Any individual who could make this statement is too stupid to hold any position of responsibility in government.

"I've never seen anything like it," Gibbs said. "I think you get a real sense of gravity when you see the faces of those that are grieving loved ones."

He added: "You can see the genuine anguish in their faces. It's hard not to be overwhelmed by what you're seeing."

Imagine that -- families who have lost their loved ones in an instant are feeling genuine anguish! Now there's a news flash from the white house press flak. And that it took that for Gibbs to get a real sense of the gravity of the issues of life and death that come with committing troops to war is appalling.

I'll tell you what. I've often said that Joe Biden was the biggest proof of Obama's unreadiness for the presidency. I was wrong -- the biggest proof of his incompetence is that Robert Gibbs is still on the White House payroll.

Posted by: Greg at 12:32 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Cheney backs Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a longtime acquaintance and supporter of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, will be in Houston on Nov. 17 to formally endorse her in the race for governor against fellow Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Hutchison spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said details for the events still are being determined. But she said there will be one public campaign event with Cheney and a closed fundraiser.

I was already a Hutchison backer before this endorsement, but having Vice President Cheney make this endorsement confirms for me that I am supporting the right candidate. We need a serious, thoughtful governor – and Kay will be that for us.

Now if we can only get Cheney elected president in 2012.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, they’ve been complaining that conservatives have been fostering a climate of violence with their harsh words about Obama and the Democrats. But it isn’t liberal politicians who are literally under fire – it is a conservative broadcaster and his family who have been the targets of gunfire.

A gunshot was fired at the New Jersey home of CNN's Lou Dobbs after a series of threatening phone calls earlier this month, the host told listeners on his nationally syndicated radio show.

Dobbs, a fervent proponent of U.S. border enforcement, told listeners of "The Lou Dobbs Show" on Monday that the incident is part of an ongoing assault against anyone who opposes amnesty or leniency toward illegal immigrants .

"They've created an atmosphere and they've been unrelenting in their propaganda," Dobbs said in reference to pro-immigration groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Council of La Raza and America's Voice. "Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing out and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls."

Dobbs continued, "But this shot was fired with my wife not, I don't know, 15 feet away, and we had threatening phone calls that I decided not to report because I get threatening phone calls."

Personally, I blame hatemongers on the Left who have spent years demonizing any American who wants secure borders and a coherent immigration policy. IsnÂ’t it time that we haul in Gerry Riviera/Geraldo Rivera for questioning on this? ShouldnÂ’t we hold that hate-speaking faux-journalist morally culpable for the attempted murder of Mrs. Dobbs? The same with all the other folks and groups who have sought to delegitimize honest policy differences on an important political issue, too.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Much has been made about Shepard Smith making an ass of himself with his on-air apology for a report he deemed insufficiently balanced. And I certainly agree that the context shows him to be an ass – and think that Fox ought to suspend or fire him for undeniably unprofessional conduct.

Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith apologized for a "lack of balance" following a political report where the Republican candidate for New Jersey governor was interviewed and the Democratic incumbent wasn't.

Fox correspondent Shannon Bream had wrapped up a live interview with GOP candidate Chris Christie on Smith's afternoon news show Tuesday when the anchor asked, "When will you be interviewing Jon Corzine?"

Bream replied that despite "multiple requests," Corzine hadn't made himself available for an interview.

"I didn't know that was about to happen," Smith then said. "My apologies for the lack of balance there. If I had control, it wouldn't have happened.

Now wait – Bream had done everything a professional reporter is expected to do in that situation. The problem was that one of the candidates couldn’t be bothered to even respond to requests for interviews. That doesn’t mean that you do not do an interview with the candidate who agrees to an interview – the balanced thing to do is to acknowledge that the opponent is dodging interview requests. The only unprofessional conduct I see here is on the part of Shepard Smith.

But I wonder if this might have something to do with the situation – and the failure of the Corzine campaign to respond to interview requests.

One of President Barack ObamaÂ’s key political advisers has become the central strategist in New Jersey Gov. Jon CorzineÂ’s bruising campaign for re-election, a race the White House desperately wants to win to avert the consequences for its own agenda of a Republican winning in a traditionally Democratic state.

The White House was so concerned about Corzine's chances during the summer that Corzine's aides feared the first-term governor was being pressured to step aside for a stronger candidate. Those fears turned out to be groundless, but were part of the reason Corzine hired Joel Benenson, who has helped impose discipline on a struggling campaign and crystallize CorzineÂ’s aggressive attacks on the character of his Republican opponent, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie.

HmmmmmmÂ….

LetÂ’s see here.

Corzine hires an Obama insider to run his campaign.

Obama and his handlers declared war on Fox News, refused to appear on its programs, and otherwise attempted to delegitimize AmericaÂ’s biggest cable news channel.

The Obama-controlled Corzine ignored interview requests from Fox.

Am I alone here in thinking that these three things might just be connected?

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Word has reached me that funding for the Evelyn Meador Library here in Seabrook has bee approved.

Three weeks after Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Sylvia Garcia had to tell a disappointed Seabrook crowd that their new library was on hold due to lack of county funds, she had good news for Seabrook readers.

Harris County commissioners Tuesday approved $4.96 million to go toward construction of the new library.

“This action ensures that the estimated $4.96 million needed for construction of the new structure will be in place once the city of Seabrook-funded design portion of the project is completed and approved by the county’s Public Infrastructure Department,’’ Garcia said in a press release announcing that she had succeeded in securing the funding.

Seabrook Mayor Gary Renola said city officials are “ecstatic” about the news.

“This has been a high priority for myself, city council, and the entire community, especially after the library was closed because of Ike,’’ Renola said.

“We are pleased that our persistence for funding paid off. The commissioner has promised us to keep the project on a fast track and provide a schedule for completion,’’ he said. “We look forward to continue to work with the county staff to bring the project to a successful completion.”

Architectural plans for the new, state-of-the-art 20,000-square foot library are 99 percent complete.

The city has already spent $500,000 on the design for the new 20,000-square-foot building, and has another $800,000 in bond money to contribute to the project.

Compliments, of course, to Commissioner Garcia for her work on this project. In addition, I'd like to extend my deepest thanks to County Judge Ed Emmett, who I know has been taking a personal interest in this matter since I helped bring it to his attention recently, and who has been keeping me up to date as the effort to find the funds to rebuild the library has progressed.

Believe it or not, I'm rather at a loss for words at this moment to express my joy. The Evelyn Meador Library is an institution that has been one of the focal points of our community. Its staff have become friends to many of us in town, and its proximity to the local elementary and middle schools has made it a home-away-from-home to so many of our community's children. I've conducted elections in the old building since I first became election judge, and look forward to doing so in the new facility. Indeed, I don't know anyone in town who will not be gratified to see construction begin and the facility open in the near future -- and something that has been sorely missed will have been restored to us on that day.

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

While a natural disaster occurred back in January, Barack Obma held a big Super Bowl party at which his guests feasted on the finest Kobe beef.

Now, as the economy continues to tank, Barack Obama decided to treat his pampered pooch to a birthday meal beyond the means of many of the poorest Americans. According to Michelle Obama,

“We had a really sweet celebration – [Bo] got a doghouse cake made out of veal stuff and he had his brother Cappy come over and we had party hats."

At least she didnÂ’t decide to let them eat cake. But then again, maybe cake wasnÂ’t good enough for the First Four-Legged Friend.

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

“Trying on every front to increase the role of government.”

How long will we stand for it?

How long until the American people stand up and demand a return to the limited government prescribed by the Constitution?

Posted by: Greg at 09:34 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Meaning that the average American has to make due with less.

But the average federal bureaucrat sure won't.

Got that, DISCRETIONARY spending is INCREASING by more than twice the rate that your income is falling. And that does not include the required increases in entitlement programs (read that money you've earned that Congress has decided someone other than you is automatically entitled to), which will be going up between 10% and 25%, depending upon the program. Add in "stimulus" funding and the average federal agency saw a 57% increase in funding while your wages dropped. And that doesn't even include the new health care boondoggle that will see the Democrats grabbing for even more of your hard-earned dollars.

Maybe you should HOPE that Obama lets you keep a little bit of spare CHANGE by the time he and his followers are done sacking the economy like the barbarians sacked Rome.

Posted by: Greg at 04:48 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

He may not have fulfilled most (or is that any) of his campaign promises, but he sure can hit links.

CBS' Mark Knoller — an unofficial documentarian and statistician of all things White House-related — wrote on his Twitter feed that, "Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24.

Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months."

When the going gets tough, the tough get going – and Obama goes golfing.

Ain't it great that there are no wars, economic crises, or other major issues facing the country that might interfere with Barry making his tee time?

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it a quid pro quo?

General Electric, the world's largest industrial company, has quietly become the biggest beneficiary of one of the government's key rescue programs for banks.

At the same time, GE has avoided many of the restrictions facing other financial giants getting help from the government.

The company did not initially qualify for the program, under which the government sought to unfreeze credit markets by guaranteeing debt sold by banking firms. But regulators soon loosened the eligibility requirements, in part because of behind-the-scenes appeals from GE.

As a result, GE has joined major banks collectively saving billions of dollars by raising money for their operations at lower interest rates. Public records show that GE Capital, the company's massive financing arm, has issued nearly a quarter of the $340 billion in debt backed by the program, which is known as the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, or TLGP. The government's actions have been "powerful and helpful" to the company, GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged in December.

Unlike other major lenders participating in the debt guarantee program, including Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase, GE has never been subject to the Fed's stress tests or its rules for limiting risk. Also unlike firms that have received bailout money in the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, GE is not subject to restrictions such as limits on executive compensation.

So let's look at this. The federal government has ordered pay cuts for the highest paid employees of companies that received bailout funds. Somehow, though, a large recipient of bailout funds has escaped these pay cuts. And interestingly enough, the company in question owns a major cable "news" outlet that has been a source of exceedingly friendly and fawning coverage to the Obama Administration -- and among those top-salaried employees would be some of the journalists and commentators most deferential to the administration and critical of its opponents. Is the failure to restrict the salaries of these employees an attempt to buy continued favorable coverage? Seems to me that the appearance of impropriety is reason enough for an investigation by an independent prosecutor with full subpoena power.

H/T JammieWearingFool

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

Leading Democrats have now come out against dissent.

Take Rep. Alan Grayson (D-.

"Fox News and their Republican collaborators are the enemy of America," Grayson told MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Wednesday. "They're the enemy of anybody who cares about health care in this country, the enemy of anybody who cares about educating their children, the enemy of anybody who wants energy independence or anything good for this country. And certainly the enemy of peace, there's no doubt about that. They are the enemy."

We who dissent from the policies of the Obamunists are not engaged in "the highest form of patriotism" like liberals were during the Bush years. No, we are enemies of America. And as we well know, adhering to America's enemies is TREASON, which merits death under the laws of the United States. So let's make it clear -- CONGRESSMAN ALAN GRAYSON HAS CALLED FOR THE EXECUTION OF JOURNALISTS AND POLITICAL DISSIDENTS in making this claim.

Which makes the words of the drug-addled son of the late and unlamented Jabba the Drunk seem almost moderate in comparison.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) told CNSNews.com that the Catholic Church is doing nothing but fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” by taking the position that it will oppose the health-care reform bill under consideration in Congress unless it is amended to explicitly prohibit funding of abortion.

“I can’t understand for the life of me how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time, where the very dignity of the human person is being respected by the fact that we’re caring and giving health care to the human person--that right now we have 50 million people who are uninsured,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when asked about a letter the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had sent to members of Congress stating the bishops' position on abortion funding in the health-care bill.

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life saving health care? I thought they were pro-life?” said Kennedy. “If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all."

So Kennedy is now attacking Catholic bishops for opposing legislation that violates fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith on the grounds that they are stirring up dissent. Funny, but I don't recall him or his father (who ACTUALLY committed treason back in the 1980s) ever complaining about those who "fanned the flames of dissent" during the Bush years. Indeed, they stood proudly among the flame fanners and wrapped themselves in the mantle of patriotism for their dissent.

What changed, Congressmen -- other than the president? Why is our dissent not every bit as patriotic as yours?

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, he accused the cable news leader of a federal felony in his blog post.

. . . Fox News spreads seditious lies to its demographic sliver of an audience. . . .

Now according to federal law, here is the definition of and penalty for seditious conspiracy (which is certainly what the "seditious lies" of the network would qualify as being).

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Identify the acts of sedition and the parties to the conspiracy, Mr. Klein, or retract your statement.

And if Joel Klein will not do so, it is incumbent upon Time magazine to fire him immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, so they claim.

But these job numbers after all these months of stimulating seem a bit. . . flaccid.

Let's see -- by my calculations that puts Barry Hussein and his minions some 6.2 million jobs in the hole. Does he really expect to generate those jobs in the next 17 months without pouring more money down the rathole, like so many of his fellow DemocRATS are demanding? And why should we expect the job numbers to go up when all the evidence gives us evidence to the contrary?

There is hope, friends -- VOTE REPUBLICAN.

H/T Weasel Zippers

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote about this story yesterday -- but now the cops say that there was no emergency when the 911 call was made and tapes of the incident show that the reporter was behaving respectfully and professionally.

Police questioned a reporter from a conservative publication after receiving a call that he harassed a Republican candidate for Congress who refused to answer his questions about her positions on tax and health issues.

Lowville Village Police Chief Eric Fredenburg said officers responded to a call Monday night saying state Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava “felt concern for her safety” during questioning by reporter John McCormack of the Weekly Standard. He wouldn’t say who made the call.

“I don’t believe it ever escalated to anything that would ever be classified as an emergency,” Fredenburg said.

No charges were filed against McCormack.

Â…In the audio recording of the reporterÂ’s questioning played for The Associated Press by McCormack, the reporter didnÂ’t raise his voice, but repeated his unanswered questions several times, including one about abortion.

“I never screamed, I never yelled, I never shouted,” he said. “My voice was only loud enough so she could hear my questions.”

Seems to me that there may be grounds for an investigation of who placed the call -- and criminal charges for abuse of the 911 system. The question is -- was that person Dede Scozzafava -- or acting at her direction?

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Talk about showing her unfitness for public office!

When John McCormack of The Weekly Standard showed up at a public event for congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava (R-NY 23) on Monday night, he dared to act like a journalist and asked her questions about her positions on important issues and legislation. In response, ScozzafavaÂ’s campaign did something extraordinary.

I went to my car and fired up my laptop to report the evening's events.
Minutes later a police car drove into the parking lot with its lights flashing. Officer Grolman informed me that she was called because "there was a little bit of an uncomfortable situation" and then took down my name, date of birth, and address.
"Maybe we do things a little differently here, but you know, persistence in that area, you scared the candidate a little bit," Officer Grolman told me.
"[Scozzafava] got startled, that's all," Officer Grolman added. "It's not like you're in any trouble."

Startled? By a reporter asking questions? So startled that she and/or her campaign staff saw fit to call the POLICE to interfere with and harass someone she knew to be a reporter?

I’d already decided that Dede Scozzafava was not a good choice for Congress, and felt that her Conservative Party opponent Doug Hoffman was a better choice. I just hadn’t had the opportunity to write about that race yet. But now I need not go into an analysis of the issues and why she is too liberal to receive Republican support – all I have to do is point to this issue to show how singularly un-serious Scozzafava is as a candidate for office.

And even worse, now the Scozzafava campaign is trying to defame McCormack with claims he was abusive and engaging in stalker-like behavior. We now see what her character is really like, in addition to how liberal she really is. So I’ll say it right now – any conservative must vote for Conservative Doug Hoffman, not the Kos endorsed Republican.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.

Straight from the mouth of Joe Biden.

Vice President Joe Biden originally turned down then presidential candidate Barack Obama's request to be his running mate, Biden said last night.

"I initially said no, that I wasn't interested," Biden said at a Democratic fundraising dinner in Pittsburgh. "He asked me to think about it."

Biden said he eventually accepted the offer "a couple months later."

Let’s be honest – the choice of Joe Biden as VP was perhaps the worst decision made by Obama during the campaign, a real sign of poor judgment. That Obama had the chance to walk away from that error and instead stuck with that bad choice when he had the chance to do better shows utter incompetence.

Unless, of course, Joe Biden was picked as a sort of life insurance – after all, I pray nightly for Obama’s health so that Joe Biden never occupies the Oval Office.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

How else are you going to keep them down on the Democrat plantation if you donÂ’t signal how they are supposed to vote?

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Of course, seven of the nine voting precincts in Kinston are majority black and only two are majority white – and over 60% of the residents are black – so it is hard to see how black voters won’t be able to elect the candidates of their choice without party labels. Indeed, the small town has not elected any Republicans in living memory, so the need for party labels is questionable in any event.

Of course, the more interesting wrinkle is that the official who made this bizarre determination is apparently only interested in the voting rights of blacks. After all, she is the same person who decided to dismiss the charges of voter intimidation against armed thugs from the New Black Panther Party (accredited as “poll watchers” by the local Democrats) who intimidated white voters at a Philadelphia polling place. So it would seem that the official position of the Obamunists running the Department of InJustice is that black voters have the right to elect the candidates of their choice (as long as they are officially endorsed Democrats) and that white voters don’t have the right to be free of threats of violence as they attempt to elect the candidates of their choice.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm not a fan of Barack Obama. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes on this site knows that.

On the other hand, I am a fan of freedom of speech. Anyone who spends more than a few minutes on this site knows that as well.

So while certain conservatives seem to take a bit of joy in this attack on freedom of speech, I don't -- and I condemn it every bit as much as I have previously condemned such attacks on political speech I agree with.

The mural of President Barack Obama has been on the side of a Midtown building since the Democratic primary, when the president was a U.S. Senator, and the building served as his Houston Campaign headquarters.

Over the weekend someone painted "puppet" on his mural, and the statement "yes we can" now has the statement "loose our freedom" painted next to it.

"This was done in broad daylight, and it just and kind of defaced a pretty good memorial," said Gerry McGee who works in the building where the mural is located.

The building is now the campaign headquarters for a mayoral candidate, and campaign worker Mcgee is pretty disappointed that someone vandalized a picture of the President. "We'll move on. This is not going to stop the movement. This is not going to stop the excitement that Obama has brought to the country," McGee said.

As dangerous as some of Obama's risky schemes and naive policies are to American liberty and international security, I condemn this attack on the liberty of speech contained in the First Amendment. We on the right cannot and should not act like our liberal opponents who are know for their intolerance of dissent from their political views. We are better than that.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

A couple of weeks ago, I set off quite a little conflict when I sent a rather frank email to the husband/campaign manager of a political novice who announced her plans to challenge our incumbent GOP state rep for the GOP nomination. Now IÂ’m not a fan of the incumbent (I was one of the leaders of an insurgent campaign to unseat him in 200 , but I thought it appropriate to explain why I believed her candidacy was flawed from the get-go, and why another committee chair had rather brutally (and perhaps a bit less than fairly) dissected the announcement email sent out by her husband/campaign manger. Needless to say, it got rather ugly before it got better. ItÂ’s a pity that I didnÂ’t have this observation from Carol Platt Liebau to include in my response.

Given the public disenchantment with voter-ignoring, big-government-loving Democrats in Congress and The White House, next year’s elections could do much to restore some measure of fiscal sanity and common sense to Washington. But that will happen only if Republican leaders and grassroots Tea Party activists work together effectively. How – and whether – the two reconcile their different priorities and views will have profound consequences for any effort to beat back the Democratic vision of an ever-expanding, ever-more-intrusive federal government.

* * *

. . . Tea Partiers need to be realistic, and understand the limitations of political passion and zeal. Plenty of congressional districts wouldn’t support even a second Ronald Reagan, simply because they are irremediably liberal. Rather than allowing the “best” to become the enemy of the “good enough,” activists could best further their cause by supporting the most conservative candidate who can win, rather than the most conservative candidate, period – when it means that candidate will surely lose.

In the case of the novice candidate in my district has no discernable history of political involvement with the GOP, no name recognition, and no money. What she does have is a lot of enthusiasm and a few enthusiastic backers. Somehow she and these supporters expect those who have spent the last couple of decades growing a very successful county party (which did hit a major bump in 200 to hand her the nomination because of her frequent use of the term “grassroots” as both the justification for her candidacy and the excuse for all of the missteps that she and her husband had made in rolling out her campaign.

The sad thing is that I like elements of what she and her supporters have to say. Unfortunately, we lack any indication of how hard these folks are willing to work and how long they are prepared to sustain that effort. What’s more, we have no idea how deep the commitment is to the principles enunciated in the email manifesto that I received – after all, she did vote in the 2008 Democrat primary and seems to be a political cipher before then. The notion that a political novice must earn the support of the long-time activists seemed shocking and scandalous to them.

Of course, the quote above also makes an important point that must not be underemphasized – party leaders cannot reject such insurgencies out of hand. I had several long and fruitful email exchanges with some of the supporters in which I expressed my willingness to hear more about their ideas and to find a viable candidate who we could all support, even as I argued that this particular candidate may not be the best vehicle to see those principles carried into the electoral battles ahead. We must indeed find the most electable conservative candidate to advance our shared conservative principles – but we can neither sacrifice essential principles in the interest of finding the most electable candidate nor sacrifice the essential criteria of electability in the interest of finding the most ideologically pure contender. In short, both sets of activists – the newly aroused and the long-time party regular – must be ready to meet in the middle so that we can accomplish our shared goal of advancing our shared principles. If we can’t, then we cede many of our electoral contests to those who reject our values and our policy principles.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 5 kb.

Another assault, more silence.

A pro-life person who participated in the 40 Days for Life event in Fresno, California was assaulted on Thursday afternoon by an abortion advocate. Victor Fierro, director of the Hispanic pro-life group Latinos4Life, was the victim of an assault by a woman who first tried to intimidate him.

Yesterday, a pro-abortion woman shouted obscenities at participants in the 40 Days for Life event, which is part of a national campaign.

The woman first attempted to break a security camera pro-life advocates installed to protect themselves and catch any harmful activity on tape. The attacker then cut FierroÂ’s arm with an unknown object, drawing blood, stormed back to her car and fled the scene.

Josh Brahm, the education director of Right to Life of Central California, told LifeNews.com that much of the encounter took place right behind the camera, but the audio was captured by the device. It also registered her face and license plate number.

“We're just trying to hold a peaceful prayer vigil out here. We're law-abiding citizens, standing on a public sidewalk, with the full support of the Fresno Police Department," he told LifeNews.com.

"Yet, several pro-abortion-choice people have been harassing us since day one. Now itÂ’s turned physical," he added.

But the local media preferred not to report on the attack, which thankfully produced only minor injuries. Yet had there been even a shoving match with no injuries provoked by the pro-lifers, it would have been national news – not to mention the basis for even more restrictive laws limiting the free speech of such protesters.

Remember, all animals are equal – but some are more equal than others.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 3 kb.

I wasn't going to write on this topic. Really, I wasn't. But then, as we were preparing for our trip to the quilt show yesterday, my wife brought the topic up, and even suggested that I blog on the topic -- and when my liberal Democrat wife suggests such a thing, I can't refuse.

It is, of course, a favorite topic around our house -- the disparate treatment of survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Ike. Katrina was four years ago -- Ike is barely a year past. Yet to this day we continue to see stories about Katrina and the people displaced and effected by the that monster storm. Yet little more than a year ago another monster storm hit the United States, only a few hours away in the Houston/Galveston area, and we have been told, in effect, to bugger off and tend to our own needs. We got a great illustration of this during the week that just ended.

On Thursday, Barack Obama graced the people of New Orleans with his presence and promises of even more help to get their lives back to normal -- in other words, a continuation of the open-ended commitment to throw money at New Orleans and its myriad problems. Then on Friday (after diverting to San Francisco for a high-dollar political fundraiser), Barack Obama came to Texas -- College Station and Texas A&M, to be exact. That put him 80 miles from Houston, and 127 miles from Galveston -- less than an hour by air to Ellington Field on the south side of Houston and its direct path (I-45) into the heart of the devastation. But did he bother with the victims of the more recent storm who are still in recovery mode? No, he did not.

Now I could point out that the folks in New Orleans are reliable Democrat voters while we in this area are not and suggest that partisan politics is the reason -- but I won't. Or I could point out the obvious demographic differences between New Orleans and the area impacted by Hurricane Ike and attribute the disparate treatment to race -- but I won't. Those are not the reasons that Barack Obama is ignoring the Texas Gulf Coast devastated by Hurricane Ike.

No, I'll attribute the neglect of the recently devastated area of Texas to something much more venal -- the fact that the first priority for Barack Obama is Barack Obama. The media drove Katrina into the national psyche in a way that it did not with Ike (overwhelmingly due to the racial and political components), and there is therefore much more in the way of personal political capital for Obama to earn and store up with a visit to New Orleans to commiserate with the victims of a storm that happened four years ago than there is to be gained through a visit with the survivors of any more recent natural disaster. So Barack Obama will visit New Orleans and throw more money at that city while recovery projects here in the Houston/Galveston area will be allowed to go unfunded or underfunded because there just isn't any political gain to be had in providing such presidential attention and federal largesse to this community. So Barack Obama will never forget New Orleans -- and he will never remember the Texas Gulf Coast area.

Posted by: Greg at 06:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

The insurance industry has dared to dissent from the Obamunist line -- they must be punished.

President Obama mounted a frontal assault on the insurance industry on Saturday, accusing it of using “deceptive and dishonest ads” to derail his health care legislation and threatening to strip the industry of its longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws.

Seems to me that the Obamessiah has become more and more esty in the face of strong opposition to his plan to strip health care freedom from Americans and replace it with a system of government mandates, regulations, penalties, and limited choices. Opponents must therefore be destroyed as a warning to those who would dare to question the policies and plans of the little tin god at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Dissent just ain't patriotic any more -- and must be punished by law.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Race 4 2012 we get this great observation on what the GOP needs in a leader -- I'd argue a presidential candidate -- in 2012.

If we knew him we would be able to say what makes him the right man. (Or the right woman. I’m only saying ‘man’ for convenience.) But as he’s not standing unmistakable before our eyes, we can at least try to describe what sort of person he should ideally be: what experience he should have had; what beliefs he should hold; what qualities and abilities he should have acquired or been endowed with by nature.

Completely irrelevant are his (her) ethnic derivation, racial descent, color, or class.

First, he must be proud of his country. He should know its history. He should want above all to preserve what it has always stood for: liberty. He should believe that American power is a force for good in the world and be determined to maintain it.

Next, he should have been a leader in some walk of life, and have proved himself to be trustworthy and competent at directing others.

He must of course be a person of honor, decency, civility, and probity. He should deeply desire to be just, but hold the law and the Constitution in higher esteem than his own inclinations.

He should be a good judge of character, know how to weigh advice, but be intelligently decisive and firm in implementing what he decides.

He should be able to talk to the nation plainly, to say what he means and mean what he says.

He should broadly share the values, understand and respect the aspirations of his fellow Americans.

He must be a zealot for national prosperity, keen to let the free market work as the unique bread machine that it is, by keeping taxes low, government curbed, and private property safe.

Finally, he should be the sort of commonsensical soul who takes himself with a pinch of suspicion.

Jillian Becker does not profess to know who this leader is -- indeed, she ends her piece by asking who we see on the horizon that fits the bill. I know we had such a man three decades ago -- the man who inspired so many of us who are activists today to become the activists that we are today. That is not to say that we need another Reagan -- the challenges we face today are different and the leader we need will have been refined in a different crucible than that which formed the Fortieth President of the United States. Yet those characteristics that made Reagan the leader he was are the same that we need now -- and it truly does not matter if the leader is named Palin or Petraeus, Romney or Jindal, Huckabee or Pawlenty, or some other name that does not leap immediately to mind, provided that the bulk of these traits animate this next leader's platform and personality.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

Because with out it, we might find ourselves reading something like this in American newspapers -- or hearing it in our broadcast media.

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

This is, of course, why some of us are so vehement in our defense of the First Amendment rights of free speech and press. After all, it is the right of the public to know what its government is doing -- and to speak on matters touching on government -- that is at the heart of the First Amendment. It is why we argue that what restrictions are placed -- such as in defense of national security during time of war -- must be narrowly tailored so as to cause the least erosion of those rights. And where such restrictions on the freedoms of speech and pres are not narrowly drawn -- such as in the case of federal restrictions on speech surrounding elections -- we protest vigorously and work to overturn them.

Frankly, in the case of this story from the UK I don't know what it could possibly be about. But then again, that is precisely the point of these restrictions -- and why they are dangerous to the working of any society that values the right of the people to govern themselves. And it is why the framers of the American government, recognizing the evils which accompanied the ability of the British government to muzzle the press, included a strong guarantee of press freedom in our framework of government -- and why, over two centuries later, we can see the wisdom of that decision.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Words I never thought I would right about the prospect of Hillary Clinton permanently removing herself from consideration for the Presidency.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday she would not run for president again, and brushed off suggestions that she is being marginalized in the Obama White House.

Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, said "No" three different times when asked by NBC's Ann Curry "Will you ever run for president again? Yes or No?"

"This is a great job," Clinton said in the interview broadcast Monday. "It is a 24-7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point."

After the 2008 elections, Clinton accepted Obama's offer to serve as his top diplomat.

Unless she challenged President Obama in the 2012 Democratic presidential primary, Clinton would have to wait until 2016 to run again if she changed her mind. She turns 62 on October 26.

Hillary, America needs you. Barack Obama is a disaster for this country. Resign now, and begin your run for the Democrat nomination for president in 2012.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

I knew nothing about Kansas Democrat Congressman Dennis Moore before today. Now that I do, I'd like to mark him down as someone who needs to be defeated in 2010 as a disgrace to the nation.

Speaking to a respected Hispanic leader in KCK, Dennis Moore reportedly called decorated and disabled Marine Veteran and Congressional Opponent "White Trash" in a recent (recorded) telephone conversation. The KCK leader, who has formally supported the incumbent congressman, is supporting Daniel Gilyeat's candidacy for the Kansas 3rd District Congressional seat. Dennis Moore called the KCK man after hearing the Hispanic community leader's support had changed. Dennis Moore said he had $7 million for the campaign and could not believe the naturalized citizen was supporting "White Trash" over Moore.

They say this conversation is recorded. Here's hoping it appears on the Internet immediately -- we need to expose the sort of contempt that Democrats have for their opponents. The use of the slur in question is unacceptable, and if he is willing to use such a slur regarding a decorated veteran of white ancestry, I have to wonder what terms he uses for African-Americans, Hispanics or other minorities when he thinks he can get away with it.

As for his GOP challenger, Daniel Gilyeat, I can say that all I know is that he is a combat veteran who not only served honorably as a marine, but also gave of his own flesh in defense of the United States of America. I cannot speak to his position on issues, but I'd have to argue that his sacrifice shows him to be a better man than the hate-mongering Democrat incumbent he is looking to unseat in 2010.

H/T Moonbattery

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

We've already seen that he won't do crap about students being picked up in restrooms by adult men for sexual trysts, and he has expressed support for NAMBLA -- now we find out he doesn't have much of a problem with murder.

We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.

Sorry, Mr. Jennings, but murdering someone over name-calling is ALWAYS aberrant behavior. Even if the name called was "faggot". That you think differently is one more piece of evidence that you do not belong anywhere in the field of education -- and that you certainly should have nothing to do with ensuring "safe schools" for our nation;s children. Not to mention someone who does not belong in the administration of a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Posted by: Greg at 11:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Comes from the Democrat National Committee, of course.

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize."

One more example of civility and decency from the party that has made a point of demanding civility and decency – disagreeing with the undeserved awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama makes you just like the terrorists.

And while you are at it, donÂ’t forget that patriotism stopped being patriotic at noon on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: Greg at 09:06 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

It used to be that winners of the Nobel Prize for Peace had to have done something significant to advance the cause of peace. Maybe they negotiated a peace treaty. Maybe they had worked for years for human rights. Perhaps they were internationally known for their human rights work.

And while I haven't always agreed with the choices made, I've at least understood them. Even Al Gore's award two years ago, tinged by political correctness and support for junk science, made some sort of sense, given his history of environmental work.

But now we have seen confirmed a simple reality -- the once-prestigious award has become a joke, the Nobel Prize for Liberalism.

In a stunning surprise, the Nobel Committee announced Friday that it had awarded its annual peace prize to President Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said in its announcement. President Obama’s name had not figured in speculation about the likely winner until minutes before the prize was announced here.

Likely candidates had been seen here as including human rights activists in China and Afghanistan and political figures in Africa.

The committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts. “We are awarding Obama for what he has done,” the committee said. “Many other people and leaders and nations have to respond in a positive way” to President Obama’s diplomacy.

In other words, they gave the award for Hope'N'Change, not for any actual accomplishment or substantive body of work on the part of President Obama.

Especially since nominations had to be in by February 1, 2009, a mere 11 days after his inauguration. Yeah, that's right -- he'd been president for eleven days on the deadline day for nominations. He had done nothing substantive then -- and still has no substantive accomplishments after less than nine months in office. Sort of like his lack of substantive accomplishments during his years as a do-nothing state legislator and his partial term as absentee Senator from Illinois

Let's say it -- the award is absurd. No, scratch that -- the award is obscene.

In one fell swoop, the Nobel Committee has degraded and discredited itself in the eyes of anyone with common sense and common decency. Today marks the day that the Nobel Peace Prize has jumped the shark.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

The horrors! Cindy Sheehan has been arrested for protesting our warmonger president!

“Cindy Sheehan says she is moving to Washington. The anti-war activist was outside the White House for the second day in a row, with a bullhorn and a handful of protestors, shouting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo and calling for “health care not warfare.”

* * *

Park Police arrested Sheehan and 60 other protestors yesterday, after Sheehan chained herself to the fence on the North Lawn. Sheehan says she refuses to pay the fine and that she and other anti-war activists plan to “step up” their protests until the administration shows a willingness to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

“We’re going to create a movement that’s going to demand a change of policy,” she said, explaining that her plan is to create large, coordinated acts of civil resistance, “It’s going to be massive.”

Why hasnÂ’t Barack Hussein Obama met with Cindy Sheehan? Why did he allow his fascist storm troopers to lock her up for daring to engage in patriotic dissent? And why wasnÂ’t the media all over this horrific act of oppression?

Oh. ThatÂ’s right. It is no longer the Bush Administration, and the president is no longer a Republican, so dissent against the policies of the American government are no longer acceptable. Indeed, IÂ’m wondering how long until Maureen Dowd retracts her claim that Sheehan has absolute moral authority and instead opines that Sheehan is just another racist hater unpatriotically attacking America.

H/T Patterico

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

How dare they sell this product. RRRRAAAACCCCIIIISSSSTTTT!!!!

In CVS stores for less than a week, the Commander in Chia has already gotten the boot.

The chain Tuesday said it is no longer selling the Chia planter modeled after President Obama.

Chia Pet maker Joseph Enterprises launched an ad blitz leading up to the sales of its Chia Obama last week in Chicago, San Francisco and Tampa, Fla., the first time the item was in a major chain since Walgreens abruptly pulled it after a few days of testing last spring.

Walgreens officials said they received a few complaints. CVS would not say why it stopped the sales.

The product is the first Chia offering based on a living person.

Well, that is one more racist attack down. Now if we can only find a way to make sure that only votes for Obama are cast in presidential elections, we will have eliminated racism from our society.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Because, after all, a request by a Senator to withhold true information about the Senator being in town so that his constituents wouldnÂ’t know that they could meet up with him so as to engage in a constitutionally protected activity like petitioning for a redress of grievances ought to be respected. After all, the people have no place expressing un-liberal views to their betters.

A spokesman for U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) says the senator's office will no longer send media information to Quincy's oldest radio station because the station decided to let the public know he was coming to town.

Mike Moyers, general manager/vice president of STARadio Corporation, which owns WTAD-AM (930), said Christina Angarola of Durbin's Chicago office called WTAD on Monday to inform them they would no longer be included on the list of those receiving news releases from the senator when he plans to visit West-Central Illinois.

Moyers said Angarola was not pleased that WTAD chose to make public the time and place of Durbin's September 4 visit to Quincy's Blessing Hospital to hold a meeting on health care with officials from the hospital, Quincy Medical Group and Quincy Mayor John Spring and State Senator John Sullivan (D-Rushville).
The news release sent by Durbin's office on the afternoon of September 3 said NOTE: The times and locations of these events are for media planning purposes only and should not be published or aired in any form."

Personally, I find Dick Durbin’s request to be newsworthy in and of itself. Why is a US Senator so intent on making sure that his constituents NOT be able to contact him or speak to him? Why is the press being punished for daring to tell the truth – namely that the Senator would be in town for an event related to one of the most pressing public policy issues today?

And what are we to make of the explanation offered by Durbin for his reluctance for letting those who elected him actually talk to him on the issue of health care reform?

Durbin, the assistant majority leader of the Senate, has been an outspoken critic of health care town hall meetings, said he didn't want to get a "sucker-punch" from constituents and opted to have a session in a conference room before an invited few and a handful of reporters.

Four of the 10 people Durbin chose to meet on September 4 have donated to Durbin's campaign fund in the past: Blessing Corporate Services President/CEO Brad Billings, Niemann Foods Inc. Chairman Rich Niemann, Sr., [Quincy Mayor John] Spring and [State Senator John] Sullivan. Durbin has also funneled several thousands of dollars from his war chest back to Spring's mayoral campaign fund.

Got that – Durbin even admits that his goal was to ensure that his constituents were excluded from the policy making process because they might embarrass him or make him look foolish. Durbin has instead made himself look arrogant – and is punishing the press for having exposed that arrogance. How utterly shameful!

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.

After all, she is claiming that there are many members of Congress who have the same sort of sleaze problems as Charlie Rangel – will she put up or shut op?

“Many members” of Congress suffer from the same disclosure issues as Rep. Charles Rangel (D.N.Y.), one of his allies said Wednesday.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) downplayed the seriousness of allegations against Rangel that he failed to disclose sources of income and pay taxes on some properties, saying that many lawmakers suffer from innocent lapses in judgment when filing mandatory financial disclosure forms.
“I want to tell you, there are many members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years, you’re going to find that there were disclosures that were not made,” Waters said during an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning.

My guess is that she won’t do either – her argument appears to be that Rangel’s many financial misdeeds just are not sufficient to do so much as censure him , much less expel him from the House.

Seems to me that she is telling us that dirty Dems are a dime a dozen.

Which is why Democrats defeated an attempt to remove Rangel from the chairmanship of the committee that writes the laws that he breaks.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

He’ll meet with terrorists and dictators without preconditions – but screw the Dalai Lama, one of the most respected religious and political leaders on the face of the earth.

In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks.

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been "drop-in" visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.

So in order to suck up to the Commies in Red China, Barack Obama is going to disrespect this figure who is almost universally revered in order to appease a dictatorial regime. And they are not even subtle about this fundamental change in US policy.

Before a visit to China in February, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said advocacy for human rights could not "interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis" -- a statement that won her much goodwill in Beijing. . . .

So please understand – for all his talk about making the US a moral paragon, Barack Obama has adopted a policy of minimizing human rights violations by left-wing regimes, just like he has minimized the terrorism of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

In other words, Barack Obama is shameless in his promotion of values at odds with those of most Americans – and will likely come away with nothing to show for it, other than abandoning the historical anti-Communist stance adopted by eachsuccessive Administrations dating back to the days of Woodrow Wilson.

And given his disregard for for the human rights of the people of Tibet and China, is it any surprise that he is also abandoning the human rights of the people of Iran as a part of his attempt to appease Mahmoud the Mad and the Mullahs?

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 4 kb.

HereÂ’s a complaint that seems to miss the entire history of the press in America.

On "Meet the Press," David Brooks reiterated his critique of talk radio from Friday's Times, calling Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin "loons" and "harmful for America." (Limbaugh, on Friday, told POLITICO that Brooks is just jealous).

Continuing on discussion of partisan media divide, Republican strategist Mike Murphy -- an NBC News analyst who's made some appearances on MSNBC -- said "there is kind of a freakshow business of each side."

"We have one-party cable networks now," Murphy said. "One of each. What that does is dumb down the debate."

"Is Joe Scarborough -- which network is he on?" Rachel Maddow asked.

"He's on your liberal network," Murphy said.

"So how is that a one-party network?"

"I would take your prime-time and Fox prime-time and say it's the same dance toward dumbing the debate," Murphy said.

Frankly, I donÂ’t agree.

And neither would the founding fathers.

Take a look at the state of the press in the 1790s, when our Republic was established under the current Constitution. The press was explicitly partisan, and explicitly allied with one side or the other of the political factions of the day. Still later, the press was allied with the earliest political parties of the day.

We see remnants of that today with newspapers named the Whig, the Democrat, or the Republican in many cities around the country. Those names are indicative of the very partisan roots of the papers in question.

In short, the founders would have no problem with the existence of “biased” “one-party” media outlets today. They would likely suggest that it was unthinkable that it would be any other way – and that the very notion that we have an unbiased media is a conceit that is not borne out by reality.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that once the GOP reestablishes control at the national level, it may be necessary for there to be legislation passed in Congress and signed by the President that will ensure that our men and women in uniform are permitted to vote.

Virginia is the case in point right now, of attempts to disenfranchise the military. After the rejection of military absentee votes in Fairfax last year, we now have the state of Virginia claiming it has no obligation to send out absentee ballots for military personnel in a timely enough manner for them to actually be able to cast their ballots and return them.

The Virginia State Board of Elections argued in their most recent filing that they have no legal obligation to send out military absentee ballots in a timely manner. Restated, the State of Virginia has argued in a federal court filing that they can legally send out absentee ballots to active duty soldiers the day before an election. Restated again, theDemocratic Chairwoman of the Virginia State Board of Election (appointed by the Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine, in his capacity as Virginia Governor) Jean Cunningham just claimed a legal basis for massively raising the barrier to voting for soldiers at war.

The claim? That there is no LEGAL obligation that the state act to ensure that military voters are able to exercise the rights which they are deployed to defend. And apparently these Democrat officials are not terribly interested in the MORAL obligation to guarantee the franchise of military voters – probably because they know that such voters will likely vote overwhelmingly for Republican candidates.

And interestingly enough, Democrat leaders in Congress are dragging their feet on bipartisan legislation introduced to ensure that military voters are, in fact allowed to vote in state and local elections as well as federal ones. Maybe thatÂ’s because they know that military voters could be the difference in the off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

Because she so often makes posts like this one.

If a conservative doesnÂ’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesnÂ’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesnÂ’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they donÂ’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesnÂ’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless itÂ’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like heÂ’s in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, heÂ’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

H/t Colossus of Rhodey

UPDATE: For some reason this thought on the authoritarianism of the "liberal" seems to tie in well with this commentary on the desire of some liberals for a dictator to rule over us all.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

I think the fine folks at Saturday Night Live nailed it last night.

Seems to me that Barack Obama is already an EPIC FAIL. And personally, I love the fact that SNL notes that the president has accomplished only two things -- JACK and SQUAT.

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Because if she is right in the things she is saying, she has painted a great big target on herself.

It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black (applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that's not really the case with these people.

I'm not talking about people that do have problems with his policies, that's fine. But these people, who are also being led by the Glenn Becks, the Michelle Bachmans, the Rush Limbows [presumably Limbaugh], whomever, they are no different than any other white identify movement that's part of our history. This has been going on since the founding of this country that white power movements have tried to establish themselves and hold onto power.

Of course, the only thing actually missing from Janeane's little rant is proof of what she says is true. That's why I believe that the crap that comes out of her mouth is nothing but a schtick designed to keep herself in the spotlight as her career fades. After all, if she REALLY believed that conservatives were white supremacists out to seize power, she would know that she has just made herself one of the leading enemies of that white power movement -- a race traitor who has betrayed her race and sided with those that a real white-identity movement considers to be sub-human.

And we all know, based upon the actions of real racial supremacists in the past, exactly what would happen to someone like that.

Yeah, that's right -- she'd be deader than a terrorist in the hands of Jack Bauer. The sort of folks she claims that "tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy" really are have a history of violence and murder -- and by making such statements she would have drawn a target on herself. And she knows it.

Not only that, but she knows that such outrageous defamation of patriotic Americans who dare to dissent from this president like she did from the last one won't hurt her career, either. She knows she'll keep getting bookings from Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, and Maher -- not to mention work on television series and movies. And that, my friends, is what I believe Janeane's little comments are all about.

Robert Stacy McCain also does a great job taking apart the argument made by this brain dead thespian.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

As is so often the case, this one goes to lib talker Ed Schultz.

What the Republicans did, I think, rivals Jane Fonda sitting on a gun in North Vietnam.

Excuse me?

Failure to support the USOC's Olympic bid -- at least in part over political differences with the president -- rivals this?

So not wanting Chicago to get the Olympics because of political differences with the president is on the same level posing on an enemy gun during time of war, declaring American troops to be war criminals, and denying the claims of torture made by American POWs who carried the evidence on their own bodies? Was Ed smoking crack during this broadcast?

You know, since the enemy within Leftists like Ed have always considered Jane Fonda a hero for what she did in Vietnam -- and used it as an example of the sort of "dissent" that they call "the highest form of patriotism" and which most decent Americans recognize as treason.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.