The link to Vice President Dick Cheney's speech at the Heritage Foundation.
Before I break down the speech with some of my own commentary, let me first show you this, from the library of congress, which shows exactly what bills have passed in the first 100 days of the new Democratic Congress, so you understand a few of the Vice President's comments.
There are 16 new laws and 1 continuing appropriations bill, that have been passed, 6 of which were naming individual Postal Offices, 2 of these "new laws" were naming courthouses, 1 was to build a road in Missouri, 1 was naming a national recreation area.....beginning to get the point?
Take a look for yourself.
Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation:
This weekend marks the 100th day of this Congress, and it's not too soon to assess the direction in which the new majority is attempting to move the country. The Democrats, as all of us remember, came in with high expectations, many pledges to bring change, and a promise of something new. What we've seen, however, is not really that new -- in fact, it's kind of familiar to those of us who've been around a while and can remember the early 1970s.
Thirty-five years ago, the standard-bearer for the Democrats, of course, was Senator George McGovern, who campaigned on a far-left platform of heavy taxation, a greatly expanded role for government in the daily lives of Americans, and a major retreat from America's commitments in the Cold War. Senator McGovern was, and is, an honest and a straightforward man. He said what he believed and he told people where he stood. And on Election Day, Senator McGovern lost every state but one, and collected just over 3 percent of the electoral vote.
That was the last time the national Democratic Party took a hard left turn. But in 2007, it looks like history is repeating itself. Today, on some of the most critical issues facing the country, the new Democratic majority resembles nothing so much as that old Party of the early 1970s.
On taxes, the Democratic leadership has made clear its opposition to the Bush tax cuts that have fueled this economy and helped to create nearly 8 million new jobs. The budget passed by the House assumes that all of the Bush tax reductions will be swept from the books within just a few years. The result would be a staggering tax increase on the middle class, on families and small businesses, and a return of the federal death tax from zero back up to a confiscatory 55 percent. This would constitute the largest tax increase in American history.
I am going to take a second here because the "Death Tax" which in reality is named Estate tax is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.
First, we must pay a tax for the priveledge of being allowed to work our asses off to support our families, then we must use a portion of what is left after taxes and pay MORE taxes on items we wish to buy for ourselves with money we have worked for and earned, THEN when we die, the Democrats wish to reinstate the "Estate tax" aka Death tax, and take half of what is left...
When a family member inherits a family business after the death of its owner, they don't simply pay taxes for the liquid assets inherited. Truth is, they have to pay the government up to 47% in taxes — in cash — on all assets, including land, building, equipment, and more. Because the estate taxes are unreasonably high, many heirs who cannot afford to pay them are forced to sell their business, break up or liquidate their assets soley to pay the tax. This kills jobs and discourages owners from growing their businesses.
What is wrong with this picture?
Rant over and back to the Vice President's speech:
On the spending side of the ledger, it's enough, I think, to offer this example: Last month, in response to President Bush's request for an emergency war supplemental, the House and Senate tacked on billions of dollars to cover items on their wish list -- from fighting crickets to spinach subsidies. Even though it's still early in the session, when it comes to the appetite for tax dollars, the new Congress has already earned a place in the big-spending hall of fame.
If you doubt any of this last comment from Mr. Cheney, then click this PDF file and look for yourself what is in this latest joke of a bill.
The following “emergency” spending items are included in the supplemental appropriations bill, which is intended to fund the Global War on Terror.
Aquaculture Operations: Provides $5 million for payments to "aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish" (such as shellfish, oysters and clams) to cover economic losses incurred as a result of an emergency order issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on October 24, 2006.
Spinach: Provides $25 million for payments to spinach producers that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.
Hurricane Citrus Program: Provides $100 million to provide assistance to citrus producers (such as orange producers) in the area declared a disaster related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
NASA: Provides $35 million to NASA, under the "exploration capabilities" account, for "expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina."
Corps of Engineers: Provides $1.3 billion to Corps of Engineers for continued repairs on the levee system in New Orleans.
FEMA: Provides $4.3 billion for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill would eliminate the state and local matching requirements for certain FEMA assistance (in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis) in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, and provides that the federal portion of these costs will be 100%.
HUD Indian Housing: Provides $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD. Crop Disaster Assistance: Provides roughly $3 billion in agriculture assistance to crop producers and livestock owners experiencing losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 due to bad weather.
Shrimp: Provides $120 million to the shrimp industry for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.
Frozen Farmland: Provides $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures during a time period beginning on January 1, 2007 through the date of enactment.
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program: Provides $283 million for payments under the MILC program, to extend the life of the program for one year, through September 30, 2008. MILC provides payments to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.
Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.
FDA Office of Women's Health: Provides $4 million for the Office of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Provides $60.4 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses for assistance related to "the commercial fishery failure." According to the Committee Report, this funding is to be used to provide disaster relief for those along the California and Oregon coast affected by the "2006 salmon fishery disaster in the Klamath River."
Avian Flu: Provides $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic. Of this funding, $870 million is to be used for the development of vaccines.
Secure Rural Schools Act (Forest County Payments): Provides $400 million to be used for one-time payments to be allocated to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This program provides a funding stream (known as forest county payments) to counties with large amounts of Bureau of Land Management land, in order to compensate for the loss of receipt-sharing payments on this land caused by decreased revenue from timber sales due to environmental protections for endangered species. The authorization for these forest county payments expired at the end of FY 2006, and counties received their last payment under the Act in December 2006.
LIHEAP: Provides $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine. Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.
Capitol Power Plant: Provides $50 million to the Capitol Power Plant for asbestos abatement and safety improvements. Liberia: Provides that money appropriated for FY 2007 for the Bilateral Economic Assistance program at the Department of Treasury may be used to assist Liberia in retiring its debt arrearages to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank.
SCHIP: Provides $750 million to the Secretary of HHS to provide assistance to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) "shortfall states,", in the form of an amount "as the Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall." This provision is direct spending that is essentially capped at $750 million and designated as an emergency to avoid PAYGO constraints.
Minimum Wage Increase: Increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over two-plus years-a 41% increase. Yields $16.5 billion in private-sector costs over five years.
Tax Increases and Shifts: Implements several tax increases and shifts, including: denying the lowest maximum capital gains tax rate for certain minors and adults, extending the suspension of interest payments due to the IRS, and adjusting the deadlines for corporate estimated tax payments. Costs taxpayers $1.380 billion over the FY2007-FY2017 period.
Do any of these things have anything to do with the Global War on Terror? You tell me.
Cheney on the Dems and National Security:
But the Democrats' return to old patterns is most dramatic, and most consequential, in the field of national security. This will be the focus of my remarks today. In the early 1970s, the far left wing turned the Democratic Party away from the confident Cold War stance of President Truman, President Kennedy, and Senator Scoop Jackson. The result, as we know, was not merely defeat at the polls, but the beginning of a long period in which the American people largely declined to trust the Democratic Party in matters of national security. In fact, that period ended only when the Cold War itself came to an end....
[...]
Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda. The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq.
An early sign of unseriousness was the comment by Howard Dean, now the party chairman, that the capture of Saddam Hussein did nothing to make America safer. He made that statement several years ago while running for president, and a number of his fellow Democrats sharply criticized him. Yet now we hear almost daily the claim that the fight in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument.
Then the Vice President voices the words of the al-Qaeda figurehead himself, Bin Laden: (Please notice here that although the Democrats continually point to Bin Laden and make accusations about the fact that he hasn't been caught yet, rarely, if ever, will you see them have the courage to acknowledge Bin Laden's words and threats against the US, dating back to before 9/11 ever happened..... if they had to acknowledge these words, they would have to explain why they are deliberately playing into al-Qaeda's hands and that is a position they avoid like the plague)
Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."
This leader of al-Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the caliphate. He has also said, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."
Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a vital front in that war, and it's where they have chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for numerous bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. (Applause.)
It seems that the only people that do not see the importance of victory in Iraq, IS the Democrats.
Everyone else, including al-Qaeda understand the importance of Iraq.... are the far left liberal democrats actually not smart enough to understand something that is so simple for a man like Bin Laden and his organization to understand? Or do they hope that if they don't acknowledge it...then of course it cannot be true.
Like a two year old that closes their eyes and believes if they cannot see you, then of course, you cannot see them.
So this is where things stand today. The Democratic Congress has approved appropriations for a war, and attached detailed provisions for the timing and the movement of American troops. It is unacceptable, of course, from an institutional standpoint. Under the Constitution, Congress has the purse strings and the power to confirm officers. But military operations are to be directed by the President of the United States, period. (Applause.) By the wisdom of the framers, that power rests in the hands of one Commander-in-Chief, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.
I might add that we don't need 535 secretaries of state, either. (Laughter and applause.) It didn't help matters when the Speaker of the House showed up in Damascus for a sit-down with Syrian president Bashar Assad. Here again, we have an instance of the new congressional leadership making a bad move and sending mixed signals about the policies and the intentions of the United States.
It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to anything to undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a basic constitutional principle. No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Amen to that last paragraph.
No one, to date, has shown me where Pelosi was appointed to the job of Diplomat NOR voted in as President.
Spew all you want about Republicans visited the Syrian President, but not one Republican has stated that they went there with "an alternate Democratic Foreign Policy" QUOTED directly from Tom Lantos.
Furthermore, not one of those same Republicans that spoke with al-Assad, tried to conduct shuttle diplomacy between Israel and Syria, resulting in a public correction of the mistakes that Nancy Pelosi made when trying to do a diplomats job instead of focusing on her own job.
In diplomacy and international relations, shuttle diplomacy is the use of a third party to serve as an intermediary or mediator between two parties who do not talk directly. The third party travels frequently back and forth (that is, "shuttles") between the two primary parties. Shuttle diplomacy is often used when the two primary parties do not formally recognize each other but still want to negotiate.
So not only was she delivering a message to Syria from Israel, which is not her job, but she also delivered the WRONG message!!!!!!!!!!
Worse yet was this comment made about Nancy Pelosi:
According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."
OUCH.
So do not try to distort and distract by pointing to Republicans that went on that same trip, because not one of them managed to publicly embarrass us, as a country, more than Nancy Pelosi did all on her own.
Back to Cheney's speech again:
Recently the National Commander of the American Legion said, "You cannot support the troops if you want them to cut and run. It's time for the President to veto this surrender bill and for Congress to pass a serious war-funding bill, which would provide the money without the micromanagement." (Applause.) Standing here today, I can assure the American Legion, and the VFW, and all the veterans organizations, and all the men and women serving at this very hour, that the President of the United States will, indeed, veto this irresponsible legislation. (Applause.)
[...]
Senator Reid has threatened that if the President vetoes the timetable legislation, he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraqi operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of funding. Three positions in five months, on the most important foreign policy question facing our country and our troops.
Senator Reid, of course, was one of the many Democrats who voted for the use of force in Iraq. They are entitled, if they want now, to oppose this war. Yet Americans are entitled to question whether the endlessly shifting positions that he and others are taking are reflections of principle, or of partisanship and blind opposition to the President.
I think everyone knows the answer to that particular question.
He ends with this:
The course we have chosen is not an easy one for America. But it will be far easier on the conscience of America when we see it through, sparing millions from suffering, and leaving behind a free and democratic Iraq. Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of the hard left in the early '70s, America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret. Thirty-five years is time enough to have learned the lessons of that sad era. When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and hopes of millions are lost forever.
Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. (Applause.) This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. At this hour in our history, it is the cause of America -- and the best among us are fighting and sacrificing for its success. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome is not in doubt. We will press on in this mission, and we will turn events towards victory.
I did not reprint the entire speech here but provided you the link to it at the Heritage Foundation, read the whole thing.
.
