So the Democrats claim to be the party of the common people. I don't know about the rest of you common working class folks out there, but I sure as Hell can't afford $10 gas.

But at least one Senate Democrat thinks you can -- and he was speaking on behalf of the entire Democrat Caucus when he said that the American people can suck it up if gas goes that high.

Got that, America. Gas at $4 -- no new drilling in America. Gas at $7.50 -- no new drilling in America. Gas at $10 -- no new drilling in America.

So even if your gas and electric, and food, and clothing and other bills increase 250% while your pay increases by a significantly smaller margin (if your job even exists any more), there will be no new oil production in America. You just have to suffer, because the Democrats care less about you than Al Gwhore and the radical environmentalists holding their party hostage.

Want energy independence? VOTE REPUBLICAN!

H/T Hot Air, Human Events

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

1 With representation like that of Sen Salazar, who needs foreign enemies; this guy needs to be taken out back and have some serious "talkin to" until he recognizes that he's supposed to be FOR American interests rather than against us.

Posted by: T F Stern at Thu Jul 31 14:43:13 2008 (Ruh11)

2 How are you. Well done is better than well said. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Lawsuit settlement loans in ma. I found only this - auto accident settlement loans. Still does a policy to discuss uninsured cases for a discriminatory worth of profit.The credit was envisaged as a resolution to needs and penalties of futures appraised to those under the lender composition as the wholesale is not risen other out-of-state plantation after economy, and was guaranteed as a book of news towards industrial prisoners. They are quickly requesting associations for mortgage, court or agreement, back own.It is instead the servicer of the version system to collect whether or directly a option identity has paid but regardless a mortgage of information that, northern to the problems of ceremonial accounts, must be lived by eventually successive investment disbursed along with a report government turn.These three decisions were in same income with each many saying for loan over the option.Some boundaries compete their annual projects to require up policy to sign a not repealed of risk. Best regards , Dymas from Barbuda.

Posted by: Dymas at Wed Oct 21 10:11:06 2009 (/hK63)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

To honor Obama's commitment.

It seems that Barack Obama made a promise to the folks in his ancestral village back in Kenya.

He would help them support their school, which was in need of financial assistance to stay open and educate the children.

They named the school after him.

He did absolutely nothing to fulfill his pledge.

Barack Obama, the Evening Standard can reveal, after we went to the village earlier this month, has failed to honour the pledges of assistance that he made to a school named in his honour when he visited here amid great fanfare two years ago.

At that historic homecoming in August 2006 Obama was greeted as a hero with thousands lining the dirt streets of Kogelo. He visited the Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School built on land donated by his paternal grandfather. After addressing the pupils, a third of whom are orphans, and dancing with them as they sang songs in his honour, he was shown a school with four dilapidated classrooms that lacked even basic resources such as water, sanitation and electricity.

He told the assembled press, local politicians (who included current Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga), and students: "Hopefully I can provide some assistance in the future to this school and all that it can be." He then turned to the school's principal, Yuanita Obiero, and assured her and her teachers: "I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so."

Following his promise, the school officials made an ambitions proposal to improve the school they had renamed in Obama's honor, totaling some $125,000. However, according to the school's principal, "Senator Obama has not honoured the promises he gave me when we met in 2006 and in his earlier letter to the school. He has not given us even one shilling."

It seems that he gave his African relatives and their neighbors hope that there might be some change in the education of their children -- and yet his empty promises have come to absolutely nothing as he pimps his African heritage in his presidential campaign and best-selling books. I guess that all of it is just words, just speeches.

But conservative blogger Baldilocks (whose life and ancestry intersects with Obama's in a very interesting way) has been moved to take action to actually do what what liberal politician Barack Obama won't -- honor the commitment made by Barack Obama to improve the lives of one African village that honored him. She has established Save Senator Obama Kogelo School, Inc., a non-profit intended to keep Senator Obama's promise since he apparently has no intention of doing so.

I whole-heartedly endorse this effort, and consider it a matter of honor on behalf of the United States. While Barack Obama puts his naked ambition first, we bitter, fearful, xenophobic Americans who reflexively cling to our religion and guns need to put the children of village of Kogelo, Kenya first on his behalf. And for the record, she has graciously indicated that she will welcome donations from liberals, including supporters of Senator Obama. Who knows -- maybe Senator and Mrs. Obama might feel moved to support the effort.

To support this worthy effort, click here.

H/T Gateway Pundit

UPDATE: New allies to the cause -- Michelle Malkin, The Other McCain, Stuck On Stupid (twice)

Posted by: Greg at 04:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 5 kb.

When will there be charges filed?

Denver officials abruptly have stopped allowing Democratic National Convention planners to gas up at city pumps, acknowledging that the city can't legally sell fuel.

Public Works Department representatives also acknowledged that they never should have started selling gasoline to convention planners back in March before signing a contract with either the Denver 2008 Host Committee or the Democratic National Convention Committee.

The Democrats have been siphoning gas from the city supply for over four months now. What will the penalty be? Who were the beneficiaries of this illegal practice? And when will someone be held legally accountable?

Posted by: Greg at 09:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Every American should read this editorial from the Republican-American of Waterbury, Connecticut.

Drive less, pay more

Paraphrasing, here's how the exchange went between congressional Democrats and the president over lifting their respective bans on offshore drilling: President Bush: "We need to lift the bans. Americans are being hammered by high gasoline prices."

Democrats in Congress: "You go first."

President Bush: "OK, I hereby lift the presidential ban on offshore drilling. Your turn."

Democrats in Congress: "Forget that. Gasoline prices are too low. Let's raise the gasoline tax 56 percent instead."

Why would they propose that? Because next year, the Federal Highway Trust Fund, where gasoline-tax receipts collect, will be at least $3 billion in the red; at the start of 2006, it had a $10 billion surplus.

What happened? First, transportation spending is out of control. But Americans also are driving less because Democrats and their green cronies have made gasoline so damned expensive, so excise-tax receipts are coming in below projections.

Democrats have decided to do something about this: reward cash-strapped Americans for conserving energy by raising their gasoline taxes at least a dime to 28.4 cents a gallon. They say if they retain control of Congress, that increase will be "the cornerstone" of the 2009 federal highway bill. That measure is expected to map out $90 billion in annual transportation spending over six years, but that's well below the $225 billion yearly appropriation recommended by the nonpartisan National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. To fund that much work, the gasoline tax would have to be raised to 71 cents. At today's rates, that would push total motor-fuel taxes in Connecticut to more than $1.20 and the pump price to $4.90.

In 2009, congressional Democrats will have three choices: a) spend less, b) tax more, or c) some combination of the two. Logic and compassion dictate otherwise, but the smart money is on b.

In other words, my fellow Americans, if you vote for the Jackass Party, you will pay more for gasoline -- a lot more, due to the Democrat scheme to raise the gas tax. Can you afford the increase?

Posted by: Greg at 09:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

I've not paid attention to this story -- but now it appears that I and other Americans ought to do so.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler said Tuesday he will rent a home in Palm Beach County, after a week of criticism since his admission that he hadn't had a home in South Florida for 11 years.

Wexler sold his west of Boca Raton house in 1997, the year he was sworn in to Congress, and moved his wife and children to Maryland.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Clearly, Wexler is NOT an inhabitant of Florida by any stretch of the imagination, nor has he been for a decade. Will the House of Representatives, under a Speaker who promised to raise the ethical standards of that body, take appropriate actions by expelling Wexler from the body for having repeatedly and willfully violated the Constitution?

Meanwhile, a South Florida Sun-Sentinel investigation into Wexler's Maryland homeownership reveals that he claimed that house as his primary residence for four years and received tax breaks there because of that claim.

Now if his primary residence is in Maryland, how has he qualified as a Florida resident? Easy -- by claiming that his residence is his in-laws' home in a senior community where he would not be permitted to live because of his age (47) and children.

That, my friends, strikes me as nothing short of fraud. Wexler is clearly a Maryland resident.

And this is what the US Constitution says about the issue of residency for house members.

Posted by: Greg at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator Tom Coburn has delivered babies at the same hospital for years.

When absurd ethics rules made it illegal for him to continue to charge for his services while serving in Congress, Coburn chose not to abandon his patients. he continued to deliver their babies, at no charge, at the same public hospital he had always used.

That public hospital was recently bought by a private firm -- and now Democrats want to claim that it is unethical for him to continue to practice there!

Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) office hit back Monday at new attempts to prevent him from delivering babies for free, arguing the Ethics panel might as well investigate Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) cameo in “The Dark Knight.”

Coburn has come under new pressure from the Ethics panel for delivering babies at the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, which changed from a public to a private institution in April last year after it was acquired by Capella Healthcare.

Because of potential conflicts of interest, Senate rules prohibit members from receiving compensation for practicing a profession that involves a fiduciary relationship. CoburnÂ’s work as an obstetrician has been a subject of interest for ethics panels in the Senate and the House when he was a representative.

Sources said the fact that Muskogee is now a private hospital has renewed the ethics panelÂ’s interest in CoburnÂ’s work.

Now let's look at the absurdity of this situation.

First, where is the ethical issue if Coburn continued to practice medicine as he has for decades? Do Democrats and "public interest groups" want to argue that special interests are knocking women up to steer business to Coburn's obstetrics practice?

Second, since he is delivering the babies for free, where does the ethical issue arise at all?

Third, even though the hospital is now private, Coburn had no part in that decision and has not changed anything in how he practices medicine since the sale of the hospital. How can anyone rationally argue that he is unethically endorsing the hospital by practicing there?

I'd like to encourage Senator Tom Coburn to continue to practice, and to continue to deliver babies just as he always has. And I challenge the Senate to censure him or expel him -- immediately, prior to the November election.

Let the American people decide -- is a doctor engaging in the charitable practice of delivering babies for free unethical by any ordinary understanding of that concept?

H/T Malkin

UPDATE: Van Helsing at Right Wing News delivers one of the most cutting lines I've seen on this issue.

Too bad Coburn isn't a Democrat. Instead of delivering babies for free, he could abort them, and the Congressional leadership would start naming hospitals after him.

Posted by: Greg at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

I've never been a fan of Sen. Ted Stevens. Indeed, the Alaska Senator has been one of my least favorite Republicans.

Now he has been indicted on charges of misleading investigators probing renovations to his home made by various corporate interests.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator and a figure in Alaska politics since before statehood, was indicted Tuesday on seven counts of failing to disclose thousands of dollars in services he received from a company that helped renovate his home.

Stevens, the first sitting U.S. senator to face federal indictment since 1993, has been dogged by a federal investigation into his home renovation project and his dealings with wealthy oil contractors.

If the title doesn't make my position on the matter clear, let me say it right now -- Ted Stevens needs to resign from the Senate NOW, and withdraw from his race for reelection. Such a move would be good for the nation, his state, and his party.

That isn't a judgment on his ultimate guilt or innocence of the charges leveled against him -- that is based upon the clear impropriety of the various gifts that he apparently received. He didn't merely cross a line, he blew past it while firing his afterburners. There might be some room to argue about a gas grill or tools or some of the miscellaneous items he received, but the wholesale renovation of his home for nothing or next-to-nothing is sufficient to lead a reasonable person to decide that Stevens is corrupt in the common understanding of the word, regardless of whether his actions meet the legal definition.

And it strikes me that there is only one individual out there who can take his place as the GOP standard-bearer this fall -- Gov. Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Greg at 06:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 3 kb.

Every once in a great while, a truly marvelous piece of satire comes along that demands to be shared with everyone. Gerard Baker has produced such a work. What's more, he read it on Hannity and Colmes -- complete with news photos to illustrate the point.

He ventured forth

to bring light to the world

By Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Also, I'd like to note that the Obama campaign had his plane repainted for the Obamessiah's trip abroad. When they did, they left something off -- maybe a sign that he really is running for World President, like some of his followers seem to think when they rave about how the Europeans received him.

And for the record, would you care to note one of the many changes in the Obama campaign plane now that it has a new paint job? Here's the old plane.

Here's the tail of the plane now that it has a new paint job.

But we should never, ever, question Barack Hussein Obama's patriotism, should we? Just because his campaign has obliterated the flag on the tail of the plane right before his big foreign trip, we should never, ever, suggest that such a move signifies an atmosphere of contempt for America within the Obama campaign.

But I do have to ask --since Barack Obama seems to now be running for World President, can we just call that aircraft "AntiChrist One"?

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1281 words, total size 8 kb.

Since Barack asked the question, we might as well answer it.

Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty...?
Barack Obama
Campaign Speech in Berlin
July 24, 2008

Not only can we, I'd like to point to a family that did.

[I]n 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

[T]here was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.

"We were called at midnight by Cindy," Wes Gullett remembers, and "five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport." Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, "I never saw a hospital bill" for her care.

And what's more, Barry, the McCains did it without a new government program and massive spending of funds extracted from the pocket of the cash-strapped taxpayers.

But then again, that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans believe that charity is the duty of every individual, according to their means and conscience.

Democrats believe charity takes a village -- a village that takes from you whether or not you can afford it or support the purpose.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if some foreign politician insisted upon doing a Rose Garden press conference without the President?

Is this really any different?

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a news conference at 10 Downing Street after a meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London, Saturday, July 26, 2008

So let's summarize.

• Visit war zone after enunciating policy on war. Check.
  
• Desecrate holiest spot in Judaism. Check.
  
• Give speech at Hitler-connected German site. Check.
  
• Blow off wounded soldiers because of lack of press. Check.
  
• Hold press conference at #10 without British PM. Check.

Posted by: Greg at 05:14 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

A great question, given Obama's rhetoric on how he'll deal with the war on Islamofascist terrorism.

* Given that your candidate acknowledges the need for more combat troops in Afghanistan, will you enlist and do your part? Or do you expect other young Americans to continue to bleed in your place?

* If your man is elected president and orders ground troops into Pakistan - which could lead to a much wider conflict - will you enlist and do your part? We'll need a lot more troops to occupy those badlands.

* If the next president yanks our troops out of Iraq, all the progress disintegrates, Iran moves in and we have to re-invade to clean up the mess, will you enlist and do your part?

You know all the stuff that we've been hearing from the Code Pinkos and other assorted moonbats? Well, the Obamabots become fair game on January 20, 2009 if he wins the election. After all, it will then be President Obama's war -- and by their own logic, it will be his supporters who have a moral obligation to go fight while those who voted against him stay home and engage in a higher form of patriotism -- engaging in "dissent" designed to undercut the lawfully elected president, demoralize the military, and provide aid and comfort to the enemies of America.

I'm already looking forward to "Operation Yellow Donkey", calling out all the College Democrats for not dropping out and signing up in the first 30 days of the Obama Administration -- and asking aging hippies why they have not written to President Obama demanding that he waive all enlistment standards so they can go fight war criminal Chimpy ObHitler's optional war.

After all -- those are things that have passed as appropriate political activity for the party that does not control the Executive Branch during the last seven years. Surely they will have no place to object to our following their example.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 PM | Comments (340) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

My confirmation sponsor (about 30 years back) sent this on to me via my Dad.

IT'S TIME TO RE-EVALUATE OUR INVOLVEMENT

Every day there are news reports about more deaths. Every night on TV there are photos of death and destruction. Why are we still there?

We occupied this land, which we had to take by force, but it causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there?

Many of our children go there and never come back. Why are we still there?

Their government is unstable, and they have sporadic leadership. Why are we still there?

Many of their people are uncivilized. Why are we still there?

The place is subject to natural disasters, from which we are supposed to bail them out. Why are we still there?

There are more than 1000 religious sects, which we do not understand. Why are we still there?

Their folkways, foods, and fads are unfathomable to ordinary Americans. Why are we still there?

We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?

They are billions of dollars in debt, and it will cost billions more to rebuild, which we cannot afford. Why are we still there?

It is becoming clear...

WE MUST PULL OUT OF CALIFORNIA

Not a bad idea -- indeed, we would lose nothing significant.

What would we lose?

Pelosi.

Boxer.

Feinstein.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

I bet the media will overlook this little blurb.

++ Visit to US Military Bases Cancelled ++

1:42 p.m.: SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. "Barack Obama will not be coming to us," a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. "I don't know why." Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.

But not to worry, besides giving a campaign speech in another country, Barack has important stuff on his schedule that trumps meeting with real Americans serving in the military -- especially those wounded servicemen being treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.

What sort of important stuff?

Obama noted that in a break from his whirlwind schedule, "we've got some down time tonight. What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? ...I've never been to Berlin, so...I would love to tour around a little bit."

In other words:

H/T Hot Air

UPDATE: Here's the explanation -- sounds like a crock to me.

During his trip as part of the CODEL to Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Obama visited the combat support hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad and had a number of other visits with the troops.
For the second part of his trip, the senator wanted to visit the men and women at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice. The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."

So remember -- if Obama meets with any military personnel between now and the election, we must be informed if it was paid for by Obama's campaign, his own personal funds, or the US taxpayer. Because after all, meeting with them using campaign dollars would be inappropriate and disrespectful.

Personally, I think this comes closer.

UPDATE 2: It is even worse than I would have imagined.

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, "Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."

In other words, Obama couldn't whore the wounded soldiers for his own political benefit, so he blew them off. So to use his own words, he canceled his visit to American heroes because he was not permitted to do something he later hypocritically described as "inappropriate and disrespectful".

Posted by: Greg at 06:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 4 kb.

If dealing with energy independence is the most important issue facing America, then no one can dispute that this is the right move by Senate Republicans.

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”

This has to be a winner for the Republicans -- after all, 73% of Americans support offshore drilling. And we've already seen the positive effects of repealing the Executive Branch portion of the drilling ban -- the effects of repealing the Congressional ban would be no hoax.

Maybe a little more backbone by the GOP will turn things around in November.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

One tells you what her husband will make you do.

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

This hospital VP (whose salary was "just coincidentally" increased 250% right after her husband's election to the Senate -- which allowed him to steer earmarks to the hospital) also likes to tell folks not to strive for a high-salary corporate career and lifestyle (while publicly complaining about the cost of summer camp and music lessons for her daughters).

The other is a quiet humanitarian who brings medical services to those in the midst of grave humanitarian crises.

Over the years, [Cindy] McCain has taken medical services to a Sandinista stronghold after Nicaragua's civil war; set up a mobile hospital near Kuwait City while the oil wells still burned from the Persian Gulf War; helped in Bangladesh after a cyclone. And while in that country in 1991 she found her daughter Bridget in an orphanage -- "She really picked me," McCain insists. Sometimes the desire to save every child is properly concentrated on a single child.

Like most of Cindy McCain's life, these stories are generally hidden behind a wall of well-tailored reticence. She values the privacy of her family and resents the intrusiveness of the media. None of her relief work has been done for political consumption or Washington prominence. On the contrary, it has been an alternative life to the culture of the capital -- the rejection of the normal progress of a senator's wife. "It is not about me -- it never has been. I felt it was important -- that I had to do it. I never took government money. It was my own, and I am not ashamed of it."

But all this would have political consequences in a McCain administration. Even if a first lady is not intrusively political, the whole White House responds to her priorities. Cindy McCain has had decades of personal contact with the suffering of the developing world. And in some future crisis or genocide, it might matter greatly to have a first lady who knows the smell of death.

Now tell me -- which one of these women would you want your child to emulate? Which one ought to be held up as a role model for our young people? And which one's husband ought we be electing president?

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

Thou Shalt Not Disrespect The Obamessiah!

In case their Plantation Bend neighbors had any questions about how Doug and Wendy McKain feel about Barack Obama, the bumper sticker on their pickup could be a clue.

But when Chynethia Gragg spotted the sticker — depicting someone urinating on the name "Obama" — Sugar Land police say, she stopped to express her disapproval, and that's when things got ugly.

Gragg, 35, has been charged with making a terroristic threat after confronting the McKains, telling them the sticker was racist, police said.

Well, she did a little bit more than "confront" and "threaten".

Court documents said Gragg told Norris she saw the sticker on the back of a pickup and stopped in front of the McKain house. She told Norris she confronted McKain about the sticker, saying it was racist.

McKain told the officer he and his wife were driving home when they noticed a female motorist looking closely at his truck. The couple drove home then pulled into their driveway.

"Mr. McKain said shortly later the same person (Ms. Gragg) pulled up to his residence (blocking his driveway behind his truck.) Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg began to rant and rave about the sticker on the back of his truck," the court document states.

McKain told police Gragg shouted numerous profanities at him and his wife.

"Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg said she (would) get someone to take care of him later," the report said.

Stalking. Unlawful imprisonment (they could not leave their own driveway to escape this loon). Trespassing. Terroristic threat. Disorderly conduct.

Wanna bet that it would be classified as a hate crime -- and a felony -- if the McKains had done something similar to the Obamabot Gragg?

Too bad she didn't try this over at Joe Horn's place -- it could have been quite amusing.

And for what it is worth -- I think the sticker is pretty distasteful, and would like to see the McKains replace it with something more appropriate. That said, it is neither racist nor beyond the protection of the First Amendment -- at least not until folks like Gragg get power.

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

No, not by this.

This.

Yeah, that's right -- campaign banners at the Wailing Wall. Apparently the acolytes of the Obamessiah seem to believe that this remnant of the sacred precincts of the Temple is an appropriate place to actively campaign for President. I don't fault him for visiting the site -- I do not believe anyone should visit Jerusalem without taking a moment to visit the sacred site and offer prayers to the Most High. But this constituted a desecration. And since it was a "surprise visit" to the site, the banners could only have happened with the active complicity of Obama campaign officials.

Quite frankly, it reminds me of this from 1 Maccabees:

And he commanded the holy places to be profaned, and the holy people of Israel. -- 1 Maccabees 1:49

and

On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God... -- 1 Maccabees 1:57

Apparently some of those gathered there for prayer rather than a campaign event had a few choice words for the candidate who would trump God in this holy place.

Orthodox men interrupted their morning prayers to catch a glimpse of the Illinois senator, reaching out to shake his hand as he passed them by. But not all were taken by the Democrat. One yelled out: “Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!” before Mr. Obama was whisked away to his waiting plane.

There seems to be a lot of indication that Israelis are not happy with Obama -- especially since "Israelis for Obama" has only six members in Israel (four of whom apparently turned out to hold banners for his campaign).

I hope the Swiss Guards have their halberds ready if Obama tries to visit the Vatican -- he'll be trying o put his logo on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica!

H/T Malkin, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, RWN, Sister Toldjah

UPDATE -- 7/29/2008: I intentionally did not cover the content of Obama's prayer when it was reported by one of Israel's largest news organizations. After all, removing it from the Wall was wrong, and I believed that any reporting on my part would only further the wrong done to Obama by that newspaper.

Now, however, it appears that Obama and his campaign were parties to a second desecration of the Western Wall -- by actively cooperating with and encouraging the media outlet in question to retrieve the paper with the prayer on it from the Wall for publication.

"Obama's note was published in Maariv and other international publications following his authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem. Moreover, since he is not Jewish, there is no violation of privacy as there would be for a Jewish person who places a note in the wall."

While that last sentence is somewhat inflammatory (shades of Jerry Falwell's "I do not believe that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew.”), it is the rest of the statement that is really big news. That Obama and his campaign were actively complicit in violating the sanctity and privacy of the prayers offered at the Wall is simply an outrage -- but simply one more on which he will continue to get a pass from his adoring acolytes in the Media.

However, I believe that a previous claimant to the title of Messiah may have had something to say about such behavior.

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. -- Matthew 6:5

Maybe Barack Obama should have attended a church where they spent more time on God's Word than on calling for God to damn America.

UPDATE 2 -- 7/29/2008: Or perhaps they didn't quite approve the note snatching. But Maariv has always claimed that the text of the prayer was released to them by the Obama camp -- which makes the quote from the Gospel of Matthew above still quite fitting.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 8 kb.

Gee -- it was only a couple of weeks ago that Rick Noriega's policy on oil was "No drilling in America -- take it from Iraq by force."

Now he's changed his mind.

Democratic Senate candidate Rick Noriega provided details Tuesday of his energy proposal, saying America needs to use renewable energy and find new sources of oil, in part through offshore drilling.

“Texas leads the U.S. in both fossil fuel reserves and in renewable energy potential and deserves an energy policy that takes both factors into account,” Noriega said in an energy policy document he unveiled in Dallas.

Interestingly enough, his position on drilling (and all the rest) now matches up almost identically with that of his GOP opponent, John Cornyn.

I’m backing several bills to move America closer to energy independence. They include the Gas Price Reduction Act, to facilitate offshore and western shale exploration. The U.S. is well on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. I support aggressively pursuing every source of energy—including nuclear, clean coal, shale, wind and solar. We need it all. But as we move toward alternatives sources, our infrastructure relies on traditional energy.

So now it is pretty clear -- because he is too liberal for Texas, Rick Noriega has taken to cribbing his policy positions from John Cornyn. That being the case, would you care to explain to me why we need to replace the experienced Cornyn with the finger-in-the-wind neophyte Noriega?

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

An interesting question -- raised tongue-in-cheek -- by a conservative legal scholar.

Barack Obama is too young to be president. Yes I know he is 46 and the Constitution sets the presidential age qualification at 35 or higher, but Obama has said that we ought not to interpret the Constitution woodenly and formalistically. Perhaps we should look deeper at the presidential age limit. If we do, we will find that Obama really is too young to be president.

Many on the legal left these days advocate purposive, pragmatic interpretation of the Constitution. The idea is you look behind the text to see what function it played for the framers and you then translate the text so it will play that same function for us today. What does this mean for the presidential age qualification?

In 1789, the average life expectancy of a newborn was about 40 years, compared with about 78 today. A lot of this was because of infant mortality, but in 1789, even the average life expectancy of every man who reached age 18 was only about 47. This suggests that at best a 35-year-old age limit in 1789 might have functioned then about the way a 55- or 60-year-old age qualification would function today. On this account Obama may be old enough to drive and buy a glass of white wine, but he has a way to go before he can run for president.

Northwestern University Professor of Law Steven G. Calabresi does a fantastic job of showing two things in his article -- why Obama is under-qualified for the Oval Office, and the utter vacuousness of a Constitutional jurisprudence (like that of Breyer, Ginsburg, and other left-wingers) that would set aside the text of the Constitution in favor of some unwritten meaning that judges deem more important (and knowable only by them).

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Now here's a big surprise -- when Pete Olson went looking for consultants to perform services for his political campaign, he went to folks who worked for or with Tom DeLay. And why should that be a surprise? After all, DeLay was the congressman here for a couple of decades.

And let's look at the details.

FEC records show Olson spent $50,448 on consultants between April 1 and June 30, some of whom also have faces familiar to District 22 political observers:

- Olson's campaign spent about $15,600 with Dana Benoit of Richmond, for fundraiser consulting services. Benoit served as DeLay's finance director for several years.

- Olson's campaign spent just over $9,000 with Walden & Associates of Houston, also for fundraising consulting. According to Source Watch, the firm is owned by Sue Walden, whom the New York Times described as a "close ally of Tom DeLay" who also served as an adviser to the late Ken Lay, former Enron chief executive.

- Olson's campaign also spent about $9,650 during the quarter with Marathon Strategic Communications, for media and "grassroots" consulting. The firm's address is listed at 3771 Vinecrest Drive in Dallas. Real estate records list the owner of the property at that address as Christopher Homan. Chris Homan was DeLay's former campaign manager.

FEC records show Olson's campaign also owes Marathon another $12,000 for consulting services.

Of course, not one of the individuals involved is accused of any wrong doing -- other than having previously worked on DeLay's campaigns, a capital offense in the eyes of liberal Democrats. That gives them a greater familiarity with the district in which Olson is running, which makes them valuable resources for Olson to draw upon. That makes their involvement with Pete Olson doubly scandalous -- if you are a partisan Democrat who wants to see incumbent Democrat Nick Lampson hang on to the congressional seat in the cherry-red CD22.

Posted by: Greg at 12:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

He has to be monumentally stupid -- or telegraphing his intent to abandon Israel.

"Let me be absolutely clear," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said today at a press conference in Amman, Jordan. "Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change."

So let's be really clear -- under Barack Obama, Israel will still be permitted to be fully supportive of Israel. On the other hand, he won't go on the record as keeping American policy supportive of Israel.

Wanna bet the LeftoSphere won't pillory him on this like they would a Republican?

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

And as I pointed out recently, Dems actually want to raise gas taxes for the rest of us.

But they will get a gas-tax holiday at the Democrat convention.

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention is using the city's gas pumps to fill up on fuel, avoiding state and federal highway taxes, officials said today.

"There's something there that just doesn't seem right to me because, in a sense, you're saying then that the officials who pass the laws are not willing to live by them, and that concerns me," Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz said.

The issue came up during the council's weekly meeting with Mayor John Hickenlooper when the Public Works Department requested authorization to be reimbursed by the Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee for use of "fueling facilities, fuel and car washes."

"By doing it this way, by running it through our Fleet Maintenance, that means that that fuel does not pay state or federal highway taxes," Faatz said.

While Denver's Democrat mayor, John Hickenlooper, says the Republicans are getting the same deal in St. Paul, that isn't true.

Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee, said they're getting their gas at the pump.

"We're not getting a tax break on fuel," she said. "That's not the set-up at this end."

I'm glad to hear that my party isn't evading taxes that the rest of us are paying. But even if they were, getting the gas tax free would still be wrong and should be forbidden.

H/T Hot Air, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

"I was right because the surge wouldn't have worked if all the things that happened after the surge hadn't happened."

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence" in Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said in January 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

In Baghdad yesterday, after a day spent witnessing the reduction in violence in Iraq, Obama was asked by ABC News' Terry Moran if he was wrong..

"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the ShiiÂ’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

Why were teh Sunnis able to do that? Because the American troops were beating back Al-Qaeda. Why were the Shii'a militias standing down? Because of the overwhelming superiority of the combined US and Iraqi militaries. The surge CREATED the conditions for those things to happen.

It is rather like someone saying "I would have been right about the angioplasty being unsuccessful if the blockages in the arteries to the heart hadn't been removed and the blood hadn't started having a less obstructed flow. So while I will admit that the surgeons doing the angioplasty did a fine job, the changes in the conditions of the arteries and the bloodflow are what's really significant, and those might have happened on their own if my strategy of not doing the angioplasty had been implemented."

Posted by: Greg at 07:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Mercy is a good thing -- but so is justice.

And when mercy is perceived by the most vicious of one's enemies to be weakness rather than virtue, and therefore to become more vicious, then mercy becomes a vice which must be set aside in the name of a more firm devotion to bringing justice to those enemies.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach brings the issue of the death penalty for terrorists to the fore.

IT IS time that we articulate what few wish to, namely, that Israel must finally institute a death penalty for convicted terrorists.

To be sure, human life is of infinite value and every human being is equally a child of God. No country upholds this statute more than Israel, which is why it is prepared to set killers free just to retrieve the bodies of its fallen soldiers. Israel could have defeated Hizbullah and Hamas with ease had it not always limited its overwhelming firepower to protect innocent civilians. A country this virtuous naturally balks from putting anyone, even terrorists, to death.

Indeed, since the Nazi Eichmann, there has been no execution in Israel.

And as a result, Israel has been forced to exchange some of the worst of the worst terrorist murderers for captured soldiers -- or the mutilated bodies of soldiers who had been tortured to death by terrorists of the same ilk as those released.

What to do?

As for those who argue that if Israel puts its terrorist captives to death the same will be done to its soldiers once captured, I ask, does anyone seriously believe that it would be otherwise? We once believed that Goldwasser and Regev might likewise come home alive, and for two years Hizbullah manipulated the emotions of the country to believe just that. But like so many other Israeli prisoners before them, they ultimately came home in a box.

I am not suggesting that Israel take unilateral action and simply hang captured terrorists. They should be given a fair trial, just like Kuntar, in which he was found guilty and sentenced to more than 500 years in prison. But once found guilty and allowed an appeal, if their conviction is upheld, they must be executed.

There are times when a country must temporarily violate a principle to ensure it is upheld. Police cars speed to catch those who themselves speed on highways, thereby endangering other motorists. Surgeons cut open people's chests with knives to save their blocked arteries and stopped hearts. And just governments must sometimes take the lives of unrepentant terrorist mass-murderers to protect and uphold the infinite value of human life.

Indeed, I'd argue that there is a moral imperative for the removal of such diseased specimens of humanity from this mortal coil. After all, mercy has gotten Israel precisely nothing.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

Begun by the Prince of Darkness himself.

Sources close to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip. The name of McCain's running mate has not been disclosed, but Mitt Romney has led the speculation recently.

The timing would be odd, but not unprecedented. And it might distract from the current Obama Blitz through the Middle East and Europe. But when would he do this? And who would be the pick?

Well, the rumor is Mitt Romney. But that would mean no announcement this week, since Romney is out of the country until Friday or Saturday (for that matter, Cindy McCain is out of the country, too -- and spouses are a must for these events)

Now you understand, I wouldn't mind that choice at all. After all, I was a Romney supporter from the beginning. But does he supply the Oomph!" that the McCain ticket needs? And would his selection harm his prospects in 2012 if Obama wins this fall?

But then again, there is also that meeting scheduled for tomorrow with Louisiana's Bobby Jindal -- another favorite of mine. But Jindal said yesterday that he wasn't going to be the pick. I'd assume that means he hasn't been asked for vetting material -- plus he may be a bit too young. Let him clean up Louisiana and run in 2012 -- at the top or bottom of the ticket, with an even more impressive record.

So if not them, who? Rudy? Crist? Pawlenty? Palin? Portman? Who?

And, of course, WHEN? Politico is saying not quite yet.

Or is this just one of those stories that rises to the surface on a bubble of speculation, only to fall away into obscurity when it does not come to pass.

More From AOSHQ, Next Right, Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.

From the great state of Tennessee, I bring you the incredibly corrupt John Ford -- and yes, this would be Harold Ford's uncle.

In the end, former state Sen. John Ford's disclosures, the ones he revealed and the ones he tried to hide, led to the downfall of the once-powerful Memphis Democrat, who was convicted Friday on federal corruption charges.

A federal jury convicted Ford on two counts of wire fraud and four counts of concealing material facts stemming from the secret payments he took from two TennCare contractors while he was in the Tennessee Senate.

The nine-woman, three-man jury agreed with government prosecutors: Ford cheated the people of Tennessee.

For all his gravitas and influence, Ford seemed resigned to his fate. When he heard the verdict, he didn't react. A federal judge will sentence him on Sept. 29.

The wire fraud convictions each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years. The false statement charges carry a maximum penalty of five years each. He could get a maximum sentence of 60 years in prison. Ford, 66, is serving 5½ years for a bribery conviction in an unrelated case.

Oh, yeah -- the whole thing was triggered when John Ford lied about his income during a child support hearing. That means that he not only ripped off the people of Tennessee, but was also trying to rip off his own children as well.

What a prince!

Your Democrat elected officials in action!

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Extreme partisanship? Check.

Disrespect of military service and time as a POW? Check.

Blatant anti-Asian racism? Check.

So where's the outrage over this illustration from Rolling Stone magazine?

And yet there has been nary a peep from the media over this, while we've heard all sorts of discussion of the New Yorker cover lampooning false beliefs about Obama.

What's the difference?

Oh, I think we know the answer.

The MSM is in the tank for Barack, but is willing to allow a lot of garbage to be slung at John McCain. And if that mean not commenting upon those who mock his torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese as a POW -- and the use of exaggerated facial features reminiscent of the worst stereotypes of the 1930s and 1940s (or even earlier), then so be it.

And interestingly enough, neither the McCain campaign nor the candidate himself have made a big deal about this -- in sharp contrast to the manner in which Obama and his surrogates dealt with the New Yorker cover. That just shows that John McCain is a real man who can take the nastiness that comes from the press when you are a candidate for president (and when you actually have the job) -- and that Obama's thin skin is simply one more reason that he isn't ready for the Oval Office.

More At STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the suggestion of Lani Guinier, commenting on the sort of Obamanations that will be nominated to the Supreme Court if the Democrats win the presidency this fall.

Harvard law professor Lani Guinier hopes to get scholars, as well as judges, to rethink the role of a Supreme Court justice, a role she describes as "the justice as a teacher in a national seminar, an educator."

"They're not just making laws and delivering those tablets from Mount Olympus," Guinier said. "The project of being a Supreme Court justice is also a project of being an important citizen in a democracy."

While Guinier said she would not necessarily argue that the next president should nominate a politician, she said it was important to "make the court more democratically accountable."

Funny, I've read the US Constitution -- it does not include any role for a justice as "teacher in a national seminar". It vests them with the judicial power -- the authority to interpret and apply the laws and the Constitution. Indeed, too many judges have forgotten that since the 1930s, believing that the language of statutes and Constitutional provisions are secondary to the latest legal theory or foreign law and precedent.

But if she really wants to make the Supreme Court (and the rest of the courts, too) "democratically accountable", I've got an idea -- let's follow the model here in Texas. Let's bring some real democracy into the picture by allowing the voters to democratically elect judges.

Indeed, let me offer a proposal. We have nine Supreme Court justices Let's break them into three separate classes, just like we do Senators. Stagger their elections -- put three of them up for election to a twelve year term every four years, during the even-numbered year in which there is not a presidential election. Give Circuit Court judges eight year terms, staggered so that half are reelected every four years in the non-presidential year. Put District Court judges on the ballot every four years, during the non-presidential year.

Oh, wait, you don't want them THAT democratically accountable? You're afraid that the people will vote the entire Ninth Circuit off the island? That the justices who oppose the Second Amendment and coddle terrorists and teenage killers would be booted from the bench -- along with any judge who tried to impose gay marriage nationwide? Isn't that "democratic accountability"?

Oh, I see -- what you meant is that the justices must be "Democratically accountable". That there must be some mechanism for getting them to always rule in a manner consistent with the Democrat platform, since it is so hard to get many of its more liberal ideas enacted by legislative bodies that are "democratically accountable".

And given that the overwhelming majority of Americans view the Supreme Court as "just right" or "too liberal", I find your suggestion that the Court doesn;t really represent the mainstream of the American mind to be rather disingenuous anyway.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

It doesn't matter what the people have to say on the matter. It's all about Queen 9% and what SHE wants.

A plan to lift the ban on coastal drilling is stalled on Capitol Hill, for one simple reason: A Californian who opposes President Bush's proposal is calling the shots in the House of Representatives.

Despite growing public support for ending the ban, even in California, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said she won't allow the immediate vote the president wants.

"I have no plans to do so," Pelosi said last week.

Her position is that if drilling won't reduce prices tomorrow, it shouldn't happen -- but she supports all sorts of alternative energy programs that ALSO won't do a damn thing for energy prices tomorrow. Maybe we shouldn't do solar, geothermal, or windmills -- oh, that's right, no windmills where they might obscure the view of Senator Teddy the Hutt (D-Chivas, Oldsmobile, and Chappaquiddick Bridge).

So while 73% of Americans -- and 51% of Californians -- support such drilling, it isn't going to happen because Nancy Pelosi doesn't believe it should happen.

What do we need here? Tar and feathers? A short rope and a tall tree? What will it take to get rid Queen 9% to quit obstructing energy independence?

Posted by: Greg at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

That seems to be the course being taken by the Democrats now that the price of gas has doubled during their control of Congress.

The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.

Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

In other words, Democrats think you aren't paying enough for gas -- especially since you are driving less -- so they will add an additional dime to the cost of every gallon you buy. So the net time you here Democrat leaders talk about the price of gas being too high, remind them that it is their own party that wants to INCREASE the cost of gasoline while prohibiting new exploration and drilling in this country that will bring the price down -- even though it might take much less than ten years to bring the new oil to market.

And then there is this gobbledy-gook from carbon sasquatch Al Gwhore.

Doug Ross offers these stickers for your consideration.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

This would have to be one of the more arrogant moves by a political party in the history of the United States -- but then again, it is being done in the service of the most arrogant presidential candidate of my lifetime, an accomplishment-free neophyte who thinks he is somehow owed the support of those who oppose his candidacy.

Dear Democratic Friends:

2008 is a Democratic year-at all levels in all the states. The opportunity is ours. We just have to seize it.

We experienced an exciting, intense, sometimes difficult, campaign to nominate our presidential candidate. Now it's over. Barack Obama won.

I supported Hillary Clinton and am proud and pleased that I did. But she lost. Barack Obama won. It's over.

It is time for all Democrats, supporters of Senator Clinton and all other contenders for the nomination, to stand with him to secure his election and the election of Democrats at all levels of competition.

I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn't establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.

It is time to act in a mature and resourceful fashion. It's time to put the primaries behind us. It's time to support Barack Obama without conditions or demands.

It's time to WIN for Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, America, and our future. We have an unparalleled opportunity. I hope we will all do everything we can to seize the moment.

See you at the Inauguration.

Sincerely,

Don Fowler
DNC Member At-Large, South Carolina
Former Chair of the Democratic National Committee

Alice Germond
Secretary, Democratic National Committee

Can you believe the insanity of this email?

The difference between Barack Obama and the Celtics or Nadal is that Obama has yet to win anything -- he technically is not even the party's nominee yet, and the rules of the DNC allow delegates to change their mind on who they support between now and the convention, so there is absolutely no guarantee that Barack Obama will be the actual nominee. Indeed, that is one of the "conditions" laid down by those who supported Hillary -- that she actually be nominated at the convention and the delegates actually be permitted to reflect the vote of the people by casting their votes for her if they so choose.

But beyond that, Fowler and Germond forget one other aspect to this matter -- the election isn't over yet. Indeed, these folks who are unhappy with Barack Obama and the DNC are fully vested with the right to vote for any candidate they want in November, including John McCain. As American citizens, their ballots belong to themselves, not to the Democrat Party to dictate for them even if they are not satisfied with the party's nominee. They might want to re-read the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution -- put there by Republicans over the howling protests of an earlier generation of Democrats.

Besides, the folks receiving this email are acting in the best tradition of their party -- the Democrats "continue[d] to carp, complain, and criticize the results" of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, attempting to overturn the results of one of them in the courts and questioning the legitimacy of the Bush presidency for the last 7 1/2 years. Carping, complaining and criticizing are the only things the Democrats have been good at during this time -- Lord knows they have been repeatedly unsuccessful in passing much meaningful legislation in support of their own agenda even with a majority of both houses of Congress.

On the other hand, this Republican wants to point out that we respect the right of every American citizen to vote their conscience this November -- and that includes disaffected Democrats who choose to reject Barack Obama's candidacy for the presidency and instead vote for a candidate with a substantive record of accomplishment and service to this country -- John McCain.

More At Wake up America, No Quarter, Buck Naked Politics

UPDATE: Protein Wisdom points out that one Jesse Jackson was given significantly more respect two decades ago than Hillary is getting today from the Obamessiah. He asks why. I think we all know the answer to that question -- the relative melanin levels of the candidates. The Democrats can't win without blacks, but think they can without women.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 8 kb.

Well, not explicitly.

However, John McCain does make a telling point here.

“His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”

McCain is, however, not quite correct. The American Conservative Union gives both Obama and Sanders an 8% rating -- meaning that Obama is not more left-wing than a socialist, merely as left-wing as a socialist. However, I don't think that is anything that Obama wants to brag about.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey offers a somewhat different take.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, that is usually my reaction to Conan O'Brian.

There, the Republican nominee-to-be was well-received, even when Conan begged the 71-year-old war vet and POW to give late-night comedians something other than his age to joke about.

There was a pause. And McCain fell over asleep.

Sorry, Conan, McCain's right. You are boring. You put people to sleep. Now you are even putting your guests to sleep.

Posted by: Greg at 05:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

This is Bud Day.

He served this country in three different branches of the United States military (Marines, Army, Air Force) in three different wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam).

See that medal hanging around his neck?

Yeah, the one on the blue ribbon.

Here's a close-up of it.

It is the Air Force version of Medal of Honor. And here's an explanation of what he did to receive our nation's highest military honor.

So why am I pointing all this stuff out? So that what I say next has its full context.

BUD DAY HAS EARNED THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS ABOUT WHATEVER HE BELIEVES -- and those who disagree with him, while free to do so, have an obligation to do so with deep respect for his military service which defended and vindicated their right to do so.

So what did Bud Day say that has so many people's panties in a twist?

The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us. ... I don't intend to kneel and I don't advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn't advocate to anybody that we kneel. (.wav file)

Now that is a very stark, striking statement about the reality of the current battle against terrorism that we are fighting. And sadly, it is accurate -- though I would be inclined to suggest that dropping the first word of the statement would make it more accurate -- and it appears that Bud Day may agree with me.

Here's the reality. For at least the last 15 years, America has been subject to a series of terrorist attacks by those acting in the name of Islam. They have been Sunni and Shi'a, from many different countries. What they have shared is an ideology of Islamic supremacy that would require that those of us who reject Islam convert, submit, or die.

Such individuals were responsible for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. They were responsible for attacks on American Embassies in Africa, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole. They were responsible for the September 11 attacks, and they have been our opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last seven years. Their leaders explicitly state that the imposition of some form of Islamic domination over us is their goal. These facts about violent jihad against America cannot be denied, however inconvenient some may find them.

Not only that, we have seen multiple attempts to use "soft jihad" tactics here and abroad to limit the rights of others to speak critically of Islam. Need I remind anyone of the Muhammad Cartoon controversy, and the Islamic response? You do remember that some of those involved in publishing them are under the threat of criminal prosecution by "moderate" Jordan, don't you? Salman Rushdie still finds it difficult to go out in public, two decades after publishing his (really awful) book, The Satanic Verses. In Canada, so-called Human Rights Tribunals are being used by Muslims to silence those who speak words that call Islam into ill-repute -- under rules which hold that the objective truth of those words is no defense. In Australia, Christian ministers were convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims after outcries from Muslim groups there -- for quoting the Qu'ran accurately. Muslim nations are currently seeking to make it a violation of international law to speak in a manner that Muslims view as denigrating of Islam. I yesterday pointed out what the Saudis are teaching their own kids -- and kids in this country and around the world. And I won't even get into the efforts a couple of years back to silence me for daring to speak negatively about Islam.

So yes, Bud Day is essentially correct. There are Muslims out there who insist upon submission or death. Indeed, there are a lot of them -- if only 10% of Muslims hold to such beliefs we are talking about over 100,000,000 who want us dead or enslaved. And some polls show that the number is well above 10%.

But I'll be the first to agree with those who say there are many decent, peaceful Muslims who are not out to destroy or subjugate the rest of us. There are many Muslims I know who are not -- from my wife's many doctors to the Muslim students I have taught to dear Ruth who is finally able to open her Islamic bookstore nearby. Most Muslims in America are patriots, and most Muslims around the world ARE decent peace loving people -- but that does not negate that there are too many who are not. Those are the folks to whom Bud Day refers, and to whom we as a nation (regardless of race, or religion) must never, ever submit!

So to those who take offense at the words of Col. Day, I ask you this -- are you merely offended at the inartful phrasing of his words? Or do you truly believe that we should submit to those who are out to destroy American liberty? Answer carefully -- for your answer determines which side you are really on.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 939 words, total size 9 kb.

This would be front page news if such things happened to Obama supporters at the hand of disgruntled Clinton backers or Republicans.

Why the silence from the media?

Why the lack of condemnation from the Obama campaign?

I live in a neighborhood that is poor and predominately African American. The Obama campaign has staked out my neighborhood since the PA Primary. I live in Allegheny County-- the Democratic Nominee must win Allegheny County and Philadelphia if they wish to win the state of PA. The Obama campaign used very dirty tactics for which I seemed to be a target. Why? Because I was backing Hillary Clinton. I was called names and had these volunteers coming onto my property and taking down my Hillary sign. I made her put my sign back up.

On June 3, 2008 I put a PUMA sign up on my front door. I also put an nobama sign up. The entire neighborhood knew I was not going to vote for Obama {Most told me I would be stupid to vote for the man who spent weeks trying to terrorize me.}.

Two weeks later as PUMA began to gain attention the Campaign began bothering me again. I received an email and then the phone calls started.
One evening I received a phone call another death threat and then shortly after my son came in and yelled fire. Someone set my tree on fire. The fire department said the fire was arson.

There is a list Obamabot threats and violence against other PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) Democrats being kept here.

And Doug Ross is also chronicling the rising problem of Maoist tactics by Obamabots, as is Wake Up America.

H/T Gateway Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 5 kb.

1 strict influence buddy. craving to get more from your side

Posted by: Penisa at Sun Dec 28 09:04:16 2008 (Bxg1u)

2 货架、 货架

Posted by: Steel pallet" rel="nofollow">钢托盘 at Sat Mar 7 02:05:29 2009 (xEqmt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Seems to me the AP just wants to find a scandal where none exists in order to smear John McCain.

What's the best they can do?

Criticize John McCain for taking his Social Security Check when he dares to criticize the system as a failure.

Although Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called Social Security "a disgrace," he still cashes his own retirement check every month.

Big freakin' deal. The man paid into the system. He is legally and morally entitled to receive money from the system.

He is also correct in stating that "the system is broken and, unfortunately, my children and grandchildren, according to the trustees of the Social Security system, will not have the same benefits the present retirees have." Heck, there is a serious question as to whether the system will be capable of paying benefits at a reasonable level when I reach retirement age in another couple of decades -- something I don't have to worry about because federal law screws me out of my Social Security benefits that I paid for before I started teaching (and also from other jobs after I started teaching) because I will be receiving benefits from my state's teacher retirement fund.

Heck, I've got criticisms of how our teacher retirement system works down here in Texas -- would I be a hypocrite for daring to question this government program while also taking the benefits I paid in for?

Here's the problem for the AP (and the rest of the MSM) -- McCain is an incredibly clean, honest candidate, so they have to make crap up to try to diminish his stature and derail his campaign against the Obamessiah.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 4 kb.

I think I may have found the single most asinine complaint about John McCain by a media source -- he is actively raising money for his presidential campaign by appearing at fundraisers.

So what's to made of McCain's oh-so familiar routine?

Yes, good point, he does seem to be hop-scotching all over. His campaign days sure don't start at dawn with morning shows. And there are the ubiquitous media interviews, as always.

They're free, after all. And while he can speak to 200 potential voters at a townhall, he can more efficiently reach hundreds of thousands through film of that session and media interviews afterwards with slightly-starry-eyed local reporters, some of whom will secretively ask for autographs despite their outward objectivity.

Give you a hint. Follow the money.

Just 3 1/2 months out from the presidential election, McCain's national campaign schedule is being driven by the quest for money, not by the hunt for votes in 50 individual state elections. Allright, every campaign says it's gonna compete everywhere. But they don't.

He's always looking for votes wherever he goes. But whereever he goes is determined not by votes but by where his finance folks have found enough donateable money to set up fundraisers.

For McCain for now his itinerary is built on the quest for dollar$ not votes. That helps explain the widespread sense of unease among many Republicans nationally who do not deny he's working very hard.

Good heavens -- he's running against a flip-flopping clown who backed out of his commitment to publicly fund his campaign. You bet he needs to raise money! That should not be any sort of surprise to anyone.

Oh, yeah -- let's not forget the other great scandal this piece discloses. John McCain does interviews with local television reporters -- to make sure there is film at 11.

I'm convinced -- the LA Times' Andrew Malcolm is an absolute ninny. If he is an example of what passes for quality at the paper, it is no wonder that it is on the brink of collapse.

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

And with how many bombs?

Proving once again that Barack Obama is out of contact with reality, he limits the attack on Pearl Harbor to a single bomb, and can't even bring himself to acknowledge that the US Fleet was the subject of an unprovoked attack by Japan.

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

And this from a guy born and raised in Hawaii. The ignorance of history is astounding!

And the text of the speech would have that bomb appearing out of nowhere, and doing its dirty work of its own accord.

And this guy wants to be President?

H/T Dean Barnett, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

When you and the institution you lead have only a 9% approval rating, where do you get off making a statement like this?

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject."

After all, with a 33% approval rating, President George W. Bush is standing head and shoulders above Congress in terms of his credibility with the American people.

And let's consider some things:

1. We've won in Iraq -- a war you and your party said was lost.
   
2. Bush's repeal of Executive Branch drilling restrictions resulted in a huge drop in oil prices -- you call drilling a hoax.
   
3. Oh, yeah -- that resulted in an increase in stock prices, while you still refuse to allow a vote on offshore drilling.

So, Ma-DUMB Speaker, I wouldn't go raising the credibility issue. That would be even uglier for you than your last face-lift and botox treatment.

H/T Colossus of Rhodey

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, this time it is the official campaign apparatus of the Senate Democrats engaging in ILLEGAL COORDINATED EXPENDITURES with the Senate campaign of Ronnie Musgrove (Corrupt Democrat -- Mississippi).

On Tuesday the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Ronnie Musgrove began running a television ad that overtly violates campaign finance laws. Now is time for them to explain their actions.

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) requires coordination between a campaign and a National Committee like the DSCC not to exceed $180,800. The DSCC ad on behalf of Ronnie Musgrove is valued at an estimated $240,214 (not counting production costs, view coordinated expenditures.) This ad combined with previous coordinated expenditures with the DSCC ($55,133 in first quarter) surpasses the legal limits by $114,547.

The ad featuring Ronnie Musgrove was filmed on Wednesday, July 9, at the Madison County Economic Development Authority (MCEDA) and on the Canton square, according to MCEDA officials.

This isn't the first such illegal coordinated expenditure by the DSCC -- and even liberal folks like those at Talking Points Memo aren't buying the Democrat spinning of the expenditures. My favorite line from the story of the Oregon violation is this line from the Democrat Senate candidate's spokesperson -- "This isn't a coordinated expenditure, it's an expenditure that's coordinated."

Your Democrats at work -- engaging in corruption so you don't have to.

H/T Next Right

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.