Showing posts with label LIBERALS/SOCIALISTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LIBERALS/SOCIALISTS. Show all posts

Sunday, July 20, 2008

LIBERALS AND THE OIL-GAS CRUNCH


TO: President George W. Bush
The Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives: The Hon. Mitch McConnell, The Hon. Jon L. Kyl, The Hon. John Cornyn, The Hon. John Ensign, The Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, The Hon. John R. Thune, The Hon. Richard Burr, The Hon. Norm Coleman, The Hon. Larry E. Craig, The Hon. James M. Inhofe, The Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, The Hon. John E. Sununu, The Hon. David Vitter, The Hon. Jim DeMint, The Hon. John A. Boehner, The Hon. Roy Blunt, The Hon. Eric I. Cantor, The Hon. Adam Putnam, The Hon. Kay Granger, The Hon. John R. Carter, The Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter, The Hon. Tom Cole, The Hon. Robert C. Byrd, The Hon. Harry Reid, The Hon. Richard J. Durbin, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Patty Murray, The Hon. Charles E. Schumer, The Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, The Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow, The Hon. Jeff Bingaman, The Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Hon. Blanche L. Lincoln, The Hon. Barbara Boxer, The Hon. Thomas R. Carper, The Hon. Bill Nelson, The Hon. Russ Feingold, The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, The Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, The Hon. James Clyburn, The Hon. John Lewis, The Hon. Rahm Emanuel, The Hon. John B. Larson, The Hon. Xavier Becerra, The Hon. Rosa DeLauro, The Hon. George Miller, The Hon. Chris Van Hollen, The Hon. Joseph Crowley, The Hon. Diana L. DeGette, The Hon. Ed Pastor, The Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, The Hon. John S. Tanner, The Hon. Maxine Waters, The Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The Hon. G.K. Butterfield


President Bush announced on Monday that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling and he essentially dared Congress to do the same!

A Little Recent History Is In Order...
Here's what our liberal legislators have done over the past several weeks.
First, liberals attempted unsuccessfully to pass the so-called Boxer Climate Bill.
But it wasn't a "Climate Bill" at all. In actuality, it was really just a huge liberal plot to increase taxes. Here's how Sen. Mitch McConnell described it:
"It is, at its heart, a stealth and giant tax on virtually every aspect of industrial and consumer life. It would result in massive job losses. And it seeks to radically alter consumer behavior, without any measurable benefit to the environment in return."

"And that's why it's so hard to comprehend the Majority's decision to move to a bill, at the start of the summer driving season, that would raise the price of gas by as much as $1.40 a gallon, home electricity bills by about 44 percent, and natural gas prices by about 20 percent."

"Overall, it's expected to result in GDP losses totaling as much as $2.9 trillion by 2050."
Yup, leave it to Barbara Boxer and other liberals in Congress to increase taxes when the price of gasoline at the pump is almost beyond the ability of most Americans to afford it!

But fortunately, because patriotic Americans like you made your voices heard, that bill died an unceremonious death!
But then -- without missing a beat -- several days later, Senate liberals tried to slip through ANOTHER TAX BILL-- masquerading as energy policy.
What were they thinking: Did they wink and chuckle at each other and say:
"Now that the Boxer Bill has failed, they won't be expecting another attempt so soon?"
Fortunately, that measure failed as well!

Meanwhile... In the House of Representatives...
On the House side, Congressman John Peterson introduced an amendment that would have extended the limits of offshore drilling.

Surely, Peterson thought, liberals had gotten the message. The crisis facing our nation was too grave, too painful for "politics as usual." This time he was certain his amendment would pass. It didn't. After the defeat of his amendment, Peterson said: "I was stunned today. I didn't expect this to happen. A lot of Democrats who supported us voted against the amendment. All six Republicans voted 'aye' and all nine Democrats voted 'nay.' I think 'Pelosi Power' was lurking. They were strong-armed from above." These days, Pelosi Power rules Capitol Hill. San Francisco values are the values of today. It's DOWN with people and UP with the snail darter, the Wyoming toad, and the Colorado squawfish.

Left-wing fanatics and environmental whackos are thumbing their noses at their fellow citizens -- a growing number of whom can barely afford to drive to work.
And, as analyst Stephen Schork recently predicted,
"If you think your gasoline bills are expensive now, wait till you get your home heating bill this winter."
As a consequence of Pelosi-Reid-inspired policies, the time has come to put middle-and lower-income Americans on the Endangered Species list.

But Here's The Icing On The Cake...
Senator Obama and a gaggle of liberal legislators started stumping for a windfall tax on oil... a strategy guaranteed to do only one thing... raise the price of gasoline.
A generation ago, the Carter Administration imposed just such a tax and the results were disastrous: a reduced incentive to drill for oil, a drop in domestic production, severe shortages, and long lines at the pump.

Obama was a teenager at the time, but you'd think he'd remember.
These actions raise a chilling question: "Are liberals actually TRYING to drive up gas prices?" For years the Greenies have been down on their knees, begging for higher gasoline prices. In the Energy Bulletin, Hamish McRae published an article with a title that says it all:

"Oil at $100 a barrel will do more to save the planet than all the wind farms in the world."
With the price of oil hovering around $140 per barrel, is the earth safe yet?

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter wrote:
"Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles."

"Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 'The Population Explosion' that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan."

"Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished! "

"In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, 'We can't drill our way out of this crisis.'

"What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, 'You can't eat your way out of being hungry!' 'You can't water your way out of drought!' 'You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!' 'You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!'

"Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?

"It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan."
In other words, the higher the price at the pump. the fewer the drivers on the road.

Of course, those who can no longer afford gasoline will inevitably be the poor.
But, as Al Gore would say, "Let them ride buses."

Yours in Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella
President
www.cfif.orgCenter for Individual Freedom
113 S. Columbus Street, Suite 310
Alexandria VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights
in the legal, legislative and educational arenas. Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

HOW THE LEFT WAS WON



How The Left Was Won

An In-Depth Analysis of the Tools and Methodologies Used by Liberals to Undermine Society and Disrupt the Social Order



Combining a series of unique insights with an entirely new set of analytical techniques, How the Left Was Won systematically dismantles each and every element of modern-day liberalism ranging from the justifications behind all of its flawed social and political policies to the most basic assumptions regarding the ideology itself.



In order to achieve this goal, the author first introduces a new framework which segments and isolates all liberal behaviors and beliefs into the most objective and discrete elements possible. He then goes on to provide numerous examples of how liberals relentlessly employ this simple set of tools and methodologies over and over again and then discusses the resulting effects they have on our society. Some of these strategies include:



● Promote and Exploit Divisiveness: Learn why liberals should thank God every day for differences between people and how without them, liberalism would be dead in the water.



● Bad Competition: Learn why practically all liberal policies create success only through the impairment of others and exactly where this dynamic must necessarily lead.



● Relevancy and Proportion: See why the vast majority of what liberals say has absolutely no meaning whatsoever and learn a simple way to prove it every time.



● Implicit Assumptions: Explore the assumptions liberals use to shape public policy and see why the arguments supporting them are ultimately nothing more than a house of cards.



● Groupdividual: Find out how liberalism has distorted the differences between groups and individuals and why this continued distortion is the basis for all flawed social policies within the United States.



● The Perpetual Motion Machine: Learn how the vast majority of liberal programs are based on the scientific impossibility of getting something for nothing.



● A Swarm of Ants: Find out the real reason liberalism continues to permeate more and more elements of our society and why there just may be no way of stopping it.

“Mgrdechian does an excellent job of dissecting the strategies liberals use...”

— Jonathan Garthwaite,

Editor-In-Chief, Townhall.com



"...a must-read for conservatives and independents alike."

— The Iowa Voice



"I highly recommend this book."

— Kelvin Moxley, The Conservative Spectator



"...exactly what Conservatives have been trying to say for years..."

— The Guardian Watchblog



"Extremely valuable."

— Danny Carlton, Jacklewis.net



"For anyone who wants to gain insight to the mind of liberal politics…"

— Bookviews.com

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

POLITICALLY INCORRECT VIEW POINTS???

This is carrying political correctness too far, way to far. Why should anyone give a rat's petunias over how these people feel about how they are labeled? A prostitute is a prostitute and has been since time immemorial. Intravenous drug users are drug addicts and if they don't like the label then they never should have acquired it in the first place. As for "gay", I never did understand the use of a word that should mean joy and happiness to represent a a same sex relationship. Homosexual/lesbian I can understand. Liberal deviousness I can understand and you can see it's not so subtle hand in actions like this. It is way past time to push back on the liberal/socialist actions in this world--hard.


U.K. Health Service Bans Use of ‘Gay’

By Don | July 1, 2008

The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has issued a proposal to ban the use of the terms “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous drug user”, over the fear that they would cause offense.
U.K. Health Service Bans Use of ‘Gay’

By Don | July 1, 2008

The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has issued a proposal to ban the use of the terms “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous drug user”, over the fear that they would cause offense.

From the TimesOnline.

Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as “men who have sex with men” (U.K. Health Service Bans Use of ‘Gay’

By Don | July 1, 2008

The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) has issued a proposal to ban the use of the terms “gay”, “prostitute” and “intravenous drug user”, over the fear that they would cause offense.

From the TimesOnline.

Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as “men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.

A review is now under way into terms referring to other groups of patients including sex workers and drug addicts.

Professor David Goldberg, of National Services Scotland, which is advising health boards on the issue, said patients who have sold sex for money may not consider themselves to be permanently engaged in the sex industry and, therefore, should not be labelled as such.

Similarly, individuals who may have only injected drugs on a handful of occasions may not wish to be known as drug users.

“It’s about using terminology which is more accurate and getting away from labelling people. We should label the behaviour rather than the person because labels can be stigmatising. Behind the label is a human being,” said Professor Goldberg.

However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.

“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association.

Maybe this is all more silly political correctness but if the gays are complaining about it then maybe it isn't such a bas thing after all.

MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.

A review is now under way into terms referring to other groups of patients including sex workers and drug addicts.

Professor David Goldberg, of National Services Scotland, which is advising health boards on the issue, said patients who have sold sex for money may not consider themselves to be permanently engaged in the sex industry and, therefore, should not be labelled as such.

Similarly, individuals who may have only injected drugs on a handful of occasions may not wish to be known as drug users.

“It’s about using terminology which is more accurate and getting away from labelling people. We should label the behaviour rather than the person because labels can be stigmatising. Behind the label is a human being,” said Professor Goldberg.

However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.

“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association.

Maybe this is all more silly political correctness but if the gays are complaining about it then maybe it isn't such a bas thing after all.


From the TimesOnline.

Doctors and nurses have been ordered to refer to gay patients as “men who have sex with men” (MSM), to avoid stigmatising those who have had same-sex relationships but do not consider themselves homosexual.

A review is now under way into terms referring to other groups of patients including sex workers and drug addicts.

Professor David Goldberg, of National Services Scotland, which is advising health boards on the issue, said patients who have sold sex for money may not consider themselves to be permanently engaged in the sex industry and, therefore, should not be labelled as such.

Similarly, individuals who may have only injected drugs on a handful of occasions may not wish to be known as drug users.

“It’s about using terminology which is more accurate and getting away from labelling people. We should label the behaviour rather than the person because labels can be stigmatising. Behind the label is a human being,” said Professor Goldberg.

However, gay rights groups said the new terminology was “demeaning” to homosexuals and is urging the health service to think again.

“The trouble is that in trying to avoid offending some people, they end up not including everyone else because it relegates same-sex relationships to a mere physical act,” said David Lyle, a chief inspector with Lothian and Borders police and Scottish co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association.

Maybe this is all more silly political correctness but if the gays are complaining about it then maybe it isn't such a bas thing after all.