One-Party Rule Does Away With Transparency

Maybe it's just because she is the first female speaker of the house...who knows -- but Nancy Pelosi's wardrobe has been getting a ton of attention of late with most of the discussion revolving around her signature strand of South Sea Cultured Pearls, which are estimated to cost around 80k!! Caption and Image Credit: diamondvues.com

One-Party Rule Does Away With Transparency

Be afraid, be very afraid – Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Party Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, fearing nothing in terms of expense to political capital or a push back from a Democrat Political Party controlled Executive Branch when Barack Obama take office on January 20, 2009, will seek to dispense with a few of those pesky openness and legislative transparency rules that govern the law making procedures that currently guide the way our elected representatives in the House of Representatives do their business.

What this means is that many of the processes that were once open to scrutiny from the public (you and me … voters), rebuttal from factions with a different viewpoint, and those just plain caring for more democracy and debate rather than less will have less influence upon how things get done in our government.

In the most simple of terms, Nancy Pelosi plans to reduce the freedoms of a majority of Americans making the processes in the 111th session of the House of Representatives one where the Nation of citizens serves the acts of the House of Representatives as opposed to the concept that the House of Representatives serves for the acts of the Nation of citizens.

America the free will turn a corner where this is no longer a nation by the people, for the people …

In Article I of the U.S. Constitution, "all legislative powers" were "vested in a the House of Representatives of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The House of Representatives has the responsibility to debate and create the laws under which our country operates. Image Credit: crapo.senate.gov

This excerpted and edited from U.S. Constitution Online –

Constitutional Topic: The Preamble
This Topic Page concerns The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution - the "why" of the document.

The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.

The newly minted document began with a grand flourish - the Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.

We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group - among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the people.

[not elite leaders who seek less openness in the way the transact their daily business]

in Order to form a more perfect Union

The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

establish Justice

Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so - only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.

[Pelosi’s move seeks to make this process less transparent, less fair, and strives for less justice in the process of the House of Representatives]

insure domestic Tranquility

One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers knows as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.

provide for the common defence

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides - and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.

promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

[by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE - not billions of collected tax money by the government, for the government to expand its holdings in industry, investment in junk mortgages, and land - as in houses]

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty - something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

[The House of Representatives seeks to become more tyrannical and less open]

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a few reasons - it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here - not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That is it "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before - the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
Reference Here>>

The Preamble according to the new, 111th House of Representatives:

We, the House of Representatives, in order to promote ourselves over the scrutiny of the common man, dispense with these rules of openness in procedure and debate so that we can grasp even more power (with less shared power and input), as we seek to establish a ruling class without the insight and rancor from the masses. We do ordain and establish these changes in our rules for the Democrat Political Party to the detriment of all other points of view and justice for the common man ruled by this governmental body.

Thank you Democrat Political Party and it’s Majority Leader, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Kiss liberty and the pursuit of happiness here, during this time of one-party rule / Carter's Second Term, GOODBYE!

Build A Digital Antenna/Converter Box For $8.00

Consumers with analog televisions who tune in using antennas will need a digital converter box, left, once television stations stop broadcasting in analog Feb. 17. Image Credit: Bebeto Matthews -- Associated Press

Build A Digital Antenna/Converter Box For $8.00

The federal government's TV converter box program runs out of funding!

Is anyone surprised? We, at MAXINE, believe; give the government something to manage and they will manage to mess it up. Hey, why don't we have the government fix our economy that had been sent into a tailspin through the promotion of JUNK MORTGAGES backed by organizations create by .... the government? - oops!

Maybe the government can free up some of the 750 billion dollars that was supposed to be used to buy back JUNK MORTGAGES so that people in our society don't miss the new gameshow program, Million Dollar Password.

This excerpted and edited from the Washington Post –

TV Converter Program Runs Out of Funding
By Kim Hart, Washington Post Staff Writer - Tuesday, January 6, 2009

The government's billion-dollar program to help people prepare for the transition to digital television has run out of money, potentially leaving millions of viewers without coupons to buy converter boxes they need to keep their analog TV sets working after the switch.

As of this past Sunday, consumers who request a $40 coupon to help offset the cost of a converter box are being placed on a waiting list. They may not receive the coupons before Feb. 17, when full-power television stations will shut off traditional analog broadcasts and transmit only digital signals.

Members of Congress are now scrambling to find ways to allocate more money to the program.
Reference Here>>

Check out the video ... the one that teaches someone on how to build an analog to digital antenna for about $8.00, build an antenna, then watch Million Dollar Password!

Hamas Leadership Dispenses Terror That Cuts Two Ways

In a public relations campaign launched in the Palestinian Authority, the Hamas terror organization is claiming victory over Israel's withdrawal and promises to terrorize Haifa and Tel Aviv until Israel is defeated and Palestine restored to the Arabs. They are taking credit for the Israeli withdrawal, saying that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip defeated by the "resistance," not as the result of "useless negotiations." Caption and Image Credit: Hyscience

Hamas Leadership Dispenses Terror That Cuts Two Ways

The biggest tell on a government and its attitude toward its people in a crisis situation is how it responds to the protection and care of the citizenry.

Hamas has finally poked the beehive of Israel to where the government of Israel had to respond with a damaging force where the Hamas leadership knew that Israel would not tolerate having rocket bombs being shot into their national boundaries any longer.

After Israel dropped bombs on the launching points from where the Hamas initiated rocket bomb activity had been traced, collateral damage in sued and injuries to the citizens who lived under Hamas rule needed a response. The appropriate response would be to allow a quick first medical response in order to allow the injured but living to remain living.

This excerpted and edited from Pajamas Media –

Revealing Silence at the Gaza-Egypt Border
Why does Hamas victimize its own people? And why doesn't the media call them on it?
January 2, 2009 - by Richard Landes

At about 1:10 on Sunday, December 28, 2008, the BBC anchor Peter Dobbie found out, along with his audience, that there were 40 Egyptian ambulances ready to evacuate wounded, and lorries full of medical goods sent by Qatar to restock Gazan hospitals, waiting at the border crossing in Egypt. (According to another source there were also 50 Egyptian doctors ready to go into the Strip to help.) Since Dobbie and his audience had heard the repeated complaint from the people in Gaza that the hospitals were overwhelmed by the injured and desperately lacking in supplies, one would have expected the border to be full of purposeful activity. Instead, nothing was happening. The Gazan side lay silent.

A real journalist, someone with a smell for revealing anomalies, would have immediately recognized this as an important story to follow up on. After all, Dobbie had not hesitated to interrupt and challenge Israeli spokesmen on precisely the issues at stake: the disproportion between Israeli-caused fatalities and Israeli-suffered fatalities, the inevitable suffering of innocent civilians when such a bombing campaign takes place in so densely populated an area. “The math doesn’t work,” said Dobbie, implying what commentators emphasized elsewhere — the “disproportionate use of force” the Israelis were employing.

So here was a perfect issue with which to challenge Hamas spokesmen: If they were so distraught at the loss of life of their own people, why didn’t they take care of them? What on earth would possess Hamas not to avail themselves of what they pleadingly told the world they so desperately needed? As the honest and courageous Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey put it, “My head hurts.”

Alas, the BBC did nothing of the sort. The next six hours saw nothing but canned footage repeating Palestinian complaints, voiced not only by Hamas spokesmen and BBC reporters, but UN officials like Chris Gunning and human rights advocates, and, of course, others in the Western MSM.
----
Too bad. Had the BBC behaved like real journalists instead of parroting Palestinian narratives, they might have taken the “golden” (read excremental) thread that leads out of the labyrinth and straight to the “real story.”

That story, of course, is the dreadful Palestinian strategy, taken to new heights by Hamas in the early 21st century — play the victim card at any cost. In this case, create a genuine humanitarian crisis.
----
Hamas initially offered two reasons for not allowing the wounded out: 1) the roads were too dangerous to venture out on, and 2) they were composing a list of the wounded.
----
Then Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, speaking to Khaled Abu Toameh, denied the Egyptian allegation that Hamas was to blame, “claiming that many of the wounded rejected an Egyptian offer to receive medical treatment in Cairo in protest against Cairo’s ‘support’ for the IDF operation.
----
On the contrary, as Ma’an News Agency reported, Hamas would allow no passage of wounded until the border was completely open.
----
And of the 600 wounded (according to Palestinian sources) all of them, suffering in a ludicrously crowded and understaffed hospital, refused to go to Egypt?

Although the reasons are hollow, they do tell us about Hamas priorities, and the overwhelming message of this refusal is that helping their own civilians survive ranks very low on their scale, well below revenge and public relations concerns. Indeed, as with Israel, so with Egypt: they hold their people hostage to maximalist demands.

Some say Hamas doesn’t care about their people. The evidence suggests far worse. They actively seek the victimization of their own people. Indeed, the enormous resources they have expended on the constant, if largely ineffective, barrage of rockets on Israeli civilians is actually quite staggering. Not only have they lavished much of their meager resources to this vicious and gratuitous activity, but, as a result of those attacks, guaranteed that their borders would be closed and their people would continue to suffer — hostages to their hatred. Thus, the phony excuses offered for the border snafu disguise something far more sinister: Hamas wants the crisis; they want civilians dying dramatically in wretched hospitals.

On the face of it, it seems absurd that a government would actively victimize its own people. What advantage in making an already miserable people suffer even more?

There are two major explanations here. First, Hamas, like many other Palestinian groups, is addicted to violence against Israel. Anything they can do, no matter how small, to make Israelis suffer, they will do, whatever the cost.
----
But the second explanation is far more disturbing, because it involves the media. Hamas only gains a real advantage to having Palestinians suffer if they, who do so much to inflict that suffering, can blame it on Israel.

It would be absurd for Hamas to stand in front of the world and say, “Look at how much we make our own people suffer; join us in hating Israel.” So the game is intensely hypocritical. It depends on getting public opinion, both in the Arab-Muslim world and in the West, to accept a scapegoating narrative — the Palestinian Guernica — that deflects responsibility.

And the pathetic thing is that it works.
Reference Here>>

The truly odd thing to all of this is that this scapegoating narrative of suffering has a parallel application.

This strategy of deflecting responsibility is also being used by our current Executive and Congressional leadership to diffuse the problems in our economy in the causes and attempts to right the wrongs caused by our leadership.

Further, they have a willing partner in the forces of the MSM to NOT report the story outside of the narrative template that Hamas is using in its campaign of terror in the Middle-East.

To reconstruct the questions asked at the beginning of this article:

Why does our Executive and Cogressional Leadership victimize its own people through social engineering agendas (using taxpayer money in programs that continue to fail)? And why doesn't the media call them on it?

Kwanzaa – The Phony, Non-Christian Holiday

As an African American and Pan-African holiday celebrated by millions throughout the world African community, Kwanzaa brings a cultural message which speaks to the best of what it means to be African and human in the fullest sense. Given the profound significance Kwanzaa has for African Americans and indeed, the world African community, it is imperative that an authoritative source and site be made available to give an accurate and expansive account of its origins, concepts, values, symbols and practice. Caption and Image Credit: officialkwanzaawebsite.org

Kwanzaa – The Phony, Non-Christian Holiday

Not my words but words and assessment based upon the facts laid out by Ann Coulter in a recent article.

What is most striking about the audit trail of facts on Kwanzaa is that our culture even gives this Marxist/Socialist, SLA template (yes, that SLA – Symbionese Liberation Army/Patty Hearst), hate based, FBI/CIA fomented promotion of a separatist agenda when, in fact, we are ALL Americans.

Funny, not even Barack Obama or his political operatives bothered to mention that this 1966 invention even existed. Maybe one of the positive fallouts to the election of Barack Obama as president is an end to what was once a ground swell holiday celebration, heavily promoted by the media just a few short years ago.

This excerpted and edited from Human Events -

My Triumph Over Kwanzaa!
by Ann Coulter - 12/24/2008

This year, I believe my triumph over this synthetic holiday is nearly complete. The only mentions of Kwanzaa I've seen are humorous ones. Most important, for the first time in eight years, President George Bush appears not to have issued "Kwanzaa greetings" to honor this phony non-Christian holiday that is younger than I am.

It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and a dupe of the FBI.

In what was probably ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the '60s the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the organization, the better. Using that criterion, Karenga's United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American '60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the '60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution. Those were the precepts of Karenga's United Slaves. United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented "African" names.
----
Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear. Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the "framed" murder of two whites included: "the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department" and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. "was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt" -- an interesting standard of proof.)
----
Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga's United Slaves shot to death Black Panthers Al "Bunchy" Carter and Deputy Minister John Huggins on the UCLA campus. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.
----
Kwanzaa itself is a nutty blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism.
----
When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from "classical Marxism," he essentially explained that under Kawaida, we also hate whites. While taking the "best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism" -- which one assumes would exclude the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor -- Kawaida practitioners believe one's racial identity "determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding." There's an inclusive philosophy for you.

Coincidentally, the seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming invention of the Worst Generation. In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA's revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani -- the exact same seven "principles" of Kwanzaa.
----
Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga's United Slaves -- the violence, the Marxism, the insanity. Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, is that they have forgotten the FBI's tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

This is a holiday for white liberals -- the kind of holiday Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn probably celebrate. Meanwhile, most blacks celebrate Christmas.

Kwanzaa liberates no one; Christianity liberates everyone, proclaiming that we are all equal before God.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

Not surprisingly, it was practitioners of that faith who were at the forefront of the abolitionist and civil rights movements.
Reference Here>>

Three cheers to the passing fancy of Kwanzaa and its lack of compassion toward ALL humanity.

We, at MAXINE, hope you all had a Merry (and compassionate) Christmas and have hopes for a Happy New Year in 2009!

Paul Weyrich, Founder Of The Heritage Foundation, Dies

Image Credit: weyrichdinner.org

Paul Weyrich, Founder Of The Heritage Foundation, Dies

Sad that the Conservative movement has lost its rudder - REALLY – May God bless Paul Weyrich and receive him now into his reward.

Rush Limbaugh's video tribute to Paul Weyrich, and the trans-formative impact he had on Rush's career, HERE!

"Without Paul Weyrich, there would likely have been no conservative movement ... and no Ronald Reagan presidency." - Morton Blackwell (found on Twitter)

This found at National Review Online -

The Corner
re: Paul
[Grover Norquist, December 18, 2008]

Ideas alone do not have consequences. Ideas, even — or especially — powerful ideas are like seeds. If they land in fertile soil and are cultivated they can grow. On rock or sand or ignored or tended by incompetents they die.

The idea of individual liberty and a limited constitutional government has been around a long time. Liberty doesn’t need new ideas to advance, but institutions to give muscle and skeletal structure to a political movement for liberty. That is how Paul Weyrich changed the world for the better.

Paul Weyrich created institutions and networks that incubated new and old powerful policies and strategies to advance liberty. The Heritage Foundation. ALEC. The Free Congress Foundation. The Kingston meeting. Many of the structures of the “religious right.” He understood that only freedom could successfully promote traditional values. He brought leaders of various freedom impulses together. Most of the successes of the Conservative movement since the 1970s flowed from structures, organizations, and coalitions he started, created or nurtured.

Paul also lived a balanced life with work, family and his faith.

We will miss his puns and wisdom and hard work.
Reference Here>>

“W” And The Shoe – Great On His Feet

Journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who was kidnapped by Shiite militants last year, was being held by Iraqi security Monday and interrogated about whether anybody paid him to throw his shoes at Bush during a press conference the previous day in Baghdad, said an Iraqi official. Showing the sole of your shoe to someone in the Arab world is a sign of extreme disrespect, and throwing your shoes is even worse. Image Credit: Newsday

“W” And The Shoe – Great On His Feet

One thing everyone could count on from George, that he was always best on his feet.

He starts the importance of his presidency standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center Towers with his arm draped around the shoulders of an old time firefighter, stating, “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

George W. Bush ends his presidency ducking a couple of shoes hurled at him by a reporter in Iraq (a cultural sign of disrespect), turning the situation into a lesson in democracy by first stating “I’m OK,” “All I can report is it is a size 10,” and then later to reporters on how he understood the act, "It's like going to a political rally and have people yell at you. It's a way for people to draw attention," Bush said. "I don't know what the guy's cause was. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."

Lesson - In a democracy it is always OK to express a difference of opinion (even though the reporter that threw the shoes, who was escorted out by Iraqi officials, was promptly beaten).

How will history treat George Bush?

I have a suspicion it’s going to be better then a lot of people now suspect - or are willing to admit.

If only he could have pulled out a veto pen and used it as easily and with the athletic deft he showed he could dodge a shoe! …

… if he had, the way history will treat “W” would have been not only favorable, but great.

Congressional Motors Introduces 2012 Top of the Line

The New Detroit - An aerial view of the Capitol Building in Washington, where the Democrat Party-controlled House of Representatives conduct the public’s business. If the actions of Congress pass the proposed $14 billion bailout package for GM, Chrysler, and Ford, this is where the American automobile industry decisions will be made. Image Credit: U.S. Department of the Interior

Congressional Motors Introduces 2012 Top of the Line

This was found in my email inbox written by an unknown author about the kind of car Congress would make … and better, how they might sell it (assuming they could actually make something … anything).

The note describes a commercial the Federal Government would make in order to inform the citizenry of the kind of car they will be allowed to purchase (if they had any money) if they would like a car over the Federal Government preferred option for transportation – Public Transportation – Subway, Bus, or using sidewalks provided for your convenience.

This excerpted and edited from my email inbox -

Congressional Motors Announces The First Car for 2012, The Pelosi

It's in the way you dress … The way you boogie down … The way you sign your unemployment check!

You're a man who likes to do things your own way. And on those special odd-numbered Saturdays when driving is permitted, you want it in your car - It's in that special feeling of a zero-emissions wind at your back and a road ahead meandering with possibilities.

The kind of feeling you get behind the wheel of the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition from Congressional Motors.

All new for 2012, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the mandatory American car so advanced it took $100 billion and an entire Congress to design it.

We started with same reliable 7-way hybrid ethanol-biodiesel-electric-clean coal-wind-solar-pedal power plant behind the base model Pelosi, but packed it with extra oomph and the sassy styling pizzazz that tells the world that 1974 Detroit is back again -- with a vengeance.

We've subsidized the features you want and taxed away the rest.

Powered with its advanced Al Gore-designed V-3 under the hood pumping out 22.5 thumping, carbon-neutral ponies of Detroit muscle, you'll never be late for the Disco or the Day Labor Shelter.

Engage the pedal drive or strap on the optional jumbo mizzenmast, and the GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition easily exceeds 2016 CAFE mileage standards. At an estimated 268 MPG, that's a savings of nearly $1800 per week in fuel cost over the 2011 Pelosi.

Even with increased performance we didn't skimp on safety. Eleven-point passenger racing harnesses, fifteen-way airbags, and mandatory hockey helmet -- you'll have the security knowing that you could survive a 45 MPH collision even if the GTxi SS/Rt were capable of that kind of mind numbing, illegal speed.

But the changes don't stop there.

Sporty mag-style hubcaps and an all-new aggressive wedge shape designed by CM's Chief Stylist Ted Kennedy slices through the wind like an omnibus spending bill. It even features an airtight undercarriage to keep you and a passenger afloat up to 15 minutes -- even in the choppy waters of a Cape Cod inlet.

Available a rainbow of color choices to match any wardrobe, from Harvest Avocado to French Mustard.

Inside, a luxurious all-velour interior designed by Barney Frank (AKA: "Lollipop") features thoughtful appointments like an in-dash condom dispenser -- perfect for any social engagement or school training exercise.

A special high capacity hatchback holds up to 300 aluminum cans, meaning fewer trips to the redemption center, and the standard 3 speaker Fairness ActoPhonic FM low-band sound system means you'll never miss a segment of NPR again (assuming they will still have staff even with Government subsidies).

Best of all, the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt is made right here in the U.S.A. by fully card-checked unionized workers and Detroit 's famous visionary jet-set managers.

Even if you don't own one, you can enjoy the patriotic satisfaction that you're supporting the high wages, good benefits, and generous political donations that are once again making the American car industry the envy of the world.

But why not buy one anyway? With an MSRP starting at only $629,999.99, it's affordable too. Don't forget to ask about dealer incentives, rebates, tax credits, and wealth redistribution plans for customers from dozens of qualifying special interest groups. Plus easy-pay financing programs from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

So take the Metro rail, bus, or walk to your local CM dealer today and find out why the Pelosi GTxi SS/Rt Sport Edition is the only car endorsed by President Barack Obama.

One test drive will convince you that you'd choose it over the import brands, even if they were still legal.

Tradition-Based Episcopal Church Moves On

A group of conservative bishops met on Wednesday at the Resurrection Anglican Church in West Chicago, Ill. Image Credit: Sally Ryan for The New York Times

Tradition-Based Episcopal Church Moves On

Ok, so it is out with the new and in with the old.

The Episcopal Church, in this new century, has had to endure many assaults to its traditions and teachings from very liberal quarters. These forces sought to redefine many of the tenants of what a tradition based Christian faith church should be to the people it served.

Even though the majority of members in the Episcopalian community here in North America (as well as the rest of the world) believe in the centuries old traditions and teaching interpretations found in the Holy Bible, the leadership in North America has seen fit to hijack a once proud derivative of the Catholic Church and take it to an unrecognizable form of itself.

Gender, sexual definition, and right-to-life (abortion) issues lead the changes the new leadership have chosen to tackle and these moves threaten to break this pursuit of Christian tradition apart.

The liberal leadership feel it is more important to affect these traditions while the balance of the Episcopal teaching community chooses to defect from this leadership in order to hold on to what they believe defines the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

This from the New York Times -

Episcopal Split as Conservatives Form New Group
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN, New York Times - Published: December 3, 2008

WHEATON, Ill. — Conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church announced on Wednesday that they were founding their own rival denomination, the biggest challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church since it ordained an openly gay bishop five years ago.

The move threatens the fragile unity of the Anglican Communion, the world’s third-largest Christian body, made up of 38 provinces around the world that trace their roots to the Church of England and its spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The conservatives intend to seek the approval of leaders in the global Anglican Communion for the province they plan to form. If they should receive broad approval, their effort could lead to new defections from the Episcopal Church, the American branch of Anglicanism.

In the last few years, Episcopalians who wanted to leave the church but remain in the Anglican Communion put themselves under the authority of bishops in Africa and Latin America. A new American province would give them a homegrown alternative.

It would also result in two competing provinces on the same soil, each claiming the mantle of historical Anglican Christianity. The conservatives have named theirs the Anglican Church in North America. And for the first time, a province would be defined not by geography, but by theological orientation.

“We’re going through Reformation times, and in Reformation times things aren’t neat and clean,” Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, a conservative who led his diocese out of the Episcopal Church in October, said in an interview. “In Reformation times, new structures are emerging.”

Bishop Duncan will be named the archbishop and primate of the North American church, which says it would have 100,000 members, compared with 2.3 million in the Episcopal Church.

The conservatives contend that the American and Canadian churches have broken with traditional Christianity in many ways, but their resolve to form a unified breakaway church was precipitated by the decision to ordain an openly gay bishop and to bless gay unions.

The Rev. Charles Robertson, canon for the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, said Wednesday, “There is room within the Episcopal Church for people of different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ.”

He added that the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico will continue to be “the official, recognized presence of the Anglican Communion in North America.”
----
The proposed new province would unite nine groups that have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over the years. This includes four Episcopal dioceses and umbrella groups for dozens of individual parishes in the United States and Canada.
----
The new province would also absorb a handful of other groups that had left the Episcopal Church decades earlier over issues like the ordination of women or revisions to the Book of Common Prayer. One of the groups, the Reformed Episcopal Church, broke away from the forerunner of the Episcopal Church in 1873.

Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval for their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia.
----
Bishop Duncan and other conservative leaders in North America say they may not seek approval for their new province from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, or from the Anglican Consultative Council, the leadership group of bishops, clergy and laity that until now was largely responsible for blessing new jurisdictions.

Bishop Martyn Minns, a leading figure in the formation of the new province, said of the Archbishop of Canterbury: “It’s desirable that he get behind this. It’s something that would bring a little more coherence to the life of the Communion. But if he doesn’t, so be it.”
----
Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.

“I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians,” he said. “That’s not a market niche that is underserved.”

Since the Episcopal Church ordained Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay man who lives with his partner, in the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003, the parallel rifts in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have widened.
----
If the conservatives try to take their church properties with them, they are likely to face lawsuits from the Episcopal Church. The church is already suing breakaway parishes and dioceses in several states to retain church property.

Bishop Duncan said members of the proposed province would spend the next six months discussing the constitution, and would meet to ratify the document next summer at a “provincial assembly.” He said it would probably be held at the Episcopal Cathedral in Fort Worth.
----
Bishop Duncan, whose theological orientation is more evangelical, has ordained women in the diocese of Pittsburgh. Bishops of other breakaway dioceses, like Jack Iker in Fort Worth and John-David Schofield in San Joaquin, are more “Anglo-Catholic” in orientation, modeling some elements of the Roman Catholic Church, and are opposed to ordaining women as priests or bishops.

Under their new constitution, each of the nine constituent dioceses or groups that would make up the new province could follow its own teachings on women’s ordination. Each congregation would also keep its own property.

Told of this new Anglican entity, David C. Steinmetz, Amos Ragan Kearns professor of the history of Christianity at the Divinity School at Duke University, said in a phone interview, “It’s really an unprecedented and momentous event,” that all of these dissident groups had agreed to bury their differences.

“It’s certainly going to be deplored by one part of the Communion and hailed by another,” Professor Steinmetz said. “Are we going to end up with two families of Anglicans, and if so, are they in communion with each other in any way? There are so many possibilities and geopolitical differences, it’s really hard to predict where this will go.”
Reference Here>>

Obama’s Empty Suit Filled With Clinton Brain Trust

Six members of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team for government operations worked in the Clinton administration, and one of them runs a consulting firm that has listed Freddie Mac as a client. Image Credit: AP

Obama’s Empty Suit Filled With Clinton Brain Trust

What happens when a junior Senator from Illinois campaigns on the themes of Hope and Change, with the thinnest of resume’s and record of accomplishment has to fill a branch, the Executive Branch of government and its’ staff, assumes the highest office in the land?

Why one fills the positions with the staff appointed during the previous presidency held by the political party you come from … in this case, the Bill Clinton 42nd Presidency.

Where is the Hope? Where is the Change?

Of the names being placed for the 47 top positions of the executive branch, 31 of the names were people who served with Bill Clinton whose eight year presidency ended eight years ago.

Where is the shiny? Where is the new? Where is the fresh?

This excerpted and edited from Politico –

The Clinton band is back together
By BEN SMITH & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 11/14/08 4:48 AM EST

As one Clinton loyalist noted with some satisfaction (if anonymously) on Thursday, Podesta’s role in the transition, and the new prominence of Clinton administration officials, suggests that Obama has absorbed one of Hillary Clinton's talking points: That it takes experience to make change happen.

Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices.
----
The highest-ranking member of the group with deep ties to both Clinton and Obama is [Rahm] Emanuel, a Chicagoan who is very close to Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod.

Though the transition is still young, former Clintonites say they feel a change in the atmosphere.

"It's heartening to see that that was just primary rhetoric," said a former Clinton aide of Obama's criticism of Clinton's administration.
----
Soon after the primary, top Clinton policy aides, such as economic adviser Gene Sperling, were quietly integrated into Obama's campaign. The only member of Clinton's inner circle to join Obama's campaign staff was her policy director, Neera Tanden.

A campaign's policy shop feeds the bulk of a new administration's appointments: Most of the key positions on White House staff and in executive agencies are policy posts.

But while the Clinton policy shop may feel like the gang is getting back together, the political team has yet to be invited in.

Said one former Clinton campaign aide, "Obama has clearly made a distinction between the small group of Clinton campaign staff, who clearly aren't much welcome, and the large number of Clinton White House personnel who are."
Reference Here>>

With the announcement of Eric Holder being considered for the position of Attorney General, apparently expediency over judgment is the dividing hallmark of which former Clinton White House personnel are welcome (see Marc Rich pardon at end of the Clinton Presidency).

This is the reason why placing someone with previous executive experience (ideally within a construct of civic or state politics) is preferred to bringing a fresh approach to Washington politics than a Senator, any Senator, because the candidate who wins the election for president would staff the “new” executive branch with people who are competent in the workings of an executive effort but from OUTSIDE Washington without the legacy to the way thing were done before.

Where is the shiny? Where is the new? Where is the fresh? Where is the Hope? Where is the Change?

With Barack Obama and the personnel he is picking … it’s SAME-O, SAME-O!

We, at MAXINE believe it's going to be a real fun Carter's Second Term with a heavy spice of Clinton thrown in for good measure.

"Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!"

I Voted - And I voted in a way that my vote was not purchased through income re-distribution by the federal government or through a four to one commercial buy on television. The Main Stream Media did not suppress my vote or depress this voter even though I live in a bankrupt Blue State that is 18 Billion dollars in debt. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2008)

"Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!"

This IS the “Obama Effect” most people are looking for.

Yep! An Obama win will signal the end to self-determination, self-reliance, and the uniqueness that has made our country the envy of the rest of the world for the better part of 100 years.

What is wrong with this homemade political fence sign (photographed while standing in line at the polling station)? ... well, the sign is placed over 100 feet from the polling station so that not it ... Oh!, that is a Mercedes-Benz logo placed inside the Obama "O" ... NO, it's NOT a peace sign! We need high retention, better educated voters out here. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2008)

Opportunity will forever spelled with a small “O” because the big “O” will have been taken up with the tax-giveaway space that a Barack Obama presidency occupies.

People, as teenagers, really never rebelled against their parent’s control over their lives in earnest … they could not have been serious, because if they were, they would NEVER vote for an agenda that the Democrats and a Brarck Obama will bring to their lives.

Operation Enduring Freedom - The proven path toward peace. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (2008)

The amount of control the federal government will expect if one has a dissenting voice while receiving a handout will become unstoppable.

Rashid Khalidi Unmasked

Rashid Khalidi sees perils for the U.S. in empire building while ignoring its own professional Middle East experts and the history of the region. Khalidi is Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. He formerly taught at the University of Chicago. His talk [at UCLA] was in part to promote his new book, Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East. Caption and Image Credit: UCLA

Rashid Khalidi Unmasked

For some people, the process of judging ones character and the validity of ones judgment must begin with the calculation of affiliation and association.

The Los Angeles Times finds it more important to withhold information to a consuming and curious public at a time when their receipts are way down … subscriptions dropping like a rock, because they understand how important the calculation of affiliation and association really is.

The following article might give a some insight as to why the LA Times will not release the video they have with Barack Obama sharing dinner with Rashid Khalidi. The post carries a link to a shocking video from a Rashid Khalidi lecture and may give insight as to why the Los Angeles Times is running interference for Barack Obama.

Columbia University Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Rashid Khalidi's keynote address at the "Palestine: 40 Years of Occupation, 60 Years of Dispossession" conference in Portland, Oregon, on June 23, 2007.

This excerpted and edited from Pajamas Media -

This Is the Khalidi, Obama Embraced
October 31, 2008 - by Jennifer Rubin

Many others have surmised that the Los Angeles Times is running interference for Barack Obama, declining not just to provide the tape of the Rashid Khalidi goodbye event which Obama attended in 2003, but a complete transcript [assumed, because that is what we are told].

It is reasonable to ask - what could have been so bad about the event ... what could possibly have been so objectionable about the speeches or proceedings that might concern voters at this late date?

Well, the original Times report gives us only the sketchiest account. But now we have a video of a complete Khalidi lecture from June 2007. It is quite an eye-opener.

Viewers curious about the views of the man whom in 2003 Obama gave a “warm embrace” (physically or verbally?) should skip to the fifty-minute mark on the video tape.

You see, Khalidi tells us, the U.S. is repeating the same error of the Cold War in pursuing its war against Islamic terrorists. According to Khalidi it is the same “blind, foolish, reductionism.” And the U.S. policy is designed according to Khalidi to “get Palestinians to destroy one another.” And on it goes.

His view of Israel?

It is worse than “apartheid.” Continue to the end of the tape when he is asked about the massive Israeli media conspiracy headed by none other than Mortimer Zuckerman.

He doesn’t quite buy into that, but his description of American Jews who control the money and votes to manipulate Congress sounds an awful lot like Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israeli Lobby.” Or General Tony McPeak for that matter.

So it would be very interesting to see precisely what Khalidi said in Obama’s presence four years earlier. Was the rhetoric above the sort of language which preceded the warm words of praise from Barack Obama? The specifics matter, the context is crucial.

Obama claims he was never present for the anti-American and anti-Israeli rants of Reverend Wright. But he was there for a tribute to Khalidi, and voters should have the right to know if he sat impassively when Israel was vilified or if he seemed concerned when, as the Times tells us, “a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel.” (According to the Times, “If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”).

Did he seem concerned when “One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’”? We don’t know. The Times won’t tell us.

But we should know. Obama has presented a certain face to the voters and we should see if it matches up to the face he showed others before he imagined anyone outside his circle of like-minded comrades might take particular notice.
Reference Here>>

In a Carter's Second Term (if Barack Obama becomes president) ... What role will this association of President Obama's play - would this guy become our chief adviser to the Middle East ... or just the ambassador to the Palestinians?