The McCain campaign has a field day with Barack Obama's opposition to every effort towards alternative energy.

But don't worry -- Barack Obama is prepared to force you to lower your standard of living by increasing taxes on gasoline, thereby raising the price you pay at the pump! After all, he is a typical Democrat -- like these in Virginia.

And remember the words of Michelle Obama -- Barack Obama never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.

Let's not give him that chance.

A vote for McCain is a vote for energy independence.

Posted by: Greg at 01:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

But not really bipartisan when Democrats vote in a direction that liberals define as conservative.

A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval.

On a vote of 80-15, mostly Republican supporters of the bipartisan measure, which would also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock.

As Ed Morrissey points out over at Hot Air, 48 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for cloture, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Why is the cloture vote therefore labeled as "mostly Republican", even though Democrats voted 2-1 for cloture and supplied some 40% of the votes for the motion?

But on a more important note, this means the bill will be voted on (and presumably passed) on Friday, and that it should be in the hands of President Bush for his signature by next week.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Now he's dumping Scarlett Johansson!

She said the pair of them had an email relationship.

He says not.

She said Obama had responded to one note about a debate, commenting to her that the questions were "silly."

But speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"

The Obamateur just lost major cool points. And after all, since he is seeking to be the first second black president (remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first) despite his utter lack of qualifications for the job, he needs to show America that he at least has the good judgment to do the job.

Take a good look at the decision here, folks. Does it really show good judgment?

On the other hand, I think this shows much better judgment.

Any questions?

H/T Ace

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.

Will the "Texas Two-Step" bite the Texas Democrats in the ass?

A local Hillary Clinton supporter has filed a challenge to Texas delegates elected to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National CommitteeÂ’s rules and bylaws panel last week alleging that the makeup of the Texas delegation is invalid.

The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates based partly on the results of the March 4 primary and partly on the results of precinct caucuses held statewide that evening.

That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule that delegate selection must "fairly reflect" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.

So tell me -- with Hillary winning at the polls here in Texas, how does awarding the her 94 delegates while the Obamessiah got 99 delegates begin to "fairly reflect" the preferences of the primary voters?

Simply put, it doesn't -- especially given some of the shenanigans pulled by Obama supporters at precinct caucuses and senatorial district conventions. Seems o me the best solution would be to refuse to seat those delegates chosen through the caucus process, and seat only those reflecting the vote on primary day.

And they already have a precedent -- the stripping of delegates from Florida and Michigan over procedural issues.

Posted by: Greg at 06:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

They always say that the two most dangerous spots in Washington are:

1. Between Chuck Schumer and a microphone; and
   
2. Between Chuck Schumer and a photo op.

NOTE: Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski (center, crushed between the two senators from New York) was not injured in the course of this photo op.

I was also struck by this bit of information in the article about Hillary!'s return to the Senate.

Also yesterday, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a triumphant return to the Senate, where she was greeted by a large group of female interns and exchanged hugs with Democrats.

Hmmm...

"Greeted by a large group of female interns."

Isn't that where a lot of Bill Clinton's problems started?

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess old Ralph thinks Obama should be wearin' a doo-rag and talkin' Ebonics, homey.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

"Talking white?"

Could you imagine if some conservative argued that Obama was some sort of Oreo trying to make himself palatable to white voters by rejecting his blackness? How on earth does Nader get away with this stuff?

On the other hand, we've seen seen that the only difference between Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis is that the latter two were more qualified for the presidency when nominated than Obama is -- and yeah, that he is half African (not African-American -- in the interest of accuracy we have to remember that his father was Kenyan). But it is really just the same old liberalism, repackaged to sell Hopey McChangerson to the American public.

By the way -- I love how Ralph nader attempts to set himself up as the arbiter of authentic blackness.

"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

WTF, Ralph? I'm an anti-Obama conservative, and I find that crap to be offensive. And for what its worth, Ralph, as a Republican descendant of a Union Civil War veteran and having been born a century after the issuance of the Emancipation proclamation, I don't feel any sort of "white guilt".

On a related note, rumor has it that Nader will soon announce his selection of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd as his vice presidential running mate this year.

More At Hot Air, OTB, Protein Wisdom, Suitably Flip

Posted by: Greg at 04:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

From my perspective, there is no way that Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana can avoid vetoing this pay raise for the Louisiana Legislature.

The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month.

The increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with considerably more money available once expenses are added in. It has touched a nerve in this impoverished state.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't find that increased legislative salary of $37,500 to be all that outrageous (although a 123% pay raise is galling) -- though I am unsure whether or not the legislature is a year-round entity or only a part time, limited session institution like we have here in Texas. But when you add in the per diem and benefits, this looks really bad. And due to a promise during the campaign, Jindal finds himself in something of a bind on this one.

More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul LouisianaÂ’s reputation for dubious ethics.

During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. Once elected, he quickly pushed through a package of measures increasing the LegislatureÂ’s transparency and stamping out conflicts of interest, basking in the subsequent glow of his image as a youthful Ivy League reformer doing battle in a shady subtropical outpost.

Governor, less than six months ago you were saying that you would veto pay raises. Why haven't you done so on this one? I could understand letting one slide through after you have cleaned up Louisiana government, but you still have a long way to go to accomplish that end.

And if you are afraid that a veto would doom the rest of your legislative agenda, then use the bully pulpit provided you by your office to make the case for that agenda with the people directly. After all, they responded to your ambitious reform agenda during the election -- they can pressure the legislators to do what is correct, not what is personally profitable. Indeed, a string of governors whose leadership failed (or who were as corrupt as the legislature) is precisely why your state is in the mess that it is.

And Governor, this isn't just an issue for the people of Louisiana. For many of us among the GOP base, you have been seen as a great hope for our party's future, and we have been backing you for five or six years, going back to your first run for governor. Your failure to stand strong here will not only damage your effectiveness as a leader and your ability to bring about reform in your state, but also your ability to be that leader for the future that our party needs.

Stand strong, Bobby Jindal -- wield that veto pen like a sword, and then be prepared to get down into the mud and wrestle with the corrupt alligators in the legislature. You can do it -- and you will have the support of the people who elected you AND Republicans nationwide.

And remember, the people might well support you in recalling some of the recalcitrant legislators, Bobby -- or they might recall you if you don't do the right thing here.

UPDATE: Some movement?

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

Congresswoman Laura Richardson is sort of the gift that keeps on giving.

The latest on the triple-default, single-foreclosure Democratic congresswoman from Long Beach: "Rep. Laura Richardson initially failed to disclose economic interests -- including a loan from a strip club owner -- when she served on the Long Beach City Council, public records show," the Long Beach Press-Telegram reports.

From the Press-Telegram: the loan in question was for $20,000, in 2000, and came from a family trust controlled by Jerry Westlund, who owns the Fantasy Castle strip club in Signal Hill and 13 other strip clubs in seven states. Two years later, Richardson -- who had not yet disclosed the loan -- voted with the council to place Westlund's father on the city's board of examiners. She eventually disclosed the loan in 2004.

It gets more complicated: Westlund tells the newspaper that the 60-month loan, at 15.5% interest, was made to Richardson and her then-husband, Long Beach Police Chief Anthony Batts, but Batts strongly disputes that, and the newspaper reports that only Richardson's name is on public records of the loan.

Now here's the interesting twist -- the loan wasn't called in by Westlund until 2005. Why so long? Well, it seems that the Long Beach police started to raid his business establishment.

What does that say to you, folks?

Am I the only one who thinks that Richardson needs a full rectal exam by both state and federal law enforcement authorities seeking evidence of official corruption?

Too bad the California GOP doesn't even have a candidate running against her this fall.

Posted by: Greg at 06:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't you love it when all you have to do is roll tape of your opponent to show why he is unfit for office?

(H/T Hot Air)

Barack repeatedly said he would take public financing. His party is suing John McCain to try to force him to do the same for the primaries. But Barack Obama is now going to chuck that system out the window because it is to his advantage to do so.

Not, mind you, that I support public financing. I don't. But once Obama made the commitment, it seems he is morally obligated to stick with it -- unless the "Change" he is for is changing his own mind.

I do wish, though, that The McCain campaign had used one of the following for background music.

Posted by: Greg at 06:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 2 kb.

She's willing to stand up for what's right for America -- and isn't one of those NIMBY creeps like Teddy Kennedy who is unwilling to have a little personal inconvenience in order to make this country energy independent.

In a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and key members of Congress, Governor Palin stressed the need to enact an energy policy that includes oil and gas production from domestic sources, since failure to enact a sound energy policy is having real-life consequences. The Governor reminded members of Congress that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres. She also assured members that any development would be conducted in a responsible and environmentally safe manner.

Bravo, Governor -- especially for the statistic cited in your letter that the area of drilling would be less than 1/4 the size of Dulles Airport. Or to use a different yardstick, the area is 80% the size of Boston's Logan International Airport in an area nearly three times the size of Massachusetts! In other words, the footprint of the development is miniscule.

Does this help Palin's case to be the GOP VP nominee, or does it hurt it? I'm not sure. On the one hand, it does show her to be a ballsy politician willing to take a stand. On the other hand, John McCain doesn't support drilling in ANWR. In the end, though, I don't think she is a serious candidate right now.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin as a GOP candidate for president in 2012 or 2016? I could see it -- and think that any ticket composed of her and Bobby Jindal would be a winner.

UPDATE: Great interview with Gov. Palin by Larry Kudlow.

Kudlow: Why don’t we just liberate, and decontrol, and deregulate the whole bloody energy business – whether it’s oil, gas, shale, nuclear, coal, natural gas, as well as wind and solar – why don’t we just decontrol, deregulate, go for an America first energy policy? Get independent of Saudi Arabia? America first. Create all of these millions of high paying jobs. Why isn’t anybody talking about that in this race? That’s the natural, Reaganesque thing to do. Isn’t it?

Palin: Yeah absolutely! YouÂ’re hitting the nail right on the head. ThatÂ’s what so many of us normal Americans are asking. The same thing. Why arenÂ’t the candidates talking like that? Where we can secure America and we can be more independent when we talk about energy sources if we could drill domestically.

Here we sent [Energy] Secretary Bodman overseas the other day, and our president had to visit the Saudis a few weeks ago, to ask them to ramp up development. ThatÂ’s nonsense. Not when you know that we have the supplies here. You have the supplies in your sister state called Alaska, where weÂ’re ready, willing and weÂ’re able to pump these supplies of energy, flow them into hungry markets across the U.S. We want it to happen. ItÂ’s Congress holding us back.

A real plan for American energy independence. Go Sarah!

H/T Hot Air, STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

John Rosenberg over at Discriminations makes some pointed observations about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

• opposes school vouchers for poor families but sends his own children to a private school;

• supports “campaign finance reform” but opts out of public financing since he can raise more money privately under the old, presumably corrupt system;

• attests to the centrality of his religious experience in shaping his identity but regards others, who are less privileged and culturally and politically different, as “clinging” to religion;

• promises an end to bitter partisanship even though his own record (what there is of it) is one of the most partisan in the Senate and his opponentÂ’s is one of the most bi-partisan;

• promises to transcend race even though he a) married, sat passively for 20 years in the pews of, and raised his children in a church led by and permeated with a militant afro-centrism that often found expression in parnoid (they invented AIDS to kill us), anti-white (“greedy whites” etc.), hatred of America (AmeriKKKa, etc.), and b) continues to support government programs that benefit some and burden others because of their race.

• claims to face the future “with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations” while, several lines later in the same speech, claiming that his own nomination will be regarded in the future as “the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless Â… the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to healÂ….”

It seems though, that John is "struggling" for the proper word to apply to the Obamessiah, given all these contradictions.

I've got my suggestion -- anybody want to contribute one of their own?

Posted by: Greg at 07:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

That will certainly be acceptable to the anti-gunners supporting this legislation.

Legislation that would make it illegal for holders of a New Jersey handgun-purchaser permit to buy more than one firearm during any calendar month is going before the state assembly on Monday, June 23.

"There's no good reason why anyone would need to purchase large quantities of handguns all at the same time," said Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley (D-32nd District), a sponsor of Assembly Bill 339, in a news release. "Criminal applications or unrecorded resale are the obvious implications of purchasing handguns in bulk."

Quigley added that passage of the measure -- a similar version of which was approved by the Assembly last year but failed in the state Senate -- "would help curtail gun access by criminal street gangs."

Well, other than that little Bill of Rights thing, they may have a point.

So let's apply their reasoning to the amendment just prior to the one thy seek to undermine.

Let's pass legislation limiting the number of issues any periodical can publish to one per calendar month. Let's similarly limit the number of articles any writer can have published to one a month. Prayer and attendance at religious service. Only once every 20 days. Ditto petitioning the government or engaging in peaceable assembly. After all, there's no good reason anyone would need to write, publish, pray, worship, petition, or assemble all at the same time. Limiting them to one expressive activity each month is therefore a reasonable way of achieving order in our society and preventing the irresponsible exercise of rights by those with nefarious purposes.

Unless, of course, one wishes to be exercise the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them free from interference by the government that is supposed to serve them rather than control them. But then again, limitng the ownership of firearms will certainly make it possible for the servant to become the master -- which is the ultimate goal of the sort of statists who seek to limit or eliminate gun ownership.

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

I've actually ignored MoveOn.org's "Baby Alex" ad, and hadn't thought to comment on it. After all, after being raised by his emasculating mother, lacking any strong male presence as a string of sex partners move in and out of baby-mama's bedroom, I've no doubt that Baby Alex will be wearing mini-skirts and open-towed pumps, saving his cash for sex-change surgery once he finishes his stint in drug rehab -- in other words, the Corps will be even less interested in Alex than he will be in the Corps.

But Bill Kristol's piece today makes an important point about the ad -- and the philosophy behind it.

Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And weÂ’re not entering any such world.

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he wonÂ’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But thatÂ’s not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

So the ad is not merely a dishonest distortion of John McCain's support for a post-war agreement for a US presence in the Middle East (much like our current arrangements in German, Japan, and Korea). It is an attack on the soldiers who serve and the fitness of the parents who "allow" their adult children to do so.

Which is why I am pleased that Kristol quotes one of my favorite bloggers, Beth from Blue Star Chronicles, who writes movingly of her feelings regarding her son, his service to our country, and the ad that defames both her and her son. I'd like to share her words, in a somewhat longer excerpt that used in the column.

As a mother, I have learned that I have to let my children grow up and make their choices in life, just as I made mine. I respect the choices my children have made and I support them 100%. I am proud of my son. His deployment changed him, but mostly in good ways. He is definitely a man now. He has a self-confidence and personal strength he never had before. That doesnÂ’t mean I wanted him to go to Iraq. It just means that I understand that at some point a mother has to stand aside and allow her son to become a man.

I would rather do it than send my son to do it, but thatÂ’s not how it works. People like moveon.org would rather we surrender and appease than stand up to danger. By doing that, they put our sons in more danger.

Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. SomeoneÂ’s son, somewhere. This commercial makes me angry. What she is saying is that she is not willing to do her part. SheÂ’ll put us all in more danger to hide herself and her child in a corner. I love my son as much as she loves hers. I held him in my lap when he was a baby. I watched him take his first steps and go to school for the first time. I sat with him when he was sick and listened to him when he was confused. I waited in terror the first time he took the car out for a drive by himself.

The hardest thing I have ever done is spend 15 months knowing that he was in imminent danger half-way around the world and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

This woman should get used to it. ThatÂ’s what its like to raise kids.

I honor the men and women who serve our country in uniform. And I honor the families, too, because I remember all too well what it was like to wait at home while my father served in Vietnam a lifetime ago -- including my mother coming back to the car in front of the post office to find my younger brother and I hysterically crying after hearing casualty reports on the radio at the height of the Tet Offensive. And i condemn the MoveOn.org ad because it insults both groups.

And I'm curious -- given Barack Obama's recent comments about the sorts of ads run by 527s and other surrogate groups, when will we hear him condemn the Baby Alex ad? When will he act to force MoveOn.org to drop the ad, and to rein-in the groups speaking on his behalf? And most importantly, when will he apologize to John McCain, our military personnel, and their families for this despicable ad? I think we all know the answer to that one.

H/T Wake Up America

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 909 words, total size 6 kb.

My guess -- yeah, they will.

Conservative journalist David Freddoso’s “The Case Against Barack Obama” will offer “a comprehensive, factual look at Obama,” according to Regnery Publishing President and Publisher Marjory Ross.

But the book’s subtitle makes clear its perspective: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”

Ross contends that the mainstream media has offered insufficient scrutiny of Obama and likens the goal of Freddoso’s book to that of “Unfit for Command,” the scathing assessment of Kerry’s war record that rocketed to number one on the New York Times best-seller list.

By highlighting negative aspects of ObamaÂ’s record and background, Ross says, Freddoso may compel others to offer more critical coverage of the Democratic nominee.

“I think it’s critically important that the country gets a clear and honest view of who is running and what they stand for—warts and all,” Ross says. “With ‘Unfit for Command,’ like ‘The Case against Barack Obama,’ we believe the media has whitewashed the candidate.”

Yet for all the attempts to compare this book with "Unfit for Command", I'd have to argue we are looking at something different here. It doesn't appear to be a hit piece per se -- rather, it is an examination of Obama's career and statements on the issues. What on earth is there to object to -- unless you don't like the conclusions that Freddoso draws. But after the lengthy list of anti-Bush books that have been published over the years -- including one long-discredited book that the Left still cites as gospel when it comes to questions of drug use -- on what basis can they object to Freddoso's tome?

And besides, shouldn't we look at candidates critically? Shouldn't we really delve into who they are, their associations, and their platforms? Or are we supposed to accept the words of this particular candidate on faith, without questioning if he has told us the whole truth?

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Following on the heels of his successful faith outreach through the endorsements of Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, the Obama campaign today announced the formation of its Axis of Evil Steering Committee. The impetus for the move was today's endorsement of the Democrat hopeful by North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il.

The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.

Given the fact that Chosun Sinbo does not make a move without the approval of the North Korean government, and that such approval would come from the highest levels, this can only be seen as an expression of support for Obama coming from the top leadership of the North Korean regime.

Of course, this is not the first supportive statement from one of the worlds leading tyrants that Obama has received. Moammar Qaddafi recently expressed his support for Obama (and warned that the evil Joooos are going to try to kill him). And Fidel Castro has also expressed his support for the Obamessiah. These respected world leaders have joined with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas and Columbian terrorist group FARC to express their fervent hopes for an Obama victory in November.

Seems to me that all Barack Obama needs now are the endorsements of Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden, and Iran's Mahmoud the Mad to have completed the Perfecta of endorsements by America's major enemies. Add to that the garden variety Marxists and Communists in this country and abroad, and you can see that the man has clearly formed a Revolutionary Democratic People's Coalition of support for his campaign.

H/T Malkin, LGF

Posted by: Greg at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

Lefties have been questioning John McCain's service and sacrifice during Vietnam. Last week I offered some documentation of the facts.

But here is more, from another one of the heroes, Col. Thomas Kirk, Jr. USAF (Ret.).

On Christmas night 1970, the North Vietnamese moved Kirk into a 45-man cell at the prison Americans POWs dubbed the Hanoi Hilton, where he met McCain. They spent the next four months becoming close friends, talking politics and sharing memories of their college days, and Kirk remembers how McCain's quick wit often lifted the spirits of his fellow POWs.

"He's extremely intelligent and tells the greatest stories in the world," Kirk said. "He could almost be a stand-up comic. He's very funny, the life of the party. He has a wonderful personality."

Even more important, Kirk said: "He's a man of absolute integrity and honor."

Despite devastating injuries, McCain rejected the possibility of early release offered by the North Vietnamese because of his father's status as an admiral.

"He said, 'I will not go unless we all go,'" Kirk said. "I will always admire him for that."

Although let's be honest -- Kirk's modesty doesn't allow him to see himself and his fellow POWs to be heroes.

"Every book about prisoners of war seems to make us into heroes," Kirk said. "I don't think we were heroes. We had the misfortune to be shot down, and the good fortune to survive.

"We were doing what we believed in," he said. "And we were blessed to come home."

Colonel, I admire that modesty, but let me tell you on behalf of a grateful nation that WE consider you, John McCain and the rest of your fellow POWs to be heroes.

And by the way, do you know where Tom Kirk will be on the night that John McCain is nominated to be the candidate of the Republican Party? He will be on the floor of the convention, one of Colorado's delegates to the Republican National Convention. My great hope is that the state's party leaders will allow him to cast the state's convention votes for his comrade in arms.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.

So much for his new style of politics. He's playing the same old DNC grievance game as he tells female members of the Congressional Black Caucus to "get over it."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words — “Get over it.” She found them dismissive, off-putting.

“Don’t use that terminology,” Watson told Obama.

So much for reaching out to the supporters of his major opponent -- the ones who are making noises about jumping ship to John McCain. He's telling them to be good little girls and do what he says -- after all, he's the Obamessiah.

But for the sake of sensitivity to these women, perhaps he can try Bill Clinton's favorite line to outraged women.

H/T Urban Grounds

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

By getting the same activist court that thrust gay marriage upon the state to strip the people of their right to undo that act of arrogant judicial activism.

Gay rights advocates asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.

"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.

"Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution."

The people of California know exactly what this amendment would do. It would reinforce the will of the people, who passed a proposition banning gay marriage in 2000. It would make clear to the courts and the legislature of California that the people meant what they said in 2000, and firmly establish that the attempts of the legislature to create gay marriage in defiance of that 2000 vote and the subsequent act of the California Supreme Court to find in the state's Constitution that which the people said was not there have been and are illegitimate usurpations of the power of the people to govern themselves.

Which is, of course, the very reason that these gay rights groups want to make sure that the people are effectively bound and gagged as the gay agenda is imposed upon them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

As Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats block energy independence and increased domestic petroleum production and refining.

Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.

Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations.

Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress.

The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as "the stronger leadership force in Washington." Today, it's a tie.

While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public's current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today's 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992.

In other words, the Democrats are sinking fast. The American public is finally waking up to the fact that we have an ineffective, do-nothing Congress. That is something that America cannot afford, especially since the solutions they have proposed are higher taxes, higher prices, and higher government spending -- when members are not proposing to nationalize huge sectors of the American economy.

By the way, does anyone notice something about the dates for the low ratings? June, 2008. August, 2007. March, 1992. In all three cases, the both houses of Congress have been controlled by Democrats. Americans seem to instinctively know that there is no reason to have confidence in the leadership of Democrats. Now if they will only go out and vote that way.

UPDATE: Hot Air shows that the the Dems are out of step with the American people when it comes to more drilling, refining, or even the use of more nuclear power. In each area, the American people favor action while the Democrats favor obstruction.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, the Democrats finally concede that national security is more important than partisan advantage -- or maybe that there is no partisan advantage to their continuing to undermine national security.

The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, yesterday approved a sweeping new surveillance law that extends the government's eavesdropping capability and effectively would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Ending a year-long battle with President Bush, the House passed, by a 293 to 129 vote, an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill provides a legal avenue for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecommunications firms to ward off about 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Before the vote, Bush said the plan, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, would help thwart new terrorist attacks. "It's vital that our intelligence community has the ability to learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they are planning," he said.

In other words, the current legislation means that there is no need for a warrant to listen in on calls from terrorists that pass through American switching stations and servers. This isn't a program of warrantless spying on Americans. After all, the US Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners outside the US -- unless the Supreme Court decides to grant terrorists outside the US more constitutional protection in defiance of all previous precedent.

Now here's where the political calculus does enter into this one -- Barack Obama has previously opposed such a measure. Does he continue to stick with that position, which is the position of the bulk of his far-Left supporters? Or does he again flip-flop (as he has on public financing for his campaign) -- and risk upsetting his base? Seems to me that the Obamateur is screwed either way he goes. And regardless, it shows that the only change that America can expect is in his positions on the issue -- which we therefore cannot believe in from day to day.

UPDATE: Hot Air notes that Obama has come out in favor of the new bill. Like I said above -- change that shows we cannot believe what Obama says from day to day. Stop the ACLU and Wake Up America note that the NetRoots supporters of Obama are in a lather already. I love it when Democrats eat their young!

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the reasons behind the current increase in gas prices has been the stagnation of our nation's refining capacity. Our refineries are already operating at 100%, so it is obvious that we need more refineries, right?

Well, not to Congressman Nick Lampson, (D-TX22). He refused to sign a discharge petition to allow the House of Representatives to even vote on a plan to increase the refinery capacity of the United States. This despite the fact that in the last 30 years America has seen a decrease of 60% in the number of oil refineries in the US, and the disruption of only 5% of current capacity at the time of Hurricane Katrina resulted in a 46 cent per gallon increase in gas prices. What happens when the next storm comes -- or a major fire or explosion disables one of the refineries located here in southeast Texas?

And let's not forget where the American people stand on this matter -- 60% of Americans support increased refinery capacity and domestic oil production. Lampson is clearly opposed.

So to all my fellow voters here in CD22, remember that the next time you fill up your tank -- Nick Lampson and his fellow Democrats don't want to increase America's energy independence in order to decrease gas prices. So for all of Slick Nick's talk about not being a liberal Democrat, Lampson sure does walk the walk of one.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Left -- in particular in the form of Dan Abrams of radical left mouthpiece MSNBC -- wants to make something of a John McCain quote that it clearly was not.

The quote -- as these folks are presenting it -- is this:

I really didnÂ’t love America until I was deprived of her company."

Here's how Abrams presented it.

The context of that comment -- which McCain has repeatedly used over the years -- is more like this.

HANNITY: — and then I understand you didn’t get any medical help for nine days. You spent two years of this five-and-a-half-year period in solitary confinement. What does that do to a person, to spend that much time in solitary confinement?

MCCAIN: I think it makes you a better person. Obviously, it makes you love America. I really didnÂ’t love America until I was deprived of her company, but probably the most important thing about it, Sean, is that I was privileged to have the opportunity to serve in the company of heroes.

Clearly, this is indicative of something else -- the impact of his time as a prisoner of war upon his his patriotism. Even Abrams pays lip service to that -- but in the service of defending Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America until her husband became a powerful political figure. I don't know about you, but I see the two statements as very different -- one about the privilege of service to one's country, the other about love of becoming one of the privileged. And given Michelle Obama's long string of comments about America being a mean, awful, racist country that needs to be fundamentally changed by her husband's use of force and coercion, I think the more negative interpretation of Michelle's comments are at least reasonable, even if she now wishes to dispel that interpretation.

But McCain's comment is different. Anyone who has been faced with a loss of someone or something dear, only to regain it, understands John McCain's meaning. I can honestly say I did not truly love my wife until 18 months ago, as I stood in a hospital emergency room and was confronted with the possibility that she might not live out the day. The sense of loss -- of the probability that I would have to live the rest of my life without the presence of the woman whose presence I started to take for granted after a decade of marriage -- made me recognize the depths of my love for her in a way I do not believe would have been possible without that experience. McCain's five-and-a-half years deprived of America -- two years of it deprived even of contact with his fellow American prisoners -- can only have amplified his love for this country and the freedom of which he was deprived in her service.

If the American Left had any shame, they would never make the comparison between the comments of John McCain and Michelle Obama. But we all know that the Left knows no shame.

And so let the comparisons continue -- they can only be good for John McCain, and for America as a whole.

H/T Commentary, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 3 kb.

Except this time it isn't New Orleans, according to Spike Lee.

“That’s gonna change, though…gonna be a real Chocolate City!”

* * *

When [film critic Lisa] Kennedy began a question with the phrase, “If Obama’s gonna become president…”, Lee interrupted. “There is no if! It changes everything…it’s gonna be Before Obama, and After Obama. And I’m gonna be at that inauguration, too.”

Chocolate City? I guess that means that when the left says the Obama candidacy isn't about race, that means it is really about race.

However, imagine if such a comment had come out of a Republican -- a white Republican, in particular. There would be outrage. Sort of like the kerfluffle over a disgusting button offered by an outside vendor at last week's Texas GOP convention (of which only four sold -- one to a reporter -- to the roughly 10,000 attendees).

But this is Spike Lee -- a black man of impeccable liberal to radical credentials. It is unlikely that the media will even cover this racially-charged statement and his comments deifying Barack Obama. After all, the "objective media" thinks he's right.

H/T Malkin, Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 04:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

I suppose we have to exclude the Chicago tribune from that category -- after all, they are giving away Barack Obama paraphernalia as a part of a subscription promotion!

So on my way to Saloon Democrats, I stop by the Walgreens on Clark and Lake. And what do I see just inside the entry? A woman with a bunch of baseball hats and tee-shirts trying to sell subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune.

The deal is, if you sign up for the Chicago Tribune at one dollar a week, you can get one of the hats or teeshirts for free. And what's on the teeshirt? Why "Obama" of course. It wasn't the official campaign logo but it was his name splashed across the white cotton fabric. The only reason I noticed is because the woman called out to everyone entering the store saying they could get a free "Obama" teeshirt if they signed up for the Tribune.

Now, I have nothing against the Chicago Tribune trying to cash in on the success of Barack Obama. Truth is, this is a candidate that makes all of us from the state of Illinois proud.

Now I can't help but point out that there are a fair number of folks in Illinois who are neither proud nor supportive of Barack Obama -- those would be Republicans and Hillary supporters -- but that isn't the point. How can the Chicago Tribune be viewed as a credible, objective news source when it is enticing folks to subscribe by giving away items promoting one candidate for office?

But the scary thing is that the Democrat blogger didn't even see anything wrong with this.

Being a liberal and therefore a believer in the ultimate redemptive nature of human beings, I can only hope that this marketing scheme is a sign that the Chicago Tribune will finally come clean, do the responsible thing, and endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Excuse me? The only way to be "clean" is to support the most liberal (and least qualified) presidential candidate in American history -- a candidate who has broken his word on running a clean campaign by forgoing public financing and refusing to rein-in his supporters while demanding that John McCain do both?

And how can the Left make the argument that the media isn't in the tank for Obama when they are using him in an effort to improve the bottom line? How can anyone expect objective reporting from the paper when it has become a cheering section for the candidate? That should be the biggest concern -- after all, this isn't the Cubs, Sox, Bears, or Bulls on a playoff run, it is a race the presidency.

H/T Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

As you probably know, we here in Texas CD22 have a Democrat congressman due to Tom DeLay's attempts to game the system for his own personal ego-stroking in 2006. In 2008, Lampson faces a strong opponent in Pete Olson -- so strong that Lampson is looking to dodge the only scheduled debate between the two.

A few days after an announcement that U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson and challenger Pete Olson would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate, Lampson's office has indicated he might not make it.

The Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce had announced 12 days ago that incumbent Democratic District 22 Congressman Lampson and his Republican opponent, Olson, would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate on Oct. 20.

But on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesman from Lampson's office said "at this point the congressman's attendance is just tentative for now."

Only tentative? The Chamber had set the date before Lampson even knew who his opponent would be -- and only after Lampson agreed to the date. Why the change? Why isn't he willing to debate Olson? For that matter, with Olson willing to have multiple debates, why isn't Lampson willing to commit to a debate in Harris County, where 40% of the voters in the district live? Could it be that he knows that the more he is out and about among mixed audiences, the clearer his liberal tendencies will be?

H/T The Next Right

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, anyone who has listened to the man over the last six months knows that Barack Obama will say anything he has to in order to win the presidency -- even if it means throwing close friends and associates under the bus. So who cares if he has now heaved beneath the wheels the system of public campaign financing that Democrats have long claimed is the last bulwark against the outright purchase of public offices by special interests?

Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

* * *

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Now let's point some things out here.

First, Barack Obama indicated months ago that he would take public funding if his opponent did. John McCain is doing so -- but now Barack Obama is refusing to abide by his pledge. Was Obama lying at the time he made the pledge, or is he simply being a self-serving hypocrite at the very time his own party has filed suit to FORCE McCain to accept public financing?

In addition, what efforts has he made to shut down his own allies and their "smears and attacks" against McCain? You know, things like the despicable MoveOn.org ad featuring the unfit mother and her baby.

Obama, of course, knows that neither he nor McCain have the ability to shut down such ads, either by their parties, 527 groups, or any other source. Exerting such control would be illegal -- making every dollar spent by the organizations in question an illegal campaign contribution by those organizations as coordinated expenditures.

As for lobbyists and corporate interests, Patrick Ruffini shows who is really the benefactor of such money -- and it ain't John McCain.

Frankly, I'd have more respect for Obama's move if he had forthrightly said that he wasn't taking the cash because he could afford not to, having the ability to raise more than he would get from the government. What's more, Id have respect for him if instead of talking about fixing the system, he denounced it as a scam designed to limit the speech of the American people and candidates for the presidency, and declared that we need to "end it, not mend it".

But Obama doesn't believe such things. He fully supports a system of campaign speech regulation and limitation -- for everyone except himself. Barack Obama, you see, is different -- the same rules and standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to him.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.

You know, I didn't think that the left could sink any lower than debauched literati Gore Vidal's "POW denial" published over the weekend in the New York Times.

Unfortunately, it would appear that I was wrong. Just consider this disgusting commentary published yesterday at HuffPo.

John McCain was in the navy and then he was in the U.S. Senate. He has never cashed a check a bureaucrat didn't write. I'm not trying to be glib, and I realize he was doing a solemn and dangerous job, killing people from the sky. But it was still government work.

Wait, except for those years as a POW. A sick but undeniable fact about John McCain: The only period in his life when he wasn't living off the American taxpayer, he was living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.

John McCain's father was in the navy and his father was in the navy. The last McCain who didn't live in government housing owned a plantation in Mississippi when the state still had slaves.

Which is why John McCain always sounds so emotional when he gets to this line in his stump speech:

"I am absolutely committed to reducing the size of government."

What he's promising is eventually he'll die.

I'd ask if the author, one Chris Kelly, has any decency or shame, but I think the words written above are illustrative of the fact that the answer would be a definitive "HELL NO!"

In one little snippet of a column, this left-wing cretin denigrates military service (a four-generation McCain family tradition that protects the right of scum like Kelly to insult the military), denounces McCain's time as a POW, and tries to make McCain personally responsible for the acts of an ancestor which occurred three-quarters of a century before his birth.

But let's just consider for a minute what we are seeing here, as a pattern has emerged that I think is important.

In the last week, we have had both Kelly and Vidal attack McCain for his military service and time as a POW. A couple of weeks back, Senator Tom Harkin tried to argue that McCain's military career and time as a POW made him unfit for the presidency because of their impact on his views. Some have questioned McCain's retirement pay and disability pension. There have been repeated questions about McCain's mental stability based upon imputed diagnoses of PTSD.

Expect five more months of attacks on McCain's military service and time as a POW. Expect the same folks who objected when legitimate questions were raised about John Kerry's military service (including documented lies by Kerry and his refusal to release the records of his time in the Navy) or legitimate policy differences were raised against former Senator Max Cleland to launch vicious assaults on John McCain and his military career -- especially the heroic nature of he and his fellow POWs (for such attacks do touch on the heroism of each and every one of them -- after all, they also spent their time "living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.") as they resisted brutal treatment at the hands of their captors that far exceeded "US prisoner abuse" like panties on the head at Abu Ghraib. As a teen I was honored to know one of McCain's fellow POWs and saw some of the scars that the torture left -- and I know about these men came home half-starved, rather than getting fat and receiving advanced medical care like the detainees at Gitmo.

Aren't these the same liberals who tell us time and again that they "support the troops" and "honor their service"? How can they make such a claim when they would insult the service of a candidate who made a career of the military and minimize or deny the courageous nature of that candidate's military service? The answer is that individuals of integrity could not -- which means that your average Democrat politician or left-wing activists will have no problem claiming one while doing the other.

Most disgustingly of all, while the Left has attacked McCain over and over again regarding his military service, they insist that they will not allow Republicans to "Swift Boat" Barack Obama -- a man who was too busy "community organizing" to even consider putting on his nation's uniform.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 AM | Comments (123) | Add Comment
Post contains 777 words, total size 7 kb.

1 "He has never cashed a check a bureaucrat didn't write. I'm not trying to be glib, and I realize he was doing a solemn and dangerous job, boffing staff and supporters. But it was still Federal government work. Wait, except for those years as a Governor. A sick but undeniable fact about BJ Clinton: The only period in his life when he wasn't living off the American taxpayer, he was living off the Arkansas taxpayer." Warm and damp in Mom's basement this time of year.

Posted by: Ziggy at Tue Jun 17 09:54:13 2008 (+Wut0)

2 Swift Boatman for "Truth" went way beyond legitimate questions and created the system where every candidate's military service will be slanted to look bad. Anyone who supports them can hardly complain about the same happening to their candidate. I have nothing against McCain's service record. However, people criticizing it may highlight for everyone the ugliness of those tactics and those of the "Swift Boatman". Until then, any candidate will have to live with these questions. That is the great service the "Swift Boatman" have done for the veterans of this country.

Posted by: BK at Fri Jun 27 00:50:14 2008 (rTueN)

3 free bestiality bestiality movies http://en.netlog.com/bestialitytube bestiality bestiality porn

Posted by: Affizreeple at Wed Jul 23 04:30:30 2008 (NOOfp)

4 Very good and informative website. Thank you webmaster!

Posted by: ringtones at Sat Aug 2 10:29:31 2008 (Af3NX)

5 Cool theme. Thank you mister!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Xenical at Sat Aug 2 15:49:31 2008 (p/aiC)

6 Thank you master for this cool blog. I add this blog to my bookmark. Regards!

Posted by: Kristin at Sat Aug 2 23:49:59 2008 (BYzyu)

7 ) happy...

Posted by: Misy at Sun Aug 3 03:37:24 2008 (UX27O)

8 Very good website. Thank you webmaster!!!

Posted by: Shakira at Sun Aug 3 07:38:39 2008 (Af3NX)

9 Cool comments. Big thanks for all visitors and for author. I love this site!!!

Posted by: celebrity at Mon Aug 4 00:28:39 2008 (XrPZ3)

10 Thank you master fot this site! I love you!

Posted by: Lany at Mon Aug 4 06:13:07 2008 (vzfcg)

11 Nice.... Cool work and excellent Site! Good source of factual information! Cheers.

Posted by: Britny at Mon Aug 4 13:07:53 2008 (D3Y0R)

12 Cool information. Thank you!

Posted by: Britny at Mon Aug 4 19:17:58 2008 (1jXAp)

13 Cool and very interested theme!

Posted by: Stormy at Tue Aug 5 00:41:10 2008 (Af3NX)

14 Hi all! Very good theme. Thank you owner! P.S. This site the best!

Posted by: Vanesa at Tue Aug 5 02:33:28 2008 (lo1bD)

15 Wow.... nice...

Posted by: Kate at Tue Aug 5 13:10:40 2008 (bEnmE)

16 Real nice comments. I want do also. Sorry for comment. I need moneys Regards!!!!! Kiss.

Posted by: Tawny at Tue Aug 5 15:19:14 2008 (6WANb)

17 Good website and very big job!!! Thank you MASTER and regards!

Posted by: Britny at Wed Aug 6 07:13:29 2008 (F1AWs)

18 Thanks you for this very informative website!

Posted by: web at Wed Aug 6 09:21:54 2008 (jLjG3)

19 Good website and cool design I love this site. Please write to me on mail. I have some questions Thx

Posted by: Kyla at Wed Aug 6 11:40:09 2008 (dtTYD)

20 Very good blog. Thank you master!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary at Wed Aug 6 13:43:29 2008 (jLjG3)

21 Cool website! Best regards and nice day!

Posted by: Jaime at Wed Aug 6 22:25:37 2008 (XvFY8)

22 Im very like doing this research paper on legalizing pot. I like information that you have given me! Thank you and regards!

Posted by: Jesica at Thu Aug 7 03:18:35 2008 (D+Z/C)

23 Cool blog, cool comments. Thank you.

Posted by: celeb at Thu Aug 7 07:38:00 2008 (+Dfak)

24 Good thematic website and great design. Big thanks for webmaster!!!

Posted by: Jesica at Thu Aug 7 12:36:15 2008 (ti6vF)

25 Very blog website. Thank you webmaster!!!

Posted by: Asia at Thu Aug 7 15:58:52 2008 (FvFz5)

26 Good work! Excellent Site. Good source of factual information! Cheers.

Posted by: lesbian at Thu Aug 7 20:00:38 2008 (Z6Dxi)

27 Very good blog and cool articles!!! Thank you webmaster!!!

Posted by: Eliot at Thu Aug 7 22:08:10 2008 (Z6Dxi)

28 Nice site and good design!!! I like it!!!

Posted by: Chloe at Fri Aug 8 00:32:47 2008 (KFZFu)

29 Cool thene!!! No comments!!!! Regards!!!!

Posted by: cruise at Fri Aug 8 03:18:46 2008 (IwyB+)

30 Yo men! Real good stuff! Appreciate it men!

Posted by: Bai at Fri Aug 8 07:32:17 2008 (OixM2)

31 Good website and very nice comments. Thank you!

Posted by: Carmen at Fri Aug 8 15:19:45 2008 (6tenN)

32 Good website and nice content!!! Thank you master!

Posted by: Petra at Fri Aug 8 22:42:21 2008 (7iBPf)

33 Very good blog! I shall visit again and I shall inform my friends

Posted by: sexy at Sat Aug 9 05:12:36 2008 (PKaWE)

34 Good site and design. I very like your site!!!

Posted by: Katherine at Sat Aug 9 09:37:47 2008 (oDQgQ)

35 Good website, cool content and design. Big thanks for webmaster.

Posted by: Adriana at Sat Aug 9 12:19:37 2008 (ASYyi)

36 Cool website! I love you, master!

Posted by: Jesica at Sat Aug 9 14:12:33 2008 (gfPxm)

37 Hi WebMaster! Real good website! Good work!!!! Thank You!

Posted by: Britny at Sat Aug 9 16:33:53 2008 (Wkuwy)

38 Hi all!. Very good and interested blog! I love this blog. Please send your frends link to this very good blog. Thank you owner for all gorgeous themes!

Posted by: Britny at Sat Aug 9 18:48:16 2008 (tH8Sv)

39 Lol Happy theme!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

Posted by: Emma at Sun Aug 10 08:13:11 2008 (Z9CmK)

40 Nice website. Very cool content. Thank you!!!

Posted by: Gwyneth at Sun Aug 10 15:21:41 2008 (K044p)

41 Very good website. Thank you master!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: naked at Sun Aug 10 22:22:14 2008 (5qRSc)

42 Good job! Thanks!

Posted by: Byonce at Mon Aug 11 00:52:29 2008 (1AUOf)

43 Nice site and good design!!! I like it!!!

Posted by: Madona at Mon Aug 11 03:53:50 2008 (ZTTXY)

44 Cool erbsite. Thank you master!

Posted by: Tara at Mon Aug 11 05:56:06 2008 (S2JUv)

45 Cool design!!! Your site the beso of the best!!!! I add this site to my statrpage!!! Thank you and please update every day!!!

Posted by: Wanda at Mon Aug 11 08:00:53 2008 (w86qY)

46 Good website and cool design I love this site. Please write to me on mail. I have some questions Thx

Posted by: Trish at Mon Aug 11 10:31:17 2008 (MfMiq)

47 Hi mister! Cool website and nice content!!! Thanks!!!

Posted by: Kristin at Mon Aug 11 21:45:55 2008 (MfMiq)

48 Very cool themes. Thanks mister. I add this blog to my bookmarks. I want more!!!!! Regards!

Posted by: Kate at Tue Aug 12 04:34:12 2008 (vE+Hm)

49 Good job! This theme very interested and most recent. Thanks.

Posted by: busted at Tue Aug 12 15:45:25 2008 (AslQC)

50 Cool comments. Big thanks for all visitors and for author. I love this site!!!

Posted by: Katie at Tue Aug 12 19:47:54 2008 (MfMiq)

51 Hi all! Very good website. Thank you owner! This site the best!

Posted by: Angelina at Wed Aug 13 03:36:07 2008 (cC4Tp)

52 Good site and design. I very like your site!!!

Posted by: Shay at Wed Aug 13 05:48:23 2008 (Bn5VT)

53 Cool theme. Thank you mister!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Angelina at Wed Aug 13 07:41:24 2008 (CZwmJ)

54 Very informative theme! Big thanks for blog owner!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Maria at Wed Aug 13 12:00:22 2008 (h8iOA)

55 Very good website! Thank you!

Posted by: Scarlet at Wed Aug 13 16:14:41 2008 (70LbG)

56 Very informative website! Big thanks for website owner!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Jena at Wed Aug 13 18:09:45 2008 (PmheD)

57 Hi all. Good website and nice comments ) Happy day

Posted by: toples at Wed Aug 13 22:13:07 2008 (GZifZ)

58 Nice

Posted by: Jenifer at Thu Aug 14 00:12:10 2008 (j5N/B)

59 You have made a very interest theme, thank you!

Posted by: Mariah Carey at Thu Aug 14 04:30:49 2008 (NwN73)

60 Thank you master for this very good article

Posted by: celeb at Thu Aug 14 11:43:51 2008 (VxlAC)

61 This is a wonderful wealth of information. Good Luck!

Posted by: celebrity at Thu Aug 14 13:30:50 2008 (g8CnB)

62 Bog thanks for this mega informative website )

Posted by: teen at Thu Aug 14 20:22:58 2008 (2UOoJ)

63 Good website. I shall visit again and I shall inform my best friends.

Posted by: Vanesa at Fri Aug 15 09:23:49 2008 (84ciS)

64 Hi webmaster! Thank you for this good site and this nice guestbook! I like it. P.S. Sorry for post, a also need money

Posted by: Hale at Fri Aug 15 12:30:33 2008 (MPODS)

65 Cool theme. Thank you mister!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Keira at Fri Aug 15 13:55:51 2008 (sPG/y)

66 Hi webmaster and all guests! I very like this site and want to add this site to bookmark but a cant do this. Please help me. Please write to me on mail. Thanks! Regards!

Posted by: Jenifer at Fri Aug 15 15:25:55 2008 (/R9KB)

67 Hi all! Very good website. Thank you owner! This site the best!

Posted by: gymnasts at Fri Aug 15 18:43:21 2008 (knMFQ)

68 Good job! This theme very interested and most recent. Thanks.

Posted by: Tyra at Sat Aug 16 09:26:57 2008 (R8wkI)

69 Hi webmaster and all guests! I very like this site and want to add this site to bookmark but a cant do this. Please help me. Please write to me on mail. Thanks! Regards!

Posted by: celeb at Sat Aug 16 12:41:51 2008 (m04I5)

70 Good website. I shall visit again and I shall inform my friends

Posted by: Traci at Sat Aug 16 21:49:08 2008 (K66nE)

71 Very informative theme! Big thanks for blog owner!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Vida at Sun Aug 17 10:22:25 2008 (dnDkg)

72 Hi owner. Your site the best. I love all your pages ) Thanks )

Posted by: celebs at Mon Aug 18 09:57:59 2008 (y80vI)

73 This website is very interested, I never see anything. Thank you owner!

Posted by: Rachel at Mon Aug 18 14:41:03 2008 (Fxfqo)

74 Great site! I will bookmark for my sons to view as well.

Posted by: Leah at Mon Aug 18 23:34:29 2008 (oXjKC)

75 Hi all! I see that all like posting to this cool guest book! I also!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: Leah at Tue Aug 19 16:05:01 2008 (No5bC)

76 My congratulations!!! Your site have number one position in my bookmarks! Regards!

Posted by: Rihana at Wed Aug 20 02:21:35 2008 (viXbn)

77 Wow.... good job.... thank you!!!!!....

Posted by: Jenifer at Wed Aug 20 15:01:40 2008 (Em9n8)

78 Cool erbsite. Thank you master!

Posted by: Megan at Thu Aug 21 09:11:45 2008 (Rf9sa)

79 Very good theme thanks

Posted by: Diane at Thu Aug 21 13:06:38 2008 (Kxixg)

80 Very good blog. Thank you master!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: naked at Thu Aug 21 16:27:34 2008 (dt3+D)

81 Good website! I add this site to my first bookmarks. Thanks to owner

Posted by: Marisa at Thu Aug 21 23:22:41 2008 (KPaxu)

82 Very informative website. Thank you! +1 bookmark !!!

Posted by: Fergie at Fri Aug 22 02:36:49 2008 (aLHj7)

83 My congratuations

Posted by: Patricia at Fri Aug 22 13:32:22 2008 (e+cCe)

84 Cool website, cool comments. Thank you.

Posted by: Lindsay at Sat Aug 23 01:41:49 2008 (GwPwQ)

85 Good job! This theme very interested and most recent. Thanks.

Posted by: Horton at Sat Aug 23 17:34:20 2008 (/zObG)

86 Good work! Excellent Site. Good source of factual information! Cheers.

Posted by: Britny at Sun Aug 24 03:10:27 2008 (TZpGt)

87 Lol...... :0) Nice!

Posted by: Pamela at Mon Aug 25 08:19:41 2008 (NuODR)

88 My congratulations!!! Your site have number one position in my bookmarks! Regards!

Posted by: Florida at Mon Aug 25 12:22:30 2008 (2ZaRK)

89 Good theme. Nice comments

Posted by: airport at Mon Aug 25 16:41:00 2008 (nrhJw)

90 Cool theme... Thank you master!!!

Posted by: credit at Mon Aug 25 20:41:50 2008 (e98Ag)

91 Nice theme!

Posted by: apartment at Tue Aug 26 12:02:14 2008 (UCmSI)

92 Good and very informative website! Thx!

Posted by: Stanford at Thu Aug 28 07:17:10 2008 (uaitN)

93 Good website. I shall visit again and I shall inform my friends

Posted by: Llc at Thu Aug 28 17:57:52 2008 (uLE8j)

94 Thank you master for this very good article

Posted by: Tera at Fri Aug 29 18:16:33 2008 (O1uO5)

95 WOW.... cool pages.... cool comments.... cool design..... thx....

Posted by: staffing at Fri Aug 29 23:10:55 2008 (RPWSp)

96 Nice theme!

Posted by: Nikki at Sat Aug 30 19:52:33 2008 (D3Y0R)

97 You have made a very interest theme, thank you!

Posted by: Alexis at Sat Aug 30 23:38:03 2008 (H4qtr)

98 Wow.... good job.... thank you!!!!!....

Posted by: Aria at Sun Aug 31 04:39:30 2008 (rAzti)

99 Cool theme I love your blog!

Posted by: Amy at Sun Aug 31 08:49:09 2008 (EnnO+)

100 Nice website. Very cool content. Thank you!!!

Posted by: Amy at Sun Aug 31 13:06:37 2008 (pmdqA)

101 Very good blog and very cool theme. Thanks )

Posted by: actres at Mon Sep 1 01:44:19 2008 (QpkY7)

102 Is a good and very informative blog. Thanks!

Posted by: anything at Mon Sep 1 06:00:02 2008 (VHmwg)

103 Cool theme! Need more comments!

Posted by: Jena at Mon Sep 1 15:00:56 2008 (B41r0)

104 Cool thene!!! No comments!!!! Regards!!!!

Posted by: ashton at Mon Sep 1 23:08:05 2008 (91iPt)

105 Hi guy! nice site and cool design!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: actres at Tue Sep 2 08:32:07 2008 (Ly7Xj)

106 Good and nice websoie vith creative design! I very like it! Thanks!!!!!!!

Posted by: absolutely at Tue Sep 2 13:15:14 2008 (zJOXw)

107 Real good site. Thanks webmaster(s)

Posted by: blog at Tue Sep 2 17:53:59 2008 (CpP/N)

108 Hi all! I see that all like posting to this cool guest book! I also!!! Regards!!!

Posted by: celeb at Wed Sep 3 10:31:18 2008 (R6FZV)

109 Cool comments. Big thanks for all visitors and for author. I love this site!!!

Posted by: latina at Wed Sep 3 22:47:10 2008 (Mfp5b)

110 Good website! I like this site and add it to bookmark. Thanks!

Posted by: anime at Thu Sep 4 03:53:03 2008 (zzidg)

111 This is a wonderful wealth of information. Good Luck!

Posted by: hentai at Thu Sep 4 08:57:49 2008 (k8slc)

112 Hi all, I look nice comments.... Happy day!

Posted by: hot at Thu Sep 4 13:44:19 2008 (g0rhX)

113 Very good theme. Thank you! .... Mister, I very like this site ...

Posted by: amateur at Thu Sep 4 18:08:16 2008 (+OEUg)

114 Very good website. Thank you master for this all pages!!! Regards!

Posted by: interracial at Fri Sep 5 03:28:35 2008 (k8slc)

115 Nice site. Good content and cool design. Thank you!

Posted by: lesbian at Fri Sep 5 07:48:11 2008 (f12bf)

116 Good website. Thank you master!!!

Posted by: busty at Fri Sep 5 11:51:58 2008 (ciKXV)

117 Good website! I add this site to my first bookmarks. Thanks to owner

Posted by: nude at Fri Sep 5 20:31:29 2008 (6ONcl)

118 Hi all. Good website and nice comments ) Happy day

Posted by: free at Sat Sep 6 06:00:40 2008 (Lm4PN)

119 Hi all!. Very good and interested blog! I love this blog. Please send your frends link to this very good blog. Thank you owner for all gorgeous themes!

Posted by: asian at Sun Sep 7 02:37:00 2008 (MxMD0)

120 Good pages and design! Thanks webmaster!

Posted by: stripping at Sun Sep 7 10:34:47 2008 (MfMiq)

121 WOW.... cool pages, cool comments.... thx....

Posted by: teen at Sun Sep 7 22:23:33 2008 (wENiO)

122 downloadable Adobe Acrobat 7 MAC software

Posted by: JulietOreira at Mon Oct 6 17:03:44 2008 (9Q8CL)

123 Canadian Pharmacy, Buy generic Viagra, Cialis, Levitra. No Prescription Required , Worldwide Shipping. http://viagra-cialis.100webspace.net/

Posted by: Onesiodintesy at Wed Oct 15 20:25:45 2008 (0K8fy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Then they need to clean up their own house before targeting John McCain over a supporter's 18-year-old stupid comment.

Let's take it from the top.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) has decided to hold a fundraiser initially sponsored by a controversial Texas oilman later in the summer at a different venue, according to an aide who asked not to be identified.

McCain had planned to hold a joint fundraiser with the Republican National Committee on Monday at the Midland, Tex., home of Clayton Williams, who ran for governor of his state in 1990. But after reporters from The Washington Post and ABC inquired Friday about a remark Williams made comparing rape to bad weather -- "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it" -- the campaign cancelled the fundraiser. Williams has apologized for the remarks.

Democrats have been in a lather ever since the initial fundraiser was announced. They've even gone so far as to demand that McCain return any campaign cash even peripherally connected to Williams. McCain has refused.

But if the Democrats are so outraged about the comment and insistent that the GOP disassociate itself from Williams, what ever are they going to do about this rape-joker in their own midst?

In the 1995 New York magazine profile of “Saturday Night Live,” Franken is described among a group of show writers sounding out a spoof of Andy Rooney centered on a sedative pill bottle found in the “60 Minutes” essayist’s desk. Franken and fellow writers Norm MacDonald and Jim Downey kick around fictional Rooney responses to the discovery of the bottle.

The article quotes Franken putting an edgy twist on the discussion: “And ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when Lesley’s passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’ Or `That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, `When she passes out I put her in various positions and take pictures of her.”

MacDonald takes it a step further, suggesting that the Rooney rape comment be directed at other “60 Minutes” icons Mike Wallace and Ed Bradley. Franken chimes in: “What about `I drag Mike into my office and rape him. Right here! I guess that makes me bad.”‘

I don't know about you, but I find the Franken "humor" to be significantly more offensive than Williams' inappropriate remark -- and since it is both more recent than the Williams comment and made by the party's candidate for election, it is clearly of much greater concern and of much more importance.

So let's offer a compromise deal -- McCain will forgo the money raised by Williams and avoid campaigning within 50 miles of Midland, Texas in return for the Democrats forcing Al Franken off the ballot and endorsing Norm Coleman for reelection. After all, the Jackass party did set the bar on this one.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 4 kb.

1 buy ambien online without a prescription http://www.justin.tv/ambien/profile

Posted by: buy ambien online without a prescription at Sun Jan 11 23:59:04 2009 (uYNya)

2 order ambien

Posted by: main at Tue Jan 20 22:07:47 2009 (icSL8)

3 ambien insomnia

Posted by: main at Wed Jan 21 03:21:21 2009 (ODI2D)

4 where can i buy ambien online

Posted by: main at Wed Jan 21 04:19:20 2009 (DSfoD)

5 That was like half a year ago. purchase fioricet with fioricet mail order . But I think this one is good.

Posted by: purchase fioricet at Sat Jan 31 13:12:36 2009 (wpM/J)

6 I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. cheap generic ambien http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?u=23746 other ambien online prescription But I think this one is good.

Posted by: ambien online prescription at Wed Feb 4 16:07:08 2009 (aVxOa)

7 Cool, ambien addiction of course, where can i buy ambien online . All the best to your final Term!

Posted by: ambien addiction at Wed Feb 4 19:13:38 2009 (Kga7r)

8 Thanks for adding the links. buying ambien in the uk http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?u=23746 some cheap ambien See you!

Posted by: cheap ambien at Thu Feb 5 02:28:36 2009 (alQfR)

9 Aboslutely. ambien coupons http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?u=23746 buy generic ambien cr without a prescription Keep us posted and good luck!!

Posted by: buy generic ambien cr without a prescription at Thu Feb 5 02:28:55 2009 (hFrlJ)

10 comment6, high risk personal loans
, enuwo, Cheapest groping train
, , Debt Settlement - Best Decisions
, :-(, Good military loans
, rjtm, no credit check student loans
, 8[,

Posted by: keeley at Thu Feb 12 03:00:07 2009 (rb/nu)

11 Nice. Very funny! paxil online purchase zoloft online buy lamisil online buy plavix zithromax online Nice to meet you!

Posted by: Visit at Mon Feb 16 12:00:27 2009 (WuLwc)

12 WOW! zithromax 250mg cheap lamisil drug paxil order celebrex generic celexa Sorry!

Posted by: My page at Mon Feb 16 14:28:29 2009 (FT372)

13 Amazing work! order zithromax nexium pill celebrex discount paxil cr order celexa . All the best to your final Term!

Posted by: Main at Thu Feb 19 23:49:33 2009 (Isqky)

14 WOW! ambien online without prescription except ambien generic name . Have a nice day

Posted by: ambien online without prescription at Wed Feb 25 08:29:36 2009 (eXrRe)

15 Nice try! ambien cheap more than buy ambien without a prescription overnight delivery . Try this!

Posted by: ambien cheap at Fri Feb 27 23:48:43 2009 (kVjoo)

16 Thanks, nice share! http://weightlosslaser.blogspot.com

Posted by: Billy Boy at Fri May 1 03:43:06 2009 (eaNB/)

17 hi usvers, , lorazepam, lorazepam, http://www.totalfilm.com/forums/member.php?u=23208#3 lorazepam, >:-],

Posted by: norco drug at Tue May 19 14:44:06 2009 (DYYdL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When the difference is two percentage points in a national poll, and the margin of error is 2%, that means that you have a statistical tie.

Voters are closely divided between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted June 12-14, with 44% of national registered voters favoring Obama for president and 42% backing McCain.

What does this really mean?

1) This race will be close through the end of the campaign, barring some serious misstep by one of the candidates.
2) For all the claims that Barack Obama is the "candidate of destiny", the numbers don't bear that out.
3) Given the jump in the number of respondents who are committed to neither candidate that has occurred since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, there exists a serious possibility that McCain could win the popular vote by appealing to disaffected Democrats, provided he can do so without losing the GOP base.

And let's not forget -- these national numbers don't mean much. It all comes down to the vote in the Electoral College, so it is really a case of contesting 51 separate elections at once.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, going out and proclaiming in the press that you WANT to be Vice President is generally a pretty good way of not getting the job.

Two former senators and one sitting governor thought to be possible candidates for vice president on Sunday expressed minimal interest in the job but didn't remove themselves from consideration.

Been there, done that, said one.

Another is focused on being Louisiana's governor.

The third said it was presumptuous to reject something not yet offered.

That was in contrast to former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner's statement Saturday removing himself from consideration as a possible running mate for Democrat Barack Obama.

Let's be honest here -- there are only two votes that count regarding the vice presidency -- those of John McCain and Barack Obama. They will pick who they want to pick. And even if Warner -- and former Senator Fred Thompson -- say no right now, they will almost certainly come around in the event that their party's nominee asks them. That also explains why the rest of the diverse group of individuals mentioned in the article said what they said -- they know that all the displays of interest in the world can't help and might hurt -- and that it is all irrelevant until lightning strikes and they are asked to be the running mate.

Besides -- who was the last losing vice presidential candidate to get his party's nomination AND win the presidency when nominated? more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, Saturday's sessions of the Texas GOP convention ended without much of significance to report. The one potential area of conflict -- a challenge for national committeewoman -- came to naught when challenger Borah Van Dormolen chose to withdraw in favor of incumbent Cathie Adams rather than push for a floor fight after being nominated for the position by 1/3 of the Congressional districts.

But that leads me to look towards 2010, and the real decisions facing Texas Republicans. The statewide races will point us in a new direction, given the desire of many Republicans to evict Rick Perry from the Governor's office -- with a shuffle of other elected officials coming in the scramble to fill any resulting vacancies.

And make no mistake -- I have no interest in supporting Rick Perry in 2010. A commentary in today's Houston Chronicle by Dr. Steve Hotze (whose opinions and endorsements rarely sway me) sums up my feelings on the matter quite well.

In August 2007, after he was safely re-elected to what I am sure he thought was his final term as our governor, you may recall how Rick Perry took the opportunity he had before the foreign media in Mexico City to criticize what were mostly Republicans in Congress who opposed passing an immigration amnesty bill that would legalize millions of workers.

Perry also told his Mexican hosts he supported a system that would temporarily legalize foreign workers. According to the Chronicle, Perry said such a system would allow for a "free flow of individuals between these countries who want to work, who want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico."

Of course, there might be nothing wrong with this statement had Rick Perry not made getting tough on immigration one of the central planks of his re-election campaign leading up to November 2006. Quite the contrary, he featured tough border security as a TV ad and publicly endorsed a concept to empower Web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.

Bait and switch. He fooled us once.

Remember, too, how in February 2007 within days of taking office for his second full term Rick Perry tried to end-run our state Legislature and mandate that our sixth-grade girls, who are 11 and 12 years old, must receive questionable vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases. He did this not only without saying a word about it on the 2006 campaign trail, but also without permitting any public testimony on such a delicate matter from such disinterested parties as, say, parents.

Bait and switch. He fooled us twice.

But perhaps most objectionable of all is what goes into effect this month: the Rick Perry business tax. The Perry Business Tax, passed by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature during the special session in May 2006, was revised and further complicated during the 2007 regular legislative session. It is the largest tax increase in the history of Texas. The average small business will pay 10 percent of its income in new state taxes, while large corporations were given loopholes by the governor in exchange for their support.

Add to that the Trans Texas Corridor mess and I see four very good reasons for opposing Perry's renomination for the office, much less his reelection to it in the fall of 2010.

Friday morning I unexpectedly had the opportunity to speak with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison at her booth in the near-deserted Exhibition Hall before any of the caucuses or sessions began (showing up 45 minutes before the sessions start helps one avoid the crowds), and I told her that I look forward to supporting her in her as-yet-unofficial gubernatorial race. I've hinted around this before, but I am now willing to state my position definitively -- especially after getting it straight from the horse's mouth that Dan Patrick is not running for governor. Rumor has it, though, that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst will also throw his hat in the ring for the office, so expect a real donnybrook.

If this happens, it will mean that Dewhurst's position will be up for grabs -- and there is even some discussion of the possibility that Attorney General Greg Abbott will be running for Lt. Governor even if Dewhurst does not enter the gubernatorial fray. Abbott is popular and has been effective -- and Dewhurst has not always been seen as an ally by party activists. Frankly, I'd be really supportive of Greg Abbott's bid for the position, which is traditionally and constitutionally the most powerful office in the state.

What this means, though, is that we are going to have change taking place in Texas in 2010. My only hope is that it is conservative Republican change, not a shift towards the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 5 kb.

In searching my archives for something else last night, I came across this post from November 4, 2006. Even though the election in question is over, the message behind it is still strong and bears repeating.

The junior senator from Illinois and presidential hopeful proves that even election to high office doesn't guarantee that one knows or speaks the truth.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Friday urged hundreds of blacks not to vote along racial lines next week in Maryland's Senate race.

Obama, the only black U.S. senator, came to the state to rally support for Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, who is white. Cardin's Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, is the first black candidate ever elected statewide and has been courting black Democrats.

"Listen, I think it's great that the Republican Party has discovered black people," Obama said to laughter from students at the rally at predominantly black Bowie State University. "But here's the thing. ... You don't vote for somebody because of what they look like. You vote for somebody because of what they stand for."

Let's give this man a quick history lesson.

If one goes back to the birth of the GOP, it was a party that had the rights of blacks as its primary issue. Remember, the GOP was the party of abolition -- and that among those who were a part of its founding meeting was Frederick Douglass. At a time when the Democrats believed every black should be a slave, the Republican Party was co-founded by black men like Douglass -- an escaped slave. While they could not vote because they were women, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman were also active supporters of the Republican Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, fought tooth-and-nail to keep blacks from voting in general elections -- or participating in party primaries, until the Supreme Court told Texas Democrats in Fort Bend County (and, by extension, Democrats in the rest of the country) that such actions violated the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment.

When the Civil War came to an end and the black slaves of the solidly Democrat South achieved the freedom guaranteed them by Republican President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the Republican Congress' Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Republican controlled legislature of Mississippi sent Hiram Rhodes Revels to be the first black United States Senator (filling the seat left vacant by the resignation of Democrat Jefferson Davis -- President of the Confederate States of America. He was later succeeded in the Senate by Blanche Bruce, the first black United States Senator to serve a complete term. At the end of his term, the Democrat-controlled Mississippi legislature replaced him with a former Confederate officer who had helped draft and sign the Mississippi Ordinance of Secession.

Incidentally, the next black man to serve in the US Senate was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts -- another Republican, from 1967-1979, at a time when the Democrat Party was still fighting against civil rights and trying to determine if blacks should have representation at Democrat nominating conventions. On the other hand, should the Democrat Party regain control of the US Senate next week, they will choose a former leader of the KKK, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to be the president pro tempore of the Senate, placing him third in line for the presidency of the United States.

Republicans were active in their defense of the rights of African-Americans for the next century -- and every significant piece of civil rights legislation passed during that time was the product of GOP authors and/or an overwhelming number of GOP votes in Congress. Democrats, on the other hand, fought against civil rights every step of the way, writing and enforcing Jim Crow policies. It took a Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to craft a decision to overturn such segregation.

It was a proud Republican who, in 1963, gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial that clearly enunciated the Republican position on civil rights and racial equality -- of an America in which all people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Today the GOP continues to stand for the vision of our brother Martin Luther King, Jr., while the Democrats continue to seek to divide and balkanize along racial lines.

So you see, Senator Obama, it is pretty clear that neither party needed to "discover" black people. The problem is that one of them is the party of Ol' Massa, Jim Crow and the Klan, while the other is the party of emancipation, civil rights, and equality. Michale Steele is a part of the latter -- and any African-American should be ashamed to vote for or serve in office as part of the former.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 7 kb.

When conservatives questioned certain inconsistencies in John Kerry's narrative about his military service and his military service record (which to this day has never been fully released), the Democrats cried foul and invented the term Swiftboating to describe it -- even though the Swift Boat vets were actually members of the same unit as John Kerry and many of them served with him.

Will any of those Democrats raise their voices in condemnation of this little attack on John McCain by author and Al Gore relative Gore Vidal?

Asked what he thinks of McCain, Vidal calls him a "disaster," then tells Deborah Solomon, "Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?"

Solomon replies: "Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." To which Vidal responds: "ThatÂ’s what he tells us."

Excuse me?

"Rumor"?

"Aside from himself?"

"That's what he tells us"?

McCain's flight suit and gear,
"Hanoi Hilton" Museum

Well, why don't we see what someone else has to say about the matter.

Is that enough for you yet, Mr. Vidal?

I wonder -- John McCain asked that the Swift Boat Vets stop their truthful attacks on John Kerry because he considered them unseemly. Will Kerry return the favor and condemn this false attack upon the well-documented heroism of John McCain during his time as a prisoner of war?

Will the media report on this false claim about McCain by a debauched celebrity with the same degree of vitriolic contempt that they displayed for the truthful words of decorated veterans that served with Kerry?

Will we hear from Al Gore about the disgusting aspersions cast by his cousin?

And I ask again -- will Obama's "new kind of politics" include speaking out against the sort of dripping hatred that Vidal displayed in this interview?

As an aside, Vidal also stated in another recent interview that the United States is a dictatorship with a fascist government. It seems pretty clear, however, that he demonstrates his words to be false by their very utterance -- if America were really a fascist state he would not have made these scurrilous comments for fear that he would be imprisoned or executed.

H/T LGF, JammieWearingFool, Ed Driscoll, QandO

UPDATE -- 6/15/2008: Other bloggers are beginning to chime in on this one at Hot Air, Commentary's Contentions

Here's hoping the sainted William F. Buckley will be granted the privilege of waiting outside the Pearly Gates to carry out this promise before Saint Peter directs Vidal to his infernal reward.

More really needs to be made of Vidal's undeniably evil words.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 7 kb.

Hey -- if mentioning a historical event like the Bobby Kennedy assassination is an incitement to murder, what on earth do you call this quote by Barack Obama?

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

Now tell me, what would the reaction be if a Republican candidate or official, much less John McCain, had made that sort of statement? I think we all know that answer. We would be hearing about how that Republican -- and Republicans in general -- were violent extremists who want to see Barack Obama dead (indeed, certain nutroots bloggers are already claiming we conservatives will start a civil war and probably murder Obama).

Will anyone (other than me) hold the Obamessiah to that same standard?

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit asks some pointed questions.

Since Obama insists on his website that he only supports the use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting, does Senator McCain fall into the category of "big game" or "clay pigeon"?

Finally, does this mean that the candidate of hope and change is bitter?... Since he's now "clinging to his gun or religion and has antipathy to people who aren't like him?"

See-Dubya (blogging at Michelle Malkin) notes that while Obama is apparently willing to use this sort of disproportionate response against his opponents, he is apparently unwilling to do so against terrorists who threaten our national interests (and rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, too).

I’ve always thought that speech applied very well to the war on terror. I would expect Obama to disagree with me there–but it’s interesting that he does seem to think that “the Chicago Way” applies to domestic politics. I suppose a pupil of Tony Rezko’s would have to think like that.

It makes sense, if you think Republicans are the real enemy, and that the terrorists are just a distraction from the progressive agenda.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ, Hot Air, Protein Wisdom

Posted by: Greg at 05:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

I'd like to condemn this disgusting piece of crap for his virulent expression of unAmerican racism.

And I'd like to thank God and the US Constitution that his right to do so is fully protected in this country.

Neighbors say a sign posted by a Houston-area man is causing tension and fear.

They say the sign is offensive. It makes a derogatory and profane reference to Sen. Barack ObamaÂ’s bid to become president.

“Whoever did this is a racist,” neighbor Laz Socarras said.

“They hatin’ on Obama,” neighbor Jarmaine Calvin said.

Hey -- I'm accused of "hatin' on Obama" when I tell the truth about his record, statements, and lack of qualifications for the presidency. This is something much more offensive, being that it is a raw, unadulterated expression of racism.

But it is protected by our Constitution. The scumbag makes no threats against anyone, and is displaying it on his own property, so he can say any damn thing he wants. God bless America -- because it means we are still a free people and that even the most disgusting among us still have the right to speak publicly without fear of the heel of government crushing us for unapproved speech. After all -- we are not Canada yet.

Interestingly enough, this is within a few blocks of where I have taught school for the last 11 years. I'm surprised that the sign has stayed up as long as it has.

H/T Lone Star Times

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah, that's right -- Democrat officials, not Republican bloggers.

Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee member Fred Hobbs tells The City newspaper in Nashville, "I don't exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for — and I'm not sure we know enough about him. He's got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."

Hobbs was giving an interview to the paper about fellow Tennessee Congressman and Democratic superdelegate Lincoln Davis, who has not yet declared his support for Obama.

Reacting to Hobbs, Davis' Chief of Staff Beecher Frasier says he does not know for sure if Obama is terrorist connected, but he assumes he is not.

And talk about weak statements -- the Davis camp "assumes he is not" terrorist connected? If Democrat leaders -- superdelegates, no less -- aren't certain that Barack Obama is not connected to terrorists, why on earth is the party willing to take a chance nominating him?

I don't know of any Republicans making the accusation that Barack Obama is a terrorist -- merely that he is unqualified and incompetent. Maybe a few blogospheric fringeoids do, but I haven't encountered it. So what do the Democrats know that the rest of us don't?

H/T Gateway Pundit, Jawa Report

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like the host committee for the August's Democrat Convention in Denver is short of cash to the tune of $15 million.

The host committee for the Democratic National Convention faces a possible shortfall of $15 million, complicating logistics for the August event and forcing it to abruptly postpone a media walkthrough of the site scheduled for next week.

The Democratic National Committee has asked the cash-strapped panel to raise $40.6 million by Monday to finance the event. Last month, the committee said it had just $25 million in cash, and it has failed to meet each of several fundraising deadlines since signing a contract with the DNC last year.

Host committee members consistently have refused public comment on their fundraising efforts. Committee spokesman Chris Lopez could not immediately be reached by telephone Friday.

Now there is an obvious solution to the problem. The Barack Obama campaign is positively awash in cash, having raised prodigious amounts of money for months -- so much that the candidate is breaking his promise to the American people to take government funding for his campaign and abide by spending limits that go with that money. Why can't he just order his campaign to cut a check to pay for his coronation?

In a rational, constitutionally-limited system, he could. unfortunately, federal campaign finance laws are such that making that sort of transfer of cash to pay for a convention is an illegal expenditure, even if it is done in a public, totally above board fashion. So as a result, the Democrats will have to scale back plans and run a second-rate convention (perhaps appropriate, since they are giving America a second-rate candidate) instead of doing things up right. That once again demonstrates that what is legal under federal election law does not always coincide with what is ethical and what makes sense.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Our senatorial district convention got off to a tardy start (trying to seat a couple hundred delegates and then seat alternates takes time) -- but once we got started things went fairly smoothly.

It was a bad day for the RonBats who disrupted yesterday's First General Session with dilatory motions that delayed the day's business by close to three hours.

Oddly enough, they tried the same thing today in SD11 -- only to find that their call to "follow the rules" meant that we actually had to follow the rules. Thus, when their male candidate lost the SD nomination for Party Chair, they tried to have the SD endorse him anyway on the argument that even though the rules state we can only nominate one candidate for Party Chair we must nominate two -- one of each gender. Then, having had the clear language thrown in their face after the nomination of Tina Benkiser, they objected to the fact that the rules then required us to nominate a man for Vice Chair. I guess that "follow the rules" doesn't really mean "follow the rules.

Also, the RonBat lawsuit against the party was thrown out by an appellate court this morning -- with the RonBats ordered to pay the legal expenses for the Texas GOP based upon the frivolous nature of the lawsuit.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Some on the Left want to make this story into a bad thing. After all, while they are willing to use religion as a crutch to support their otherwise indefensible policy proposals, they don't actually BELIEVE in any of that spiritual stuff. So to find out that a conservative politician actually believes in the tenets of his religion and practices them is somewhat scandalous to them.

Which brings us to this story.

Strangely, I found myself repeating the Hail Mary until it became a chant. Being a recent convert to Catholicism, I had yet to accept the Catholic doc­trines concerning Mary and considered any form of Marian devotion to be idolatry. Though I had never before prayed a Hail Mary in my life, I suddenly found myself incapable of any other form of prayer. Somehow, Mary's intercessions allowed me to find peace during that long night; I knew that I had sur­vived the worst and that I would exit with my faith intact. It terrified me to recall how close I came to turning away from Christ out of fear.

The crucifix had a calming effect on Susan, and her sister was soon brave enough to bring a Bible to her face. At first, Susan responded to biblical pas­sages with curses and profanities. Mixed in with her vile attacks were short and desperate pleas for help. In the same breath that she attacked Christ, the Bible's authenticity, and everyone assembled in prayer, Susan would suddenly urge us to rescue her. It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.

While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."

With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not re­member any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laugh­ter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.

This story chills me to the bone -- mainly because I participated in something similar to this twenty years ago, praying over a friend who was clearly afflicted with some malign spiritual presence. Based upon my studies during my seminary career, I'd call what we each witnessed to be cases of demonic oppression rather than full-blown possession. But regardless, the events described (and those in which I participated) were clearly REAL -- and the underlying reality of a greater spiritual battle between good and evil is real as well.

But since the Left wants to make a joke out of this, I'd like to offer photographic support for my nomination of a candidate for Jindal's next exorcism. more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 559 words, total size 4 kb.