Congressman Marsha Blackburn Weekly Republican Address 12/12/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Congressman Marsha Blackburn Weekly Republican Address 12/12/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Weekly Republican Remarks by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, as provided by the Republican National Committee

Marsha Blackburn

Hi, I’m Congressman Marsha Blackburn, and I have the great honor of representing Tennessee’s Seventh District. Next week, I and a number of my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives will head to Copenhagen – Denmark’s capital city – where diplomats and politicians from around the world have gathered in an attempt to try to reach an international, UN-brokered agreement on climate change. If President Obama has his way, the Copenhagen conference will produce mandatory emissions limits that would destroy millions of American jobs and damage our economic competitiveness for decades to come.

To comply with this UN-brokered agreement, Washington Democrats want to impose a ‘cap-and-trade’ national energy tax, a bureaucratic nightmare that would make households, small businesses and family farms pay higher prices for electricity, gasoline, food and virtually every product made in America. This legislation is currently making its way through the Senate after passing the House of Representatives in June.

President Obama himself has said that as a result of this national energy tax, electricity prices would, and I quote, ‘necessarily skyrocket.’ His own Department of Energy has determined that millions of jobs would be lost.

Since Democrats in Congress have failed to get a cap and trade bill to the President’s desk ahead of the Copenhagen Summit, President Obama took unilateral action this week to pile more regulation on the backs of families and small businesses in the name of combating global warming.

On Monday the President’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, took the first step toward imposing costly new regulations on businesses for emitting carbon. My bill, H.R. 391 would stop the EPA.

Just think of what will happen to small businesses and manufacturers hit with these skyrocketing energy bills, especially when nations like India and China don’t agree to these mandatory emissions limits.

With Americans already facing double-digit unemployment, there could not be a worse time to unilaterally disarm our engines of job creation and economic growth.

In fact, small businesses are already feeling anxiety and holding off on hiring due to the prospect of this national energy tax, a government takeover of health care, and other costly policies Democrats have in the works.

These aren’t issues President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats in Congress will talk about when they are in Copenhagen, but Republicans will.

Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the Climategate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment.

And why?

To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about Democrats’ climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation – not a rush to judgment – by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen.

Republicans are all for clean water, clean air, and clean energy. We just don't think we have to tax people out of house and home to get there. That’s why we have proposed an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy that says, let’s put every clean, responsible energy option on the table so we can create jobs, ease the strain on family budgets, and clean up our environment.

This is one of a series of common-sense solutions Republicans have proposed to empower families and small businesses while Democrats have continued to rely on more spending, more regulation and more government to try and solve every problem.

Nothing sums this up more than the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ of borrowing and spending that has failed to create jobs ‘immediately’ and keeps unemployment below eight percent as promised. Instead, more than three million Americans have lost their jobs and unemployment has risen to double-digits.

Given the opportunity to try a new approach, President Obama has instead proposed more of the same ‘stimulus’ spending paid for by borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

It’s time for Washington to learn the hard lesson that families already know: growing debt only cripples freedom and spending more money than you have is no plan for prosperity. Only Republicans have provided a fiscally responsible blueprint for helping families and small businesses weather this economic crisis and get back up on their feet. Thank you for listening. ###

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor Endorses Frank Guinta

Frank and Morgan Guinta, Uploaded on September 11, 2009, by guintaforcongress All rights reserved

"This morning Team Guinta announced that the number two Republican in the US House of Representatives Eric Cantor (R-VA) has endorsed outgoing Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta in his bid to replace Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District. This is good for Team Guinta as they can now claim one of US House’s emerging leaders as a supporter with significant DC connections."

Friends of Frank Guinta, P.O. Box 877, Manchester, NH 03105 info@teamguinta.com - (603) 305-7194

Andy Harris Argues for REAL Health Care Reform VIDEO

Maryland Senator and Hopkins physician Andy Harris explains the need for REAL healthcare reform

Health care: As a physician, I realize that we have problems with the health care insurance system. The answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance – but, instead, bringing common-sense solutions like increased competition, price transparency, and meaningful medical malpractice liability reform.

TEXT: by Andy Harris for Congress

Scott Brown releases tax policy

Uploaded on December 6, 2009 by State Senator Scott Brown All rights reserved

Giving Taxpayers More of Their Hard-Earned Money will Stimulate our Flagging Economy Like President Kennedy, Senator Brown supports efforts to reduce the tax burden on Americans. In 1962, President Kennedy called for an across-the-board tax cut on individuals and businesses to get the economy moving again. Senator Brown agrees with this tax policy and believes it will have immediate effects on entrepreneurship, investment, and small businesses. Senator Brown understands that lower tax rates improve the incentives facing individuals and businesses to work, invest, take risks, and capitalize on new opportunities to make their lives better.

During his tenure in the Massachusetts Statehouse, Senator Brown has been a fiscal watchdog fighting higher taxes and wasteful spending.

Senator Brown would vote to extend the 2001 and 2003 Federal tax cuts, currently set to expire in 2010. These tax cuts provided relief for all by cutting taxes on income, capital gains and dividends, doubling the child care credit, eliminating the marriage penalty and phasing out the death tax. Without an extension, many Americans will see a massive tax increase in 2011. Senator Brown understands that taxes need to be kept low so people can keep more of their money to spend or to save as they choose, especially now when many families are hurting.

Senator Brown proposes lowering the corporate tax rate. Senator Brown recognizes that American companies must stay competitive to allow our economy to remain the job-creating engine and economic driver of the world. At 39 percent, the United States is tied with Japan for the world’s highest corporate tax rate. Making America’s business environment competitive with the rest of the world will attract capital, encourage investment and create new jobs.

Senator Brown supports lower taxes for individuals and families. Reducing marginal tax rates across the board will reward productivity and allow people to keep more of their own money. By leaving more money in the economy for consumption and investment, the private sector will respond with more jobs and higher salaries for workers.

Senator Brown has signed the no-tax pledge. Senator Brown is the only candidate in the race who has signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge not to raise taxes on the American people.

Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee. 200 Reservoir Street, Needham, MA 02494 | info@brownforussenate.com | 781-444-0200

Jim Sensenbrenner Dr. Holdren Climategate VIDEO

Ranking Member Sensenbrenner continues his questioning of Dr. Holdren into Climategate.

Sensenbrenner Speaks with Jay Weber on Climategate

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner spoke with radio host Jay Weber this morning about Climategate.

Some highlights include:

On Chairman Markey Not Hearing a Skeptic as a Witness

“I asked him to call a hearing before the Copenhagen Conference heats up next week, under the rules that allow the minority party to call for a day of witnesses, where I would select the witnesses, and so far he hasn’t responded and I’m not holding my breath.”

On Democrats Burying the Truth

“This is really an inconvenient truth. The President’s science advisor, who is a former Harvard professor named Holdren, is involved in the email scandals and covering up the fact that data has been lost, the fact that contrary opinions to the global warming crowd has been squeezed out of scientific journals – and as a matter of fact – the editor of one scientific journal who published contrary data has been fired. Now this is an international conspiracy. Before we end up transferring trillions of dollars from the pocketbook of American ratepayers to China and India – which is what Al Gore’s global warming treaty proposes to do – then we ought to get to the bottom of this and find out whether this is really science or whether this is a bunch of people with a political agenda that’s cooked the books.”

“This should not be political science, but should be real science.”

On the long-term effect of Climategate

“It depends on how deep the scandal is. All of the raw data from the 70s and 80s that were put into the computers at the British University to project what was going to happen 50 years from now has been inconveniently lost. We see in these emails that ended up being on the Internet that the people who say that there’s man-made global warming end up saying that this data is contrary and we’ve actually had global cooling in the last ten years.”

“They’ve use the word ‘trick’ to describe how they are synthesizing the data that they have. Honestly, if we’re talking about trillions of dollars and the health of the American economy and jobs at stake, we better make sure we’re not tricked.”

Contact: Wendy Riemann (202) 225-5101 Washington, Dec 7

Health Care Reform Bill Is a Job-Killer VIDEO

Business leaders join Republican senators to emphasize that taxes in Democrats’ health care reform bill would seriously damage small businesses, who are responsible for a majority of the job creation in this country.

Republican.Senate.Gov

Scott Brown Primary Election Night Remarks (Acceptance Speech) 12-08-09 VIDEO TEXT

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT: Thank you very much. With tonight's victory, we are halfway there -- and now the real race begins!

Scott with his wife Gail and their two daughters, Ayla, a student at Boston College, and Arianna, a student at Syracuse University. Image Uploaded on December 6, 2009 by State Senator Scott Brown All Rights Reserved

In 42 days, the voters of this great commonwealth will have a choice, and tonight that choice became a lot clearer. We can send another partisan placeholder to the United States Senate, or we can try something new: We can elect an independent voice for all of Massachusetts -- and that's the United States Senator I promise to be. Whatever the usual insiders and experts have to say about this election, I say this: Never underestimate the independent spirit of Massachusetts.

A year has passed since one-party rule came to Washington, and the last thing we need is more of it. When the federal government spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, the last thing we need in the United States Senate is another rubber stamp.

We're the only state in this nation about to elect a U.S. senator. The choice we make will send a powerful message to the big-spenders in Washington, and just in time: They need to quit expanding our government and defending wasteful spending, and start expanding this economy and defending our jobs.

For my fellow citizens watching at home, my name is Scott Brown. I'm the Republican in the race. You may not have heard of me before now because all the focus has been on the other side where the candidates were competing for title of ‘most liberal.’

In this upcoming election, if you want business as usual, with higher taxes, more spending and not having a voice in Washington, then vote for my opponent. But if you want real change on January 19th, and if you want somebody who will fight to lower your taxes, keep more money in your pockets, and bring common sense back to Washington DC, then join with me and make a real difference.

To everyone in this room, your support throughout this primary has meant an awful lot to me. I congratulate my opponent, Jack Robinson, for the campaign he ran. He is a good man, and I welcome his support in the cause we now serve together.

I have learned a lot as I've traveled throughout Massachusetts these past several months. I had the luxury of not being followed by a lot of cameras and media, so I was able to actually listen to what people were telling me.

What I learned is that people are worried about what will happen to them and their families in the current economic crisis.

They want to know why the only new jobs that have been created are government jobs.

They also want to know why, at a time when their family's income is going down, their taxes are going up.

The people I have spoken with don't vote for a particular party, they vote for ideas and for convictions. They want a United States Senator who answers to conscience and to the people, and not just to the same old political machine that acts like it owns our State. The machine politicians and the special interests do not own Massachusetts anymore, and they're going to find that out on January 19th.

These are serious and difficult times for the United States, and I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I know what I believe, and I will do all that I can to help make our country strong and prosperous once again.

I don't have all the advantages in this race, and that's fine by me. I don't come from a life of advantage, and in many ways I'm grateful for that. It has taught me to work harder, and to better appreciate the opportunities of our state and our country. I am blessed to have a loving family, good friends and neighbors, and to call Massachusetts my home -- and I wouldn't trade those for anything.

I'm running because I want to leave our children and grandchildren an America that is as strong and vibrant as the one we knew growing up. My friends, our nation is at a crossroads, with difficult challenges to meet and tough decisions to make.

More of our people are unemployed today than ever before in American history. Public debt has reached 12 trillion dollars and counting, and the DC politicians want to borrow trillions more. Terrorists want to strike our country again, and they will do so if we lose our resolve and let down our guard. We have fighting forces in two theaters of war, and those men and women need the uncompromising support of the United States Congress.

On all of the great issues facing America, you are entitled to know the convictions that each candidate holds, and I have stated mine:

-- I believe in limited government, and in the boundless power of the free market to create jobs and wealth for our people.

-- I believe it is a betrayal of duty to leave the next generation with massive debts, and they deserve better than that from us.

-- I believe that one-party power breeds corruption and arrogance, and it's time we open things up in the state of Massachusetts.

I believe failure should be admitted in Washington, and not repeated. It's time to admit that while the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus had the best of intentions, it failed to create one new job. We shouldn’t make the mistake of passing yet another stimulus that adds to the debt and does nothing for American workers.

My plan for the economy is simple - an across the board tax cut for families and businesses that will increase investment and lead to immediate new job growth. In the tradition of President John F. Kennedy, we should stimulate the American economy with a broad based tax cut for the American people.

Like everyone else, I want to see more Americans with good health care coverage. I like what we did in Massachusetts. It’s not perfect, but nearly everyone is now covered by a private insurance policy -- not a government policy. I hope other states follow our example. You need to understand that the health care bill under discussion in Washington is not good for Massachusetts. I fear that the Government option in the bill would soon be the ONLY option.

It will raise taxes, increase spending, and if you are a senior and receive Medicare, it will lead to a half a trillion dollars in cuts in your health care.

Instead of restricting health care for elders -- we need to start restricting the size and intrusiveness of government.

I want to see a cleaner environment, and the way to get there is through a comprehensive approach. That would be by the development of new energy sources that are not powered only by fossil fuels. That means conservation, in addition to the development of more wind, solar, hydroelectric and - yes - more nuclear power. One thing I will not do, however, is support a cap and trade program that will cause energy prices to spike and chase businesses out of Massachusetts and cost individual families more money just to heat their homes and turn on their lights. The cap and trade bill moving its way through Congress will kill jobs at a time when our economy is on the brink. To me that is unacceptable. As your United States Senator, I will make 'jobs' job number one.

As an attorney, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation -- they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

I want to see a strong military that will protect our interests around the world. I proudly serve as a Lieutenant Colonel and 30-year member of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, and during that time I've witnessed the many sacrifices made by patriotic Americans who fight to defend our freedoms. I salute the President for supporting our troops and their mission, and I will work with him to ensure that when they return home in victory they are given all the services that a grateful nation can provide.

Right now in Washington, we have 10 congressmen and two senators who all vote the same way, they’re beholden to the same special interests and when they vote, the first thing they ask is how am I going to be rated on the special interest report card. Their idea of a debate is not to argue over whether to raise taxes, but how high to raise them. If change is what we have in mind, do we really need another robot who's programmed to vote like the rest of our delegation? When I take a vote, the first thing I am going to ask is, is this bill good for Massachusetts. You will be my special interest.

My entire career has been spent fighting to keep taxes low, cut out wasteful spending and keep government in check.

As your next US Senator, I will always speak my mind and act in the best interests of the people I represent. I don’t take my orders from either of the political parties, or from Harry Reid, or Deval Patrick, or the labor bosses. I plan to take my orders from you, the people who sent me to Washington DC to make a difference.

The political machine in this state is going to pull out all the stops to keep their hands on this Senate seat. Rest assured it will be me against the machine. You’re going to see all the special interests line up with my opponent and the last thing they want is someone coming in and changing the way business is done on Capital Hill.

They say I’m the long shot, and if the same old powers-that-be get to decide this election, I guess that's right. But I'm betting that a new day is coming in Massachusetts. I am here in the name of every independent-thinking citizen, whether they be Democrat, unenrolled-independent or Republican, to take on one-party rule, and the Beacon Hill bosses, and their machine, and their candidate … and with your help I intend to win.

Please give me your vote on January 19th. Will you join me in this fight? I can’t do it alone. Thank you very much and let’s get to work. ###

Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee. 200 Reservoir Street, Needham, MA 02494 | info@brownforussenate.com | 781-444-0200

Marco Rubio Comments on President Obama’s Jobs Summit

Uploaded by Marco Rubio on 2 Jul 09, 11.12AM PST. © All rights reserved.

Miami, FL – U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio today released the following statement regarding President Obama’s Jobs Summit: “With America’s unemployment at 10.2 percent and Florida’s at a 34-year high, it’s clear the $787 billion stimulus has failed to get Americans back to work as President Obama, the Democrat Congress and Governor Crist promised. Their failed policies have had devastating consequences for the millions of Americans who are out of work.

“Today’s jobs summit reminds us that governing by photo-op and showmanship is no substitute for sound policy. True economic development and job creation begins by empowering small businessmen and women, cutting government red tape, reducing the anxiety Americans feel about runaway Washington spending, and pursuing bold and far-reaching tax reform. Growing government through the stimulus and other liberal initiatives simply cannot replace or compete with the private sector’s limitless potential to create jobs and prosperity.

“If the President, congressional Democrats and their allies are serious about job creation, they should abandon their current path of job-killing government takeovers of health care, cap-and-trade and even another round of wasteful stimulus spending. Instead, they should enact tax policies that encourage private sector investment, work to open new markets for American goods, and salvage what’s left of unused stimulus funds by redirecting them towards the entrepreneurs and risk-takers who built our economy in the first place.”

Rubio Comments on President Obama’s Jobs Summit « Marco Rubio 2010

Pat Toomey on President Obama's Visit Jobs and the Economy VIDEO

Pat Toomey Press Conference on President Obama's Visit Jobs and the Economy

There is no more important issue today than the economic recession and the rising unemployment rate. All across the Commonwealth, hard-working Pennsylvanians are struggling to make ends meet and provide for their families.

But the approach taken by politicians in Washington is not working. Government bureaucrats cannot create sustainable jobs. When they try to create jobs by spending taxpayer dollars, they merely take money out of the private sector that would be better spent in the marketplace by the people who earned it.

Worse, the current Congress is favoring policies that actually discourage job growth. Instead of encouraging businesses to hire new employees, Washington is threatening new and heavy costs and burdens on businesses. If these policies are enacted, Pennsylvania businesses won’t be able to hire new employees and may even be forced to lay off workers to survive.

Instead, the government should be making it less expensive and easier for businesses to hire people. It can do this by cutting taxes and decreasing regulation. For example, if we rescind the stimulus and cut both employees’ and employers’ payroll taxes instead, every worker would see an immediate increase in their take home pay and it would be less expensive for businesses to hire new workers. If we eliminated the tax on capital gains and lowered the tax on businesses, it would make U.S. companies more competitive, and lead to major job growth.

Toomey for Senate 484-809-7994 | info@toomeyforsenate.com | 3440 Hamilton BLVD, Allentown, PA 18103.

Sarah Palin Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change 'Experts'

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

- Sarah Palin

Carly Fiorina Weekly Republican Address 12/05/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Carly Fiorina Weekly Republican Address 12/05/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Remarks by Carly Fiorina, California Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, as provided by the Senate Republican Communications Center.

Hello. This is Carly Fiorina. And today I’d like to speak to you as one of the more than two and a half million women in America who have been diagnosed with breast cancer — and beaten it.

Like everyone else who’s diagnosed with cancer, I never thought it would happen to me. I was fit, healthy, and active. I even got regular check-ups. But earlier this year, just two weeks after a clear mammogram, I discovered a lump through a self-exam.
Soon after that came the diagnosis, the surgery, the long and difficult treatment regimen, and the painful experience of wondering whether I would make it, whether I’d pull through.

I’m fortunate to live near one of the greatest cancer centers in the world. I’m fortunate to have the incredible love and support of family and friends.

And, my diagnosis gave me time to think about my future — because one of the things that happens when you have to face your fears, including the fear of dying, is that you can face your future with renewed hope and enthusiasm.
My doctors tell me I have won my battle with cancer. And I realize that this makes me one of the lucky ones. Last year alone, more than 40,000 Americans died from breast cancer. Aside from lung cancer, breast cancer is the most fatal form of cancer for American women. Nearly 200,000 new cases were reported last year alone.

That’s why a recent recommendation on mammograms by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-run panel of health care professionals that makes recommendations on prevention, struck such a nerve.

The task force did not include an oncologist or a radiologist, in other words, cancer experts did not develop this recommendation. They said that most women under 50 don’t need regular mammograms and that women over 50 should only get them every other year. And yet we all know that the chances of surviving cancer are greater the earlier it’s detected. If I’d followed this new recommendation and waited another two years, I’m not sure I’d be alive today.
What’s more this task force was explicitly asked to focus on costs, not just prevention. As it turned out, costs were a significant factor in this recommendation. Will a bureaucrat determine that my life isn't worth saving?

All this takes on even greater urgency in the midst of the ongoing health care debate in Washington. We wonder if we are heading down a path where the federal government will at first suggest and then mandate new standards for prevention and treatment. Do we really want government bureaucrats rather than doctors dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer?

The response we’ve gotten to these questions has been less than encouraging. In the face of a national outcry over the recent task force recommendations, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said the Preventive Services Task Force doesn’t set federal policy. The real question, though, is whether bodies like this would set policy under the $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page plan that’s now making its way through Congress?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question isn’t encouraging either. The health care bill now being debated in the Senate explicitly empowers this very task force to influence future coverage and preventive care. Section 4105, for example, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny payment for prevention services the task force recommends against.

Another section requires every health plan in America to cover task force recommended preventive services. In fact, there are more than a dozen examples in the bill where this task force is empowered to influence care.
There is a reason American women with breast cancer have a higher survival rate than women in countries with government-run health care. Unlike those countries, our government doesn’t dictate what prevention and treatments women can get.

While some defend the idea of a government task force, my experience with cancer tells me it’s wrong. Cutting down on mammograms might save the government some money that it will then spend on something else. But it won’t save lives. And isn’t that what health care reform was supposed to be all about?

This is just one in many examples of serious problems with this healthcare reform legislation. Rather than remaking the entire national healthcare system at the cost of higher taxes and exploding deficits, we should build on what works, such as expanding access to integrated care and to community clinics that will give those most in need appropriate care at a reasonable price.

Congress should reform medical malpractice to match what we have in California where frivolous lawsuits are a thing of the past. We should permit consumers to purchase health insurance from any company in the country, expanding consumer choice and driving down cost and unnecessary mandates.

People want to know that their care will stay where it belongs: in the hands of doctors and patients. Unfortunately, the path Congress is on in this debate is not giving us the confidence that it will. Thank you. ###

Mark Kirk Stop Al Qaeda Terrorists From Coming to Illinois VIDEO

Kirk Statement on Resignation of Defense Official Responsible For Gitmo Move to Thomson.

Congressman Mark Kirk

NORTHBROOK, Ill. - U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk released the following statement following news that the defense official charged with moving the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to Thomson, Illinois – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy Phillip Carter – unexpectedly resigned on Friday. “Last Thursday, members of the Illinois congressional delegation submitted specific security and legal questions to the Secretary of Defense on issues surrounding the proposed military detention of Al Qaeda detainees on U.S. soil. We now understand that the key official responsible for answering our questions resigned the following day. Phillip Carter’s resignation raises further questions.

“Key questions for Illinois remain, including:

Q. Where and how will the civilian trials/military commissions of the estimated 40 detainees be held and secured?

Q. Under what legal authority will another estimated 75 non-POW detainees be held without trial or commission?

Q. How will the families of judges and prosecutors be protected?

Q. Where will surgery or intensive care be offered -- Mercy (9 miles away), Morrison (13 miles away) or CGH Medical Center (21 miles away)?

“This is the second major Administration official in charge of GITMO matters to resign. This month, the White House Counsel, Greg Craig, was let go after the President reversed positions on the release of DoD photos, the use of military commissions and the incarceration of 75 detainees without trial or commission. Secretary Carter was the key Obama Administration official in charge of bringing Guantanamo detainees to Illinois. He led the briefings in Thomson. The Administration is left with many unanswered questions and no key officials to advance this flawed proposal.

“Congressional leaders cannot advance the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice because they fear they will lose on a motion to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. At the moment, it appears the Administration lacks key officials or congressional votes to back their proposal.” ###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aaron Winters, 847-940-0202, 847-691-6744 (cell) Susan Kuczka: 847-940-0202, 847-612-1665 (cell)

Rob Simmons Blasts Civilian Trial For Khalid Sheikh Mohammad VIDEO

WVIT NBC Hartford covered Rob Simmons criticism of Senator Dodd's support for the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad on American soil, opening the door to a trial in Connecticut.

Statement on McMahon's Hedge Regarding the Trial of 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad on American Soil.

Rob Simmons Photo by Kate Mercer

Jim Barnett, campaign manager for Simmons for Senate, made the following statement today reacting to news reports that Linda McMahon "hedged her bets" by refusing to state an opinion on the recent decision to grant a civilian trial to self-described mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, stating instead that she will "probably have more firm policy statements after the first of the year": "The decision to bring the 9/11 masterminds to America, and possibly to Connecticut, and bless them with all the constitutional rights reserved for Americans is a travesty of justice,

and Mrs. McMahon's unwillingness to give a straight answer speaks volumes to her inexperience and raises serious questions about her readiness to serve as U.S. Senator.

"It is deeply disappointing that when given the opportunity to stand firm against Sen. Dodd's dangerous and misguided approach, Mrs. McMahon took a pass. It goes to show that slick campaign ads and an army of high-priced consultants can't buy the experience and judgment necessary to keep our nation safe."

FACTS

Senator Dodd Voted Against Barring Civilian Trials On U.S. Soil For Those Involved In The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. "Reed, D-R.I., motion to table (kill) the Graham, R-S.C., amendment no. 2669 that would bar the use of Justice Department funds under the bill to prosecute in a regular federal court anyone linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." (H. R. 2847, CQ Vote #: 338: D: 53-4; R 0-40; I 1-1; Motion Agreed To 54-45, Dodd Voted Yea, 11/5/09)

NOTE: All 40 Senate Republicans Unanimously Opposed The Amendment. (H. R. 2847, CQ Vote #: 338: D: 53-4; R 0-40; I 1-1; Motion Agreed To 54-45, 11/5/09)

10 Days Ago, Attorney General Eric Holder Announced Khalid Sheik Mohammad Would Be Transferred To New York City For A Jury Trial. "Five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, including accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be transferred to New York to go on trial in civilian court, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday." ("Accused 9/11 Plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Faces New York Trial," www.cnn.com, 11/13/09)

That Day, Rob Simmons Criticized The Decision And Senator Dodd's Vote. "As a lifelong national security and intelligence official, I am shocked and angered by this stunning announcement. To have the self-described mastermind of the worst attack on American soil receive a jury trial footsteps away from where he murdered thousands of American citizens is beyond the pale. ... Worst of all is Senator Dodd, who demonstrated his reckless desire to appease the left-wing of his party rather than protect American citizens by voting against an amendment that would have barred such a trial." (Simmons For Senate, "Simmons Statement On Announcement Of Civilian Trial For 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed," Press Release, 11/13/09)

Attorney General Holder Admitted The Trial Of Khalid Sheik Mohammad Could Face A Change In Venue To Connecticut. SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): "But isn't it the fact that you won't be the one making that decision ultimately, if the attempt to transfer venue based on the notoriety of this event on 9/11 is such, just like Timothy McVeigh, who killed so many Americans in Oklahoma, he was tried in Colorado. Isn't it a distinct possibility that the judge would transfer this case based on a local prejudice?" ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: "Sure, that's entirely possible. And there may be a motion for a venue change, but just as in the McVeigh case, the new change did not have a material negative impact on the outcome of the trial. He was convicted, and he was executed." (Attorney General Eric Holder, Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/18/09)

But On Saturday, When Asked Her Opinion On Bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammad To American Soil For A Civilian Trial, McMahon "Hedged," Stating: "I'll Probably Have More Firm Policy Statements After The First Of The Year." "[Judy] Hershon stopped McMahon to ask her opinion on the upcoming New York City terrorism trial. Republicans have blasted the Obama administration for deciding to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in federal court in New York City rather than in a military court abroad. Democrats like Dodd have largely supported the decision. One of Dodd's leading Republican challengers, Rob Simmons, blasted him for that position. 'I'm trying to do a poll of any politician I can find on this, since I'm from New York, where the trial's going to actually take place,' she said. McMahon hedged her bets on the issue. While New York 'has certainly tried other terrorists before,' she noted, this trial will cost New York $75 million. 'I'll probably have more firm policy statements after the first of the year,' she said." (Ben Johnson, "Dodd Challenger Crashes The Tailgates," New Haven Independent, 11/23/09)

The Terrorists Plan To Use The Trial As A Platform To "Air Their Criticisms Of U.S. Foreign Policy." "The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday. Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but 'would explain what happened and why they did it.'" ("Lawyer: 9/11 Defendants Will Tell Jury 'Why They Did It,'" The Associated Press, 11/23/09)

Rob Simmons's Background On Intelligence And National Security Makes Him Uniquely Qualified To Serve In The U.S. Senate. Rob Simmons served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war and won two Bronze Star Medals. He continued as a Reserve Military Intelligence Officer for 37 years before retiring at the rank of Colonel.

He is past commander of the 434th Military Intelligence (MI) Detachment New Haven, CT, which won the Reserve Officers Associations Outstanding Small Unit Award in 1996. In 1998, Rob was recognized by for his contributions to the Military Intelligence Corps with the Knowlton Award for "Integrity, Moral Character, Professional Competence and Selflessness.

Following his active duty service in the Army, Rob joined the Central Intelligence Agency, working as an Operations Officer for a decade, including five years on assignment overseas in East Asia where he participated in difficult and dangerous missions to protect Americas national security.

Upon his return from East Asia, Rob left the CIA to join the staff of Senator John H. Chafee (R-Rhode Island) where he was Legislative Assistant for Military, Foreign and Veterans Affairs.

In 1981, he was assigned as a staff member to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and soon thereafter was appointed by Chairman Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) to serve as Staff Director of the full committee. Rob worked with the committee and the Reagan Administration on some of the most important national security challenges of the Cold War. CIA Director Casey presented him with the Agency Seal Medallion its highest civilian award in 1985.

In Congress, Rob served on the Armed Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committees. Rep. Simmons also served as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment and Veterans' Health Subcommittee.

TEXT CREDIT: Paid for by Simmons for Senate* 12 Roosevelt Ave, 2nd Floor, Mystic, CT 06355* Tel: 860-415-4633 | Fax: 860-415-4629 info@joinrobsimmons.com

VIDEO CREDIT: JoinRobSimmons

RON PAUL TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE VIDEO

Ron Paul "This Belief Is A Dream! That Will Become A Nightmare! For All Americans!

TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE -- (House of Representatives - December[[ 01, 2009)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke does not want us to know any the details of the Fed's secret operations. This position is not surprising and has been typical of all central bank chairmen. Bernanke's stated goal is ``to design a system of financial oversight that will provide a robust framework for preventing future crises.''

During its 96 years of existence, the Federal Reserve has played havoc with our economy and brought great suffering to millions through unemployment and price escalation. And it has achieved what only a central bank can: A steady depreciation of our currency. Today's dollar is now worth 4 cents, compared to the dollar entrusted to the Federal Reserve in 1913. Ninety-six years should have been plenty of time for the Fed to come up with a plan for preventing economic crises.

Since the Fed is the source of all economic downturns, it's impossible for any central banker to regulate in such a manner to prevent the problems that are predictable consequences of his own monetary management. The Federal Reserve fixes interest rates at levels inevitably lower than those demanded by the market. This manipulation is a form of price control through credit expansion, and is the ultimate cause of business cycles and so many of our economic problems, generating the mal-investment, excessive debt, stock, bond, commodity, and housing bubbles.

The Federal Reserve's monetary inflation, indeed, does push the CPI upward, but concentrating on the government's reports of the CPI and the PPI is nothing more than the distraction from the other harm done by the Federal Reserve's effort at central economic planning through secret monetary policy operations. Real inflation, the expansion of our money supply, is greatly undercounted by these indices. In response to our latest financial crisis, the Federal Reserve turned on its printing press and literally doubled the monetary base. This staggering creation of dollars has yet to be reflected in many consumer prices, but will ultimately hit the middle class and poor with a cruel devaluation of their savings and real earnings.

The Fed has clearly failed on its mandate to maintain full employment and price stability. It's time to find out what's going on. Instead of assuming responsibility for the Fed's role in the crisis, Bernanke brags about, ``arresting'' the crisis.

I would suggest to Mr. Bernanke that it's too early to brag. Bernanke decries any effort to gain transparency of the Fed's actions to find out just who gets bailed out and who is left to fail. Instead, he proposes giving even more power to the Fed to regulate the entire financial system.

What he does not recognize--nor does he want to admit--is that he is talking about symptoms while ignoring the source of the crisis: the Federal Reserve itself. More regulations will never compensate for all the distortion and excesses caused by monetary inflation and artificially low interest rates. Regulation distracts from the real cause while further interfering with the market forces, thus guaranteeing that the recession will become much deeper and prolonged.

Chairman Bernanke's argument for Fed secrecy is a red herring. It serves to distract so the special interests that benefit from the Fed policy never become known to the public. Who can possibly buy this argument that this secrecy is required to protect the people from political influence?

My bill, H.R. 1207, has nothing to do with interference with monetary policy. This was explicitly stated in the amendment voted on in the Financial Services Committee. Bernanke's argument for protecting the independence of the Fed is his argument for protecting the secrecy of the Fed. Chairman Bernanke concludes that ``America needs a strong''--think cartel--``nonpolitical''--think Goldman Sachs--``and independent''--think secret--``central bank with the tools to promote financial stability, in the midst of a horrendous financial crisis, and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation.''

This belief is a dream that one day will become a nightmare for all Americans unless we come to our senses, stop our wild spending, runaway deficits, printing press money, massive bureaucratic regulations, and our unnecessary world empire. A crucial step towards fixing these problems will be transparency of the Federal Reserve.

Tags: Ron Paul Adam Kokesh Maresco Federal Reserve Gold Silver Judge Naplolitano Glenn Beck 912 Tea Party trillion Lew Rockwell Robert Gates Council on Foreign Relations CFR Campaign for Liberty HR1207 end the Fed

RNC RELEASES NEW WEB VIDEO “DEAD OF NIGHT” ON SENATE HEALTH CARE VOTE

WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee announced a new web video on moderate Senate Democrats sacrificing their principles to give Harry Reid a victory that brings America dangerously closer to having a government-run health care system. The web video, entitled “Dead of Night,” can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbIFmg68zTA.

“On Saturday night, a number of moderate Senate Democrats sacrificed their principles to bring America dangerously closer to government-run health care. Ben Nelson sold out his conscience and voted in favor of federally funded abortions. Blanche Lincoln sold out her principles by voting in favor of a government-run insurance plan, something she previously said she opposed. And Mary Landrieu simply sold her vote to the highest bidder after Harry Reid added a $300 million earmark just for Louisiana. Voters elected these Senators to represent their best interests. Instead they voted in the dead of night for a health care experiment that will increase taxes, raise premiums, cut Medicare, and use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. This is not the representation Americans deserve. It’s time for these Senators to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves who they really work for – their constituents or liberal Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.” – RNC Chairman Michael Steele

“DEAD OF NIGHT” SCRIPT

Time: 01:00

Voice: “Saturday night.”

Voice: “As Americans laid down for sleep.”

Voice: “Moderate Democrats lay down their beliefs.”

Chyron: LAY DOWN THEIR BELIEFS

Voice: “Sold out their constituents.”

Chyron: SOLD OUT THEIR CONSTITUENTS

Voice: “Rolled by pressure from Barack Obama and Harry Reid.”

Voice: “They voted to move forward a government-run health care bill our nation does not want and can't afford.”

Chyron: OUR NATION DOES NOT WANT AND CAN’T AFFORD

Voice: “One member sold her vote to the highest bidder.”

Chyron: SHE SOLD HER VOTE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER

Chyron: MARY LANDRIEU LOUISIANA

Voice: “One member sold out his principles.”

Chyron: VOTED TO FUND ABORTIONS

Chyron: BEN NELSON NEBRASKA

Voice: “Two more - lost what little credibility they had on fiscal responsibility.”

Chyron: LOST WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY THEY HAD ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Chyron: BYRON DORGAN NORTH DAKOTA

Chyron: EVAN BAYH INDIANA

Voice: “Another put the interests of the left of his party before his own state.”

Chyron: HE PUT THE LEFT OF HIS PARTY BEFORE HIS OWN STATE

Chyron: HARRY REID NEVADA

Voice: “And another voted one way after saying she was for another.”

Chyron: VOTED FOR THE BILL WHEN, SHE SAID SHE WOULD OPPOSE IT

Chyron: BLANCHE LINCOLN ARKANSAS

Voice: “It's no wonder why Democrats voted in the dead of night.”

Chyron: DEMOCRATS

Chyron: VOTED

Chyron: IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT

Chyron: LEARN MORE AT: GOP.COM

Onscreen Disclaimer: PAID FOR BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. WWW.GOP.COM

Michele Bachmann Reacts to Obama's Speech on Afghanistan VIDEO

Washington, D.C., - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann released the the following statement after President Obama delivered an address in which he called for a new strategy involving 30,000 additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan:

"After several long months of deliberation, I'm pleased that the President has not turned his back on Afghanistan. As the President has said, the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. However, I sincerely hope that the President is truly committed to victory. While it’s important to acknowledge that U.S. forces will not be in Afghanistan forever, we must not have a concrete time line for withdrawal as it will ultimately hurt our effort and energize our enemies.

"Clearly, it’s in the vital interests of the United States to defeat the Taliban, destroy Al Qaeda, and establish a free, sovereign Afghanistan that can govern and look after its own people. Anything less and we’re guaranteeing almost certain instability and chaos in the region. But going forward, we must be in it to win it because if we engage in this effort halfheartedly, then the war is already lost."

Contact: Dave Dziok 202-225-2331

President Obama Afghan war strategy Live Stream Video FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

President Obama to Outline new Afghan war strategy Live Streaming Video LIVE C-SPAN FEED in Windows Media format and LIVE C-SPAN FEED in Real Media Format

Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver a national address from the United States Military Academy at West Point. The President will lay out his plan for U.S. troop levels and American involvement in the war in Afghanistan. He is likely to announce an order to deploy 30,000 more troops and detail the Kabul government's changing role in the war.

President Barack Obama walks across the South Lawn after getting off of Marine One on his return to White House following a trip to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to visit with Wounded Warriors. President Obama awarded two Purple Hearts during the trip. November 6, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans,

I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan, the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusions.

It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point, where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.

We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.

Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to Al Qaeda, a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1.

For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies, and the world were acting as one to destroy Al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.

Within a matter of months, Al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.

At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that, for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.

Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaiea's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with Al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.

After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on Al Qaeda worldwide.
In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and although it was marred by fraud, that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain: Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.

Our new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short, the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.

And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military, and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.

And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you, a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.

As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I've visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.

I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qadda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.

This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity.

We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda. And to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, Al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny Al Qaida a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.

Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world.
Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.

We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over.
President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.

We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign Al Qaida fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.

So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect, to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. And that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.

But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, and there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. And those days are over.

Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.
America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

And I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.

Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.

To abandon this area now and to rely only on efforts against Al Qaeda from a distance would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have, but this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.

Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.

Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who, in discussing our national security, said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.

Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military; it underwrites our diplomacy; it taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry; and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.
That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear. None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world, one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And, finally, we must draw on the strength of our values, for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home, which is why I've prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.

What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue, nor should we. But I also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe...

I believe with every fiber of my being that we, as Americans, can still come together behind a common purpose, for our values are not simply words written into parchment. They are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Kay Bailey Hutchison Republicans Are Fighting Disastrous Democrat Policies VIDEO

Kay Bailey Hutchison: “I’m fighting everything that the Obama administration is doing from overspending, from the stimulus packages, from the healthcare takeover to cap and trade; I am fighting that. What I meant was the majority in Congress are doing things that are wrong for this economy. And I think Secretary Geithner is doing the wrong things in leading the effort, and I think the President is where the buck stops.”

Sarah Palin, President Obama Afghanistan Speech

As Thanksgiving festivities wind down we contemplate all we have to be thankful for as free Americans! We head into the Christmas season wishing for leadership in Washington that reflects our commitment to the values and ideals that have built the freest and most prosperous and generous nation on earth.

Heading into December and Tuesday’s announcement of our nation’s strategy in Afghanistan, I ask the President to reassure us that the administration is in this War on Terror to win.

And I’ll pass along the following from Harold B. Estes, a 95-year-old member of the Greatest Generation: “I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out.”

Thank you, Mr. President. Please tell us on Tuesday that America is in it to win.

PS: You can read Mr. Estes' complete letter here.

- Sarah Palin

Meet State Senator Scott Brown

State Senator Scott Brown has led the fight in Massachusetts against wasteful government spending and higher taxes. He is a free-market advocate who believes our strength as a nation flows from its people.

He believes in a culture of family, patriotism and freedom. At his September 12 announcement of candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Senator Brown articulated a core set of beliefs that guide his thinking.

* Government is too big and that the federal stimulus bill made government bigger instead of creating jobs
* Taxes are too high and are going higher if Congress continues with its out-of-control spending
* The historic amount of debt we are passing on to our children and grandchildren is immoral
* Power concentrated in the hands of one political party, as it is here in Massachusetts, leads to bad government and poor decisions
* A strong military and vigorous homeland defense will protect our interests and security around the world and at home
* All Americans deserve health care, but we shouldn't have to create a new government insurance program to provide it

Senator Brown is a proud member of the Massachusetts National Guard, where he has served for nearly three decades and currently holds the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Judge Advocate Generals (JAG) Corps. Brown was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in homeland security following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His career in public service began as selectman in Wrentham. He then went on to serve three terms as a State Representative and won his current State Senate seat in a special election in 2004. He is currently in his third Senate term.

In 2004, Senator Brown received the Public Servant of the Year Award from the United Chamber of Commerce for his leadership in reforming the state's sex offender laws and protecting the rights of victims. He has also been recognized by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) for his work in creating an environment that encourages job growth and expansion in Massachusetts.

Senator Brown is a graduate of Wakefield High School, Tufts University, and Boston College Law School. He lives in Wrentham, MA with his wife Gail and their two daughters, Ayla, a student at Boston College, and Arianna, a student at Syracuse University.

TEXT: Paid for by the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee. www.brownforussenate.com 200 Reservoir Street, Needham, MA 02494 | info@brownforussenate.com 781-444-0200