John Edwards "Marshall Corps" Plan

This is one of John Edwards plans for dealing with his so called Bumper Sticker War on Terror:

As commander-in-chief, Edwards will employ a more effective strategy to hunt down those who would threaten us, including Islamic extremists, and to shut down terrorism where it startsin weak and failing states, which breed instability and radicalism. Edwards will:

* Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century
* Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods
* Hold regular meetings with top military leadership
* Create a "Marshall Corps" to stabilize weak and failing states
* Rebuild equipment
* Create a National Security Budget

What is this "Marshall Corps" business?

"Marshall Corps": Weak and failing states create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability that creates security dangers for the U.S. and our allies. As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions. He will also implement new training for future military leadership and create a undersecretary for stabilization and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.

Oh we see now. It sounds like this plan, this new Corps, will be under the leadership of our Military. Just what they need: A group of non fighting, under-trained men and women who will run to the hot beds, be kidnapped, beheaded and otherwise tortured. SMART MAN, this John Edwards. This shows his total lack of understanding of just who our enemies are and what lengths they have and will go to- just to get us OUT.

Murtha Laughed in a Dark Corner

I was simply going to update the last post about Congressional pork spending and the bad side effects of it. But this news article deserves its own post:

WASHINGTON - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.
[...]
In conversations with colleagues and reporters, Democrats played down the incident. Murtha is known for blowing off steam, they said, and his comments to Rogers were too vague to constitute a genuine violation of ethics rules. "It's time to put on your long pants and grow up," Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said in an interview when asked how Democrats would respond.

Oh alrighty then.

Let's see how Murtha reacted during this vote:

During the vote, Murtha sat in a darkened corner of the House floor, laughing with colleagues who surrounded him during the vote. As the clock wound down, other Democrats him to congratulate the senior member of the Appropriations Committee who oversees a massive defense spending bill every year.

The bully gets his way, and as a bonus, he gets his ego brushed up a little more.
Onward we go: Our elected officials are about as ethical as a car salesman. There is little difference between the two.

Left’s ten commandments

I found this article through Pro Life Blogs, and admit I didn't bother reading more than this list, all of which catches my eye as the truth about liberals.

I. "Thou shalll not speak against the liberal world view”

II. “Thou shall not think contrary to what the left deems acceptable”

III. “Thou shall have no other gods but political correctness”

IV. “Thou shall not raise thy children according to your Christian faith”

V. “Thou shall have no school choice for that would curtail indoctrination”

VI. “Thou shall remember to always speak evil of Christians”

VII. “Thou shall never admit the founding fathers had a Christian world view”

VIII. “Thou shall always have faith in government programs”

IX. ‘Thou shall never claim anything as absolutely true unless it is in keeping with the latest leftist propaganda”

X. “Thou shall always worship the mother who kills her unborn child”

The Age of Consent According to Democrats

Taking the first steps to make sure sex with minors is legal and safe. This is all about the nitty griity details regarding age of consent for young teenage girls, men and the legalizing of sex between them. Parents of course, have little say in it all.

IS A 13-year-old girl capable of consenting to sex with a 20-year-old man? Under New Hampshire law, she is not. A bill passed by the House in March and being considered in the Senate would alter that.

I have seen arguments over at ARS that claim ANY teenage girl who consents to a sexual relationship with ANY age man should be allowed. I have also heard arguments that young men, boys really shouldn't be forced to carry the label of sex offender just because they preyed upon a young girl.

House Bill 504, sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Brown, D-Dover, would allow convicted sex offenders younger than 21 to have their names removed from the sex offender registry if their victims were between the ages of 13 and 16, "the offender did not use force or coercion in the commission of the act and a period of 10 years or more has elapsed since the conviction without any other misdemeanor or felony convictions."

It figures a Democrat would write this, and it doesn't shock me or anyone else that this legislation is written by a woman either. Morals mean nothing to people like Jennifer Brown.

But New Hampshire has an age of consent for good reason. Some men prey on impressionable girls, and for their safety the law holds that no matter how in love they feel they cannot legally consent to sex. The age difference itself, in other words, is proof of force or coercion.

Many argue the age should be changed simply because the LAW is too outdated.
The age of consent is an important factor. Young teenage girls are not emotionally ready to handle being USED. Let's be blunt about it. Yes, they fall "in love" with adult boys (those men who are around 21 years of age) and they view him as their savior- their Prince who will marry them someday and whom they will live happily ever after...and we all know what the adult boys want. Robbing young girls of their chance to learn how to deal with the emotional ups and downs of their teen years, with peers their same age is wrong.
Girls who become involved in one sided relationships like these tend to be depressed and grow up with self esteem problems. They also tend to become involved in abusive relationships later in their lives. But it's okay because it's just sex, right?
Adult boys who crave young naive and impressionable girls never learn to become decent men who hold decent morals and values. And what makes anyone think a 21 year old boy ages a decade and suddenly desires an more mature and emotionally stronger woman? It's too easy to take advantage of that 13 year old; we know men in their 30's, 40's and 50's do this.

Furthermore, the law already has an exception for young teen lovers. A teen no more than two years older than the victim is not necessarily guilty of felonious sexual assault on a person between the ages of 13 and 16. A 17-year-old high school senior caught on prom night with a 15-year-old sophomore would not be guilty of felonious sexual assault. If he were caught with a 14-year-old, he would.

Exactly. Why Ms. Brown seems determined to change a law that already protects close-age sexual relationships is unknown to me. Perhaps she is a feminist who wants to further liberate women?

It does not take a criminologist to see that adult men who seduce girls between the ages of 13 and 15 are sexual predators. This bill would let them slip off the sex offender registry so that parents would have no warning that these men are a threat to their children. If the bill passes, it will endanger children all across America, as sex offenders under age 21 could move to New Hampshire, petititon to have their names removed from the registry, then move wherever their predatory impulses took them.

Laws like this invite a state to become a haven for predators. It doesn't surprise me that one of the few tools a parent has in their arsenal is potentially going to be removed; in the eyes of the Democrats, parents should depend upon the state to keep their children, (young teenage girls) safe. The very things we want to protect our daughters from are being made legal now.

XPosted @ ARS

What Else Did You Mean?

I was a young teenager when Jimmy Carter was President. I wasn't aware of the damage he brought to this country during the Iranian Hostage saga. It wasn't until many years later that I realized, with shame and embarrassment- just how bad a President Mr. Carter really was. I wouldn't use the term "Irreverent" to describe him. He was more "impotent". Choosing to take no action because he could not make a decision, Carter opened the first doors to radical Islam's emboldened mindset to destroy America. Like it not, he is trying to alter history and alter his legacy.

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted" when he said the Bush administration has been the "worst in history" for its impact around the world.

Speaking on NBC's "Today," Carter appeared to retreat from a statement he made to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for a Saturday story in which he said: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Carter said Monday that when he made the comment, he was responding to a question comparing the Bush administration's foreign policy to that of Richard Nixon.

"And I think Richard Nixon had a very good and productive foreign policy and my remarks were maybe careless or misinterpreted. But I wasn't comparing the overall administration and I was certainly not talking personally about any president," Carter said.

Oh I see. Thank you Mr. Carter for clarifying this. I wasn't really sure what you meant.

I think someone finally punched Carter in the face and told him he has gone too far now.

Speaking of John Edwards

When I read this I didn't think it was really worthy of making news. After all, many retired politicians/Presidents/Generals and others charge fees to deliver speeches. Some of these people make a living doing so.

John Edwards has an example to teach University of California at Davis students how to avoid poverty — charge $55,000 for a speech.

That's how much the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate negotiated for his fee to speak to 1,787 people at the taxpayer-funded school in January 2006, according to financial disclosures.

According to Joe Martin, the public relations officer for UC Davis' Mondavi Center, the fee for a speech entitled, "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America," was worth it to school officials.

Martin told The San Francisco Chronicle that the center paid Edwards because at the time "he wasn't a (presidential) candidate and from our point of view, he was a speaker of interest that people in the community were clearly interested in ... we feel it's our mission to present those speakers."

John Edwards isn't retired. He's an active candidate for President of the USA. Edwards is capitalizing on the perceived poverty (which I question) in America and he's making good money doing so. He is a hypocrite, as are all the paid speakers of all political parties who use the plight of "poor" or "disadvantaged" as topic for their talks. I can't think of too many people who don't align themselves with the Party of the People, Democrats, who DO poor-people pep talks though. And I can't think of too many graduating college age kids who can see the hypocrisy in all this.

The Inclusive Democrats?

It never ceases to amaze me how the Democrats can claim to be the all inclusive party of the people. They speak for the poor, disadvantaged and under-dogged peoples of the country.

Here is am example of just how inclusive Democrats really are:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats will host a national meeting on children next week, saying they want to make sure federal policies reflect the most recent scientific findings on early childhood development.

"Every parent sees endless possibilities and great hope in the eyes of a child," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., in her party's weekly radio address. "As a nation, when we look at today's children, we see tomorrow's leaders: scientists and teachers, engineers, doctors and diplomats," she said.

Excerpts from Saturday's address were released Friday.

The daylong summit Tuesday on Capitol Hill will bring together members of Congress, academics, advocates and national experts on early childhood learning, health care and child care.

DeLauro said investing in children yields important dividends for families and the nation.

"From quality early education and access to health care, to proper housing and support for military families, the right priorities can make a big difference from day one," DeLauro said. "We have an obligation to take a hard look at our policies, and make sure they reflect both the latest science and our priorities as a nation."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of members of Congress are expected to attend, DeLauro said.

At first glance this summit appears to include all parties who have a vested interest in the children of the United States. Read it again. Look at who will be attending this summit: members of Congress, educators, "advocates", health care professionals and others...no mention of a panel of PARENTS themselves. The Democrats truly believe government knows best, and is the ideal body to decide policy and law that directly effect children and families.

From Nancy Pelosi's Madame of The House site:

The National Summit on America’s Children will take place on Tuesday, May 22nd on Capitol Hill. The day-long session, which will convene national experts and academics on recent scientific findings and how they relate to early childhood development, is a first step in making certain that federal policies on children reflect the latest scientific developments.

The summit will be chaired by Chairman George Miller of California of the House Committee on Education and Labor and co-chair of the House Steering and Policy Committee; Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, co-chair of the House Steering and Policy Committee; and Congressman Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, a longtime advocate for children. The legislators will convene experts in a wide array of areas, including early childhood learning, health care, and child care. Practitioners of innovative public and private initiatives will attend to offer research-based testimony to assist the lawmakers in the development of federal policy. James Heckman, an economics professor and director of the Center for Social Program Evaluation at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, will deliver the keynote address.

A group of these esteemed professionals will, in effect, have more control over the laws and policies and regulations related to raising children than all parents combined. Removing the power of the people they represent, Democrats once again show us the Village mentality is superior than the family unit.

XPosted @ ARS