WHY WE MUST VOTE REPUBLICAN

Everyone seems to have their favorite conspiracies nowadays and we must get "alerted" to four or five new ones a week. So, herein, we shall not be starting yet another.

Still, there is a rather significant point that must be made before the general election next month. Because, there really is a well entrenched organization afoot that is unabashedly reorganizing life in the United States as we know it. This group is not secret. In fact, they hold semipublic meetings in our nation's Capitol and everyone in the Washington press corps know about them.

Fifty years ago, most members of Congress would have quickly labeled the goals and activities of groups like these as "un-American activities." Today, almost all the members of the groups in question are members of the Democratic Party, as well as members of Congress.

So, while this cannot actually be labeled as a secret conspiracy, there really is a workable plan afoot that could put the leadership of most of the important committees in Congress in the hands of people with decidedly un-American intentions.

This study was begun to determine what the House would look like if the Democrats won back control next month. Dick Gephardt would be Speaker, of course. But, that's only the beginning of the problem. Most work is done in the various committees and whoever runs the committees wields much of the power. So, as we do every couple years, we looked to see who the ranking Democrats are on a few important committees and subcommittees. Let's see what will happen this time around if the Democrats win back Congress next month.

The Appropriation Committee has two subcommittees of interest for this study. If the Democrats take the House, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies will be chaired by Marcy Kaptur** (D-Ohio).

Kaptur** received the double asterisk after her name because she is a long-term, active member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus(1). The Progressive Caucus is a socialist organization aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America and the Socialist International(2) network. The Progressive Caucus "platform" (of sorts) can be found on their Progressive Challenge website.(3)

Now that we have noted the use of the double asterisk as a shorthand gimmick, let's return to examining the disgusting situation we could find ourselves in if the Democratic Party is allowed to win back Congress.

The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs could be chaired by Nancy Pelosi** (D-CA). Except, Pelosi** was recently elected by other far left Democratic-socialists to become House Democratic Whip, which means she would be first in line as majority leader if the Democratic Party controlled the House and Gephardt becomes Speaker.

More alarming yet, Pelosi** is currently the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- which exercises oversight of all U.S. government intelligence activities. That means, there is a good chance a card carrying socialist could actually become chairman of Intelligence.

Chairmanship of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee would go to either John J. LaFalce (D-NY) or Bernard Sanders** (S-VT). At the subcommittee level, Barney Frank** (D-MA) would chair Housing and Community Opportunity and/or the Committee on Financial Services. Maxine Waters** (D-CA) would chair the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy and Bernard Sanders** (S-VT) could chair the General Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Under the House Commerce Committee, Henry A. Waxman** (D-CA) is in line to chair either the Subcommittee on Health and Environment or the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Worse, Waxman** (D-CA) would probably take over the powerful House Government Reform Committee. The Committee on Government Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has jurisdiction to investigate any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications. As Ranking Member, Waxman** already sits on all of the Government Reform Committee's subcommittees and often disrupts as much as possible.

It appears that John F. Tierney** (D-MA), would get the chairmanship of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs -- which deals with matters relating to the nation's economic growth, competitiveness, natural resources and regulatory reform and paperwork reduction measures.

As ranking member on the Government Reform subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Jan Schakowsky** (D-ILL) would chair the committee that supervises agency budgets.

The powerful House Ways and Means Committee would be chaired by Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). The subcommittee on Oversight would be chaired by William J. Coyne, (D-PA) and Pete Stark** (D-CA) would get Health -- whose scope includes taxes, Medicare, Social Security, trade and public assistance.

Lynn Woolsey** (D-CA) is ranking minority member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, so would probably chair that. However, Woolsey** is also ranking minority member on the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and so could choose to chair that committee instead.

Anything could happen on the House Judiciary Committee because John Conyers** (D-MI) (of reparations fame) would be chairman. Or, Conyers** could again become Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations.

The House Committee on Resources would be another major problem for the American people because George Miller** (D-CA) could become chairman. Miller, we might add, wants to hand over more than half of our nation's public lands to UN and UNESCO control through the biosphere reserve program, so we see great mischief there. Or, Miller** could become Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Peter DeFazio** (D-OR) would chair the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers and Clean Water Act programs.

Jim McGovern** (D-MA) is the third-ranking Democrat on the powerful House Rules Committee and there is an outside possibility he could become chairman of that.

Tom Lantos** (D-CA) would become chairman of the International Relations Committee, which has jurisdiction over all aspects of United States foreign policy, including political relations, security policies, participation in international organizations, human rights, and trade development.

Major R. Owens** (D-NY) would chair the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Jerrold Nadler** (D-NY) would chair either the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee or the House Resources Committee and either Nadler** or Mel Watt** (D-NC) could get the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The House Veterans Committee would be chaired by Lane Evans** (D- IL). For the subcommittees, Luis V. Gutierrez** (D-IL) would get Health, Bob Filner** (D-CA) could get Benefits and Corrine Brown** (D-FL) Oversight and Investigations.

The House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee would go to Neil Abercrombie** (D-HI).

John Olver** (D-MA) is Ranking Member (top Democrat) on the Military Construction Subcommittee of Appropriations, so would chair that. As the senior Democrat on the of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Health, Bob Filner** (D-CA) could take that chairmanship.

Donald M. Payne** (D-NJ) is Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and Subcommittee on Africa, so would get that chairmanship.

José E. Serrano**, the Democrat Delegate from Puerto Rico, is the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary and would get that chairmanship. Also from Puerto Rico is the Democratic Delegate Carlos Romero-Barceló. He would chair the National Parks & Public Lands Subcommittee. Eni Faleomavaega**, the Delegate from American Samoa, would chair the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans Subcommittee. Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam, would chair the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.

Yes. You read that correctly. People none of us elected to anything would chair committees controlling our commercial law and much of the public lands and conservation in the continental United States -- even though they are not from here. They cannot vote for a bill on the floor of the House, but they can in committee. They can introduce bills, too. Moving on, we find that the House Small Business Committee would be chaired by Nydia Velazquez** (D-NY) and the Government Programs and Oversight Subcommittee by Danny Davis** (D-IL).

So, there you have it. At least thirty important committees in the House will be chaired by card carrying, go to meetin' socialists if the Democrats win. They will have many of the financial committees, some of the military affairs committees and control most of the environmental issues. Their common bond is socialism, which they admit to publicly by membership in the Progressive Caucus.

On the Senate side, Senator Paul Wellstone** (D-Min.) is (was, anyway) Chairman of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs -- and a card-carrying member of the Progressive Caucus.

Scratch the surface of the Democratic Party leadership and there are the same five who have been there for years: The Clintons and McAuliffe, of course. But, along with the Clintons, their friends Joe Lieberman and Al From are also card-carrying proponents of "Third Way" socialism in the United States -- just like their European political cohorts like Gerhard Shroeder and Tony Blair, who are Vice Presidents of Socialist International.

The immediate problem started with Lieberman's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)(4). The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include Bill Clinton and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. Then, the chairmanship went back to Joe Lieberman, with Al From as the ever-present Chief Executive Officer. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is identified as the current chairman, but it is really Lieberman and From calling all the shots there.

The DLC "think tank" is the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)(5), which admits to being a "Third Way" socialist organization: "The Progressive Policy Institute is a catalyst for political change. Its mission is to modernize progressive politics and government for the Information Age. Leaving behind the stale left-right debates of the industrial era, PPI is a prolific source of 'Third Way' thinking that is shaping the emerging politics of the 21st century."

An offshoot of the DLC and PPI is The New Democrat Network(NDN)(6). The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. The NDN "acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials eager to lead the U.S. and the world into the 21st century and the Internet Age. NDN is committed to electing political leaders who are capable of realizing the great promise of the new century while ensuring that no one is left behind."

NDN has about 65 members in the House and 16 in the senate. Generally speaking, the function of the NDN is to act as the DLC's political action committee and launder soft money to favored Congressional campaign committees.

There is no need to look too hard in the Senate to find un-American activities. Start with the impeachment fiasco and work out. Not one Democratic Senator bothered to even look at the evidence against Clinton. Not even one! Which means, not one Democratic Senator belongs in any position of honor ever again.

We must note, too, that no Democratic Senator came forward to decry their Party's outright violation of our election process. Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) won his New Jersey primary election and the right to place his name on the general election ballot, which he did. When the Democratic Party leadership realized that Torricelli would not win the general election, they violated the will of the voters by coercing him into quitting and stuck 78-year-old socialist Frank Lautenberg in his place.

ome might still remember Lautenberg's first campaign, in 1982. Therein, he ran against 72-year-old Millicent Fenwick. As part of Lautenberg's campaign, he made an issue of age, insinuating she no longer had the capacity to be a senator. She did then. He doesn't today.

But, at least he is alive. In the last few elections the Democratic Party has actually thought it proper to run dead candidates. That fits well with their program, though. They have had dead voters submitting ballots for at least three decades.

Of course, the Democratic Party also fields special teams to visit institutions and collect ballots from Alzheimer’s patients, mental patients and even nursing home patients in comas. So, voting for those who are already dead is just follow-up constituent service for Democrats.

Just last week, in Madison, Wisconsin, prosecutors said that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Doyle's campaign traded food and money to secure votes at a bingo party. Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Nevada were also in the news for voter fraud. In Michigan, Detroit still has not completed counting all the ballots from the primary election that ended many weeks ago and probably never will.

The AFL-CIO is no longer running TV ads aimed at influencing House and Senate races around the country. Instead, they will join with other unions and contribute millions of dollars in "walking around money" for Democratic Party activists. They call it their "get out the vote" drive. In fact, that "drive" has a lot more to do with creating votes than getting people to the correct polling place.

In the last election cycle, Democrats received $46.3 million in soft money from organized labor. Just twelve unions collectively contributed more than $17 million in soft money to Democratic state committees.

Why do Democrats support the failed government school system? They are paid for that support. The National Education Association contributed at least $21 million in the last election -- 95 percent of it to Democrats.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave $19 million to Democrats. And Hollywood entertainment executive Haim Saban, gave at least $11 million to the Democrats -- including a $1 million donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alone contributed at least $30.6 million since the 1989-90 election cycle and over 90% of it went to Democrats. Which means, government employees were bribing their bosses for better pay and benefits.

Most of these groups are very far-left, politically, and/or outwardly socialist groups. All of these groups want something for their money, of course. The Democrats deliver. Therefore, Democratic Party politicians receive plenty of money.

The problem of the Democratic Party is not receiving contributions, it is receiving legal contributions that may be directly used for political campaigns. That is not the type of funding their major contributors favor giving. Therefore, the Democratic Party is often overwhelmed with more so called "soft money" than they can spend legally. Hence, it is common to see them illegally buying votes with money, or whatever other commodity it takes.

Foreign money also comes into play here. Clinton, Gore and Chris Dodd were caught taking cash from communist Chinese, but that is but the tip of that iceberg. Israel launders about a hundred-million dollars into every election cycle. Japan, Inc. isn't far behind Israel. Mexico is getting into the act, as are a variety of South American countries. Most of that money is funneled through lobbyists and Washington law firms to Democrats who will vote correctly.

That is quite illegal, of course. For instance, 2 USC 441e states that it is unlawful for a foreign national to contribute to any political campaign. Yet, the Democratic National Committee knowingly and actively solicits funds from foreign nationals. The DNC also solicits funds from law firms and lobbyists they know to be little more than cut-outs for foreign corporations and governments.

Another law, 18 USC 600, states that, "Whoever promises any contact or other benefit as a consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity may be fined, imprisoned, or both." No one on Capitol Hill pays any attention to that law. There are never any arrests, either. If lobbyists could not promise their clients contacts on Capitol Hill, they would not have much money to contribute to political campaigns.

Also, 18 USC 1956 states that: "Whoever illegally obtains campaign contributions, or knowingly accepts campaign contributions that are laundered in an attempt to conceal the nature, source, ownership or control of the funds, may be fined, imprisoned, or both." Yet, everyone on Capitol Hill knows exactly which lobbyists and Washington legal firms are laundering campaign donation money from clients who cannot legally contribute themselves. They accept the money, anyway.

All of the above applies to the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, some also applies to Republicans -- especially the so called Rockefeller Republicans (often called RINO's -- Republicans In Name Only) who really do not belong in the Republican Party.

But, the point is, Democrats on Capitol Hill tend to be out-and-out socialists. Many are also lawbreakers. All work against the original intent of the authors of our Constitution. Therefore, they consciously and intentionally violate their oath of office and should never be allowed to hold a position in any level of government.

As President Ronald Reagan wisely cautioned: "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."

By instilling socialism in the United States, the Democrats intend to usurp our freedom. As an instant correction by peaceful means, we should all vote straight Republican next month. Then, we can cull out the bad Republicans in the next primary election.

The corpse makes a better candidate than any living person in her eyes. Simply amazing.

Hmmm.... Well I actually agree with Barbara Streisand in this case. A dead Democrat is often better than a live Republican. Think of the kind of country this would be if all the Democrats were dead.

If dead Democrats can vote, it is only proper that you not disenfranchise them and put one of their own on the ballot.

The only difference is who pays for the clean up after the social orgy.

OK...at least I understand you now...tis more conservative to have society to pay for the clean up than to have the individual pay for it...have government take responsibility and be accountable instead of individuals.

I'm sorry sir...but thats what we call socialism...the thing we're all trying to prevent.

I'd be embarrassed too if I had called Bush a conservative.

Demi you have shown that very little embarrases you. You vote for a party that uphold everything that embarrases the rest of us. Gay Rights/drugs/anti-borders/prostitution/anti-religious morality/anarchy. In one state a LP canidate for governor has 17 charges against him including discharging a firearm while intoxicated. That is scarry, but I am sure you are not embarrassed.

��5{��vote for "gun control radical" by electing Demos.

No, read what I wrote. I wouldn't vote for a Democrat that was for gun control. They may be elected, but I didn't elect them.

Using your reasoning, I could correctly assert that everyone who voted Republican in the 90's voted for Clinton because they didn't vote for Perot. After all, Perot could have won if the Republicans had backed him instead of the Republican candidate. I guess Republicans are just a bunch of Clinton-lovers, since by not voting for Perot they were voting for Clinton.

Finally an honest man!

The real reason for your vote is $$$. Clearly, whether you vote socialist or socialist-lite, you'll still get the same policies and programs, only the talking smiley-faces are slightly different. Face it, when they get to Valhalla on the Potomac, they'll all drink the same Dom Perignon, and party with the same adolescents.

Didn't we learn our lesson in '94?

No you don't.
I'm saying Planned Parenthood endorses teen sex. Get rid of Planned Parenthood and make abstinance the norm,and the problem would be basically solved.
Homosexuality spreads AIDs. Get rid of homosexuals by putting them back in the nuthouses where they belong, and maybe we could rid the country of this plague. Problem solved.
Give the parents school choice to avoid indoctrination and allow them to get a proper education . That way they're smart enough to get a job. Welfare would be a thing of the past. Problem solved.
Libertarianism adds to the moral decline in America. Without a sence of moral right and wrong, the Constitution is dead. It will most certainly depend on the meaning of the word "is." After all, lieing is good because there is no concept of right and wrong in America today.
Your party endorses the tearing of the moral fabric that supports the constitution, yet you use that Constitution to push it's death agenda as if you were patriots. No, in my opinion you're more anti-American than pro-American. If you were pro-American, you'd see the value of this fabric. Therefore, your agenda no better than the Democrat agenda you support.
Now do you understand why, in clear conscience, I could never vote Libertatian? Why add to the demise of the American culture that built this nation?
To put it simply,why make a mess in the first place? That way, no one is forced to clean up the sludge left behind.

What if I'd prefer my kids not be exposed to Liberal Libertarian plagues and stuff? Prostitutes, Aids, drugs,.... They'll have to live in the sludge. Why would I want that? If I wanted that, I'd vote Democrat.

Let me try to understand this now . . . are you saying that you reject the concept of Liberty the Founding Fathers intended to guarantee to all of us so that big government might have the power to intimidate and punish children for those things you class as immoral and/or improper?

Ouch!

Because, in truth, if that is what you want, then you Should be for legalizing and government regulation of these things. Proof is in the pudding -- on the streets of Anytown, USA.

Ask any kid where to by drugs. They can all get illegal drugs a lot faster then you probably can. Yet, they have problems buying alcoholic beverages. They need an adult to get beer for them.

Children need life-training in right and wrong from their parents, not through intimidation via the guns of government. Part of living free is getting to make your own mistakes. It is under the guise of socialized medicine, etc., that government demands an ever-expanding vote in our personal activities.

Because of all the above -- and much more -- I shall always vote for Liberty and reject government intrusion into any quarter not specifically granted government by the Constitution.

Gay Rights/drugs/anti-borders/prostitution/anti-religious morality/anarchy.

A (LP) would leave Gay Rights up to the states...no federal lobby or indoctrination...no federal regulations to tell you to show the video "Why Heather has two mommies" in a forth grade home economics class (no public school controlled by the NEA either BTW), no federal regulations to force health insurance companies to view Bruce and his significant others as a "married" couple and cover both of their health insurance.

I'm anti-open borders too...I can't comment here.

What is anti-religous morality for one is different for another...some people think its OK to drink, some don't; some don't believe in using electricity (Amish), some do; some people think prostitution is perfectly fine, some don't; (and if they want a prostitute, legally or illegally there going to get one anyway, if you think its wrong, be faithful to your wife and teach your kids to do this as well...its your right)

The anarchy comment is just a usual term to bash libertarians...I don't do flame wars.

By the same token, I occasionally will vote for a Democrat who for some reason is out of line with the rest of the party and actually supports the issues I hold dear to my heart.

Even if your vote for that "out of line" Democrat gives the majority of the House and/or Senate to all the rest of the Democrats? The same hard core Socialist/Progressive/Liberal extremists who will chair ALL the committees, subcommittees, confirmations, budget/taxing/spendig processes, congressional agenda, etc, etc, etc, etc,.....? Is it your vote that is responsible for the Democrat control of the Senate today?

No. I'm saying right now government should work to change the hearts and minds of the American people and get them thinking moral again. It was the Democrat and Libertarian "love fest" that destroyed the moral fabric in the first place with their propaganda. Now, someone has to fix it before it's too late. It may already be too late, but we could try.
Now, You'll have to find another to use as your medium to push your agenda. Your crap won't work on me. Find another. You're wasting your time.

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.