Major Hillary Clinton Donor to Endorse John McCain
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who is not only a major Hillary Clinton Supporter and donor but is also a member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, is set to endorse John McCain today. She just doesn’t trust Barack Obama.
“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don’t like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”
There is still lingering resentment out there by Hillary supporters who feel that she was wronged during the primary process and they are not willing to just throw their support behind Barack Obama. This is a perfect example. This is a high profile Democrat who is now set to endorse John McCain. How many others will follow her?
John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin was designed to try to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters. It appears as though some of her supporters who were thinking about voting for John McCain over Barack Obama are being persuaded.
On the other hand it isn’t a good sign that Democrats would rather vote for McCain than Obama, that is the problem that conservatives have with McCain. He was more concerned about courting Democrats than stabilizing his own base. That was reason number two for picking Sarah Palin, and that has worked. He knew that she would reinvigorate the base and she has. Her pick frees McCain up to court even more Democrats while she tries to keep the conservatives happy.
Democrats are trying to tie McCain to President Bush, they are calling a McCain presidency Bush’s third term. But conservatives know that idea far from the truth and that is why they distrust McCain. Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s defection is proof of that. If McCain was that close to President Bush do you really think that she would endorse him?
She is leading, how many are going to follow?
Barack Obama’s Campaign Goes After Conservative Talk Radio Again
Once again the Barack Obama campaign is looking to silence a radio talk show host who dares to speak out against Barack Obama and his policies.
WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.”
They are talking about an author who wrote an anti-Obama book, but they don’t stop there. It is their duty to smear the man who dares to speak out against Obama.
David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering,”
This is not the first time that Barack Obama’s campaign has gone after talk radio because they do not agree with the positions that are taken by radio hosts and their guests. When Stanley Kurtz wrote an article that questioned Obama’s ties to a domestic terrorist who Obama still calls a friend, he was invited to speak on a radio talk show. Barack Obama’s campaign also tried to silence this show.
Evidently if you do not agree with Barack Obama than you must be an evil, intolerant, hate mongering, smear merchant. Therefor you should be silenced.
But this is all happening before he is president. What will happen if he is elected president? For starters we can expect a return of the “fairness doctrine” to shut down conservative talk radio, thereby silencing the biggest forum for conservative conversation. He will silence those that disagree with him. But will it stop there?
Maybe after Barack Obama reinstates the “fairness doctrine” to silence conservatives he will go one step farther. Could we see a return of the Aliens and Sedition Acts? Don’t laugh, it would be the next logical step to someone who so desperately needs the comfort of knowing that nobody can question his policies.
Nancy Pelosi is Privately Urging Charlie Rangel to Resign
Tax Cheat
Democrat Charlie Rangel who is chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws as been outed as a tax cheat and a fraud. He needs to resign, if not from congress that at least his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. I think he should resign from both. He is unfit to and undeserving of holding both his seat and his chairmanship. There is no way that the Democrats will ever admit that Charlie Rangel needs to resign as a member of congress but what about his committee chair? Up until now Nancy Pelosi has resisted the calls for Rangel’s resignation. At least publicly.
Privately, however, it appears as though Nancy Pelosi is urging Charlie Rangel to resign from the Ways and Means Committee. It is not surprising that Nancy Pelosi would have one position publicly and another privately. It isn’t much different than Barack Obama publicly being for a troop withdrawal from Iraq even while in a private meeting with the Iraqi foreign minister he asked that troop withdrawals be delayed until after the election so that he could take credit for it. But I digress.
It also appears that Rangel is beginning to feel some heat from other Democrats.
One member of the New York congressional delegation who supported Pelosi’s decision said, “You have to have one standard – you can’t have one for [Republicans] and one for us.”
This person must be up for re-election and fearful of potential fall out from the Rangel scandal. Never before have I heard a Democrat bemoan a double standard in the way Republicans and Democrats are treated when it comes to scandals.
Nancy Pelosi is still denying that she asked Rangel to step aside, probably so that he can save face by saying that he is stepping aside on his own for the good of the party.
Either way, he needs to resign.
Florida Judge Rules “Saggy Pants” Ban is Unconstitutional
Back in July I wrote thispost about New Jersey banning people from wearing baggy pants. I find it preposterous that legislators have so much time on their hands that they can pass laws on what people can and can’t wear. While I find this look stupid looking who do legislators think that they are that they can pan people from dressing the way that they want to?
Florida also had a saggy pants law and within the last week twelve people have actually been arrested because their underwear stuck out above their pants. I say had a saggy pants law because a Florida judge has ruled the law unconstitutional. Finally a little common sense.
The fashion police can take a little time off now.
Charlie Rangel in Even More Tax Trouble
Tax Cheat
Democrat Charlie Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has a little problem. His comittee is responsible for writing the tax laws, yet he supposedly doesn’t quite understand the laws that he helps write. First he failed to report as income rental money from property he owns in the Dominican Republic, and now there is this.
Rangel’s papers over the past 10 years show no reference to the sale of a home he once owned on Colorado Avenue in Washington.
_The details of a property bought in Sunny Isles, Fla., are bewildering at best. The stated value changes significantly from year to year, and even page to page, from $50,000 to $100,000 all the way up to $500,000.
_Some of the entries for investment funds fluctuate strangely, suggesting that the person either didn’t have accurate information or didn’t fill out the paperwork correctly.
His excuse? He made a “mistake.” He claims that because this was just a mistake he should not be stripped of his chairmanship on the committee THAT WRITES TAX LAWS! Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid agree with him, no surprise there. Yet Joe Lieberman may lose the chairmanship of his committee for giving a speech. (You can read more about my take on that here.)
Charlie Rangel made a “mistake” and forgot to pay some of his taxes. You know what they call it when one of us doesn’t pay taxes. A CRIME!
Barack Obama Tried to Stop the Iraq Troop Withdrawal
Everybody remembers Barack Obama’s European victory tour just a short while ago that culminated with him speaking in Germany to 100,000 or 200,000 people. Or whatever the number was. You remember that speech, he claimed that he was a “citizen of the world” and he ripped America while on foreign soil. Well a little story has popped up that I find very interesting.
Before he arrived in Europe you may remember that he went to Iraq to visit the troops because he was shamed into it by John McCain. Well, while in Iraq according to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Barack Obama tried to persuade Iraq NOT to agree to a timetable for withdrawing United States troops from Iraq.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Barack Obama has stumbled his way through various positions on a timetable for withdrawal. He has claimed that he would begin withdrawing troops immediately upon taking the oath of office, he has said that he would begin troop withdrawals within 16 months of taking the oath, he has had varied dates on when all troops would be home, and he has even stated that he would listen to the commanders on the ground before making ANY decision.
But one thing that has always certain was the fact that Barack Obama WOULD withdraw the troops regardless of whether we were winning or losing thereby insuring defeat. At least that is what he told his far left base. Let us not forget who he is pandering to with his irresponsible calls of troop withdrawal:
So while publicly Barack Obama has said all of the right things to appease the assholes that you see above, privately he knows that he can’t just arbitrarily withdraw the troops. He has no plans to withdraw the troops upon his swearing in. But this game that he is playing is not funny to me. He is playing with the lives of our troops.
Suddenly the man who is supposedly for immediate troop withdrawal when confronted with the opportunity to demand it bemoans the idea of troop withdrawal. Why? For political reasons, of course. Just look at that Obama quote, he asks the Iraqi Foreign Minister to hold off on agreeing with withdrawing troops until after the election. He should be celebrating the fact that we are now at the point where we can responsibly start talking about withdrawing the troops but he knows that he will personally lose if troops start coming home before he becomes president. Suddenly he doesn’t care about bringing home the troops. Bringing home the troops now would make President Bush look good, and he can’t have that.
When push came to shove Barack Obama knew that any sign of victory in Iraq was political disaster for him so he tried to convince Iraqi officials to hold off on agreeing on a “time horizon” on troop withdrawal even though his stated position is for that very same troop withdrawal. He wants to be perceived as the one who was able to start drawing down troops in Iraq. He is putting his political gain above what is best for the troops.
Whoopi to McCain; “Should I be Worried About Being a Slave?”
John McCain appeared on the view and when asked about abortion and Roe vs Wade he said that he would support Roe vs Wade being overturned. He said that if it were overturned the states would then have the decision to make on whether to legalize abortion. A position that I agree with, if only I could trust John McCain to appoint this type of judge.
At this point Whoopi jumped in and asked John McCain, “should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change?”
What Whoopi fails to understand is that the constitution was amended to outlaw slavery. That amendment is now part of the constitution, Whoopi.
When John McCain states that he will appoint oringinalist judges who will interpret the constitution the way the founding fathers intended, in no way does that mean that amendments to the constitution will be abolished. (pardon about the pun). Amendments to the constitution become part of the constitution and they cannot be overturned unless amended again. Does Whoopi really believe that the amendment process is done through the judicial branch and not through the legislative branch? Either Whoopi is showing an ignorance of the constitution and how the process works, or she is just spreading fear. Or maybe she is just trying to be provocative.
I’m betting on ignorance.
UK Jury Verdict Justifies Vandalism to Stop Global Warming
According to this UK jury, global warming poses such a threat that Greenpeace activists were justified in vandalizing a power plant.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change.
A lawful excuse to commit vandalism? Based on a political agenda? Make no mistake about it “climate change” is a political ideology, not a scientific fact. It is a theory being trumpeted by politicians and parroted by scientists who are afraid to lose their grant money.
These jurists rendered their decision not on whether the defendants were guilty of a crime but on whether they thought the crime was justified. These defendants didn’t deny they committed the crimes, their defence was they were protected under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
The defence argued that the defendants stopped the world from suffering even more damage from global warming by vandalizing a power plant. What a perversion of the intent of the law. The leap of faith that is required to make the assumption that these people somehow stopped even more damage to the world with their crime is astounding. Yet that leap of faith was made. It shows you how ingrained this whole global warming THEORY has become.
Lawlessness has been rewarded and now it is only a matter of time before more and more “green” crimes are committed. This verdict has now given radical extreme environmentalists a free pass to basically do whatever they want.
Hell, they are just trying to save the world. Right?
Democrats Distance Themselves From Obama as Polls Show Republicans may Regain Control of Congress
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
With Barack Obama’s campaign falling apart it appears as though the fate of Republicans might not be as bleak as once thought. Since the election of 2006 when Democrats won a majority in the house and senate the general consensus was that the Democrats would extend their majorities in the house and senate and win the white house in 2008.
All that has changed in just a few short weeks. Barack Obama, while he still may win, has shown us that he is a horrible candidate and that when there is no teleprompter in front of him is a babbling idiot. His selection of another babbling idiot for his running mate hasn’t helped. Both Obama and Biden continue to try to out gaffe each other.
Besides Obama losing ground and falling behind McCain (a candidate that Democrats should be beating in the polls by 20 points) in the polls, Obama’s ineptitude appears to be having an effect on congressional polls and Republicans suddenly don’t appear as vulnerable as previously thought.
A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters’ “generic ballot” preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.
But it gets even better for Republicans, not only may they not lose more seats in the house and senate, they may regain a majority.
Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.
If these numbers are sustained through Election Day — a big if — Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
But besides the polls turning against the Democrats, it gets even better for Republicans based on the dismal approval ratings of congress.
The last time the yearly average for approval of Congress approached this low a level was in 2006, when the Republicans lost majority control of Congress after 12 years in power. The previous occasion was in 1994, when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats. In both of these midterm election years, the average congressional approval score was 25%.
In a year that the Democrat presidential candidate should have a twenty point lead Barack Obama has manged to fall behind in the polls. One of Barack Obama’s strategies has been to try to tie John McCain to George W Bush. We keep hearing that John McCain would be serving Bush’s third term. This has been a strategy of Democrats in senate races also. Here in New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen is trying to tie John Sununu to George Bush. Evidently Democrats forgot that Bush isn’t on the ballot this year. They so desperately want to vote against him again that they are trying to vote against him by proxy. Republicans up for re-election have been trying to distance themselves from the president.
Now however, something interesting is happening. With Barack Obama’s falling poll numbers, Democrats who are up for re-election are starting to distance themselves from Obama. Once considered the inevitable president, Democrats are running away from Barack Obama.
A Democratic fundraiser for Congressional candidates said some planned to distance themselves from Mr Obama and not attack Mr McCain.
“If people are voting for McCain it could help Republicans all the way down the ticket, even in a year when the Democrats should be sweeping all before us,” said the fundraiser, a former Hillary Clinton supporter.
The most vulnerable of these candidates are first term representatives who only won the seats because of disgruntled voters sending a message to George W Bush. Now with the feeling that the message was sent it appears that these Republican leaning districts may swing back to the right.
Concern was greatest among first-term representatives who won seats in traditionally Republican districts in the landslide of 2006. “Several of them face a real fight to hold on to those seats,” the fundraiser said.
Who knows if Barack Obama’s free fall is going to continue, but I do know that it has been fun to watch his inevitability being whittled away. He was on his worldwide inauguration tour not all that long ago and now polls show that not only is he in free fall but that his poor campaign might also cost Democrats a chance to gain a veto proof majority in the house and senate. And Democrats are running away from the one who would be president.
Barack Obama may still win the white house and Democrats may still extend their majorities in the house and senate, but watching them sweat and watching them flee from Barack Obama like rats deserting a sinking ship has been enjoyable. It may not last, but while it does I am gong to enjoy it.
Who knows, this trend could continue all the way until November and Barack Obama might just pull off the unthinkable. He may pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Democrat Party, Charlie Rangel and Joe Lieberman
I have been thinking about Charlie Rangel and Joe Lieberman lately and there is one angle about these two men that I think binds their two separate stories together. Both men are committee chairmen, Rangel of the House Ways and Means Committee and Lieberman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
The story of Joe Lieberman goes like this: Lieberman lost a Democrat primary to a moonbat but instead of stepping aside he ran against this moonbat as an Independent and won his seat in the senate back. Democrats who needed Joe Lieberman’s vote to hold onto a 51-49 majority welcomed him back.
However Harry Ried believes that the Democrats will increase their majority after the elections and is ready to punish Joe Lieberman for giving a speech at the Republican National Convention by taking away his chairmanship now that he feels Democrats won’t need his vote.
Next we have the story of Charlie Rangel who is accused of a couple of ethics violations. The first violation I wrote about here. He set up a campaign office in a rent controlled apartment. That is a no-no. But he is involved in another, possibly more incriminating scandal. Charlie Rangel “forgot” to claim $75,000 in income on his tax returns. It is amazing that he could “forget” or not know that he was supposed to claim this as income considering HIS COMMITTEE WRITES THE TAX LAWS. He is now being investigated. Surely there must be some repercussions from this?
What’s his punishment from the Democrat party? None, Nancy Pelosi says that Charlie Rangel won’t be forced to step down.
Do you see where I am going with this? I think you do.
Joe Lieberman’s only “crime” was a “crime” against the Democrat party. Joe Lieberman spoke at the RNC because he supports John McCain and believes that the Iraq war must be won. Joe Lieberman put what he believes above what his party ( he still caucuses with the Democrats, at least for now) wanted him to say. For this he could be punished. I find this just a little ironic considering the fact that Barack Obama claims that he will unite the country, he claims that we must work together to heal the country and yet when Lieberman reaches across the isle he is lambasted and threatened.
Charie Rangel is accused of actual crimes. One; a campaign violation and the other; a tax evading scam. Yet Nancy Pelosi has said that Rangel won’t be forced to step down. He will remain chairman of his committee in good standing.
This shows us where the Democrat party’s priorities are. One senator spoke out against his party and may be punished, while the other may have committed crimes but is welcomed with open arms by the Democrat party. The Democrat party puts partisanship above the law. You can do or say whatever you want and as long as you are a good partisan member nothing will happen to you but if you are a Democrat and you hold true to your beliefs even when they are at odds with the Democrat party you must be punished. The Democrat’s priorities are in the wrong order.
In the minds of the Democrat leaders Charlie Rangel is a victim while Joe Lieberman is a criminal. And we are supposed to believe that this is the party that will bring us together as a nation?
