February 09, 2008
Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.Participants said the group was not organizing against the presidential bid of Sen. John McCain, the party"s presumptive nominee, but only seeking to revive core values such as lower taxes, limited government and free speech.
"The purpose of the meeting was for him to announce his willingness to fight shoulder to shoulder with true conservatives from here on out," said political strategist Paul Erickson, who worked for Mr. Romney"s campaign. "He did just that."
In 1964, Ronald Reagan became the face and voice of the conservative movement in America with "the speech". His years as governor and work for conservative values eventually led him to the White House and immortality as one of America's greatest presidents.
Mitt Romney has the potential to take up the leadership mantle laid down by the Gipper as he faded into the twilight of Alzheimer's Disease. If he accepts this challenge, I predict that he will be our president one day -- perhaps in as few as four years.
Posted by: Greg at
11:15 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.
If Barack Obama becomes the next US president he will surely be assassinated, British Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing predicted in a newspaper interview published here on Saturday.Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him," Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.
No words on who the mysterious "they" would be.
However "they" will do it and quickly -- but would be mollified if Hillary Clinton were to become president instead.
Clearly the senile dementia has set in.
Posted by: Greg at
09:29 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.
February 08, 2008
However, let’s think about that for a minute. Setting aside the fact that support for such legislation betrays the low ethical standards of the proponents of such legislation, who recognize that their own willingness to be bought and sold for a few dollars cash. Let’s instead consider that such legislation does not take into account that volunteering for a campaign also constitutes the contribution of a thing of value (namely, the volunteer’s time and labor). After all, if the expertise of such an individual may be quite valuable – for example, a CPA who serves as an unpaid campaign treasurer. Why shouldn’t such an individual’s participation be capped at the number of hours that would bring their contribution to the contribution limit when valued at their standard hourly rate? After all, haven’t they effectively given the maximum contribution – and more – via their donated time and work? Can’t it be equally presumed that they “expect something” from a candidate who now “owes them” for this contributed time, work, and expertise? And what of paid campaign staffers, such as those from the Clinton campaign, who decide to forgo salaries in the interest of preserving campaign cash for their candidates. Aren't those contributions, in some cases exceeding the $2300 limit when combined wih cash contributions tehy may already have made?
What about speeches, endorsements, or commercial appearances by celebrities?
Don’t they have a high value, every bit as insidiously corrupting as a check? For example, how much does a speech by Oprah Winfrey cost? I don’t know, but I’d imagine that it would easily exceed $25,000 – if it doesn’t exceed $50,000? Shouldn’t Barack Obama and his campaign be required to count her appearances and speeches at events as in-kind contributions, given that Oprah’s product is Oprah? Moreover, if counted as such, wouldn’t that violate federal contribution limits in presidential races? What does Obama “owe” Oprah, and what is the something that she expects from him in return for her services, which are easily valued at well over ten times the legal contribution limit?
One would object, quite rightly, that subjecting Obama and Oprah to criminal or civil penalties for her political activity on his behalf would be fundamentally contrary to the First Amendment, as it would severely curtail her ability to exercise her rights under the First Amendment, despite the high cash value of this “in-kind” contribution. After all, her contribution is quintessentially American in nature.
But the reality is that the value being protected by the First Amendment goes beyond freedom of speech, press, and association -- it is the free and unfettered ability of individuals to participate in the political process, including by banding together to engage in speech on behalf of candidates. For some of us the most effective way is to give our time. For others it is the donation of needed materials. For still others it is their words. No form of contribution should be either privileged or limited, though reasonable requirements on disclosure and reporting are arguably acceptable. LetÂ’s make all Americans and their respective forms of contribution equal again by removing all artificial government imposed limits on such all-American activity.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, A Newt One- BIG THURSDAY GUEST!, , Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Wake Up America, Stageleft, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, A Newt One- Shared News!, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
11:43 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 8 kb.
If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me.I entered this race — I entered this race because I love America. And because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.
I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I'll fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of the things we believe in is that we cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism.
It is the common task of each generation and the burden of liberty to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit, so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.
To this task, accepting this burden, we're all dedicated. And I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope.
America must always remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth.
A presidential race should never be about what the electorate can do for the candidate – it should be, to paraphrase a president from Massachusetts, about what that candidate can do for the country as president. Mitt Romney recognized that and stood aside for that reason. He has not abandoned the principles upon which he campaigned, but he instead recognizes that the best way to see them carried to fruition is to allow an opponent to carry the banner of the GOP. That is a true rejection of the "Politics of I" in favor of the "Politics of We".
I respected Mitt Romney when I endorsed him a year ago. I supported him over the last year, even when other candidates appealed to me more on some issues, because I believed Mitt Romney to be the candidate most suited to implement a vision parallel to mine and that of my party for the good of the country. And I admire Mitt Romney even more today, having seen him withdraw from the race rather than fight to the bitter end and harm the prospect of seeing victory abroad and constitutionally limited government at home.
And for the record, I will be voting for Mitt Romney in the Texas GOP Primary on March 4 -- because it is important to make clear that while I will support McCain in the general election, he is not my choice as the nominee.
Posted by: Greg at
08:19 AM
| Comments (256)
| Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.
, 
http://communitymapbuilder.org/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=acomplia qbejFebruary 07, 2008
For those who argue he is not conservative enough, the stark differences McCain laid out and the pledges he made should be sufficient to lead you to support his candidacy if you love this country.
Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.
I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.
I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.
They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.
I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.
They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.
I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.
I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.
They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.
I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.
I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.
Now it is up to McCain to continue to reach out to the conservative base and to make it clear that we are valued and will be heard in his administration, even if our position does not always prevail.
And let's be clear about something. I have my issues with John McCain. If he is elected president, I'll fight him when he's wrong, just as I did President Bush. But it is clear that John McCain is substantially less wrong than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and so I must be prepared to cast my vote that direction in November.
Posted by: Greg at
11:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 988 words, total size 6 kb.
The presidential race Mitt Romney planned for years crashed to a halt Thursday, stopped in its tracks by the surprisingly durable John McCain campaign and by Romney's failure to quell concerns about his shifts on key issues, his political persona and his Mormon religion.Making the dramatic announcement at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference at a Washington hotel, Romney clearly hoped to preserve the goodwill of his party for another possible bid in 2012. He intends to run again in four years, according to a senior member of his inner circle.
"He should be president. 2012," the confidant e-mailed after talking to Romney.
Asked if Romney will run again, another close adviser said, "HeÂ’ll consider it. He's keeping his options open."
Romney never quite got the traction that many of us on the conservative side of things expected, especially as John McCain surged and a segment of the religious conservatives rejected him based upon faith alone. And yes, there were those who objected to his changed positions on a number of issues, despite the fact that even Ronald Reagan evolved over the years into the essence of what it means to be a conservative.
One possibility was suggested by a columnist from Boston -- challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat this fall.
HereÂ’s a not-wholly whimsical idea for a battered Mitt Romney: Bow out of the presidential race and gear up for a run against John Kerry for the Senate this fall.That would give Romney an honorable exit, help the national Republican Party unify behind John McCain earlier and allow the state GOP to field an A-list candidate who could keep Kerry pinned down in Massachusetts. And if Romney got really lucky he could even win the seat.
The filing date for the Senate is May 6. ThatÂ’s plenty of time for Romney to switch and mount a campaign that could keep him alive for a second shot at the presidency in the future, instead of remaining a punching bag in the current race.
Yeah, I know this column was something of a jab at Mitt, but the key detail is this.
A stunning 56 percent of voters statewide said it was time “to give someone else a chance” in the Senate, with only 37 percent saying Kerry should run again, in a Suffolk University poll last April. That included independents who, by 62 percent to 31 percent, said it was time for Kerry to go.
In other words, John Kerry can be beat. And by 2012, mitt Romney could have established a conservative record that proves he is the conservative he has claimed to be this year. It really sounds like a great idea to me.
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.
February 06, 2008
Chupacabra -- I love it!
Ron Paul -- Unfit For Any Office
Posted by: Greg at
11:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
First, there is the money issue.
Our colleague Patrick Healy tells us that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, facing big primaries against her rival Senator Barack Obama in places like Ohio and Texas, is weighing whether to lend her campaign money.And in a quick update, her campaign has just confirmed that sheÂ’d already lent her coffers $5 million of her own money in late January.
Compare this to the success being had by Obama in the money department.
Barack ObamaÂ’s campaign is on track to raise another $30 million in February, sources close to the Illinois senator say, while Hillary Rodham ClintonÂ’s spokesman revealed Wednesday that she had loaned her campaign $5 million.Insiders in both campaigns say the growing financial disparity virtually ensures that Obama will be able to significantly outspend Clinton in the critical primaries to come.
Money means something -- and for all the arguments that it signals corruption, what it usually signals is popular support, especially when it is coming from so many donors new to political giving.
How significant is the difference? Hillary's staff is giving up their paychecks. That is never a good sign from where I sit -- it means that money has become tight enough that the message is in danger of not getting out at all -- and that the campaign cannot be sustained long term.
So what this means is that going into a number of states where Barack Obama may have an advantage, Hillary Clinton is lacking the cash to effectively spread her message and turn some of the swing voters her way. And with Obama surging everywhere and showing great momentum by virtually every indicator, Hillary needs to score some quick victories in the next week to avoid becoming the underdog for the first time in a campaign that could run all the way to the convention, despite the best efforts of Howard Dean to avoid that possibility.
Posted by: Greg at
10:45 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 3 kb.
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.
Surrender to terror and an imperial liberal judiciary. Neither is acceptable. A Republican in the White House – any Republican – makes those twin evils less likely than any Democrat there.
Posted by: Greg at
12:47 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.
With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show.
So who won Super Tuesday for the Democrats? And why did the media present the outcome as a Clinton victory?
And most importantly, with a gap of only a couple of dozen delegates after prior victories and superdelegate commitments, are we really any closer to a nominee for the Democrats?
Posted by: Greg at
12:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.
February 05, 2008
Election officials reported few problems with primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday despite a snafu involving invisible ink.An election judge gave voters styluses used for touch screen voting instead of ink pens in one precinct, said Jim Allen, a spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.
Voters complained that they were unable to make a mark after the judge told them that the pens used invisible ink.
About 20 voters got the “invisible ink” pens that didn’t cast any votes. Officials contacted five of the 20 people and were waiting to hear back from the others, Allen said.
I am an election judge. And while the only pens we need down here in my county are for signing the registration books and recording the voters, I hope that my clerks and I would be smart enough not to give out "invisible ink pens" to voters.
What were these people thinking!
Posted by: Greg at
11:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
Looks like on the GOP side there is likely to be a McCain in my future, whether I want one or not.
Sen. John McCain surged closer toward the Republican nomination yesterday by capturing the biggest Super Tuesday states, including California, but failed to knock out his rivals, who deprived him of victories across GOP strongholds in the South and West.As millions of Republicans went to the polls in 21 states, the senator from Arizona racked up hundreds of delegates on the strength of winner-take-all primaries in the Northeast and elsewhere. But his inability to win in more than half of the states voting yesterday complicated his hopes of rallying the party behind his candidacy.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee scored a surprising sweep of his native South, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney picked up a number of states in the West but fell short in critical battlegrounds that would have established him as McCain's primary challenger. Huckabee and Romney vowed last night to stay in the race as it moves to Virginia, Maryland and the District on Tuesday.
What is interesting is the regional division of votes -- McCain generally taking the two coasts, Huckabee the South, and Romney much of the heartland. But given the winner-take-all nature of some of the primaries, McCain has surged ahead to the point that he is approaching 50% of the delegates needed to win the nomination outright. Romney and Huckabee are splitting the rest of the vote, with Religious conservatives favoring the Arkansas governor and the rest favoring the former Massachusetts governor. The irreconcilable diistance between those two candidates means that neither is likely to defer to the other, pretty much assuring a McCain nomination at some point down the road -- though likely not until after the Texas primary in four weeks.
And while the McCain victories clarified much, the results on the Democrat side simply muddy the waters.
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama carved up the nation in the 22-state nominating contest on Tuesday, leaving the Democratic presidential nomination more elusive than ever. Mrs. Clinton won California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and her home state, New York, while Mr. Obama took Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and his base in Illinois.
It may come down to how uncommitted delegates and super-delegates break, and may involve some horse-trading to get one of these candidates over the top. And given the way that many Washington insiders are breaking for Obama, that could swing the nomination his way -- though many state party leaders are supporting Hillary.
Posted by: Greg at
11:02 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.
For lawmakers faced with mounting legal bills, itÂ’s good to have friends in high places with deep pockets.Members of the leadership on both sides of the aisle cut checks to legally embattled House colleagues, and even Barbra Streisand contributed $1,000 to Rep. Jim McDermottÂ’s (D-Wash.) legal expense fund.
* * * So far, McDermott is the only member enlisting real star power. McDermott reported his $1,000 donation from Streisand to his legal defense fund during the last quarter of 2007, when he amassed a total of $65,304. Rep. John LarsonÂ’s (D-Conn.) leadership PAC donated $2,500, while the lionÂ’s share of his contributions came from constituents.
McDermott ramped up his funding after a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia made it more likely that he would have to pay a $60,000 fine and $880,000 in attorneysÂ’ fees in a nearly decade-long battle with Boehner. At issue is an illegally taped phone call between Boehner and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) that McDermott leaked to the media. During the same time period, McDermott had $89,920 in expenses for a variety of fundraising costs as well as $64,169 in legal fees to the Jones Day law firm.
McDermott engaged in behavior that would be illegal if your or I did it. The courts agree that his conduct was illegal. And yet he still sits in Congress, and is still raking in donations from celebrities and fellow members of Congress. Disgusting.
Posted by: Greg at
01:36 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.
February 04, 2008
The New York Times has some great observations (they do, from time to time, engage in some good analysis when they aren't trying to disguise it as objective news). I think this bit is dead on.
The StatesFor Republicans, two states could end up determining whether the race goes on from here: California and Massachusetts, and this has nothing to do with delegates. Mitt Romney headed out to California on a last-minute trip on Monday, drawn by polls suggesting the race was narrowing, despite Mr. McCainÂ’s collection of high-profile endorsements like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. If Mr. Romney pulls out a win in the nationÂ’s largest state, no matter what happens anyplace else, he is unlikely to leave the stage soon.
By contrast, Mr. McCain — in a poke-in-the-eye moment — campaigned in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney’s home state. Should Mr. McCain win in Massachusetts and hold on to California, that would probably be the lights-out moment at the Romney headquarters. No wonder that Mr. McCain sneaked a last-minute trip to California onto his schedule for Tuesday morning.
For Democrats, watch California, Massachusetts, New York, Missouri, Arizona and New Mexico. If Mr. Obama wins California, that is a real momentum blocker for Mrs. Clinton: There are few states in the country that are more identified with the Clinton presidency than this one. But Mr. Obama has suffered one of those external political problems that often madden campaigns: a last-minute California poll that showed him closing in on Mrs. Clinton — in the process, raising expectations that he will win. No wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers are suddenly talking about the big surge of early voting in California before Mr. Obama began to break through there.
If Mr. Obama wins Massachusetts, that will be testimony to the power of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and a real sting for Mrs. Clinton, who once thought she had a comfortable lead there. If Mr. Obama comes close in New York, or in neighboring New Jersey, watch for a tough round of questions about Mrs. ClintonÂ’s electability.
Finally, think of Missouri, Arizona and New Mexico as the swing states in this contest: Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are pretty evenly matched there. Missouri is a swing state in the general election, and might be one in this one as well.
I'll take it a step further -- for the GOP candidates, it all comes down to California. McCain and Romney are going to split the rest of the states, and McCain is even likely to come out of them with more delegates. but a victory in California, where McCain was so strong as recently as a week ago, will say something loud and clear about the ability of John McCain to unite the party and of the depth of opposition to him among the base. I don;t know that a California victory will be a harbinger of Romney's nomination, though -- I think it might signal the likelihood of a brokered convention this summer, with some other candidate emerging as the consensus figure around which Republicans can unite. But if McCain takes California, both Romney and Huckabee can fold up their campaigns and wait for a call from John McCain about the vice presidential nomination -- a call that I don't believe either will get, either due to personal animus (Romney) or unfitness for the post (Huckabee). And a decisive victory may allow John McCain the time to reach out to the "irreconcilable" wing of the GOP and do some reconciling -- because as hard as his candidacy is for some of us to stomach, the thought of John McCain in the Oval Officeought to cause us less heartburn than the idea of either President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama.
On the Democrat side, I think that a strong showing by Obama will mean an incredibly bitter and divisive fight all the way to the convention. That is how I'm hoping to see it play out, because it can only help the GOP.
Posted by: Greg at
11:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 4 kb.
February 03, 2008
And you can't tell me that the observation does not also apply to one of the candidates in the presidential race.
So let me get this straight. Her husband lied to her, lied to the city, lied under oath, sent some other broad 300 love/sex text messages A DAY and she pledged her undying love for him?I just don't get it.
Why is it that so many high-profile women stay with men who constantly cheat on them? Why do so many relatively intelligent women choose to stay with philandering losers whose idea of monogamy is having one mistress at a time? If you ask me, Mrs. Kirkpatrick needs to do two things: pimp slap her husband, and then call a divorce lawyer.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, "Vote for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President in 2008." Can you believe that? It's sad, but the reality is when ladies, especially high profile ladies, stay with their trampy husbands it sends a message that quite frankly I don't appreciate.
I don't view a woman who consistently puts up with her husband's infidelities as a "strong woman." It's quite the contrary. Only a woman with low self-esteem would subject herself to constant humiliation and disrespect by the man who vowed to "forsake all others."
I understand that we should forgive, but forgiveness does not always mean reconciliation. If someone is truly sorry for his or her behavior then the behavior will cease. However, if a person continues to repeat the behavior that he or she has apologized for, then that person is NOT REMORSEFUL.
That bumper sticker Robinson mentions really does illustrate teh point. Hillary Clinton, who spent years defending the indefensible when her husband engaged in serial infidelity and lied about it to the American people and under oath to a court, is not a strong woman. Indeed, she is a weak, pathetic soul who merits our pity, not our admiration or respect -- and certainly not our votes. Just as the infidelity of Rudy Giuliani removed him from consideration for the presidency for many of us, so too should the co-dependent enabling behavior of Mrs. Clinton be viewed as a disqualifying factor when she clearly intends to involve the philandering scumbag in her administration.
Posted by: Greg at
04:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.
February 02, 2008
U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., says the City of Berkeley, Calif., no longer deserves federal money.DeMint was angered after learning that the Berkeley City Council voted this week to tell the U.S. Marine Corps to remove its recruiting station from the city's downtown.
"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."
"If the city canÂ’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.
What sort of savings tot he taxpayers are we talking about following the elimination of subsidies for these unAmerican al-Qaeda supporters?
DeMint said he will draft legislation to rescind any earmarks dedicated for the City of Berkeley in the recently passed appropriations bill — which his office tallied to value about $2.1 million. He said that any money taken back would be transferred to the Marines.DeMint's office provided a preliminary list of items that would be subject to his proposal:
— $975,000 for the University of California at Berkeley, for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service, which may include establishing an endowment, and for cataloguing the papers of Congressman Robert Matsui.
— $750,000 for the Berkeley/Albana ferry service.
— $243,000 for the Chez Panisse Foundation, for a school lunch initiative to integrate lessons about wellness, sustainability and nutrition into the academic curriculum.
— $94,000 for a Berkeley public safety interoperability program.
— $87,000 for the Berkeley Unified School District, nutrition education program.
Personally, I want to see something more.
I want to see legislation forbidding the expenditure of any federal funds for any purpose other than military recruitment, military training, military retirement pay and VA benefits in Berkeley. That means no welfare benefits and no social security checks, as well as no financial aid for students at UC-Berkeley. Let the city replace such funding out of its own budget.
And why do we need to cut Berkeley off completely? Because they are aiding and abetting in the disruption of a US government office and helping to interfere with military recruitment.
As the right-wing blogosphere railed and a U.S. senator vowed financial retaliation against the Berkeley City Council for its effort to boot the Marine Corps out of town, three war protesters ratcheted up pressure from the left by chaining themselves Friday to the front door of the downtown Marine recruiting office.The demonstrators snapped their locks shut at 7 a.m. and spent the next 7 1/2 hours blocking the door, waving and chanting as hundreds of cars driving by honked in support. Finally, at 2:30 p.m., police snipped the chains and arrested them.
Two of the three were cited for blocking a business and released, and the third was booked into jail on an unrelated traffic warrant, police said.
Excuse me, but the police should have snapped those chains and hauled them away in 7 1/2 minutes, not 7 1/2 hours.
For that matter, I think we now need to bring the FBI into this mix, and see about federal charges because of this.
Heated words were exchanged whenever people tried to enter or leave the office, but the protest was peaceful."You guys are just cannon fodder!" the chained protesters shouted at three teenage boys who walked past the office and said they wanted to go inside. "They want to train you to kill babies!"
The teenagers turned around and left.
At one point, UC Berkeley student Kyrolos El Giheny walked up to the front door and tried to go inside to talk to Lund about a possible Marine career. He was unable to get past the chained protesters.
"They told me, 'No business as usual today,' " El Giheny said. "It's kind of nutty. It's really an infringement on my rights."
Not only that, it is a violation of federal law. We need immediate arrests and prosecutions -- not just of those who actively interfere with the operation of this recruiting office, but also of the city officials who are aiding and abetting their crime.
And while you are at it, feel free to contact Osama's allies and express your discontent. And since Berkeley is home of the 1960s Free Speech Movement, I won't even suggest that you be respectful and avoid profanity.
Contact info:
Mayor - Tom Bates
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704
Email: mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us
TEL: (510) 981-7100
FAX: (510) 981-7199
TDD: (510) 981-6903
Office Hours: Mon-Fri 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
====================
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
====================
Linda Maio
Phone: (510) 981-7110
FAX: (510) 981-7111
Email: lmaio@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Darryl Moore
Phone: (510) 981-7120
Email: dmoore@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Maxwell Anderson
Phone: (510) 981-7130
Email: manderson@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Dona Spring
Phone: (510) 981-7140
Email: spring@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Laurie Capitelli
Phone: (510) 981-7150
Email: lcapitelli@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Betty Olds
Phone: (510) 981-7160
Email: olds@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Kriss Worthington
Phone: (510) 981-7170
Email: kworthington@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Gordon Wozniak [NOTE: Wozniak voted AGAINST the offensive resolutions]
Phone: (510) 981-7180
Email: GWozniak@ci.berkeley.ca.us
City Auditor
Ann Marie
TEL: (510) 981-6750, TDD: (510) 981-6903
Email: auditor@ci.berkeley.ca.us
Complete coverage from Michelle Malkin.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
03:41 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 980 words, total size 9 kb.
Especially since there appear to be other shenanigans going on in Duval County involving the Democrats, and have been for years. Democrat money-man Mauricio Celis who is charged with falsely claiming to be a lawyer and impersonating a law enforcement officer (and also under investigation for money-laundering involving Mexican drug cartels), had an actual badge issued by the Duval County sheriff that he used to help perpetrate that fraud.
For that matter, Democrat election fraud in Duval County has a long tradition. One of the most celebrated incidents of election fraud in Texas history (indeed, in all of US history) involves the final 202 votes of the 1948 senatorial primary, curiously cast in alphabetical order and signed with the same pen in the same handwriting, that gave Lyndon Johnson the nomination and hence the general election victory.
I know that las example is six decades ago, but it serves to illustrate that such fraud by Democrats in that county is a long-standing and well-documented tradition. As such, the party affiliation of those facing charges of election fraud is highly relevant and should be included by Texas media outlets, if not national ones.
Posted by: Greg at
02:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.
February 01, 2008
Four Duval County residents were charged Thursday with illegally handling ballot applications and mail-in ballots that belonged to other voters during the 2006 primary election.The four San Diego residents indicted Thursday by a Brooks County grand jury were: Lydia Molina, 70; Maria "Kena" Soriano, 71; Elva Lazo, 62; and Maria Trigo, 55.
* * * The defendants are accused of delivering mail-in ballot applications to Duval County residents who were ineligible to vote by mail, according to the news release. Only those who are disabled, 65 or older, or expect to be out of the county during an election are eligible to vote by mail.
The news release says that once the ballots were sent to the residents and completed, the defendants allegedly retrieved them and mailed them to the registrar to be counted without identifying themselves on the carrier envelope.
Texas law requires that those who provide assistance identify themselves on carrier envelopes used to transmit mail-in ballots.
One little detail is missing, though -- the party affiliation, which is especially significant given the fact that this was fraud in a primary election.
Fortunately, the folks at NewsBusters ferreted out the answer in a two year old news story.
All who voted in Duval County are registered Democrats.
Why am I not surprised -- by the party affiliation of the fraudsters, or by the media's refusal to disclose that information.
Posted by: Greg at
02:49 PM
| Comments (337)
| Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.
Two women thought to suffer from Down's syndrome may have been unwilling suicide bombers in twin blasts that killed up to 73 people at pet markets in Baghdad today.The first bomber instantly killed 45 people at a packed pet market in Baghdad in the deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital in six months.
A separate attack shortly after killed 20 people and wounded scores at a bird market in southern Baghdad.
The death toll from the two bombings increased throughout the day to at least 73.
The chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Brigadier General Qassim al-Moussawi, claimed the female bombers apparently had Down's syndrome and the explosives were detonated by remote control, indicating the women may not have been willing attackers, according to his office.
Bolstering that claim, local police said the woman in the first attack sold cream in the morning at the market and was known to locals as "the crazy lady".
What needs to happen here is massive retaliation – including execution of any member of a terrorist group. No forgiveness, no mercy – these individuals have shown they merit none. Send the Marines to hunt them down like the dogs they are.
And perhaps we can also get the Berkeley City Council to grant Code Pink a free parking space in downtown Baghdad, and direct the city attorney to write a letter to al-Qaeda telling them that they are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” – you know, since Berkeley and Code Pink are on the same side as al-Qaeda in the struggle against Islamist Terrorism, their words might carry more weight with the terrorists.
More from Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
12:32 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.
"True Conservative," going up on national cable and in some markets, aims to address McCain's problems with his own party and make the Gipper connection."A proud social conservative," notes the spot.
Am I the only one who think he begs the question of how conservative is McCain really is on those social issues?
After all, he just failed to name a single one of them in this ad.
But still, I won't go this far.
In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up.Speaking on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter took aim at the GOP frontrunner, and suggested he was little more than a Republican in name only.
"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."
Coulter took aim at McCain's positions — particularly his fervent anti-torture stance — and said he and Clinton differ little on the issues. Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton's behalf should McCain win the party's nomination.
"John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is — he is bad for the country," she said.
I'll take McCain on a lot of issues over Hillary or Obama, because he is manifestly more conservative than either. Liberal and conservative groups agree on that in their ratings of the three. And on a number of key issues where he disagrees with my principles, he is still no worse that either of his Democrat rivals -- and is better on many others. And while I would much prefer Mitt Romney, I simply cannot imagine standing by and delivering the presidency into the hands of either Billary II or the wet-behind-the-ears Obama.
I hope Coulter and those like her come to their senses before they do great harm to this country.
Posted by: Greg at
12:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.
66 queries taking 0.3735 seconds, 811 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
