Gee -- I guess that Bill O'Reilly was right. The castration fantasy indulged in by Jesse Jackson wasn't the worst thing to come out of his mouth that afternoon.

Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling n—s how to behave.

Frankly, I'm offended that Fox News protected Jesse that way -- after all, he crusaded against use of that word by Michael Richards at a comedy club, and wanted to destroy his career for it, and demanded that NO ONE use the word. Indeed, he defined blacks who use it as "self-hating".

Frankly, I think the use of that particular word is even more serious than the whole emasculation fantasy.

UPDATE: Hot Air cites Bill O'Reilly as calling those who leaked/reported this story to be "weasels". I'm curious -- why has the grand poobah of the "No Spin Zone" been covering for this expletive-spewing, poverty-pimping race-ho?

H/T Malkin, AOSHQ, Gateway Pundit, STACLU (thanks for the link), Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 2 kb.

You know, I almost hesitate to raise this one, because I actually am somewhat sympathetic to the Democrat in question. But since one of our local Democrats (with his own history of ethical lapses) seemingly wants every technical violation in a campaign expenditure report to result in life in prison if committed by a Republican, I figure this much more serious offense is fair game.

A complaint against U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, has been filed with the House Committee on Conduct of Official Standards by Friends of the Border Patrol after Reyes' office asked a federal law enforcement agency for help in the kidnapping of a relative in Juárez.

"Reyes, former chief Border Patrol agent, knows that this type of request is frowned upon by the U.S. Border Patrol," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, who submitted the complaint Monday.

The complaint alleges Reyes violated the House Code of Official Conduct because his office was used to benefit a relative.

Rather than deny the charge, the corrupt El Paso Democrat instead chose to attack those who filed the complaint against him as "anti-immigrant" and implicitly bigoted against Hispanics -- even though the complaint is supported a complaint by the former head of the DEA in El Paso and current president of the Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association, Sandalio Gonzalez, who notes that Reyes does not seek similar federal law enforcement assistance for constituents whose Mexican relatives have been kidnapped in Mexico.

In other words, Reyes demanded for himself and his family what he would never seek for anyone else, using his official position to get special treatment.

Anyone want to bet this is ignored by the Democrat blogger mentioned above?

There you have it -- your Democrat elected officials in action!

Posted by: Greg at 05:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Not only has he been violating New York rent control laws, now it seems that Rep. Charles Rangel is making illegal use of his position to raise money for a nonprofit organization -- named after himself, of course.

Rep. Charles Rangel acknowledged yesterday he may have violated House ethics rules when he used congressional stationery to solicit donations for a Harlem "center for public service" that will be named after him.

Rangel has used his office letterhead to try to raise funds for the controversial center in Harlem from Donald Trump, Hank Greenberg, the former head of the AIG insurance giant, and others, it was revealed yesterday - even though congressional rules bar the stationery from being used for solicitations.

"The entire thing appears dicey, and there's no question that, as soon as I can, I'm going to take a look at it," Rangel said following a report in yesterday's Washington Post exposing the practice.

Yeah -- he'll "take a look at it". Notice, he doesn't say he'll stop it, only that he'll take a look at it.

But I can understand his distraction right now -- after all, Rangel has been under fire for having essentially taken over a floor of an apartment building in his district by structuring a deal to rent no less than FOUR rent-controlled apartments there. But after it was disclosed that he was illegally using one exclusively as an rather than a residence, Rangel is graciously "voluntarily" giving up that one -- but somehow not facing any charges of the illegal scheme.

Your Democrat elected officials at work.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

But we certainly wouldn't call it media bias.

Here's the headline.

Democrat Noriega needs help cutting Cornyn's 10-1 lead in cash

That is also what shows up on the Houston & Texas news page, and in the title bar at the top of your browser when you click the link -- though to their credit the headline on the article itself is more neutral.

Noriega losing fundraising race

How much of a cash difference are we talking about?

Houston Democrat Rick Noriega's uphill campaign to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn began a year ago as a populist battle. But, with 113 days left until the election, Noriega has yet to show he can fan embers into a prairie fire.

Noriega's biggest problem is money, not having enough to get his message out to a statewide audience that can only be reached by television advertising, which costs as much as $1.4 million a week for a saturation buy.

Campaign finance reports to be filed today will show Cornyn has more than $9 million in the bank, while Noriega has $915,000.

Almost half of the $930,000 that Noriega raised in the quarter ending June 30 came from the national Democratic Web site ActBlue. The Daily Kos, a left-leaning Web site that has been supportive of Noriega from the start, called his recent fundraising "a disappointing take."

In other words, Noriega is getting his butt kicked every which way -- even the "left-leaning" Daily Kos has admitted it (no comment from the "right-leaning" John Birch society).

But then again, what do you expect about to happen in Texas when the candidate blogs at Daily Kos, traveled north to pander to the KOSsacks last summer, and has been photographed with his arm around Kos himself?

But none of that is a surprise -- the problem is the campaign fundraising appeal placed on the Chronicle's website. Why are they whoring out their headlines for the financially floundering Noriega campaign?

H/T to Robbie at Urban Grounds for the screenshot (which showed up in the RSS feed as I was typing this post).

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 3 kb.

Wonderful -- just wonderful.

And this is the guy who will be in charge of ICE if he wins in November -- and in command of those who terrorize poor defenseless immigration criminals and their families by enforcing our nation's laws?

When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isnÂ’t working, and we need to change it.

I'm curious -- what other laws does Obama want to see go unenforced because parents and children might be separated? And how does he square that with the constitutional obligation of a president to see that the laws are faithfully executed?

Oh -- and what other federal law enforcement agencies does Barack Obama view as terrorists?

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, what do they have to fear from an open vote on their party's presidential nominee?

She may have given up, but a few of Hillary Rodham Clinton Â’s people havenÂ’t.

The senator from New York is said to be negotiating a respectful presence followed by a graceful exit from next month’s Democratic convention, and last week the party announced that Barack Obama would formally accept the party’s nomination in the stadium built for the Denver Broncos. But there are Clinton supporters clinging to the hope that if her name is placed in nomination and the roll call of the states is conducted, she might — might — still win.

Good grief -- even Jimmy Carter allowed teddy Kennedy an open vote on the convention floor. It was a sign of strength on his part -- and it was a positive step towards healing the party. Shouldn't Barack Obama follow the same precedent? If he really believes he is operating from a position of strength.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Could be, according to a woman speaking at an Obama campaign roundtable at University of Missouri -- Kansas City.

Who was this evil right-wing purveyor of sleazy stories about the Obamessiah?

Michelle Obama -- the candidate's own wife.

His own mother, [Michelle Obama] said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him."

Very single?

That's not part of the narrative that Obama and his campaign have been putting out for the last four years. Their story has been that barack Obama's parents were married. Even granting that the marriage was arguably invalid -- it is unclear if Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. ever actually divorced first wife back in Kenya, given his continued relationship with her after his marriage to the candidate's mother, including fathering additional children with her.

So we have to ask the question -- has Michelle Obama revealed to the American people that Barack Obama has been lying to them during his entire public career? After all, she isn't some anonymous emailer -- she is the man's wife.

Seems to me that we now need access to several documents to settle the question:

1. Obama's original birth certificate (which would settle questions about citizenship, his birth name, and possibly his parents' marital status);
   
2. His parents' marriage license;
   
3. The decree of divorce or nullity regarding his parents' marriage.
   

However, the lack of candor on his part would be more damning than the issue of bastardy. As they say -- the cover-up is always worse. And when your own wife outs you, the cover-up could be very damning indeed.

Posted by: Greg at 05:30 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.

The folks at Politico are running a piece with this headline,

McCain has no national service plan

It then begins as follows.

John McCain, who’s predicated his presidential run in no small part on his distinguished military record, frequently exhorts Americans — and especially young Americans — to serve their country. Despite that appeal, he has yet to offer any proposals to expand or transform national service outside of the military.

Barack Obama, by contrast, has proposed dramatically expanding Americorps and the Peace Corps, adding 65,000 members to the military and creating an annual $4,000 tax credit for post-secondary education in exchange for 100 hours of community service.

Now let's think about this -- McCain has been a big supporter of various national service programs over the years. He has wroked to provide opportunities for such service -- but in the end, he recognizes that any sort of national service ought to be voluntary. Obama, on the other hand, has proposed an expansion of (not really) voluntary service programs (under which the federal government will not directly mandate service but will withhold funding from high schools, colleges, and universities that don't mandate voluntary service).

So let's look at the differences -- Obama wants more government programs, while McCain wants to (at most) tweak what we have. And McCain supports voluntary volunteerism, while Obama's program envisions mandatory volunteerism.

In other words, it is all a question of how much freedom the government will allow us to have in the future. Michelle Obama spilled the beans when she told the American people that "Barack Obama will require you to work." For free, as a condition of being permitted an education.

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here's another one -- busted by his own wife, no less.

And to think the Democrats like to tell us there is no vote fraud in this country.

Todd Stuart McGuire, a longtime Jefferson County Democratic Party supporter, was charged July 2 with voter fraud.

He's accused of either repeating a vote or impersonating his wife, Rebekah, by casting her ballot in a Feb. 6, 2007, special election. Both charges are Class C felonies and carry a maximum penalty of five years in jail and/or a $10,000 fine, according to charging documents.

Neither the McGuires nor Todd McGuire's attorney Ben Critchlow could be reached for comment last week or Monday.

Todd McGuire is scheduled to appear in Jefferson County Superior Court at 8:30 a.m. Friday, July 18.

The McGuires have been prominent in local Democratic Party activities. Todd McGuire is a former treasurer for current Democratic County Commissioner David Sullivan. Rebekah McGuire is currently a Democratic precinct committeewoman.

It must suck to have your own wife responsible for busting you for vote fraud -- and for stealing her own vote. I wonder how relations are in that household.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Not only that, Cynthia McKinney has a decade more Congressional experience than Barack Obama, making her significantly more qualified for the job!

The U.S. Green Party, which captured far less than 1 percent of the vote in the last presidential election, chose former Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney as its 2008 presidential candidate on Saturday.

McKinney, 53, will be joined on the ticket for the November election by vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente, a hip-hop artist and activist.

McKinney received 313 out of 532 votes cast at the party's nominating convention in Chicago, party spokesman Scott McLarty said.

Now granted, Cynthia does present more like Michelle Obama than Barack Obama, but that's fine -- perhaps her uterus will help attract some of the Hillary Clinton supporters to her side. And besides -- McKinney also has more experience in elected office than the junior senator from New York. And as a Truther loon, she'll be a candidate that Kos and his minions can support.

Posted by: Greg at 04:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

That's the best description of the fall of Obama's poll numbers from Newsweek -- the successor poll to the one that showed a 15-point Obama lead a couple weeks back, leading Lefties and journalists (but I repeat myself) to conclude that the presidential race was over.

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack ObamaÂ’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last monthÂ’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

Obama’s rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience–an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who’d slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama’s reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.

More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since ObamaÂ’s outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In JuneÂ’s NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.

Yep -- those independent voters are coming around to McCain, having seen the weaknesses of the Democrat candidacy. You know, inconsistency and inexperience.

Oh, and Newsweek didn't stack the poll with Democrats this time.

One interesting revelation -- there are still 30% of those who supported Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination opposed to Obama's candidacy -- with one out of every six former Hillary supporters backing John McCain's candidacy.

H/T Hot Air, Newsbusters

Posted by: Greg at 07:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

Simply irresponsible.

"The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositorsÂ’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMacÂ’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts."

Was the bank facing a liquidity crisis? Yes, it was. However, there were already regulatory efforts underway to solve those problems in a way that would not require a government takeover of the IndyMac. Schumer, whose self-serving publicity hounding is legendary, decided to go public with information that he knew or should have known would be detrimental to the process -- and now he arrogantly refuses to accept any blame for his own politically motivated actions that were the proximate cause of the institution's downfall -- and blames the regulatory process that he created in legislation that he largely wrote back in 1999.

H/T Patterico

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, nuke gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:29 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 4 kb.

Flip -- June 18, 2008:

“What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.

Flop -- July 11, 2008:

If he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only US justice but world justice down on him. And, uh, I think that IÂ’ve said this before, that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty Â… I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, but I certainly think that plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.

Which is a return to July 20, 2007 -- Flip-flip-flippity-flop!

Obama, who has expressed reservations about capital punishment but does not oppose it, said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving," Obama said. "I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes."

If this man can't even maintain a consistent position on something like how to deal with OSAMA BIN LADEN, then can we really trust him with the authority of the presidency?

H/T Hot Air, STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that the Democrats in Pennsylvania are seeking to duplicate the same outstanding ethical standards their party has exhibited have in Louisiana -- outstandingly bad, that is.

Grand jurors here and in Pittsburgh cataloged what they described as a culture of corruption that allowed former state Rep. Michael Veon, current Rep. Sean Ramaley and 10 current and former Democratic staffers to divert millions of dollars in state resources, including more than $1 million in illegal pay bonuses.

The jurors said Mr. Veon and the staff members conspired to arrange hefty year-end pay bonuses to House employees who worked on political campaigns over a three-year period, while Mr. Ramaley is accused of working full-time on his 2004 House campaign in Beaver County while drawing a taxpayer salary as a member of Mr. Veon's staff.

What sort of stuff are we talking about here? How about this.

It found that tax money was used to bump third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli from the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004 and 2006. Grand jurors said state money was used to provide a no-work job to a high-ranking House aide's mistress.

State employees were routinely diverted from their jobs to provide political services and, in the case of Mr. Veon, to transport his motorcycles to South Dakota for his vacation and to provide dinners to members of Mr. Veon's informal basketball league.

"The theft of taxpayers' funds and resources was extensive," said state Attorney General Tom Corbett, who yesterday filed an array of charges against Mr. Veon, Mr. Ramaley and the others, while hinting at more to come.

My personal favorite involves the payment of one of these paragons of Democrat virtue's sex kitten to do her homework for her college and law school classes.

But wait -- there's more!

"Let me make this perfectly clear: This is not the conclusion," [Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett] said at a news conference here.

Your elected Democrats (and their staffers) in action!

Posted by: Greg at 09:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

I can't give this one an entirely separate entry -- after all, I mentioned this paragon of Democrat ethics in the last of my entries yesterday. Besides, this is just a new development in the case of the Patron Saint of Democrat Corruption.

A federal judge rejected Rep. William JeffersonÂ’s (D-La.) request to dismiss five counts of wire fraud in the wide-ranging corruption case against him.

JeffersonÂ’s attorneys argued that the wire fraud charges were invalid because JeffersonÂ’s alleged activities would not have denied his constituents honest services. They also argued that the honest service fraud statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the facts of the case.

Yeah, you read that right -- Jefferson and his shyster argue that it is unconstitutional to require honest conduct from a politician. So much for the most ethical Congress in history.

Posted by: Greg at 08:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Even as the story of the incredible conflict of interest involving Chris Dodd's sweetheart mortgage deal continue to be revealed, Barack Obama's VP search team has asked for a great deal of info about the Connecticut Senator.

Barack Obama's presidential campaign has requested information from Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd as part of its search for a possible vice presidential candidate.

The former White House hopeful and Connecticut lawmaker indicated Wednesday that he has been approached by the campaign. "There's been some inquiries, yeah," Dodd said. "They ask for a lot of stuff. I'll leave it there."

Two words on this one.

1) Spiro.

2) Agnew.

But then again, maybe that is unfair of me. Perhaps Dodd is just following in his daddy's footsteps.

Posted by: Greg at 08:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

We've got ourselves a whole pile of corrupt Democrats here -- including one whose antics are legendary.

A federal judge denied a request by state Sen. Derrick Shepherd's lawyers Thursday to grant the Marrero lawmaker a separate trial from the bond broker he is accused of helping to launder money.

Meanwhile, a defense attorney confirmed that two unnamed co-conspirators in the case are U.S. Rep. William Jefferson and his sister, New Orleans Assessor Betty Jefferson.

Yep, that William Jefferson -- the one who commandeered a rescue craft to sneak evidence out of his New Orleans home in the wake of Hurricane Katrina -- and who was found to have $90K in money from a bribe payment in his freezer.

It's a small world after all, I guess -- but not as small as the cells these folks belong in.

What do we have once again?

Your elected Democrats in action!

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

We don't need no free and fair elections!

Federal and state authorities are looking into accusations of voting fraud in three largely black counties of Alabama, including Perry and Lowndes Counties, which played a historic role in the struggle for black voting rights in the 1960s.

In May, a local citizens group gathered affidavits detailing several cases in which at least one Democratic county official paid citizens for their votes, or encouraged them to vote multiple times. The affidavits were presented to state officials in Montgomery, the capital, and after the June 3 primary, the Alabama attorney general, Troy King, a Republican, seized voting records from the primary election in Bullock, Lowndes and Perry Counties.

The United States Department of Justice posted a team of observers to monitor the primary, and the Alabama secretary of state, Beth Chapman, a Republican, reported hearing from one of the federal observers that a candidate had “free rein” of a polling place, where campaigning is prohibited, passing out sample ballots and instructing voters how to vote.

Ms. Chapman also raised questions about the possible abuse of absentee ballots. In the election on June 3, a quarter of the voters here, 1,114, cast absentee ballots, a percentage that is six times the state average and a figure that Ms. Chapman called “astronomical.” In Jefferson County, which includes Birmingham and has 60 times Perry County’s population of 10,600, there were 365 absentee ballots.

You know, of course, what the response of the elected Democrats in question is -- "It's a Republican plot to disenfranchise blacks!"

So ignore the pictures of a candidate campaigning in a polling place.

Ignore the affidavits collected by a non-partisan, multi-racial civic organization that sparked the investigation.

Never mind that Alabama Democrats have a long history of using just such tactics in Alabama elections -- dating all the way back to Reconstruction.

Just blame the whole thing on the prosecutors for doing their job.

Your elected Democrats in action!

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Civil rights?

What civil rights?

I'm the mayor and I get to decide what civil rights exist in my town!

A federal grand jury in Jackson returned a three-count indictment against Mayor Frank Melton and his police bodyguards, officers Michael Recio and Marcus Wright, the Justice Department announced Wednesday. The three were cleared in April 2007 of state charges they used sledgehammers and sticks to demolish the duplex Melton considered a drug house.

* * *

The federal indictment alleges that on Aug. 26, 2006, the defendants invited several young men into the police department's mobile command unit. The group drove to a home on Ridgeway Street, where Wright allegedly ordered the occupants outside at gunpoint.

"Thereafter, Mayor Melton allegedly knocked out several windows of the home with a large stick and ordered the young men accompanying him to destroy the home using sledgehammers while Wright and Recio stood guard," the Justice Department statement said.

And let's be really clear about this -- while the mentally-ill resident of the home had a history of drug use, the mayor lacked any lawful authority to destroy the home. So much for the right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable state intrusion. Oh, yeah -- when the resident objected, the mayor ordered him handcuffed and held at gunpoint until the destruction of his home was completed.

Your elected Democrats in action!

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

You!

Yes, YOU!

You can use Barack Obama's campaign website to make your own official Barack Obama campaign poster!

And it's free.

Here's my first poster.

And my second attempt.

My third is actually a serious comment.

But this might be the best -- if only we could get a question mark at the end.

Have fun, my friends!

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

In a manner more notable for what he left out than what he included.

Sen. Barack Obama ended a week's focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make "faith-based" social service "a moral center of my administration."

The address, to one of the oldest and largest African American denominations, brought the senator from Illinois back to friendlier ground after a week's tour through Appalachian Ohio, conservative Missouri, the conservative stronghold of Colorado Springs, North Dakota and hardscrabble Montana. But in its religious tones, the address had a far wider intended audience.

"In my own life, " he said, "it's been a journey that began decades ago on the South Side of Chicago, when, working as a community organizer, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works."

Now I won't get into the fact that it appears that Obama is trying to "cling to his religion" in an effort to get votes after repeatedly attacking the religious beliefs and values of anyone who doesn't support him. No, I find it striking that nowhere does he mention what he has previously described as the seminal event in his coming the the Christian faith -- attending Trinity UCC and hearing the preaching of Jeremiah Wright. And lest you doubt that, go back and read his first book, Dreams of My Father, for confirmation of that fact.

And yet somehow neither Obama nor the Post mention that important figure, nor Trinity United Church of Christ, in discussing the faith journey of Barack Obama. Do they perhaps believe that silence will effectively bang out the dents on the bumper of the Obama Express?

H/T Newsbusters, Hugh Hewitt

Posted by: Greg at 03:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

This report is out about a planned speech by Barack Obama.

A German friend passed along the news Saturday that local sources in Berlin are confirming that the Obama campaign was in contact with city authorities to discuss the possibility of presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivering an outdoor address in front of the Brandenburg gate.

Excuse me -- did I sleep through the election and inauguration? Why is Barack Obama giving a major speech in Germany -- especially in such an iconic location -- when he is still a mere candidate for the presidency, and not even officially nominated yet?

For that matter, since when do American presidential candidates campaign in foreign countries?

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's be honest about something. Andrew Sullivan hates two things with a passion -- American conservatives and orthodox Christians. The death of Jesse Helms (which this conservative chooses not to mark at all, having never been a particular fan) allowed him one last opportunity to hit at a man who in Sullivan's self-important mind represented both. So be it -- I shan't condemn him for it when by his own admission he recognizes that his doing so is wrong. I therefore feel that no chastisement is needed. Hopefully it will gnaw at his conscience until he repents -- but I somehow doubt it will.

But that isn't what is striking about his post, which is actually quite mild compared to the vitriol spilled by Leftists around the internet. What strikes me is a rather arrogant claim on his part regarding something he alleges Jesse Helms took away from him:

... [Helms] was personally responsible for removing my right to become an American...

Excuse me?

I don't know how to break it too you, Andy, but you have no right to become an American citizen. No foreigner does. Some are, indeed, granted the privilege of American citizenship -- but there is nothing that a so-called "libertarian conservative" like yourself could coherently claim constitutes a "right" for any non-American to become a citizen of this great country. Indeed, sir, you really don't even have a right to remain in this country -- the privilege of being present here is one which may legitimately be revoked for an alien like yourself. So while you are welcome to hate Jesse Helms and rhetorically desecrate his corpse, please have the decency and integrity to recognize that your claim is false -- for you never had what you claim was taken from you.

UPDATE: As noted below in comments, Andrew Sullivan has changed the wording of his post to remove the claim that he had a right to be an American citizen. Too bad he didn't have the integrity to acknowledge that I had made the point -- or to allow my trackback to post at his site. I guess being called out on the point hurt his feelings.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 5 kb.

I've seen it buzzing around the internet for several weeks now -- suggestions that Barack Obama is not actually an American citizen at all. In the last 24 hours, I've seen that suggestion appear again, on two websites that I generally respect even if I don't agree with them on everything.

The latest version I've encountered reads this way:

Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states: '. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.

So let's do some quick analysis here.

1) According to his biography, Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. Let's assume for the moment that this information is correct. Given that Hawaii had been a state for just under two years at that time, it is beyond dispute that Barack Obama was born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a natural born citizen of the United States and the state of Hawaii, based upon the clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

2) But what of the purported statutory language cited by these bloggers which would seem to argue to the contrary?

'. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.'

First, such language would be constitutionally invalid on its face if it were applied to anyone born within the United States. And secondly, unfortunately for those who attempt to use it to cast shadows upon the citizenship of Barack Obama, the statute in question never purported to apply to those born on American soil. Instead, it applied only children of American citizens born abroad.

But let's look at the actual statutory language of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b):

Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

* * *

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

So you can see that by virtue of birth in Hawaii, the statute recognizes Obama as a citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question of his parentage only comes into question if Barack Obama were born outside the United States.

3) Was Barack Obama actually born in Hawaii?

Let me begin by stating that I presume that he was -- I cannot believe that it would be possible to keep it a secret if he had not been. Some relative who knew the truth or some government employee with access to the records would have leaked it.

However, the question remains -- and clearly has not been resolved by the release of a purported birth certificate. However, AJ Strata does a great job of arguing for the validity of the certificate that is currently under dispute.

What needs to happen to settle the matter? Barack Obama needs to release a copy of the original birth certificate completed by the staff at the Kapiolani Medical Center in 1961. It should be retained on microfilm in Hawaii, and a copy would be easy enough to obtain -- I think being a US Senator and presumptive nominee for President should give him enough pull to get a copy in an expedited manner.

So let me say it -- it would appear to me beyond question that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. By providing unambiguous documentation of this fact, Obama can lay the rumor to the contrary to rest for all time.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1200 words, total size 9 kb.

And they are shocked -- but not shocked enough to abandon their support for him.

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President BushÂ’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings.

* * *

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. ObamaÂ’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Take that last line as a declaration of continued loyalty to the Democrat candidate. After all, when the newspaper starts quoting campaign slogans as their editorial line, it is pretty obvious that they are in the tank for the candidate in question -- especially when the slogan chosen is vacuous and content-free.

More At Newsbusters, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

I let the first arrest pass -- but when you get a second one, it is certainly news.

Police charged a third person Wednesday in connection with beatings and rape that authorities say were carried out by a satanic cult.

Diana Palmer, 44, of Cottage Woods Court, surrendered to police Wednesday afternoon. She was charged with being an accessory after the fact of assault with a deadly weapon and was being held in the Durham County Jail under a $95,000 bond.

Joseph Craig, 25, has been charged with kidnapping, rape, forcible sexual offense and assault in the case. His wife, Joy Johnson, 30, has been charged with aiding and abetting. Both were being held Wednesday in the Durham County Jail.

Satanism and sexual assault -- you may be wondering what this has to do with politics.

Well, here it is.

Palmer is first vice chair of the Durham County Democratic Party. Johnson resigned her positions as third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair of the Young Democrats following her arrest.

Which leads to this priceless quote.

State Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, called the case "an isolated incident" and said he doesn't expect any other Democratic Party activists to be implicated.

Two top leaders arrested in a Satanic sex case constitutes "an isolated incident"? I think that is probably a pretty god percentage of the party's top leadership.

And as an aside -- I know Johnson was a vocal supporter of Mike Nifong and the lying rape victim. I suspect Palmer was as well. Will they insist, as they did in the earlier case, that the woman making the accusation must be believed at all costs?

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

No, not his special help from his special friend, corrupt businessman Tony Rezko.

I mean from his mortgage company.

Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.

A $300 a month mortgage discount for a new Senator? Sounds rather suspicious to me -- especially in light of the recent disclosure of special favors to other Democrat senators by Countrywide. Since Obama's spokesperson says that the rate he received from Norther Trust was in response to an offer from a competing financial institution, one has to ask if that other lender was Countrywide -- meaning that Obama also benefited from the special program for powerful politicians.

And I'd like to argue that we should be questioning this -- after all, it certainly helped Michelle Obama's children!

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Not only is she soaking banks for her defaulted loans -- she's also soaking the taxpayers for a bloated car lease.

When she arrived in Congress last fall, Rep. Laura Richardson sought out a vehicle that would match her newfound status.

She settled on a 2007 Lincoln Town Car - the choice of many representatives who lease their vehicles at taxpayers' expense. But hers was distinct: at $1,300 a month, it was the most expensive car in the House of Representatives.

Richardson, a Democrat who represents Carson, has since become known for defaulting on two home loans and losing a third house - in an upscale neighborhood in Sacramento - at a foreclosure auction.

Interestingly enough, another California congresswoman is leasing the same sort of vehicle -- for roughly half of what Richardson is paying.

Not that Richardson's office wants to come clean on her car expenses.

Richardson's spokesman, William Marshall, initially stated that Richardson is paying only $940 per month for her Town Car, but gave no documentation of that. After he was presented with the expense report showing the $1,300 lease amount, he declined to answer further questions.

"No comment," he said.

Indeed.

But there's a whole lot more -- unauthorized drives, unreported repairs, tickets -- check out the whole sordid tale here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Which likely would have been committed in some other way, don't you think.

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for about 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year. Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the past 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 2.6 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Now here's the problem with that statistic -- is there some control for the type of neighborhood in which the public is more likely to feel a need to arm themselves? Do the statistics take into consideration whether the guns in question are ones legally owned, as opposed to those possessed by criminals? Lots of questions -- relatively few answers.

But here's my question for liberals on that suicide number -- so what? Isn't one of the mantras of liberals that people have a right to do what they choose with their own bodies? It certainly is when you discuss the sacrament of abortion -- so why should it be any different when someone decides to blow their own brains out with a handgun (or pop a handful of pills or slit their wrists)? After all -- in such cases the lives they are taking are their own, rather than that of an innocent baby. Seems to me that suicide would simply be one more act with which society has no right to interfere because, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existing, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of life" -- which would seem to me to include a liberty to choose to lay down the burden of existence. Besides -- isn't suicide really nothing more than the ultimate reduction of one's carbon footprint?

And in any event, since when does the irresponsible exercise of a constitutional right by some justify the restriction of that right of others? We do not censor newspapers because of the irresponsible editorial decisions of the New York Times which regularly damage national security -- and so we should not ban guns on some theory that the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is at time abused.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Let's hope that "constitutional law professor" Barack Obama is more familiar with that document than he is with the Declaration of Independence.

I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Barack -- those are not the first words of the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, they are not even in the first paragraph of that document.

Let me help you out, Senator.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Now I somehow doubt that you actually wrote the early drafts of this speech, Senator. But I am sure that an anecdote like that must have come from you -- presuming the story is true, of course, and not the invention of a speechwriter. But regardless, I'd like to hope that you and/or your speechwriters would have caught this historical inaccuracy -- one which I believe most of my tenth graders would have caught.

Am I questioning your patriotism by bringing up this point? No, merely your command of history and the founding documents of this country at a time when you question the quality of civic education in this country later on in the same speech -- in the process insulting the professional competence of me and my thousands of colleagues around the country, I might add.

Now I could go on and point out the many ways in which your proposed platform is at odds with the views of the founders and the philosophy contained in the Declaration of Independence. Your proposed health care program, for example, will result in the erection of "a multitude of New Offices", and will send hither and yon "swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" in the pursuit of your new policies and the taxes you will impose to fund them. But I'll refrain from doing so, because I don't wish to be accused of questioning your patriotism. So instead I'll simply confine myself to pointing out your ignorance, which is displayed for all the world to see in the midst of your pretty words.

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1730 words, total size 11 kb.

1 vwejutwm 748xmlqqark 97808

Posted by: Edmpxwea at Sat Feb 7 01:46:38 2009 (USUuR)

2 mvagalfg )ylipnaxr sqcql

Posted by: Clrhyjvs at Sat Feb 7 05:57:00 2009 (1yMAG)

3 , uhkiekrv, pqyn, qugsnvcp, yyr, tjocfgub, jexug,

Posted by: Nrwksjgp at Mon Feb 16 09:48:02 2009 (RDe26)

4 , astljofq, %-]], asztvmdr, 390, ybcspfbm, 8-[[,

Posted by: Wonhpvos at Mon May 18 05:03:15 2009 (40nuK)

5 sp4, kvjiumkm, jhsask, qpwkdhqk, 42760, bfyizduf, :[[,

Posted by: Mshvatgi at Wed Oct 7 11:16:41 2009 (RFC0p)

Hide Comments | Add Comment