Have you heard about US Congressman Charles Rangel’s wheels?  Did you know that YOU are paying the lease?

Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille, which he leases for $774 per month.  Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month.  And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks’ Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.
All those leases are picked up by taxpayers through a little-known program available only to members of the House of Representatives.

Rangel: “I could probably find something for … one of those red cars and then I think my constituents would say, ‘With all the money that he gets, this is the respect he shows us?’”

“..this is the respect HE shows US?”   What a spit in the face of his consituents.

Hey, Congress…. don’t worry about it, really.   I mean it is only my money you are wasting.   We know you don’t care.

By sheer coincidence, all of the Members of Congress in the CBS News report seem to come from no particular political party at all.  You’d have to dig past the article itself to find out they are all from the House Majority Party — The Democrats.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Back in 1976, when, after a divisive contest for the Republican nomination, President Ford addressed GOP delegates at the party’s convention in Kansas City, he challenged his Democratic rival, to a series of debates. He hoped such a bold (and novel at that time) strategy would overcome his deficit in the polls.

At one point, that Democrat, Jimmy Carter, led the incumbent Republican in the polls by a such a margin that if undecided vote were decided evenly between candidates, Carter would have defeated Ford by a 2-to-1 margin, eclipsing the popular vote landslides of Nixon in 1972 and FDR in 1936.

Through those debates, Ford hoped to define the the relatively untested former Georgia governor and so show his unfitness (demonstrated by later events) for the White House. Carter had succeeded in winning the Democratic nomination based largely on his charm, his status as a political outsider, his promise of change, and his smile (which seems to have disappeared in recent years).

Carter in 1976 seems a lot like Barack Obama in 2008, a candidate who moved from political obscurity to Democratic presidential frontrunner in an amazingly short amount of time. Indeed, Rich Lowry made this very comparison in a National Review piece back in December (full article available by subscription only). Similarly to the Illinois Senator, the then-former Georgia governor ran on a “theme of hope and change,” attempted a “a trans-ideological appeal” and presented himself as a “non-politician” politician.

Both men rode high in the polls until their opponents started defining them. Obama is certainly making it easier for Mrs. Clinton and Senator McCain to define him as a politician not yet ready to lead. Presidential timber he may be, but this tree needs a little more time growing before he is ready for harvest.

(more…)

Sometimes the naiveté of Jimmy Carter is breathtaking, indeed, beyond breathtaking.

First, I was delighted (and somewhat surprised to read) that when the failed former president met with leaders of the Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization, he “proposed Hamas unilaterally stop rocket fire on Israel and release [kidnapped Israeli solider Gilad] Shalit in exchange for no more targeted assassinations of its leaders and the release of 400 prisoners.“

Yet, did it ever dawn on this Democrat that the activities he was asking Hamas to stop doing defined the organization? That they would cross sovereign territory and kidnap one soldier, that its forces fire rockets indiscriminately on sovereign Israeli territory? And that they demand the release 400 prisoners, many who have attempted to kill Israeli soldiers and civilians in exchange for just one Israeli soldier.

Can’t he see the distinction between a nation that would release 400 individuals, many of whom when freed, would take up arms against it for just one, just one of its soldiers?

No, such distinctions seem beyond this bitter old man.

Read carefully what he said about Hamas that they “would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, if approved by Palestinians.” Hamas also told Carter they were “willing to accept the Jewish state as a ‘neighbor next door’.”

Yet, despite these promises, before that Democrat had even left the Middle East, Hamas continued its past practics, carrying out “twin suicide bombings on the Gaza border” and firing “seven rockets were fired on Israel.”

(more…)

My awesome Member of Congress, US Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), is standing up to ex-President Jimmy Carter’s treason and urging the Bush Adminstration to do the same.

Rep. Sue Myrick (NC-9) called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to revoke former President Jimmy Carter’s passport.  This is in response to the former President traveling to Syria to meet with Hamas, an organization officially designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

“Former President Carter has acted in contradiction of international agreements to isolate Hamas.  He has acted in defiance of both United States policy and international policy.  His actions reward terrorists, lend support, and provide legitimacy to their belief that violence will eventually get them what they want,” said Rep. Myrick. 

After Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections the Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia) called on Hamas to renounce terror, recognize Israel and recognize the previous agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel as they seek an agreement to make peace.  Hamas has categorically rejected these three conditions for more than two years.

Congress granted the Secretary of State the power to grant and verify passports.  In 1981, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Haig v. Agee that the Secretary of State has the implied power to revoke passports as well (453 U.S. 280).  

Myrick will be on FOX News Channel today between 2pm and 2:30pm to discuss the Carter passport plan in further detail with E. D. Hill.

US Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) is going even further by proposing HR 5816 — the CARTER Act — which would cease all taxpayer funding of the ex-President’s “Carter Center”.    The Carter Center already receives lots of money from sources throughout the Middle East.

In addition to my call for the US Senate to Censure Jimmy Carter, perhaps his return flight to the USA could include a military winged escort and diversion to a certain holding facility in Cuba?

GP Ed. Note:  As of today, I’m now categorizing any posts about Jimmy Carter in the “American Terrorist” category.  We have also added the category “American Embarrassments” so we can capture Carter-related items there too.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I know Bruce has something else planned on the worst president in U.S. history for the morrow, but as I was about to work out, something struck me. In my lifetime, three presidential incumbents have been defeated for reelection, Gerald R. Ford, Carter and George H.W. Bush.

Each of the defeated Republicans (Ford and Bush) showed such grace in exiting the political stage that he became friends in later life with the man who defeated him, Ford with Carter and H.W. with Bill Clinton. But, Carter did not learn from his classy predecessor and never became friendly with his successor, even though one of the Ronald Reagan’s first acts after replacing Carter in the White House was to designate the former president head his “special envoy” to greet the recently released U.S hostages in Germany.

For this classy gesture, Carter repaid the Gipper with bile and bitterness.

You would think that someone who held the highest office in the land would show a certain respect for the office in reaching out to his successors. But, with Jimmy, you would be wrong.

Let me repeat: Alone among the three presidents who lost reelections bids, Jimmy Carter failed to befriend the man who defeated him. He can’t reconcile himself with his domestic political adversaries, but goes out of his way to accommodate the foreign adversaries of the nation he once led.

Truly classless.