"A New Direction For America"

[jinelson]

"A New Direction For America"

Democratic priorities are clear: "we will fight to get the economy back on track, we will create jobs, and we will help unemployed workers.”

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back. A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25-year lows. A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20-year lows. A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50% (just as predicted) over last year. A new direction from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20-year lows. A new direction from there means what?

Moreover, bear in mind that the above occured in the face of the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corportate scandals throughout the 90's and the 9/11/01 terriorist attacks on NYC years in the planning, which collectively sucked 24 trillion dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the US economy, even before GWB had time to unpack his suitcases in the White House. It's easy to discredit, disgrace and defame our commander in chief, but not so easy to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter how they might try.

Jim

[jinelson]

Liberals Still Gleeful One Week Later

http://enemieswithin.com/blog/

by TheNewPatriot

OK, it’s been a week since the communist, oops I mean Democrats now have control and the Libs are still partying. I want some Lib, any Lib; explain why you are so happy. I mean, if we go on down the list of what the Democrats want to do, it hurts all of us including you Libs.

Let’s review…

On taxes, old Charlie and Nancy are moving right along with tax increases; this means you Libs are not immune to paying them. This is what Charlie wants to repeal.

· Child Tax Credit

· Marriage Penalty Relief

· AMT Relief

· Death Tax Relief

· Tax Relief for the Families of Fallen Soldiers

· Lower Tax Rates on Capital Gains & Dividend Income

· Work Opportunity Tax Credit

· Tax Free 529 Accounts for College Savings

· Saver’s Credit

· Higher Pension / IRA Contribution Limits

· Tax Credits for Hybrid Vehicles

· Tax Credits for Alternative Fuels

· Charitable Giving Deductions

Old Nancy has a voting record that never came close to worrying whether you pay too much in taxes. A snapshot of some of her past votes.

Marriage Penalty Tax bill: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the marriage penalty relief provided under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Vote: NO

Tax Reconciliation bill: Vote to adopt a conference report that authorizes and extends $69.96 billion in tax credits and cuts through 2010. Vote: NO

voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.

voted five times for raising gasoline taxes.

The last time I checked, you Libs get to bend over and take it like the rest of us.

On the war, you Libs say you’re just as patriotic as the rest of us and that you don’t support our troops any less than the rest of America. Yet, out the other side of your mouth, you tell them they can’t win and the party you put in charge doesn’t even view winning as an option before leaving. You accuse them of being cold-blooded killers and speak for them saying they want to come home anyway. Really? Have you bothered to give our troops a say in this matter? I’m sure they all want to come home, but not before victory is realized. However, you refuse to support that option. You Libs are like a bad parent telling your kid you support anything that they do while in the same breath telling them they’ll never amount to anything if they continue doing what they are doing.

On National Security you view your party as knowing best. Well, they’re in charge and where they positioned themselves in the past on the following, please tell me what it is that they will do to make us safer if we can’t do this.

On missile defense of America – voted against it.

On the Patriot Act – voted against it.

On tapping foreign terrorists’ phone calls to the US – voted against it.

On tracing terrorists’ money flow between foreign banks – voted against it.

On offering detainees rights under the Geneva Convention and our civil rights – Democrats were all for that.

On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dealers and terrorists – voted against it.

On interrogating captured terrorists – 194 Democrats voted against it.

I feel so much safer. I know some Democrats said in their campaigns that they were committed to stamping out terrorism. How? If our hands are tied, how? You Libs, feel free to chime in here because I want to hear your solutions.

On illegal immigration, I am assuming you Libs are upset over 12 million ILLEGALS and the open border that not only lets more ILLEGALS in, but the terrorists as well. It looks like your party is ramping up to grant amnesty, however, it does create a problem for them. They have to worry about who they’re more afraid of, the Hispanics and the ACLU or America. Given how much Democrats hate America, amnesty it is.

On energy independence, the crew you put in charge voted every single time against additional drilling and opening up new oil reserves. So, while you’re quickly bringing our troops home from that region declaring surrender, you will leave us at the mercy of the terrorists in the middle-east encouraging them to interrupt or shut down all together the flow of oil we depend on. Don’t think they’ll do it, think again.

Sorry to rain on your parade. However, if you are true Liberal, you won’t let the facts get in the way of your fantasy world.

It seems that since the democrats "New Direction" is already taking us on a downward spiral. But thats what the American people wanted so lets all enjoy the pain!

Jim

[rktect3j]

We're freakin doomed. Period.

[DWG]

Well, now I am depressed. Maybe if we ignore them, they will do the same, that seems to be their plan for dealing with terrorism. :cry:

[jinelson]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/jinelson/gordon450.gif

[FISTFU68]

:scared: I HATE TO ADMIT IT, BUT~ONCE UPON A TIME; I WAS A DEMOCRAT~BUT THEN I GREW UP!!!:D

[DWG]

Well, we gave the repubs. twelve years to see what they could do and we found out. As soon as they got their hands in the cookie jar they forgot about the Contract With America. We got politicians who just wanted to get along with the dems, forgetting who brought them to the dance. Bigger government, higher spending, more laws, and foreign entanglements. Repubs. obviously don't know how to lead and Dems. want to lead us somewhere no one wants to go( no sane person). I always said I wouldn't waste my vote on the Libertarian Party, but at this point, what difference does it make. If enough of us expressed our disgust with the two party system maybe, just maybe, these pols in DC would pull their snouts out of the trough long enough to pay some attention. The only thing they care about, on either side, is keeping their jobs.:mad: :!:

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Yep...gonna be another 'new direction' for sure...


Boston Globe
November 18, 2006
Pg. 1

Meehan Targeting 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Two leading House Democrats said yesterday that they intend to reverse the 13-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military when Congress comes under Democratic control in January.

Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said he plans to hold congressional hearings early next year of the House Armed Services Subcommittee, which he is likely to chair, on a bill that would allow homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.

"We will have hearings, and then we can have an honest dialogue with members of Congress," Meehan said.

"I believe, and have always believed, that once people see the facts, it will become clear that this is a policy that actually hurts national security and hurts the military."

Meehan said the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, is considering him to lead the new subcommittee on oversight. Meehan would bring the issue before his subcommittee and could press for the full committee to examine it as well.

Meehan's proposed change was backed yesterday by Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat who is openly gay.

The military is stretched thin and scrambling to fill the ranks during wartime, and studies suggest that the sexual orientation policy is depriving the armed forces of people who have much-needed skills -- including the ability to speak foreign languages. And a study backed by the University of California, Santa Barbara showed that the Pentagon spent $363.8 million to train and replace the nearly 10,000 people it discharged during the policy's first decade.

Yet the push to end "don't ask, don't tell" could send the new Democratic-majority Congress into a political minefield. The early days of Bill Clinton's presidency were consumed by the issue of gays in the military, and he was forced to renege on a promise to allow gays to serve openly, instead supporting the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise that Congress approved.

The policy, which became law in 1993, bans the military from investigating the sexuality of anyone in uniform, but it prohibits service members from disclosing their sexual orientation ; engaging in "homosexual conduct" is grounds for discharge.

Republicans, some Democrats, and the Pentagon are likely to fight Meehan's plan. They argue that "don't ask, don't tell" protects morale and maintains the cohesion of military units.

Democrats would be better off shelving the issue until legislative hearings on broader military personnel issues, such as expansion of the recruitment field and retention of soldiers, said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense specialist at the liberal Brookings Institution.

"You don't want it to be 'Democrats against the military,' " O'Hanlon said. "People don't like the military being the laboratory for these sort of things. This is not the same kind of civil rights issue as racial integration. "

Skelton, the incoming chairman, supports the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but is willing to give his subcommittee chairmen some autonomy, according to spokeswoman Loren Dealy.

Skelton is planning to name his subcommittee chairmen in January, and Dealy said she is not aware of any promises he may have made to individual members.

She added that Skelton's agenda for early next year -- oversight of the Pentagon, shaping policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and addressing military equipment readiness -- does not include the issue of gays in the military, though he won't rule it out.

Still, gay-rights advocates are eager to end what they view as a discriminatory policy. Twelve years of Republican rule in Congress made it next to impossible to reexamine the policy.

Frank cited a report last year that found that in the past decade, the military had dismissed at least 322 service members with critical foreign language skills because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"The policy of 'don't ask, don't tell, and don't translate' is especially damaging," Frank said yesterday in a C-SPAN interview.

Meehan filed his bill early last year and collected 121 cosponsors; he'll need 218 signatures to get it passed. Signers so far include incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and two other members of her leadership team, Representative John Larson of Connecticut and Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.

All members of the Massachusetts House delegation support the measure.

But Meehan got just six House Republicans to sign -- three of whom won't return to Congress next year.

Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and the current Armed Services Committee chairman, refused to allow a hearing on Meehan's bill . Hunter, who will be the top Republican on the committee next year and is considering a run for the White House, has said he doesn't want gays and lesbians serving in the military. His office did not return calls yesterday.

Even those who strongly support ending "don't ask, don't tell" acknowledge they probably don't have the votes to change the policy, but hearings would be a first and important step toward educating Congress and the public, said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group that is working to end the policy.

"There's a lot of work to be done, a lot of education to be done," Ralls said.

On the campaign trail, some GOP candidates told voters that putting Democrats in charge would lead to a "radical, homosexual agenda" on Capitol Hill.

Democrats have carefully laid out a centrist path for next year; their "Six for '06" list of legislative priorities does not include anything that affects gay rights.

Frank, likely to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said Democrats could pass a number of bills that would expand gay rights.

Aside from ending "don't ask, don't tell," he said, Democrats want to impose federal penalties for hate crimes aimed at gays, lesbians, and transgendered people and to outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Perhaps the most important effect of the majority shift, Frank added, is that the GOP's plan to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment is dead.