June 12, 2008
Republican Ron Paul ended his rebel campaign last night and announced a new effort to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country."With the primary season now over, the presidential campaign is at an end. But the larger campaign for freedom is just getting started," Paul told supporters in a letter posted on the website of the new group, Campaign for Liberty.
"We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape," added Paul, who announced his move during a rally coinciding with the Texas GOP State Convention in Houston. "That I promise you. We're not about to let all this good work die. To the contrary, with your help we're going to make it grow - by leaps and bounds."
The 72-year-old Texas congressman won 24 delegates during the Republican primaries, but was the last remaining challenger to John McCain, the party's presumptive nominee.
Doing so at 9:00 last night was probably a good move -- it came right as he was prpearing to host a reception for delegates at the Texas GOP convention.
However, many of them were not happy over this little angle of his withdrawal.
Paul has said he won't endorse McCain, but in an interview with CNN earlier yesterday, Paul had nice things to say about Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who is the Libertarian Party's nominee. Barr "talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message," Paul said.
I think I speak for the bulk of delegates at the Texas Republican Convention when I say the following. Ron Paul needs to decide if he is a Republican of a Libertarian. If he is a Republican, he ought to endorse John McCain and campaign for him vigorously. If he is a Libertarian, he needs to have the integrity to get the Hell out of our party and go back to that party.
Posted by: Greg at
11:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.
That is the Dan Patrick story -- from televison news sports guy to restaurant owner to radio host/station owner to state senator -- and maybe even further.
Dan Patrick met with bloggers at the RightOnline.com Blogger's Row.
He noted that this is an interesting year for Republicans with a lot at stake. Unity is important, but it is also important that elected officials inspire the voters by bringing about the reforms that have been promised over the years. This includes controlling the border.. he also talked about the essential need to limit property tax and property appraisal caps to make sure that homeowners can afford to stay in their homes. In addition, the margins tax needs to be repealed. Patrick also noted that several billion dollars could be saved with a five percent reduction of the state budget. In the end, it is visionaries like Reagan who are needed to bring out the voters to make the GOP successful. Ultimately, we must return to our conservative roots to make the US and Texas strong by getting real conservatives in charge.
Patrick noted that his conservative radio format educates, entertains, and informs the people -- and that as a state senator it allows him to explain why things are happening in Austin and the implications of state policies. He particularly mentioned the need to eliminate the margins tax and the "blocker bill". His stations potentially reach 50% of primary voters in the state. In addition, he noted the influence of the blogosphere -- and mentioned his involvement in founding LoneStarTimes.com (note: I was one of the original bloggers for LST).
Patrick also spoke about the importance of transparency in government. This has been something in which Texas has led. "There shouldn't be anything which isn't transparent in government." The big difficulty is that many voters don't have time to follow what goes on in government -- it is therefore important to elect folks you can trust to carry out what they say they will do.
When I asked Senator Patrick about possible plans to run for Governor, he indicated that he loves being in the state senate because of his ability to influence policy. Rather than seek higher office, his interest is to support good conservatives for office. "I'm not planning to kick any doors down." In other words, don't expect a Dan Patrick gubernatorial run in 2010.
Posted by: Greg at
08:41 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.
He began by noting the importance of the grassroots to the election of Republicans to all 29 statewide offices here in Texas.
He then turned to child protection, in particular the cybercrime unit that he has created in his office in a very effective effort to track down and arrest youngsters -- the unit has arrested more than 100 sexual predators across the state of Texas. He sees this as his most important accomplishment as Attorney General.
His also dealt with the importance of the protecting senior citizens from abuse and neglect and identity theft, which has become a significantly more serious problem in recent years with the expansion of the internet -- but which is still primarily a crime that is committed by taking mail and other "hard copy" documents.
What is the biggest challenge? Border security, which must be addressed in several ways due to the different aspects of the problem. On one level is the criminal issue, especially with regard to drug trafficking. But of key importance is the need for the federal government to step up and protect the border.
Speaking of the Heller case on the Second Amendment, Abbot expressed his concern that a negative decision could be used to undercut the rights of Texans to carry arms subject to Texas laws. He is eagerly anticipating the decision, with concern that a wrong decision might erode the right to keep and bear arms.
Addressing the FDLS child custody case, Abbott expressed his concern that there are still possible criminal charges possible if there is evidence of child abuse. He also pointed out that there is still the possibility of future removals of children from the compound. "No child should be subject to ongoing rape at the hands of their captors."
Abbott also spoke of the importance of making use of the blogosphere for getting the conservative message out to the world.
Posted by: Greg at
08:05 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.
, and 
, and The most touching moment so far? Governor Perry's comments on the Governor's Mansion, burned in an arson attack over the weekend. It can and will be rebuilt.
I'm particularly appreciative of the fine folks from Right Online.com and Americans for Prosperity for providing their own little blogger's row and a series of interviews of elected officials.
Ragnar from The Jawa Report is also here and blogging -- I hope we can hook up.
H/T Michelle Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
07:45 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
June 11, 2008
But to patriotic Americans who believe in honest elections that exclude necro-Americans and other fake voters, this sort of stuff is outrageous.
Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said Tuesday he will meet today with a Democrat-affiliated group responsible for a voter registration effort that is inundating East Baton Rouge and other parish registrars with bogus and incomplete applications.Dardenne said his investigators are trying to determine if any state election laws have been violated as thousands of voter registration cards have been dumped on registrars offices through the efforts of VIP.
“We have some very real concerns about the data we are getting from them,” Dardenne said.
VIP is a Washington, D.C., group hired by national Democrats to register some 70,000 new voters in advance of the presidential and other federal elections this fall.
"If any state election laws have been violated"? That is certainly a polite way of putting it.
After all, dead people and those serving time for felonies have been registered. In one parish, the folks in the voter registrar's office were surprised to get a new registration card in the name of their boss turned in by the company. And let's not forget the two Shreveport registration cards turned in for George W. Bush, with the address listed as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Frankly, there needs to be a federal investigation here -- VIP is based in Washington, DC and is clearly operating interstate to engage in election fraud.
UPDATE: It appears the group, hired by the Democrats, is an arm of the Muslim American Society, which is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood!
H/T Hot Air
Posted by: Greg at
11:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.
Others have gone to great length to delegitimize opposition to Barack Obama as rooted in racism as well, as noted by fellow bloggers.
So I would like to associate myself with the forthright confession of my dear friend and fellow Watcher's Council member Bookworm.
When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008:
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken AmericaÂ’s interests beyond repair, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the Western World, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because I think itÂ’s an incredibly stupid idea for the most powerful nation in the world to approach evil totalitarian dictators as a supplicant, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because I hate the idea of a President who will subordinate AmericaÂ’s interests to the UN (as he inevitably will), it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama has the thinnest resume ever in the history of Presidential candidates, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because I think ObamaÂ’s Leftist connections (Ayres, Dohrn, Soros, Pfleger, Wright, etc.) show him to be either stupid about or complicit with an agenda antithetical to basic American values, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama consistently chooses as advisers people who have opted for the wrong side in the completely binary debate about IsraelÂ’s right to exist, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to socialize American medicine, which I believe will destroy the high quality of medical care available to most Americans, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to gut the military and reduce us to a nation with a big target painted on our collective backside, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment and destroy AmericansÂ’ Constitutional right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It won’t be because Obama has already announced loud and clear that he will support activist judges who place their “feelings” above the law, it will be because I’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama supports judicial decisions creating a right to gay marriage, when I think that decision is one for the voters, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s announced that he will dramatically increase taxes, putting the slow, inflexible, ill-informed government in charge of what should be a quick-reacting, knowledgeable marketplace, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s record in the Senate (albeit short and undistinguished) has been so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy look like a reactionary, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s an open-borders kind of guy, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama has shown himself to be a scarily slow thinker and speaker when released from the teleprompter (which really doesnÂ’t bode well for those cozy private chats with Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad), it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s wife clearly loathes America and everything it stands for, despite the fact that sheÂ’s done pretty well out of it, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama was affiliated for more than 20 years with a church that preached white hatred and began to care only when it looked as if it would affect his campaign, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because Obama was good buddies with Tony Rezko, and other sleazy characters (showing again that Obama was complicit or a singularly bad judgment of character), it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s a compulsive liar who clearly thinks we in the public are too stupid to catch up with his lies, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s campaign has proven to be fly-paper for every two bit troofer and anti-Semite in America, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
- It wonÂ’t be because ObamaÂ’s promised already to start down the totalitarian path of purging his predecessors through criminal prosecutions, it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
And might I add that even though I am a life-long Republican and have never knowingly voted for a Democrat for any position higher than county clerk (and then only when the GOP incumbent was under indictment for official misconduct), when I proudly cast my vote for a real American hero with a lifetime of distinguished service to this country rather than Barack Obama it will be because IÂ’m a racist.
After all, that is what the liberal intelligentsia in the media have proclaimed. And it isn't like they would sling around false accusations of racism against innocent victims because it fits with their political agenda, would it?
Posted by: Greg at
11:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 8 kb.
So let's offer them a compromise that offers employees REAL freedom to choose.
In light of the Democrat's obvious commitment to "Employee Free Choice", I'd like to make an offer in two parts:
- Bring back Card Check legislation, which allows a Union to be created immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards in support of unionization.
- But make it real employee free choice by allowing a Union to be decertified immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards opposing an existing Union.
- For bonus points, let's also stipulate that an Employee Free Choice Act should give each employee a free choice about membership in a Union, and no employee can be forced to join (or leave) a Union against his will.
It's a good deal. It's a fair deal. It's the workplace democracy that Democrats tell us they really want. What's not to like about it? I think we can come to a deal.**
What say you, Democrats?
**...unless, of course, Democrats decide that reciprocity isn't they had in mind, and the Employee Free Choice Act suddenly includes a bit too much employee freedom.
All I would add to that suggestion is an addition to the last of the three points -- extend that prohibition to include a prohibition on agency shop fees, which force an employee to still pay the bulk of union dues even if they choose not to be a member of the union.
What objection could there possibly be to providing workers with REAL freedom of choice regarding membership and financial support of unions? Unless, of course, the point is not freedom for workers but welfare for unions.
Posted by: Greg at
02:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.
Political activists planning protest rallies at the upcoming Democratic Convention in Denver have their stomachs in knots over a rumor about a crowd control weapon - known as the “crap cannon” - that might be unleashed against them.Also called “Brown Note,” it is believed to be an infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily.
Mark Cohen, co-founder of Re-create 68, an alliance of local activists working for the protection of first amendment rights, said he believes this could be deployed at the convention in August to subdue crowds.
“We know this weapon and weapons like it have been used at other large protests before,” he said.
Cohen, who described Brown Note as a “sonic weapon used to disrupt people’s equilibrium,” cited eyewitness accounts of its use during free-trade agreement protests in Miami in 2003.
“I think these weapons were mostly intended for military use and so their use for dealing with innocent protesters seems highly inappropriate,” he said. “The idea that they might be field testing them on people who are doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights is disturbing.”
Of course, scientific researchers say that the "brown note" doesn't actually exist -- and since there is no actual evidence other than loony ramblings of these aging hippies and '60's wannabes, I'm inclined to believe the researchers.
Maybe the real problem that the Recreate 68 folks have is that radicals like them are have simply become so full of crap that it is waiting to burst out in all its glory.
Posted by: Greg at
12:59 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.
* * * Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."
Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.
"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."
But absurdly enough, this superdelegate will cast his vote for Obama at the Democrat Convention, and will vote for Obama in the fall, so this move is purely symbolic and completely without substance. It proves that Boren talks a good game, but will still care in to the demands of the party leadership when pushed.
Voters of Oklahoma, recognize what you have in Dan Boren and do your duty -- vote him out of office for his fecklessness.
Posted by: Greg at
12:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.
June 10, 2008
“I can’t support a budget, from either party, that raises taxes on the middle class. This bill hurts families all across the 14th District by eliminating the 10-percent bracket for lower-income taxpayers, reinstating the marriage penalty and increasing taxes on small businesses and investments."
So for those of you folks who think that electing Democrats means higher taxes for the rich and cutting your taxes, think again -- the Democrats are already out to raise your taxes RIGHT NOW. It isn't "soak the rich" -- it is "soak the middle class".
Posted by: Greg at
01:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.
June 09, 2008
United States Senator John Cornyn has opened a seventeen percentage point lead in his bid for re-election. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state find Cornyn leading Democratic state legislator Rick Noriega 52% to 35%. ThatÂ’s a significant improvement for the incumbent from a month ago when his lead dwindled to four percentage points.Cornyn is supported by 86% of Republicans and has a two-to-one edge among unaffiliated voters. Last month, his lead among the unaffiliateds was just four percentage points. Noreiga attracts 72% of Democrats, down from 81% a month ago.
The Democrat leads among voters under 30, reflecting a nationwide trend. He is competitive among those who earn less than $40,000 a year. However, Cornyn has the advantage among adults over 30 and those with annual incomes topping $40,000.
Yeah, Noreiga was pulling close a month ago -- but I think this poll makes it pretty clear that the previous result was an outlier, one of those occasional results that does not present a true picture of the real world. After all, this result matches well with what other polls are showing.
Posted by: Greg at
10:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
States and counties are putting out "help wanted" signs five months before Election Day in hopes of finding hundreds of thousands of younger, tech-savvy poll workers needed to handle an expected record turnout.In many cases, workers don't even have to be old enough to vote.
With a one-day workforce of nearly 2 million poll workers wanted by November, election officials are busily recruiting at high schools, colleges and businesses. They're looking for people who can speak foreign languages or help voters with disabilities. They're making training more convenient and splitting long workdays in half.
"The first challenge is just in the sheer numbers," says Dean Logan, acting clerk of Los Angeles County, which needs 25,000 poll workers in the nation's most populous voting jurisdiction.
More than 122 million Americans voted in 2004, up from 105 million in 2000. The number is expected to jump again because of high interest in the White House contest, which drew near-record primary turnout on a percentage basis.
What are the requirements down here in Texas? You have to be a registered voter in the county where you are working the polls. That's it. Contact your county clerk (the top election official in the county) and let them know you are interested -- they will in all likelihood be thrilled to hear from you. Or contact the county GOP or Democrat headquarters -- they know precincts that are chronically short-handed on election day and may offer suggestions of election judges to call. For that matter, if you are in the southeast corner of Harris County, send me an email and I may have a spot for you on election day.
Posted by: Greg at
02:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
But I have a different question: what makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it. On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.Now, maybe she wants the VP slot anyway. Who knows? But I think she'd be more effective in the Senate, have way more freedom of movement, have more career opportunities, and would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government than she would by being Obama's shadow. Anyone disagree?
I'll take it a step further. Should the Obama campaign implode, Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be anywhere around it. After all, serving as the vice presidential candidate will make it her failure, too -- which would be another blot on her record in 2012. Similarly, does she want to be Walter Mondale to Obama's Jimmy Carter?
No, the Senate is where she needs to stay -- unless she decides to run for Governor of New York (or relocate into NYC to run for Mayor in 2010) in order to get some executive experience. And then there is always that speculation about Justice Hillary Clinton...
Posted by: Greg at
02:10 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
In other words, no lies. What you have instead is the responsible reliance on intelligence provided to the Executive and Legislative branches. Indeed, in 2002 it was Senator Rockefeller himself who said:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Did Rockefeller lie? Or did he draw the same conclusion as the President did based upon the same data? Anyone who reasonably considers the issue has to accept that it is the latter -- and that the Rockefeller of 2002 is significantly more honest than the Rockefeller of 2008 who implied Bush lied during his press conference about the report.
WaPo's Fred Hiatt then ends with a point that I have made here and in other places any number of times -- that national security decisions must be made based upon the best evidence you have at the time, and that making the right choice relying in good faith upon what later turns out to be questionable data is not "lying us into war". Indeed, it isn't even incompetence -- it is merely tragedy.
Posted by: Greg at
01:59 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
June 08, 2008
Also aboard the windfall-profits bandwagon are presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "We've got to go after the oil companies and look at their price-gouging," proclaims Obama. "We've got to go after windfall profits."
* * * We've been down this road before. Under a windfall tax signed into law by Jimmy Carter, domestic oil production plummeted by an estimated 795 million barrels, while imports of foreign oil surged. Congress had anticipated windfall tax revenues of $393 billion. The actual take: just $80 billion. Like so much else associated with the Carter era, the windfall-profits tax was a counterproductive flop. Do Democrats really believe a new dose of Carternomics is going to make today's economy stronger?
If you want to see a real windfall, take a look at what Big Oil pays in taxes. The 27 largest US energy companies forked over $48 billion in income taxes in 2004, $67 billion in 2005, and more than $90 billion in 2006 - an 87 percent increase. Since 1981, the Tax Foundation calculates, the oil industry has earned a cumulative $1.12 trillion in profits - but it paid a cumulative $1.65 trillion in taxes (add another half-trillion to account for taxes paid to foreign governments).
So let's be clear on this -- the Democrats are out to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, all in the name of getting more gold from the goose. We know what happens when these "solutions" are tried -- because they did it three decades ago, and they failed.
And all because the oil companies make 8.1 cents for every dollar in sales -- a modest rate of profit, by any standard that allows for profit.
Be sure to click on the links in Jeff Jacoby's columns -- they'll show you just how much the oil companies are paying in taxes already.
Posted by: Greg at
07:37 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
But this is hosted on the Obamessiah's official campaign website -- and as of the time of my posting about it, is still there.
![20080608ObamaAntisemitism[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/20080608ObamaAntisemitism[1].jpg)
This is from the Socialists for Obama community blog that is a part of the official campaign site of Barack Obama.
Socialists for Obama? Yeah -- National Socialists, quite obviously. It seems like every freak and weirdo that didn't gravitate to Ron Paul is now a part of the Obamanation -- drawn by the incredible lightness of Obama and his record of accomplishments.
Maybe this is the reason that Barack is the favored candidate Hamas -- and why he backtracked so quickly from his seemingly pro-Israel speech at AIPAC. After all, he's got to keep the anti-Semites firmly in his corner.
UPDATE: The page is purged from the site -- but don't worry, there is plenty more anti-Semitic crap all about "the Jewish Lobby" that they haven't gotten rid of.
UPDATE 2: LGF spots another one by the same poster that survived the memory hole -- but not for long. Whatever would Obamessiah's webmasters do without conservative blogger to point out all the anti-Semitism that was acceptable the first time the Obama staff saw it?
H/T LGF, Doug Ross, Israel Matzav
Posted by: Greg at
06:15 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 3 kb.
An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.
“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.
“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.
“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”
Got that -- the state is saying that they won't bother trying to cure cancer patients, but they will pay to kill them.
Fortunately, Wagener's physician appealed to the drug company for help, and they are supplying the drug to her for at least a year.
And the state? it will continue to offer cancer patients the option of being killed immediately or dying a slow painful death -- something which is out of step with what the minimum standard of care set by oncologists nationwide.
But remember -- "We're from the government and we're here to help you!"
Posted by: Greg at
02:23 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
June 06, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.“We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”
Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.
“Frankly, my hope is people don’t play this game,” Obama said. “It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it.”
The problem is that this tape has been rumored for so long, with folks even offering quotes and paraphrases from it, that one has to wonder if it is true. After all, this isn't JUST Valerie Plame's ex-boyfriend, Larry Johnson, offering up suggestions that the tape exists. It has been "in the air" for several weeks now, from a variety of sources.
But I wonder how things will play out if there actually is such a tape. Will we be getting a statement that "This isn't the Michelle Obama I know and have been married to for sixteen years." as he throws her under the bus?
![1busob[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/1busob%5B1%5D.jpg)
Posted by: Greg at
01:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.
Clinton Says Running Mate Choice Is ObamaÂ’s
Well -- DUH!
Unless, of course, you want to launch a floor fight against Obama's selection -- or Obama shows a decided lack of leadership and decides to let the convention choose his VP for him, something that hasn't happened in over half a century.
Posted by: Greg at
01:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.
In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. KerryÂ’s states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. ClintonÂ’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.
In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.
In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.
When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.
If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.
In other words, Democrats, we of the GOP would like to thank you for putting ideological purity ahead of electability in the selection of your party's candidate. So while a lot of us may not have been initially enthused by the selection of one of a nominee who is a moderate conservative rather than a movement conservative, we will be quite happy to do the thing that political parties are created to do -- win elections so as to set policy and control the operation of government.
Posted by: Greg at
01:36 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.
Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."
* * * "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."
Of course, Obama's new position isn't any worse that that of the last two administrations. But the fact that in a matter of days he is backtracking from what he said in a major policy speech because the jumped-up terrorists of the West bank and Gaza is one more sign of his foreign policy weakness.
But then again, America should never have deviated from the most correct position on the Holy Land -- Jerusalem should always be one city, undivided, in the hands of Israel, and the Palestinians have no claim upon any state not currently named Jordan.
Posted by: Greg at
01:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.
June 05, 2008
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
That's the UK.
Things aren't any better in Canada.
Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.And HealthCanada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But HealthCanada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21.
But then again, maybe Ted Kennedy would have gotten the best treatment -- after all, the bootlegger's son has lot's of cash, so he would be able to pay for whatever he needed (if the government didn't make it illegal to go outside the system, like Hillary Clinton proposed 15 years ago). That would mean he would get the sort of medical care that average Americans would not be able to get under the sort of health care scheme he and his party are pushing -- medical care that is standard today in the United States.
And the rest of us would simply have to die for the collective good. Sounds like the old Soviet Union to me -- the elite get the best care, and the people suffer.
Don Surber also comments.
Posted by: Greg at
01:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.
Jane Drury voted last year in an election in Stonington, Conn. The only problem is, she died eight years ago.Her daughter Jane Gumpel thought someone must have goofed.
“I was surprised because this is not possible,” she said.
But it did happen. The town clerkÂ’s record clearly shows DruryÂ’s vote, marked by a horizontal line poll workers put next to her name. And it turns out, Drury isnÂ’t the only voter to apparently cast a ballot from the grave.
The issue of dead voters showing up on ballot records continues to be a problem for election administrators across the country.
Journalism professor Marcel Dufresne, at the University of Connecticut, led a class investigation into dead voters and said his group of 11 students discovered 8,558 deceased people who were still registered on ConnecticutÂ’s voter rolls. They discovered more than 300 of them appeared somehow to have cast ballots after they died.
“We have one person who appeared to have voted 17 times since he died,” Dufresne said.
No I realize that Necro-Americans are a key Democrat constituency, but I believe it is important that they be disenfranchised immediately. Pruge them from the voter rolls. Require that voters show identification before voting. Drive a stake through the heart of the undead when they arrive to vote. Only the living should be permitted to vote.
MORE AT Don Surber
Posted by: Greg at
12:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
On a day that Sen. Barack Obama moved closer to clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, embattled Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, Tuesday became the first of Louisiana's four Democratic congressional members to back his candidacy.
You remember William Jefferson, don't you? The guy with $90K in his freezer, on tape taking bribe money from FBI informants? The guy who diverted Katrina evacuation resources to remove evidence from his home after the storm. Yeah, that corrupt Democrat who Peklosi wanted to give a key seat on a committee dealing with national security.
Well, now he is the first Louisiana congressman to endorse Obama. What a coup!
I wonder, can he bring along his newly indicted family members as Obama supporters, too? Seems to me that Barack Obama's first day in office will involve signing a lot of pardons for friends and supporters.
Posted by: Greg at
12:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.
June 04, 2008
![2008-01-28-rezkobama4[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/2008-01-28-rezkobama4[1].jpg)
Tony Rezko — the high-flying developer and fast-food magnate who was once a major campaign fund-raiser for Gov. Blagojevich and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama and one of the governor’s closest advisers — is now a convicted felon.A federal jury in Chicago convicted Rezko this afternoon on 16 of 24 charges he faced in a political corruption trial that cast a harsh light on the Blagojevich administration.
![rezko_obama[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/rezko_obama[1].jpg)
Now remember -- this is the one who made a sweetheart deal with the Obamas to enable them to buy a property adjoining their residence that they otherwise couldn't have afforded. This is a guy who was a big fundraiser for Obama until he got indicted. I guess the day after he becomes Mr. Inevitable, Barack Obama has to now explain away a fishy relationship with a convicted felon. This should be fun.
Posted by: Greg at
09:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.
In New York today, an art exhibit was shut down.
![artist-533[1].jpg](http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/artist-533[1].jpg)
This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition, and building workers quickly covered over the inflammatory title with large sheets of brown paper and blue masking tape. The gallery is across the street from the southern entrance to The New York Times building.
The police officers declined to answer any questions, and at first would not permit reporters to speak with Mr. Arboleda, who was wearing a black T-shirt and making cellphone calls from inside the makeshift gallery.
Later, Mr. Arboleda, who is 27, said in an interview: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”
Mr. Arboleda said the exhibition was to open on Thursday and run all day.
Now let's say it -- the title of the exhibit was overly provocative. There was, however, no need to shut the exhibit down or require the promotional sign to be covered.
Why not? How about because of this from 2006.
The Republican Party in Texas has said it is "shocking" and "disturbing" that a TV drama is to depict the assassination of US President Bush.Death of a President uses archive footage, actors and computer effects to portray the president being shot dead.
UK broadcaster Channel 4, who made the mock documentary, said it explored the effects of the War on Terror on the US.
But Gretchen Essell, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Texas, called for it not to be screened.
"I cannot support a video that would dramatise the assassination of our president, real or imagined," she told the Press Association news agency.
"The greater reality is that terrorism still exists in our world. It is obvious that the war on terror is not over.
"I find this shocking, I find it disturbing. I don't know if there are many people in America who would want to watch something like that."
How disturbing are the images? I'll let you decide, with this YouTube clip that you can view right now.
An American company will be releasing the film in this country on January 20, 2009. I somehow doubt we will see any effort by the Secret Service or local law enforcement to prevent the release of the film, the showing of the film in a theater, or any of the film's advertising. After all, you've just seen the depiction of the murder of a sitting president hosted on YouTube!
Not to mention threats by Air America Radio.
Why are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton treated any different, especially when it is clear that the exhibit in question is a critique of the media coverage of the just-concluded race for the Democrat presidential nomination? Could it be that Assassination Chic is only cool if the target is a Republican?
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, The American Nationalist News Service, third world county, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D'ITALIA, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
06:20 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 7 kb.
The priest whose mocking of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton stirred more racially tinged controversy in the presidential campaign was effectively placed on leave from his pastoral work Tuesday at the Roman Catholic parish he has led since 1983.The archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, called on the priest, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, to “step back from his obligations” at St. Sabina and “take leave for a couple of weeks.”
* * * He could not be reached for comment late Tuesday, but Cardinal George made it clear that Father Pfleger had disagreed with the decision that he take a brief leave.
“Father Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time,” Cardinal George said in a statement released by the archdiocese. “While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.”
His parishioners exhibited their cult-like devotion to him at a special service on Tuesday night.
Hundreds of parishioners crowded a service at St. Sabina on Tuesday evening, asking Cardinal George to reinstate Father Pfleger and requesting a meeting with the cardinal, the Associated Press reported.Father Pfleger has had a regular place at the forefront of activism here, participating in protests against violence and police corruption and at times defying the church leadership.
My guess is that this will lead to one of a several of possible outcomes.
I think it will be really interesting to see how this plays out -- and I don't think that we will see Pfleger back in the pulpit at St. Sabina any time soon.
More At Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
03:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.
With a split decision in the final two primaries and a flurry of superdelegate endorsements, Sen. Barack Obama sealed the Democratic presidential nomination last night after a grueling and history-making campaign against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that will make him the first African American to head a major-party ticket.
I've got mixed emotions about this nomination. On the one hand, I feel that the nomination of Barack Obama will do nothing but boost the GOP ticket in the fall, because it will be composed of two candidates with the qualifications an experience necessary to be president while Obama makes Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis look highly qualified. on the other hand, I live in fear that we might actually have to suffer through four years of this accomplishment-free individual in the White House -- something that could damage this country for a generation or more.
Posted by: Greg at
03:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.
June 03, 2008
The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!
Contrast that to Ron Paul's long-time association with bigots and refusal to divest himself of cash from known professional racists.
I won't vote for Bob Barr -- but I at least retain some respect for him.
H/T LGF
Posted by: Greg at
02:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.
June 02, 2008
Today is one of those days, as he undergoes surgery related to the brain tumor that was discovered following his seizures.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) will undergo surgery this morning at Duke University to try and remove a highly lethal tumor that doctors discovered in his brain last month.In a statement, the 76-year-old Democratic icon said he would fight the grim prognosis he was given in May through a combination of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. The operation, which is being performed by neurosurgeon Allan H. Friedman of Duke University Medical Center, is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. and last about six hours.
Kennedy said in his statement that he expected to remain at Duke for about a week after the operation, and start radiation and chemotherapy at Massachusetts General Hospital shortly thereafter.
Kennedy was diagnosed in mid-May with a malignant glioma, a highly aggressive type of tumor that doctors say can never be completely destroyed. About half of the 10,000 people found to have such tumors in the United States each year die within 12 months; three-quarters of them are dead within two years.
My prayers are with the Massachusetts senator at this time, and with his family as they wait with a man they love despite his many flaws. At a time like this politics is irrelevant and love of our fellow man should be the rule.
Posted by: Greg at
01:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.
June 01, 2008
And this one is going to sting MUCH WORSE than Wright or Pfleger.
And left-winger Larry Johnson is set to break news about it at 0900 on Monday, June 2.
New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. IÂ’ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. BarackÂ’s headaches are only starting.
Imagine that -- the day before he is set to clinch the nomination, a bombshell of his wife's racist comments at Trinity UCC (if rumors are correct) is set to break. Johnson wants to blame Rove, but my money is on Hillary Clinton. The GOP would wait until the last week of October or even November 1 to break this story.
Obama's problem? He can throw his grandmother under the bus. He can throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus. he can throw Michael Pfleger under the bus. He can even throw his entire 8000 member church under the bus. But how on earth do you manage to throw your wife, the mother of your children, under the bus?
![1busob[1].jpg](http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/1busob.jpg)
UPDATE: Valerie Plame's ex-boyfriend seriously under-delivers again.
I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater.
But he raises some other, much more important issues related to Obama's connection to racists.
Barack may have quit his church but his religious problems are not over. Barack Obama has a Nation of Islam problem that will receive more attention in the coming days. Before Barack came on the scene, THE MAN in his political district was Louis Farrakhan. No one could take Alice Palmer’s seat without Farrakhan’s blessing. No one. I do not fault Barack Obama for seeking out the blessing of Farrakhan, but the story of what was done behind the scenes to get rid of Barack’s predecessor—Alice Palmer—has not been told. A knowledgeable source tells me that Tony Rezko played a direct role in this feat. And Rezko has been tight with Farrakhan.It also should come as no surprise that Barack hired two members of the Nation of Islam to work on his staff—Jennifer Mason and Cynthia K. Miller. (And no, I am not merely recycling info initially reported by Debbie Schlussel. I have two independent Chicago sources for this info.) If Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger had kept their yaps buttoned none of this would mean much. But the fact that both men have been—until scrubbed from the website in recent weeks—listed as spiritual advisors to Barack Obama and also are very close to Louis Farrakhan, forces the question about Barack’s faith and beliefs.
In probing those matters we begin to understand that the Nation of Islam has been a critical component of Barack ObamaÂ’s base of support. And, I am told, Louis Farrakhan has been careful to use Tony Rezko as the intermediary in his relationship with Barack. This is not guilt by association, this is guilt because of actual relationship. Farrakhan, Wright, and Pfleger are each on tape in various settings spewing the most vile racists garbage in the guise of preaching. Barack Obama, up to this point, has tried to pretend he had no idea that these men had these thoughts or said these things.
I've got trouble with Johnson's use of anonymous sources here -- but these matters have all been in the public domain in some form or fashion over the last several months, only to be overlooked by the MSM as they fawn over Barack Obama.
Posted by: Greg at
04:40 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 701 words, total size 5 kb.
The Rev. Michael Pfleger, who helped reignite Barack Obama's pastor problems by mocking Hillary Clinton, said this evening he's received "thousands of hate threats" since his videotaped pulpit rant."They want to kill me," Pfleger told parishioners during a service in a St. Sabina Church chapel on Chicago's South Side this evening. "It's been very ugly."
Not as ugly as your words at Trinity, Mikey. You are just reaping what you have sown.
But seriously, i don't want you dead.
You are much more useful alive -- because you will be unable to keep your mouth shut for long, and you will violate your promise to Cardinal George just like you violated your promise of obedience when you refused his directive to change parishes at the end of your third term as pastor of St. Sabina six years ago.
Just like Jeremiah Wright, i expect you to be a gift that keeps on giving -- and your death would prevent that.
Posted by: Greg at
08:02 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.
"We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church," the Democratic front-runner said. "We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."
Sorry, Barry -- you stayed a part of Trinity UCC for two decades and praised it in both of your books, even though the very things that you claim constitute “a cultural and a stylistic gap” have been a part of what goes on at Trinity for that entire time.
How timid is Obama in the break from the extremist theology and rhetoric of Trinity UCC? Consider this.
"I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."
Got that? If you are concerned about what you heard from Wright, Pfleger, and Otis Moss, Barack Obama isn't interested in you (though he believes you ought to vote for him -- otherwise you no doubt are a racist). And given that it is Otis Moss, the new pastor at Trinity who was so effusive in his praise for Michael Pfleger in the video we've all seen (and who invited him to preach), I'd have to argue that the new pastor is every bit as guilty of the sins of the past as Jeremiah Wright -- and that he merits equal scrutiny. And given the response of the congregation to Pfleger's sermon (watch the background and listen to the crowd response), I'd argue that the whole congregation does merit serious scrutiny.
And let's be honest -- among the scrutiny deserved by Trinity UCC is an investigation by the IRS for violation of restrictions on political activity by a tax exempt organization AND under the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bob Jones University v. United States, namely that an organization that practices racism is ineligible for a tax exemption as a charity even if it meets all other requirements.
Obama indicated he won't be making a choice of a new church until after November. Anyone want to bet that it will be a church just like Trinity UCC -- if not Trinity UCC itself, should he lose the election this fall? After all, the folks he claims to be the bad actors in all this (Wright & Pfleger) won't be there, and neither Moss nor the institution itself have done anything wrong in his eyes -- and as a failed candidate for president, will his choice of church really merit any scrutiny at all?
Here's the whole press conference in which Obama discusses the decision.
He ight be able to get away with that limp-wristed position except for the fact that less than a year ago he was more than willing to denounce a different group of religious believers for what the believe and say.
"Somewhere along the way faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart... Faith got hijacked partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, whoÂ’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.
So let's get this straight -- those who support traditional values and traditional Christian theology merit denunciation by Obama, but the race-baiters and their followers at Trinity UCC (ant Pfleger's St. Sabina Catholic Church) do not. After all, haven't they "stopped [using] faith to bring us together and started [using] it to drive us apart"? Given that double standard, I guess he wasn't lying when he said yesterday that he isn't people who disagree with him, is he?
MORE AT Malkin, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, STACLU
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Alabama Improper, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Adeline and Hazel, Pet's Garden Blog, Online Gym, third world county, The Pink Flamngo, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Chucjk's Place, , Right Voices, 123beta, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Alabama Improper, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
12:54 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 788 words, total size 10 kb.
May 31, 2008
The liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org today launched a petition drive calling on former White House official Scott McClellan to donate the proceeds of his book to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.The petition drive, intended to create pressure for Mr. McClellan to be asked about it on the morning news-interview shows Sunday, is the latest signal of a backlash by Democrats and Republicans alike against the former press secretary for turning on his ex-boss, President Bush.
MoveOn's petition e-mail, sent out to its supporters Saturday morning, said that Mr. McClellan's "coming clean is admirable.”
"But McClellan shouldn't profit off the role he played in our nation's largest foreign policy blunder,” the release reads.
"After spending years defending the Bush administration and perpetuating the lies that led our country into war, Scott McClellan is poised to make bank — his tell-all book is a bestseller and he may make hundreds of thousands or millions,” MoveOn says. "Meanwhile, our troops are still dying in Iraq.”
It really is very simple. If we are to believe Scott McClellan, he stood up and lied to the press on a daily basis for years, and he did nothing to stop what he knew was a contrived effort to take America into an unnecessary and unjustifiable war. As such, he is part of a great criminal conspiracy -- and he should no more be permitted to profit than would any spree killer or child molester would with a book about his crimes.
On the other hand, if Scott McClellan is lying in the book itself there is no justification for his profiting by what would be a fraud committed against the American people in the interest of undermining the government.
Either way, I'm going to disregard everything in the book -- after all, much like David Brock, his entire argument is "Trust me -- I'm a liar!"
Posted by: Greg at
01:33 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.
May 29, 2008
Let's look at the hate speech being spewed in the sanctuary this time -- with an introduction from Barack Obama's NEW pastor, not Jeremiah "I didn't know he was that extreme" Wright.
Pastor Otis Moss: He needs no introduction. He’s a friend of Trinity, he’s a brother beloved. He’s a preacher par excellence. He’s a prophetic, powerful pulpiteer. He is our friend. He is our brother. He is none other than Father Michael Pfleger. (Crowd on its feet, standing ovation, loud applause). We welcome him once again……Pfleger: [Unintelligible] to address the one who says, “Well, don’t hold me responsible (gesticulating) for what my ancestors did. But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits (voice rising), throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you WALKED INTO BECAUSE YO’ DADDY AND YO’ GRANDDADDY AND YO’ GREATGRANDDADDY–(screaming at the top of his lungs)–UNLESS YOU’RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE BENEFITS, THEN YOU MUST BE REPSONSIBLE FOR WHAT WAS DONE IN YOUR GENERATION ‘CUZ YOU ARE THE BENEFICIARY OF THIS INSURANCE POLICY! (Wild gestures, wild applause).
Â…We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head.
I said before I donÂ’t want this to be political because, you know, IÂ’m very unpolitical (mocking tone, huge laughter).
…When Hillary was crying (gesturing tears, uproarious laughter from audience)–and people said that was put on–I really don’t believe it was put on.
I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine’ (laughter, hoots). ‘I’m Bill’s wife. I’m WHITE. And this is mine. And I jus’ gotta get up. And step into the plate. And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama.’ And she said: ‘Oh, damn!’ WHERE DID YOU COME FROM!?!?! (Crowd going nuts, Pfleger screaming). I’M WHITE! I’M ENTITLED! THERE’S A BLACK MAN STEALING MY SHOW. (SOBS!) SHE WASN’T THE ONLY ONE CRYING! THERE WAS A WHOLE LOTTA WHITE PEOPLE CRYING!
IÂ’m sorry. I donÂ’t wanna get you in any moÂ’ trouble. The livestreaming just went out againÂ…
Let's look at the matter closely.
1) If Michael Pfleger were black and were to make such venomous comments about blacks from the pulpit of a white church, he would likely be called, with some justification, a self-hating Uncle Tom by the black community.
2) Michael Pfleger is well known for this sort of crap in Chicago. Anyone who invites him to preach knows exactly what they are going to get.
3) This is the new pastor of Trinity UCC, Otis Moss, doing the introduction-- not Jeremiah Wright. He is the one who invited Michael Pfleger, and allowed him to rant on like this. So much for a new tone at Trinity.
4) Given the pervasive nature of the partisan politics preached from the pulpit at Trinity UCC, is it time to yank their tax exempt status yet?
When I was a seminarian in the Chicago area back in the early 1990s, I went to St. Sabina several times and heard what goes on there -- this is not atypical. I knew priests who had worked with Michael Pfleger, and was even taught by some of them. I heard the stories from the Chicago seminarians, and the Chicago priests. Their assessment, and mine, was that Pfleger was more consumed by his own ego and agenda than by the teachings of Scripture or the Church. Some have even argued that Pfleger's position at St. Sabina is akin to that of Jim Jones or David Koresh.
And let's not forget that this is the same Michael Pfleger who defied the authority of his own Archbishop, Francis Cardinal George, to make personnel assignments as is his right under canon law -- and went so far as to threaten schism if his demands were not met. Already weakened by the pedophilia scandal that had wracked the archdiocese for several years, George backed down rather than suspend Pfleger's priestly faculties over his failure to live up to his priestly commitment to obey his bishop, much less excommunicate Pfleger over his threatened schism.
Obama, of course, has issued another mealy-mouthed statement distancing himself from Pfleger, who was another one of his close spiritual advisers according to early versions of his campaign website.
“As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause," Obama said in a statement.
Sorry, doesn't cut it, Barry. You are still a member of a congregation that regularly allows, encourages, and revels in such hate mongering -- and you have been there for two decades, been married there and raised your children there. That you refuse to address that in a substantive way is proof that you lack the moral resoluteness to confront and reject evil when it might carry a personal cost for you. That is a trait that is unacceptable in a president -- and given the documented history of John McCain's willingness to do the right thing even in the face of certain torture, it is clear that only one of you has what it takes to serve in the highest elected office in the United States.
Oh, yeah, and an even more weaselly statement oozed from the mouth of Michael Pfleger.
"I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them."
Bullcrap, Mikey -- you are sorry that you got caught. Why don't you butch up and admit it -- and admit that you still stand by every vile word that dripped from your mouth in that video, just like did when you threatened the life of a gun dealer. And after this, do you think you have the stroke to fight a transfer directive now that your FOURTH six-year term as pastor of St. Sabina is up?
This is just one more in a chain of extremist associations that Obama has to explain away -- Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Pfleger -- of the sort that would kill any white candidate. When will Barack Obama be held to that standard? And what will he say when and if that rumored tape of Michelle Obama speaking at Trinity ever surfaces? As Hillary Clinton discovered earlier this year, it is rather difficult to disassociate yourself from your spouse.
UPDATE: Guess what -- Barack Obama has made sure that $100,000 of your tax dollars go to support Michael Pfleger and St. Sabina. That means that he is clese enough friends to subsidize make you subsidize Pfleger, but not close enough to know what he really stands for. Can we really afford to have to have a guy like this as president?
UPDATE 2: Obama quits Trinity.
H/T Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Alabama Improper, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, Online Gym, Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Alabama Improper, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Chucjk's Place, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
11:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1273 words, total size 11 kb.
Portland police officers have asked for an apology after they said organizers of a Barack Obama rally set up Porta-Potties on a memorial honoring fallen officers.Earlier this month, 75,000 people gathered in Waterfront Park in downtown Portland to hear Obama speak at a pre-primary rally.
And how, exactly, would organizers have known that this was sacred ground dedicated to the memory of fallen police officers (many of whom were no doubt at the rally that day – Obamessiah sees dead people)?
Brennan, who controlled the crowd near the Portland Police Memorial, noticed several Porta Potties set up in the middle of the memorial. Brennan had been at the site five days earlier for an annual memorial service and a flag was still set at half mast on the day of the rally.
When Portland cop Thomas Brennan contacted the Obamessiah campaign about the blatant act of disrespect, the complaint was ignored. But hey, heÂ’s Obama!
Posted by: Greg at
12:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.
Obama has not emphasized any signature domestic issue, or signaled that he would take his party in a specific direction on policy, as Bill Clinton did with his "New Democrat" proposals in 1992 that emphasized welfare reform or as George W. Bush did with his "compassionate conservatism" in 2000, when he called on Republicans to focus more on issues such as education.Obama's campaign is "clearly politically transformative, it's clearly from a policy standpoint been cautious," said James K. Galbraith, a liberal activist and economist at the University of Texas at Austin who had backed former senator John Edwards in the early primaries.
"The change that Senator Obama has promised is one of tone and leadership style," said William A. Galston, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton and is backing Sen. Clinton but who said he would enthusiastically support Obama if he is the party's nominee. "He has not dissented from party orthodoxy in the way Bill Clinton did on the way to the presidency in 1992," Galston added.
In other words, the only “change” we have to “hope” for is in terms of packaging – the contents will all remain the same, with the same old failed Democrat strategies of the past. Consider him to be John Kerry without the experience and military service – or Michael Dukakis with charisma.
Posted by: Greg at
10:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
May 28, 2008
The proposal, by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), would expand the current GI Bill to ensure full college scholarships for veterans who spend three years or more in the armed forces. As we have said, the current system has not kept pace with rising college costs and has shortchanged veterans who have endured the rigors of wartime service.That does not mean that the measure is perfect or that the concerns expressed by the Pentagon and other critics, including Mr. McCain, should be brushed off as illegitimate or insensitive to veterans. The Pentagon argues that the measure would harm the military by providing too large an incentive for people to leave. The projected increase in departures would be offset by an increase in recruitment among those attracted by the new, improved benefit; however, that does not account for the loss of experience and added training costs. Mr. McCain and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) have proposed an alternative that concentrates on giving those who remain in the service added educational benefits, including the ability to transfer their benefits to family members; the measure would also boost benefits for veterans, although far less than the Webb bill would.
The fact that Mr. Webb's bill was co-sponsored by Republicans such as Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), a former deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration, adds to its credibility. But as Mr. McCain pointed out, "It would be easier, much easier, politically for me to have joined Sen. Webb in offering his legislation." Tempting as it may be, his decision not to do so should not, as Mr. Obama suggests, be the occasion for partisan posturing.
Obama, of course, did engage in just such political posturing when he attacked McCain's position as insufficiently supportive of veterans. it is also the stock-in-trade of other dishonorable candidates for office, including Texas Democrat Rick Noriega, who chose to politicize Memorial Day by denouncing Senator John Cornyn for supporting the McCain/Graham bill in a column in the Houston Chronicle -- and the following Memorial Day email blast:
Dear Greg,In today's Houston Chronicle, Rick Noriega has authored an Op-Ed entitled "Texas needs two senators who will back our veterans."
COLUMN EXCERPT DELETED To read the entire piece, please click here. Once you've read the Op-Ed, be sure to forward the link to all of your friends and family.
Have a safe and happy holiday.
Sincerely,
Mark Bell
Campaign Manager
Rick Noriega for Texas
Not a single mention of those who have fought and died for our country -- just a cheap politial shot on behalf of flawed legislation.
There are ways to improve the GI Bill -- but the Webb bill is not it and fails to incorporate the good ideas mentioned in the Post editorial. It seeme to me that rather than attacking those who dare to see a need for something different, the supporters of the Webb bill might consider actually taking into consideration the views of their critics to create a bill that is good for all veterans and the US military as a whole -- rather than a blunt instrument for the Democrats to club their opponents with.
Posted by: Greg at
10:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.
That said, here is an example of why the gay marriage issue cannot be left to the states -- the problem of the recognition of such marriages in states which prohibit them under their own laws.
Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.
Yeah, all it takes is one official issuing a directive and gay marriages are recognized -- even if the legislature has explicitly declined to permit them to be performed within the state. The public policy decisions of one state -- whether made by the elected branches of government or a rogue court -- can effectively drive the policy of the other 49.
The Defense of Marriage Act, passed with great support over a decade ago, may not be sufficient to protect the right of those states that reject gay marriage to set their own policy on the matter. All it will take is one federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional to open the floodgates. As the Constitution stands now, federalism is not the answer.
That is why there needs to be some sort of amendment to the US Constitution on the matter. And I'm not necessarily arguing for an amendment to ban gay marriages nationwide. Rather, I'd like to propose a compromise which sets the Defense of Marriage Act into the Constitution itself as a tool for protecting federalism. Don't define marriage per se, but simply state that noting in the US constitution requires a state (or the federal government) to recognize marriage as anything other than one man and one woman. Then the decision of California's courts will truly be California's problem -- not one for all 50 states.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Alabama Improper, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, Online Gym, Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Alabama Improper, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Chucjk's Place, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 526 words, total size 5 kb.
May 27, 2008
A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.
ADVERTISEMENTDemocratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.
The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.
So, the party of "Count Every Vote" is not the party of "Disenfranchise Every Voter" -- apparently as a matter of law (I'd love to see this memo -- wouldn't you?).
But that Credentials Committee challenge is important -- it gives Hillary Clinton a plausible reason to stay in the race through the Convention itself, and to wage a Kennedyesque floor fight to seat the remaining delegates. Could be really ugly -- if you are a Democrat.
Posted by: Greg at
11:00 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.
70 queries taking 0.2705 seconds, 307 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
