June 20, 2008
A few days after an announcement that U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson and challenger Pete Olson would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate, Lampson's office has indicated he might not make it.The Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce had announced 12 days ago that incumbent Democratic District 22 Congressman Lampson and his Republican opponent, Olson, would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate on Oct. 20.
But on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesman from Lampson's office said "at this point the congressman's attendance is just tentative for now."
Only tentative? The Chamber had set the date before Lampson even knew who his opponent would be -- and only after Lampson agreed to the date. Why the change? Why isn't he willing to debate Olson? For that matter, with Olson willing to have multiple debates, why isn't Lampson willing to commit to a debate in Harris County, where 40% of the voters in the district live? Could it be that he knows that the more he is out and about among mixed audiences, the clearer his liberal tendencies will be?
H/T The Next Right
Posted by: Greg at
02:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
June 19, 2008
Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.
* * * “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”
Now let's point some things out here.
First, Barack Obama indicated months ago that he would take public funding if his opponent did. John McCain is doing so -- but now Barack Obama is refusing to abide by his pledge. Was Obama lying at the time he made the pledge, or is he simply being a self-serving hypocrite at the very time his own party has filed suit to FORCE McCain to accept public financing?
In addition, what efforts has he made to shut down his own allies and their "smears and attacks" against McCain? You know, things like the despicable MoveOn.org ad featuring the unfit mother and her baby.
Obama, of course, knows that neither he nor McCain have the ability to shut down such ads, either by their parties, 527 groups, or any other source. Exerting such control would be illegal -- making every dollar spent by the organizations in question an illegal campaign contribution by those organizations as coordinated expenditures.
As for lobbyists and corporate interests, Patrick Ruffini shows who is really the benefactor of such money -- and it ain't John McCain.
Frankly, I'd have more respect for Obama's move if he had forthrightly said that he wasn't taking the cash because he could afford not to, having the ability to raise more than he would get from the government. What's more, Id have respect for him if instead of talking about fixing the system, he denounced it as a scam designed to limit the speech of the American people and candidates for the presidency, and declared that we need to "end it, not mend it".
But Obama doesn't believe such things. He fully supports a system of campaign speech regulation and limitation -- for everyone except himself. Barack Obama, you see, is different -- the same rules and standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to him.
Posted by: Greg at
11:21 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.
June 17, 2008
Unfortunately, it would appear that
Wait, except for those years as a POW. A sick but undeniable fact about John McCain: The only period in his life when he wasn't living off the American taxpayer, he was living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.
John McCain's father was in the navy and his father was in the navy. The last McCain who didn't live in government housing owned a plantation in Mississippi when the state still had slaves.
Which is why John McCain always sounds so emotional when he gets to this line in his stump speech:
"I am absolutely committed to reducing the size of government."
What he's promising is eventually he'll die.
I'd ask if the author, one Chris Kelly, has any decency or shame, but I think the words written above are illustrative of the fact that the answer would be a definitive "HELL NO!"
In one little snippet of a column, this left-wing cretin denigrates military service (a four-generation McCain family tradition that protects the right of scum like Kelly to insult the military), denounces McCain's time as a POW, and tries to make McCain personally responsible for the acts of an ancestor which occurred three-quarters of a century before his birth.
But let's just consider for a minute what we are seeing here, as a pattern has emerged that I think is important.
In the last week, we have had both Kelly and Vidal attack McCain for his military service and time as a POW. A couple of weeks back, Senator Tom Harkin tried to argue that McCain's military career and time as a POW made him unfit for the presidency because of their impact on his views. Some have questioned McCain's retirement pay and disability pension. There have been repeated questions about McCain's mental stability based upon imputed diagnoses of PTSD.
Expect five more months of attacks on McCain's military service and time as a POW. Expect the same folks who objected when legitimate questions were raised about John Kerry's military service (including documented lies by Kerry and his refusal to release the records of his time in the Navy) or legitimate policy differences were raised against former Senator Max Cleland to launch vicious assaults on John McCain and his military career -- especially the heroic nature of he and his fellow POWs (for such attacks do touch on the heroism of each and every one of them -- after all, they also spent their time "living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.") as they resisted brutal treatment at the hands of their captors that far exceeded "US prisoner abuse" like panties on the head at Abu Ghraib. As a teen I was honored to know one of McCain's fellow POWs and saw some of the scars that the torture left -- and I know about these men came home half-starved, rather than getting fat and receiving advanced medical care like the detainees at Gitmo.
Aren't these the same liberals who tell us time and again that they "support the troops" and "honor their service"? How can they make such a claim when they would insult the service of a candidate who made a career of the military and minimize or deny the courageous nature of that candidate's military service? The answer is that individuals of integrity could not -- which means that your average Democrat politician or left-wing activists will have no problem claiming one while doing the other.
Most disgustingly of all, while the Left has attacked McCain over and over again regarding his military service, they insist that they will not allow Republicans to "Swift Boat" Barack Obama -- a man who was too busy "community organizing" to even consider putting on his nation's uniform.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
03:02 AM
| Comments (123)
| Add Comment
John McCain was in the navy and then he was in the U.S. Senate. He has never cashed a check a bureaucrat didn't write. I'm not trying to be glib, and I realize he was doing a solemn and dangerous job, killing people from the sky. But it was still government work.
Post contains 777 words, total size 7 kb.
) happy...
nice...June 16, 2008
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) has decided to hold a fundraiser initially sponsored by a controversial Texas oilman later in the summer at a different venue, according to an aide who asked not to be identified.McCain had planned to hold a joint fundraiser with the Republican National Committee on Monday at the Midland, Tex., home of Clayton Williams, who ran for governor of his state in 1990. But after reporters from The Washington Post and ABC inquired Friday about a remark Williams made comparing rape to bad weather -- "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it" -- the campaign cancelled the fundraiser. Williams has apologized for the remarks.
Democrats have been in a lather ever since the initial fundraiser was announced. They've even gone so far as to demand that McCain return any campaign cash even peripherally connected to Williams. McCain has refused.
But if the Democrats are so outraged about the comment and insistent that the GOP disassociate itself from Williams, what ever are they going to do about this rape-joker in their own midst?
In the 1995 New York magazine profile of “Saturday Night Live,” Franken is described among a group of show writers sounding out a spoof of Andy Rooney centered on a sedative pill bottle found in the “60 Minutes” essayist’s desk. Franken and fellow writers Norm MacDonald and Jim Downey kick around fictional Rooney responses to the discovery of the bottle.The article quotes Franken putting an edgy twist on the discussion: “And ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when Lesley’s passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’ Or `That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, `When she passes out I put her in various positions and take pictures of her.”
MacDonald takes it a step further, suggesting that the Rooney rape comment be directed at other “60 Minutes” icons Mike Wallace and Ed Bradley. Franken chimes in: “What about `I drag Mike into my office and rape him. Right here! I guess that makes me bad.”‘
I don't know about you, but I find the Franken "humor" to be significantly more offensive than Williams' inappropriate remark -- and since it is both more recent than the Williams comment and made by the party's candidate for election, it is clearly of much greater concern and of much more importance.
So let's offer a compromise deal -- McCain will forgo the money raised by Williams and avoid campaigning within 50 miles of Midland, Texas in return for the Democrats forcing Al Franken off the ballot and endorsing Norm Coleman for reelection. After all, the Jackass party did set the bar on this one.
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
12:55 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 4 kb.
,
Voters are closely divided between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted June 12-14, with 44% of national registered voters favoring Obama for president and 42% backing McCain.
What does this really mean?
1) This race will be close through the end of the campaign, barring some serious misstep by one of the candidates.
2) For all the claims that Barack Obama is the "candidate of destiny", the numbers don't bear that out.
3) Given the jump in the number of respondents who are committed to neither candidate that has occurred since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, there exists a serious possibility that McCain could win the popular vote by appealing to disaffected Democrats, provided he can do so without losing the GOP base.
And let's not forget -- these national numbers don't mean much. It all comes down to the vote in the Electoral College, so it is really a case of contesting 51 separate elections at once.
Posted by: Greg at
01:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.
Two former senators and one sitting governor thought to be possible candidates for vice president on Sunday expressed minimal interest in the job but didn't remove themselves from consideration.Been there, done that, said one.
Another is focused on being Louisiana's governor.
The third said it was presumptuous to reject something not yet offered.
That was in contrast to former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner's statement Saturday removing himself from consideration as a possible running mate for Democrat Barack Obama.
Let's be honest here -- there are only two votes that count regarding the vice presidency -- those of John McCain and Barack Obama. They will pick who they want to pick. And even if Warner -- and former Senator Fred Thompson -- say no right now, they will almost certainly come around in the event that their party's nominee asks them. That also explains why the rest of the diverse group of individuals mentioned in the article said what they said -- they know that all the displays of interest in the world can't help and might hurt -- and that it is all irrelevant until lightning strikes and they are asked to be the running mate.
Besides -- who was the last losing vice presidential candidate to get his party's nomination AND win the presidency when nominated? more...
Posted by: Greg at
01:38 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
June 15, 2008
But that leads me to look towards 2010, and the real decisions facing Texas Republicans. The statewide races will point us in a new direction, given the desire of many Republicans to evict Rick Perry from the Governor's office -- with a shuffle of other elected officials coming in the scramble to fill any resulting vacancies.
And make no mistake -- I have no interest in supporting Rick Perry in 2010. A commentary in today's Houston Chronicle by Dr. Steve Hotze (whose opinions and endorsements rarely sway me) sums up my feelings on the matter quite well.
In August 2007, after he was safely re-elected to what I am sure he thought was his final term as our governor, you may recall how Rick Perry took the opportunity he had before the foreign media in Mexico City to criticize what were mostly Republicans in Congress who opposed passing an immigration amnesty bill that would legalize millions of workers.Perry also told his Mexican hosts he supported a system that would temporarily legalize foreign workers. According to the Chronicle, Perry said such a system would allow for a "free flow of individuals between these countries who want to work, who want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico."
Of course, there might be nothing wrong with this statement had Rick Perry not made getting tough on immigration one of the central planks of his re-election campaign leading up to November 2006. Quite the contrary, he featured tough border security as a TV ad and publicly endorsed a concept to empower Web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.
Bait and switch. He fooled us once.
Remember, too, how in February 2007 within days of taking office for his second full term Rick Perry tried to end-run our state Legislature and mandate that our sixth-grade girls, who are 11 and 12 years old, must receive questionable vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases. He did this not only without saying a word about it on the 2006 campaign trail, but also without permitting any public testimony on such a delicate matter from such disinterested parties as, say, parents.
Bait and switch. He fooled us twice.
But perhaps most objectionable of all is what goes into effect this month: the Rick Perry business tax. The Perry Business Tax, passed by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature during the special session in May 2006, was revised and further complicated during the 2007 regular legislative session. It is the largest tax increase in the history of Texas. The average small business will pay 10 percent of its income in new state taxes, while large corporations were given loopholes by the governor in exchange for their support.
Add to that the Trans Texas Corridor mess and I see four very good reasons for opposing Perry's renomination for the office, much less his reelection to it in the fall of 2010.
Friday morning I unexpectedly had the opportunity to speak with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison at her booth in the near-deserted Exhibition Hall before any of the caucuses or sessions began (showing up 45 minutes before the sessions start helps one avoid the crowds), and I told her that I look forward to supporting her in her as-yet-unofficial gubernatorial race. I've hinted around this before, but I am now willing to state my position definitively -- especially after getting it straight from the horse's mouth that Dan Patrick is not running for governor. Rumor has it, though, that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst will also throw his hat in the ring for the office, so expect a real donnybrook.
If this happens, it will mean that Dewhurst's position will be up for grabs -- and there is even some discussion of the possibility that Attorney General Greg Abbott will be running for Lt. Governor even if Dewhurst does not enter the gubernatorial fray. Abbott is popular and has been effective -- and Dewhurst has not always been seen as an ally by party activists. Frankly, I'd be really supportive of Greg Abbott's bid for the position, which is traditionally and constitutionally the most powerful office in the state.
What this means, though, is that we are going to have change taking place in Texas in 2010. My only hope is that it is conservative Republican change, not a shift towards the Democrats.
Posted by: Greg at
03:17 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.
The junior senator from Illinois and presidential hopeful proves that even election to high office doesn't guarantee that one knows or speaks the truth.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Friday urged hundreds of blacks not to vote along racial lines next week in Maryland's Senate race.Obama, the only black U.S. senator, came to the state to rally support for Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, who is white. Cardin's Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, is the first black candidate ever elected statewide and has been courting black Democrats.
"Listen, I think it's great that the Republican Party has discovered black people," Obama said to laughter from students at the rally at predominantly black Bowie State University. "But here's the thing. ... You don't vote for somebody because of what they look like. You vote for somebody because of what they stand for."
Let's give this man a quick history lesson.
If one goes back to the birth of the GOP, it was a party that had the rights of blacks as its primary issue. Remember, the GOP was the party of abolition -- and that among those who were a part of its founding meeting was Frederick Douglass. At a time when the Democrats believed every black should be a slave, the Republican Party was co-founded by black men like Douglass -- an escaped slave. While they could not vote because they were women, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman were also active supporters of the Republican Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, fought tooth-and-nail to keep blacks from voting in general elections -- or participating in party primaries, until the Supreme Court told Texas Democrats in Fort Bend County (and, by extension, Democrats in the rest of the country) that such actions violated the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment.
When the Civil War came to an end and the black slaves of the solidly Democrat South achieved the freedom guaranteed them by Republican President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the Republican Congress' Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Republican controlled legislature of Mississippi sent Hiram Rhodes Revels to be the first black United States Senator (filling the seat left vacant by the resignation of Democrat Jefferson Davis -- President of the Confederate States of America. He was later succeeded in the Senate by Blanche Bruce, the first black United States Senator to serve a complete term. At the end of his term, the Democrat-controlled Mississippi legislature replaced him with a former Confederate officer who had helped draft and sign the Mississippi Ordinance of Secession.
Incidentally, the next black man to serve in the US Senate was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts -- another Republican, from 1967-1979, at a time when the Democrat Party was still fighting against civil rights and trying to determine if blacks should have representation at Democrat nominating conventions. On the other hand, should the Democrat Party regain control of the US Senate next week, they will choose a former leader of the KKK, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to be the president pro tempore of the Senate, placing him third in line for the presidency of the United States.
Republicans were active in their defense of the rights of African-Americans for the next century -- and every significant piece of civil rights legislation passed during that time was the product of GOP authors and/or an overwhelming number of GOP votes in Congress. Democrats, on the other hand, fought against civil rights every step of the way, writing and enforcing Jim Crow policies. It took a Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to craft a decision to overturn such segregation.
It was a proud Republican who, in 1963, gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial that clearly enunciated the Republican position on civil rights and racial equality -- of an America in which all people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Today the GOP continues to stand for the vision of our brother Martin Luther King, Jr., while the Democrats continue to seek to divide and balkanize along racial lines.
So you see, Senator Obama, it is pretty clear that neither party needed to "discover" black people. The problem is that one of them is the party of Ol' Massa, Jim Crow and the Klan, while the other is the party of emancipation, civil rights, and equality. Michale Steele is a part of the latter -- and any African-American should be ashamed to vote for or serve in office as part of the former.
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 7 kb.
June 14, 2008
Will any of those Democrats raise their voices in condemnation of this little attack on John McCain by author and Al Gore relative Gore Vidal?
Asked what he thinks of McCain, Vidal calls him a "disaster," then tells Deborah Solomon, "Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?"Solomon replies: "Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." To which Vidal responds: "ThatÂ’s what he tells us."
Excuse me?
![33131290[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/33131290[1].jpg)
"Rumor"?
![johnmccainpow2[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/johnmccainpow2[1].jpg)
"Aside from himself?"
![FE_DA_080117mccain_pow[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/FE_DA_080117mccain_pow[1].jpg)
"That's what he tells us"?
McCain's flight suit and gear,
"Hanoi Hilton" Museum
Well, why don't we see what someone else has to say about the matter.
Is that enough for you yet, Mr. Vidal?
I wonder -- John McCain asked that the Swift Boat Vets stop their truthful attacks on John Kerry because he considered them unseemly. Will Kerry return the favor and condemn this false attack upon the well-documented heroism of John McCain during his time as a prisoner of war?
Will the media report on this false claim about McCain by a debauched celebrity with the same degree of vitriolic contempt that they displayed for the truthful words of decorated veterans that served with Kerry?
Will we hear from Al Gore about the disgusting aspersions cast by his cousin?
And I ask again -- will Obama's "new kind of politics" include speaking out against the sort of dripping hatred that Vidal displayed in this interview?
As an aside, Vidal also stated in another recent interview that the United States is a dictatorship with a fascist government. It seems pretty clear, however, that he demonstrates his words to be false by their very utterance -- if America were really a fascist state he would not have made these scurrilous comments for fear that he would be imprisoned or executed.
H/T LGF, JammieWearingFool, Ed Driscoll, QandO
UPDATE -- 6/15/2008: Other bloggers are beginning to chime in on this one at Hot Air, Commentary's Contentions
Here's hoping the sainted William F. Buckley will be granted the privilege of waiting outside the Pearly Gates to carry out this promise before Saint Peter directs Vidal to his infernal reward.
More really needs to be made of Vidal's undeniably evil words.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
01:37 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 7 kb.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Now tell me, what would the reaction be if a Republican candidate or official, much less John McCain, had made that sort of statement? I think we all know that answer. We would be hearing about how that Republican -- and Republicans in general -- were violent extremists who want to see Barack Obama dead (indeed, certain nutroots bloggers are already claiming we conservatives will start a civil war and probably murder Obama).
Will anyone (other than me) hold the Obamessiah to that same standard?
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit asks some pointed questions.
Since Obama insists on his website that he only supports the use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting, does Senator McCain fall into the category of "big game" or "clay pigeon"?
Finally, does this mean that the candidate of hope and change is bitter?... Since he's now "clinging to his gun or religion and has antipathy to people who aren't like him?"
See-Dubya (blogging at Michelle Malkin) notes that while Obama is apparently willing to use this sort of disproportionate response against his opponents, he is apparently unwilling to do so against terrorists who threaten our national interests (and rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, too).
I’ve always thought that speech applied very well to the war on terror. I would expect Obama to disagree with me there–but it’s interesting that he does seem to think that “the Chicago Way” applies to domestic politics. I suppose a pupil of Tony Rezko’s would have to think like that.It makes sense, if you think Republicans are the real enemy, and that the terrorists are just a distraction from the progressive agenda.
H/T Ace of Spades HQ, Hot Air, Protein Wisdom
Posted by: Greg at
05:37 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.
June 13, 2008
And I'd like to thank God and the US Constitution that his right to do so is fully protected in this country.
![racistsign[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/racistsign[1].jpg)
Neighbors say a sign posted by a Houston-area man is causing tension and fear.They say the sign is offensive. It makes a derogatory and profane reference to Sen. Barack ObamaÂ’s bid to become president.
“Whoever did this is a racist,” neighbor Laz Socarras said.
“They hatin’ on Obama,” neighbor Jarmaine Calvin said.
Hey -- I'm accused of "hatin' on Obama" when I tell the truth about his record, statements, and lack of qualifications for the presidency. This is something much more offensive, being that it is a raw, unadulterated expression of racism.
But it is protected by our Constitution. The scumbag makes no threats against anyone, and is displaying it on his own property, so he can say any damn thing he wants. God bless America -- because it means we are still a free people and that even the most disgusting among us still have the right to speak publicly without fear of the heel of government crushing us for unapproved speech. After all -- we are not Canada yet.
Interestingly enough, this is within a few blocks of where I have taught school for the last 11 years. I'm surprised that the sign has stayed up as long as it has.
H/T Lone Star Times
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 4 kb.
Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee member Fred Hobbs tells The City newspaper in Nashville, "I don't exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for — and I'm not sure we know enough about him. He's got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."Hobbs was giving an interview to the paper about fellow Tennessee Congressman and Democratic superdelegate Lincoln Davis, who has not yet declared his support for Obama.
Reacting to Hobbs, Davis' Chief of Staff Beecher Frasier says he does not know for sure if Obama is terrorist connected, but he assumes he is not.
And talk about weak statements -- the Davis camp "assumes he is not" terrorist connected? If Democrat leaders -- superdelegates, no less -- aren't certain that Barack Obama is not connected to terrorists, why on earth is the party willing to take a chance nominating him?
I don't know of any Republicans making the accusation that Barack Obama is a terrorist -- merely that he is unqualified and incompetent. Maybe a few blogospheric fringeoids do, but I haven't encountered it. So what do the Democrats know that the rest of us don't?
H/T Gateway Pundit, Jawa Report
Posted by: Greg at
10:15 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
The host committee for the Democratic National Convention faces a possible shortfall of $15 million, complicating logistics for the August event and forcing it to abruptly postpone a media walkthrough of the site scheduled for next week.The Democratic National Committee has asked the cash-strapped panel to raise $40.6 million by Monday to finance the event. Last month, the committee said it had just $25 million in cash, and it has failed to meet each of several fundraising deadlines since signing a contract with the DNC last year.
Host committee members consistently have refused public comment on their fundraising efforts. Committee spokesman Chris Lopez could not immediately be reached by telephone Friday.
Now there is an obvious solution to the problem. The Barack Obama campaign is positively awash in cash, having raised prodigious amounts of money for months -- so much that the candidate is breaking his promise to the American people to take government funding for his campaign and abide by spending limits that go with that money. Why can't he just order his campaign to cut a check to pay for his coronation?
In a rational, constitutionally-limited system, he could. unfortunately, federal campaign finance laws are such that making that sort of transfer of cash to pay for a convention is an illegal expenditure, even if it is done in a public, totally above board fashion. So as a result, the Democrats will have to scale back plans and run a second-rate convention (perhaps appropriate, since they are giving America a second-rate candidate) instead of doing things up right. That once again demonstrates that what is legal under federal election law does not always coincide with what is ethical and what makes sense.
Posted by: Greg at
09:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.
It was a bad day for the RonBats who disrupted yesterday's First General Session with dilatory motions that delayed the day's business by close to three hours.
Oddly enough, they tried the same thing today in SD11 -- only to find that their call to "follow the rules" meant that we actually had to follow the rules. Thus, when their male candidate lost the SD nomination for Party Chair, they tried to have the SD endorse him anyway on the argument that even though the rules state we can only nominate one candidate for Party Chair we must nominate two -- one of each gender. Then, having had the clear language thrown in their face after the nomination of Tina Benkiser, they objected to the fact that the rules then required us to nominate a man for Vice Chair. I guess that "follow the rules" doesn't really mean "follow the rules.
Also, the RonBat lawsuit against the party was thrown out by an appellate court this morning -- with the RonBats ordered to pay the legal expenses for the Texas GOP based upon the frivolous nature of the lawsuit.
Posted by: Greg at
05:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Greg at
05:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.
Which brings us to this story.
Strangely, I found myself repeating the Hail Mary until it became a chant. Being a recent convert to Catholicism, I had yet to accept the Catholic docÂtrines concerning Mary and considered any form of Marian devotion to be idolatry. Though I had never before prayed a Hail Mary in my life, I suddenly found myself incapable of any other form of prayer. Somehow, Mary's intercessions allowed me to find peace during that long night; I knew that I had surÂvived the worst and that I would exit with my faith intact. It terrified me to recall how close I came to turning away from Christ out of fear.The crucifix had a calming effect on Susan, and her sister was soon brave enough to bring a Bible to her face. At first, Susan responded to biblical pasÂsages with curses and profanities. Mixed in with her vile attacks were short and desperate pleas for help. In the same breath that she attacked Christ, the Bible's authenticity, and everyone assembled in prayer, Susan would suddenly urge us to rescue her. It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.
While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."
With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not reÂmember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughÂter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.
This story chills me to the bone -- mainly because I participated in something similar to this twenty years ago, praying over a friend who was clearly afflicted with some malign spiritual presence. Based upon my studies during my seminary career, I'd call what we each witnessed to be cases of demonic oppression rather than full-blown possession. But regardless, the events described (and those in which I participated) were clearly REAL -- and the underlying reality of a greater spiritual battle between good and evil is real as well.
But since the Left wants to make a joke out of this, I'd like to offer photographic support for my nomination of a candidate for Jindal's next exorcism. more...
Posted by: Greg at
12:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 4 kb.
June 12, 2008
Republican Ron Paul ended his rebel campaign last night and announced a new effort to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country."With the primary season now over, the presidential campaign is at an end. But the larger campaign for freedom is just getting started," Paul told supporters in a letter posted on the website of the new group, Campaign for Liberty.
"We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape," added Paul, who announced his move during a rally coinciding with the Texas GOP State Convention in Houston. "That I promise you. We're not about to let all this good work die. To the contrary, with your help we're going to make it grow - by leaps and bounds."
The 72-year-old Texas congressman won 24 delegates during the Republican primaries, but was the last remaining challenger to John McCain, the party's presumptive nominee.
Doing so at 9:00 last night was probably a good move -- it came right as he was prpearing to host a reception for delegates at the Texas GOP convention.
However, many of them were not happy over this little angle of his withdrawal.
Paul has said he won't endorse McCain, but in an interview with CNN earlier yesterday, Paul had nice things to say about Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who is the Libertarian Party's nominee. Barr "talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message," Paul said.
I think I speak for the bulk of delegates at the Texas Republican Convention when I say the following. Ron Paul needs to decide if he is a Republican of a Libertarian. If he is a Republican, he ought to endorse John McCain and campaign for him vigorously. If he is a Libertarian, he needs to have the integrity to get the Hell out of our party and go back to that party.
Posted by: Greg at
11:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.
That is the Dan Patrick story -- from televison news sports guy to restaurant owner to radio host/station owner to state senator -- and maybe even further.
Dan Patrick met with bloggers at the RightOnline.com Blogger's Row.
He noted that this is an interesting year for Republicans with a lot at stake. Unity is important, but it is also important that elected officials inspire the voters by bringing about the reforms that have been promised over the years. This includes controlling the border.. he also talked about the essential need to limit property tax and property appraisal caps to make sure that homeowners can afford to stay in their homes. In addition, the margins tax needs to be repealed. Patrick also noted that several billion dollars could be saved with a five percent reduction of the state budget. In the end, it is visionaries like Reagan who are needed to bring out the voters to make the GOP successful. Ultimately, we must return to our conservative roots to make the US and Texas strong by getting real conservatives in charge.
Patrick noted that his conservative radio format educates, entertains, and informs the people -- and that as a state senator it allows him to explain why things are happening in Austin and the implications of state policies. He particularly mentioned the need to eliminate the margins tax and the "blocker bill". His stations potentially reach 50% of primary voters in the state. In addition, he noted the influence of the blogosphere -- and mentioned his involvement in founding LoneStarTimes.com (note: I was one of the original bloggers for LST).
Patrick also spoke about the importance of transparency in government. This has been something in which Texas has led. "There shouldn't be anything which isn't transparent in government." The big difficulty is that many voters don't have time to follow what goes on in government -- it is therefore important to elect folks you can trust to carry out what they say they will do.
When I asked Senator Patrick about possible plans to run for Governor, he indicated that he loves being in the state senate because of his ability to influence policy. Rather than seek higher office, his interest is to support good conservatives for office. "I'm not planning to kick any doors down." In other words, don't expect a Dan Patrick gubernatorial run in 2010.
Posted by: Greg at
08:41 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.
He began by noting the importance of the grassroots to the election of Republicans to all 29 statewide offices here in Texas.
He then turned to child protection, in particular the cybercrime unit that he has created in his office in a very effective effort to track down and arrest youngsters -- the unit has arrested more than 100 sexual predators across the state of Texas. He sees this as his most important accomplishment as Attorney General.
His also dealt with the importance of the protecting senior citizens from abuse and neglect and identity theft, which has become a significantly more serious problem in recent years with the expansion of the internet -- but which is still primarily a crime that is committed by taking mail and other "hard copy" documents.
What is the biggest challenge? Border security, which must be addressed in several ways due to the different aspects of the problem. On one level is the criminal issue, especially with regard to drug trafficking. But of key importance is the need for the federal government to step up and protect the border.
Speaking of the Heller case on the Second Amendment, Abbot expressed his concern that a negative decision could be used to undercut the rights of Texans to carry arms subject to Texas laws. He is eagerly anticipating the decision, with concern that a wrong decision might erode the right to keep and bear arms.
Addressing the FDLS child custody case, Abbott expressed his concern that there are still possible criminal charges possible if there is evidence of child abuse. He also pointed out that there is still the possibility of future removals of children from the compound. "No child should be subject to ongoing rape at the hands of their captors."
Abbott also spoke of the importance of making use of the blogosphere for getting the conservative message out to the world.
Posted by: Greg at
08:05 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.
, and The most touching moment so far? Governor Perry's comments on the Governor's Mansion, burned in an arson attack over the weekend. It can and will be rebuilt.
I'm particularly appreciative of the fine folks from Right Online.com and Americans for Prosperity for providing their own little blogger's row and a series of interviews of elected officials.
Ragnar from The Jawa Report is also here and blogging -- I hope we can hook up.
H/T Michelle Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
07:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
June 11, 2008
But to patriotic Americans who believe in honest elections that exclude necro-Americans and other fake voters, this sort of stuff is outrageous.
Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said Tuesday he will meet today with a Democrat-affiliated group responsible for a voter registration effort that is inundating East Baton Rouge and other parish registrars with bogus and incomplete applications.Dardenne said his investigators are trying to determine if any state election laws have been violated as thousands of voter registration cards have been dumped on registrars offices through the efforts of VIP.
“We have some very real concerns about the data we are getting from them,” Dardenne said.
VIP is a Washington, D.C., group hired by national Democrats to register some 70,000 new voters in advance of the presidential and other federal elections this fall.
"If any state election laws have been violated"? That is certainly a polite way of putting it.
After all, dead people and those serving time for felonies have been registered. In one parish, the folks in the voter registrar's office were surprised to get a new registration card in the name of their boss turned in by the company. And let's not forget the two Shreveport registration cards turned in for George W. Bush, with the address listed as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Frankly, there needs to be a federal investigation here -- VIP is based in Washington, DC and is clearly operating interstate to engage in election fraud.
UPDATE: It appears the group, hired by the Democrats, is an arm of the Muslim American Society, which is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood!
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
11:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.
Others have gone to great length to delegitimize opposition to Barack Obama as rooted in racism as well, as noted by fellow bloggers.
So I would like to associate myself with the forthright confession of my dear friend and fellow Watcher's Council member Bookworm.
When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008:
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken AmericaÂ’s interests beyond repair, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the Western World, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because I think itÂ’s an incredibly stupid idea for the most powerful nation in the world to approach evil totalitarian dictators as a supplicant, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because I hate the idea of a President who will subordinate AmericaÂ’s interests to the UN (as he inevitably will), it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama has the thinnest resume ever in the history of Presidential candidates, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because I think ObamaÂ’s Leftist connections (Ayres, Dohrn, Soros, Pfleger, Wright, etc.) show him to be either stupid about or complicit with an agenda antithetical to basic American values, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama consistently chooses as advisers people who have opted for the wrong side in the completely binary debate about IsraelÂ’s right to exist, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to socialize American medicine, which I believe will destroy the high quality of medical care available to most Americans, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to gut the military and reduce us to a nation with a big target painted on our collective backside, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment and destroy AmericansÂ’ Constitutional right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama has already announced loud and clear that he will support activist judges who place their “feelings” above the law, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama supports judicial decisions creating a right to gay marriage, when I think that decision is one for the voters, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s announced that he will dramatically increase taxes, putting the slow, inflexible, ill-informed government in charge of what should be a quick-reacting, knowledgeable marketplace, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s record in the Senate (albeit short and undistinguished) has been so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy look like a reactionary, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s an open-borders kind of guy, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama has shown himself to be a scarily slow thinker and speaker when released from the teleprompter (which really doesnÂ’t bode well for those cozy private chats with Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad), it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s wife clearly loathes America and everything it stands for, despite the fact that sheÂ’s done pretty well out of it, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama was affiliated for more than 20 years with a church that preached white hatred and began to care only when it looked as if it would affect his campaign, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama was good buddies with Tony Rezko, and other sleazy characters (showing again that Obama was complicit or a singularly bad judgment of character), it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s a compulsive liar who clearly thinks we in the public are too stupid to catch up with his lies, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s campaign has proven to be fly-paper for every two bit troofer and anti-Semite in America, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s promised already to start down the totalitarian path of purging his predecessors through criminal prosecutions, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
And might I add that even though I am a life-long Republican and have never knowingly voted for a Democrat for any position higher than county clerk (and then only when the GOP incumbent was under indictment for official misconduct), when I proudly cast my vote for a real American hero with a lifetime of distinguished service to this country rather than Barack Obama it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
After all, that is what the liberal intelligentsia in the media have proclaimed. And it isn't like they would sling around false accusations of racism against innocent victims because it fits with their political agenda, would it?
Posted by: Greg at
11:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 8 kb.
So let's offer them a compromise that offers employees REAL freedom to choose.
In light of the Democrat's obvious commitment to "Employee Free Choice", I'd like to make an offer in two parts:
- Bring back Card Check legislation, which allows a Union to be created immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards in support of unionization.
- But make it real employee free choice by allowing a Union to be decertified immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards opposing an existing Union.
- For bonus points, let's also stipulate that an Employee Free Choice Act should give each employee a free choice about membership in a Union, and no employee can be forced to join (or leave) a Union against his will.
It's a good deal. It's a fair deal. It's the workplace democracy that Democrats tell us they really want. What's not to like about it? I think we can come to a deal.**
What say you, Democrats?
**...unless, of course, Democrats decide that reciprocity isn't they had in mind, and the Employee Free Choice Act suddenly includes a bit too much employee freedom.
All I would add to that suggestion is an addition to the last of the three points -- extend that prohibition to include a prohibition on agency shop fees, which force an employee to still pay the bulk of union dues even if they choose not to be a member of the union.
What objection could there possibly be to providing workers with REAL freedom of choice regarding membership and financial support of unions? Unless, of course, the point is not freedom for workers but welfare for unions.
Posted by: Greg at
02:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.
Political activists planning protest rallies at the upcoming Democratic Convention in Denver have their stomachs in knots over a rumor about a crowd control weapon - known as the “crap cannon” - that might be unleashed against them.Also called “Brown Note,” it is believed to be an infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily.
Mark Cohen, co-founder of Re-create 68, an alliance of local activists working for the protection of first amendment rights, said he believes this could be deployed at the convention in August to subdue crowds.
“We know this weapon and weapons like it have been used at other large protests before,” he said.
Cohen, who described Brown Note as a “sonic weapon used to disrupt people’s equilibrium,” cited eyewitness accounts of its use during free-trade agreement protests in Miami in 2003.
“I think these weapons were mostly intended for military use and so their use for dealing with innocent protesters seems highly inappropriate,” he said. “The idea that they might be field testing them on people who are doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights is disturbing.”
Of course, scientific researchers say that the "brown note" doesn't actually exist -- and since there is no actual evidence other than loony ramblings of these aging hippies and '60's wannabes, I'm inclined to believe the researchers.
Maybe the real problem that the Recreate 68 folks have is that radicals like them are have simply become so full of crap that it is waiting to burst out in all its glory.
Posted by: Greg at
12:59 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.
* * * Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."
Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.
"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."
But absurdly enough, this superdelegate will cast his vote for Obama at the Democrat Convention, and will vote for Obama in the fall, so this move is purely symbolic and completely without substance. It proves that Boren talks a good game, but will still care in to the demands of the party leadership when pushed.
Voters of Oklahoma, recognize what you have in Dan Boren and do your duty -- vote him out of office for his fecklessness.
Posted by: Greg at
12:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.
June 10, 2008
“I can’t support a budget, from either party, that raises taxes on the middle class. This bill hurts families all across the 14th District by eliminating the 10-percent bracket for lower-income taxpayers, reinstating the marriage penalty and increasing taxes on small businesses and investments."
So for those of you folks who think that electing Democrats means higher taxes for the rich and cutting your taxes, think again -- the Democrats are already out to raise your taxes RIGHT NOW. It isn't "soak the rich" -- it is "soak the middle class".
Posted by: Greg at
01:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
June 09, 2008
United States Senator John Cornyn has opened a seventeen percentage point lead in his bid for re-election. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state find Cornyn leading Democratic state legislator Rick Noriega 52% to 35%. ThatÂ’s a significant improvement for the incumbent from a month ago when his lead dwindled to four percentage points.Cornyn is supported by 86% of Republicans and has a two-to-one edge among unaffiliated voters. Last month, his lead among the unaffiliateds was just four percentage points. Noreiga attracts 72% of Democrats, down from 81% a month ago.
The Democrat leads among voters under 30, reflecting a nationwide trend. He is competitive among those who earn less than $40,000 a year. However, Cornyn has the advantage among adults over 30 and those with annual incomes topping $40,000.
Yeah, Noreiga was pulling close a month ago -- but I think this poll makes it pretty clear that the previous result was an outlier, one of those occasional results that does not present a true picture of the real world. After all, this result matches well with what other polls are showing.
Posted by: Greg at
10:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
States and counties are putting out "help wanted" signs five months before Election Day in hopes of finding hundreds of thousands of younger, tech-savvy poll workers needed to handle an expected record turnout.In many cases, workers don't even have to be old enough to vote.
With a one-day workforce of nearly 2 million poll workers wanted by November, election officials are busily recruiting at high schools, colleges and businesses. They're looking for people who can speak foreign languages or help voters with disabilities. They're making training more convenient and splitting long workdays in half.
"The first challenge is just in the sheer numbers," says Dean Logan, acting clerk of Los Angeles County, which needs 25,000 poll workers in the nation's most populous voting jurisdiction.
More than 122 million Americans voted in 2004, up from 105 million in 2000. The number is expected to jump again because of high interest in the White House contest, which drew near-record primary turnout on a percentage basis.
What are the requirements down here in Texas? You have to be a registered voter in the county where you are working the polls. That's it. Contact your county clerk (the top election official in the county) and let them know you are interested -- they will in all likelihood be thrilled to hear from you. Or contact the county GOP or Democrat headquarters -- they know precincts that are chronically short-handed on election day and may offer suggestions of election judges to call. For that matter, if you are in the southeast corner of Harris County, send me an email and I may have a spot for you on election day.
Posted by: Greg at
02:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
But I have a different question: what makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it. On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.Now, maybe she wants the VP slot anyway. Who knows? But I think she'd be more effective in the Senate, have way more freedom of movement, have more career opportunities, and would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government than she would by being Obama's shadow. Anyone disagree?
I'll take it a step further. Should the Obama campaign implode, Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be anywhere around it. After all, serving as the vice presidential candidate will make it her failure, too -- which would be another blot on her record in 2012. Similarly, does she want to be Walter Mondale to Obama's Jimmy Carter?
No, the Senate is where she needs to stay -- unless she decides to run for Governor of New York (or relocate into NYC to run for Mayor in 2010) in order to get some executive experience. And then there is always that speculation about Justice Hillary Clinton...
Posted by: Greg at
02:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
In other words, no lies. What you have instead is the responsible reliance on intelligence provided to the Executive and Legislative branches. Indeed, in 2002 it was Senator Rockefeller himself who said:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Did Rockefeller lie? Or did he draw the same conclusion as the President did based upon the same data? Anyone who reasonably considers the issue has to accept that it is the latter -- and that the Rockefeller of 2002 is significantly more honest than the Rockefeller of 2008 who implied Bush lied during his press conference about the report.
WaPo's Fred Hiatt then ends with a point that I have made here and in other places any number of times -- that national security decisions must be made based upon the best evidence you have at the time, and that making the right choice relying in good faith upon what later turns out to be questionable data is not "lying us into war". Indeed, it isn't even incompetence -- it is merely tragedy.
Posted by: Greg at
01:59 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
June 08, 2008
Also aboard the windfall-profits bandwagon are presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "We've got to go after the oil companies and look at their price-gouging," proclaims Obama. "We've got to go after windfall profits."
* * * We've been down this road before. Under a windfall tax signed into law by Jimmy Carter, domestic oil production plummeted by an estimated 795 million barrels, while imports of foreign oil surged. Congress had anticipated windfall tax revenues of $393 billion. The actual take: just $80 billion. Like so much else associated with the Carter era, the windfall-profits tax was a counterproductive flop. Do Democrats really believe a new dose of Carternomics is going to make today's economy stronger?
If you want to see a real windfall, take a look at what Big Oil pays in taxes. The 27 largest US energy companies forked over $48 billion in income taxes in 2004, $67 billion in 2005, and more than $90 billion in 2006 - an 87 percent increase. Since 1981, the Tax Foundation calculates, the oil industry has earned a cumulative $1.12 trillion in profits - but it paid a cumulative $1.65 trillion in taxes (add another half-trillion to account for taxes paid to foreign governments).
So let's be clear on this -- the Democrats are out to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, all in the name of getting more gold from the goose. We know what happens when these "solutions" are tried -- because they did it three decades ago, and they failed.
And all because the oil companies make 8.1 cents for every dollar in sales -- a modest rate of profit, by any standard that allows for profit.
Be sure to click on the links in Jeff Jacoby's columns -- they'll show you just how much the oil companies are paying in taxes already.
Posted by: Greg at
07:37 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
But this is hosted on the Obamessiah's official campaign website -- and as of the time of my posting about it, is still there.
![20080608ObamaAntisemitism[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/20080608ObamaAntisemitism[1].jpg)
This is from the Socialists for Obama community blog that is a part of the official campaign site of Barack Obama.
Socialists for Obama? Yeah -- National Socialists, quite obviously. It seems like every freak and weirdo that didn't gravitate to Ron Paul is now a part of the Obamanation -- drawn by the incredible lightness of Obama and his record of accomplishments.
Maybe this is the reason that Barack is the favored candidate Hamas -- and why he backtracked so quickly from his seemingly pro-Israel speech at AIPAC. After all, he's got to keep the anti-Semites firmly in his corner.
UPDATE: The page is purged from the site -- but don't worry, there is plenty more anti-Semitic crap all about "the Jewish Lobby" that they haven't gotten rid of.
UPDATE 2: LGF spots another one by the same poster that survived the memory hole -- but not for long. Whatever would Obamessiah's webmasters do without conservative blogger to point out all the anti-Semitism that was acceptable the first time the Obama staff saw it?
H/T LGF, Doug Ross, Israel Matzav
Posted by: Greg at
06:15 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 3 kb.
An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.
“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.
“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.
“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”
Got that -- the state is saying that they won't bother trying to cure cancer patients, but they will pay to kill them.
Fortunately, Wagener's physician appealed to the drug company for help, and they are supplying the drug to her for at least a year.
And the state? it will continue to offer cancer patients the option of being killed immediately or dying a slow painful death -- something which is out of step with what the minimum standard of care set by oncologists nationwide.
But remember -- "We're from the government and we're here to help you!"
Posted by: Greg at
02:23 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
June 06, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.“We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”
Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.
“Frankly, my hope is people don’t play this game,” Obama said. “It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it.”
The problem is that this tape has been rumored for so long, with folks even offering quotes and paraphrases from it, that one has to wonder if it is true. After all, this isn't JUST Valerie Plame's ex-boyfriend, Larry Johnson, offering up suggestions that the tape exists. It has been "in the air" for several weeks now, from a variety of sources.
But I wonder how things will play out if there actually is such a tape. Will we be getting a statement that "This isn't the Michelle Obama I know and have been married to for sixteen years." as he throws her under the bus?
![1busob[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/1busob%5B1%5D.jpg)
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.
Clinton Says Running Mate Choice Is ObamaÂ’s
Well -- DUH!
Unless, of course, you want to launch a floor fight against Obama's selection -- or Obama shows a decided lack of leadership and decides to let the convention choose his VP for him, something that hasn't happened in over half a century.
Posted by: Greg at
01:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.
In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. KerryÂ’s states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. ClintonÂ’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.
In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.
In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.
When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.
If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.
In other words, Democrats, we of the GOP would like to thank you for putting ideological purity ahead of electability in the selection of your party's candidate. So while a lot of us may not have been initially enthused by the selection of one of a nominee who is a moderate conservative rather than a movement conservative, we will be quite happy to do the thing that political parties are created to do -- win elections so as to set policy and control the operation of government.
Posted by: Greg at
01:36 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.
Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."
* * * "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."
Of course, Obama's new position isn't any worse that that of the last two administrations. But the fact that in a matter of days he is backtracking from what he said in a major policy speech because the jumped-up terrorists of the West bank and Gaza is one more sign of his foreign policy weakness.
But then again, America should never have deviated from the most correct position on the Holy Land -- Jerusalem should always be one city, undivided, in the hands of Israel, and the Palestinians have no claim upon any state not currently named Jordan.
Posted by: Greg at
01:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.
June 05, 2008
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
That's the UK.
Things aren't any better in Canada.
Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.And HealthCanada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But HealthCanada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21.
But then again, maybe Ted Kennedy would have gotten the best treatment -- after all, the bootlegger's son has lot's of cash, so he would be able to pay for whatever he needed (if the government didn't make it illegal to go outside the system, like Hillary Clinton proposed 15 years ago). That would mean he would get the sort of medical care that average Americans would not be able to get under the sort of health care scheme he and his party are pushing -- medical care that is standard today in the United States.
And the rest of us would simply have to die for the collective good. Sounds like the old Soviet Union to me -- the elite get the best care, and the people suffer.
Don Surber also comments.
Posted by: Greg at
01:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.
Jane Drury voted last year in an election in Stonington, Conn. The only problem is, she died eight years ago.Her daughter Jane Gumpel thought someone must have goofed.
“I was surprised because this is not possible,” she said.
But it did happen. The town clerkÂ’s record clearly shows DruryÂ’s vote, marked by a horizontal line poll workers put next to her name. And it turns out, Drury isnÂ’t the only voter to apparently cast a ballot from the grave.
The issue of dead voters showing up on ballot records continues to be a problem for election administrators across the country.
Journalism professor Marcel Dufresne, at the University of Connecticut, led a class investigation into dead voters and said his group of 11 students discovered 8,558 deceased people who were still registered on ConnecticutÂ’s voter rolls. They discovered more than 300 of them appeared somehow to have cast ballots after they died.
“We have one person who appeared to have voted 17 times since he died,” Dufresne said.
No I realize that Necro-Americans are a key Democrat constituency, but I believe it is important that they be disenfranchised immediately. Pruge them from the voter rolls. Require that voters show identification before voting. Drive a stake through the heart of the undead when they arrive to vote. Only the living should be permitted to vote.
MORE AT Don Surber
Posted by: Greg at
12:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
On a day that Sen. Barack Obama moved closer to clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, embattled Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, Tuesday became the first of Louisiana's four Democratic congressional members to back his candidacy.
You remember William Jefferson, don't you? The guy with $90K in his freezer, on tape taking bribe money from FBI informants? The guy who diverted Katrina evacuation resources to remove evidence from his home after the storm. Yeah, that corrupt Democrat who Peklosi wanted to give a key seat on a committee dealing with national security.
Well, now he is the first Louisiana congressman to endorse Obama. What a coup!
I wonder, can he bring along his newly indicted family members as Obama supporters, too? Seems to me that Barack Obama's first day in office will involve signing a lot of pardons for friends and supporters.
Posted by: Greg at
12:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.
72 queries taking 0.2697 seconds, 429 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
