break.

Democrats have repeatedly driven back attempts to open ANWR and the OCS for oil drilling, arguing that any help for skyrocketing prices would be years away and miniscule. Republicans argue that increased exploration for domestic oil sources would signal that the United States is intended to take care of its own energy needs and would drive down costs.

New drilling in the OCS - shallow ocean areas just off the coast that slope for miles into deep sea - was banned in 1991 after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Energy Department has estimated that 86 billion barrels of oil may be present in areas currently off limits to drilling.

The Energy Department has estimated that ANWR could produce as much as 1.45 million barrels of oil per day within 20 years after it is opened for exploration. The United States currently consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day.

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami noted that Democrats support a bill that would require oil companies that hold existing federal leases for oil drilling to begin exploration or lose the rights to those leases.

"(Republicans) are ignoring the fact that 68 million acres on shore and offshore could be drilled at this moment," he said. "Providing oil companies with additional public lands would not lower the price of gas and would not provide relief to American families."

Nearly 10,000 such leases are open. Republicans say it takes time to develop such leases and that if older leases are not currently in production, it's because it's not financially viable to do so.

Putnam and Blount admitted their options for forcing the ANWR/OCS issue in the House of Representatives are limited, but Putnam predicted the issue could be "potentially a game changer" for Republican prospects in the November election.

Cheaper gas?

Regardless of the back-and-forth on oil supplies, experts are divided on whether increasing supplies would mean lower gasoline prices. Noting that the SPR holds crude oil and not refined gasoline, Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, told a Congressional hearing in April that the oil industry has failed to add refinery capacity to keep up with demand.

"By failing to expand production capacity to meet demand and provide a reasonable reserve in an industry with very low supply and demand elasticities that is prone to accidents and disruptions, the markets became tight and volatile," he told members of the House Select Subcommittee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, adding "Crude oil will not do much good without the ability to refine it."

Cooper testified that putting SPR's 70,000 barrels per day back into an 85 million barrels per day market would have "little if any impact on prices." But he told the representatives that the current SPR policy should be overhauled, noting that the Bush administration had failed to fill the reserve when prices were low and now objects to stopping the fill with prices at record highs.

Melanie Kenderdine, associate director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative and former oil policy analyst for the Department of Energy, testified at the same hearing that the SPR has been "inconsistently" used.

Kenderdine noted that drawdowns from the reserve were not triggered with the loss of more than 2 million barrels per day at the start of the Iraq war but were used with the loss of less than a million barrels per day after Hurricane Katrina disrupted refineries in the Gulf Coast. In that instance, crude oil from the reserve was traded for refined product from Europe.

She also said that the sale of crude oil from the reserve, currently at an average cost of less than $30 per barrel, could dramatically reduce gasoline prices and also could provide needed funding for research and development into alternative energy sources - ultimately the only way to eliminate the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

"An outright sale of 40 million barrels of oil from the SPR would generate almost $4.5 billion in new revenues," she testified. "This would have the added benefit of lowering prices to consumers.

"For those who say we would diminish our energy security by so doing, I would point out that this would reduce the amount of oil in the SPR to around 660 million barrels, roughly 60 million barrels more than was in the reserve when we invaded Iraq when, presumably, this level of oil insurance was deemed sufficient to protect our energy security interests during a war in the Middle East."

CNN's Deidre Walsh contributed to this report.

The Democrats are working hard on the Energy Crisis

They have heard our voices, and they are making the energy crisis their top priority.

They know people are adjusting their lives dramatically to deal with the huge rise in gas and food prices.

They know, they will give us change. They will find the answers and save us all.

They are bringing all their resources and powers to bear on this most important crisis.

Here is a glimpse of what they have done so far:

Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak

WASHINGTON (AP) - A former White House spokesman told Congress on Friday that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted him to say that Cheney's chief of staff wasn't involved in the leak of a CIA operative's identity, an assertion that turned out to be false.


Scott McClellan, Bush's spokesman from 2003-2006, said he had reservations about publicly clearing the name of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff at the time. Later, Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know if a crime was committed. But he had harsh words for the White House, suggesting that the administration is continuing to cover up.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it," he said. "And they have refused to.
"And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains," McClellan told the panel.

McClellan said he does not believe Bush knew about or caused the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan requested that McClellan appear to give sworn testimony about the account in his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." The book includes McClellan's claim that he was instructed to mislead the public about the roles of Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove in the leak of Plame's identity and its aftermath.

The committee's ranking Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, ridiculed the hearing as a "book-of-the-month club" that revealed nothing new. Whatever McClellan was instructed to say, Smith said, was typical work of the White House press office.

"It should be of no surprise that there was spin in the White House Press Office," said Smith. "What White House has not had a communications operation that advocates for its policies? Any recent administration that did not try to promote its priorities should be cited for dereliction of duty."
Related to but separate from his comments about the Plame case, McClellan also criticized the Bush administration for its handling of prewar intelligence in making the case for invading Iraq.
"It's public record that they were ignoring caveats and ignoring contradictory intelligence," McClellan said.

I feel so much better knowing Congress has its priorities right.

Source

And you thought this was all Water under the Plame Bridge

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan will testify before the House Judiciary Committee next week on the Plame affair, the Associated Press reported today.

"President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity," the AP reported.

"McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House's role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday."

McClellan has just released a scathing memoir on his time in the White House. In it, he speculates that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby met privately at least once to concoct a story about their roles in the leak of Plame's identity. Libby was tried and convicted for lying to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the Plame affair. President Bush later commuted his sentence.

These Moonbats just don't give up...like a pissed-off old wench that just won't let the past go....

Wasserman Schultz: Judiciary Committee Willing To Arrest Rove If He Doesn't Testify

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Wasserman Schultz, in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday, echoed the demand of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) that Rove would not be allowed to invoke executive privilege to avoid testifying. Rove could not invoke the privilege since he said he did not have conversations with the president about the attorneys' firing, Wasserman Schultz said.

Asked by MSNBC host Dan Abrams if the committee would go far as having Rove arrested, Wasserman said it would.

"Well, if that's what it takes," she said. "I mean we really cannot allow the co-equal branch of government, the legislative branch, to be trampled upon by the executive branch. The founding fathers established three branches of government. We are a co-equal branch, and this is an administration that essentially has ignored and disrespected the role of the legislative branch for far too long."

Rove said Sunday that the Judiciary Committee has refused to take up offers by his lawyer and the Bush administration that would allow the committee to find the information it's seeking without Rove's testimony.


COMMENT: Marxism is alive and well.

Update (PDF): Rove's Lawyer Ridicules Subpoena

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued a subpoena Thursday to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was jailed for bribery in what was widely seen as a political prosecution.

In response, Rove's attorney Robert Luskin questioned why the subpoena was necessary and mocked Conyers in a letter copied to RAW STORY.

"I do not misunderstand either the Committee's procedures or the scope of its interest in Mr. Rove; nor, in light of your reported remarks about the need for 'someone' to 'kick his ass,' am I the least bit confused about the Committee's motives and intentions," Luskin wrote. "I confess, however, that I do not understand why the Committee is threating a subpoena to Mr. Rove for information related to the alleged 'politicization of the Department of Justice,' when, as the Committee is surely aware, Mr. Rove has already received a subpoena for the same subject matter from the Senate Judiciary Committee."

"I also do not understand why the Committee refuses to acknowledge that, in these matters, Mr. Rove is not a free agent," he adds. Read the letter here.

House subpoenas Karl Rove in Justice Dept. Probe

I bet you thought all this was over and the whining Moonbats were on to other things.....WRONG.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove as part of its inquiry into whether the Bush administration politically meddled at the Justice Department.

Accusations of politics governing decisions at the agency led to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top political adviser to President Bush would testify voluntarily.


They have nothing else to do between destroying our faith in congress and pissing all over the taxpayer.

Happy hunting....

Turn Out the Lights...

From Texas Rainmaker:



The party’s over…

Count me as one of those who couldn’t decide which was better: To watch the Democrats destroy each other on a daily basis… Or to watch the Clintons finally tuck their political tail between their legs and walk out (dis)gracefully.

Now it’s time for John McCain to find himself a good CONSERVATIVE second fiddle so the base can get excited about showing up to vote in November. Just be prepared for all out racial war from here on out… not because we’re all racists, but because racist Democrats will try to paint it that way. Every ad, every speech, every comment will be taken as having some racial connotation to it. Just get ready.

Either way, today is a special day. Good riddance, Clintons.

You are mighty

type your name in the address below and run it.

http://www.yourname.youaremighty.com


Enjoy

Some of the Luckiest People in the World

Bodies

National Health Care - OK, OK, I take it back...

I know I've been ranting against any form of national healthcare. I've been against it because it smells too much like Socialism/Marxism. To me, national healthcare was the first step over the cliff into one (or both) of these forms of government. And, I was against it because the Hildebeast wants it.

So, partly because of what I've seen when living in countries that have this sort of care, I've re-thought this subject. National healthcare is something the U.S. needs. People do not need to be worried about how to pay for treatment or if the doctor is competent. We just have to be concerned with whatever ailment we have.

But, national healthcare can only be successful if it's run correctly. We shouldn't demand that people pay a deductible or premiums. We should not demand people pay for the care if they don't want it. If you work and are an american citizen you should be allowed this necessity. I've seen too many people denied quality care because they didn't have insurance. We should also me free, (like other countries are) to buy private health insurance if we want. England, you can have national care, but you can also buy private insurance. National healthcare shouldn't be the only choice for the country.

We won't have this national health care though because we will have to sacrifice. We won't be caught dead giving something up for "the good of the country." Hell no! Let the government figure that out. Most countries pay for that free health care with a huge sales tax, like 14 to 16 percent. Would you be willing to pay 16 percent of each dollar you spend, instead of the 7 to 9 percent we pay now?

Also, doctors, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies would throw themselves in front of a bus rather than give in to national healthcare. Do you honestly think they will give up those hundreds of thousands of dollars a month salary to be paid what the government will probably pay?

I think not.

So, national healthcare has a long way to go and frankly, I don't see it happening because of these factors I mentioned.

We need it, and I hope the Hildebeast can do it without destroying the democratic system we now enjoy.

I still won't vote for her.

Criminal Probe Opened over CIA Tapes

And so, the witch hunt continues:

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the
destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes and Attorney General Michael B.
Mukasey appointed an outside prosecutor to oversee the case…

“The Department’s National Security Division has recommended, and I have
concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this
matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation,” Mukasey said in a
statement released Wednesday.

Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee
the case. Durham has a reputation as one of the nation’s most relentless
prosecutors. He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into
the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut
public officials to prison…

The CIA has already agreed to open its files to congressional investigators,
who have begun reviewing documents at the agency’s Virginia headquarters. The
House Intelligence Committee has ordered Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA official
who directed the tapes be destroyed, to appear at a hearing Jan. 16.

This is just what we needed. Another gutless attorney general. Another out of control special prosecutor. And another media circus.

Never mind there is no crime here, or even the possibility of a crime.

He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut public
officials to prison.

And it sure sounds like Mr. Durham has his priorities straight, doesn’t it?

What a waste of the taxpayers’ money, just to placate the howling banshees on the left and in the media. (Though I repeat myself.)

Thanks to Sweetness and Light

From a Michigan State University Professor

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.' Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt , the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris France. This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.' If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen. Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations , apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion. (unlike the broad latitude given to the Islamists to spew their hate-filled raves) For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.