You had two tickets. You arrived as a part of a party of three at the White House CorrespondentÂ’s Dinner, and threw a tantrum over the matter. My favorite line of the night? This one, uttered regarding the security guard dispatched to deal with her attempted crashing of the party.

‘Does he even know who the f— I am?’

Maybe he did, Megan, and maybe he didnÂ’t. But I think I speak for an awful lot of Americans when I say that he probably didnÂ’t care. I know that I sure donÂ’t.

Posted by: Greg at 12:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever since I started working in politics, I have had a simple rule – if I don’t believe in a candidate, I don’t work for him/her. If I lose faith in a candidate, I quit working for the campaign. Most folks I’ve dealt with in the GOP operate on the same sort of principle.

Apparently the Democrats operate differently.

ABC contributor George Will suggested former Sen. John Edwards was irresponsible to campaign for the Democratic Party nomination.
"Think about what a tragedy it would have been if he had won?" Will said.
I've talked to a lot of former Edwards staffers about this. Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards' staff didn't believe rumors about the affair.
But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.
Several of them had gotten together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts.
Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards' staffers have told me.
They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Think about that one for a minute – they were willing to take the money paid by a candidate but not show him any loyalty. They decided he should not be president, but continued to draw a check anyway, while planning to sabotage the campaign if it appeared he would win.

Disgusting – absolutely disgusting.

George Stephanopoulos has reported on this “doomsday plan”. That is all well and good – but what he really needs to do is report the names of the staffers who were willing to co-opt the political process for their own personal gain, and to commit a fraud on the electorate for a paycheck.

And let me say that as deeply as I feel contempt for John Edwards, it does not approach the level of contempt I have for these staffers. Better that they be good Americans and not participate in the cover-up -- and allow the voters in the Democrat primary to have full information on all the candidates, which might have influenced the eventual outcome of the Democrat nomination. After all, would those Edwards voters have broken for Obama, giving him an earlier victory in the delegate hunt? Or would the displaced Edwards voters have broken for Hillary Clinton, turning the entire race on its head? And wouldnÂ’t either of those outcomes have been better for America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

If Rush Limbaugh or some other prominent conservative were to suggest that they hoped Wanda Sykes developed ovarian, uterine, or breast cancer and died?

Sykes was at her most vicious on the subject of Rush Limbaugh. "Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. That's like saying, 'I hope America fails.' Or that 'I dont care if people are losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason. He's not saying anything differently than what Osama Bin Laden is saying." Then, turning to the president, Sykes added, "You might want to look into this, sir. Because I think maybe he was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight."
Realizing she shocked the crowd with that remark, she said, "Too much? But you're laughing on the inside..."
But she wasn't done. "Rush Limbaugh [says] 'I hope the country fails." I hope his kidneys fail. How about that? He needs some waterboarding, that's what he needs."

And weren’t we told for the last eight years that questioning the patriotism of Americans who dissented from the policies of the president was beyond the pale – and that such Americans were engaged in the highest form of patriotism? And to accuse such Americans of treason – or suggest that they were the equivalent of terrorists (or, worse yet, to call them terrorists even if they had, in fact, engaged in acts of terrorism like those committed by Bill Ayers) – was utterly unacceptable and un-American.

Somehow, though, all those rules went out the window on Saturday night at the White House CorrespondentsÂ’ Dinner. And rather than express his disapproval, President Obama sat and laughed out loud as the semi-talented Ms. Sykes wished death on a political opponent and accused him of treason and terrorism.

Now the American press hates Limbaugh, whose audience is growing even as theirs is shrinking, so they are not particularly taken aback by such naked hatred in the name of politics. But I am particularly struck by the clear-headed response of Toby Harnden of the Telegraph.

"Obama seemed to think this bit was pretty hilarious, grinning and chuckling and turning to share the 'joke' with the person sitting on his right. There's not much room for differing interpretations of what Sykes said. She called Limbaugh a terrorist and a traitor, suggested that he be tortured and wished him dead. What was his crime? Hoping that Obama's policies - which he views as socialist - will fail. That's way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama's reaction to it was astonishing...Obama laughing when someone wishes Limbaugh dead? Hard to take from the man who promised a new era of civility and elevated debate in Washington."

Now, though, we know exactly what constitutes civility and elevated debate in the age of Obama – and it sure isn’t elevated or civil by any reasonable person’s definition of those words. And it is fair to say that since Obama put his imprimatur upon that sort of “humor”, he has managed to disgraces himself and his office even further than he did during the first 100 days.

And as for Sykes – I’d suggest she has jumped the shark, but for the fact that she began her career on the far side of said aquatic predator.

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

This time on how to deal with terrorists -- he's going to go with military commissions rather than civilian courts to try the jihadi swine.

In one of its first acts, the Obama administration obtained a 120-day suspension of the military commissions; that will expire May 20. Human rights groups had interpreted the suspension as the death knell for military commissions and expected the transfer of cases to military courts martial or federal courts.

Officials said yesterday that the Obama administration will seek a 90-day extension of the suspension as early as next week. It would subsequently restart the commissions on American soil, probably at military bases, according to a lawyer briefed on the plan.

While the rules are going to be modified, the fact is that these jihadi swine will be kept out of civilian courts and tried in a forum more akin to those used to try our military personnel. Seems reasonable to me -- after all, America's enemies should not get greater consideration than American soldiers -- and, indeed, do not merit even that much.

Personally, though, I believe that both administrations are wrong on this. What needs to happen is extensive enhanced interrogation, followed by summary execution with a bullet coated in bacon grease. No process is due to these enemies of civilization.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Much to the consternation of his Bush Derangement Syndrome afflicted followers, I'm sure.

Now he's siding with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin on protection for the polar bear.

The Obama administration will retain a Bush-era rule for polar bears, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Friday, in a move that angered activists who noted the rule limits what can be done to protect the species from global warming.

The administration had faced a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, to impose limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the emissions occur thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.

"We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change," Salazar said in a statement. "However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nationÂ’s carbon emissions.

Especially since anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax that is well on its way to being discredited by good science on our climate. Besides, didn't i read recently that the polar bear population is up?

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

One more sign that shifting Left may not help Arlan Specter after all. First the Democrat Caucus in the Senate rejects him, now MoveOn.org.

One of the nationÂ’s largest liberal advocacy organizations, MoveOn.org , is resisting efforts to clear the Democratic primary field for Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter.

The political arm of MoveOn flexed its muscle Friday by releasing the results of an online poll that showed the vast majority of the group’s roughly 170,000 members in Pennsylvania — 85 percent — would consider supporting a Democratic challenger against Specter.

The group expressed concern over Specter’s vote against President Obama’s $3.4 billion budget just one day after defecting to the Democratic Party. MoveOn also cited comments Specter made in an appearance on “Meet the Press” last weekend suggesting he would oppose a public health insurance option that some Democrats would like to see included in any health care reform proposal.

of course, a full 90% of MoveOn supporters would support Specter in the general election -- but he does need to get that Democrat nomination first, and it appears that the Democrat base -- as well as elected Democrats -- are balking at the prospect of welcoming him into the party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the current snapshot from Rasmussen.

Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison find themselves essentially tied in an early look at their 2010 Primary battle.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey shows Perry attracting 42% of the vote while Hutchison earns 38%. Seven percent (7%) say theyÂ’d like to vote for somebody else and 13% are undecided.
Perry leads by 15 percentage points among conservative voters but Hutchison leads by 35 points among the moderates.
Favorability ratings for the two candidates are virtually even among Likely Republican Primary Voters. Perry is viewed Very Favorably by 26% and Very Unfavorably by 9%. The comparable numbers for Hutchison are 27% and 10%.

My concern is that this means a really divisive primary. However, given Rick PerryÂ’s weakness in the last election, I donÂ’t see him as a strong candidate for governor. Hutchison, on the other hand, would be able to defeat practically any candidate that the Dems put up against her next fall. That is why, in the end, I am backing her in this race.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

One has to wonder, given his plan to cut the benefits paid to the families of dead police officers by nearly 50%.

The Obama administration wants to cut almost in half a benefits program for the families of slain police and safety officers.
The president's proposed budget calls for cutting the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program from $110 million to $60 million.
Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing.

One problem – that rationale is a lie. The rate of officers killed in the line of duty has been increasing, and is up some 20%. So tell me again why you want to cut the money set aside for dead cops and their families. I’m cure my brother the police officer would like to know as well, as would his wife and kids.

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

One more bit of proof that the Democrats are disingenuous on what they now call torture.

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict PelosiÂ’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

What does this all mean? It means that Pelosi and other leading Democrats knew about waterboarding and other means used to extract usable intelligence from jihadis. It means that they either approved those techniques or that they lacked the courage to speak out about them at the time. And it means that we have seen a sustained campaign of falsehood from the Democrats about the issue.

Time to cue the Donkey Party theme song!

Posted by: Greg at 08:21 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 3 kb.

He has released a statement on the matter.

"After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate," Ridge said in a statement, adding later, "The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. ... To those who believe that the Republican Party is facing challenges; they are right. To those who believe the Democratic Party is without its own difficulties, they are wrong. No one party has a monopoly on all of the answers. ... And so my desire and intention is to help my party craft solutions that both sides of the aisle can embrace."

Not surprising, given that Ridge currently claims Maryland as his home state. Despite his strong Pennsylvania roots, that could have been used against him in both the primary and the general election.

I see this as an unhappy outcome for the GOP. I donÂ’t see Pat Toomey as being able to beat Specter in the general election. Is there another strong Republican who can both win the nomination and the general election?

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Now that Elizabeth Edwards has gone public on John’s affair and said plenty of nasty things about “the other woman”. Probable baby-mama Rielle Hunter is going to demand a paternity test and presumably seek child support.

The ex-senator's former lover - furious at being portrayed as a stalker in his wife's media tour - reportedly is taking revenge and will allow a paternity test for her baby after all.
Rielle Hunter previously refused to allow DNA testing on baby Frances, born in February 2008. Edwards, even after the admitted affair, insisted he wasn't the father.
Her friends said then she hoped they still had a future together and hoped to protect the philandering pol from further ruin.
But on the eve of Elizabeth Edwards' appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" today to plug her new book, the National Enquirer reports that Hunter has changed her mind.
"Now she can see there's never going to be a future with John, and she feels he's lied about his promise to keep Elizabeth from trashing her in the book," an "insider" told the mag.

Well, Elizabeth did say that she didn’t know if John was the baby-daddy – this should settle the matter definitively. Perhaps it all has something to do with the fact that Rielle Hunter now realizes that Elizabeth isn’t going to die any time soon – and John Edwards isn’t coming back to her when she eventually does.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

I simply cannot believe that Senator Lindsey Graham actually said this.

“My hope is that our Democratic colleagues — if you start listening to the bloggers — if we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us.”

Excuse me, Senator? Is it really your position that government officials should not listen to the voices of the people as expressed in public forums? Do you really believe that such voices are irrelevant, and that listening to citizens like me is a danger to our nationÂ’s greatness? Could it be that the time has come for you to go, so that we can have leaders who actually give a damn what the people have to say?

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Hate crime protection will be guaranteed for pedophiles – but attacks on current and former members of the armed forces because of their military service has been denied by Democrats.

During a House Judiciary Committee meeting, Congressman Steve King (R-IA) offered up an amendment to the hate crimes bill to exclude pedophiles from being a protected category under the hate crimes legislation.
Every single Democrat voted it down.

In the same meeting, Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) offered an amendment to include veterans as a class protected under the hate crimes bill. Not only did the Democrats vote it down, but Cogresswoman Debbie Waasserman Schultz attacked the Republicans for even thinking veterans might need protection under hate crimes legislation.

Why vote down an amendment excluding pedophiles from protection? Even if one accepts the argument that they were not intended to be covered by the statute, why not make the exclusion explicit?

And as for our veterans, weÂ’ve seen hate-inspired assaults on them for at least four decades, dating back to the Vietnam War. If veteran status is a basis for protection under other civil rights statutes, why not this one? Could it be that we have seen the majority in Congress demonstrate that, like Bill Clinton in the 1960s, it loathes the military?

Of course, I oppose hate crime laws -- and I therefore oppose the entire bill currently under consideration. But if we are to have such laws, why would we protect those who prey on vulnerable children, but not the patriots who defend our nation from its enemies?

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Arlen Specter goes from first to last in seniority on the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian's party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.

In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.

But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.

Looks like Specter has hurt his home state of Pennsylvania by surrendering seniority for personal political advantage. We already know that he wasn’t interested in principle – now we see that he also doesn’t care about the best interests of his constituents. You see, it is really all about the best interests of Arlen!

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve noted, in recent years, a certain tendency among left-wingers. When confronted with a woman offering a conservative view, the tendency is to refuse to address the argument. Instead, there is a concerted effort to denigrate that conservative woman as a woman – by sexually degrading her.

Such is the case with the current Miss California.

Miss California Carrie Prejean says a website has posted racy photos of her in an attempt to belittle her Christianity.
"Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid website that openly mocks me for my Christian faith," Prejean said yesterday in a statement.
A photo of Prejean wearing only pink panties with her back turned to the camera appeared Monday on a gossip blog.
In explaining the photos, Prejean said, "I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

Add to that the issue that was made over her breast implants and it is pretty clear what the lefties who support gay marriage want us to believe – Carrie Prejean is a whore, and therefore her words should be disregarded and her position is discredited. In other words, rather than engage in a well-reasoned attack on her position on gay marriage, they choose to instead engage in an ad hominem attack on her person. And in this case with photos that I don’t see as particularly scandalous.

Now I might let this go without comment, were it not that this is a part of the pattern of attacks on conservative women that has to do with their gender and sexuality.

Consider, for example, the sort of crap unleashed against Michelle Malkin – fake photos and comments about her alleged sexual antics

Then there were the disgusting sex-based attacks on Senator Fred ThompsonÂ’s wife, Jeri.

And donÂ’t forget the fake Sarah Palin photos that were somehow supposed to discredit her candidacy for vice president last fall.

So I guess the question that has to be asked is this – why do leftists hate women so much that they attack them on the crudest of sexual levels rather than engage them on the battle of ideas? Could it be that, despite their constant claims to worship at the altar of female empowerment and liberated sexuality, that too many folks on the Left are simply misogynistic patriarchs who insist that women keep to their proper place -- which is silent and in the background unless they are mouthing liberal political philosophy.

UPDATE: By interesting coincidence, Joshuapundit just posted a wonderful quote from one of the twentieth century's greatest conservative women.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

- Margaret Thatcher

Indeed -- hence this move to sexually belittle conservative women by the intellectually bankrupt American Left.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 4 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Very nice site!

Posted by: John484 at Sun May 10 15:40:02 2009 (xtLmW)

2 I want to say - thank you for this!, Ambien Discount, >:-], Tramadol, %(((, Order Valium, swe, Cheap Phentermine, :-DD, Cheap Alprazolam, tde,

Posted by: Urbano at Tue May 19 20:17:21 2009 (f1Nqs)

3 Hello!, buy autocad, =-[[, adobe creative for mac, 8O, buy adobe acrobat, =-DDD,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Wed May 20 06:43:10 2009 (hx4AX)

4 Hello!, buy autocad, :-O, buy adobe acrobat, >:-[, buy microsoft office 2007, radur,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Wed May 20 07:07:11 2009 (5OIOR)

5 Gutentak!, buy adobe acrobat, 8-((, adobe creative for mac, >:-[, buy microsoft office 2007, :-DD,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 07:53:38 2009 (Ig2Io)

6 Gutentak!, buy autocad, > , adobe creative for mac, > , buy microsoft office 2007, xif,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 08:17:54 2009 (pCdvk)

7 Privet!, buy adobe acrobat, ktlsg, adobe creative for mac, %PPP, buy microsoft office 2007, ntvn,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Wed May 20 09:13:36 2009 (/0Xwo)

8 Zdarova!, buy autocad, =D, adobe creative for mac, 131, buy adobe acrobat, nuvun,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Wed May 20 09:36:30 2009 (CJ8jq)

9 Zdarova!, buy autocad, reiw, adobe creative for mac, ksr, buy microsoft office 2007, edq,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 11:03:40 2009 (C6/be)

10 Privet!, buy autocad, oqx, adobe creative for mac, bhfdiu, buy microsoft office 2007, 847,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 12:27:08 2009 (iae3s)

11 Privet!, buy autocad, 4762, adobe creative for mac, cksl, buy microsoft office 2007, 771,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Wed May 20 12:47:00 2009 (e9sdN)

12 Hi!, buy autocad, 25498, adobe creative for mac, 4830, buy microsoft office 2007, %-D,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 14:27:56 2009 (s+U1K)

13 Zdarova!, adobe creative for mac, >:-))), buy adobe acrobat, 8(((, buy microsoft office 2007, :-OO,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 14:48:58 2009 (ocneN)

14 Hi!, buy adobe acrobat, 31530, adobe creative for mac, DD, buy microsoft office 2007, jwoukg,

Posted by: Pisinka at Wed May 20 15:30:36 2009 (vOVU2)

15 Gutentak!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 9847, solidworks 2009 x64, 40106, autodesk autocad 2008, :OO, adobe photoshop cs2, =-PPP, adobe creative suite 3 master, 8DD, microsoft office xp profession, =-]]],

Posted by: Pisinka at Thu May 21 21:27:55 2009 (QD2/5)

16 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs2, lhbb, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 8O, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, wzo, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, eptap, Autodesk AutoCAD, cshc, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, >:-[[,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Thu May 21 21:55:00 2009 (rdOwg)

17 Hello!, microsoft windows server 2008, DD, autodesk autocad 2008, izlzo, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, :OO, g data internet security 2008, tghjbj, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, :]]],

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Thu May 21 23:43:19 2009 (JcL1K)

18 Privet!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, %-DDD, solidworks 2009 x64, %], Autodesk 3ds Max, %P, solidworks 2009 x64, 933, Conceptdraw Office, oqp, Autodesk AutoCAD, wchvwj,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 00:35:10 2009 (cUtCF)

19 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, tnpepc, solidworks 2009 x64, %-OOO, adobe photoshop cs2, 8PPP, Autodesk 3ds Max, 873762, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 017996, adobe creative suite 3 master, slex,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 01:00:56 2009 (Xeezl)

20 Gutentak!, SolidWorks 2009, =))), microsoft windows server 2008, egmjat, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, zyl, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 94125, adobe creative suite 3 master, 7431, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, oqzlz,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 02:10:50 2009 (WC6SI)

21 Good moning!, Autodesk 3ds Max, %)), parallels desktop 3 for Mac, bkxu, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 83892, g data internet security 2008, afycbi, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, 2868,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 04:20:15 2009 (ryZuH)

22 Good moning!, solidworks 2009 x64, =[[, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, gfi, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, =-))), Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 37180, g data internet security 2008, 63869, Conceptdraw Office, tcqw,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 04:41:49 2009 (L+SAR)

23 Zdarova!, autodesk autocad 2008, 89639, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, %-OO, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, 02496, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 28352, g data internet security 2008, 8-D,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 05:50:21 2009 (qKgq1)

24 Hello!, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, hgfbpu, g data internet security 2008, =-))), adobe creative suite 3 master, > , Conceptdraw Office, 8DDD, microsoft office xp profession, 05267, adobe creative suite 3 design, opo,

Posted by: Titinka at Fri May 22 06:35:03 2009 (ryZuH)

25 Hi!, solidworks 2009 x64, =]]], microsoft windows vista business, %-(, Autodesk 3ds Max, 823067, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, 165990, adobe creative suite 3 master, 2611, Conceptdraw Office, %-)),

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 08:08:27 2009 (YI4Z5)

26 Privet!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 823975, solidworks 2009 x64, 5072, adobe photoshop cs2, 27739, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 33748, adobe creative suite 3 master, rhdw,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 08:30:09 2009 (wW9wa)

27 Gutentak!, autodesk autocad 2008, wypt, adobe photoshop cs2, xzph, adobe acrobat 8 professional, mbq, microsoft office xp profession, %OO, adobe creative suite 3 design, uxkd,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 09:14:31 2009 (+0lbb)

28 Privet!, SolidWorks 2009, 186612, microsoft windows server 2008, 055, adobe photoshop cs2, bqaes, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, paw, Conceptdraw Office, > (, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, =-OO,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Fri May 22 09:59:33 2009 (d6oxZ)

29 Privet!, microsoft windows vista business, 471797, solidworks 2009 x64, :], Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, =-[, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 03789, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 065, microsoft office xp profession, kpkqfi,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 11:26:29 2009 (WC6SI)

30 Good moning!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 6272, solidworks 2009 x64, 8-))), autodesk autocad 2008, hews, solidworks 2009 x64, 195, Conceptdraw Office, 1937, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, 8-((,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 12:08:24 2009 (rdOwg)

31 Good moning!, SolidWorks 2009, ztkct, Autodesk 3ds Max, 475, solidworks 2009 x64, 509, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 913, g data internet security 2008, 599, Autodesk AutoCAD, =PP,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 12:49:42 2009 (ocneN)

32 Good moning!, solidworks 2009 x64, sfndkz, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, 8-(, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 742968, Conceptdraw Office, sjsmk, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, 870, adobe creative suite 3 design, %[,

Posted by: Maramoika at Fri May 22 16:41:06 2009 (3W3ej)

33 So where it to find?, student loan forgiveness free, , gas powered scooters discount, 652, xanax online overnight shipping, xdyrk, Buy simple interest loan calculator, >:-D, transparent bikini, eppc,

Posted by: Discount student loan forgiveness at Tue Oct 13 13:24:55 2009 (QMoFl)

34 Help me to find the, replica coach purses now, 7873, guaranteed online personal loans now, 84560, Buy fake coach purses, cudc, no credit check loans, sreh, mortgage rates predictions, =[[,

Posted by: guaranteed online personal loans now at Tue Nov 17 17:39:23 2009 (0gyrp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

If these poll numbers are accurate, almost certainly.

Newly-minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter would whip old Republican rival Pat Toomey 53 - 33 percent if the 2010 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race were held today, but if popular former Gov. Tom Ridge becomes the Republican candidate, he trails Specter by just 46 - 43 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Independent voters, who back Sen. Specter over Toomey 45 - 36 percent, switch to Ridge 47 - 37 percent if he becomes a candidate. The former Republican Governor also gets 14 percent of the Democratic vote, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

In the Specter-Toomey matchup, Republicans back Toomey 74 - 18 percent while Democrats go with their new convert 85 - 4 percent. Men back Specter 47 - 41 percent, as do women 59 - 26 percent. Union households go Democratic 62 - 27 percent.

In a Specter-Ridge face-off, Republicans go with Ridge 82 - 10 percent, while Specter takes Democrats 78 - 14 percent. Men shift to Ridge 50 - 41 percent, while women remain Democratic 51 - 37 percent. Union households back Specter 57 - 34 percent.

Does the GOP want to keep that senate seat in Pennsylvania? If it does, then it needs to find a candidate who can beat Arlen Specter among more than the GOP faithful. Such a candidate exists in Tom Ridge – and Pat Toomey clearly does not have what it takes to get rid of the defective defector.

Posted by: Greg at 08:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

When you use campaign cash to support your baby mama, you are likely to be investigated.

The two-time Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged Sunday that investigators are assessing how he spent his campaign funds — a subject that could carry his extramarital affair from the tabloids to the courtroom. Edwards' political action committee paid more than $100,000 for video production to the firm of the woman with whom Edwards had an affair.
The former North Carolina senator said in a carefully worded statement that he is cooperating.
"I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in the statement. "However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter."
While Edwards focused his comment on campaign funds, he also had a range of other fundraising organizations — including two nonprofits and a poverty center at his alma mater — that have come under scrutiny.
Chief among them was the PAC that paid Rielle Hunter's company for several months in 2006 for Web videos that documented Edwards' travels and advocacy in the months leading up to his 2008 presidential campaign. The committee also paid her firm an additional $14,086.50 on April 1, 2007.
Edwards acknowledged the affair with Hunter last year, months after dropping his presidential bid.
At the time of the 2007 payment, the PAC only had $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. That day, according to the records, Edwards' presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034.61 for what is listed as a "furniture purchase."

Well, Johnny, I hope you look good in orange. You ought to go away for a very long time.

Posted by: Greg at 08:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp died a matter of days after Arlen Specter defected from the GOP. Frankly, I donÂ’t know what the hero of my youth would have had to say about that move and the reasons for it. But I suspect he would be outraged over the defective defectorÂ’s outrageous claims over the weekend.

"If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

Frankly, that is reckless, ghoulish speculation. That he was not slapped down – and slapped down hard – by Bob Schieffer is but one more sign that in today’s America there is little decency left on the Left or in the media. And for all of Arlen Specter’s professed respect for Jack Kemp, his abuse of the memory of a man not yet dead a whole 24 hours speaks volumes about his lack of character – especially since the GOP increased spending for cancer research a full 46% beyond the rate of inflation while the GOP controlled Congress, almost the same rate at which defense spending was increased.

Posted by: Greg at 08:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

If, at age 20, you had asked me what I thought the future of the GOP would be, I would have offered you a name – Jack Kemp. Kemp was a truly compassionate, big tent conservative whose vision encompassed all races and classes of Americans. Indeed, I have often felt that it was a great tragedy that the first President Bush did not pick him as his running mate in 1988 – such a choice would have invigorated the youth of the party while adding an intellectual heft to the GOP ticket that Dan Quayle lacked. Indeed, it would have likely led to Kemp seeking and winning the presidency in either 1996 or 2000, rather than being the vice presidential candidate on a doomed ticket with Bob Dole.

The hero of my youth passed this weekend.

Jack Kemp, the former tax-cutting Republican politician and American footballer, who ran for the White House in 1996 as Bob DoleÂ’s running mate, died of cancer on Saturday at the age of 73.
As a Republican congressman, Kemp latched on to supply-side economics and advocated sweeping tax cuts as a means to stimulate production and growth. Initially stymied in Congress, his legislation found a sympathetic supporter in Ronald Reagan, who put forward a fiscal revolution as a campaign pledge in 1980 before his victory in the presidential election.
Kemp’s influence on Republican politics reached its zenith with “Reaganomics” but his voice as a conservative libertarian, who aimed to broaden the party’s appeal among black voters, continued to be heard after Reagan’s presidency.

KempÂ’s vision was and is mine, though I at times took issue with his stance on illegal immigration. I admired him greatly, and regret that it was Newt Gingrich, not Kemp, who became the face and the voice of the GOP in the 1990s.

I have a particular memory of Jack Kemp, one which has stayed with me for over two decades. One of my college buddies was an intern in Kemp’s congressional office, and arranged to get a group of our fellow College Republicans a private meeting with the presidential candidate before he addressed a gathering of Republican activists at a presidential forum in the Chicago area. Being a rather arrogant college student, I confronted Kemp on his unwillingness to support right-to-work laws – and questioned how, as a conservative, he could fail to do so. His response is what has stayed with me for years – that it is unrealistic for conservatives to expect every candidate and every officeholder to check every box on what it means to be a conservative. In his own case, he noted that he represented a blue-collar district in the northeastern US with a high percentage of union members. While it might be more pure for him to take the right-to-work position, it would also doom his electability in that district – and the electability of any similar candidate in any similar district. It was therefore better to prioritize what was truly important and to elect candidates that would pursue those goals, and leave other, less important, principles and platform planks for another day. Failure to do that, he noted, would likely lead to the ultimate failure to accomplish even the goals that were important.

Posted by: Greg at 08:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah -- and Obama seems to know it.

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House….that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation”

Excuse me. I thought that dissent -- and opposition to White House policy -- was the highest form of patriotism. And I thought that the press was supposed to be an independent watchdog, not the lapdog of the regime in power. I could observe which twentieth century regimes were known for controlling the press and using it to vilify and destroy their opponents, but I wouldn't want to offend liberals by dumping on left-wing leaders from Russia, Germany, China and Cuba as I attack their spiritual heir.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the years I've had a cordial relationship with Dan at Gone Mild, a liberal blog from Kansas City. We often disagree, but I respect the guy. One of his current posts includes a reasonably concise guide to influencing legislators that every person interested in public policy should print and keep. He makes a lot of references here to Missouri politics, but his points are dead on no matter where you live. Here are his points.

1. Make Sure You Stand a Chance: If you want to accomplish anything with a legislator (as opposed to simply voicing your opinion), make sure you're not far afield from the core constituencies and principles of the legislator you are hoping to influence. In other words, you don't stand a chance of convincing Jason Kander to abandon the Missouri Plan, and you're not going to get Jolie Justus to eliminate support for childcare. Go ahead and vent if you disagree, but don't think you're influencing change.

2. Visit Your Legislator: If there's an important issue pending, get in your car and visit Jefferson City, or find out where you can meet with the legislator during a break, and do it. Nothing is as influential as a face-to-face meeting. If you have written materials, bring a couple copies so the legislator can review them and give a copy to a staff person. Legislators listen to visitors, so, if you can find the time and the gas money, go visit our Capitol City, and treat yourself to some ice cream at Central Dairy on your way home.

3. Write a Real, Personalized Letter: If you can't visit Jefferson City, let the postal service do the work for you. Send a real, personalized letter expressing your thoughts and enclosing any supporting information. I'm not talking about signing your name to a pre-printed post card or a cut-and-paste from an action alert. Those are a waste of time, trees and postage. But a persuasive letter on real stationery signed by a constituent will make a legislator take notice.

4. Pick up the Phone and Call: At this point in the session, where action on bills is happening at a fast and furious pace, calling is probably more effective than writing. Even if you only get to talk to a legislative aide, your voice will be heard. A lot of legislators are pretty generous about sharing their cell phone numbers, and don't hesitate to use them. If you wind up in voice mail, be prepared to leave a clear and short message, including the fact (if true) that you reside in his/her district. Leave your number, and you may get a call back.

5. Send an Email: Email's easy, and that is the problem with it. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can contact every legislator in Jefferson City, and hundreds of others can do the same thing. The result is a deluge that simply drowns out even your well-crafted, reasonable missive. If you care enough to write, care enough to put it on real paper with a stamp, pick up the phone, or drive to Jefferson City. Email is a decent way to communicate with a legislator once a dialog is started through one of those means, but, especially at this time of the session, don't expect to accomplish anything by writing an email.

Well done, Dan! Here's hoping lots of folks use your suggestions -- and more importantly, that they use them to get conservative policies enacted.

Posted by: Greg at 03:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

And donÂ’t just show it to them, give it back if he is intent upon seeking office as a Democrat.

Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party is prompting his campaign donors large and small to demand their money back, including several Republican senators whose political action committees gave tens of thousands of dollars to the Pennsylvania lawmaker.
Sen. Johnny Isakson didn't waste any time putting himself at the front of the refund line. The Georgia Republican asked Mr. Specter for a return of his leadership political action committee's $5,000 contribution Tuesday on the Senate floor - just hours after Mr. Specter announced he was changing his political stripes.
"Senator Specter readily agreed to return the contribution," said Isakson spokeswoman Sheridan Watson, adding that the exchange was cordial.
While not legally bound to refund any legitimate campaign donation, Mr. Specter has pledged to honor requests for refunds - and the requests are pouring in.

It seems to me that this is the right thing for Republicans to do – they gave money in an effort to keep the seat Republican (a misguided idea, given that Specter was hardly a reliable Republican vote). And while Pat Toomey may or may not be the best candidate who can beat Specter, that money needs to go to a Republican who can.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

It isn’t a cut – and you may yet end up having to pay some or all of it back.

Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.

The government is going to want some of that money back.

The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.

But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

So that claim that 95% of us are getting a tax cut from Barry Hussein is nothing but a lie – and you should be expecting a hefty tax bill next year if you are one of those Americans who is legitimately classified as “productive”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

I remember, a couple of decades back, when William F. Buckley effectively expelled Joseph Sobran from the Conservative mainstream for his flirtations with anti-Semitism. It was a courageous move, and one that to this day should be applauded. When will we see leading conservatives step forward and do the same with Pat Buchanan – especially after this explicit appeal to the notion of Jews as “Christ-killers” in his current column on concentration camp guard and illegal immigrant John Demjanuk

The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.

Excuse me? Trying this participant in one of the greatest crimes of world history with the Son of God? Not only is this anti-Semitic, it is explicitly anti-Christian. There is, dare I say it, no longer any legitimate place for this bigot on the right today, and has not been for a long time. He has had no serious constituency in the mainstream of conservatism for at least a decade.

Indeed, as pointed out by the guys at GayPatriot, it is the liberals at MSNBC that give him his largest media outlet – sort of fitting, given the type of hate we have seen regularly spewed by hosts like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and others on that network. So maybe his presence is part of a policy of “all hate, all the time”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

And not only that, they encouraged it.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

* * *

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.

More to the point, is it really appropriate for Senators and Representatives who knew about these programs and supported them to turn around and investigate them? After all, there were some 30 meetings that included the leadership and other members of both parties. ShouldnÂ’t they be subjects of the investigations rather than the investigators? After all, if these techniques really violate American values, and if they really did authorize them, donÂ’t they share at least as much responsibility for them as the Executive Branch officials who the Left now wants to pillory?

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

LetÂ’s set aside the question of morality. LetÂ’s ignore the question of Roe v. Wade. DoesnÂ’t a proposal that doctors who perform surgical procedures away from a hospital be required to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case something goes wrong a pretty reasonable requirement for the state to impose?

The Indiana House of Representatives has passed a bill to require doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.

The House voted 73-20 for the bill April 15. The legislation also would mandate that a doctor inform a woman that her unborn child may feel pain during an abortion, according to The Indianapolis Star.

The measure will return to the Senate, which previously passed it on a 44-6 vote but will need to act on the new version containing House-approved amendments, according to LifeNews.com.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana said only one of the seven doctors in the state who perform abortions has admitting privileges, The Star reported.

Supporters of the bill said it was needed in order to protect women who have problems after abortions.

"This bill is about patient safety," said Rep. Matthew Bell, R.-Avila. "I think it's the right statement to make when we care about the quality of care received by the patients."

Sadly, IÂ’ve seen ambulances leave abortion facilities with a woman inside of them. DoesnÂ’t it benefit them for the doctor who was doing that procedure to be able to admit them and oversee their care? And isnÂ’t it disturbing that so few can?

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s see – you knocked up their daughter. That would have been a problem. Then you and the daughter split after the birth of the child. Clearly another stress on the relationship. But then you started trash-talking the family on nationwide television. Yeah, that would certainly stretch things to the breaking point.

The father of Sarah Palin's grandchild said Wednesday night that he might pursue legal action against the Alaska governor's family, who he says has cut off communication with him and are no longer letting him see their son Tripp.
Levi Johnston said during an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" that he has hired an attorney in hopes of compelling former fiancé Bristol Palin to honor his visitation rights.
Johnston last saw his four-month-old son "a couple weeks ago," he said, adding that going over to the Palin household to see Tripp is "an uncomfortable thing."
Despite his threat of legal action, Johnston insists that he does not "want to stir anything up."

Dude, you stirred things up when you went on Tyra and all the other shows. You stirred them up more with the Larry King interview. In what strange alternative universe do you live that you believe that giving those interviews (in which you did trash-talk the Palin family) did you believe that the relationship would be improved?

Now do I think that there needs to be some custody and visitation agreement made? Yeah, I do – as well as child support arrangements, too. After all, have you been supporting the son you so want to visit?

NOTE TO LARRY KING: Asking where the baby was conceived is a new low for your show, which is already among the trashiest on television. Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Could you imagine the uproar – and the accusations of racism – if Rush Limbaugh or some prominent conservative politician or activist used this term to refer to Barry Hussein?

“Clean coal is a dirty lie,” says environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who calls President Barack Obama and other politicians who commit taxpayer money to develop it “indentured servants” of the coal industry.

Come on, Junior, you pathetic shadow of a great father. Just come on out and use the term you really wanted to direct at Obama. Call him “boy”, “Stepin Fetchit”, “darkie”, “coon”, or the one you were probably looking for -- you know, the one that starts with "N".

RFK Jr. is, like the rest of his generation of Kennedys, but a pale shadow of the three great young men of the last generation who died for this country. They are, instead, disgraces to the family name, just like their Uncle Teddy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, she directs money so that it will flow into her hubbyÂ’s pockets.

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

If this were a Republican, weÂ’d be hearing all about the conflict of interest represented by this legislation. But since Feinstein is a Democrat, it is simply one more case of business as usual by one of Nancy PelosiÂ’s Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.