Posted on 05/11/2006 2:54:59 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Peligro Pelosi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 11, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Craig R. Smith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
After watching Nancy Pelosi on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, I realized this November may just be the single most important election of my lifetime. This woman is without a doubt the most dangerous woman in America and we should pay close attention to what she is saying and equally to what she is not.
Tim Russert quizzed the Democrat from California on issues ranging from high fuel costs to a balanced budget. Like all "pie in the sky" Democrats, her answers were laced with all the usual "we can fix that, too" rhetoric, yet lacked any specifics on how to do it or who is going to pay for it. That is why voters are really going to be hard pressed to feel good about their vote come November. They don't want business as usual, yet fully reject the empty, nonspecific promises those like Pelosi are offering.
In May 2004 Pelosi said that Iraq had become a hotbed of terrorism and that we should stay until the job is completed. In November 2005, Pelosi supported Rep. John Murtha in his call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Amazing what a difference a year and a half makes. On Sunday, she had found a new position entirely when pressed by Russert on why the change of heart. Now she wants the Democratic plan of "significant transition" in 2006. When asked why the sudden reverse in course by the congresswoman, she points to the generals:
Because it's not a – yes. I would withdraw them [the troops] because, on the strength of expert advice, and now you see the generals speaking out on this.
So let me get this straight Nancy. Iraq is still a hotbed of terrorism, and as you said in 2004, because it is, we cannot withdraw. Now that the generals have spoken out on this, we should withdraw? Do you even know what you believe anymore? Such sound advice from the future speaker of the House. Insanity.
Her highness goes on to share her wisdom and the wisdom of her leftwing colleagues on how they will move America to energy independence – they will wean us off of oil. When asked for a specific time, she answered with "absolutely and I don't know ..."
Russert, satisfied with the "when," pursued the "how":
We intend to send our energy dollars to the Midwest and rural America, not to the Middle East. We intend to focus on biofuels, we intend on alternative energy, conservation and efficiency ... Brazil is doing this.
Are you kidding me Nancy? Brazil uses about 3 percent of what we use in oil, gasoline and natural gas. Give me a break. The Great Democrat plan – full of emotion and void of reality.
Russert then asked how she would pay for all the subsidies that would be necessary to pay for such a pipe dream and whether she would roll back the Bush tax cuts. Three times, she artfully dodged the question and instead opted to blame George Bush for all the ills of America and the world. Eventually, she said she was against the tax cuts. She should have stopped there. It would have been the only truly honest, nonpolitical answer she offered. But no, she had to ruin the Kodak moment by adding that choices will need to be made and she will tell us more when she takes over Congress, leaving the door wide open for a full-scale Kerry-esque flip-flop in the future.
She offered concept, just no specifics. Hey, I would like to rule the world, but I can't offer you a specific plan on how I intend to do it. Neither can Pelosi and the Democrats offer a plan to fulfill their delusions. That apparently isn't enough to stop them from trying.
So make no mistake about it. When – not if, according to Pelosi – she and the Democrats take over Congress, they fully intend to change the future. They will remove troops from Iraq and leave a vacuum in a region she admits is a hotbed for terrorism. They will make America energy independent. Don't know how or when or who will pay for it, but trust Nancy – it will happen.
They will embark on a security course to keep the American people "safe." They will shut down the National Security Agency wiretap programs and not allow the intelligence community to listen to terrorists. But in the process, they will "protect the American people and the Constitution." That should be a good one to watch. I can only imagine how the intel folks will deal with FISA courts and the subsequent leaks that occur on NSA activity through the front page of the New York Times. It sure did us a great service with Abu Ghraib and the bogus story of guards flushing Qurans down the toilets at Gitmo. Thanks Michael Isikoff. Nancy will soon be in touch daily.
I could go on and on, but I won't, for her dangerous rhetoric bathed in delusion reached its pinnacle when she made the following comment: "What we are about is going there [Congress] and, and having high ethical standards, fiscal soundness and a level of civility that brushes away all this fierce partisanship."
I think I'm going to puke. This coming from a person who represents a party that called the president a liar and an idiot. The party that has for six years attempted to "get even" with a president who "stole" the election. The party of Al Gore screaming at the top of his lungs how the president "betrayed us" and "played on our fears"? Need I mention crazy Uncle Howard and his insane statements?
If there was ever a time in America for steady, rational, and sound thinking it is now.
We are at war with an enemy that will not stop until they kill us or we kill them.
We have energy challenges like no other time before as more developing nations compete for resources worldwide.
We need the strong reliable intelligence essential to our physical safety and security.
We are burdened with financial problems that may take decades to repair.
Do we want the likes of Pelosi to lead us going forward? I sure hope not.
That is why November 2006 may just be our only hope for successfully meeting these challenges. The Democrats have already made your decision for you. To quote Tim Russert, "You're measuring the draperies in the speaker's office." Ms. Pelosi had to hold herself back from answering yes.
Democrats have come to a conclusion. You are going to give them the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. They have made it clear that when that happens there will be investigations. John Conyers wants to immediately start impeachment proceedings against President Bush. I just hope they are wrong about winning. If they are not, I'm not sure the country will look a lot different after Peligro Pelosi and company is finished.
I can't imagine what years and years of investigations and impeachment hearings may produce. Probably the very distraction our enemy needs to finish the job they started on Sept. 11, 2001. I just hope the American people are wise enough to not allow that to happen come November.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig R. Smith is an author, commentator and popular media guest because he instantly engages audiences with his common-sense analyses of local, national and global trends. Serving as CEO of Swiss America for nearly 25 years, Craig understands that Americans want solid answers to the tough questions and that real leadership begins with servanthood. Craig's most recent book is "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Jerome R. Corsi. For media interviews please call Holly at 800-950-2428.
Essentially, Pelosi said she'd raise taxes, funnel money to Democratic allies via subsidies and tax breaks for the rich, and generally cap economic growth to 0% or less.
I'm not so sure. I'd rather not find out what would happen if Condi were to get mad at me.....
Pelosi is more like a flea: an annoyance, but not life threatening unless part of a huge pack.
I listened to that interview on Meet the Press. At one point Pelosi expressed remorse that 2,400 troops had perished and that was "enough". She used a lowered voice to express concern. Her remarks led one to believe that the cost had been horrific!
I think the proper question, after posturing like that, is to ask her: "Exactly how many troops did you expect to lose when Congress approved the war?" Anyone who thought we could have held losses down to fewer than 5,000 in the first few months is not being honest. If not, then Congress had not properly considered the potential losses when they voted in the first place.
Clearly, we should not treat the men and women in our armed forces as expendable or demean the loss of any individual person. However, from a military standpoint, the troop losses to this point have been very light by any reasonable standard. Clearly, the Democrats want to hold us to some other standard.
The whip is for encounters with the beast.
"Nancy Pelosi is the Most Dangerous Woman in America"
--- Last week Hillary was the Most Dangerous Woman in America and the sky was going to fall if she gets elected
The week before Di Fi was the Most Dangerous Woman in America and the sky was going to fall if she gets elected
The week before that Cythnia McKinny was the Most Dangerous Woman in America (... well, ok, maybe that one is true)
How about the Repubs come up with a reason to vote FOR them rather than against the Dims.
Is a campaign based on fear the only thing that the RNC can come up with?
Every time Nancy Pelosi appears on television, millions of Americans resolve to vote Republican no matter what!
C
Thanks for dropping by TROLL, See ya' later!
AHHH! Away evil beast, get thee to hades!
My Spanish isn't perfectamundo, but a grammatically more accurate title to the thread might be,
"Mujer peligrosa: Pelosi como Jefe del Congreso"
But "Peligro Pelosi" (Pelosi the Threat) is pretty much on the mark.
or as was stated yesterday... it look like Michael Jackson on a real bad day
I'm sorry .. but I just don't see it.
Take this item from Rush Limbaugh's website for instance:
Internal Democrat Poll Says They're in Trouble
May 10, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Martin Frost, a former congressman from Texas -- one of the most bitter ex-Democrat members; he was routed after the Gingrich revolution, and is really one of the big partisans -- has a piece on the Fox News website today: "Democrats' Message Misses Middle Class." They've gone out and, "Third-Way, a 'center progressive' think tank made up of former Democratic Congressional and White House staffers, has now addressed this issue with some real insight... Lots of people bemoan the fact that the Democratic Party does not connect with white middle class voters, but few of the complainers offer workable solutions... In a study released on May 4, Third-way notes that Democrats believe they are talking to middle class voters but that their message is all wrong. The study then makes some very specific suggestions on how to solve the problem.
"First, middle class is defined as household income between $30,000 and $75,000 a year. Obviously this figure could go higher in some parts of the country, depending on cost of living factors. In 2004, John Kerry," who served in Vietnam, "lost middle class white voters by 22 points and Congressional Democrats lost middle class white voters by 19 points. Kerry lost all middle class voters as a group (including whites, Blacks and Hispanics) by 6 points. This was not an aberration but part of a trend. In 2000, Al Gore lost middle class white voters by 15 points and Congressional Democrats lost them by 14 points."
Is there any wonder why they're making a move on the illegal immigrant front and on the felon front? "According to Third-way, 'Americans are optimistic about the nation's future and their own; (Democratic) messaging is not." Wait a second. Wait just a second. Wait just a second, just one darn minute. That can't possibly be. Yeah, here it is in the New York Times today. "President Bush, Republican Congress showed nearly record low ratings while Democrats are viewed much more favorably in their performance on the issues that matter most to Americans, according to latest CBS News/New York Times poll."
What is this? Who are we supposed to believe here? By the way, have you noticed something about these polls? We're getting presidential approval polls more frequently than we get campaign tracking polls in the middle of a presidential election. I'm wondering if these networks and pollsters are coordinating their work so that every other day we get another poll. We get two or three of these a week. I can't remember this many approval polls coming out in such rapid succession, one after another. Now, who are we supposed to believe, Martin Frost's group, a bunch of ex-Democrat congressional and White House staffers, or the CBS/New York Times poll?
This is a stark difference. "According To Third Way..." and I'm going to tell you something, folks. I would much rather trust Democrat internal polling because that's what they're going to believe, "...'Americans are optimistic about the nation's future and their own; (Democratic) messaging is not. Americans see our society as a basically a fair one, where hard work is rewarded; progressives emphasize obstacles to middle-class success.'" They're down-talking everybody, doom and gloom. Seems like this Third Way bunch has figured it out, but how do you explain the New York Times/CBS poll? Easy. It's BS!
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Just a couple more little bits here from Martin Frost's piece, writing about this Third Way survey of the middle class, how Democrats are not connecting with the middle class. It doesn't matter -- white, black, Latino -- they're not connecting with the middle class. They're losing the middle class across the board, and it's a trend. In addition to the Third Way report -- and it's a 20-page study; is that right? Twenty pages? In addition to it saying that Americans are optimistic about the nation's future and their own and Democratic messaging is not, the study also "faults Democrats for always attacking the wealthy, noting 'the middle-class aspires to wealth and doesn't see big business or the wealthy as enemies.'
"It adds that Democrats 'downplay the strengths of the American economy… and fail to inspire conviction that America can continue to lead the world.' Stated another was: 'Let's be clear – no one can deny that there are serious and legitimate concerns about our economy. The nation's federal budget deficit is at a record high...'" and they don't care about that. As I said yesterday, they're just upset that all this spending went on without them being in charge of it. "...as is America's trade deficit with the world. Manufacturing jobs have declined, and the gap between the wealthy and the middle-class is increasing.
These are not trifling problems that should be glossed over by progressives. But for every piece of bad news, there is also good news about the economic health and future of America.' The study added, 'It is in the American nature to believe that America…will prevail in an economic battle against China, Japan and India and that the American standard of living can only get better." Folks, they have to have been listening to this program because they have somehow swerved into capturing here the essence of America and being an American, which is optimism, and the expectation of a better life each and every day.
So you juxtapose this with this New York Times/CBS poll and not only is the polling data in this thing bad for Bush and the Republicans, the language in the story, to describe it is hateful and mean-spirited while peppered with some glee and happiness. So again I ask you, which of these two stories are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the Democrats' own study into their problems and why they're losing the middle class and failing to connect, or are you going to believe a standard CBS/New York Times poll that is predictable in its criticism and results that Bush is hated, the Republicans are hated, American people have no faith in the country anymore blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You can throw that New York Times poll right where it belongs, and that's in the bottom of your bird cage or the toilet or what have you.
END TRANSCRIPT
NOW WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT SOME "BALANCE OF POWER" GOING TO THE DEMOCRATS!!
Some of the base may be upset with the President, but they're NOT STUPID enough to allow the likes of these TRAITORS to take over power in the govt.
I'll be there voting Republican even if I have to hold my nose, but my point is that we should, with those turkeys, be looking at big gains not just holding on to the majorities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.