Nancy Pelosi

Guess Connecticut's Chris Murphy doesn't want to face any more nonscripted events like this

As he tries to explain the trillion dollar, two thousand page health care "reform" bill drawn up by Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi  

Now he can't just pretend he didn't solicit any opinion from the public. No, what he's done is try and sneak a couple of quicj town meetings in before anyone notices, probably stack the hall with SEIU/ACORN types, and then claim that public sentiment is radically more in favor of the new health care bill---which is just as bad, if not worse, than the piece of sludge Murphy helped draft in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

So what's a swing district Democrat to do. Give the actual voters less than 48 hours notice your are holding the Town Halls. And hold both in the more Democratic eastern end of the district.  And add a single hour for a "telephone town hall" which we can be sure is going to be stacked with liberal lackeys..

Dear Friends,

I’m bringing the health care reform conversation back to you.

When I held a series of public events in August on health care, I told you that I would host more meetings after the House unveiled the health care bill and before the vote. The House will likely vote on a health care bill within the next few weeks, so I am organizing these events so that I can hear from people in Connecticut about what you think should be done to make health care more affordable and accessible for residents of Connecticut.

I hope you can join me at one of the 2 town halls I am hosting this Sunday, November 1 to talk about health care reform. Due to space limitations, these town hall events will be for residents of the Fifth District only.

I will also hold a telephone town hall style meeting on Wednesday, November 4, at 6:20pm from Washington, DC. To join the call, follow the instructions below.

At all three events, I will address questions and concerns from both proponents and opponents of health care reform.

SUNDAY

WHO: Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5)

WHAT: Town hall meeting on health care reform legislation

WHEN: Sunday, November 1, 1:30-3pm

WHERE: Avon High School

510 West Avon Road

Avon

 

SUNDAY

WHO: Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5)

WHAT: Town hall meeting on health care reform legislation

WHEN: Sunday, November 1, 5:30-7pm

WHERE: Lincoln Middle School

164 Centennial Avenue

Meriden

 

WEDNESDAY

WHO: Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5)

WHAT: Telephone town hall on health care reform legislation

WHEN: Wednesday, November 4, 6:20-7:20pm

CALL IN: (877) 229-8493

PIN: 13348

Now the worst part of this is Murphy is holding these events so as to compete with a) the New York Giants football game ( 1pm Sunday) and the World Series; which features the Yankees ( start time 7:30 Sunday). So if you wanted to ensure a crowd full of wonks that hate sports, well this is when to schedule this. Most of Murphy's regular constituents are sports fans. Too bad for them. But if you are some bleeding heart who thinks valium prevents a suicide squeeze, you're all good.

There's shameless. And then there's Chris Murphy.

We thought that the genre was extinct,  but the show business geniuses behind World Wrestling Entertainment have revived a controversial style of character from past seasons.

Without further adieu, WWE presents its 2010 U.S. Senate candidate in Connecticut, Linda McMahon...a/k/a "the Wild RINO". 

(the Wild RINO argues with loving hubby, Vince McMahon)

Now those familiar with the WWE know that often it creates "good guys" and "bad guys" and the various wrestlers get to change roles as the season progresses.  Who can forget when Sergeant Slaughter portrayed a turncoat when paired with the Iron Sheik?  

Well, central casting has decided that long time WWE CEO Mrs. McMahon now gets to play the role of a conservative Republican in her bid against Senator Chris Dodd.

I got her glossy brochure in today's mail. It mentions she ran a 500 employee NYSE company--but doesn't mention which one.  OK, that a bit dodgy. don'tcha think ?

And McMahon's slick mailer pledges undying opposition to socialized medicine and adamant devotion to the concept of limited government.

Unfortunately, a quick look at Mrs. McMahon's actual record suggests this is as realistic as the plot lines for this week's RAW telecast  

I mean, of all the people whom she could have been a regular contributor to, you think a true believer in conservatism might have excused themselves from writing huge checks every election cycle to Rahm Emanuel?  

And Connecticut liberals are gleeful that Mrs. McMahon contributed over $10,000 to the DCCC, money which went directly into making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.  (Nancy Pelosi held a closed fundraiser in Hartford Friday... wonder if Mrs. McMahon wandered by with another check?)

And please don;t think this was all part of some old, repudiated phase in her life....like Reagan being a New Dealer.  Just months ago she was bankrolling Virginia Democrat Mark  Warner's U.S. Senate bid.

McMahon did something lots of Connecticut Republicans did in 2006 --contribute to Joe Lieberman's campaign. Of course, most of Lieberman's contributors also made the effort to vote in the 2006 election. McMahon didn't bother to cast a vote ; perhaps it's easier to write checks than to wait in line at some Greenwich polling station.    Getting things done in the U.S. Senate can be pretty tedious, too

In fact, it appears McMahon wrote more checks to elect Democrats to the Senate than Republicans. But ok, she says she's a Republican? Well, what kind of Republican?

* One who supported various PACs affiliated with liberal Republican Christie Todd Whitman, the former NJ Governor. PAC's whose very purpose was to oppose conservative Republicans. 

* One who contributed to Whitman's daughter 's unsuccessful NJ congressional race

* One who has had turncoat  former liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker on her corporation's board of directors for over a decade

I mean , what more could she do to convince me she's a liberal Republican? Although she says she'll spend $30 million to convince me otherwise.

Hmm, hire as top consultant part of the NRSC's brain trust that wrote a blank check to Lincoln Chafee? Perhaps they pine for the days when Linc and Arlen were part of the caucus getting in everyone else's way

Now Mrs. McMahon says she's "against the special interests".  I'll save the bandwidth tonight. It's pretty obvious to even casual observers that the WWE is itself a special interest and has been for well over a decade. 

Connecticut Republicans have a great chance to elect a strong voice for responsible government to replace the spent  hulk of insider liberalism, Chris Dodd.

Thinking that person is Linda McMahon is as vain a hope as the thought another guy with money and star power wouldn't go girlie man once it became fashionable.  If she's the nominee I'll vote for her just to be rid of Dodd, and then expect her to be just another ineffective political celebrity waiting for a script to be written to make her audience happy.   

The Wild RINO might end up being great political theatre, but as far as doing what she says wants to do; c'mon... Wrestling's fake! 

 ===UPDATE==

Liberal CT Post columnist Jonathan Kantrowitz said some very kind things about this article, and linked to it, but posed one question I thought he deserved a response to:

Oddly enough, no one is attacking Rob Simmons for being too liberal, despite his support of gay marriage and abortion rights. In fact, most mainstream conservatives, and even some further right, are rushing to support him

I think the point here is everyone pretty much knows that

a) Rob Simmons is a moderate

b) Rob Simmons is a Republican

I have much more faith in an honest moderate with a track record than some woman off the street waving the conservative banner when her record displays zero prior interest in the cause.

One can have honest differences with the other Republican candidates in the field; but they are running as who they are. Unlike Mrs.McMahon, I am reasonably certain Mr. Simmons, Mr. Caligiuri, Mr. Foley and Mr. Schiff have believed in their campaign platforms for more than a couple of days.

The pictures here might be accurate representations of "Blue Dog" (aka Pelosi Poodle) Mike Ross. The Arkansas Democrat achieved the "little feat" of appearing to oppose a health care bill that he helped write!

Most interesting was Ross's use of an excuse that I'd anticipated but which, especially in his case, makes no sense. He pleaded that he had yet to endorse any particular bill; that there was no final bill yet; that he would still make up his mind as to whether he would support the final bill. According to one person in attendance, Ross also pleaded repeatedly that he was just one out of 535 members of Congress, and therefore could do little on his own. The problem is, there is a final bill in the House, HR 3200. And Ross's was one of the key votes that moved it to the House floor from the House Energy and Commerce Committee prior to the August recess. Ross, as a de facto leader of a group of seven moderate Democrats on the committee, was uniquely positioned among the 535 to change HR 3200. And yet he did vote for it in its current form on July 31 

I do give Ross this much credit. At least he showed his face back in his district to try and spin people, unlike these worthless cowards. You know, guys, once upon a time you could play moderate or conservative when you shlepped around your home district and then go back to DC and play errand boy for liberal party bosses.  Technology's made that trick a bit harder to pull off. Especially since we know that the whole bill is just a trojan horse to get "single payer". The question Arkansas voters ought to ask themselves is if Mike Ross can't defend the very bill he voted for to get it out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, what use is he to anyone in Washington?  At least this guy  isn't playing "Dixie Chicken"; which all Mr. Ross is doing about now.    You could still vote against it after you voted for it, Mike.  It's been tried before.

We've seen an awful lot of time devoted by conservative commentators about who is a Nazi, who used the Nazi symbols first, and what political movement resembles the Nazis.

Stop. It's a waste of time. (this is directed at you, Rush)

What the Left is successfully doing is starting up a political sideshow that our camp feels compelled to address, and then retreating into the swamp knowing our forces will get tied down in an indecisive quagmire far from the main field of battle.

Don;t make a big deal about every stupid LaRouche poster or insane Nancy Pelosi remark. Invoke Godwin';s Law and move on.

Say whatever about Sarah Palin, but at least she had the good political judgment in railing against the "death panels" to address a legitimate concern in the bill itself, not get into a useless dialogue about a dead dictator.

In any event, if conservatives must raise the specter of what socialism in practice is like, might I suggest there are plenty of fine examples from nice, friendly regimes who were American allies.  I suspect the Democratic party and their SEIU muscle would be quite happy with the "Old Labour" government of the UK pre Maggie Thatcher. I suspect most Americans would be quite appalled to be governed that way. 

Better yet. Stick to the bill. Stick to Obama's rationale.  We have a limited amount of airtime (only three hours a day. Mr. Limbaugh) and bandwidth to use in opposition. We'd better start using it wisely.   

We've learned a few things over the last few weeks. One thing is that our opponents are really a bunch of animals

Consider the so-called "Blue Dogs". They loudly purport to be moderate, fiscally responsible Democrats. because that's what their district wants to hear. But we've found that on the Obamacare bill and on Cap & Tax, just enough Blue Dogs voted with the liberals to assure passage.

John Fund said this years ago before they joined the majority, but these folks aren't "Blue Dogs". They are Pelosi's Poodles 

This is what a "Blue Dog" really looks like

They are perfectly trained to fetch , heel and roll over for their masters Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman. Meanwhile they are also well trained to go back to their districts and beg for support by jumping through hoops pretending to be moderates or conservatives.

We'll see how Zack Space, Mike Ross, Bart Gordon & co. fare trying to explain they aren't just the door openers to Barney Frank's government medical monopoly.

But now members of the House aren't being dogs at all. At least a dog comes when he is called. 

Now  they are nothing but a bunch of  scaredy cats.

Long Island Democrat Congressman Tim Bishop is not alone---running away from the voters he claims to represent instead of defending his record.

“I had felt they would be pointless,” Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. “There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.”

In Bishop’s case, his decision came on the heels of a June 22 event he held in Setauket, N.Y., in which protesters dominated the meeting by shouting criticisms at the congressman for his positions on energy policy, health care and the bailout of the auto industry.

Within an hour of the disruption, police were called in to escort the 59-year-old Democrat — who has held more than 100 town hall meetings since he was elected in 2002 — to his car safely.

Hmm, Tim. I suppose if they don't agree with you then they are an "unruly mob"  

Evidently this is what a lot of "town meetings" are looking like--not the pro-government expansion pep rallies incumbent politicians and their special interest allies like to see.

Hey, if you want to pass bills you haven't read and spend money the country doesn't have you might actually find the public has an opinion about this. 

Maybe our members of the House might want to dust off their copy of the Constitution. Seems they are little unclear about the "redress of grievances" concept.

This August, it is incumbent on all Americans to make clear this is a Republic answerable to the voters, not an imperial government answerable to D.C. power brokers.  And if our elected "representatives" want to hide, well that says more than millions of dollars in slick TV ads, now doesn't it.   

If you can't defend what you are doing in Washington to the people in your district, quit.  

by  Lance Thompson

“It is the nature of an intelligence service that it must receive encouragement and support from the government of the day; if the government lacks interest in or expert understanding for its intelligence service, not even the best service will succeed in overcoming external prejudices against it.” These are the words of Reinhard Gehlen, chief of the German federal intelligence service , the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst), in 1971, in his excellent memoir, “The Service.” (English edition: World Publishing, New York, 1972). Gehlen brought invaluable intelligence assets to the United States regarding Russia after World War II, and founded the BND which continues its important work to this day.

Gehlen’s wisdom is alarmingly relevant today, as the American foreign intelligence service, the CIA, is battered by politically motivated attacks by Democrats and the Obama administration. The CIA, whose mission is to inform our leaders about the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries and allies, has always been a favorite target of liberals. But in recent weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of deceiving her when she was caught lying about briefings she received concerning interrogation techniques. When Pelosi’s false claims were exposed, she chose to denigrate the CIA rather than admit her deliberate deception.

Now, we learn that the House Intelligence Committee is investigating Democrat charges that former Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA not to inform Congress of a secret CIA plan to target al Qaeda terrorist leaders. This charge, of course, ignores the fact that the CIA reports directly to the President, is not under the command of the Vice President, and that both houses of Congress have independent intelligence committees who oversee the CIA.

Since the charge involves actions that took place years ago, under an administration that is no longer in power, it is evident that this is not a matter of urgency. Thus, it is obvious that this issue was chosen for other reasons–primarily to embarrass the previous administration. For such an exposure to be effective, the previous administration must be shown to have done something wrong.

The CIA is an intelligence agency, and many of its activities are effective only if kept secret. Therefore, the secrecy of the plans in question is not in itself questionable. Whether the vice president wanted greater secrecy or not is irrelevant–he did not have the authority or ability to demand what information the CIA revealed to congressional intelligence committees.

Therefore, the Democrats who want so badly to bring this investigation to light must believe that the plan itself–killing al Qaeda terrorist leaders–is wrong. They must believe that if Americans knew that the previous administration was studying ways of destroying our enemies who murdered thousands of Americans and were devising ways to murder thousands more, then it would bring shame and opprobrium upon that administration.

The Obama administration seeks closer ties to terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. They seek to extend the Constitutional rights of American citizens to terrorists who will sacrifice themselves in our destruction. The Obama state department won’t even call the war on terror the war on terror, or even call terrorists terrorists. So it is quite possible that Democrats believe that a plan to kill terrorists is not only contrary to current policy, but legally and morally wrong. So wrong, in fact, that if the American people discovered that the previous administration was planning such acts, that they would be filled with indignation and revulsion.

The Democrats, then, must believe that the oaths sworn by their president and congressmen to defend the United States are not only non-binding, but that any action or decision made to augment that defense is a transgression. Thus, the Bush administration, with its war on terror, its detention and prosecution of terrorists, and its covert efforts to expose and prevent further terrorists attacks, has been caught doing something that the American people won’t stand for. The Democrats believe that standing against the war on terror is the morally superior position, and using the CIA as a scapegoat is a politically smart strategy.

With this view, the majority party has succeeded in undercutting our efforts to counter the terrorist threat. In the few short months of the Obama administration, America has gone from the great arsenal of democracy to the great apologist for terrorism and the great enabler of tyranny. The Democrats believe this is what Americans want. Whether you agree or disagree, there is one place to let your voice be heard–the ballot box next year.

By Bill Smith / Ozark Guru: Nancy Pelosi knows what torture is because she has been practicing it for years. You might be saying, wait a minute, isn't she the the "Speaker" against torture at least with respect to what allegedly was used against the enemy combatants who brutally attacked and killed Americans and sought to destroy our American way of life. Don't be distracted by her pathological ability to adjust the truth to something that it is not or to shield the truth from shinning forth.

Let's define of the word torture using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Noun: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining

For this discussion, let's forget the extreme view that would tear down the fabric of America while claiming self-righteous indignation in seeking the truth about a physical torture of people that had planned, aided or assisted in either potential attacks or the 9-11 attack our country which and killed almost 3000 people. Have we forgotten the deaths would have been far more if the planes had hit the World Trade towers an hour later, or if the planes had hit the center of the Pentagon or had hit another locations in D.C.? Also, let's forget the extreme fringe that believes that their own government is behind everything bad in our country and blew up the World Trade Towers instead of terrorists flying the airplanes that many of us observed hitting the buildings.

Let's focus on Nancy Pelosi. First, note her recent episode of pathological adjustment of truth, wherein she attempts to divert attention from herself by boldly claiming she knew nothing about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and then buffets her claim by stating that she could not recall being told that the the enhanced interrogation techniques were or would be used. Well, most of us know this is not the truth.

Consider the following article by The Women On the Web which addresses this situation and the reaction of at least one person who was present with Nancy Pelosi in 2002 during briefings by the CIA :

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be on the defensive over what exactly she knew — and when she knew it — about the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" techniques. The California Democrat befuddled some reporters, Republicans and others last week when she gave what Politico says were some "convoluted answers" to reporters about the interrogations. Now Republicans have jumped at the chance to pummel Pelosi’s insistence that she didn’t know what was going on. CIA Chief Porter Goss said she must be suffering from "amnesia" — since he was with her in 2002 when they were briefed by the CIA on the techniques. Goss wrote over the weekend: "I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience." . . .

Now back to Nancy Pelosi and her use of torture. Note the definition of the word "torture" included "anguish of body or mind: agony" and "distortion or over refinement of a meaning or an argument: straining." While Pelosi may not as yet be pulling out fingernails in the basement of Congress, she has become a master in the use of these other two definitions of the word torture. Her extreme actions, her ridiculous self-proclamations, her bullying of the members of her own party, her tyrannical exclusion of the elected members of the minority party, and her constant declarations of lies as truth and distortion of truth. All of these bring anguish to the mind and hearts of Americans and definitely distorts and "over refines" the meaning of any argument. Pelosi has been wielding the whip of torture via her tongue and via the authority of her position as Speaker of the House. A gracious women she is NOT. She is not even a voice of propaganda for the liberal cause because even liberals know she cannot be trusted. In deeds, words, and actions, Nancy Pelosi is the Queen of Torture.

While it may not matter what Republicans think of Pelosi, it does matter that American voters do not trust her. One month ago, Rasmussen Reports that "60% of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable and that a growing number of her doubters seem to be fellow Democrats." Abuse and torture yield these kind of results from free-thinking people. And these results are presently polar opposite of the ratings for President Obama.

There is a growing dissent with Pelosi not only among Democrats in general but more importantly among House Democrats who have been forced to endure Pelosi's torturous ways. Bowing and scrapping by once joyous party members to the Queen Speaker does not bode well for future favorable support of the Obama administration. She has outworn her welcome as Speaker of the House by her lack of graciousness and her torturous ways. For the good of the country, it is time for a favorably nod to a more "enlightened" and sanguine" person to be the Speaker. It is time for Nancy Pelosi, the Queen of Torture, to be removed as Speaker of the people's House.

Two stories emerged this week that demonstrate the absolute intellectual bankruptcy of the media reform agenda. It is just another attempt to gain power for the left.

A Huffington Post writer argued that Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch's media empire should be broken up by the FCC and the DOJ's anti-trust division:

The Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation's political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Look at what the media monopolies did during the Bush years. The Bush Administration never could have lied us into going to war in Iraq if it were not for the duplicity of the corporate media.

But ... Nancy Pelosi argues that the New York Times should be exempted from anti-trust laws.

by  Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The words “subversive” and “subversion” once were used only to describe enemy combatants at the time of military conflict.  Today those same words have been labeled inflammatory – not behind an iron curtain but right here in the United States of America.

In the third month of the year 2009 A.D., the time has finally come to call a spade a spade.  For those on the left who inflame discourse by automatically reading malevolent racist meanings into that phrase, STOP NOW!  America-loving Americans have finally been pushed over the edge, and frankly no longer care anymore what you – the ultra-liberals and the two-timing RINOs amongst you -- consider is bigoted.  Are you listening, Eric Holder?

You have pushed us over the edge … by political correctness (which, in and of itself, is an insult to the American free spirit), by taxation and more taxation to come, and by our Constitutional rights and freedoms being mangled and distorted in order to fit the liberal agenda.

The “Sleeping Giant” awoke when Pearl Harbor was bombed -- and again after our country was attacked on September 11, 2001.  The same giant, this time in the form of conservatives and clear-thinking Democrats, is rising up to confront and revolt against the subversions of our federal government.

For clarification, when we say “clear-thinking Democrats” we do not include the ultra-liberal waterbearers who soaked Barack Hussein Obama with unadulterated praise and elected him on their tidal wave of adulation.  We’re talking about American citizens who joined the Democratic Party believing it would make a difference in creating a better, safer, stronger U.S.A., but discovered they’ve been shanghaied to pre-Stalinist Russia.

Book after best-selling book (albeit by conservative authors) have been clarifying with facts and figures (Kryptonite to the left) what has been unraveling in this country.  We have the Right (the “Good”) stripping away the camouflage of the Left (the “Bad”), and endeavoring to educate the “Stupid” – a feat now thankfully hampered by the self-inflicted collapse of the once great metropolitan dailies, and the sinking ratings of liberal cable news networks.

And in case you weren’t listening, fiscal conservatives were not happy with President Bush either.  He lost his base of support because of his unchecked Democratic-like spending.  We did indeed need change, but not in the present form of throwing good money after bad. One need only look to the engagement of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (manufactured by the left), to clearly understand what has occurred in the United States over the last 43 years:  Leftist academics have dealt irreparable societal damage.

Adding insult to injury is the fact these academics continue to poison the knowledge wells from which we drink – and they’re being paid to do it, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Explaining how we got here (even with hard facts and indisputable figures) is never enough for the left.  They don’t get the truth from the prolific liars in the mainstream media and refuse to entertain exceptions to their point of view.  Those that actually take the time to read conservative articles do so by inhabiting right-wing blogs like resident cockroaches, commenting with wild abandon from sheer ignorance.  Put simply, those who can, write – and those who can’t, rant.

There have been the decades of liberal out-on-the-street and in-your-face protests, which are as common and tiresome as illegal immigrants banging on our cars demanding work when we drive onto a Home Depot parking lot.  The reason you don’t see loud and obnoxious conservative activists in melees with police or who are being thrown out of congressional meetings is they don’t exist.  Okay, okay, we concede there are a few, like the wing-nut extremists who protest in front of abortion clinics.  Shameful! How dare anyone fight for the life of an unborn human being!

Republicans and conservative-minded Democrats are busy working at our jobs, providing for our families and our communities.  We’re building companies that employ people, and we pay the bulk of this country’s taxes and we mind our own business. But those days may be over, because revolution is in the air, and don’t you just love the smell of “rebellion” in the morning?

We are being forced to rebel because Obama has fogged up his followers’ senses – with endless campaign rhetoric, and it has now seeped into the fabric of this country like radioactive waste leeching into our drinking wells.  The White House and the U.S. Congress have become hangouts for the ham-fisted and the desperate, where they’re all banging into each other like billiard balls on an uneven surface. And this administration’s pathological hunger for absolute power only serves to repudiate Obama’s hollow promises of hope and change.

Neither Obama nor the Democrat-controlled Congress has even once mentioned the phrases “family unity” or “American honor.”  By ignoring the nucleus conventions on which our country was built, they have proven that none of them possesses any sense of responsibility for the offices they hold.

Obama thinks he has things under control (the way Neville Chamberlain thought he had Hitler under control).  He gave back to England the bust of Winston Churchill (which had been given to the White House as a gesture of solidarity after 9/11) and in so doing, revealed an arrogance that threatens to cut all ties with one of our most trusted allies in favor of dialogue with the enemy.

Americans of every stripe are saying “Enough is enough,” and we will rise up, including all of you who voted that Democrat to the presidency.  It will happen, and it will be launched on the words of Patrick Henry’s American Revolution fervor of “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Watch this video from the Sunlight Foundation's Read the Bill project:

Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

It is not an accident that there are so many Republicans -- John Boehner, Jeb Hensarling, and Ted Poe -- in this, and that the Democrats -- Brian Baird and Bobby Scott -- are Democrats who are sometimes gettable on Republican votes.

Transparency is an issue that Republicans will win every time in the war of ideas, and the House Democrats are already uncomfortable.

Just last week, Blue Dogs and liberals like Peter DaFazio asked for more regular order. The Democrats are exposed. The Democrats know it.

Now it is time for Republicans to stand up and win this fight once and for all.