Barack Obama continues to meet with middle eastern leaders to confirm his plan to surrender the war and declare ( with his actions, not words) surrender to the extremists and this is met with great fanfare by the media in this country.
Barack Obama, who is not yet president, is talking with world leaders about his plans once he assumes the office of the president. Because he is not president he has no business talking foreign policy with the leaders of foreign countries that directly differs with the current policy of the United States. He is negotiating future foreign policy for his administration for after he become president.
But that is not what this post is about. This post is about the media coverage of Barack Obama’s victory/surrender tour. While Barack Obama continues to promise to surrender once he becomes president the media is basically portraying this as Barack Obama’s victory tour. This is being treated as a coronation, as if he has already won the presidency.
It is not surprising that the media are in such a frenzy about Obama’s middle east tour, especially when you consider their campaign contributions to Democrats, they are giving it far more coverage than any of McCain’s eight trips to the middle east or even (still current) President Bush’s trips overseas.
Why is this? The answer is obvious, they desperately want Obama to look presidential while overseas because they know that he has no foreign policy experience. They must make him look like he knows what he is talking about, so the feeding frenzy is on. There is no other reason that an Obama trip to the middle east should garner so much more media time than when the current president visits, but yet the coverage is far more extensive.
The media is showcasing Obama to the world and more importantly to the voters of America to show them that he is indeed presidential material. The media has forgone the elections and proclaimed Barack Obama as the next president, that’s how bad they want this. The election is just a forgone conclusion, especially if the media continues to shape the election the way they have so far. The Democrat primary was supposed to be Hillary’s coronation, that didn’t work out so now the media is hoping that the general election is Obama’s coronation, and they are doing everything in their power to assure that it is.
Barack Obama is being treated as if he is already the president so in all future posts I will refer to Barack Obama as President Obama. I will do this for two reasons; one, because the media is already treating him as if he has won and two, because I believe that his presidency is inevitable. I might as well get used to calling him President Obama now, it will help to soften the blow.
President Obama, President Obama, President Obama, it isn’t helping so far, but I still have time to get used to it. I have always believed that the position of president should be held in the highest regard and should be shown the utmost respect whether or not you agree with the man who holds the office. Once Obama (sorry, President Obama) is sworn in, I hope that I will be able to show President Obama the same level of respect that the left has shown President Bush ( I hope the sarcasm is read in that statement).
The media have already made their choice and in November the voters will make their’s, until then the media will do everything that they can to assure that both results are one in the same.
Anti-Tax Groups Gaining Momentum in New Hampshire?
There have been a couple of anti-tax groups that have begun to flex their muscles here in New Hampshire. The one I am writing about today is called the New Hampshire Advantage Coalition and they have been very active in trying to get tax cap legislation on the ballot in several locations this November.
Their effort may be paying off as they have succeedded in getting enough signatures to get this issue to a vote in Rochester. But they are not done, they also are trying to gain enough signatures to force a vote on this legislation, which ties tax increases to the rate of inflation, in Concord, Merrimack, Somersworth, Londonderry, Portsmouth and Bedford, and Manchester.
According to this article the group believes that New Hampshire residents are ready to return to the old days of fiscal responsibility. I think (hope) that they are right. New Hampshire has become a spend first, pay for later state, and that has been illustrated by our tax and spend governor recently as he took out a loan to “balance” the budget. It is time to return New Hampshire to her fiscally conservative roots. But this legislation is only the beginning, we need to rid ourselves of tax and spend liberals in the government as well. This naturally starts with the highest level of the state’s leadership, Governor John Lynch.
This tax legislation may be a great starting point, but coupled with a Joe Kenney victory over John Lynch in November and we would be back on the path to fiscal responsibility.
Governor Lynch has been unable to control his lust for spending since day one, in just four short years he has taken a state with a budget surplus and bankrupted it. It is time to kick his ass to the curb. It is time to usher in the new age of fiscal responsibility.
I can’t believe I am going to write a post defending Massachusetts Democrat Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi, but here I go.
Massachusetts Speaker of the House, Democrat Sal Dimasi, is facing harsh criticism for doing his job by Democrats who are up for re-election. Massachusetts is about to vote on a hot button issue, and they will have to do it before the November elections because Sal Dimasi is going to force the vote to take place this year.
The issue that will be voted on is whether Massachusetts should marry homosexuals from out of state whose marriages will not be recognized in the couple’s home state. Currently a 1913 Massachusetts law prohibits a couple, any couple, from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage is not recognized by the state that the couple is from.
Sal Dimasi wants the vote to take place this year but he is drawing fire from his own party because nobody wants to go on record on either side of this issue before they face the voters in November.
Just look at this statement to see the twisted logic of the typical Massachusetts Democrat:
“He has no concern for the members,” said one legislator, who requested anonymity. “This is stuff we should be dealing with in the first year (of the session). It’s a lose-lose for anyone facing a challenger.”
In other words he should be worrying about getting his party re-elected instead of actually getting votes taken on upcoming issues. He should put party success over the work of the people. He should postpone the vote until the first year of the legislative session so that people who disagree with this vote no matter how it comes out will have plenty of time to forget about it? That is what is being implied here. What it the problem with the vote? Legislators should just vote their conscience, vote for what they believe is right and let the voters decide if they think that the politicians were right. But no, they prefer to not vote until after their re-election is confirmed. Cowards!
But the statement by the anonymous legislator continues and get even more twisted:
“Finneran ( the convicted felon turned radio host, and prior Massachusetts Democrat Speaker of the House), always did things to protect the membership,” the lawmaker said, “and he (DiMasi) has only worked to protect himself.”
Finneran always put the party ahead of the voters is what this legislator is saying. This “protecting the membership” is what got Finneran in trouble with the law but this legislator thinks it was somehow noble. No wonder he/she wants to stay anonymous. That is the state of politics in Massachusetts.
Somehow by actually forcing the legislature to do their job Sal Dimasi is only thinking about himself and not the good of the party. What about the voters? Where do Massachusetts voters stand in the mind of this legislator? I don’t think this person even thinks about the voters, much less cares about them.
And you wonder why Massachusetts loses population every year?
Washington DC officials who are now trying to write gun control legislation to combat the Supreme Court’s decision that DC’s handgun ban is unconstitutional are now running into some problems. It seems that the controls that they are trying to implement are the same ones that the Supreme Court already said are unconstitutional. Not only that but they may violate the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms points to a section of the new ordinance requiring that “Each registrant shall keep any firearm in his or her possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device.”
This is a direct violation of part of the Supreme Court’s ruling:
“The court struck down the city’s trigger lock requirement, and ruled that it is unconstitutional to require that firearms be rendered inoperable at all times in the home,” he said.
In addition to the total disregard to the Supreme Court ruling there is also the fact that the new laws would discriminate against a person with a disability.
people registering handguns “not appear to suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for him to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly.”
That part of the new law led to this response:
I am wondering if the persons who dreamed up these outrageous guidelines ever heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act. In their attempt to make owning handguns as difficult and discouraging as possible for residents of the District, the people responsible for this regulation have just insulted millions of disabled Americans, including disabled veterans, who are perfectly capable of owning and using firearms,” Waldron said.
Washington DC officials clearly do not believe what the Supreme Court ruled, and that is the fact that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. They are now doing everything in their power to turn their backs on the Supreme Court’s ruling. They show utter contempt for the right to bear arms and do not care if the ruling that just came down reinforces the right. They believe what they believe, and it doesn’t matter what the constitution says.
The scary part of this whole issue is the fact that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. A very narrow victory. With several members of the Supreme Court in their seventies President Obama will have more than one nomination to the Supreme Court. We can kiss this decision goodbye.
It will be overturned.
National Libertarian candidate Bob Barr won’t head the ticket on New Hampshire ballots come November. New Hampshire has filed it’s own candidate for the Libertarian party. Bob Barr will still be on the ballot, but he will have competition, and it comes from more than just George Phillies (New Hampshire’s Libertarian candidate).
New Hampshire Libertarian candidates did not get enough votes in the last election to be considered an official party so they will be put in the “other” category with parties like the Green party and their candidate; Cynthia McKinney.
But the problem for presidential hopeful Bob Barr is compounded by a ridiculous ruling by the state supreme court in 2006 which said that candidates can no longer be listed in alphabetical order because it is an unfair advantage to candidates whose names start with the letter”A”. I know how stupid that sounds but that is what we have come to here in New Hampshire. Evidently New Hampshire voters’ attention span isn’t long enough to scroll through a list of candidates until we find the one that we intended to vote for.
A new method of listing candidates was fought over until New Hampshire legislators decided to pull a letter out of a hat before every election cycle and start the list there, wrapping around to “A” and beyond. This year the letter “K” leads off the order of the candidates on the ballot. That means that Cynthia McKinney will head the “other” ticket, followed by Ralph Nader, George Phillies, and then Bob Barr.
Then there is the whole popsicle stick procedure to decide what party gets to be in the left column, this is so stupid that I can’t even be bothered to try to explain it so I give you a paragraph from this article:
POPSICLE STICKS: If the alphabet system sounds involved, wait till we start picking popsicle sticks.
“That comes later,” Gardner said last week.
That procedure began two years ago, too. To be fair about which party got listed in the first left-hand column on a ballot, Democratic, Republican and Libertarian officials picked sticks that listed numbers one through 24, for each Senate district. Each group picked eight. If a Democrat picked Senate District 1, for example, Democrats would be listed in the first column on all ballots in that district. Republicans would be next. Independents, Libertarians, Green Party and others would be in a third column.
The “others” candidates can’t be in a middle column because there would be too many blank spaces between candidates from the major parties, making comparisons difficult, Gardner said.
House districts that elect multiple candidates (Windham-Salem voters elect 13) may see some long ballots in November. A new law says names of candidates for House cannot appear beside another, so there will be blank spots all over the place in big districts as the list goes deep into the ballot form.
How did we ever get to the point where New Hampshire voters are considered either too lazy or too stupid to find the person that they want to vote for on the ballot? When did we reach the point that New Hampshire voters were thought of in such low regard that a voter is thought to be so distracted by the names on the ballot that they find a name that they like and vote for that person before they are able to get the the candidate that they intended to vote for?
I don’t know, but it all seems to have happened since Democrats took over. The nanny staters are running wild in New Hampshire.
If a person is that stupid or lazy that they either can’t understand the ballot, or can’t find the name of the candidate that they want to vote for than fuck them. They shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Democrats Cave, may Allow a Vote on Offshore Drilling
Last week President Bush called the Democrat’s bluff and lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. This put Democrats on the defensive and they have been trying to come up with their own plan that does not authorise an increase in oil drilling.
They have failed. The president has played his hand perfectly and now Democrats are beginning to hint that they may cave and let the offshore drilling bill come to the floor for a vote. Republicans feel as though they have the votes to get the bill passed.
“I think there is actually very strong bipartisan support for lifting the ban.”
We have these resources and we are not allowed to go and get them. At the same time. the very same people that won’t allow us to increase our oil production are complaining that we are too reliant on foreign oil. Finally the moratorium may be lifted on expanded drilling.
Drilling for more oil may not be the end all be all for all of our energy problems, but it is a starting point.
Democrats are looking to save face after caving into the president on this issue by proposing that they will still be able to go after the evil capitalists who have the audacity (of hope) to make money.
“We have proposed to the Republicans that we will bring this speculation measure to the floor and they can offer an alternative,” Sen. Richard Durbin
I believe that much like the immigration reform bill that was killed last year the senate is hearing from angry constituents who want to expand oil drilling as well as end oil speculation and they realize they have to do something. They can no longer play politics and stall anymore. Now they have to play politics and show their constituents that they are trying.
Both sides are pandering to their bases here, and nothing will probably come from it, but at least there is the possibility that something may happen. That is what we have been reduced to, the (audacity of) hope that maybe, just maybe something will happen.
Plus, it’s good so see the Democrats, who have no ideas and no energy plan, squirm a little bit.
Read more here.
Barack Obama has promised everything to everybody who will listen. He promised Ohio voters that he would repeal NAFTA even while his aides told Canada he was lying. He then said NAFTA needed modifications.
He has promised to end the war in 16 months, in 24 months, he has promised to start the surrender the day he takes office, he has said he would listen to the generals on the ground before making a decision and then immediately sworn to hold true to his latest timetable. His latest stance is that he may revise his policy when he returns from Iraq. I know it’s confusing.
He has promised free socialized health-care for everybody.
He has promised to take down BIG OIL.
He has promised to punish those who have the audacity (of hope) to be successful by raising taxes.
He has promised amnesty to illegal aliens.
He will stop global warming.
He has promised to reach across the isle and unite America.
Recently he even said he would rid the world of nuclear weapons.
As he walks through the fields birds land on his shoulder and sing, flowers are in awe of his beauty, and trees bend down to shade him.
He can do know wrong, he is the savior of not only the country but of the world.
He has promised all of these things and he is portrayed in the media as the way that I have described him. He has created this image for himself but now there is a problem. He has promised so much and to so many that his aides now realize there is no way in hell he will ever be able to do anywhere near what he has promised and so now his aides are getting the word out there that his supporters have “unrealistic expectations.”
Whose fault is that? Sure the media is partly to blame, but the burden Obama is now feeling in his new role as savior is a result of all the promises that Obama has made.
His aides are now out there trying to calm down his supporters, but more importantly his aides are trying to hint to them that Obama will not get everything done that he has promised. They are trying to curb Obama’s supporters’s impending disappointment. They are trying to soften the blow and let them down easy before he has even taken office.
The problem is that his supporters actually believe everything that Obama has said and they are never going to take the hint that is being given by Obama’s aide. They will be let down, they will be hurt, and they will be demoralized. Most people know that all politicians are full of campaign rhetoric (read bullshit), but the Obama supporters have bought into the idea that Obama will bring change. He gives them hope, they really believe he is different. They believe he is not like the other boys.
His supporters truly believe that Obama will unite the country even though he has never once worked with Republicans on any issue. Americans stand a better chance of the maverick turncoat John McCain crossing the isle and working with Democrats than of Obama reaching out to Republicans. Yet he is the candidate of change?
Barack Obama supporters are very enthusiastic about their candidate ( I am jealous as I have no candidate), a recent poll that I heard on the radio had Democrats who were very excited about voting at 80% while the number of Republicans who feel the same is around 20%. So his supporters are not just going to vote, they can’t wait to vote. They are excited and energized and it actually seems to have Obama and his aides a little worried about the expectations of his voters. Voters who are this excited are not going to listen to anyone who says that they are being unrealistic. That is where Obama’s problem is going to lie, after he takes over the White House, living up to those very high expectations. Expectation that he created, and that the media promotes.
I leave you with a quote from an aide on Obama’s middle east trip:
“Unless in the course of this trip he finds weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is highly unlikely that this trip will change his basic strategic judgment about the war,”
And judging by the way he has been portrayed in the media, he probably will single-handedly find those weapons.
Democrat Solution for the Oil Crisis? Stop Driving
Democrats, who were outfoxed by President Bush last week when he lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling, have been scrambling to come up with their own energy plan. And now they have. Does it call for an increase in the oil supply? No. What it does call for is Americans to cut back on their oil consumption.
Congress is doing nothing about this problem other than to say that we, the ordinary people, are using too much oil anyway. They are saying that we are the problem, so how do they propose that we solve this problem that we created?
–expand public transportation;
— encourage “pay-as-you-drive” auto insurance policies that reward low-mileage drivers with lower insurance premiums;
— reduce commuting costs by providing incentives to employers and employees to take transit, bicycle, carpool, walk, or telecommute to work;
— help local governments create “walkable, bikeable” communities;
— help Americans make “smart” transportation and housing choices by educating them about their options;
— create “location efficient mortgages” that would make owning a home near transit more affordable.
What a do-nothing crock of shit this bill is. With congress unwilling to do anything they just pass the buck on to us and tell us that we must sacrifice for the common good. How much are all of these plans that the Democrats going to cost the taxpayer? I don’t think that we want to know the answer to that question. More government programs are the answer to the oil prices according to the Democrats. More government control. Just remember, when the government takes control of anything, when they regulate anything, the price always goes up. Once again the Democrats offer no real solutions to the problem other than to try to tell Americans how to live their lives.
More government programs are not the answer, more oil is!
The numbers are out in regards to campaign contributions for New Hampshire candidates running for the house and senate. It isn’t pretty if you are hoping as I am that New Hampshire is going to swing back to the right.
1st congressional district moonbat Carol Shea-Porter is raising quite a bit of money.
she has $750,000 in her campaign bank after raising $260,275 in the second quarter and $921,736 in the election cycle thus far.
While her Republican opponents (who will face of in a primary vote) aren’t faring nearly as well.
Jeb Bradley dipped into his own wallet and reserves to pay his campaign bills in the past three months.
He loaned his campaign another $50,000, bringing the total in loans from himself to $200,000 since 2004. Bradley still spent more than he raised in the quarter.
Stephen also spent more than he raised, but only by $1,000. His received $136,905
Pretty sad numbers, huh? But do you know what stands out to me from the numbers that Mz. Porter is pulling in? Where the money is coming from. As an unknown Mz. Porter shunned special interest groups to run a grassroots campaign, which she vowed to always do in the future, but take a look at these numbers.
About one-third of her total “take”– $91,000 — came from political committees, mostly from labor union PACs.
In the quarter, she received $2,500 from the AFL-CIO, $3,000 from the United Auto Workers, $5,000 from the NEA, $5,000 from the American Federation of Teachers, and $5,000 from the Service Employees International Union.
The AFLCIO, the auto workers, and the teachers union donated one third of her earnings. But what about the money received from individuals? It isn’t so individual.
A large portion of her contributions from individuals are channeled through well-known liberal conduits, such as ActBlue, Council for a Livable World and MoveOn.org. She also received thousands from fellow Democratic congressional campaign committees and leadership PACs, including $5,000 from California Rep. Henry Waxman’s LA PAC
Carol Shea-Porter is now being financed by some of the most liberal organizations in America. So much for the grassroots campaigning, huh?
She is a fraud.
Charles Rangel Caught in the Culture of Corruption
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
Charles Rangel may be the latest Democrat to be caught in the culture of corruption. It seems as though he has been living in and has a campaign headquarters set up in a rent controlled apartment. That is a no-no.
Rangelis renting four rent-stabilized apartments, one for his campaign office, all at rent control prices for a total of $3,894 per month, when the actual market value is closer to $8,000 per month.
Rangel’s residence is on the16thfloor of the LenoxTerrace luxury apartment complex, with three units made into one. His campaign office was on the 10th floor.New York City regulations require that rent-stabilized apartments are to be used only for housing. Under rent control, Rangel paid $630 per month for the apartment he used as his campaign office. The market rate for such a unit would normally be about $1,700, the Times reported.
So how did Rangel defend himself? He claimed he was going to move out anyway, so it shouldn’t matter. How stupid does he think we are? He was just going to move out of an apartment that he had for 10 years before this story broke and it had nothing to do with this story? This has got to be the unluckiest man alive if that preposterous excuse was true. The audacity (of hope) of this man to think a majority of Americans are stupid enough to fall for his bullshit is astounding. The National Legal Policy Center, a watchdog group, is having none of that.
“It’s too convenient for him to say he was going to move out anyway,” Boehm told Cybercast News Service. “The fact is he didn’t and he had been there for more than 10 years.”
“This is a slam dunk,” Boehm said. “There is no question his landlord is a corporation. There is no doubt the discounted rent was a campaign contribution.”
Ten years he was pulling off this hoax and now that he got caught he is claiming that he was going to move anyway.
There has to be a full investigation into this corrupt man. He has been scamming the taxpayers for ten years and now it is his turn to pay for his corruption.
Charlie Rangel needs to resign. He is a fraud and a cheat.
