IÂ’m always pleased to see stories like this one.

A homeowner who saw his wife threatened at gunpoint by an intruder wrested the gun from the man, killed him and wounded another intruder, police said.

The incident happened early today after two men kicked open the front door of the couple's home in this Fort Worth suburb.

Keith and Kellie Hoehn told police the men burst into their house and one of them pointed a shotgun at Mrs. Hoehn's head. She brushed the barrel aside, and a struggle ensued.

The husband got control of the gun and shot both men. The man who survived is being treated at a Fort Worth hospital.

I’ll be honest – the only problem I see here is that one of them is still breathing, and likely being treated in that hospital at taxpayer expense.

HereÂ’s hoping that the story is widely publicized and has a salutary effect.

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

I’m curious – if you increase funding for a program three-fold million, how can any honest person call it a cut?

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

Interestingly enough, the money cut was part of what appears to be a block grant for all Covenant House programs, no anything specific to teen mothers. But more to the point, it left intact close to 80% of the funding as she cut the overall spending in the bill by $268 million. And this was not a cut in operating funds – this was a cut in a grant for capital improvements as Covenant House moved its facilities to another location. And what had Covenant House received in the 2006 and 2007 budgets? It was given $1.2 million and $1.3 million dollar by the state. So Palin’s cut meant that the 2008 funding was MERELY TRIPLED INSTEAD OF QUADRUPLED.

How bloated was this particular budget bill? Well, one of the Democrats in the legislature complained at the time that Palin didnÂ’t cut enough.

But Anchorage Democratic Rep. Mike Doogan said legislators were in "sort of your classic feeding frenzy" in putting the capital budget together.
"It's smaller now that she's done some vetoing, but I still think it's too big," Doogan said.

Yeah, you saw that one right – those were the words of a Democrat.
In other words, what we are seeing here is a cheap shot with extra spin following a responsible action by an executive charged with overseeing state spending. And we can be sure that there will be no such criticism of either candidate on the Democrat ticket – after all, neither of them has any experience as an executive, while both of them are known for their success at bringing home the pork.

Or maybe it is just bad math -- you know, becausethey think 1.3*3 is subtraction because the answer is less than 5.

H/T NRO, Malkin, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

1 comment5, Knock Off Designer Purses Photos
, > , dirt cheap airline tickets
, zrylb, Cheap Cigarettes Here
, :-(, web cam sex
, 920763, Mortgage Rates Predictions Here
, 77442,

Posted by: rimshot at Sat Feb 14 06:57:54 2009 (SRGMS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Was Amy Carter preggers while her born-again daddy was in the Oval Office? Will one or both of the Obama girls get knocked up while their dad is president, if he serves two terms?

Statistically, one or more of those scenarios seems likely, followed by a quiet abortion, according to this piece.

Is Sarah Palin the first nominee on a major-party presidential ticket whose daughter got pregnant out of wedlock? Or is she just the first whose daughter didn't get an abortion?

The reason you're reading about Bristol Palin's pregnancy is that she's taking it to term. If she had aborted it, you'd never have known. Which raises the question: How many other daughters of nominees have gotten knocked up without your knowledge?

The article in question then goes on to do a bunch of statistical calculations that raises just such questions as I've posed above.

It points out that the only reason we even know about Bristo Palinl's pregnancy is that she has chosen to carry the baby to term.

But still avoids the major issue in the entire furor surrounding Bristol's pregnancy -- that it is a private family matter, and really not the public's business.

And the other question as well -- why hasn't Bristol Palin been shown the sort of respect for presidential children that was expected of the press during the Clinton and Carter Administrations?

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, over the weekend there were claims that Sarah Palin was the member of a fringe third party in Alaska, the Alaska Independence Party.

Unfortunately for those out to destroy Palin by any means necessary, the records demonstrate that to have been false.

So the new angle on the story is that her husband, Todd, was a member.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials.

Which leads to the following question -- who cares?

Last time I checked, Todd Palin wasn't going to be on the ballot. Whats more, last time I checked, the right to associate politically is not limited to being a Democrat or a Republican, but extends to a whole host of peaceful political activity.

Indeed, this one reeks of something akin to what the Left would call McCarthyism -- with the significant difference that the Communist threat was real, while the Alaska Independence Party seems like a pretty harmless group advocating smaller government and more local control.

And as a life-long Republican married to a registered Democrat, I'm the first to tell you that it is simply impossible for anyone in a marriage of equals to control their spouses political behavior.

Besides -- given a choice between a candidate married to a political crank and a candidate who is long-time buddies with a unrepentant terrorist, I'll take the former.

UPDATE": Will the media retract the story?

Probably not – even though the source of the original claim admits error and documentary evidence disproves the initial claim.

The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the stateÂ’s secession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.
* * *

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify.

Want to bet we donÂ’t see front page retractions to correct the mistake, despite the fact that the story was highlighted by many in the media? And want to be that many on the Left ignore the correction, and continue to propagate the false claim about her membership?

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Yep, Barney Frank has hit a new low, even for a guy who put his gay hooker on his congressional payroll and got away with allowing the boy toy to run other gay hookers out of his Capitol Hill home.

Now he says that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is fair game -- because Sarah Palin has mentioned she has children.

Rep. Barney Frank is among the first Democrats to publicly say Alaska Gov. Sarah PalinÂ’s family background, including the pregnancy of her unwed teenage daughter, should be fair game for campaign discussion.

"TheyÂ’re the ones that made an issue of her family," Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Well, this proves two things.

1) When Democrats insist that children of candidates are off limits, that only means the children of Democrats. Children of Republicans are always fair game.

2) Barack Obama is such an ineffectual leader that his own call to leave Bristol Palin alone is ignored even by the leadership of his own party. If he can't lead the Democrats, how can he lead the nation?

More At Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Want to take one guess where the AP places the blame for the Palin smears? In part on the Obama campaign -- and they name names.

Obama advisers and surrogates have also linked Palin to conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. An Associated Press story from Alaska, dated July 17, 1999, states that Palin, then the mayor of the small town of Wasilla, was wearing a Buchanan button during a Buchanan visit to Alaska.

The Miami Herald this week quoted an e-mail from Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski that stated: “Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer.”

The McCain campaign says Palin supported Steve ForbesÂ’ campaign in 1999.

So, what will Obama do about the spreading of false stories by one of his own spokespeople. Will he do the honorable thing and get rid of him? Or will he keep the guy on -- cause that's how they do things in Chicago.

Oh, and about that last snippy line in the story which notes "the McCain campaign says" Palin supported Forbes? As I pointed out Saturday, SO DOES AN ASSOCIATED PRESS STORY FROM THE TIME. Are the AP reporters implying that the AP is not a reliable source?

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

She's a conservative woman.

She's a believing Christian.

And she prays in public -- horrendous, outrageous prayers like this:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I guess praying for the troops and our nation's leaders makes one unqualified for high office in this country. I guess believing that God blesses America and has a special plan for our nation is seen as outside the mainstream by liberals.

This, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable:
center>>

H/T STACLU

UPDATE: Looks like Newsweek is into the act, subjecting Palin's church membership to the type of scrutiny that they were loathe to impose upon Obama's -- despite the fact that the beliefs of the churches she has attended are significantly less controversial (and significantly more orthodox) that those preached at Trinity UCC. It would appear that they even want to make baptismal theology an issue.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Much delayed due to my lack of diligence, here are the results of the most recent vote of the Watcher's Council.

The Council winner was The Razor with "Russia - The New Cold War."

The Non-Council winner was Michael Totten/Middle East Journal with "The Truth About Russia In Georgia."

The full results can be seen here.

Congratulations to the winners, and hearty thanks to all participants.

Posted by: Greg at 09:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Since we are going to ask about family issues, this seems much more serious than a pregnant teenager.

A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

Where is the wall-to-wall coverage of this story? After all, can we have a VP with family connections to a couple of fraudsters? You know, especially after Biden voted to help his son's employer, MBNA, rather than abstaining due to the conflict of interest. Yet it was buried on page 9 of the Washington Post, which had six major stories about Palin.

H/T Darleen's Place

UPDATE: Blogs for Victory raises some other issues in Obama's vetting of Biden -- since the vetting process is now the the issue for the press and the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the conclusion that at least one blogger is drawing from Sarah Palin's past history, when she decided against running for US Senate in 2004 because one of her children objected.

BeldarBlog shares this tidbit from Kaylene Johnson's biography of the VP nominee, Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down:

In 2004, friends and supporters urged Sarah to challenge Lisa Murkowski. [By then,] Sarah had made a name for herself as a reformer, and supporters thought she had a good chance of winning. So, Sarah approached her family to discuss the possibility. Like all of her decisions, the decision had to be unanimous.

"People don't believe me, but it's true. It had to be a family decision," she said. Todd was up for a move to Washington, D.C. and the girls were on board as well. But son Track, in his early teens, was becoming aware of the contentiousness of a political battle. He valued his privacy, and felt uncomfortable in the limelight. "Track did not want me to run, and he was adamant about it. He had to bless me," Sarah said. "If he had said at the time 'This is great,' I would have done it."

Hmmmmm -- the kids were given a voice in that decision in 2004, and one actually vetoed a run that would have put her in the Senate at the same time as Barack Obama. In 2006, the whole family was on board with the gubernatorial run. This would certainly lead to speculation about the acceptance of McCain's offer to be his running might -- was the subject broached at some point early in the process? It seems likely, based upon Palin family history.

But that aside, I can't help but note the sexism of those who question Sarah Palin's decision to accept John McCain's invitation to join him on the ticket. After all, would we even be having a discussion of "is the candidate a good parent" if McCain had selected a man with a special needs child and a pregnant teen? I don't think so.

Indeed, one of the most admirable things I find in the biography ofDemocrat VP candidate Senator Joe Biden (and i do find some admirable things) was his decision to assume his Senate seat after the death of his wife and daughter and serious injury of his sons following that tragic accident after his victory in 1972. He made a valid choice to serve teh people of his state while bearing the burden of single father. I would never stand by and let anyone question that choice -- just as I will continue to defend Sarah Palin's choice today.

After all, I hold her to the same standard as a male candidate, not a higher one. Too bad the mouth-frothing left won't do the same.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

It's called Chrome, and is available for Windows machines starting today.

Google Inc. is releasing its own Web browser in a long-anticipated move aimed at countering the dominance of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer and ensuring easy access to its market-leading search engine.

The Mountain View-based company took the unusual step of announcing its latest product on the Labor Day holiday after it prematurely sent out a comic book drawn up to herald the new browser's arrival.

The free browser, called "Chrome," is supposed to be available for downloading Tuesday in more than 100 countries for computers running on Microsoft's Windows operating system. Google said it's still working on versions compatible with Apple Inc.'s Mac computer and the Linux operating system.

Sounds interesting, though I still love my Firefox. But I wonder -- will Google's new offering be able to shake IE's status as teh most commonly used web browser?

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

It's hard out there for an Islamist terrorist.

SUSPECTED Taliban militants arrested by Australian special forces in Afghanistan have been detained in "dog pens" in actions that have left Australian Muslim groups outraged and prompted a protest from the Afghan ambassador in Canberra.

The empty dog pens were used to hold overnight four suspected Taliban insurgents who were arrested in a raid by special forces soldiers on April 29.

The raid - in response to the fatal shooting two days earlier of Sydney-based commando Lance Corporal Jason Marks - resulted in allegations of mistreatment of Afghan prisoners.

An army inquiry last week rejected those claims, saying they were not supported by medical evidence.

But Colonel David Connery, appointed by the deputy chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General David Hurley, to examine the charges, found evidence of "cultural misunderstandings" and noted "the use of the former dog pens".

You know, I'm disturbed by their having done this. It just isn't right. It is positively inhumane.

I mean, they might need to use those pens for dogs at some future point. And your average dog is much more clean, better smelling, and better behaved than your average Islamist terrorist scum.

Oh, and those protesting Muslims? Screw 'em.

H/T RightPulse

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Breaking News, reported by Gateway Pundit.

The bus I was riding was hit with cement bags that the anarchists were throwing off the overpasses onto the interstate. The anarchists missed the bus in front of us and nailed our bus with a direct hit.

The police had us slow down and then sent us under the interstate overpass when we were attacked.

No deaths, no injuries -- but this sort of activity could have easily resulted in multiple injuries and deaths. It constitutes nothing less than attempted murder.

I'm sure more will follow.

UPDATE: More has -- an attack on a delegation entering the convention site. And a riot broke out near the convention. Too bad the delegates are deprived of their Second Amendment rights while these terrorists abuse the First Amendment.

UPDATE 2: They apparently attacked a group of Cub Scouts, too.

Posted by: Greg at 08:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Let the floodgates open.

John Coale, a prominent Washington lawyer, husband of Fox TV host Greta Van Susteren and a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, announced today that he was supporting John McCain for president. Coale, who traveled with Sen. Clinton, President Clinton and her family through out the primary season, complained of sexism, and said the Democratic Party is "being taken over by the moveon.org types" in an exclusive interview with Newsweek.com's Tammy Haddad.

There is also a tidbit about Hillary's borther meeting with McCain campaign surrogates. Could it be that there is something brewing in that direction?

Look out, Barry, the PUMAs are going to doom your sorry butt!

Posted by: Greg at 07:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Proof once again that the Houston Chronicle isn't a real newspaper doing real reporting.

Compare the article from the Chronicle to the article from the New York Post.

Interestingly enough, the Chronicle reporters managed to leave out this little tidbit from Irreverend Wright.

“This ordinary boy [Obama] just might be the first president in the history of the United States to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania legally,” Wright said, referring to Michelle Obama, in a sermon at the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston.

Nah, nothing controversial about that. Nothing outrageous there. Let's leave it out of the article -- it doesn't reflect at all on Wright's message or the iconic black congregation that hosted him.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 04:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the most disgusting attacks on Sarah Palin and her family was the accusation that she is not really the mother of little Trig, but that she is actually his grandmother and she (her family, her staff, her doctors, the hospital personnel, news media, and who knows who else) were covering up the pregnancy of her oldest daughter.

It wasn't just the KOSsacks and DUmmies who were involved -- allegedly respectable folks like Andrew Sullivan were repeating the story, to the point it got picked up by the Times of London. Not only that, but reliably "pro-choice" commentators like Sullivan and Alan Colmes even decided it was within their purview to question her choices regarding pre-natal care, intruding in what they always claim is a supposedly sacred space between a woman and her doctor.

Well, let's settle the pregnancy question for you right now.

Fits pretty well with this entry from a non-political blog site, dated last April.

So, can we now start getting retractions from all the liberals making such scurrilous charges? Will The Atlantic fire Andy Sullivan and FoxNews can Alan Colmes? After all, there was NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support the claims that came from the sewers of the left-wing blogosphere.

Funny -- wasn't it just a few weeks ago that we were told we couldn't "attack" the family members of the candidates, not even for the words they said in stump speeches they were giving as a surrogate for the candidate himself. Does that rule only apply to Michelle Obama -- but not Bristol Palin, whose only "misdeed" here was being her mother's daughter?

And remember -- this claim involved libeling a young woman who is not a public figure. I'm hoping to see some lawsuits fly here.

UPDATE 1: Someone at Daily Kos tries to debunk the fake story -- KOSsacks want that story deleted, but not the original libel of Sarah and Bristol Palin.

UPDATE 2: Some folks will note that the stamp on the original flickr photo is March 19, 2005, and that this means the photo is a fraud. There are some problems with this argument:
1. Palin was not pregnant in 2005.
2. Palin was not in office in 2005, and so would not have been interviewed in that location in 2005.
3. The camera in question was not released to the public until July, 2005 -- and its year setting defaults to 2005.

Best explanation -- the photo was taken March 19, 2008 (or thereabouts), and the year had not been properly reset by the user.

Lots of coverage around the net on the hateful anti-woman tactics of the deranged left of the blogosphere.

UPDATE 3: Well, one story ends, another begins -- Trig can't be Bristol's baby because she is five months pregnant now.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.

Want to bet that this doesn't satisfy the liberals, who will now demand a Taliban-style stoning of young Bristol for getting pregnant -- while those of us who are Christians will accept that the couple made a series of poor choices and are taking responsibility for them.

UPDATE 4: Bravo to the folks at Jawa Report for this gem:

Obama Camp Of Course Will Respect Bristol Palin

Lets see how "progressive" the liberals actually are. They can't condemn Bristol or the lovely Sarah when the great Barach has proudly and repeatedly described his mother "as a teenage mother, a single mother, a mother who worked, went to school and raised children at the same time."

It would be the height of hypocrisy for the leftards to make an issue of Bristol's pregnancy.

After all, Obama's parents got married after his mother was pregnant with Barack.

But given that the Left already attacked Bristol Palin and her mother with a completely unsupported (and now indusputably false) rumor already, I wouldn't be holding my breath for restraint now. Certainly the KOSsack commenters aren't showing much -- they are already playing the "litle slut" and "unfit mother" cards, as well as the "ignorant fundie" card. And Andrew Sullivan is still peddling the Trig is Bristol's kid story (no link -- he's lost his credibility).

UPDATE 5: How have conservative bloggers handled this story? Supportive of the Palins, especially Bristol. The most touching comes from Ed Morrissey of Hot Air:

Allahpundit has a great thread on the announcement from the Palins that their eldest daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.  Coincidentally, my daughter-in-law is at about the same point in her second pregnancy, and our second granddaughter will join our family at the end of the year.  When our first granddaughter, the Little Admiral, joined us, it was in a similar situation that Bristol and her fiancé now face.

The rest is quite moving -- you really do have to read it all. Morrissey touched me for two reasons:

• First his nod to those, like my wife and I, who will never have the joyful experience of having a child of our own. We who have found ourselves faced with miscarriages and infertility know that the birth of a baby in not a tragedy, but is instead a cause for joy.
  
• Second, because seventy-five years ago this past May, a young couple got married in their parish church in Rhode Island under similar circumstances. My mother, who will celebrate her 75th birthday next month, was born five months later. I thank God daily that all this happened four decades before Roe v. Wade.

Now will you tell me which side is tolerant and which is intolerant?

UPDATE 6: Gee, a sensible piece on the subject in Time.

UPDATE 7: I guess the Democrat faithful aren't listening to Barack Obama on this one -- John Cobarruvias, president of Houston's Bay Area New Democrats, KOSsack and NASA employee recently suspended for 180 days for illegal campaign and fundraising activity on behalf of Democrat state representative candidate Sherrie Matula, has decided to post this little gem on his site. Apparently even Democrat elected officials like John don't care that Obama says the kids are off limits.

Posted by: Greg at 04:06 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 1167 words, total size 10 kb.

1 laemv wyfc berpfg

Posted by: ovulation at Thu Dec 25 07:05:07 2008 (qnB7q)

2 rfiq

Posted by: springfield nj route 22 electronics at Thu Dec 25 23:21:14 2008 (wmbVm)

3 lbejrsp gvobumh vksem

Posted by: christmas at Fri Dec 26 01:51:24 2008 (nwnOL)

4 gmhanc ljtwqny

Posted by: christmas at Fri Dec 26 16:38:31 2008 (7KZm0)

5 scwj mxntue

Posted by: christmas at Fri Dec 26 20:12:55 2008 (aJtMA)

6 qxloj haygm spclzin nujwo

Posted by: of at Thu Jan 8 05:42:48 2009 (vKMII)

7 trmsaxf zfya

Posted by: of at Thu Jan 8 09:12:45 2009 (AxkoG)

8 eqlzn wxmlo tdheg

Posted by: hand painted jewelry box at Sun Jan 11 03:41:32 2009 (d/2tC)

9 egzpsr lvarudn lrgmnui

Posted by: bikini sexy woman at Tue Jan 13 03:55:11 2009 (cIXnk)

10 sxfnp rihw fxoklp maik

Posted by: texas hookah bar at Tue Jan 13 23:33:37 2009 (C4LcL)

11 wdjzgm lzof

Posted by: scrapbooking cricket at Wed Jan 14 00:15:26 2009 (1KUne)

12 bcfre ukjfio odcuvsk

Posted by: lucky ladys charms at Thu Jan 15 03:27:51 2009 (jLQb5)

13 lauxk zciv zgceuop

Posted by: nebraska state laws concerning divorce at Fri Jan 16 00:56:09 2009 (FCbW2)

14 ndyv bgsay rnohpvx ajrpfyc

Posted by: buttonwood park - toledo ohio at Fri Jan 16 02:43:34 2009 (FD1/Q)

15 xfbku tmnkfvz ujqolb

Posted by: obama at Sat Jan 17 07:44:25 2009 (llndi)

16 bomi

Posted by: nanosun energy from sun at Mon Feb 9 05:23:35 2009 (AHeQi)

17 fsqpec

Posted by: in at Tue Feb 10 01:15:36 2009 (q6guD)

18 hrqi creb

Posted by: alaska at Tue Feb 10 02:12:59 2009 (lgTeA)

19 nctpak lcdtf lqfk

Posted by: kitchen at Tue Feb 10 02:38:39 2009 (pgvTf)

20 ipyb rtfkpwl mrbhk kmwub

Posted by: country at Tue Feb 10 05:07:15 2009 (mZyUI)

21 efzahs ufjb hevpqaw qblwrn

Posted by: cedar at Tue Feb 10 08:48:36 2009 (aes/f)

22 qsdyrtw rvbzpj wjdrces

Posted by: cheap at Tue Feb 10 09:57:44 2009 (srPnC)

23 gqixc sduwtv

Posted by: supplies at Tue Feb 10 12:20:38 2009 (lIINV)

24 rsnypc

Posted by: siding at Tue Feb 10 12:46:42 2009 (/Li+y)

25 kwepb nxau

Posted by: tips at Tue Feb 10 13:41:36 2009 (mPQWB)

26 ioax gicd

Posted by: hairstyles at Wed Feb 11 10:29:26 2009 (0CgJ5)

27 frznasi jezvr qsmwyx qzjm

Posted by: tv at Wed Feb 11 10:45:42 2009 (OprUy)

28 pywqm wpsejlz rguxwq bjxta

Posted by: short at Wed Feb 11 13:57:28 2009 (uWSEh)

29 rqyeb niusyxw gvnh zvxpd

Posted by: home at Wed Feb 11 23:19:15 2009 (866pc)

30 pjomdg

Posted by: cheap at Thu Feb 12 00:38:27 2009 (eH14w)

31 lvbsgeo hlbys qugxaid

Posted by: car cleaning domain thefreedictionary.co at Thu Feb 12 10:47:55 2009 (ZL0Ne)

32 uxwvpja

Posted by: cleaning jacuzzi bath tub at Thu Feb 12 11:02:34 2009 (4o97I)

33 lkzwyv

Posted by: how at Fri Feb 13 04:34:16 2009 (oHeaM)

34 pvkax

Posted by: bedroom at Fri Feb 13 04:49:12 2009 (hbTeW)

35 sdkv

Posted by: assistance at Fri Feb 13 06:41:56 2009 (tN34R)

36 qogs

Posted by: outdoor at Fri Feb 13 07:46:53 2009 (ltWVq)

37 zwtfg yrvuoqh dqgip

Posted by: of at Fri Feb 13 10:45:02 2009 (9BaFn)

38 jvmeb vjbra raublmf

Posted by: outdoor at Fri Feb 13 11:29:40 2009 (ejsq+)

39 gmin zjlqyxv lbvycij qktjn

Posted by: sears at Thu Feb 19 00:26:37 2009 (1ZXzB)

40 vayrhi

Posted by: fiber at Tue Feb 24 10:39:39 2009 (UXtGs)

41 uhfirb

Posted by: class ideas for scrapbooking at Wed Mar 4 00:05:21 2009 (eCdk0)

42 onbq sdqmr hvmy

Posted by: stickers scrapbooking catalogs at Wed Mar 4 00:14:09 2009 (+k9v2)

43 Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me buy elavil online, jysjvn, avandia, prior, glucophage, ^o, lasix online, dark, flomax, kpajko, But I think this one is good.

Posted by: URL at Fri May 22 02:32:27 2009 (dvuRs)

44 Cool, buy zetia online, metropolitan, buy zovirax online, endless, buy elavil, horrible, buy avandia online, theoretical, norvasc, important, You should have done this long time ago.

Posted by: Home at Fri May 22 03:55:22 2009 (XOkZI)

45 Your post seem a little cynical, how come ? buy avandia online, royal, buy lasix, intermediate, zovirax online, rxaggeu, buy norvasc, static, imitrex online, njfaomc, Keep us posted and good luck!!

Posted by: Go at Fri May 22 04:47:32 2009 (XOkZI)

46 let go to blogging avandia, ukyclqv, flomax, aiuxtyy, zovirax online, ocpaxps, lasix, wgpikk, imitrex online, valuable, Keep it up!

Posted by: Visit at Fri May 22 04:50:45 2009 (aiqtT)

47 Is it? I don't think so. glucophage online, rldwjt, buy zetia online, anxious, buy lasix online, amused, buy elavil online, excited, buy flomax online, alone, Please let us know.

Posted by: Homepage at Fri May 22 10:50:31 2009 (XOkZI)

48 Oh yeah. discount acomplia, lpqkpo, cheap lamisil, lpqkpo, zithromax, puny, nexium, namcam, cheap celebrex, hbdmupa, Awesome! Good feeling to be all done!

Posted by: Home at Fri May 22 11:35:44 2009 (aiqtT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We get to see another example of the civilized customs of the Religion of Peace.

A Pakistani lawmaker defended a decision by northwestern tribesmen to bury five women alive because they wanted to choose their own husbands, telling stunned members of Parliament to spare him their outrage.

"These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, told The Associated Press Saturday.

"Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

The women, three of whom were teenagers, were first shot and then thrown into a ditch.

They were still breathing as mud was shoveled over their bodies, according to media reports, which said their only "crime" was that they wished to marry men of their own choosing.

Such honor killings are common in all Islamic societies -- and regularly take place in western countries (including the US) in order to uphold Islamic teachings on the submissiveness of women.

Of course, it isn't just women they want to submit to be submissive. We non-Muslims are supposed to submit to Islam, too.

Councillors have been ordered not to eat during town hall meetings while Muslim colleagues fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

All elected members at Left-wing Tower Hamlets Council in East London have been sent an email asking them to follow strict Islamic fasting during September no matter what their faith.

As well as restricting food and drink until after sunset, the authority's leaders have decided to reduce the number of meetings throughout the month so they do not clash with the requirements of Ramadan.

Here's hoping that the non-Muslim councilors show up with ham and bacon sandwiches as a pointed reminder that non-Muslims are not bound by the requirements of Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Now these are the same folks who argue that Obama's preacher screaming "God damn America" doesn't matter, and that the publication of terrorist propaganda in his church's newsletter shouldn't reflect poorly on him. But somehow they want to make these statements into something that should cause someone to look askance at Sarah Palin.

Mike Rose, senior pastor at Juneau Christian Center

• From an April 27, 2008 sermon: “If you really want to know where you came from and happen to believe the word of God that you are not a descendant of a chimpanzee, this is what the word of God says. I believe this version.”
  
• From a July 8, 2007 sermon: “Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise.”
  
• From a July 28, 2007 sermon: “Do you believe weÂ’re in the last days? After listening to Newt Gingrich and the prime minister of Israel and a number of others at our gathering, I became convinced, and I have been convinced for some time. We are living in the last days. These are incredible times to live in.”

Now let's consider Pastor Rose's statements.

The first, on evolution, isn't one that troubles me even though I think it is wrong. Within Christianity, there is a healthy range of opinion on the issue of human origins, from out-and-out creationism to various forms of Intelligent Design to unquestioning acceptance of evolution with the Genesis accounts being seen as an allegory. Indeed, Pastor Rose's position is what Christians generally have accepted for most of the history of Christianity, and so I'm not terribly troubled -- even though I consider him to be wrong. And especially since Palin has clearly stated her support for teaching evolution, this does not reflect upon her in any significant way.

The second shouldn't surprise anyone. This is a pretty standard interpretation of the words of Christ himself -- "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And while theological debate exists on what (if any) provisions God makes for those who have never heard the Gospel preached, I'm not familiar with any orthodox Christian body that denies this essential truth of Christianity. Why this would be seen as scandalous by the writers is beyond me.

The third? We Christians are called to always be prepared for the return of Christ. The Bible offers clues as to what that will look like -- but also tells us that no one knows the day or the hour. I don't find the kind of speculation Rose engages in to be theologically or spiritually fruitful -- but I fail to see how such a belief would disqualify someone from holding public office.

David Pepper, senior pastor at Church on the Rock:

• From an November 25, 2007 sermon: “The purpose for the United States isÂ… to glorify God. This nation is a Christian nation.”
  
• From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “God will not be mocked. I donÂ’t care what the ACLU says. God will not be mocked. I donÂ’t care what atheists say. God will not be mocked. I donÂ’t care whatÂ’s going on in the nation today with so much horrific rebellion and sin and things that take place. God will not be mocked. Judgment Day is coming. Where do you stand?”
  
• From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “Just giving in a little bit is a disastrous thingÂ…You canÂ’t serve both man and God. It is one or the other.”

Okay, let's look at the highlighted quotes from Pastor Pepper.

I'll break the first one in half. After all, Scripture clearly tells us that the purpose of all creation is to glorify God, so no one should find that part troubling. The second part, about America as a Christian nation, again should not be terribly troubling -- it recognizes the reality that from the very founding of the earliest Spanish, French, British colonies upon this continent, America has been a nation with an over-whelmingly Christian heritage, made up overwhelmingly of Christians. Our heritage is springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition contained in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Our heritage is not Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist -- America is historically,culturally and religiously, if not constitutionally, a Christian nation.

The second one should not even raise an eyebrow. "God will not be mocked." Judgment Day is coming." You call that controversial and extreme? You would have to be an absolute ninny with no knowledge of Christian theology to be taken aback by a preacher saying such things.

The third should be even less surprising. For a Christian, God comes first. Duh.

So I have to ask a question. Why highlight these quotes as in any way controversial? What is the agenda here?

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm not a Bill Maher fan.

I've never found him to be particularly insightful or funny.

And now he has put this horrific image in my head.

I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him too much. I don't think he thinks that he's all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him....It's embarrassing.

A three-way between Olbermann, Matthews, and Obama?

I may be turned off for life.

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

While the Dems are on the attack against the GOP vice presidential candidate on experience, there is one obvious comeback.

More executive experience. More experience on the energy issue.

Pro-life. Pro-gun. Pro-defense. Anti-terrorist. Anti-earmark. anti-corruption.

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, that is the assessment made of Sarah Palin by a number of historians.

Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.

So unconventional was McCain’s choice that it left students of the presidency literally “stunned,” in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency. “Being governor of a small state for less than two years is not consistent with the normal criteria for determining who’s of presidential caliber,” said Goldstein.

“I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.

Interestingly enough, both Goldstein and Dallek, along with the rest of the scholars quoted in the article, share a certain common denominator -- all but one of them are Democrat donors, and the remaining scholar is a former speechwriter for a major Democrat Party figure!

After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

Odd, isn't it, that the "objective media" managed to find not a single Republican-leaning scholar of the presidency to talk to or quote. I don't know about you, but it looks like a partisan hit piece to me, wih the conclusion drawn before the first question was asked.

Oh, and I like Don' Surber's observation.

Question: Do scholars question her qualifications?

Answer: Of course: “Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.”

Question: Is it true?

Answer: It depends on whether you think LincolnÂ’s one term in Congress was more experience than being a mayor and a governor.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

For all that Pat Buchanan has been trying to assist the Jew-baiting, Hamas-supporting wing of the Democrats by claiming she was a big donor and organizer to his 1996 campaign.

Because, you see, she is on record as backing another candidate in 2000.

The McCain campaign says that instead of supporting Buchanan -- or even McCain -- in 2000, Palin actually supported Steve Forbes.

And indeed, another AP story from August 7, 1999 -- one month after the Buchanan trip to Wasilla -- states that joining state sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks on the Forbes campaign's Alaska "leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs."

When combined with the fact that there is no record of even a single donation to Pat Buchanan by Palin or any family member, the fact that not even one Buchanan campaign press release or news story reports on her being in any way involved with the Buchanan campaign, the evidence is clear -- Sarah Palin was never part of Pitchfork Pat's Buchanan Brigades in any capacity, and wore that button only as a courtesy to a visiting candidate of her party.

And if wearing that button for a couple of hours makes Palin an anti-Semite unacceptable to Jews, how ought Barack Obama's two decades of membership at a church where anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist sentiments were spewed from the pulpit and printed in church publications be treated?

H/T Soccer Dad

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, only if you look at the evidence.

LGF has the report on a website claiming that Palin supports gay marriage.

In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.

host sarahpalingayrights.com

sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232

Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.

host 74.208.74.232

232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com

Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?

And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browserÂ’s address line?

Why, youÂ’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site thatÂ’s supposed to be defending him against smears.

Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.

Don't believe that? Enter 74.208.74.232 in your address bar in the browser and see where it takes you. You'll find it is FightTheSmears.com -- a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign, as mentioned above.

No way this is a coincidence.

Either this is an intentional smear by the Obama campaign -- or someone on the Obama campaign is misappropriating the campaign's resources to set up the website. Either way, this move is likely illegal.

Posted by: Greg at 08:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Which really seems to be a tempest in a teapot, since under Alaska law and the Alaska Constitution, she has the right to fire a political appointee for any reason -- or no reason at all.

But let's consider what the controversy is about.

The first serious scandal in Gov. Sarah Palin's administration has roots in a family feud. It erupted into public view with the July 11 firing of the state's top public safety official.

Some call it Troopergate.

Palin's abrupt dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan is now being investigated by a special counsel hired by the Alaska Legislature as to whether there was any official misconduct.

* * *

At issue is whether Palin, her administration or family improperly pressured Monegan to fire Alaska state trooper Michael Wooten, the ex-husband of Palin's sister, and whether Palin fired Monegan when that didn't happen. Palin's sister, Molly McCann, and Wooten are divorced but still battling in court over custody and visitation.

Now what this comes down to is a "he said/she said" dispute between Gov. Palin and a disgruntled political appointee she fired. And Palin has laid out a case for the firing that seems compelling to me.

Monegan was a Palin appointee, and she had a right to fire him for any reason. She's previously refused to say exactly why she got rid of him, but laid out several reasons Wednesday, saying she's decided to talk about it because Monegan is.

Palin said he wasn't doing enough to fill state trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues. She said he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."

Palin said it's fine to have debates during cabinet meetings over the budget but Monegan went further and indicated to legislators she wasn't proposing enough spending. Palin's acting chief of staff, Mike Nizich, said Monegan asked legislators for spending that hadn't been authorized by the governor.

"The response he got was don't come to us and ask for more money when you cannot fill the 56 or 58 trooper positions that were vacant," Nizich said. "So he was making a pitch for additional funding when he couldn't even fill what he currently had available to him."

All of which, frankly, makes this a tempest in a teapot in my eyes -- right there is your good cause for the firing. Especially since no one other than Monegan has made a claim (much less presented evidence) that Palin herself placed any undue pressure on him to fire Wooten. And the calls by Todd Palin to Monegan? Seems they were made at the direction of the head of the governor's security detain -- because he saw Wooten as constituting a threat to the governor he is tasked with protecting.

Oh, by the way, what is Wooten alleged to have done that might have been grounds to fire him? is this just a case of trying to ruin her sister's ex-husband out of spite?

No, it isn't -- as official records released by the troopers' union at Wooten's request clearly demonstrates.

On July 17, the Public Safety Employees Association, with Wooten's permission, released the investigative file concerning the complaints brought against the trooper by the Palins, Palin's father and others.

The internal personnel investigation began in April 2005, long before Palin became governor and months before her October 2005 announcement that she was running. The investigation into Wooten wrapped up in March 2006.

Troopers found four instances in which Wooten violated policy, broke the law, or both:

- Wooten used a Taser on his stepson

- He shot a moose without a permit, which is illegal. At the time he was married to McCann, who has a permit but never intended to shoot it herself.

- He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

- He told others that his father-in-law - Palin's father, Chuck Heath - would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

Drinking (presumably when on duty) while in a patrol car? Hunting illegally? Assault on a 10-year-old with a Taser? Threatening to murder a parent for helping his daughter get a lawyer -- a right guaranteed by both the US and Alaska constitutions? And all he got was a 10-day suspension, cut in half after union officials protested that punishment as too harsh? Would somebody tell me why this man is even walking the streets, much less wearing a uniform and carrying a badge? Why were there no criminal charges brought -- especially over the assault on the kid?

And let's not forget that these are just the charges confirmed by the state police. That doesn't get into the claims of restraining orders he violated, possible other incidents of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and the domestic abuse of Palin's sister. Trooper Wooten seems like a mighty unstable character to me -- a true menace to society with a gun and a badge.

For more details, see what is clearly the internet's definitive post on the issue, over at Flopping Aces.

But the reality is that the evidence really doesn't support the charge that Palin herself did anything wrong -- but even if it did, wouldn't a reasonable person see it as simple over-zealousness based upon a concern for public safety?

After all, let's consider a hypothetical alternative.

Suppose, just for a minute, that no one in the Palin administration or family said anything about Wooten after Sarah Palin became governor.

Six months or a year from now, Wooten shoots someone, wrecks a patrol car while drunk, abuses another kid or gets busted for other serious illegal activity.

Wouldn't Palin's opponents then ask "Knowing what she knew, why didn't Gov. Palin do more to get rid of this cop who she knew to be unstable and dangerous?"

I know I would -- and I've been mentioning her as an attractive choice for VP (and possible future presidential candidate) for about six months now.

So if anyone erred in this case, I'm glad that they have erred on the side of protecting the public from a rogue cop with a history of violence and threats of violence against the innocent.

H/T Hot Air, Wizbang, Strata-Sphere, Victorious Opposition

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, , Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, , Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, Cao's Blog, , NN&V, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, , Beagle Scout, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1151 words, total size 11 kb.

I think I may have found an over-privileged, over-paid, super-rich class that needs to be socked with higher taxes -- whiny liberal celebrities with private jets.

Take this story about Diddy and the privations he is upset about facing.

Fuel prices have grounded an unexpected frequent-flyer: Diddy.

Sean "Diddy" Combs complained about the "... too high" price of gas and pleaded for free oil from his "Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters" in a YouTube video posted Wednesday. The hip-hop mogul said he is now flying on commercial airlines instead of in private jets, which Combs said had previously cost him $200,000 and up for a roundtrip between New York and Los Angeles.

"I'm actually flying commercial," Diddy said before walking onto an airplane, sitting in a first-class seat and flashing his boarding pass to the camera. "That's how high gas prices are. I'm at the gate right now. This is really happening, proof gas prices are too high. Tell whoever the next president is we need to bring gas prices down."

I'd like to address a few words to the semi-talented Pee Diddly-squat:

I'm sure I speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans when I say "Big f*ckin' deal!"

The horror of it all -- you have to fly commercial with all of us plebeians? Let me guess -- they made you go through airport security just like a normal human being, too. The utter humiliation of being told "shoes off, empty your pockets, open that bag, sir" -- instead of avoiding all that by taking a private jet from a private terminal where you don't have to be bothered with such things!

Listen, you arrogant, elitist douchebag, that is how the rest of America lives -- when we can afford to get on a plane at all. After seven years without setting foot on an airplane at all, I've actually flown three times this year -- once to visit my mother-in-law when she became critically ill, then again to bury her two weeks later. The third trip was to see my parents for the first time in eight years. Only once -- when a fluke with my dad's frequent flier program made it cost fewer miles than flying economy -- did we have the luxury of flying in first class where there are still meals, drinks are free, and you even get a hot towel to wash up. So forgive me if I don't feel your pain about not being able to afford $200K private jet flights.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Let's see if I get the logic of the Obama supporters.

Obama has no executive, foreign policy, or national security credentials -- but he's ready to lead from day one.

Palin has executive experience, including being head of her states National Guard and leading the only state that borders on TWO foreign countries (Canada and Russia) -- but she shouldn't be VP because of a lack of experience in case of John McCain's hypothetical demise.

Am I the only one who sees a logical disconnect there?

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

O Wondrous Lightworker, in light of your record as a legislator and public statements during the campaign, would you please enlighten the people of this great nation on the following two questions.

1) Given the fact that Sarah Palin's youngest child has Down Syndrome, do you believe that the governor and her husband were "punished with a baby"?

2) If, at the last minute, Gov. Palin had decided that she did not want the baby, should it have been legally permissible to allow him to die unattended in a linen closet in order to preserve a woman's "right to choose"?

Americans want to know -- some more than others.

UPDATE: Looks like the Libbies are in an uproar that someone at the RNC suggested running with a similar comment from Rush Limbaugh. Given Obama's staunchly pro-abortion and pro-infanticide record, I don't see the problem with Limbaugh's comment or the staffer's suggestion -- unless your objection is that it is truthful information that would be bad for Obama.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, , Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, , Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, Cao's Blog, , NN&V, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Political Byline, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, , and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 6 kb.

We all know that the general climate at the Daily Kos alternates between hatefully deranged and derangedly hateful on a second by second basis, but the mouth-frothing over the selection of Sarah Palin is astounding, even by Kos standards.

Take this attempt to impose a religious test for public office.

No less than the official newsletter of the Assemblies of God of Alaska promotes her proudly as one of the denomination's own, and she was actually feted at an official function of the Assemblies' Alaska District as recently as this year....

Got that, folks -- membership in one of the fastest-growing Christian denominations in America is a dangerous association that is so far outside of the realm of acceptability that she should be defeated at all costs.

And then there is this smear not just of Sarah Palin, but also of one of her daughters, on the flimsiest of evidence.

But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.

The evidence? Claims that she never looked fat enough to be pregnant -- something that might be attributed to her rather strenuous exercise regiment that often includes runs of 7-10 miles. So of course, it must mean that her daughter got knocked up, right KOSsacks?

Anybody know if this would be actionable in a court as libel against the daughter? After all, she most definitely is NOT a public figure -- but they post pictures of her and claim she was pregnant out of wedlock anyway.

And then there is a whole host of other sewage over there, all attempting to destroy Sarah Palin as a human being, not just as a candidate.

I'm curious, will any of the high-profile Democrat officeholders who post at Daily Kos demand an apology and retractions from Markos Moulitis? Will Kos Diarist Rick "I apologize for Texas" Noriega, the Texas Democrat running for US Senate, finally disassociate himself with the dregs of his party?

Americans with moral decency want to know.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

Since I've been speaking highly of her for the last six months, you can imagine how ecstatic I am over this development!

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain introduced his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at a raucous rally Friday, praising her "tenacity" and "skill" in tackling tough problems.

"She is exactly who this country needs to help us fight the same old Washington politics of me first and country second," McCain told supporters in Dayton.

Palin, who becomes the first woman to serve on a GOP presidential ticket and the first Alaskan to appear on a national ticket, echoed McCain's appeal to battle the status quo in Washington.

Conservative. Pro-life. Pro-gun. Pro-drilling. A reformer who fights corruption. Exactly the sort of person we need at the highest level of the GOP on the national stage -- and one of the best picks I could have imagined McCain making.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

The Anchoress has this, via Althouse.

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS: Did this Gulfstream private jet, going from Anchorage, AK to Hook Field Municipal Airport, near Dayton, OH (scene of tomorrowÂ’s Republican VP announcement) carry Governor Palin? Track the flight via Flight Aware.

Well, we'll know in a few hours. But it would certainly make me very happy -- and would be the most pro-life pick McCain could make.

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

You know, over an offensive artistic insult to our religion?

An Italian museum on Thursday defied Pope Benedict and refused to remove a modern art sculpture portraying a crucified green frog holding a beer mug and an egg that the Vatican had condemned as blasphemous.

The board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano decided by a majority vote that the frog was a work of art and would stay in place for the remainder of an exhibition.

The wooden sculpture by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger depicts a frog about 1 metre 30 cm (4 feet) high nailed to brown cross and holding a beer mug in one outstretched hand and an egg in another.

Called "Zuerst die Fuesse," (Feet First), it wears a green loin cloth and is nailed through the hands and the feet in the manner of Jesus Christ. Its green tongue hangs out of its mouth.

I find the work to be both offensive and blasphemous. But I'm not going to embark on a campaign of senseless violence over it. neither are other followers of Christ.

After all, we are not Muslims.

I'm curious, though -- would the artist as readily depict Muhammad holding a beer and a bacon sandwich, perhaps while molesting his child-bride Aisha? If not, why not?

Would it be because they have greater respect for the faith of the false prophet?

Or just that they recognize that involvement with such an artistic project would significantly shorten their life expectancy?

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

And it would appear that the falsehoods and distortions Barry Hussein spewed at his Nuremburg Rally would make him appear to be a pathological liar on a Clintonian scale.

ARLINGTON, VA Â– Tonight, the McCain campaign issued the following statement from Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, on Barack ObamaÂ’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harmÂ’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”

BARACK OBAMAÂ’S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS

MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· NPR’s Juan Williams: Barack Obama “Doesn’t Have The Record” Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there’s John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn’t have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn’t have the record.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 5/7/0

· Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPp2usgY6Y

· The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen: “There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically.” “Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “McCain’s Core Advantage,” The Washington Post, 6/24/0

· Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “He’s pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being ‘post-partisan?’” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama’s Third Way: It’s All In The Tone,” Politico, 6/30/0

· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion.” “Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.’” (Tim Talley, “Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse,” The Associated Press, 6/10/0

· “The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …” (Editorial, “Obama’s Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?” USA Today, 1/28/0

· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/0

· In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/0

· In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 1/27/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have “The Equipment They Need In Battle.” OBAMA: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)

MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: “These challenges are not all of governmentÂ’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. Â… But the recordÂ’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I donÂ’t know about you, but IÂ’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush “For The Most Part.” REPORTER: “For a couple of days, they’ve been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that’s going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?” OBAMA: “I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I’ve been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there.” (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/0

· Watch Barack Obama’s KMOV Interview

· The New York Times‘ David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are “Just Factually Inaccurate.” “Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Calling Dr. Doom,” The New York Times, 6/3/0

NewsweekÂ’s Michael Hirsh: “As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq.” “In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on ‘Law and Order,Â’ John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to ‘IraqificationÂ’ Â– that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam ‘if we lose popular support in the United States.Â’ The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. ‘I read y our speech,Â’ harrumphed Rumsfeld (that ‘must have been an enjoyable experience for him,Â’ McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They ‘believed there was no need for additional troops,Â’ McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. ‘IÂ’d like to see the president fully engaged,Â’ McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of ‘more details of whatÂ’s going on.Â’ As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about BushÂ’s current Â’surg eÂ’ is that if it had occurred back then Â– when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years Â– it might well have succeeded.” (Michael Hirsh, “Why McCainÂ’s Collapse Matters,” Newsweek, 7/26/07)

· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)

· John McCain Is “Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush” On Climate Change. “On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush’s re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration’s stance ‘terribly disappointing.’ McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming.” (William March, “McCain Bucks Ties To Bush,” The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes WeÂ’ve Made “Great Progress” And Families ArenÂ’t Hurting. OBAMA: “He said that our economy has made ‘great progressÂ’ under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is “Misleading” And “Distorts” John McCainÂ’s Words. “The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: ‘[T]hereÂ’s been great progress economically.Â’ The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. Â… McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during BushÂ’s time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldnÂ’t be enough to comfort families ‘facing these tremendous economic challenges.Â’ His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites ‘challenging timesÂ’ and ‘enormous difficulties.Â’ The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.” (DÂ’Angelo Gore, “Distorting McCainÂ’s Remarks,” FactCheck.org, 8/19/0

· In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In “Tough Times” And Families Are Facing “Tremendous Economic Challenges.” BloombergÂ’s Peter Cook: “IÂ’m going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” McCain: “Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether theyÂ’re going to be able to keep their home or not. TheyÂ’re figuring out whether theyÂ’re Â– why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. ThereÂ’s no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that thereÂ’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But thatÂ’s no comfort. ThatÂ’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of AmericaÂ’s economy are strong. WeÂ’re the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They havenÂ’t lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still Â– keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.” (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/0

· Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain’s Full Response: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WynLgJFBxSs

· ABC News: Barack Obama Proved “He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them” When He Cited The McCain Quote. “Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: ‘John McCain went on television and said that there has “been great progress economically” over the last seven and a half years.’ Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain’s Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is ‘no comfort’ to struggling families.” (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, “Obama Twists McCain On Economy,” ABC News, 4/18/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why IÂ’ve laid out how IÂ’ll pay for every dime Â– by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that donÂ’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less Â– because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama: “I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013.” “‘I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,’ Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/0

· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has “No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending.” “Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending.” (Editorial, “Failure Of Nerve,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/0

· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/0

· The National Journal’s John Maggs: “[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/0

· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of” His Proposals. “The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do.” (Peter Nicholas, “Adding Up The Cost Of Obama’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/8/0

· The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: “And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· The Detroit News: Barack Obama’s Energy Plan Will “Do Nothing To Answer The Nation’s Long-Term Needs.” “The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama’s energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they’ll do nothing to answer the nation’s long-term needs.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism,” The Detroit News, 8/5/0

· The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. “When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. ‘It’s an idea to get them through an election,’ Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/0

· Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/0

· Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/0

· Barack Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/0

· Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/0

· Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/0

· The Washington Post: Barack ObamaÂ’s Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To “Higher Prices At The Pump.” “But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump Â– thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/0

MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes Â– cut taxes Â– for 95% of all working families.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/0

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. Â… But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, thatÂ’s not actually how income taxes work. We donÂ’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.Â’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy CenterÂ’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.Â’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/0

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/0

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/0

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/0

###

It must suck to be Barack Obama. After all, he isn't qualified for the job he is seeking. He does, however, combine the failed policies of Jimmy Carter with the finger-wagging sanctimony of Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 3993 words, total size 28 kb.

Over at Patterico's Pontifications, WLS notes that eight years as president would be the longest time that Barack Obama has held the same full-time job.

After Columbia he spent a year in a New York business, a year in a NY non-profit, and then headed to Chicago where he spent 3 years as a “community organizer.”

Then he went to law school, returning to Chicago in 1991. He did some community organizing, then was an associate for a Chicago law firm for three years. After that he was to the State Senate - a part time legislature — and served as a lecturer at the Univ. of Chicago law school — another part-time gig. He was involved in a variety of community organizations during this period.

His Senate seat is the first full-time job he has had since his law firm days — but he’s only been in that job for 4 years.

So, serving 8 years at POTUS would be his longest stint in any position of full-time employment in his life.

And notice, please, that little of his work experience really prepares him to be a competent president -- no executive experience, and no significant involvement with foreign policy or defense matters.

Which is why this quote from Obama's speech at last night's Nuremberg Rally at Invesco Field is particularly amusing.

“If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”

Record, Senator? What record? You have accomplished nothing of significance in your life except for a couple of good speeches, a pair of over-rated books, and getting yourself nominated for a job that is well above your pay grade.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

Based upon what Erick Erickson is hearing from his inside sources.

I'm confident enough to put this up now, but willing to be wrong.

Right now though, every sign, signal, and background chatter indicates John McCain will pick Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's governor, as his running mate.

UPDATE: A source close to the campaign now confirms for me that it "more likely than not" is Pawlenty. He does, however, caution me that the campaign does not actually want to leak tonight lest the Obama camp get too much of a chance to play the victim card with a sympathetic media.

Below the fold, I've compiled data on Pawlenty that you might find useful.

I've said it repeatedly in recent weeks -- Tim Pawlenty is not a bad choice in my book. And I have one friend who will be absolutely floating on air if this is true -- his family and the Pawlenty family have been friends going back as far as he can remember.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Hit the companies that employ illegal aliens and the executives who run them where they hurt.

The Shipley Do-Nut Co. president pleaded guilty today — and three current and former managers are expected to enter pleas next week — to charges stemming from an April immigration raid, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced.

Company President Lawrence Shipley III pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith to a misdemeanor charge of employing undocumented workers. He was sentenced to six months' probation and a $6,000 fine.

Shipley, 41, has served as president of the Shipley Do-Nut Flour and Supply Co. since March 2005.

The criminal inquiry into the company began on April 16, with a predawn raid at the headquarters and warehouse complex on Houston's north side. Investigators reported that more than 40 percent of the company's employees were in this country illegally.

U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle said this afternoon that company officials have agreed to pay $1.3 million in lieu of the federal government's confiscating various company-owned residences where undocumented workers were housed.

Others charged with hiring illegal immigrants were Christopher Halsey, 36, the company's warehouse supervisor; former warehouse manager Jimmy Rivera, 54; and current warehouse manager Julian Garcia, 38.

The three are expected to appear before a federal magistrate on Sept. 5.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of six months

Did you get that? This is going to cost the company $1.3 million in cash. That's a lot of donuts, folks. My only complaint is that it isn't more, and that the jail time and fines aren't more substantial.

Now if only we would see this done in every case where we see round-ups of the border-jumping immigration criminals who steal American jobs. After all, the employers are every bit as guilty as the aliens in most instances.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Glad to see it -- Kent is scum.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent was indicted Thursday on charges of abusive sexual contact and attempted aggravated sexual abuse, making him the first federal judge to be charged with federal sex crimes and the first in Texas to be indicted in recent history.

The federal criminal investigation was launched in November 2007 after Kent's former case manager, Cathy McBroom, complained that the judge physically touched her under her clothing twice and and often made obscene suggestions during the six years she worked for him.

In the indictment, he is accused of various sexual contacts "with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade... "

Frankly, I don't care that he is a Republican, and that this could lead to his removal from the bench. A man with any decency or moral fiber would have already resigned -- but then again, such a man wouldn't have engaged in such behavior.

And while this could potentially lead to his replacement by a liberal Democrat if Obama were to win the election, I think that cleansing the federal bench of this stain is more important.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Just a little reminder about what McCain has sacrificed on behalf of his country.

On the other hand, what has Barry Hussein sacrificed on behalf of America?

* * *

On the other hand, Obama did get his home and an extra chunk of land in a corrupt deal involving a campaign contributor and political insider later convicted of political corruption.

Why, then, does Barack Obama begrudge John McCain the right to live the American Dream?

H/T Hot Air

UPDATE: A different perspective -- including an ugly possible motivation behind the ad -- from The Next Right.

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the neat things at this year's state convention was our choice of three articulate under-30 delegates/alternates from CD22 to represent us at the convention. One of those, Trey Stinnett, will be blogging the convention for us.

But he's seeking some financial assistance to defray the convention costs, estimated to be some $5000 for him and his parents (traveling as his guests).

If you can, consider dropping a few bucks in the kitty to help out this fine young man, who I believe to be one of the rising stars in the GOP in our area and the state of Texas as a whole.

Here's the letter he sent out to local GOP activists.

Friends,

The time is here. The 2008 Republican National Convention is upon us. As I make final arrangements to head out to Minnesota, I find myself more excited than I have ever been about any singular event. These next days will mark some of the most significant in my life. I am proud to go to Minneapolis representing Congressional District 22 from the great state of Texas, the Houston Young Republicans, the youth of our nation, and most importantly, representing Christ.

As I promised at the RPT Convention, I have put up a blog that I will post to frequently during the events of next week: in detail, with images. You can keep up with all that is going on in the twin cities from my perspective by going to the link provided below. IÂ’m also raising money to help defray some of the expense of the trip there as well. In addition, you may also receive updates in your email (sans some content and images.) Just follow the links below

All in all, I know this will be a great event as we gather to nominate Sen. John McCain, the next president of these United States. Thousands of like-minded, principled men and women coming together to celebrate what it means to be a Republican, and what it means to be an American.

Check out his bio here -- you'll be quite impressed at what this 23-year-old has accomplished in his life and his record of involvement.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

If that's the case, every Texan has a compelling reason to oppose his candidacy for any office -- and to send him packing to some other state where his liberal views would make him more comfortable.

After all, my fellow Texans, this is what Slick Rick the Kos Diarist has to say about our state when he travels out of cash seeking the funds Texans won't give him.

Being a Texan today, Mr. Noriega said, means always having to say you're sorry.

"I immediately feel compelled to just apologize to all of you," Mr. Noriega told high-rollers who flocked to the elegant Brown Palace Hotel to hear pleas for donations from about a dozen Democratic senatorial hopefuls.

In other words, he is ready and willing to trash our state in order to get cash from out-of-state liberal donors who don't believe in the same things Texans do. Why would we want a Senator who does not love this state as much as we do? This comment is one more compelling reason for Texans to back John Cornyn.

Oh, and about that event he attended -- one of the attendees was John Edwards' bagman, Frank Baron (who is, I'm sorry to say, a Texan), the guy who is under investigation for paying hush money to Edwards' baby-mama, Rielle Hunter. Oh, and where cops assaulted and arrested an ABC reporter trying to document the trail of sleazy cash flowing into the coffers of the DSCC and DNC.

H/T Urban Grounds, JohnCornyn.com

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

But where, exactly?

New Orleans, maybe.

National Guard troops stood ready and batteries and water bottles sold briskly as the New Orleans area watched as a storm marched across the Caribbean on the eve of Hurricane Katrina's third anniversary.

With forecasters warning that Gustav could strengthen and slam into the Gulf Coast as a major hurricane, a New Orleans still recovering from Hurricane Katrina's devastating hit drew up evacuation plans.

Since Louisiana has a competent governor this time around, it appears that the state and the city will be ready to deal with whatever comes their way.

Of course, it could still head for Houston -- so I may yet have to bug out.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.