We need to march on Washington DC NOW! It’s going to have to be us. Glenn Beck and Senator Jim DeMint are telling people to get out in the streets and do civil disobedience. I don’t like how Glenn Beck last year called Hillary a b… but he has changed his tune somewhat and he said Hillary would’ve been the best president out of those who ran. We have to stop Obama’s cap and trade and healthcare bills. Glenn Beck told the conservatives today on his radio show that they complain but are lazy and do nothing. We have gone up against Obama and his thugs. We have to stop Obama now before we end up a communist country. Let’s do visibility on our street corners, marches, sit-ins, etc. Tell everyone to do this. Who’s with me?

Conservative Ire Rains on 8 Republicans Who Voted for House Climate Bill

By ALEX KAPLUN of Greenwire

In the wake of last week’s landmark passage of the House climate bill, conservatives have focused their fury on the handful of Republicans who voted in favor of the sweeping legislation. Conservative commentators are blasting the eight Republican “aye” votes as betrayers of GOP principles and, perhaps more important, holding them accountable for the bill’s seven-vote margin of passage, 219-212.

The eight Republicans are Mark Kirk of Illinois; Mike Castle of Delaware; Mary Bono Mack of California; Dave Reichert of Washington; John McHugh of New York; and Frank LoBiondo, Leonard Lance and Chris Smith of New Jersey.

“I don’t think one can minimize why this was a truly hideous vote for those eight folks,” a commentator on the conservative blog the “Next Right” wrote. “Here we had a chance to derail the Obama socialism train and restore the Republican party to policy relevance, and these guys bailed out so they could get a nice mention in the NY Times.”

Rush Limbaugh on his radio show yesterday accused the eight of voting for the bill sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts because of Wall Street’s influence and argued that they should be voted out in 2010 along with Democrats who supported the legislation. “You’ve got these northeastern Republicans — New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, it’s all the same — who are tied to Wall Street,” Limbaugh said. He added, “This is an outrage. This is something that everybody who voted for this thing needs to be sent packing because it wasn’t even written.”

For many conservatives, the vote on the comprehensive energy and climate bill vote was one of the two test votes of party loyalty in the Obama administration’s early days. The other was the vote in February on the economic stimulus plan. On that vote, no House Republican broke with party leadership. So some conservatives are calling for the National Republican Congressional Committee to withhold funds from the eight lawmakers and for the active recruitment of primary opponents by party leadership.

“My question is, what message did House Whip Eric Cantor and Minority Leader John Boehner deliver to the eight Republican strays?” wrote Paul Chesser, head of the conservative Climate Strategies Watch, on the Web site of the American Spectator. “This was a vote that demanded principle and unanimity for a party that claims the mantle of lower taxes and limited government, and once again, it failed.”
Chesser said GOP leaders should have threatened the eight with withholding campaign funds and primary opposition and should now remove them from any leadership posts. Those calls were picked up by several conservative bloggers and commentators.

The NRCC has heavily gone on the offensive against the potentially vulnerable Democrats who voted in favor of the climate bill, sending a series of press releases to their districts accusing them of betraying their constituents and vowing that the vote will have dire consequences come the 2010 election (Greenwire, June 29). But thus far, neither the NRCC nor any member of the House Republican leadership has lobbed any direct criticism at the eight lawmakers who broke ranks.

The NRCC did not comment as of press time.

Strategy questions

Some conservative commentators have argued that withholding NRCC funds may not be the right move. In the big picture, they say, Republican leaders have done a good job of using their relatively small numbers in the House to build opposition to the legislation. “Some of the names on that list hurt to see, and a couple are exercises in teeth-grinding; but perfect is the enemy of the good, and Congressional Republicans have done a good job in using our lopsidedly minority status to the best effect possible,” wrote one commentator on the popular Web site RedState.com. “Nobody’s pretending that this was passed with bipartisan support. Nobody’s even trying.”

But those conservatives also argue Republicans should focus their energies on helping other members of their party who are in political danger yet voted against the bill. The eight GOP supporters of the climate bill, they say, should make amends by vocally opposing White House plans on health care and other major legislative priorities.

The eight House Republicans who voted in favor of the bill generally represent the remains of the party’s moderate wing and some have to deal with political circumstances that are unique in the GOP caucus. Both Kirk of Illinois and Castle of Delaware are reportedly exploring Senate candidacies in 2010. The two would be running in states where President Obama won overwhelmingly in 2008, the home states of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, respectively. Many of the rest are potential Democratic targets in 2010, in no small part because they represent Democratic-leaning states where Republicans have shed a number of seats in recent years.

Bono Mack of California, who was also the only Republican to vote for the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, already has a 2010 challenger who has started to campaign on bringing green jobs to her Southern California district. Reichert of Washington state has won each of his three congressional campaigns by narrow margins in a district and a state that places a premium on environmental issues.

Three of the other four — McHugh, LoBiondo and Lance — also represent districts where Obama prevailed in 2008.

nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/30/30greenwire-conservative-ire-rains-on-8-republicans-who-vo-37491.html

“But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It has been predicted Caucasians will soon be a minority, if they haven’t arrived at that point already. I have nothing against other races. We’ve been listening to the drum-beat screaming minority for so long, Ginsburg may eat her words when the next census report is published listing Caucasians as the current minority.

——————————

Definitely in obama’s world.

Obama and Chavez
Sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love
Then comes marriage
Then comes Bambi
Under Hugos carriage

See how well Litle nails it. Let Obama be known by the company he keeps–Hugo, Castro and Bambi, LLC. The modern variant of Dewey Cheatem and Howe, LLC.
______________________________________________

Taipan Daily: Honduran Coup Pits Democracy Against Rule of Law
by Justice Litle, Editorial Director, Taipan Publishing Group

On Sunday morning, the president of Honduras awoke before dawn to the sound of yelling guards and shots fired. Soldiers burst in, rousting him from his bed at gunpoint. He was then escorted out of his home, still in pajamas, and dropped off in Costa Rica via military transport plane.

It was a “kidnapping,” President Manuel Zelaya said. Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, saw power cuts, media blackouts and fighter jets screaming through the skies. The news wires called it Central America’s first military coup since the Cold War.

Western observers were not pleased. The United States, the European Union, and the Organization of American States (OAS) all condemned the uprising. The U.N. General Assembly called an emergency meeting to discuss what to do.

Hugo Chávez, the fiery leftist president of Venezuela, was also outraged. “I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert,” Chávez said. If the Venezuelan ambassador were harmed or troops entered the Venezuelan embassy, Chávez theatrically fumed, it would be considered “a de facto state of war.” As of this writing, Chávez is adamant that Zelaya be reinstated. So, too, is the Castro regime in Cuba, the Correa administration in Ecuador, and others of like mind.

You don’t often see the likes of Chávez and Castro on the same side of an issue as the United States. At the same time, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress – both which backed the military predawn raid – claim they are defending Honduran civil society, not subverting it.

So what’s going on?

Honduras, formerly known as Spanish Honduras, is a small Central American country of roughly 8 million people. The country’s primary exports, per The Wall Street Journal, are “bananas, shrimp, coffee, apparel and remittances from Hondurans in the U.S.”

Honduras is also well within range of the Chávez-Castro sphere of influence.

That is to say, Hugo Chávez fancies himself as the next Fidel Castro… and a growing number of Latin American leaders consider themselves chavistas, i.e., budding proteges of Hugo. Manuel Zelaya, the deposed Honduran president, is one of those who fell under the chavista spell.

The constitution of Honduras limits the president to a single four-year term. Having been elected in 2006, Zelaya’s term was set to end in 2010. So Zelaya, embracing the spirit of his buddy and role model, Chávez, decided to try and get the rules changed. Zelaya’s plan was to amend the Honduran constitution, no doubt with an eye for becoming leader for life… or at least for a very long time.

Zelaya wanted a referendum to gage popular support for his plan. The Honduran Supreme Court resisted this, citing the constitutional ban on such votes within six months of an election. When the military refused to distribute ballots (as was the custom), Zelaya sacked the army chief and pressed ahead anyway. He used ballots shipped from Venezuela and had them passed out by supporters in open defiance of the Supreme Court.

On the surface of things, calling in the military looks extreme. “If holding a poll provokes a coup, the abduction of the president and expulsion from his country, then what kind of democracy are we living in?” Zelaya asked.

It’s a fair question. But it’s also true that Zelaya’s motives and methods were thuggish from the start… that he directly defied both the Honduran Supreme Court and Honduran constitutional law… and that his military arrest and removal is defensible under these grounds.

The Serpent’s Egg

No one comes out looking good in this whole mess.

President Zelaya showed himself to be a power-hungry lawbreaker, escalating his strong-arm tactics as the end of his term (and the limit to his power) drew near. At the same time, the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress were technically within the bounds of written law… but removing a political leader at gunpoint seems a bit excessive in the eyes of the world. And the United States and European Union did themselves no favors siding with the likes of Chávez and Castro so readily. Is it really so cut and dry what should have happened here?

The only real winner in all this seems to be Hugo Chávez. If Zelaya is returned to his post, then Chávez can declare moral victory (and draw a supplicant Zelaya even deeper into his sphere of influence).

If Zelaya is not returned to power, however, then Chávez can rant and rave over this new travesty, and use Honduras as a rallying point to further consolidate Latin American support.

So why did the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress act so forcefully in deploying the military against Zelaya? Why didn’t they just try to stop the referendum from being carried out… or declare the vote count null and void… or take some other legal-themed course of action not so, well, melodramatic as a full-on coup?

A quote from Shakespeare’s Brutus in Act 2 of Julius Caesar comes to mind:

And therefore think him as a serpent’s egg,
Which, hatch’d, would as his kind grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

Long before the referendum showdown, tension had been building as Zelaya moved ever more aggressively leftward. Perhaps the Honduran courts and Congress saw Zelaya for what he was – a budding dictator –and sought to “kill him in the shell.”

Sadly, it might also be that Zelaya’s good-intentioned enemies feared the will of the populace.

After all, what if the constitutionally outlawed poll had given overwhelming support to the President’s bid for another term? What if the people’s voice had rung out, under illegal circumstance or no… and that voice had said “Zelaya forever?”

This possibility was not a trivial one. A keen sense of support (likely brought about, Chávez style, via populist rhetoric and economic bribes) is why the president wanted to hold the illegal referendum in the first place. After the coup, Zelaya also received moral support in the form of some 2,000 angry protesters burning tires in front of the presidential palace.

The Ugly Truth About Democracy

And so we come to the ugly truth about democracy. In the West we practically worship democracy, and the idea of democracy itself, as the highest of political ideals.

But democracy is not an unalloyed good. In fact, democracy can be downright dangerous – especially to the rule of law. With the will of the people behind him, a sufficiently charismatic leader can willfully trample the rule of law right into the dirt… and he can do so with loud cheers from his fervent supporters. (NOTE: I WONDER IF HE WAS THINKING OF BAMBI WHEN HE WROTE THAT PARAGRAPH.)

Perhaps this is why H.L. Mencken once said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want – and deserve to get it good and hard.”

The foreign affairs bigwigs of the United States and Europe also appear to know just what they want – a Latin America that gives every appearance of stability on the surface, regardless of what brews underneath. Hence their desire to see a Chávez protégé immediately returned to his perch, with no thought as to the stability of Honduran institutions or the longer-term dangers of undermining the rule of law.

But then, it’s not as if the U.S. (or Europe) can really take a principled stand for rule of law these days anyway, given all that’s happened since the financial crisis began… (AGAIN, I WONDER IF HE WAS THINKING OF BAMBI WHEN HE WROTE THIS PARAGRAPH).

Warm Regards,

JL