Commenting on a recent NYTimes article, Merv from PrairiePundit neatly encapsulates the definition of an oft-used political term.

Wedge issue--one where Democrats don't have good talking points

That certainly beats the definition -- quite convoluted -- at Wikipedia. And it does neatly summarize how the term is used in political analysis today -- an issue which is illegitimate to raise in a campaign due to the fact that it favors the GOP because the people support it and the Democrat leadership opposes it.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

The silence is deafening, as John Hawkins points out at RWN.

(moonbat on) If Barack Obama had ever served in the military, maybe he wouldn't be so callous about sending American troops to their deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many funerals of the men he has sent to their deaths has Barack Obama attended? Guess he's too busy stealing the Iraqis oil and trying to start a war with Pakistan. Oh, and why hasn't he caught Osama Bin Laden yet? Maybe he's too busy giving speeches to his adoring fans in the media, who never challenge him on anything he does in foreign policy.

And it just gets better and better. That's why John is one of the best and brightest we have in the blogosphere today.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

It is time for serious consideration of impeachment.

In a move aimed at healing the rifts of American foreign policy decisions, President Obama will make a trip to Europe next month, including a trip to Dresden, Germany. The trip will consist of several stops and the President will meet with the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. Also slated are several policy speeches.

Perhaps the most controversial is a planned speech in which President Obama will formally apologize for American 'war crimes' during the Second World War. This would be particularly comforting to Europeans, who have long condemned American foreign policy actions, especially regarding civilians.

This speech will also be welcome in Germany, who had over 12,000,000 of its citizens killed during the war. Mayor Johann Krupp of Augensburg in Saxony stated to DW that the speech will "help my great-uncle's soul rest. He burned to death during the Dresden bombings."

Oh.

My.

God!

Not only were the policies pursued in winning WWII correct, the entire subsequent development of the notion of a kinder, gentler form of warfare has been a moral cul-de-sac that requires the US to endanger its own troops while encouraging the enemy to hide behind and among civilians – while doing nothing to materially increase the security of the United States. And what’s more, those who think that the US somehow owes an apology to – of all nations – GERMANY over our actions during the Second World War neglects to consider that the United States spent incredible amounts of money to rebuild our vanquished foe AND provided American troops as the bulk of Germany’s defense for the next few decades as the Russian Bear stood ready to gobble up the western half of that nation during the Cold War.

And as for you, Mayor Krupp, I’d lay odds that your great-uncle was a fervent supporter of the Nazi regime and its policies – in which case I’m sure his soul is suffering the same sort of fiery torment that his body did as we liberated your nation from itself.

Speaking as an American, I can only label this latest course of action by the Ob-amateurs in the White House to be a disgrace of historical proportions. Indeed, it makes me wish we had a parliamentary system so that We the People could vote him out of office immediately for his attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Allies and the Axis powers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, a man with good judgment would never have picked this inept imbecile to stand a heartbeat away from the presidency.

President Obama is so "distracted by his vice president's indiscipline" that he has been forced to rebuke privately Vice President Joe Biden, according to a new book by Newsweek journalist Richard Wolffe, who interviewed Obama a dozen times.

"He can't keep his mouth shut," Wolffe quotes a "senior Obama aide" as saying of the gaffe-prone Biden in "Renegade: The Making of a President," set for release June 2.

As evidence, Wolffe reports that during the presidential transition period, Biden insulted Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest friends and confidantes. Jarrett had been considered Obama's top choice to fill his vacated Senate seat in Illinois, but took herself out of the running just hours after Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich allegedly told a wiretapped conference call he would not heed any Obama recommendation without a payoff.

"Soon after Jarrett pulled out of consideration for the Senate seat, the senior transition team met to discuss Cabinet picks," Wolffe writes.

"Biden tried to compliment Jarrett after one contribution. 'You should be in the Senate,' he quipped. After the meeting, as everyone returned to their offices, Obama stopped Biden to warn him not to say anything like that again. 'It's not funny,' he told him."

And God only knows that Joe Biden has made Dan Quayle look like a rocket scientist. What possessed Obama to pick the moron for the Vice Presidency s beyond ..

I just wonder – has the jockeying for the number 2 slot in 2012 already begun?

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

This time my hero so neatly encapsulates the reason that the John Edwards scandal was not nearly so hot in press as the Mark Foley and Larry Craig scandals were.

After Obama had been nominated and Edwards was history, a few press grandees conceded that yes, maybe there was a legitimate story there, but such a sordid tale was never going to tickle the fancy of their refined sensibilities. Oddly enough, this consideration never seems to come into play with, say, Mark Foley, the Florida Republican hounded from public life after some overly tender emails to one of the more fetching Congressional pages, or Larry Craig, the Republican senator caught playing some ill-advised footsie with an undercover cop in the Minneapolis airport men’s room. Admittedly, these sex scandals are less “sordid” than Senator Edwards’: for one thing, there’s no sex in them—just some unrequited cyber-billets- doux in Foley’s case, and a bit of club-footed George Michael stall-divider semaphore in Larry Craig’s. British Tories at least have the consolation of the career-detonating sex scandal; Republicans have to make do with the career-detonating no-sex scandal.

Remember. Mark Foley wrote some weird emails to a teenager. Larry Craig may or may not have sought companionship in an airport bathroom. John Edwards trotted out his dying wife as a campaign prop at the same time he was boffing a pretty skuzzy campaign contractor and funneling campaign cash into her bank account to pay for their child.

Put differently, Foley acted creepy and Craig stupid as they inched across some moral boundaries. Edwards, on the other hand, blew across any number of moral, ethical, and legal lines like a turbocharged rocket sled. Somehow, though, the media was only interested in getting the Republicans while giving the Democrat a free pass. But maybe it wasn’t the politics, as Steyn suggests, but instead the fact that the Foley and Craig scandals were PG-12 and the Edwards scandal was NC-17 – and the latter certainly wasn’t fit for a family newspaper.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Barack Obama speaks the truth – but somehow I don’t think he means this statement in the sense that it is actually true.

President Barack Obama plans to say in his speech Thursday that the U.S. lost its way in fighting terrorism over the last eight years by failing to trust its institutions and values, according to an administration official.

How do I think this statement is true? Simply put, too many people abandoned trust in government and the values of patriotism during a time when we were at war yet kept safe by our leaders and our military. Because the president and his senior aides concentrated on keeping America safe, those who don’t really believe in American values and institutions were able to use those values and institutions to undermine the war effort by claiming that success constituted proof there was no real threat to America – and that world opinion should matter more than American safety. The result? America became so lost and confused that we elected the most anti-American Congress in my lifetime and the most under-qualified president in our nation’s history on a platform that consisted mainly of a call to undo the policies that have kept our nation safe since 9/11.

That is, of course, what I’d like Dick Cheney to have said in his reply to Barack Obama – along with announcing his candidacy for president in 2012. But I’ll settle for accepting that Obama is right -- America is truly lost since he was elected.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, some folks are simply pathetic losers. Russ Feingold proves he is one of them.

Republicans are trying to pass legislation in the next few weeks to kick off the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald ReaganÂ’s birth, and the only hurdle appears to be Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who is refusing to let the Senate vote on the bill.

Seems that Feingold has a somewhat more controversial resolution creating panels to study the treatment of German and Italian Americans and Jewish refugees during World War II. That he wants passed. Knowing his proposal canÂ’t stand alone, heÂ’d prefer to insult the memory of an American president by delaying the proper commemoration of his birth.

Why, I wonder, doesnÂ’t Feingold seek to attach his resolution to the appropriation for maintaining some historical site connected to FDR, who implemented the policies that the Senator wants studied? Seems like that would be more appropriate.

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

As a child he was a hero to me.

As an adult he has become an object of scorn.

But regardless, Teddy Kennedy is a human being, and I join with his friends and family in rejoicing at this news.

Sen. Edward KennedyÂ’s brain cancer is in remission, and the Massachusetts Democrat is expected back in the Senate after the Memorial Day recess, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

As much as I would love to see him out of the Senate, IÂ’d rather that neither death nor ill health were the vehicles by which that happened. May the remission be complete and extended.

UPDATE: Harry Reid is an idiot -- the story is apparently baseless. Heartbreaking, and needlessly cruel. So my prayers continue for a miracle to touch Senator Kennedy's life.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

And have no doubt – that is precisely what he is seeking. After all, if you are going to make the decision to prosecute for the reasons given by Lanny Davis, then there is no other way to view the matter than as a political show trial.

I have changed my mind about the need to indict former Vice President Dick Cheney for complicity in illegal torture.

His insistence on putting himself on multiple TV programs and conservative radio talk shows, not only defending torture but offering the defense that it worked, has changed my mind. Not only that - he went on to attack Mr. Obama as weakening the United States in the war on terrorism because Mr. Obama immediately announced that torture would no longer be allowed.

Dem's fighting words. They are also, in my view, reckless and irresponsible. They seem to be laying down a marker that in case, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack, Mr. Cheney can be the first to blame it on Mr. Obama's policies and say, "I told you so."

For all the words that follow attempting to somehow justify trying Cheney – and only Cheney – it still comes back to Cheney’s daring to dissent from the Obama orthodoxy on enhanced interrogation and how to deal with detained jihadis. Such temerity cannot be allowed to stand in the eyes of Lanny Davis, and merits the use of the full weight of the federal government to destroy one of those whose experience renders him among the best qualified to judge the policies of the new administration.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

So much for the strength of the Democrats.

Nearly half of Nevadans have had enough of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as the powerful Democrat heads into his re-election campaign, a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll finds.

About a third of the state's voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.

The findings are echoed by another poll question about Reid's popularity that finds the four-term incumbent to be a polarizing figure in his home state.

Half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view and 11 percent a neutral opinion.

Imagine that – the top Democrat in the Senate is being repudiated by a plurality of voters in his home state, even without knowing for sure who his opponent(s) will be. That, my friends, betrays a serious weakness of both the man and his party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember the Clinton Administration? You know, when there was a spike in the number of audits of conservative groups and administration opponents – often at the apparent instigation of Democrat public officials both inside and outside of the executive branch. Well, President Obama has raised the specter of such shenanigans again in a thoroughly inappropriate way, as noted by ol’ Insty himself, Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU's point by remarking, "I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."

I’d like to believe that Barack Obama was only joking when he made this unfortunate quip. But we’ve already seen the administration turn the dogs on those who have dared to oppose Obama’s plans and policies, to the point of officially questioning the patriotism who have other views on the stimulus package or the Chrysler bailout. Is it too hard to imagine a series of tax audits of White House “enemies” – especially after the favorable treatment given to the tax scofflaws nominated to office by Obama?

Many of us questioned ObamaÂ’s readiness to be AmericaÂ’s Chief Executive during last yearÂ’s campaign. This is just the sort of move that serves to reinforce those questions.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

The last time I checked, the primary process was all about selecting the best candidate for office. It only works if those involved are free to support the candidate of their choice – provided they do, in fact, get behind the eventual nominee of the party. That’s why the tactic adopted by Brian Moran in the Democrat primary for governor in Virginia is a potentially damaging one to the entire process.

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Brian Moran is hammering his Democratic primary rival Terry McAuliffe for backing Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama throughout much of the presidential race.

The Moran campaign is hoping a new 60-second radio ad running on black radio stations in Virginia will remind African-American voters — likely to be a crucial voting block in the June 9 Democratic primary — of McAuliffe's full-throated support for Clinton.

"Terry McAuliffe may have a lot of big money for his campaign, but don't let that hide the truth," the ad's narrator says. "The truth is, Terry McAuliffe led the campaign that ran the '3 a.m.' attack ad against Barack Obama. McAuliffe worked to put up the ads that questioned Obama's ability to be president."

Frankly, I know of no one who questioned ObamaÂ’s ABILITY to be president. On the other hand, a lot of folks on the Democrat side had serious questions about his READINESS to be president based upon his relative lack of experience. It is interesting to note that McAuliffe became a strong supporter of Obama after Hillary Clinton got out of the race for the nomination. In that, he proved to be a loyal Democrat.

Of course, if Moran wants to argue that those who didn’t support Obama from the beginning are not good Democrats, that’s fine. It will serve the GOP well in the general election, when the Republicans seek to woo those who are more moderate and inclined to hear the GOP message – and those who are already becoming disaffected with Obama’s policies.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

Must we now offer every child and Beanie baby collector the opportunity to own a replica of ObamaÂ’s pooch?

CHICAGO — The presidential popularity of the Obamas' new puppy Bo is complete. The company that makes Beanie Babies has released a shaggy black and white version of the dog named "Bo" — and he's selling fast.

The company has previously run into trouble taking inspiration from the Obama family. The company released two dolls resembling the Obama children as part of its Ty Girlz collection but retired the names "Marvelous Malia" and "Sweet Sasha" after Michelle Obama said using her daughters' names was inappropriate.

The dolls were renamed "Marvelous Mariah" and "Sweet Sydney."

Less than a dozen "Bo" Beanie Babies were sent to the educational toy shop Learning Express in the Chicago suburb of St. Charles, and he sold out quickly, owner Aalap Shah said Wednesday.

"We were fortunate enough to receive a small shipment of 'Bo'," Shah said. "He sold out within a few hours. He was very popular. We can't wait to get some more in."

Oh come on!

Gag me with a squeaky toy!

Enough with the Obama overload.

Barack Obama is president.

He isnÂ’t king, and he isnÂ’t a god.

Do we really need to create little Obama idols at every opportunity? After all, I thought Barney was cute, but I didn’t feel the need for paraphernalia related to him – and my only reaction to Millie’s Book was that I was pleased the money went to charity. But this is simply one more aspect of Obama over-exposure.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

More corruption from the camp of Jack Murtha, whose corruption has been a national scandal for decades even as he has been embraced by leading Democrats.

Rep. John Murtha's opponent in the 2008 election claims the Pennsylvania congressman's chief of staff has threatened to have him recalled to active duty and court-martialed for campaigning while in the military, which is in violation of military code.

Bill Russell, an Iraq war veteran who served with the Army, told FOXNews.com that Murtha's chief of staff, John Hugya, made the threat on two occasions -- first to his former commanding officer and then to his face in March.

"It's a terrible, terrible threat to make," said Russell, a Republican who lost to the Democratic powerhouse in November but plans to challenge him again in 2010. Asked if Murtha is trying to bully him out of a rematch, Russell said: "It was a direct intent to intimidate."

Russell was on active duty for a three-month period -- from April to July -- of his campaign for Congress last year. But he said he did not campaign during that period, as Hugya was suggesting, and so did not violate military code that prohibits doing so.

Abscam. Earmarks. Steering contracts to donors and family members. Threatening to subvert the military justice system to punish political opponents. What would Democrats do if a Republican were to engage in such a long record of misconduct? Why wonÂ’t they respond similarly to such actions by one of their own? And when will the people of his district send such a corrupt figure into a disgraced retirement?

Posted by: Greg at 08:55 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

I don’t like it – but not for the reason that everyone else seems to object.

NRSC chairman John Cornyn made the endorsement official this morning, casting Crist as the most electable candidate to hold the seat for the GOP.

"While I believe Marco Rubio has a very bright future within the Republican Party, Charlie Crist is the best candidate in 2010 to ensure that we maintain the checks and balances that Floridians deserve in the United States Senate," Cornyn said in a statement.
"Governor Crist is a dedicated public servant and a dynamic leader, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee will provide our full support to ensure that he is elected the next United States Senator from Florida.”

The committeeÂ’s decision will make it tougher for former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio to raise money against Crist, given that the party has given the governor its stamp of approval. Rubio has won support from Florida conservatives and has a base in the Cuban-American community, but will need to raise a significant amount of money to credibly compete against Crist in the primary.

Now I’ll be honest – I like Rubio more than I like Crist. Rubio is popular and has the Cuban-American demographic going for him, not to mention more conservative. Crist, despite his unquestioned popularity with Florida voters, will be dogged by a certain rumor about him (irrelevant to his qualification for office, in my opinion) that has been given more public play in a current documentary. The real problem for me, though, is the fact that I believe that the GOP base should be picking the candidate, not the inside the Beltway crowd.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

I like Gary Sinise. Like his style, and I like his politics. However, I donÂ’t know that I am ready to support him for this particular office in 2012.

Nicolle Wallace, a top adviser to George W. Bush and John McCainÂ’s presidential campaign, is adding a few names to the list of Republicans who might lead the GOP out of the wilderness.
Top among them? Actor Gary Sinise.
Wallace, writing on The Daily Beast, said she first heard the idea from a fellow Republican.
“The natural strengths that an actor brings to politics would come in handy to anyone going up against Obama in 2012,” she wrote. “We will need an effective communicator who can stand toe to toe with Obama’s eloquence.”
Sinise, also a musician, performs for U.S. troops and often champions veterans' causes.

The only thing he would be lacking would be the sort of experience that would actually qualify him to be president. Good grief – his resume is even thinner than Obama’s in 2008.

On the other hand, he might make a great candidate for Governor or Senator somewhere.

I prefer one of Wallace’s other names – General David Petraeus.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

You had two tickets. You arrived as a part of a party of three at the White House CorrespondentÂ’s Dinner, and threw a tantrum over the matter. My favorite line of the night? This one, uttered regarding the security guard dispatched to deal with her attempted crashing of the party.

‘Does he even know who the f— I am?’

Maybe he did, Megan, and maybe he didnÂ’t. But I think I speak for an awful lot of Americans when I say that he probably didnÂ’t care. I know that I sure donÂ’t.

Posted by: Greg at 12:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever since I started working in politics, I have had a simple rule – if I don’t believe in a candidate, I don’t work for him/her. If I lose faith in a candidate, I quit working for the campaign. Most folks I’ve dealt with in the GOP operate on the same sort of principle.

Apparently the Democrats operate differently.

ABC contributor George Will suggested former Sen. John Edwards was irresponsible to campaign for the Democratic Party nomination.
"Think about what a tragedy it would have been if he had won?" Will said.
I've talked to a lot of former Edwards staffers about this. Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards' staff didn't believe rumors about the affair.
But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.
Several of them had gotten together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts.
Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards' staffers have told me.
They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Think about that one for a minute – they were willing to take the money paid by a candidate but not show him any loyalty. They decided he should not be president, but continued to draw a check anyway, while planning to sabotage the campaign if it appeared he would win.

Disgusting – absolutely disgusting.

George Stephanopoulos has reported on this “doomsday plan”. That is all well and good – but what he really needs to do is report the names of the staffers who were willing to co-opt the political process for their own personal gain, and to commit a fraud on the electorate for a paycheck.

And let me say that as deeply as I feel contempt for John Edwards, it does not approach the level of contempt I have for these staffers. Better that they be good Americans and not participate in the cover-up -- and allow the voters in the Democrat primary to have full information on all the candidates, which might have influenced the eventual outcome of the Democrat nomination. After all, would those Edwards voters have broken for Obama, giving him an earlier victory in the delegate hunt? Or would the displaced Edwards voters have broken for Hillary Clinton, turning the entire race on its head? And wouldnÂ’t either of those outcomes have been better for America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

If Rush Limbaugh or some other prominent conservative were to suggest that they hoped Wanda Sykes developed ovarian, uterine, or breast cancer and died?

Sykes was at her most vicious on the subject of Rush Limbaugh. "Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. That's like saying, 'I hope America fails.' Or that 'I dont care if people are losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason. He's not saying anything differently than what Osama Bin Laden is saying." Then, turning to the president, Sykes added, "You might want to look into this, sir. Because I think maybe he was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight."
Realizing she shocked the crowd with that remark, she said, "Too much? But you're laughing on the inside..."
But she wasn't done. "Rush Limbaugh [says] 'I hope the country fails." I hope his kidneys fail. How about that? He needs some waterboarding, that's what he needs."

And weren’t we told for the last eight years that questioning the patriotism of Americans who dissented from the policies of the president was beyond the pale – and that such Americans were engaged in the highest form of patriotism? And to accuse such Americans of treason – or suggest that they were the equivalent of terrorists (or, worse yet, to call them terrorists even if they had, in fact, engaged in acts of terrorism like those committed by Bill Ayers) – was utterly unacceptable and un-American.

Somehow, though, all those rules went out the window on Saturday night at the White House CorrespondentsÂ’ Dinner. And rather than express his disapproval, President Obama sat and laughed out loud as the semi-talented Ms. Sykes wished death on a political opponent and accused him of treason and terrorism.

Now the American press hates Limbaugh, whose audience is growing even as theirs is shrinking, so they are not particularly taken aback by such naked hatred in the name of politics. But I am particularly struck by the clear-headed response of Toby Harnden of the Telegraph.

"Obama seemed to think this bit was pretty hilarious, grinning and chuckling and turning to share the 'joke' with the person sitting on his right. There's not much room for differing interpretations of what Sykes said. She called Limbaugh a terrorist and a traitor, suggested that he be tortured and wished him dead. What was his crime? Hoping that Obama's policies - which he views as socialist - will fail. That's way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama's reaction to it was astonishing...Obama laughing when someone wishes Limbaugh dead? Hard to take from the man who promised a new era of civility and elevated debate in Washington."

Now, though, we know exactly what constitutes civility and elevated debate in the age of Obama – and it sure isn’t elevated or civil by any reasonable person’s definition of those words. And it is fair to say that since Obama put his imprimatur upon that sort of “humor”, he has managed to disgraces himself and his office even further than he did during the first 100 days.

And as for Sykes – I’d suggest she has jumped the shark, but for the fact that she began her career on the far side of said aquatic predator.

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

This time on how to deal with terrorists -- he's going to go with military commissions rather than civilian courts to try the jihadi swine.

In one of its first acts, the Obama administration obtained a 120-day suspension of the military commissions; that will expire May 20. Human rights groups had interpreted the suspension as the death knell for military commissions and expected the transfer of cases to military courts martial or federal courts.

Officials said yesterday that the Obama administration will seek a 90-day extension of the suspension as early as next week. It would subsequently restart the commissions on American soil, probably at military bases, according to a lawyer briefed on the plan.

While the rules are going to be modified, the fact is that these jihadi swine will be kept out of civilian courts and tried in a forum more akin to those used to try our military personnel. Seems reasonable to me -- after all, America's enemies should not get greater consideration than American soldiers -- and, indeed, do not merit even that much.

Personally, though, I believe that both administrations are wrong on this. What needs to happen is extensive enhanced interrogation, followed by summary execution with a bullet coated in bacon grease. No process is due to these enemies of civilization.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Much to the consternation of his Bush Derangement Syndrome afflicted followers, I'm sure.

Now he's siding with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin on protection for the polar bear.

The Obama administration will retain a Bush-era rule for polar bears, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Friday, in a move that angered activists who noted the rule limits what can be done to protect the species from global warming.

The administration had faced a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, to impose limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the emissions occur thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.

"We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change," Salazar said in a statement. "However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nationÂ’s carbon emissions.

Especially since anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax that is well on its way to being discredited by good science on our climate. Besides, didn't i read recently that the polar bear population is up?

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

One more sign that shifting Left may not help Arlan Specter after all. First the Democrat Caucus in the Senate rejects him, now MoveOn.org.

One of the nationÂ’s largest liberal advocacy organizations, MoveOn.org , is resisting efforts to clear the Democratic primary field for Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter.

The political arm of MoveOn flexed its muscle Friday by releasing the results of an online poll that showed the vast majority of the group’s roughly 170,000 members in Pennsylvania — 85 percent — would consider supporting a Democratic challenger against Specter.

The group expressed concern over Specter’s vote against President Obama’s $3.4 billion budget just one day after defecting to the Democratic Party. MoveOn also cited comments Specter made in an appearance on “Meet the Press” last weekend suggesting he would oppose a public health insurance option that some Democrats would like to see included in any health care reform proposal.

of course, a full 90% of MoveOn supporters would support Specter in the general election -- but he does need to get that Democrat nomination first, and it appears that the Democrat base -- as well as elected Democrats -- are balking at the prospect of welcoming him into the party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

That is the current snapshot from Rasmussen.

Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison find themselves essentially tied in an early look at their 2010 Primary battle.
The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey shows Perry attracting 42% of the vote while Hutchison earns 38%. Seven percent (7%) say theyÂ’d like to vote for somebody else and 13% are undecided.
Perry leads by 15 percentage points among conservative voters but Hutchison leads by 35 points among the moderates.
Favorability ratings for the two candidates are virtually even among Likely Republican Primary Voters. Perry is viewed Very Favorably by 26% and Very Unfavorably by 9%. The comparable numbers for Hutchison are 27% and 10%.

My concern is that this means a really divisive primary. However, given Rick PerryÂ’s weakness in the last election, I donÂ’t see him as a strong candidate for governor. Hutchison, on the other hand, would be able to defeat practically any candidate that the Dems put up against her next fall. That is why, in the end, I am backing her in this race.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

One has to wonder, given his plan to cut the benefits paid to the families of dead police officers by nearly 50%.

The Obama administration wants to cut almost in half a benefits program for the families of slain police and safety officers.
The president's proposed budget calls for cutting the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program from $110 million to $60 million.
Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because "claims are anticipated to decrease" because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing.

One problem – that rationale is a lie. The rate of officers killed in the line of duty has been increasing, and is up some 20%. So tell me again why you want to cut the money set aside for dead cops and their families. I’m cure my brother the police officer would like to know as well, as would his wife and kids.

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

One more bit of proof that the Democrats are disingenuous on what they now call torture.

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict PelosiÂ’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

What does this all mean? It means that Pelosi and other leading Democrats knew about waterboarding and other means used to extract usable intelligence from jihadis. It means that they either approved those techniques or that they lacked the courage to speak out about them at the time. And it means that we have seen a sustained campaign of falsehood from the Democrats about the issue.

Time to cue the Donkey Party theme song!

Posted by: Greg at 08:21 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 3 kb.

He has released a statement on the matter.

"After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate," Ridge said in a statement, adding later, "The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. ... To those who believe that the Republican Party is facing challenges; they are right. To those who believe the Democratic Party is without its own difficulties, they are wrong. No one party has a monopoly on all of the answers. ... And so my desire and intention is to help my party craft solutions that both sides of the aisle can embrace."

Not surprising, given that Ridge currently claims Maryland as his home state. Despite his strong Pennsylvania roots, that could have been used against him in both the primary and the general election.

I see this as an unhappy outcome for the GOP. I donÂ’t see Pat Toomey as being able to beat Specter in the general election. Is there another strong Republican who can both win the nomination and the general election?

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Now that Elizabeth Edwards has gone public on John’s affair and said plenty of nasty things about “the other woman”. Probable baby-mama Rielle Hunter is going to demand a paternity test and presumably seek child support.

The ex-senator's former lover - furious at being portrayed as a stalker in his wife's media tour - reportedly is taking revenge and will allow a paternity test for her baby after all.
Rielle Hunter previously refused to allow DNA testing on baby Frances, born in February 2008. Edwards, even after the admitted affair, insisted he wasn't the father.
Her friends said then she hoped they still had a future together and hoped to protect the philandering pol from further ruin.
But on the eve of Elizabeth Edwards' appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" today to plug her new book, the National Enquirer reports that Hunter has changed her mind.
"Now she can see there's never going to be a future with John, and she feels he's lied about his promise to keep Elizabeth from trashing her in the book," an "insider" told the mag.

Well, Elizabeth did say that she didn’t know if John was the baby-daddy – this should settle the matter definitively. Perhaps it all has something to do with the fact that Rielle Hunter now realizes that Elizabeth isn’t going to die any time soon – and John Edwards isn’t coming back to her when she eventually does.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

I simply cannot believe that Senator Lindsey Graham actually said this.

“My hope is that our Democratic colleagues — if you start listening to the bloggers — if we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us.”

Excuse me, Senator? Is it really your position that government officials should not listen to the voices of the people as expressed in public forums? Do you really believe that such voices are irrelevant, and that listening to citizens like me is a danger to our nationÂ’s greatness? Could it be that the time has come for you to go, so that we can have leaders who actually give a damn what the people have to say?

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Hate crime protection will be guaranteed for pedophiles – but attacks on current and former members of the armed forces because of their military service has been denied by Democrats.

During a House Judiciary Committee meeting, Congressman Steve King (R-IA) offered up an amendment to the hate crimes bill to exclude pedophiles from being a protected category under the hate crimes legislation.
Every single Democrat voted it down.

In the same meeting, Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) offered an amendment to include veterans as a class protected under the hate crimes bill. Not only did the Democrats vote it down, but Cogresswoman Debbie Waasserman Schultz attacked the Republicans for even thinking veterans might need protection under hate crimes legislation.

Why vote down an amendment excluding pedophiles from protection? Even if one accepts the argument that they were not intended to be covered by the statute, why not make the exclusion explicit?

And as for our veterans, weÂ’ve seen hate-inspired assaults on them for at least four decades, dating back to the Vietnam War. If veteran status is a basis for protection under other civil rights statutes, why not this one? Could it be that we have seen the majority in Congress demonstrate that, like Bill Clinton in the 1960s, it loathes the military?

Of course, I oppose hate crime laws -- and I therefore oppose the entire bill currently under consideration. But if we are to have such laws, why would we protect those who prey on vulnerable children, but not the patriots who defend our nation from its enemies?

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Arlen Specter goes from first to last in seniority on the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian's party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.

In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.

But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.

Looks like Specter has hurt his home state of Pennsylvania by surrendering seniority for personal political advantage. We already know that he wasn’t interested in principle – now we see that he also doesn’t care about the best interests of his constituents. You see, it is really all about the best interests of Arlen!

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve noted, in recent years, a certain tendency among left-wingers. When confronted with a woman offering a conservative view, the tendency is to refuse to address the argument. Instead, there is a concerted effort to denigrate that conservative woman as a woman – by sexually degrading her.

Such is the case with the current Miss California.

Miss California Carrie Prejean says a website has posted racy photos of her in an attempt to belittle her Christianity.
"Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid website that openly mocks me for my Christian faith," Prejean said yesterday in a statement.
A photo of Prejean wearing only pink panties with her back turned to the camera appeared Monday on a gossip blog.
In explaining the photos, Prejean said, "I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

Add to that the issue that was made over her breast implants and it is pretty clear what the lefties who support gay marriage want us to believe – Carrie Prejean is a whore, and therefore her words should be disregarded and her position is discredited. In other words, rather than engage in a well-reasoned attack on her position on gay marriage, they choose to instead engage in an ad hominem attack on her person. And in this case with photos that I don’t see as particularly scandalous.

Now I might let this go without comment, were it not that this is a part of the pattern of attacks on conservative women that has to do with their gender and sexuality.

Consider, for example, the sort of crap unleashed against Michelle Malkin – fake photos and comments about her alleged sexual antics

Then there were the disgusting sex-based attacks on Senator Fred ThompsonÂ’s wife, Jeri.

And donÂ’t forget the fake Sarah Palin photos that were somehow supposed to discredit her candidacy for vice president last fall.

So I guess the question that has to be asked is this – why do leftists hate women so much that they attack them on the crudest of sexual levels rather than engage them on the battle of ideas? Could it be that, despite their constant claims to worship at the altar of female empowerment and liberated sexuality, that too many folks on the Left are simply misogynistic patriarchs who insist that women keep to their proper place -- which is silent and in the background unless they are mouthing liberal political philosophy.

UPDATE: By interesting coincidence, Joshuapundit just posted a wonderful quote from one of the twentieth century's greatest conservative women.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

- Margaret Thatcher

Indeed -- hence this move to sexually belittle conservative women by the intellectually bankrupt American Left.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 4 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Very nice site!

Posted by: John484 at Sun May 10 15:40:02 2009 (xtLmW)

2 I want to say - thank you for this!, Ambien Discount, >:-], Tramadol, %(((, Order Valium, swe, Cheap Phentermine, :-DD, Cheap Alprazolam, tde,

Posted by: Urbano at Tue May 19 20:17:21 2009 (f1Nqs)

3 Hello!, buy autocad, =-[[, adobe creative for mac, 8O, buy adobe acrobat, =-DDD,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Wed May 20 06:43:10 2009 (hx4AX)

4 Hello!, buy autocad, :-O, buy adobe acrobat, >:-[, buy microsoft office 2007, radur,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Wed May 20 07:07:11 2009 (5OIOR)

5 Gutentak!, buy adobe acrobat, 8-((, adobe creative for mac, >:-[, buy microsoft office 2007, :-DD,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 07:53:38 2009 (Ig2Io)

6 Gutentak!, buy autocad, > , adobe creative for mac, > , buy microsoft office 2007, xif,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 08:17:54 2009 (pCdvk)

7 Privet!, buy adobe acrobat, ktlsg, adobe creative for mac, %PPP, buy microsoft office 2007, ntvn,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Wed May 20 09:13:36 2009 (/0Xwo)

8 Zdarova!, buy autocad, =D, adobe creative for mac, 131, buy adobe acrobat, nuvun,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Wed May 20 09:36:30 2009 (CJ8jq)

9 Zdarova!, buy autocad, reiw, adobe creative for mac, ksr, buy microsoft office 2007, edq,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 11:03:40 2009 (C6/be)

10 Privet!, buy autocad, oqx, adobe creative for mac, bhfdiu, buy microsoft office 2007, 847,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 12:27:08 2009 (iae3s)

11 Privet!, buy autocad, 4762, adobe creative for mac, cksl, buy microsoft office 2007, 771,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Wed May 20 12:47:00 2009 (e9sdN)

12 Hi!, buy autocad, 25498, adobe creative for mac, 4830, buy microsoft office 2007, %-D,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 14:27:56 2009 (s+U1K)

13 Zdarova!, adobe creative for mac, >:-))), buy adobe acrobat, 8(((, buy microsoft office 2007, :-OO,

Posted by: HuiTebeVNos at Wed May 20 14:48:58 2009 (ocneN)

14 Hi!, buy adobe acrobat, 31530, adobe creative for mac, DD, buy microsoft office 2007, jwoukg,

Posted by: Pisinka at Wed May 20 15:30:36 2009 (vOVU2)

15 Gutentak!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 9847, solidworks 2009 x64, 40106, autodesk autocad 2008, :OO, adobe photoshop cs2, =-PPP, adobe creative suite 3 master, 8DD, microsoft office xp profession, =-]]],

Posted by: Pisinka at Thu May 21 21:27:55 2009 (QD2/5)

16 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs2, lhbb, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 8O, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, wzo, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, eptap, Autodesk AutoCAD, cshc, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, >:-[[,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Thu May 21 21:55:00 2009 (rdOwg)

17 Hello!, microsoft windows server 2008, DD, autodesk autocad 2008, izlzo, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, :OO, g data internet security 2008, tghjbj, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, :]]],

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Thu May 21 23:43:19 2009 (JcL1K)

18 Privet!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, %-DDD, solidworks 2009 x64, %], Autodesk 3ds Max, %P, solidworks 2009 x64, 933, Conceptdraw Office, oqp, Autodesk AutoCAD, wchvwj,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 00:35:10 2009 (cUtCF)

19 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, tnpepc, solidworks 2009 x64, %-OOO, adobe photoshop cs2, 8PPP, Autodesk 3ds Max, 873762, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 017996, adobe creative suite 3 master, slex,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 01:00:56 2009 (Xeezl)

20 Gutentak!, SolidWorks 2009, =))), microsoft windows server 2008, egmjat, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, zyl, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 94125, adobe creative suite 3 master, 7431, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, oqzlz,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 02:10:50 2009 (WC6SI)

21 Good moning!, Autodesk 3ds Max, %)), parallels desktop 3 for Mac, bkxu, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 83892, g data internet security 2008, afycbi, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, 2868,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 04:20:15 2009 (ryZuH)

22 Good moning!, solidworks 2009 x64, =[[, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, gfi, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, =-))), Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 37180, g data internet security 2008, 63869, Conceptdraw Office, tcqw,

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 04:41:49 2009 (L+SAR)

23 Zdarova!, autodesk autocad 2008, 89639, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, %-OO, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, 02496, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 28352, g data internet security 2008, 8-D,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Fri May 22 05:50:21 2009 (qKgq1)

24 Hello!, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, hgfbpu, g data internet security 2008, =-))), adobe creative suite 3 master, > , Conceptdraw Office, 8DDD, microsoft office xp profession, 05267, adobe creative suite 3 design, opo,

Posted by: Titinka at Fri May 22 06:35:03 2009 (ryZuH)

25 Hi!, solidworks 2009 x64, =]]], microsoft windows vista business, %-(, Autodesk 3ds Max, 823067, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, 165990, adobe creative suite 3 master, 2611, Conceptdraw Office, %-)),

Posted by: Pisinka at Fri May 22 08:08:27 2009 (YI4Z5)

26 Privet!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 823975, solidworks 2009 x64, 5072, adobe photoshop cs2, 27739, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 33748, adobe creative suite 3 master, rhdw,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 08:30:09 2009 (wW9wa)

27 Gutentak!, autodesk autocad 2008, wypt, adobe photoshop cs2, xzph, adobe acrobat 8 professional, mbq, microsoft office xp profession, %OO, adobe creative suite 3 design, uxkd,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Fri May 22 09:14:31 2009 (+0lbb)

28 Privet!, SolidWorks 2009, 186612, microsoft windows server 2008, 055, adobe photoshop cs2, bqaes, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, paw, Conceptdraw Office, > (, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, =-OO,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Fri May 22 09:59:33 2009 (d6oxZ)

29 Privet!, microsoft windows vista business, 471797, solidworks 2009 x64, :], Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, =-[, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 03789, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 065, microsoft office xp profession, kpkqfi,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 11:26:29 2009 (WC6SI)

30 Good moning!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, 6272, solidworks 2009 x64, 8-))), autodesk autocad 2008, hews, solidworks 2009 x64, 195, Conceptdraw Office, 1937, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, 8-((,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 12:08:24 2009 (rdOwg)

31 Good moning!, SolidWorks 2009, ztkct, Autodesk 3ds Max, 475, solidworks 2009 x64, 509, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 913, g data internet security 2008, 599, Autodesk AutoCAD, =PP,

Posted by: BrakaObama at Fri May 22 12:49:42 2009 (ocneN)

32 Good moning!, solidworks 2009 x64, sfndkz, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, 8-(, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 742968, Conceptdraw Office, sjsmk, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, 870, adobe creative suite 3 design, %[,

Posted by: Maramoika at Fri May 22 16:41:06 2009 (3W3ej)

33 So where it to find?, student loan forgiveness free, , gas powered scooters discount, 652, xanax online overnight shipping, xdyrk, Buy simple interest loan calculator, >:-D, transparent bikini, eppc,

Posted by: Discount student loan forgiveness at Tue Oct 13 13:24:55 2009 (QMoFl)

34 Help me to find the, replica coach purses now, 7873, guaranteed online personal loans now, 84560, Buy fake coach purses, cudc, no credit check loans, sreh, mortgage rates predictions, =[[,

Posted by: guaranteed online personal loans now at Tue Nov 17 17:39:23 2009 (0gyrp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Joe the Plumber should have disappeared by now – fifteen minutes of fame and all that. After all, the attack upon him after he engaged in some pretty reasonable speech when he was approached by Barack Obama made him, one would have hoped temporarily, a political figure. But why is he still around – and why do we care what he thinks on social issues?

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I won’t even begin to get into the level of ignorance displayed in that answer. There are good arguments to be made against gay marriage, but he puts out none of them. And to then resort to the slur – and to justify it as not being a slur – is offensive to me and to most Christians I know.

But what especially hurts is to see the argument that he has gay friends, and that he will not allow them near his children. First, it is completely wrong-headed to say that he is loving towards gay people while asserting that this is the correct path. But even more significant, I have seen how destructive that approach is in my own family, where one relative has rejected her own sister over her sexual orientation and attempted to ensure that her children have no relationship with their aunt and her partner – all in the name of Christianity. I have a number of terms I could use for that, and none of them is “love” or one of its synonyms.

But beyond that, there is even another issue. Is this guy someone we want to have as a face of the GOP? Do we want him defining our “brand”? And I ask that as a conservative who is a Christian – but who definitely is not a “Christian conservative” in the sense that term is so often used to discredit the Christians, conservatives, and the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.