March 30, 2007

Bush Not Allowed to Fire U.S. Attorneys?
by Sher Zieve

Democrats and their supplicant RINOs have launched their seemingly endless number of investigations into anything and everything that is “Bush and Republican.” The moves are designed to, yet again, embarrass and discredit members of the Bush Administration, and more specifically, the Left’s favorite whipping boy, political aide Karl Rove, and of course, the president himself.

This time it’s a Democrat attack against the firing of a number of US Attorneys, in an attempt to have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired and top Bush officials grilled by a Democrat-run investigatory committee. Note: This seems eerily reminiscent of the old USSR politburo.

First, allow me to place something out into the open and the bright light of day. US Attorneys hold their offices at “the pleasure of the President of the United States” and are at-will employees. These attorneys may be fired by any sitting president, at any time and for any reason. That is what “at-will” means. As an example, during the early part of Democratic President Clinton’s Administration, all 93 US Attorneys were fired. President George W. Bush has fired only eight. And during President H. W. Bush’s term of office, US Attorneys were also fired. But Democrats are now loudly shouting, in effect, that President George W. Bush does not have the same rights as other presidents of the United States!” And they have been saying it almost since the first day President George Bush took office. Most certainly, Democrats and their RINO supplicants have been attempting, for the last several years, to usurp the Executive Branch’s war powers. Will there soon no longer be a Commander-in-Chief but, rather a “Congress-in-Chief” to direct our US military?

The Stalinist crowd has made the decision that being a Republican president – or just being Republican period (unless one is a RINO)—should now be against the law. This same crowd, which includes the top members of the Democrat Party, has also made the decision to eternally investigate and attempt to prosecute them via their liberally-stacked court system—for being Republican. And, due to the raw reality that a majority of government school attendees have been indoctrinated into Marxist-Stalinist ideologies, much of the younger voting population may agree with them. Throughout their tutelage, these students have not been taught either the true history of the United States or the verity of its laws. They simply do not know any better.

As I view it, the central problem with this entire issue of US Attorney firings is that President Bush and members of his administration have not (as has sadly and dangerously been their penchant of late) fought back against the leftists. Instead, there seems to be a continuing knee-jerk reaction toward a new policy of constant apologies. And instead of defending the legal privileges of the Executive Branch of government, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales immediately offered his mea culpa for having let 8 (not 93) US Attorneys go. Mr. Attorney General: “There is nothing for which you need to apologize! Instead, the Democrat leadership should apologize to you and President Bush. It should also beg the forgiveness of the American people for wasting their tax dollars.” Yes—we pay for all of these Congressional investigations. However, it appears that Democrats have no intention of asking forgiveness for wasting our time, tax dollars and the improper usage of investigatory committees.

While you still are able to do so (there is yet another Democrat bill floating in Congress to disallow conservative grassroots organizations and individuals from advising the public to complain to their congress people and senators), contact your local congressional representatives and your US Senators to express your opposition to these absurd actions. You and we have a voice. Let’s use it.

There is something implicitly and inherently wrong with a government group that has nothing better to do than begin and implement trivial and ludicrous investigations. And there is an even greater wrong affected by those who allow it to occur.

Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Congress Ignores Nation's Energy Needs
by Donald G. Mashburn

Gasoline prices are on the rise again. The price of crude oil just won’t go down, and the oil cartel OPEC continues its policies of keeping the price up, while claiming they will raise production if prices get too high.

Too high? For Saudi kings and princes? For thug leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chaves, who diverts his country’s oil money to advance Communism, and play footsies with Communist China and Iran’s irrational leader?

The forces that act on world oil prices are beyond the direct control of the U.S. They are even beyond the control of the Congress, which apparently thinks its members are now qualified to micromanage the war in Iraq, and dictate to the president whom he can and cannot appoint as U.S. attorney.

While posturing about all the power wielded by the “new Congress,” as Speaker Nancy Pelosi like to call it, Congress has gone deaf, dumb and blind on the subject of energy, as well as on other matters affecting the national security. Every time liberal members of Congress have had a chance to show some common sense on national energy policy, they have blown it. Oh there have been predictable flurries of pork projects, such as grants and subsidies to biomass fuel development and other government handouts. But this energy-dumb Congress can’t bring itself to pass any meaningful energy legislation.

For the truth is, in recent times, every time the Congress has had the opportunity to pass pro-energy legislation, there was more energy expended on overblown rhetoric before the television cameras than on trying to solve our energy shortfall.

The Senate, in particular, has been pitifully partisan and, consequently, inept. In fact, the hot air produced in the U.S. Senate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore drilling, exceeded any real energy gain from any bill that got passed by the Senate. If political posturing and maneuvering were combustible, the oil companies would be in deep trouble.

Democrats in particular have been anti-energy. They have thwarted every attempt to develop the vast oil reserves believed to lie below the barren coastal slope portion of the ANWR. But they have been all for huge subsidies for ethanol and other non-oil fixes, none of which can provide more than a very small percentage of our needs.

The Senate regularly serves up a mess of political pottage that can be traded for very little in the way of usable energy in our lifetime, but is currency for votes in the states that benefit the most from government spending programs.

Right now, the most feasible source of new energy supplies are the untapped oil reserves believed to be under the coastal plain near the ANWR, on Alaska’s North Slope. Alaskans, and objective energy experts, strongly favor development. But congressional Democrats and environmental activists are opposed. If Congress could put the country’s energy needs above politics, the nation could have a much more sensible energy program in place before President Bush leaves office.

But if the past is an accurate indicator, Congress will put a higher premium on increased government spending programs and politics than on the nation’s energy supply.

Imagine, No United Nations
by Thomas Lindaman

Normally, Ted Turner is the last person I’d look to for deep philosophical questions, but he came up with a pretty good one during a CNN interview recently. He asked what the world would be like without the United Nations. Naturally, the UN’s Billion Dollar Man suggested the world would be far worse without the UN there to do whatever it’s supposed to be doing.

So, thanks to Ted Turner, let’s take a moment to imagine what the world would be like without the UN. If the UN were to disappear tomorrow, we’d be getting rid of an ineffective global entity.

When it was established, the United Nations was meant to be a forum where world leaders could talk over whatever issues they needed to in order to avert war. Have they? Well, let’s just say after over 60 years of trying, they’re still waiting on their opportunity to shine. Yep, the UN is a whopping zero for stopping wars. With that kind of record, they’re the Chicago Cubs of international organizations. Heck, the International House of Pancakes has stopped more wars than the UN.

Small countries with communist or totalitarian leanings would have to find new ways to gain international legitimacy. As it stands, they get attention by being member nations of the UN and voting along with their buddies to torque off the United States. We saw this during the debate over whether the US should have gone into Iraq, in spite of the fact Saddam Hussein had pretty much told the UN to shove their multiple resolutions against Iraq in an uncomfortable place. (Like the back seat of a Volkswagen.)

Along with this, the countries of the world would have to figure out how to fix their own problems instead of putting the blame on America. Listening to the UN, you get the impression that we’re the cause of all the ills of the world, from poverty to starvation to the rise of hair metal bands in the 80s and 90s. OK, I can admit we were responsible for Winger, but the rest of the stuff isn’t exclusively ours.

Is it our fault that leaders of countries make bad economic decisions that keep their people poor? No. Is it our fault that many of these same leaders are corrupt and line their own pockets first? No. I’m sure we’d still get blamed for that stuff, but without the UN, those comments would be ignored like Mel Gibson making a speech at a bar mitzvah. Without a UN, America wouldn’t have to send money to maintain membership.

Think about it. Whenever Democrats complain about President Bush’s “overspending” they always look to removing tax cuts. Why not cut out the millions we’re sending to the UN to treat us like an unwanted stepchild?

Some would say we need a United Nations to give everyone a voice. But do we? Consider that there is a universal language out there that speaks louder than any speech ever made before the UN General Assembly, one that even the UN acknowledges as having legitimate power. It’s called money. If some country wants to torque off the world, the best way to handle it is to show disapproval by shutting down any and all economic dealings with that country. Get a few other countries to go along with it, and you can force a change in that country. Plus, it might clear up that corruption problem by getting rid of those who prefer to line their wallets at the expense of the less fortunate.

But enough about Kofi Annan. Plus, we would get rid of the stupid idea of UN sanctions. Saddam Hussein proved how ineffective they are throughout the 90s. After he signed the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War, Saddam considered his options, weighed the consequences accordingly, and went right back to doing what he said he wouldn’t do in the cease fire agreement.

The only way sanctions work is if the country having the sanctions put on them is willing to abide by them. What is the UN going to do? Pass another set of sanctions that will be ignored? Oddly enough, that’s exactly what the UN did with Saddam, and we all know how that turned out.

So, what would the world be like without the United Nations? A lot better, from where I sit.

Thomas Lindaman is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.