This Talk of Cheney Running in 2012 Should Remain Talk: I Wouldn’t Support Him

An MSNBC columnist pointed out in a recent column that the conservatives do not yet have a viable candidate to run against President Obama in 2012. He raised a few possibilities: Sarah Palin, John McCain (the not-conservative), and Dick Cheney.

John Meacham thinks that Cheney should run, so that voters will have an opportunity to cast a “final judgment” on the Bush years.

I don’t think so.

Dick Cheney should stay retired, and out of the media. He’s more of a hindrance than he is a viable choice to take on Obama. It’s not his qualifications that I’m questioning, but his judgment. Aside from the fact that he’s disregarded presidential traditions by criticizing the new Administration immediately after leaving office, I disagreed with most of his public stands as they were too far to the right, were reactionary, ill-conceived and war hawkish. And when Iran re-appeared on the radar screen, it was Cheney who was beating the war drums the loudest. That scared me. I was glad that Bush and Cheney left office before they got us into a war with Iran too.

Our side didn’t find WMDs in a bunker in the Iraqi desert like I thought they were going to. That was the entire rationale for going into Iraq in the first place. Cheney’s never admitted to the mistake, which causes issues with more than a few voters, including me.

Cheney presents the image of a man with his finger poised on the little red button, just itching for an excuse to press it. What the red button controls is of equal importance; is it a paper shredder with the Constitution loaded up and ready to shred? Or is it the control that will empty all the missile silos?

I hope Cheney is enjoying his retirement. I like the current administration even less than I like Cheney, and his influence on America’s foreign policy would be a prime target for Obama to go after. This needs to be a one-term President; he needs to be turned out on Election Day.

No thank you on Cheney. We need someone who has broader appeal.

Tiger Woods Car Crash: He Ought to Quit Avoiding the Police and Tell Them What Really Happened

The media circus surrounding the Tiger Woods car crash will only intensify the longer he avoids talking to the police about the accident.

It may be that Tiger and his wife are trying to patch things up, but he should schedule an interview with the police and get it over with. He may be trying to keep his wife out of jail for an alleged assault that preceded the crash; but he needs to fulfill his obligations and talk to the police before they are forced to get a warrant.

I hope everything works out.

Liberal Democrat Insists Current Health Care Plan is Worth Losing His Seat Over: If He Insists, But if It’s Come Down to That, Why Doesn’t He Resign Immediately and Save Us the Trouble?

This Congress is so far out of control with the electorate that they don’t take the time to read the bills that are before them before casting a vote, don’t care what their voters think and are willing to lose their seats to get what they, and only they, want.

So says Democratic Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado, who thinks that the health care bill is worth losing his seat over.

It’s worth noting that his constituents did not get to express their opinions of his choices as their representative, as he did not schedule any town hall meetings during the summer break as many of his Democratic colleagues did, though he has mentioned health care in other town hall meetings. So, he’s bound and determined to vote on this bill the way that the Democratic leadership wants it, regardless of the consequences. Sounds like someone who needs to be recalled immediately, before the bill is voted on in the Senate. I don’t think he’ll step down on his own.

I’m glad he’s not my representative.

Democrats Ought to Quit Screwing Things Up Before Insisting That The Rest of Us Shut Up About It: Thought Cop Politicians Shouldn’t Try to Mandate When We Exercise Free Speech

At first, when I saw the news about the “Complaint-Free Wednesday” bill being introduced by Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver, I thought it was a joke.

Who would dare to assault the First Amendment like this?

Then I saw follow-up news stories that it WAS a serious attempt to curtail free speech on the day before Thanksgiving. Perhaps Rep. Cleaver should convince his colleagues in Congress to quit giving the rest of us reason TO complain about them. And he’s got the gall to point out the health benefits of not complaining as much either, which I don’t dispute, but what good is it if the Democrats cause everyone to stroke out over their bad decisions?

I see that Rep. Cleaver voted for the House health care bill, so I view this as nothing more than an attempt to stifle serious opposition to his vote, as well as other Democratic screw-ups since taking control of the government. And if they manage to pass it for one day, how about on days that Congress votes for more bad legislation, too? Or every day?

No thank you, Mr. Thought Cop. If the public has something to say, they can say it WHENEVER they want.

I sure wouldn’t be complaining as much if our government was taking us in the right direction.

Global Warming Crowd Baffled By Halt in Global Warming: They’re Not as Smart as They Think They Are

The headline couldn’t have said it plainer: “Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out.”

Well, duh!

They’ve finally taken note that lack of sunspot activity = lack of global warming, which pretty much shoots their “man-made global warming” hubris down.

So much for “proven science.” They got it wrong—AGAIN! Proven science, my afterburner! The global warming know-it-alls are tasting what humble pie is like. All they have to do is stand outside and freeze their asses off for a while to get a clue.

Now, when sunspot activity on the sun resumes, so will global warming. There will be a direct correlation between the two, which should put the conversation into the correct context. Finally!

Just so the global warming crowd gets the picture, here it is: global warming is a NATURALLY occurring phenomenon. It was going on long before humanity was here, and will go on long after humanity is gone. Climatologists need to drop their preconceived notions and start reconsidering their flawed group-think ideas. There’s already news reports that they’re trying to ignore or hide the data to suit their needs, like they’ve already done with other research that shows global cooling.

So much for their “proven science.” AGAIN!

AP Shows It’s Bias Against Sarah Palin: Eleven Reporters Assigned to Fact-Check Palin’s Book While Assigning None to Fact-Check Obama’s Book When It Came Out

The Associated Press is so biased against Sarah Palin that they’ve assigned eleven reporters to fact-check every part of Palin’s new book; contrast that to how they treated President Obama’s book when they assigned no one to fact-check it.

And how does one fact-check someone’s opinion of events?

I have not read Palin’s book, and have no intention of reading it. My opinion of her is already formed, to the point that I don’t need to read her opinion of events to know that I’ve already got the basic facts.

Even with President Clinton’s book, most of it was his opinion of political events that happened during his time in power in both Arkansas and in the White House. A politician writing a book about their life and times often try to repaint the picture that’s already taken shape. I took the time to read President Clinton’s and came away with a sense that he had tried to re-write history. And I didn’t need openly biased individuals in the liberal media to point that out, either.

What interests me more is the hypocrisy in how the media treats politicians from different parties. My interpretation is that they don’t treat everyone the same, even though they should. If they hold one politician’s feet to the fire, they should hold ALL of them to the same standard.

All the Associated Press is doing is reinforcing the belief that they don’t like Sarah Palin, and are trying to discredit her, while ignoring glaring deficiencies in the works of their favored politicians.

“Can Baseball Bring U.S. and Cuba Together?” It Certainly Can: We’ll End Up Owning Their Baseball Team as More Will Defect if Given the Chance

Playing baseball with Cuba = more Cuban baseball players defecting to the U.S.

That’s the equation that we need to keep in mind when we think about improving our relationship with Cuba via baseball.

I think that if we want to get closer to Cuba, we should start loosening the embargo in exchange for Cuban advances toward human rights and free elections. That will go a long way further than us taking over the Cuban national baseball team by way of defections.

I think we already have enough Cuban baseball players in the U.S. to field our own Cuban national team.

Ms. Not-California Should Get Out of the Press Too: She’s Killing Her Own Cause

The drama surrounding the Ms. California controversy is still in the media, and the primary antagonist, Carrie Prejean, is not helping her own cause with her actions.

She sued the pageant for breach of contract; it was over her statements that marriage is between a man and a woman (she’s right on that point alone) and her…augmented features…and then settled when news of some kind of sex tape emerged that was in the possession of the people she was suing. The pageant also sued for the surgery and the proceeds from her book. That was also settled.

Then her bizarre appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live show when she attempted to walk off the set didn’t settle matters at all. She subsequently canceled a later press engagement. Ms. Prejean really needs a publicist if she insists on staying in the news.

I think she needs to call it quits and get out of the media too. She’s only hurting her own case.

Five Terror Suspects Transferred to Federal Court: This is a Good Day

People involved in the bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 planning have been transferred to federal court in New York and will be tried like everyone else. This is good news, contrary to the reactions that have been coming out on TV.

The military commissions are part of the Bush Administration’s star-chamber justice policy that makes a mockery of the American justice system, and denies the writ of habeas corpus to everyone, as the United States is sworn to observe as a charter member of the United Nations. In fact, the U.S. and Britain pushed for this writ to be included in the United Nations charter when it was being written.

The Obama Administration now has two choices: go after these guys in federal court with every shred of evidence that they have, or run the risk of them getting off and being released back into the wild. In other words, put up or shut up. They’d better put up.

I’ve long spoken out against the government’s policy of keeping people locked up for years without trial, and without legal representation, and the Obama Administration’s decision to maintain the Bush policies was a very disappointing one. Then a federal judge ordered the Administration to either charge them with crimes, or release them, which precipitated this move into federal court.

And for those who are worried about them in civilian prisons, not to worry. Our prisons are good enough to hold former soliders; they can hold onto a small handful of 12th century barbarians.

Palin Needs to End Her PR War With Her Daughter’s Ex: Family Matters Should Be Settled Privately

I’m getting a little sick of hearing about Sarah Palin and Levi what’s his face (her daughter’s ex) exchanging insults and publicly posturing in the media.

They really need to take the media out of the equation and settle things privately, like most families do. All one has to do is pick up the phone and call the other, not get on Oprah or some other talk show and issue statements that are picked up by the mainstream media, which leads the other to call a press conference and respond.

We don’t care about the details; just settle it and keep it out of the media circus.

If Palin is serious about running for office, she really needs to wage her battles much more discreetly; she’s handing ammunition to the opposition.

Obama Looks Ready to Reject All Afghanistan Proposals in Favor of New Strategy: He’s Looking For an End to the War

President Obama appears to be ready to reject all of the current proposals on what to do next in the Afghan War in favor of a new strategy. It’s hard to predict which way he might go next.

He will probably reject General McChrystal’s request, and others put forth by the Defense Department. McChrystal got himself into some trouble when he went off the reservation and launched a PR campaign aimed at pressuring the Administration into accepting his battle plan, but there are other factors in play that weren’t present when McChrystal presented his proposal. General McChrystal’s decision was regrettable and probably contributed to the current state of affairs in the White House Afghanistan strategy.

Another factor is that the current government of Afghanistan is highly dubious. A run-off election was cancelled when President Karzai’s opponent dropped out of the running as he was unconvinced that the fraud that took place in the first election wouldn’t be repeated in the run-off election. International monitors reported ballot boxes being stuffed and voter intimidation happening across the country, to the point that Karzai lost votes during the supervised recount and didn’t have enough to win outright, as was originally projected.

The Taliban has been gaining ground in several provinces, and they won’t be dislodged without a major ground offensive to retake those provinces. Sustained battles with the Taliban means there will be more American casualties, something that the war-weary American public may not accept, and something that Obama will take the blame for, as Commander-in-Chief.

He wants the Afghan government to shoulder more of the responsibility so that the war can be wound down, but I wonder if the current Administration will repeat the mistakes of the 1980’s and 1990’s, when the U.S. left Afghanistan to it’s own devices following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Taliban came to power with their al-Qaeda allies.

We cannot leave the Taliban intact, but our government needs to decide what it’s going to do, and soon. The last thing we need is for al-Qaeda to rebuild in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, because we’ll eventually be back over there dealing with them again. Given the national treasure that we’ve spent freeing Afghanistan—and I’m talking more about lives than money—would we have the national will to do so again, as well as the strength of arms?

The other question is one of anti-government factions (non-Taliban) that are currently fighting against the Afghan government and against NATO forces. Given the success of getting Iraqis to switch sides and fight alongside the American military, can something similar happen in Afghanistan?

Where is this Administration taking us?

Zero Tolerance Gone Mad: When Did It Replace Common Sense?

The recent suspension of an Eagle Scout from school for carrying a two inch pocketknife in his car onto his school grounds in New York has thrown new light onto the question of “zero tolerance” as it relates to knives and firearms.

The Eagle Scout, who is also a soldier, was suspended for 20 days for having it in his car. He didn’t have it on his person at the time. He keeps a sleeping bag, water, and the 2” knife, which was given to him by his grandfather, a local police chief.

The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

And because this suspension is now on his record, he may not be able to attend West Point. It’s time for legal action against the school district to reverse course on this case, and for them to put some common sense back into the process. Ruining the kid’s life over this?

Get real!

ACORN Files Lawsuit Against Government: Claim That Congress Passed a Bill of Attainder May Be Valid

I am no fan of ACORN, or the things that they’ve been accused of doing, including their roles in pressuring banks to extend loans to people who had no business getting loans, which lead to the sub-prime mortgage mess.

But when Congress de-funded the group of millions of dollars, ACORN was effectively crippled. Again, no big loss in my view.

But ACORN filed a lawsuit, claiming that the act of Congress that de-funded them was a bill of attainder, which is a law that targets one individual or group for punishment without due process or a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution. Individuals who are members of ACORN have been on trial, but the group as a whole has not.

They may have a point. Under the circumstances, the Congress probably should have suspended funding pending an investigation, rather than banning it outright.

How much more is this going to cost the taxpayers?

Fort Hood Shooter’s Connections to Radicals Under Investigation: What is Really Going On?

The Fort Hood killer has apparently had contact with several individuals who were under FBI surveillance in the months leading up to the shootings, so there may be a lot more going on than what was originally thought.

My questions are this: if the FBI was aware of the apparent contacts, why didn’t they put military authorities on alert that one of their own was linked to Muslim radicals in this country? And why didn’t the military take this man off active duty if there was a link?

Lot of questions, not enough answers yet. I’m not buying into the political correctness argument that Fox News has raised yet. Legal barriers exist which prevented the exchange of information between the FBI and the Army. And the First Amendment does come into play with Major Hasan’s e-mails to the people he was trying to contact.

Yet he used a U.S. military computer to send his e-mails, didn’t he? And the understanding is that all e-mails are the property of the company that owns the computer and pays the Internet bill. Most businesses have the same policy, as do schools. And doesn’t the military have regulations on appropriateness of communications with certain individuals who incite religious violence?

The powers that be need to get their act together and make the changes necessary to prevent this kind of stuff from happening again.

Obama’s Demeanor at Fort Hood Memorial Service Was Much Better Than His Initial Comments About Shootings: He Needs to Get Off the Teleprompter When Something’s Going On

President Obama’s demeanor at the Fort Hood memorial service yesterday was much more appropriate than his initial reaction at the Native American conference he was making comments at.

I had a hard time believing that a U.S. President would say the things that President Obama said, and how he said it at the time. It would have been much more appropriate for him to move his remarks about Fort Hood to just after his thanking the hosts. But instead he gave a “shout-out” to someone he misidentified as a Medal of Honor recipient, which added fuel to the fire, and brought up the shooting as an afterthought. That was how it appeared at the time. He made it look like the shooting was an inconvenience, and his statements did nothing to change any minds about that point.

Thankfully, he was the President and Commander-in-Chief at Fort Hood. Much better performance, though I didn’t think he should have mentioned the shooter as extensively as he did. It probably would have meant more as well if he had written more of the speech himself.

Still, overall, it was a mixed performance.

House Democrats Ramrod Health Bill Through: Now We Know Who to Vote Out of Office

The following Democrats (and one Republican) voted 'yes' on Pelosi's health care bill. Following the party affiliation, it shows the state and the district number that they represent.

Neil Abercrombie (D) HI-1
Gary L. Ackerman (D) NY-5
Robert E. Andrews (D) NJ-1
Michael Arcuri (D) NY-24
Xavier Becerra (D) CA-31
Howard L. Berman (D) CA-28
Marion Berry (D) AR-1
Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (D) GA-2
Earl Blumenauer (D) OR-3
Leonard L. Boswell (D) IA-3
Corrine Brown (D) FL-3
Robert A. Brady (D) PA-1
Tammy Baldwin (D) WI-2
Shelley Berkley (D) NV-1
Joe Baca (D) CA-43
Timothy H. Bishop (D) NY-1
G. K. Butterfield (D) NC-1
Melissa Bean (D) IL-8
Bruce Braley (D) IA-1
James E. Clyburn (D) SC-6
John Conyers Jr. (D) MI-14
Jim Cooper (D) TN-5
Jerry F. Costello (D) IL-12
Elijah E. Cummings (D) MD-7
Lois Capps (D) CA-23
Michael E. Capuano (D) MA-8
Joseph Crowley (D) NY-7
William Lacy Clay (D) MO-1
Dennis Cardoza (D) CA-18
Jim Costa (D) CA-20
Russ Carnahan (D) MO-3
Emanuel Cleaver II (D) MO-5
Henry Cuellar (D) TX-28
Christopher Carney (D) PA-10
Kathy Castor (D) FL-11
Yvette Clarke (D) NY-11
Steve Cohen (D) TN-9
Joe Courtney (D) CT-2
André Carson (D) IN-7
Gerald E. Connolly (D) VA-11
Anh Cao (R) LA-2
Judy Chu (D) CA-32
Danny K. Davis (D) IL-7
Peter A. DeFazio (D) OR-4
Diana DeGette (D) CO-1
Bill Delahunt (D) MA-10
Rosa DeLauro (D) CT-3
Norman D. Dicks (D) WA-6
John D. Dingell (D) MI-15
Lloyd Doggett (D) TX-25
Mike Doyle (D) PA-14
Susan A. Davis (D) CA-53
Joe Donnelly (D) IN-2
Kathy Dahlkemper (D) PA-3
Steve Driehaus (D) OH-1
Eliot L. Engel (D) NY-17
Anna G. Eshoo (D) CA-14
Bob Etheridge (D) NC-2
Keith Ellison (D) MN-5
Brad Ellsworth (D) IN-8
Donna Edwards (D) MD-4
Sam Farr (D) CA-17
Chaka Fattah (D) PA-2
Bob Filner (D) CA-51
Barney Frank (D) MA-4
Bill Foster (D) IL-14
Marcia L. Fudge (D) OH-11
Gene Green (D) TX-29
Luis V. Gutierrez (D) IL-4
Charlie Gonzalez (D) TX-20
Raúl M. Grijalva (D) AZ-7
Al Green (D) TX-9
Gabrielle Giffords (D) AZ-8
Alan Grayson (D) FL-8
John Garamendi (D) CA-10
Jane Harman (D) CA-36
Alcee L. Hastings (D) FL-23
Maurice D. Hinchey (D) NY-22
Rubén Hinojosa (D) TX-15
Steny H. Hoyer (D) MD-5
Baron P. Hill (D) IN-9
Rush Holt (D) NJ-12
Michael M. Honda (D) CA-15
Brian Higgins (D) NY-27
John Hall (D) NY-19
Phil Hare (D) IL-17
Mazie K. Hirono (D) HI-2
Paul W. Hodes (D) NH-2
Debbie Halvorson (D) IL-11
Martin Heinrich (D) NM-1
Jim Himes (D) CT-4
Jay Inslee (D) WA-1
Steve Israel (D) NY-2
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) TX-18
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) TX-30
Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D) IL-2
Hank Johnson (D) GA-4
Paul E. Kanjorski (D) PA-11
Marcy Kaptur (D) OH-9
Patrick J. Kennedy (D) RI-1
Dale E. Kildee (D) MI-5
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D) MI-13
Ron Kind (D) WI-3
Steve Kagen (D) WI-8
Ron Klein (D) FL-22
Ann Kirkpatrick (D) AZ-1
Mary Jo Kilroy (D) OH-15
Sander M. Levin (D) MI-12
John Lewis (D) GA-5
Zoe Lofgren (D) CA-16
Nita M. Lowey (D) NY-18
Barbara Lee (D) CA-9
John B. Larson (D) CT-1
Jim Langevin (D) RI-2
Rick Larsen (D) WA-2
Stephen F. Lynch (D) MA-9
Daniel Lipinski (D) IL-3
Dave Loebsack (D) IA-2
Ben Ray Lujan (D) NM-3
Carolyn B. Maloney (D) NY-14
Edward J. Markey (D) MA-7
Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY-4
Jim McGovern (D) MA-3
Jim McDermott (D) WA-7
George Miller (D) CA-7
Alan B. Mollohan (D) WV-1
James P. Moran (D) VA-8
John P. Murtha (D) PA-12
Gregory W. Meeks (D) NY-6
Dennis Moore (D) KS-3
Betty McCollum (D) MN-4
Kendrick B. Meek (D) FL-17
Michael H. Michaud (D) ME-2
Brad Miller (D) NC-13
Gwen Moore (D) WI-4
Doris Matsui (D) CA-5
Jerry McNerney (D) CA-11
Harry E. Mitchell (D) AZ-5
Patrick J. Murphy (D) PA-8
Christopher S. Murphy (D) CT-5
Dan Maffei (D) NY-25
Jerrold Nadler (D) NY-8
Richard E. Neal (D) MA-2
Grace F. Napolitano (D) CA-38
James L. Oberstar (D) MN-8
David R. Obey (D) WI-7
John W. Olver (D) MA-1
Solomon P. Ortiz (D) TX-27
Bill Owens (D) NY-23
Frank Pallone (D) NJ-6
Bill Pascrell Jr. (D) NJ-8
Ed Pastor (D) AZ-4
Donald M. Payne (D) NJ-10
Nancy Pelosi (D) CA-8
Earl Pomeroy (D) ND-1
David E. Price (D) NC-4
Ed Perlmutter (D) CO-7
Gary Peters (D) MI-9
Chellie Pingree (D) ME-1
Jared Polis (D) CO-2
Tom Perriello (D) VA-5
Mike Quigley (D) IL-5
Nick J. Rahall II (D) WV-3
Charles B. Rangel (D) NY-15
Silvestre Reyes (D) TX-16
Steven R. Rothman (D) NJ-9
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) CA-34
Bobby L. Rush (D) IL-1
Ciro D. Rodriguez (D) TX-23
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D) MD-2
Tim Ryan (D) OH-17
Laura Richardson (D) CA-37
Loretta Sanchez (D) CA-47
Robert C. Scott (D) VA-3
José E. Serrano (D) NY-16
Brad Sherman (D) CA-27
Louise M. Slaughter (D) NY-28
Adam Smith (D) WA-9
Vic Snyder (D) AR-2
John M. Spratt Jr. (D) SC-5
Pete Stark (D) CA-13
Bart Stupak (D) MI-1
Jan Schakowsky (D) IL-9
Adam B. Schiff (D) CA-29
Linda T. Sanchez (D) CA-39
David Scott (D) GA-13
John Salazar (D) CO-3
Allyson Y. Schwartz (D) PA-13
Albio Sires (D) NJ-13
John Sarbanes (D) MD-3
Joe Sestak (D) PA-7
Carol Shea-Porter (D) NH-1
Zack Space (D) OH-18
Betty Sutton (D) OH-13
Jackie Speier (D) CA-12
Mark Schauer (D) MI-7
Kurt Schrader (D) OR-5
Bennie Thompson (D) MS-2
John F. Tierney (D) MA-6
Edolphus Towns (D) NY-10
Mike Thompson (D) CA-1
Niki Tsongas (D) MA-5
Dina Titus (D) NV-3
Paul Tonko (D) NY-21
Nydia M. Velázquez (D) NY-12
Peter J. Visclosky (D) IN-1
Chris Van Hollen (D) MD-8
Maxine Waters (D) CA-35
Melvin Watt (D) NC-12
Henry A. Waxman (D) CA-30
Robert Wexler (D) FL-19
Lynn Woolsey (D) CA-6
Anthony Weiner (D) NY-9
David Wu (D) OR-1
Diane Watson (D) CA-33
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) FL-20
Tim Walz (D) MN-1
Peter Welch (D) VT-1
Charlie Wilson (D) OH-6
John Yarmuth (D) KY-3

I do think that Rep. Stupak did the right thing in sponsoring an amendment that got rid of the abortion clause. But he still voted for the rest of it; I would have preferred him to become Democrat #36 who didn't vote for it because of the unresolved Constitutional violations that this bill is full of.

I do favor health care reform, but not in this form. They could have done MUCH better than they did.

I have no confidence in the above list of politicians to do their duty and follow the Constitution. They seem to have forgotten that the Constitution trumps political rubbish that politicians sometimes come up with. And this bill, in it's current form, is rubbish. And the people above voted for it.

Mark Schauer from the Michigan 7th Congressional District voted 'yes' on this rubbish; he's not up for election until 2012. Plenty of time to build up the opposition base here. Tim Walberg, whom Schauer defeated in 2008, is on-track for a rematch and has already declared his intentions to run again in 2012.

Time to show the Democrats the door. And I hope the GOP has eaten enough humble pie to return to the concept of small government; otherwise, it'll be the time of the 3rd party to shine.

One-party rule is for the birds; having one party running the House and Senate and the White House hasn't worked for the Republicans or for the Democrats. I'm hoping the elections bring balance back to Washington with the Democrats holding one house and the Republicans holding the other. It seems like the country ran better under that model.

It would prevent rubbish like the current health care bill from making it as far as it has. Something to think about.

Fort Hood Shooting Was Not an Act of Terrorism: It Was an Act of a Lunatic Who Snapped

Like most Americans, I was shocked at the loss of life at Fort Hood, and inspired by the acts of heroism of the first responders and the common soldier who rushed to aid the wounded.

And the more I hear about the shooter, the more I'm convinced that it WAS an isolated incident. I think the fact that he was about to be sent overseas had more of an impact on him than his religion. He was an Army psychiatrist, and they're subject to the same stresses as those who are not.

I hope that people don't target American Muslims for retaliation. This situation is bad enough without people getting it into their minds to carry out private revenge acts against people who had nothing to do with the actions of one man.

Pelosi's Health Bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Let Her Try and Put Someone in Jail for Refusing to Purchase Her Health Plan

The health care bill being ramrodded through Congress is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is an assault on the Constitution itself and state's rights.

Powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. And according to this article from the Wall Street Journal, "...Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution." Those grants are found in Article 1, Section 8.

The Democrats won't be throwing ANYONE in jail for refusing to buy their insurance. The people who should go to jail are the ones who exceed their constitutional authority and vote to pass this monster of a bill.

The fact that the Congressional Democrats are even thinking about passing this health care bill in it's current form, and is clearly a violation of the Constitution speaks volumes about the direction they want to take the country. And they aren't listening to their constituents either.

This will be going straight to court. Tea Party lawyers have promised to mount a constitutional challenge of the bill within hours of it being signed into law. Pelosi and other supporters have claimed that this is part of the Congressional right to tax and spend, but even in their own arguments there is a significant flaw. What does Constitutional law say about passing a mandatory law on part of the population, but not on the rest of it? It's ILLEGAL.

Even more fundamental, many of the governed are not giving their consent on this entire fiasco. Congress is knowingly choosing to ignore "We the People." They ought to hold some town meetings NOW. It'll make the summer town meetings look like a picnic.

It's time for a rollback of Congress's tendancy to overreach its authority. The Founders were clear on this point: they considered "confiscatory taxation" and deficit spending for the "common welfare" business that Congress likes so much as a return to the darkest form of tyranny. And that's what the current Congress and President is engaged in.

Welcome to liberal America. And if that leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, GOOD. People ought to think about that the next time they consider electing a liberal or moderate.

Democrats Haven't Got the Message on Health Care Yet: They Will Pay a Heavy Voter Price if They Pass This Bill on Saturday

Congressional Democrats are so far out of touch with what the electorate wants in regards to health care reform that it isn't funny. Tuesday's election was as much about health care reform as it was a rebuke of President Obama's policies.

And if they pass Queen Nancy's health care bill on Saturday, they will pay a heavy price in terms of election developments. Recall drums are sounding already, and a lot of them will lose their seats in the 2010 elections. And just try to make conservatives pay monthly health care premiums for abortion services. Please.

Make your choice, Democrats. Those who vote 'no' on Queen Nancy's 1,990 page bill will probably save themselves a great deal of trouble in the coming months.