July 14, 2008
Who was this evil right-wing purveyor of sleazy stories about the Obamessiah?
Michelle Obama -- the candidate's own wife.
His own mother, [Michelle Obama] said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him."
Very single?
That's not part of the narrative that Obama and his campaign have been putting out for the last four years. Their story has been that barack Obama's parents were married. Even granting that the marriage was arguably invalid -- it is unclear if Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. ever actually divorced first wife back in Kenya, given his continued relationship with her after his marriage to the candidate's mother, including fathering additional children with her.
So we have to ask the question -- has Michelle Obama revealed to the American people that Barack Obama has been lying to them during his entire public career? After all, she isn't some anonymous emailer -- she is the man's wife.
Seems to me that we now need access to several documents to settle the question:
- Obama's original birth certificate (which would settle questions about citizenship, his birth name, and possibly his parents' marital status);
- His parents' marriage license;
- The decree of divorce or nullity regarding his parents' marriage.
Now remember -- illegitimate birth does absolutely nothing to disqualify Barack Obama from office. Indeed, Jesse "I want to cut his nuts off" Jackson sought the presidency despite his illegitimate birth, and it was never even an issue. After all, the child is blameless in any legal or moral sense for the deeds of his/her parents in such a case.
However, the lack of candor on his part would be more damning than the issue of bastardy. As they say -- the cover-up is always worse. And when your own wife outs you, the cover-up could be very damning indeed.
Posted by: Greg at
05:30 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.
McCain has no national service plan
It then begins as follows.
John McCain, who’s predicated his presidential run in no small part on his distinguished military record, frequently exhorts Americans — and especially young Americans — to serve their country. Despite that appeal, he has yet to offer any proposals to expand or transform national service outside of the military.Barack Obama, by contrast, has proposed dramatically expanding Americorps and the Peace Corps, adding 65,000 members to the military and creating an annual $4,000 tax credit for post-secondary education in exchange for 100 hours of community service.
Now let's think about this -- McCain has been a big supporter of various national service programs over the years. He has wroked to provide opportunities for such service -- but in the end, he recognizes that any sort of national service ought to be voluntary. Obama, on the other hand, has proposed an expansion of (not really) voluntary service programs (under which the federal government will not directly mandate service but will withhold funding from high schools, colleges, and universities that don't mandate voluntary service).
So let's look at the differences -- Obama wants more government programs, while McCain wants to (at most) tweak what we have. And McCain supports voluntary volunteerism, while Obama's program envisions mandatory volunteerism.
In other words, it is all a question of how much freedom the government will allow us to have in the future. Michelle Obama spilled the beans when she told the American people that "Barack Obama will require you to work." For free, as a condition of being permitted an education.
Posted by: Greg at
02:31 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
July 13, 2008
And to think the Democrats like to tell us there is no vote fraud in this country.
Todd Stuart McGuire, a longtime Jefferson County Democratic Party supporter, was charged July 2 with voter fraud.He's accused of either repeating a vote or impersonating his wife, Rebekah, by casting her ballot in a Feb. 6, 2007, special election. Both charges are Class C felonies and carry a maximum penalty of five years in jail and/or a $10,000 fine, according to charging documents.
Neither the McGuires nor Todd McGuire's attorney Ben Critchlow could be reached for comment last week or Monday.
Todd McGuire is scheduled to appear in Jefferson County Superior Court at 8:30 a.m. Friday, July 18.
The McGuires have been prominent in local Democratic Party activities. Todd McGuire is a former treasurer for current Democratic County Commissioner David Sullivan. Rebekah McGuire is currently a Democratic precinct committeewoman.
It must suck to have your own wife responsible for busting you for vote fraud -- and for stealing her own vote. I wonder how relations are in that household.
Posted by: Greg at
02:04 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
July 12, 2008
The U.S. Green Party, which captured far less than 1 percent of the vote in the last presidential election, chose former Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney as its 2008 presidential candidate on Saturday.McKinney, 53, will be joined on the ticket for the November election by vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente, a hip-hop artist and activist.
McKinney received 313 out of 532 votes cast at the party's nominating convention in Chicago, party spokesman Scott McLarty said.
Now granted, Cynthia does present more like Michelle Obama than Barack Obama, but that's fine -- perhaps her uterus will help attract some of the Hillary Clinton supporters to her side. And besides -- McKinney also has more experience in elected office than the junior senator from New York. And as a Truther loon, she'll be a candidate that Kos and his minions can support.
![mckinneymao[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/mckinneymao[1].jpg)
Posted by: Greg at
04:12 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.Obama’s rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience–an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who’d slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama’s reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since ObamaÂ’s outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In JuneÂ’s NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
Yep -- those independent voters are coming around to McCain, having seen the weaknesses of the Democrat candidacy. You know, inconsistency and inexperience.
Oh, and Newsweek didn't stack the poll with Democrats this time.
One interesting revelation -- there are still 30% of those who supported Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination opposed to Obama's candidacy -- with one out of every six former Hillary supporters backing John McCain's candidacy.
H/T Hot Air, Newsbusters
Posted by: Greg at
07:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.
"The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositorsÂ’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMacÂ’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts."
Was the bank facing a liquidity crisis? Yes, it was. However, there were already regulatory efforts underway to solve those problems in a way that would not require a government takeover of the IndyMac. Schumer, whose self-serving publicity hounding is legendary, decided to go public with information that he knew or should have known would be detrimental to the process -- and now he arrogantly refuses to accept any blame for his own politically motivated actions that were the proximate cause of the institution's downfall -- and blames the regulatory process that he created in legislation that he largely wrote back in 1999.
H/T Patterico
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, nuke gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, , Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
02:29 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 4 kb.
July 11, 2008
“What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.
Flop -- July 11, 2008:
If he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only US justice but world justice down on him. And, uh, I think that IÂ’ve said this before, that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty Â… I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, but I certainly think that plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.
Which is a return to July 20, 2007 -- Flip-flip-flippity-flop!
Obama, who has expressed reservations about capital punishment but does not oppose it, said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks."The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving," Obama said. "I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes."
If this man can't even maintain a consistent position on something like how to deal with OSAMA BIN LADEN, then can we really trust him with the authority of the presidency?
Posted by: Greg at
12:46 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
Grand jurors here and in Pittsburgh cataloged what they described as a culture of corruption that allowed former state Rep. Michael Veon, current Rep. Sean Ramaley and 10 current and former Democratic staffers to divert millions of dollars in state resources, including more than $1 million in illegal pay bonuses.The jurors said Mr. Veon and the staff members conspired to arrange hefty year-end pay bonuses to House employees who worked on political campaigns over a three-year period, while Mr. Ramaley is accused of working full-time on his 2004 House campaign in Beaver County while drawing a taxpayer salary as a member of Mr. Veon's staff.
What sort of stuff are we talking about here? How about this.
It found that tax money was used to bump third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli from the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004 and 2006. Grand jurors said state money was used to provide a no-work job to a high-ranking House aide's mistress.State employees were routinely diverted from their jobs to provide political services and, in the case of Mr. Veon, to transport his motorcycles to South Dakota for his vacation and to provide dinners to members of Mr. Veon's informal basketball league.
"The theft of taxpayers' funds and resources was extensive," said state Attorney General Tom Corbett, who yesterday filed an array of charges against Mr. Veon, Mr. Ramaley and the others, while hinting at more to come.
My personal favorite involves the payment of one of these paragons of Democrat virtue's sex kitten to do her homework for her college and law school classes.
But wait -- there's more!
"Let me make this perfectly clear: This is not the conclusion," [Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett] said at a news conference here.
Your elected Democrats (and their staffers) in action!
Posted by: Greg at
09:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
A federal judge rejected Rep. William JeffersonÂ’s (D-La.) request to dismiss five counts of wire fraud in the wide-ranging corruption case against him.JeffersonÂ’s attorneys argued that the wire fraud charges were invalid because JeffersonÂ’s alleged activities would not have denied his constituents honest services. They also argued that the honest service fraud statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the facts of the case.
Yeah, you read that right -- Jefferson and his shyster argue that it is unconstitutional to require honest conduct from a politician. So much for the most ethical Congress in history.
Posted by: Greg at
08:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign has requested information from Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd as part of its search for a possible vice presidential candidate.The former White House hopeful and Connecticut lawmaker indicated Wednesday that he has been approached by the campaign. "There's been some inquiries, yeah," Dodd said. "They ask for a lot of stuff. I'll leave it there."
Two words on this one.
1) Spiro.
2) Agnew.
But then again, maybe that is unfair of me. Perhaps Dodd is just following in his daddy's footsteps.
Posted by: Greg at
08:45 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
July 10, 2008
A federal judge denied a request by state Sen. Derrick Shepherd's lawyers Thursday to grant the Marrero lawmaker a separate trial from the bond broker he is accused of helping to launder money.Meanwhile, a defense attorney confirmed that two unnamed co-conspirators in the case are U.S. Rep. William Jefferson and his sister, New Orleans Assessor Betty Jefferson.
Yep, that William Jefferson -- the one who commandeered a rescue craft to sneak evidence out of his New Orleans home in the wake of Hurricane Katrina -- and who was found to have $90K in money from a bribe payment in his freezer.
It's a small world after all, I guess -- but not as small as the cells these folks belong in.
What do we have once again?
Your elected Democrats in action!
Posted by: Greg at
10:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.
Federal and state authorities are looking into accusations of voting fraud in three largely black counties of Alabama, including Perry and Lowndes Counties, which played a historic role in the struggle for black voting rights in the 1960s.In May, a local citizens group gathered affidavits detailing several cases in which at least one Democratic county official paid citizens for their votes, or encouraged them to vote multiple times. The affidavits were presented to state officials in Montgomery, the capital, and after the June 3 primary, the Alabama attorney general, Troy King, a Republican, seized voting records from the primary election in Bullock, Lowndes and Perry Counties.
The United States Department of Justice posted a team of observers to monitor the primary, and the Alabama secretary of state, Beth Chapman, a Republican, reported hearing from one of the federal observers that a candidate had “free rein” of a polling place, where campaigning is prohibited, passing out sample ballots and instructing voters how to vote.
Ms. Chapman also raised questions about the possible abuse of absentee ballots. In the election on June 3, a quarter of the voters here, 1,114, cast absentee ballots, a percentage that is six times the state average and a figure that Ms. Chapman called “astronomical.” In Jefferson County, which includes Birmingham and has 60 times Perry County’s population of 10,600, there were 365 absentee ballots.
You know, of course, what the response of the elected Democrats in question is -- "It's a Republican plot to disenfranchise blacks!"
So ignore the pictures of a candidate campaigning in a polling place.
Ignore the affidavits collected by a non-partisan, multi-racial civic organization that sparked the investigation.
Never mind that Alabama Democrats have a long history of using just such tactics in Alabama elections -- dating all the way back to Reconstruction.
Just blame the whole thing on the prosecutors for doing their job.
Your elected Democrats in action!
Posted by: Greg at
10:34 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.
What civil rights?
I'm the mayor and I get to decide what civil rights exist in my town!
A federal grand jury in Jackson returned a three-count indictment against Mayor Frank Melton and his police bodyguards, officers Michael Recio and Marcus Wright, the Justice Department announced Wednesday. The three were cleared in April 2007 of state charges they used sledgehammers and sticks to demolish the duplex Melton considered a drug house.
* * * The federal indictment alleges that on Aug. 26, 2006, the defendants invited several young men into the police department's mobile command unit. The group drove to a home on Ridgeway Street, where Wright allegedly ordered the occupants outside at gunpoint.
"Thereafter, Mayor Melton allegedly knocked out several windows of the home with a large stick and ordered the young men accompanying him to destroy the home using sledgehammers while Wright and Recio stood guard," the Justice Department statement said.
And let's be really clear about this -- while the mentally-ill resident of the home had a history of drug use, the mayor lacked any lawful authority to destroy the home. So much for the right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable state intrusion. Oh, yeah -- when the resident objected, the mayor ordered him handcuffed and held at gunpoint until the destruction of his home was completed.
Your elected Democrats in action!
Posted by: Greg at
10:26 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
Yes, YOU!
You can use Barack Obama's campaign website to make your own official Barack Obama campaign poster!
Here's my first poster.
And my second attempt.
My third is actually a serious comment.
But this might be the best -- if only we could get a question mark at the end.
Have fun, my friends!
Posted by: Greg at
10:04 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
July 06, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama ended a week's focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make "faith-based" social service "a moral center of my administration."The address, to one of the oldest and largest African American denominations, brought the senator from Illinois back to friendlier ground after a week's tour through Appalachian Ohio, conservative Missouri, the conservative stronghold of Colorado Springs, North Dakota and hardscrabble Montana. But in its religious tones, the address had a far wider intended audience.
"In my own life, " he said, "it's been a journey that began decades ago on the South Side of Chicago, when, working as a community organizer, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works."
Now I won't get into the fact that it appears that Obama is trying to "cling to his religion" in an effort to get votes after repeatedly attacking the religious beliefs and values of anyone who doesn't support him. No, I find it striking that nowhere does he mention what he has previously described as the seminal event in his coming the the Christian faith -- attending Trinity UCC and hearing the preaching of Jeremiah Wright. And lest you doubt that, go back and read his first book, Dreams of My Father, for confirmation of that fact.
And yet somehow neither Obama nor the Post mention that important figure, nor Trinity United Church of Christ, in discussing the faith journey of Barack Obama. Do they perhaps believe that silence will effectively bang out the dents on the bumper of the Obama Express?
![1busob[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/1busob%5B1%5D.jpg)
H/T Newsbusters, Hugh Hewitt
Posted by: Greg at
03:16 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.
A German friend passed along the news Saturday that local sources in Berlin are confirming that the Obama campaign was in contact with city authorities to discuss the possibility of presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivering an outdoor address in front of the Brandenburg gate.
Excuse me -- did I sleep through the election and inauguration? Why is Barack Obama giving a major speech in Germany -- especially in such an iconic location -- when he is still a mere candidate for the presidency, and not even officially nominated yet?
For that matter, since when do American presidential candidates campaign in foreign countries?
Posted by: Greg at
01:19 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
July 05, 2008
But that isn't what is striking about his post, which is actually quite mild compared to the vitriol spilled by Leftists around the internet. What strikes me is a rather arrogant claim on his part regarding something he alleges Jesse Helms took away from him:
... [Helms] was personally responsible for removing my right to become an American...
Excuse me?
I don't know how to break it too you, Andy, but you have no right to become an American citizen. No foreigner does. Some are, indeed, granted the privilege of American citizenship -- but there is nothing that a so-called "libertarian conservative" like yourself could coherently claim constitutes a "right" for any non-American to become a citizen of this great country. Indeed, sir, you really don't even have a right to remain in this country -- the privilege of being present here is one which may legitimately be revoked for an alien like yourself. So while you are welcome to hate Jesse Helms and rhetorically desecrate his corpse, please have the decency and integrity to recognize that your claim is false -- for you never had what you claim was taken from you.
UPDATE: As noted below in comments, Andrew Sullivan has changed the wording of his post to remove the claim that he had a right to be an American citizen. Too bad he didn't have the integrity to acknowledge that I had made the point -- or to allow my trackback to post at his site. I guess being called out on the point hurt his feelings.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
05:54 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 5 kb.
The latest version I've encountered reads this way:
Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.US Law very clearly states: '. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.
Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.
In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.
The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.
Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.
So let's do some quick analysis here.
1) According to his biography, Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. Let's assume for the moment that this information is correct. Given that Hawaii had been a state for just under two years at that time, it is beyond dispute that Barack Obama was born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a natural born citizen of the United States and the state of Hawaii, based upon the clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
2) But what of the purported statutory language cited by these bloggers which would seem to argue to the contrary?
'. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.'
First, such language would be constitutionally invalid on its face if it were applied to anyone born within the United States. And secondly, unfortunately for those who attempt to use it to cast shadows upon the citizenship of Barack Obama, the statute in question never purported to apply to those born on American soil. Instead, it applied only children of American citizens born abroad.
But let's look at the actual statutory language of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b):
Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
* * *
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
So you can see that by virtue of birth in Hawaii, the statute recognizes Obama as a citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question of his parentage only comes into question if Barack Obama were born outside the United States.
3) Was Barack Obama actually born in Hawaii?
Let me begin by stating that I presume that he was -- I cannot believe that it would be possible to keep it a secret if he had not been. Some relative who knew the truth or some government employee with access to the records would have leaked it.
However, the question remains -- and clearly has not been resolved by the release of a purported birth certificate. However, AJ Strata does a great job of arguing for the validity of the certificate that is currently under dispute.
What needs to happen to settle the matter? Barack Obama needs to release a copy of the original birth certificate completed by the staff at the Kapiolani Medical Center in 1961. It should be retained on microfilm in Hawaii, and a copy would be easy enough to obtain -- I think being a US Senator and presumptive nominee for President should give him enough pull to get a copy in an expedited manner.
So let me say it -- it would appear to me beyond question that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. By providing unambiguous documentation of this fact, Obama can lay the rumor to the contrary to rest for all time.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Maggie's Notebook, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
02:11 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1200 words, total size 9 kb.
July 04, 2008
And they are shocked -- but not shocked enough to abandon their support for him.
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President BushÂ’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings.
* * * We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. ObamaÂ’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
Take that last line as a declaration of continued loyalty to the Democrat candidate. After all, when the newspaper starts quoting campaign slogans as their editorial line, it is pretty obvious that they are in the tank for the candidate in question -- especially when the slogan chosen is vacuous and content-free.
More At Newsbusters, Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
03:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
July 03, 2008
Police charged a third person Wednesday in connection with beatings and rape that authorities say were carried out by a satanic cult.Diana Palmer, 44, of Cottage Woods Court, surrendered to police Wednesday afternoon. She was charged with being an accessory after the fact of assault with a deadly weapon and was being held in the Durham County Jail under a $95,000 bond.
Joseph Craig, 25, has been charged with kidnapping, rape, forcible sexual offense and assault in the case. His wife, Joy Johnson, 30, has been charged with aiding and abetting. Both were being held Wednesday in the Durham County Jail.
Satanism and sexual assault -- you may be wondering what this has to do with politics.
Well, here it is.
Palmer is first vice chair of the Durham County Democratic Party. Johnson resigned her positions as third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair of the Young Democrats following her arrest.
Which leads to this priceless quote.
State Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, called the case "an isolated incident" and said he doesn't expect any other Democratic Party activists to be implicated.
Two top leaders arrested in a Satanic sex case constitutes "an isolated incident"? I think that is probably a pretty god percentage of the party's top leadership.
And as an aside -- I know Johnson was a vocal supporter of Mike Nifong and the lying rape victim. I suspect Palmer was as well. Will they insist, as they did in the earlier case, that the woman making the accusation must be believed at all costs?
Posted by: Greg at
01:30 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
July 02, 2008
I mean from his mortgage company.
Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.
Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.
A $300 a month mortgage discount for a new Senator? Sounds rather suspicious to me -- especially in light of the recent disclosure of special favors to other Democrat senators by Countrywide. Since Obama's spokesperson says that the rate he received from Norther Trust was in response to an offer from a competing financial institution, one has to ask if that other lender was Countrywide -- meaning that Obama also benefited from the special program for powerful politicians.
And I'd like to argue that we should be questioning this -- after all, it certainly helped Michelle Obama's children!
Posted by: Greg at
02:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.
July 01, 2008
When she arrived in Congress last fall, Rep. Laura Richardson sought out a vehicle that would match her newfound status.She settled on a 2007 Lincoln Town Car - the choice of many representatives who lease their vehicles at taxpayers' expense. But hers was distinct: at $1,300 a month, it was the most expensive car in the House of Representatives.
Richardson, a Democrat who represents Carson, has since become known for defaulting on two home loans and losing a third house - in an upscale neighborhood in Sacramento - at a foreclosure auction.
Interestingly enough, another California congresswoman is leasing the same sort of vehicle -- for roughly half of what Richardson is paying.
Not that Richardson's office wants to come clean on her car expenses.
Richardson's spokesman, William Marshall, initially stated that Richardson is paying only $940 per month for her Town Car, but gave no documentation of that. After he was presented with the expense report showing the $1,300 lease amount, he declined to answer further questions."No comment," he said.
Indeed.
But there's a whole lot more -- unauthorized drives, unreported repairs, tickets -- check out the whole sordid tale here.
Posted by: Greg at
01:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.Suicides accounted for about 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There was nothing unique about that year. Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the past 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 2.6 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.
Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.
Now here's the problem with that statistic -- is there some control for the type of neighborhood in which the public is more likely to feel a need to arm themselves? Do the statistics take into consideration whether the guns in question are ones legally owned, as opposed to those possessed by criminals? Lots of questions -- relatively few answers.
But here's my question for liberals on that suicide number -- so what? Isn't one of the mantras of liberals that people have a right to do what they choose with their own bodies? It certainly is when you discuss the sacrament of abortion -- so why should it be any different when someone decides to blow their own brains out with a handgun (or pop a handful of pills or slit their wrists)? After all -- in such cases the lives they are taking are their own, rather than that of an innocent baby. Seems to me that suicide would simply be one more act with which society has no right to interfere because, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existing, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of life" -- which would seem to me to include a liberty to choose to lay down the burden of existence. Besides -- isn't suicide really nothing more than the ultimate reduction of one's carbon footprint?
And in any event, since when does the irresponsible exercise of a constitutional right by some justify the restriction of that right of others? We do not censor newspapers because of the irresponsible editorial decisions of the New York Times which regularly damage national security -- and so we should not ban guns on some theory that the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is at time abused.
Posted by: Greg at
12:40 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.
I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Barack -- those are not the first words of the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, they are not even in the first paragraph of that document.
Let me help you out, Senator.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of AmericaWhen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Now I somehow doubt that you actually wrote the early drafts of this speech, Senator. But I am sure that an anecdote like that must have come from you -- presuming the story is true, of course, and not the invention of a speechwriter. But regardless, I'd like to hope that you and/or your speechwriters would have caught this historical inaccuracy -- one which I believe most of my tenth graders would have caught.
Am I questioning your patriotism by bringing up this point? No, merely your command of history and the founding documents of this country at a time when you question the quality of civic education in this country later on in the same speech -- in the process insulting the professional competence of me and my thousands of colleagues around the country, I might add.
Now I could go on and point out the many ways in which your proposed platform is at odds with the views of the founders and the philosophy contained in the Declaration of Independence. Your proposed health care program, for example, will result in the erection of "a multitude of New Offices", and will send hither and yon "swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" in the pursuit of your new policies and the taxes you will impose to fund them. But I'll refrain from doing so, because I don't wish to be accused of questioning your patriotism. So instead I'll simply confine myself to pointing out your ignorance, which is displayed for all the world to see in the midst of your pretty words.
Posted by: Greg at
12:20 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1730 words, total size 11 kb.
)June 30, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far. Obama sought to reassure voters about his commitment to the country, choosing the aptly named town of Independence as his backdrop.
Oh, really?
Then what was this comment?
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a [flag] pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the attack on the patriotism of a whole lot of people -- after all, you are indicating that you are a true patriot, and that those who wear a flag pin are phony patriots.
I guess this means you've made another flip-flop, Senator. Do you think you could make up your mind?
Posted by: Greg at
09:47 AM
| Comments (353)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
Gov. Bobby Jindal announced today that he has vetoed the legislative pay raise.After days of saying he would not reject the unpopular measure, Jindal said this morning that he had changed his mind.
"I thank the people for their voice and their attention," Jindal said of the public outcry against the raise. "I am going to need your help to move this state forward. ... The voters have demanded change. . . . I made a mistake by staying out if it" originally.
Jindal said that legislators "are going to be angry I broke my word to them" by promising to stay out of the pay raise issue. "Let them direct their anger to me and not the people of this state," Jindal said.
It isn't always the right thing to follow the majority voice of the people -- but this time it certainly is. The more I found out about this bill, the more I personally recognized it was not just a bad idea to break that campaign promise, but that the increase was bad public policy. After all, this is a part-time legislature with benefits and a per diem that made their total compensation package quite generous to begin with -- a $21,000 increase in their base pay (something like 123%) was clearly inappropriate.
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
05:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.
McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days.Surprising many Republican insiders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain. But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.
“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.
Campaign insiders say McCain plans to name his running mate very shortly after Barack Obama does, as part of what one campaign planner called a “bounce-mitigation strategy.”
A major factor in this is the ability of Romney to raise money. He's got a base that hasn't been tapped yet by McCain, and it is very possible that Romeny is the only guy who can get at it.
Unfortunately, there is still bad blood between McCain and Romney dating back to the primary season. That could yet derail this pick.
In the end, I agree with Hugh Hewitt, who was also a Romney supporter during the primary.
No matter who the selection turns out to be, I'd prefer a nominee announcement sooner rather than as part of a "mitigation bounce" strategy as outlined by Mike. Every day as the veep allows the nominee to make four or five appearances on the trail, generating enthusiasm and contributions, especially if the nominee is throwing hard punches at Obama. 30 or 60 days of extra effort is too much of an advantage to keep on the shelf pending an Obama selection.
We need a pick sooner rather than later -- and not simply a reactive choice following Obama's selection.
Posted by: Greg at
04:26 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.
The system also requires extensive and unnecessary background checks before voting rights can be restored for some applicants, making it hard to reduce the backlog. Florida could clear up that backlog in a hurry, treat all ex-offenders fairly and enhance democracy by automatically restoring voting rights to inmates who have completed their sentences.
That last line is the real kicker -- that is precisely what the law requires -- that the full sentence, including restitution to the victims, be completed before voting rights are restored. But therein lies the problem -- the editors of the New York Times don't recognize the restorative justice portion of the sentence to be a part of the sentence.
But I'll tell you what. I'm willing to go along with the New York Times on this one -- provided they are also willing to support the restoration of Second Amendment rights at the same time. After all, it seems highly improper to deny these folks the right and the means to defend themselves with a gun if we entrust them with the ballot -- which I fully believe to be much more powerful force than any pistol.
Posted by: Greg at
04:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.
While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.
What do the numbers show?
On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.
Now am I accusing Senator Obama of invidious sex discrimination against women in his office? No, I'm not. But I cannot help but notice that when it comes right down to it, Senator John McCain offers more opportunities for women, promotes them to higher level positions, and pays them better. Seems to me that he puts into practice hat liberal Democrats often preach but fail to implement.
Over at Hot Air it is pointed out that Obama has 18 more staffers than McCain, with nearly $1 million dollars in extra payroll expenses -- despite the fact that he chairs no committees and has no significant legislative accomplishments during his half a term in the Senate, while a senior senator like McCain gets by on a smaller staff and a smaller budget. I wonder why?
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.
This bit from Wesley Clark's Face the Nation interview today is absolutely astounding -- and indicative of the fact that Clark has ceased to be a patriot, and instead become a partisan whore.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'
So never mind three decades of military service, nor a quarter century of experience in Congress. because John McCain has never ordered anyone into combat, he is really unqualified to be president.
Oh, and Clark's candidate, Hopey McChangerson, who not only has two decades less congressional experience than John McCain, no military experience, and no executive experience at all?
Gen. CLARK: But Barack is not--he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
Oh, I see, he lacks the credentials to be president, but he has "other strengths". He's a pretty boy who gives a good speech and shows such good judgment that he hangs out with domestic terrorists, anti-American polemicists, and corrupt businessmen. That might qualify him for office in the Illinois legislature -- maybe even to be mayor of Chicago -- but certainly not President of the United States!
Oh, and exactly how respectful is Wesley Clark of John McCain's military service? I think this line sums it up nicely, when taken in conjunction with Clark's denigration of McCain's time as a squadron commander.
Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Yep -- highly respectful words there, Wesley. That shows quite well how much you honor that time as a POW.
Seems to me that what you really deserve is something like this.
I personally like the response by the McCain campaign.
Brian Rogers, of the McCain campaign, was quick to hit back in a release: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right. But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is, he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."
Interesting, isn't it, that Barack Obama is neither man enough to make such an attack himself, nor decent enough to denounce this sort of attack himself. I guess this lets him have both sides of the issue -- sort of like on guns, religion, campaign finance, FISA, and most every other issue.
Blogs for Victory sums this one up quite well.
![clark[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/clark[1].jpg)
CLOSING QUESTION: Will Barack Obama add Wesley Clark to the list of those thrown under the bus, or will this attack move him to the head of the VP list?
UPDATE: Over at Q and O, McQ asks the following question about the relative qualifications of the two remaining presidential candidates.
But here's a question: if the willingness to fight for your country, put your life on the line and suffer the brutality McCain suffered as a POW doesn't make the cut as far as qualifications go, how far below that does a "community organizer" show up on the list of non-qualifications?
UPDATE 2: Looks like that weasel John Aravosis has decided to renew his campaign of attacking John McCain's military service with a post entitled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"
I wonder if he would consider it fair game to ask the question "Honestly, besides picking up a live hand grenade while waiting for a beer, what did Max Cleland do to excel in the military?" After all, he was one of the folks who argued that it was illegitimate to even question Cleland's record on defense issues in 2002 -- how dare he actually denigrate McCain's service.
And I wish to associate myself with this post written by Robbie at Urban Grounds about Aravosis and his disgusting post.
The Next Right/Blog, P.I. documents the depths of the depravity of Aravosis' commenters, too.
UPDATE 3: Newsbusters points out that this isn't the first time Clark has made this sort of comment while acting as an Obama surrogate.
Greetings to visitors from Right Wing News.
UPDATE 4: Blackfive reminds us that Wesley Clark's judgment was so bad that he was fired from his job as Supreme Commander of NATO because he personally almost provoked a war with Russia -- something that every other American commander managed to avoid for 40 years. Speaks to the judgment issue for me -- both Clark's and Obama's.
But at least Wesley Clark got to exchange hats with war criminal Ratko Mladic!
UPDATE 5: LGF points out that the KOSsacks are at it now. I guess we see what Obama's new style of politics is -- and reminds me of why I love Kathryn Jean Lopez so very much.
And GayPatriotWest points out that even Andrew Sullivan is condemning Clark -- though he doesn't see the very real difference between this and the questions raised by some of John Kerry's fellow Swift boat vets in 2004.
UPDATE 6: Confederate Yankee actually finds an honest Obama supporter (and campaign cash bundler) who comes right out and says what Barack and his surrogates really mean when they talk about McCain's military service -- Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin.
"I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero."
Or at least not anyone who fought on the American side -- and we know her position on today's soldiers as well, given her providing material assistance to the enemy during time of war.
He also links to this piece by NRO's Jim Geraghty, noting that Wesley Clark is the SEVENTH prominent Democrat supporting Barack Obama to engage in this sort of attack on John McCain.
Newsbusters notices the media's refusal to give the attacks on McCain's service the coverage they deserve.
UPDATE 7: Obama rejects Clark's comment -- in a very tepid manner.
MORE AT Neptunus Lex, STACLU, Gateway Pundit, Ace of Spades, Sister Toldjah, In From the Cold, Joshuapundit, America's Election HQ, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, , The Amboy Times, Beagle Scout - Support the No More Excuses Energy Act, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, Stageleft, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Nuke's News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
03:27 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1410 words, total size 15 kb.
June 29, 2008
A Win by McCain Could Push a Split Court to Right
But then again, the article isn't any more balanced.
A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.
Notice -- a victory for McCain pushes the Court to the right -- but a victory for Obama "would probably mean preserving the. . . balanced status quo."
Yeah. Right. Sure.
While I'll concede the two most likely retirements are liberals Stevens and Ginsburg, does anyone really believe that Obama would appoint a successor in the mold of Scalia or Thomas if one of those two were to unexpectedly die? No, we'd get another doctrinaire liberal on the court, pushing it firmly to the Left -- even as the majority of the American people find the Court to be in balance too liberal.
Posted by: Greg at
02:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
June 28, 2008
When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.
The only problem is that the actual story, as revealed in the second paragraph of the story, is a little different. It seems that there is a reason that the tax bills have not been paid by the bank that manages the trust on Cindy McCain's behalf.
San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain's trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."
Gee -- that does rather make a great deal of difference, doesn't it? The US Postal Service has been returning the bills to San Diego County, which has not made any particular effort to get in contact with the bank or Mrs. McCain about the matter. And unlike a little blurb at HuffPo implies (even cutting that detail out of their Newsweek excerpt along with the bit about the bills being returned by the post office), this isn't some sybaritic retreat for the super-wealthy -- it is the residence of an elderly family member of Mrs. McCain's. Yeah, that's right -- Cindy McCain is making sure that her aunt has a roof over her head and is well cared for.
What happened when the matter was brought to Cindy McCain's attention? The bills she was given were paid -- though there still seems to be an outstanding balance that will no doubt be taken care of on Monday, probably relating to this year's bill and some penalties on the back taxes, I would suspect.
So while this is a nice attempt to create a scandal, it really isn't one. But I'm sure that the feral pigs at Kos and DU, as well as the rest of the fever swamp that is the Leftosphere, will try to gin up a controversy over it anyway.
More At Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, OTB, The Other McCain
Posted by: Greg at
04:20 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.
Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.
With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.
Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.
I'm sorry, people -- this is cult-like behavior. What next? Tattooing the name across your forehead? You sound like a bunch of followers of the Manson family or some fringe religious group that begs for money on the street corner and survives by dumpster diving.
However, Sweetness and Light reports that this might not be much of a phenomenon at all -- and that based upon a quick search of Google, the buzz is more about the New York Times writing about the phenomenon rather than any grassroots movement to do this.
Posted by: Greg at
03:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.
This is Thursday.
Dear Readers,I have just been informed that three anti-obama blogs have been locked up by Blogger.
I myself have had posting locked up since June 3. I am lucky though, I can post but I have to use word verification until blogger "reviews" my blog. It seems that blogger has to check to see if I am not a spam blog or "bot".
I suspect that the vicious Barack Obama campaign is behind all of this. They want to turn America into a Marxist state. These people are nothing short of evil bastards. It is my guess they have reported our blogs en masse as "bots" or "spam blogs". My God, may this evil bastard and his vicious campaign sycophants never ever be in charge of this country!
Followed by more nefarious action on Friday.
My own blogger "unblock request" was completed for the third time again this morning. It was completed the first time on June 3 and the "verification" that it was listed mysteriously disappeared on June 17. I filled it out again on June 17. The "verification" for that request was gone this morning. So I have submitted the "request" again. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that Blogger isn't going to do this "review" and, if I dont' check to see if the "verification" is there every single day, it can disappear arbitrarily. I think it's pretty safe to say that Blogger is never going to "review" my blog and that in a few weeks this "verification" will also "disappear" and I will have to resubmit the request again. Since I can honestly say that the word verification I have to go through to write a post is horrendous and the worst I have ever seen. Sometimes I have to try a half dozen times. I no longer have "autosave," so everytime I want to save my work, I have to verify and then "save as draft". Then I have to reopen the post and go through the same process to save or publish. Blogger just isn't worth it. I am lucky next to the people below though, who have been COMPLETELY blocked from posting. Frankly I am tired of being toyed with by Obama people and Blogger. Therefore I will stay with blogger till the "four days" is up for the other bloggers who have been completely blocked and then I am permamently moving.
Now one PUMA blog shut down would be nothing. Even two or three would not draw attention. But six in one night? Seems mighty suspicious -- especially since there seems to be some buzz among Obama bloggers that there has been an organized effort to get this done. And given that the liberal wing of the Democrats has always been pro-censorship -- consider their efforts to reimpose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in an effort to make sure that conservative talk radio is severely curtailed.
Why raise this issue now? Because I can imagine a similar effort against pro-McCain blogs come September and October. These people have no scruples against silencing members of their own party -- why would they respect the free speech rights of members of the GOP?
Just a little FYI on who has been hit.
A list of Anti-Obama blogs locked up as spam in the past 36 hoursLocked Out:
Old location: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/
New Location: http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
Old Location: http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/
New location: http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/ (no alternate blog listed as yet)
Locked Out:
Old Location: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/
This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or Bust.com
The Hillary or Bust site also lists the following additional blogs have been unfairly locked:
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/
New Site:http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/
Locked out:
Old Site: http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/
Locked Out:
Old Site: http://comealongway.blogspot.com/
New Site: http://comealongway.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Greg at
02:29 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 6 kb.
"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.
Let me say for the record -- if he wants my support, Barack Obama can kiss my ass, too. And even then, he won't get it.
But I love the reaction of come of the anonymous sources in this article.
"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
Why the hell can't he talk like that about Obama? You friggin' Democrats have spoken far worse about the President of the United States for 7 1/2 years -- if you can do that, why can't Bill Clinton speak in such a manner about the unqualified flip-flopper your party is about to nominate, especially if he does not actually support the man's candidacy?
Other Perspectives At Cannonfire, Buck Naked Politics, Gateway Pundit, Political Byline, Baldilocks, The Other McCain, Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
05:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.
June 27, 2008
Barack Obama has won over more than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former supporters, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll that finds party loyalty trumping hard feelings less than three weeks after their bruising Democratic presidential contest ended.
Like that is a surprise? No one doubted that Barack Obama would eventually get over half the supporters of Hillary Clinton. After all, a lot of them are like my favorite Democrat -- they think that Obama is under-qualified and something of a phony, but they could no more vote for the Republican nominee than they could disown their own grandmothers. That has never been at issue.
The problem for Obama was always that some 20-25% of Clinton supporters indicated that they could not support him. That loss -- about 10-15% of the Democrat base -- would be critical in November. Being at 50%, then, really doesn't matter. He needs to be at 90-95%.
And he isn't. According to the survey, 23% of Clinton supporters favor John McCain, and 16% are undecided. Good God Almighty! He has lost (at least for now) 4 out of 10 Clinton supporters -- which if the election were held today would quite possibly mean that 15% of Democrats would be voting for John McCain.
And those Clinton supporters are not enthusiastic about him, nor do they find him qualified for the office. Indeed, only 25% of Clinton supporters view Obama as experienced enough to be president, which drops to 5% among that 40% of Clinton voters not supporting him.
What does this mean? Obama isn't the lock some people think he is -- and he might be forced to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate to secure the Democrat base.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Nuke's News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
04:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 4 kb.
McCain, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, edged out Obama on national security issues. When asked who “would best protect the U.S. against terrorism,” 53% of respondents chose McCain to just 33% for Obama. And nearly half, 48% to Obama’s 38%, trusted McCain to handle the war in Iraq, though 57% said they believed the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq and 56% said they would like to see the troops brought home within the next two years.
Only 1/3 of Americans believe Barack Obama is the best candidate to protect America against the threat of the jihadi horde, while over half believe the best choice is John McCain. Americans even think that McCain is the better choice to handle the war. And since national security is Job 1 for a president, that bodes well for John McCain.
Maybe that explains why most national polls show McCain within 5 points of Barack Obama -- and why the electoral college totals are stacking up so very close as well for McCain when one looks at the state-by-state numbers.
Posted by: Greg at
03:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
Rick Noriega -- Daily Kos Diarist
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Rick Noriega said Tuesday that America should not try "to drill our way out of this problem" of soaring gasoline prices but instead rely on Iraqi oil and alternative energy sources.
* * * In a speech before taking questions, Noriega asked, "Why should we tap into what finite resources we have left versus using the enormous reserves we're sitting on in Iraq?"
Needless to say, Noriega has taken shots from Senator John Cornyn and others for his asinine proposal to make America more dependent on foreign oil -- and in particular foreign oil from an area that Noriega believes is completely out of control.
To which Noriega's press spokesperson offered this priceless response.
"This is a five second soundbite, not a serious proposal."
Translation -- Rick Noriega doesn't have proposal for energy independence. And this is the guy who thinks he ought to be a US Senator? You've got to be kidding me!
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT
Posted by: Greg at
03:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 3 kb.
After all, they had evidence of much closer linkages between Rezko and Barack Obama -- and approval from the judge to use it.
And then they didn't.
Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.
The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial.
"Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.
Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.
Seems to me that the feds had evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of a major Obama supporter and Obama's campaign -- and yet it was not invoked at the trial. Could it be because of Democrat attempts to argue that any charges against Democrat politicians are evidence of the politicization of the Justice Department? Or were there threats of retribution against the lawyers involved in the case should the Democrats win this fall.
There ought to be an investigation of this stuff -- but since Obama is a Democrat and the Democrats control congress, there won't be. Expect massive file shredding to be ordered at the Justice Department and the office of the US Attorney in Chicago on January 20, 2009 if Barack Obama wins the presidency. After all, it wouldn't do to leave around evidence that could trigger another investigation like that against Bill Clinton, would it.
Posted by: Greg at
02:09 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
June 26, 2008
SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.
Of course, the chemical castration is not mandatory for the convicts. They may choose to be surgically castrated if they don't want to take the drugs.
I'm pretty sure that Justice Kennedy isn't going to like that at all, Neither will the pedophile-cuddling editors of the New York Times, who have never met a child molester (outside the Catholic clergy) who they didn't like.
And remember folks -- even though Barack Obama says he opposes the decision, he has promised to appoint more justices like the ones in the majority.
Posted by: Greg at
01:47 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.
83 queries taking 0.4305 seconds, 679 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
