REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Sunday, October 22, 2017

Weekly Review

by D. E. Carson (writer), , April 15, 2007

What a week this has been. Don Imus puts his foot, ankle, leg, knee, thigh, hip and own butt into his mouth, the Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape are exonerated, Don Imus then gets fired from both MSNBC and CBS and we all have to suffer through a Friday the 13th. Never mind that one day this week, while watching Hannity and Colmes on Fox News, I saw something that just capped the whole week for me.

What was that? Someone purchased airtime during the program to broadcast a commercial specifically aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The commercial shows photographs of Pelosi with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and mentions that Democrats had promised tough foreign policy however, Pelosi’s trip to Damascus was nothing more than a blatant and in-your-face nose-thumbing at President Bush and Secretary of State Rice. Speaker Pelosi ignored the White House’s direct request not to go to Syria. Furthermore, when she got to Syria, she lied to al-Assad saying that she had a message from Israeli Prime Minister Olmert indicating that Israel was “ready to discuss peace”. A statement from the Israeli leader denies any such intentions.

Pelosi’s trip opens the door for the United States to consider charging Speaker Pelosi with violations of the Logan Act, which prohibits anyone, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from acting in the official capacity of spokesperson of the United States without the express permission of the United States. The Logan Act was designed to prohibit exactly what Pelosi has done. She has blatantly and without regard or permission met with al-Assad in direct violation of the Logan Act. The White House specifically told Pelosi not to go to Syria, yet she went anyway. Pelosi’s action is criminal and is worthy of consideration for charges of treason. It is in the best interests of the United States of America that Nancy Pelosi resign her position as Speaker of the House, resign her seat in the House of Representatives and face charges of violation of the Logan Act and even treason against the United States in a court of law. Pelosi should also be prohibited from seeking or accepting any nomination for any elected or appointed political position for the rest of her life.

The Constitution expressly separates the powers of the government so that no one branch has exclusivity of power. The president nominates someone to serve as Secretary of State. That nomination must be confirmed by the Senate to keep the president from putting someone in that could harm the nation. Once confirmed, the Secretary of State holds the responsibility of acting as liaison between the United States and foreign leaders or their representatives. The foreign policies of the president are executed through the office of the Secretary of State. No member of Congress has the authority to circumvent the Constitution no matter what his or her political ambitions or aspirations may be. Ms. Pelosi has does just that – she has usurped the power of the president, embarrassed this nation and emboldened our enemies. This one simple criminal act has far more dangerous ramifications than any other performed by any previous government official. Even the third most liberal newspaper in the nation The Washington Post called Pelosi’s trip “foolish” and “counterproductive”.

In response to the Post editorial, Tom Lantos (D-CA) tried to switch gears on the subject calling the “Post’s claim about a ‘shadow presidency’…absurd”. So typical of Democrats – not wanting to admit the truth when they themselves are so adamant about demanding the truth from Republicans. Again, it is a double-standard the Democrats want. They love being able to point fingers at Republicans and scream “Bush lied, people died” (even though nothing could be further from the truth), yet when Democrats screw up, as Pelosi did (and did she ever!) they don’t want to be held accountable. Now, while in Damascus, Pelsoi said that, “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks”, a statement denied by the Israeli Prime Minister. Mr. Lantos, however is singing a much different song. Mr. Lantos is saying that there has been no change in the Israeli position and that Pelosi didn’t say what she said. Lantos went on to say that Pelosi “supports the administration’s policy goals in Syria.” Yet if Pelosi supports the administration’s goals, then why did she openly defy the White House and meet with al-Assad? You cannot support the official position of the White House while defying the policies of the White House.

Vice-president Dick Cheney spoke on the Rush Limbaugh Show saying, “I wish she hadn’t done it” and reiterated the Constitutional role of the president as “the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” The Bush Administration policy regarding Syria is that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and that it should be isolated from the international community. Yet, by defying the president and meeting with al-Assad, Pelosi has clearly done an end-around-run on the president’s policy. In his response to the Post, Lantos reverted to typical Democrat propaganda referring to Pelosi’s “misgivings about the White House’s ineffectiveness.”

Frankly, it is the Democrats who are ineffective. They have done nothing but bully legislation through attempting to unseat the president as Commander-in-chief by attempting to relieve him of the Constitutional authority to manage troop movement in Iraq. We are facing a new Constitutional crisis. This crisis is pitting the Founding Fathers of America against bong-smoking, thumb-sucking, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, draft-dodging, crybaby liberals for the very soul of this country. The men who developed the concepts that are outlined in the Constitution were wise beyond their years. They planned for every possible contingency, even ones they could not have imagined, but the current battle between Capitol Hill and the White House may prove to be too much even for our Constitution to survive. America is on the verge of a second Civil War and if the liberals win, there may not be an America to which our troops can come home.


About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

3 comments on Weekly Review

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Steven Lane on April 15, 2007 at 03:56 pm
You can't have it both ways. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2023016,00.html US invites Iran and Syria to talks on Iraq in reversal of Bush policy · Initiative ends isolation of Tehran and Damascus · Plan seen as attempt to limit criticism of war Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Wednesday February 28, 2007 Guardian The Bush administration gave up one of the central tenets of its Middle East strategy yesterday, reversing its much criticized effort to isolate Iran and Syria by inviting both states to negotiations on stabilizing Iraq. The initiative, announced last night by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, in testimony to the Senate appropriations committee will see America and Britain join Iraq and its neighbours in talks to try to rein in the country's sectarian violence. The proposed meeting was widely seen as an attempt to neutralise criticism of George Bush's strategy on the war - most notably his refusal to open talks with Tehran and Damascus. The Bush administration has been under growing pressure for such a move since last December and accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group for direct talks with Iran and Syria. Now an approximation of such talks could take place within weeks. Ms Rice yesterday said representatives from Iran and Syria would be invited to a "neighbours meeting" to discuss efforts to stabilise Iraq. "I am pleased to announce that we are also supporting the Iraqis in a new diplomatic offensive: to build greater support, both within the region and beyond, for peace and prosperity in Iraq," she said. "We hope these governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region." In Baghdad, the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshiar Zebari, said the meeting would include Iraq; its six neighbours; the five permanent members of the UN security council - the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France; members of the Arab League; and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The first meetings between ambassadors could be held within the next fortnight, with more senior officials, such as foreign ministers, to gather in April. But administration officials cautioned that the diplomatic opening would be limited to questions of Iraqi security. Topics such as Iran's banned nuclear programme or Syrian involvement in Lebanon would remain off-limits. "This is one where the agenda is being set up by the government of Iraq," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters. He also indicated there would be no bilateral contact between the US and Iran. The prospect of US and Iranian diplomats sharing a negotiating table in Baghdad represents an apparent U-turn on Mr Bush's strategy towards the Middle East. It follows increasing criticism even from those foreign policy experts who support the Bush administration policies on Iraq, such as James Baker and Henry Kissinger, who had been calling on the administration to end its diplomatic isolation of Iran. The outgoing ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, also favoured direct talks with Iran. The limited diplomatic engagement follows several weeks of political manoeuvring between the White House and Congress, and a rhetorical offensive from Washington against Syria and Iran. In recent weeks, US officials have accused Iranian agents of supplying militants inside Iraq with materials for roadside bombs that have taken a heavy toll on US forces, and of funnelling support to Hizbullah militants in Lebanon. They have also accused Syria of allowing insurgents and arms to cross its borders into Iraq. The director of national intelligence, Michael McConnell, yesterday told the Senate armed services committee that the flow of arms to Iraqi insurgents probably had the support of senior Iranian officials. "We know there are Iranian weapons manufactured in Iran. We know that Quds Forces [of Iran] are bringing them," he said. "Is there a direct link from Quds Forces delivering weapons, to the most senior leadership in Iran?" he said. "I would phrase it as 'probable'." Mr Bush also has had to confront an increasingly assertive Congress, under the control of a Democratic majority which opposes his plans to send an additional 21,000 troops into the war zone. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on April 16, 2007 at 01:05 am
Mr. Lane: Your own story contradicts whatever liberal-biased point you were trying to make. Let's take a look, shall we? “The initiative, announced last night by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, in testimony to the Senate appropriations committee will see America and Britain join Iraq and its neighbours in talks to try to rein in the country's sectarian violence.” 1) This initiative was announced by Condoleezza Rice – meaning it was sanctioned by the Bush Administration. You will recall, Ms. Pelosi was specifically advised not to go to Syria by the White House, meaning her visit was NOT SANCTIONED by the Bush Administration. Ms. Pelosi ignored the president’s wishes and went anyway, attempting to act on behalf of the United States. She had neither the authority nor the blessing of the State Department – the agency solely responsible for granting such authority by order of the president or his designee. 2) This initiative was announced before the SENATE appropriations committee, not the House appropriations committee or even the full House. Again, Pelosi is the Speaker of the House of Representatives and is not seated anywhere near the Senate appropriations committee. Therefore, she is meddling where she doesn’t belong. 3) This initiative is in response to end sectarian violence in Iraq and has nothing to do with “peace talks” between Syria and Israel, which have never been part of the bargain. The Bush administration has been under growing pressure for such a move since last December and accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group for direct talks with Iran and Syria. 1) The Iraq Scare Group is nothing more than a group of individuals who got together for a round of golf somewhere in the Washington, D.C. area. They have no authority to require the president to do anything it recommends. 2) Again, this is an attempt to come to terms with the sectarian violence in Iraq. Syria’s disputes with Israel are not germane to the situation in Iraq. “’This is one where the agenda is being set up by the government of Iraq,’ the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters. He also indicated there would be no bilateral contact between the US and Iran.” 1) As you can see in this statement from the White House press secretary, the discussions are being initialized by the Iraqi government and not the United States. Again, we go back to this being between Iraq and Syria and Iran with no mention of Israel anywhere in the discussion. 2) Further commentary about this article is repetitive because it all says the same thing, “These are talks between Iran/Syria and Iraq about ending the sectarian violence in Iraq which the National Intelligence Estimate has determined is being supported by Iran and Syria in an attempt to prevent stabilization of Iraq.” The whole argument comes down to one point, which all liberals seem to want to ignore: sectarian violence in Iraq is being bankrolled by Iran and Syria. It has been proven time and time again that IED’s are being manufactured by Syria and Iran and are being smuggled into Iraq to the insurgents. Your placement of this article is a clever, but transparent, liberal response to logic. The other mantra of liberals is: “If you can’t prove your point with facts, baffle with bulls—t.” I have yet to meet a liberal who can actually think for him or herself. They grab the first thing they can find off the Democratic Talking Points Website at MoveOn.org and contort what is written there to fit their agenda. Again, however, truth and facts have deflated the liberal point. I’m sure however, you will have something equally as trivial to post in response to this. Perhaps an article from 2005 no doubt. I will give you credit for pulling something that was less than 6 months old regardless of how irrelevant it was. Democrats love to deflect attention away from the real issues. It keeps people from seeing the knife they are using to stab us all in the back. In the case of Nancy Pelosi, Democrats are trying to deflect attention away from her screw up in Damascus because they know that what she did was wrong and they are trying to cover it up. Pelosi went to Syria against the wishes and orders of the White House and passed herself off as an “official delegation” representing the State Department of the United States. This is a clear and unquestionable violation of the Logan Act and demands nothing less than a minutely detailed investigation into Pelosi’s actions. Furthermore, regardless of the findings of the investigation, Ms. Pelosi has only one option and that is to resign from the House of Representatives and to be prohibited from ever seeking or accepting any political office or appointment for the rest of her life. She wants to undermine the president and establish a “shadow presidency” as the Washington Post called it and make herself the self-appointed president of the United States. This is clearly an act of treason as defined by Article III of the Constitution. My message here is clear: Nancy Pelosi MUST resign immediately or face conspiracy to commit treason charges.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Steven Lane on April 16, 2007 at 05:53 pm
It wasn't my story, it was just the news.
 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x