posted on April 28, 2007 04:32:34 PM new
What Do They Know and Why Don't They Know It?
Recent actions and statements by those on the left side of the aisle have proven that congressional Democrats, and especially their leaders, are invested in placing politics before government. Their blatant disregard for the well-being of our nation leads us to ask: How well do the progressive-leftists and the Democrats understand the duties of being elected members of the United States government?
One of the last true statesmen to have graced the halls of Congress, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), was often heard to say that those elected to office are the stewards to the U.S. Constitution. By this he meant that they were beholden to the principles, ideals, tenets, and procedural boundaries held within the document itself. I believe that in addition to the principles, ideals, and tenets of our founding documents, each of us is obligated to understanding the philosophy that influenced our founders and framers to compose such a revolutionary form of self-governance.
I believe that many in Congress from both sides of the aisle--and perhaps most people elected to office--are sadly devoid of a proper understanding of the Constitution and just exactly what it is they are required to do for their constituencies.
Two such instances took place this week at the hands of Democrat leadership.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving a meeting at the White House where the issue of the Iraq War Supplemental Appropriations Bill was being discussed, said:
"I believe myself that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and--you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows--(know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."
Reid made this statement in stark contrast to declarations by U.S. military personnel on the ground, some in positions of high command and others from the ranks of the soldiers doing the job. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was quick to point out that no one else in attendance at that meeting heard Senator Reid make such a statement. Secretaries Rice and Gates have never issued such statements of defeat.
That Reid would have an opinion on the matter is one thing. Every American is afforded his own opinion via the authority of the First Amendment. But for Reid, who sits in a position of leadership within our government, to assume to speak for others, for him to disregard firsthand knowledge of the facts as they are presented to him by those intimate with the conditions on the ground in Iraq, is not only arrogant, but it is politically motivated and reckless.
I am forced to defend his right to make such an inaccurate, uninformed, uneducated, and unscrupulous statement because I am faithful to the Constitution. But Reid’s statement only serves to benefit his political standing and the well-being of his political party while it damages our country, damages the morale of the troops in the war, and sends a clear message of defeatism and weakness to our enemies.
Although this statement might--might--have been appropriate for private closed-door discussion, Reid is obligated as a political leader to conduct himself in a manner that best serves his constituents. Promoting an uneducated and thoroughly partisan opinion on an issue involving our country’s very survival--and in such a public way as to aid the enemy’s propaganda campaign--is not in the best interest of his constituency.
Just across the hall, figuratively speaking, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi found herself “unavailable” for a closed-door briefing on the military situation currently existing in Iraq given by General David Petraeus. In fact, the only Democrat to show up for this briefing was Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee.
While the entirety of congressional Democrats should be exposed for their blatant refusal to gather first-source, fact-based information on a situation currently being debating in Congress, it is singularly Nancy Pelosi’s responsibility as Speaker of the House and leader of her party in that chamber to lead them, to require, to insist that they do their jobs.
That Pelosi opted for a phone conversation with Gen. Petraeus is of little consolation. Leaders lead by example and Pelosi’s absence served to diminish the importance of gathering the facts regarding our troops in Iraq and the progress of their mission. What could possibly have been more important than gathering the facts on the premier issue of our day. But for her political victories as a partisan progressive-leftist, Pelosi has proven throughout her short tenure to be a miserable leader.
In both instances, Democrat leadership has proven it has a lack of knowledge of--if not fidelity to--the constitutional requirements of their offices. For a country at war with the most lethal foe it has ever faced, this sort of self-centered, opportunistic behavior could very well prove to be our death knell.
Returning to Henry Hyde’s idea that elected officials are the stewards of our Constitution--and to that extent the sentinels who should be standing guard over good government--I propose that every time a new Congress is seated, every time a new president is elected, and every time a new Supreme Court justice is sworn in, that they undergo a three week intensive study of the Constitution not unlike the program offered at the National Academy for Civics and Government through the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Further, I propose that those in Congress take one week to engage in an extensive crash course in the subject related to any committee they may find themselves sitting on: finance committee members should know how to balance a budget; defense committee members should have an understanding of the Pentagon and the military; intelligence committee members should understand the ideology of gathering intelligence; foreign affairs committee members should have a grasp of the inner-workings of the State Department, etc.
Only when those elected to office are properly educated on the requirements of their positions, informed and knowledgeable about the subject matter of the committees on which they sit, and dedicated to the principles, ideals, tenets, and procedural boundaries of the Constitution, will we be able to move from a government run by special interest groups and partisans to a government that holds good government above politics. Only when we require our elected officials to understand the greatness and the intricacies of our country’s foundation will we rid ourselves of political opportunists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now, the question is: What politician has the guts to do the right thing by proposing legislation to this affect?
By Frank Salvato
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
[ edited by Bear1949 on Apr 28, 2007 04:41 PM ]
posted on April 28, 2007 07:20:32 PM new
"Reid's statement only serves to benefit his political standing and the well-being of his political party while it damages our country, damages the morale of the troops in the war, and sends a clear message of defeatism and weakness to our enemies."
That is the absolute truth. An extremely SAD truth of the actions and abandoment of the OATHS they take.
But that IS the democratic party of this decade and what they represent. And obviously, by their actions, they have NO problem abandoning what they swore to uphold.
====
They must take great pride that our terrorist enemies, like al sadr, are on THEIR SIDE. Must make them REAL proud of themselves.
tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 28, 2007 07:24 PM ]
