Is this what John Lynch calls leadership? In a manner very reminiscent of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, John Lynch let a $940 million school funding bill slip into law without his signature. Governor Lynch supposedly was against this bill but he refused to veto it and so now this soon to be tax increase is law and it goes on the books without his name to be seen anywhere on it.
The governor said that we needed this bill but at the same time he claims he opposes it.
Lynch said the state needs the new plan, which takes effect a year from now, to meet a June 30 deadline the state Supreme Court set in its last school funding ruling. However, Lynch said he opposes the way it distributes aid that increases by an estimated $43 million over the previous plan.
“This legislation is not my preferred solution,” he said in a statement. “I believe New Hampshire should direct more education aid to communities with greater needs. That is not possible, however, under the constraints of the Supreme Court’s decisions. It is also clear that, despite our best efforts, there was not sufficient support in the legislature for a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would have allowed us to target school aid.”
He doesn’t like the bill but he refused to veto it so it slipped into law? Bullshit! This is typical John Lynch. Playing both sides against the middle. The man now being called the teflon governor gets what he really wanted, more spending, and was able to keep his name off of it. Nothing sticks to this man. Here is the Republican response:
“(Lynch) should have vetoed the bill,” said Rep. David Hess, deputy minority leader. “It spends $180 million too much and has absolutely no funding mechanism in there. It’s an invitation to broad based tax.”
BINGO, that is what John Lynch’s hidden motive has been all along, a broad-based tax. This bill coupled with his outrageous penchant for spending will lead to a sales or income tax. A tax the governor claims to oppose, a tax that most of the Democrats in New Hampshire want, a tax that will be proposed, a tax that will be signed. A tax that will be the direct result of this bill. A bill the governor was smart enough not to sign, but he still got the same result as if it was signed.
When the broad-based tax is linked to this bill our teflon governor will just say, “hey I opposed the bill, I didn’t sign it.” and he will be right, but he will have allowed it to become law. And he knew what the end result would be. He wants the income tax, he just doesn’t want his name associated with it.
Remember the good old days when gas was just above $2.00 a gallon? I do, it wasn’t that long ago. As a matter of fact it was just before the 2006 election when the Democrats regained control of the house and senate when the gas prices were that low.
Democrats promised what they called a commonsense solution to the rising gas prices and so far it hasn’t worked out so well. Since the Democrats took over the price of gas has risen 71% while the government makes a profit of 18% per barrel of oil compaired to the 4% profit the BIG OIL companies get.
And it is only going to get worse. As if a profit of 18% isn’t enough for Democrats just wait until Obama is president because he is going to tax oil companies even more. The government’s profits will go up under Obama and the oils company’s profits will go down. Well, the oil company’s profits would go down except that the oil companies will pass the taxes on to us and we will be lining the pockets of BIG GOVERNMENT who will reap the rewards of an Obama presidency off of the hard work of the American people.
All that taxing BIG OIL will accomplish is raising the price of oil, we will pay more and the government will make more. If Obama is elected you can count on having less money between this and all of the other programs and taxes he has proposed.
Gas prices are up 71% since Democrats took over and that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Video: Barack Obama Unscripted
It is time for me to give Barack Obama some props. The man can give one hell of a speech. He sounds great delivering a rehearsed and well written speech.
However when the teleprompter is not on and he has to give spontaneous, unrehearsed answers all bets are off. He turns into a bumbling idiot. I find this highly ironic because of all the insults that have been thrown at President Bush for his lack of speaking skills. Just watch this video and image it was President Bush instead of the new Messiah.
Don’t you just love the way he blames the crowd noise for his distraction even though the crowd was silent? A commenter to this video on youtube suggested that maybe Barack Obama wears a wire when answering questions so that he can be fed the answers and maybe it wasn’t working. That got me thinking about how the left INSISTED that President Bush was wearing a wire during his debates with John Kerry in 2004 to receive answers to the questions. So is it so outrageous then to accuse Obama of the same.
In this next video Obama loses his concentration again and calls for children with Asthma to be required to take a breathalyzer. He then corrects himself and says they need an inhalater. What the hell is an inhalater? You mean inhaler?
Hillary summed up Obama best when she said he had only words, that his speeches were only words. Now we find that even words fail him when he has to think on his feet and the answers aren’t handed to him beforehand. Obama is all image and no substance.
I first wrote about the Democrats sneaking a national fingerprint registry into the housing bail out bill here. What I didn’t realize at that time was that Barack Obama was actually a co-sponsor of this bill.
Barack Obama has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration and of the human rights violations he believe the president has committed. This coupled with his belief that the president is violating people’s privacy by listening to their phone conversations and trampling the constitution in general, makes me wonder how Barack Obama could possibly agree with a national fingerprint registry. Never mind co-sponsor it.
Requiring innocent Americans to send in their fingerprints to the feds while doing nothing wrong is perfectly fine to Obama, but listening to the international incoming calls from suspected terrorists is not okay. That is what Barack Obama is telling us.
That is the type of convoluted, backwards thinking logic that we will be dealing with after Barack Obama becomes president. It is almost as if he makes up his positions as he goes and doesn’t even see the big picture even when it contradicts what he supposedly believes in.
I can’t even begin to imagine what this lady was going through when she decided to have an abortion but that isn’t going to stop me from offering my opinion. Jodie Percival already had a son that died from kidney disease and has another son that has only one kidney and it is damaged. When she found out she was pregnant again she decided to have an abortion, not because there was anything wrong with the child she was now carrying, but because she was afraid there might be something wrong with the baby.
“I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant,” Percival, 25, said. “Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.”
I can’t even begin to imagine what was going through her mind, but I have to wonder what kind of council she was getting. Somehow in her mind she rationalized the fact that she had lost a child into justifying her decision to end her own child’s life. The only difference is that she had not seen this child so she had not accepted it as a child and member of the family. She decided to lose the baby in the womb before she would have the possibility of losing the baby after he was born. There really is no difference here, other than the timing.
However many weeks later something amazing happened and Jodie was informed that her baby survived the attempt on it’s life.
“I couldn’t believe it,’ Percival said. “This was the baby I thought I’d terminated. At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed. I wrote to the hospital, I couldn’t believe that they had let me down like this.
That first sentence reveals a stunning admission. She said “This was the baby I thought I’d terminated”, that is an admission that the pre-born was indeed a baby. It is not often that you hear someone admit that the terminated “problem” is actually a baby, but that is what we have here.
Another scan a week later confirmed the baby also had kidney problems, but doctors told the couple the baby was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved another chance at life.
They decided that the baby deserved another chance at life? How big of them, huh? After trying to deny this baby of the right to life they have changed their minds. I want to know why this baby didn’t have the initial chance at life. The chance at life that the mother was so willing to throw away.
The baby, Finley, was born with minor kidney damage and is expected to live a normal life, no thanks to the mother who tried to abort him.
Below is a picture of the baby along with the now smiling mother who tried to abort him without giving him a chance at life. How could anybody ever decide that this boy didn’t deserve a right to life in the first place?
Today is a day that I have been looking forward to for a long, long time. I have been hoping to hear Hillary concede a presidential election bid since, well, since before she even announced her candidacy for president. Everybody knew that when she dragged her carpet-bagging ass to New York that her ultimate prize was on the white house. I have been hoping for her demise since then. And today I got it, and I have to admit, it isn’t nearly as pleasurable as I had hoped.
The reason that I have been robbed of this pleasure is simple and can be summed up in two words- Barack Obama. While I still do take pleasure in Hillary Clinton’s demise the prospect of a Barack Obama presidency dulls what should have been a glorious day.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton is far more experienced than Barack Obama. I have heard it said that Barack Obama isn’t qualified to be president, and technically according to the constitution that is untrue. He is qualified, but he is not ready. Barack Obama had ONE YEAR of experience in the United States senate before declaring his bid for the white house. ONE YEAR! Hillary Clinton, like her or not, has been in public life for her whole life.
Barack Obama has purposely not let mainstream America know where he stands on various issues, as his voting record, or lack thereof, in the Illinois state senate shows us. Barack Obama either skipped or just voted present to any controversial issue that came before him. This was deliberately done so that there would be no paper trail that would show us how much of a radical left wing zealot this man was.
Any man who would not vote so save living babies on the delivery room floor is not a man who I would ever want to see as president. Any man who thinks it appropriate to teach sex education to KINDERGARTNERS should not be president. Neither should a man who considers pregnancy just a punishment for bad behavior, as Barack Obama described it.
This radical leftist is now the party nominee and that has tempered my enthusiasm about Hillary’s demise. Misogynistic Democrats have decided that a man, any man, even one with so little experience as Barack Obama is better served to be president than a woman, any woman, even the first lady of the Democrat party. Even a woman who has dedicated her whole life to serving her country, for better or worse.
I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton is gone (hopefully forever) but it has left us with Barack Obama, the most liberal, left wing moonbat ever to secure the Democrat nomination, and in all likelihood the next president, so with great reservation let me say that I would rather have seen Hillary Clinton as president. At least she has SOME experience.
Like they say, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Well, I just got it and now it is time to be afraid, be very afraid.
New Hampshire Democrats Prove They Have no Class
New Hampshire Democrats have reached a new low. In a fund raising email sent out by New Hampshire state Democrats, the following was written:
House Republicans have had no caucus fund-raisers that we know of. They are struggling to find candidates. They have tragically lost their leader this year and can’t unify as a party. We want the story on June 19 to be, ‘House Democrats flush with cash, Republican scraping bottom.
The line “tragically lost their leader” refers to the death earlier this year of Mike Whalley, the state Republican minority leader. What a shameless act this is, referring to the death of the Republican leader while contrasting it to all of the money flowing into the Democrat party. The inference here is that Democrats are well organized and raising money while the Republicans are leaderless and moneyless. It is a politicization of the death of a man with whom the Democrats disagree and it is despicable and classless. Just look at that last line, “Republicans scraping bottom”, how pathetic is it that the Democrats would remind people that the Republicans have lost their leader and because of this they use the term “scraping bottom” to describe the state Republican party?
But I wouldn’t expect anything else from the New Hampshire Democrats. Bill Shaheen, husband of Jeanne Shaheen (former New Hampshire governor who instituted the statewide property tax and current challenger to John Sununu for United States Senate) was forced earlier this year to resign from Hillary Clinton’s campaign as a top adviser for indicating that Barack Obama may have dealt drugs as a teenager. He made it up out of thin air.
So while using the death of an opponent as a political and fund raising issue doesn’t really surprise me it does sicken me. Let’s face it, state Democrats are glad that Mike Whalley died. Because they no longer have to fight him and because they can use it for fund raising.
New Hampshire Democrats have no class. Governor Lynch, you should be ashamed of your party. Come on big man, step up and denounce this horrific fund raising ploy.
Hillary Clinton has some work to do with her colleagues in the senate who feel as though she stayed in the race too long and hurt the party. When she returns to the senate she could find it a little more unfriendly than when she left it to run for president. I say this because of a couple of stories that I have read recently.
Hillary Clinton triumphantly announced to all that would listen that she would accept the vice president nomination, stepping on what should have been Barack Obama’s moment in the sun. She became the story on a day that should have belonged to Barack Obama. This was met with a less than enthusiastic response from Democrats in the senate.
Now Democrats are already letting it be known that there is not going to be a special leadership role for Hillary when she returns to the senate. The thing is, she hasn’t even asked for a special position, but this shows us what the Democrats are thinking. They are thinking that Hillary is looking for something.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) imminent return to the Senate does not mean she will be greeted with a newly created position within her conference’s leadership, Democratic leaders said Thursday.
Clinton has not sought a special leadership position and has made clear that she is open to being Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) vice presidential nominee. If she does not get chosen for the No. 2 spot, some have speculated that Democratic leaders might carve out a special position within the leadership as a way to appease her supporters and bring the party together.
Hillary Clinton wants something, that is a given. She stayed in the race until this point to accrue political capital and she intends to spend it. The responses on these two issues by the Democrats show me that they are not willing to just take her back with no hard feelings. The Clinton’s are used to getting what they want and the anointed one is still reeling from her projected primary loss, now it appears that Democrats are tiring of the Clinton machine. Democrat senators appear no longer willing to just appease the Clinton’s any more, they have a brand new, shiny toy, and that toy is Barack Obama.
I believe that these two stories reveal a rift between Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. I feel that they are holding a grudge against Hillary for not dropping out of the race once it was apparent that she could not catch Obama. Democrats will hold her fully responsible if McCain pulls off the miracle and wins in November.
The Clinton’s are a couple of bullies, and that is another reason she stayed in the race so long, she felt if she bullied Obama long enough he would wilt. And he did wilt coming down the stretch, his showing in the last ten primaries show that. She just waited too long to start the bullying for it to pay off. But she managed to hurt Obama and if this ends up costing the Democrats in November they will turn to Hillary Clinton with eyes glaring and teeth sharpened.
She has tarnished her image among Democrats and they now see her in the same way Republicans do, as a manipulating, self-centered, egotistical elitist. Only now she may have damaged one of their own and they begrudge her for it.
Life in the senate may be tough for Hillary when she returns.
One of my concerns about John McCain is illustrated here and was spoken by Robert Novak. That concern is the issue of judges. The next president will likely have at least one appointment to the supreme court. This year appears to be a very dim one for Republicans. I know I am not writing anything profound in that statement but it does bring up interesting prospects when you think about what would happen if John McCain actually pulled of a miracle and became president.
Even if he were to win the presidency, McCain would certainly be faced with a Democrat majority in the house and senate that might even be veto proof. Knowing John McCain’s penchant for “working with” (read subjugating himself to) Democrats, he probably prefers it that way. And on the issue of judges here is what Robert Novak had to say:
Novak, the featured speaker at the event, predicted that the GOP will lose four seats in the Senate. As a result, said Novak, a President McCain will be “strongly tempted” to refrain from selecting a Supreme Court nominee such as Chief Justice John Roberts or Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
This is just another reason why John McCain is such a lousy nominee for conservatives. Rather than pick a conservative judge and fight for his appointee he will just give in to show the country how well he can work with Democrats,(in other words bend over and take it from the Democrats without a fight or a kiss), by crossing the isle and acquiescing to their every whim.
President Bush’s ultimate long lasting legacy will be his two supreme court nominees. Long after he has left office and long after the war is over Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito will still be serving the country as supreme court justices. John McCain could single handedly undo all of the great work President Bush has done in the supreme court by negating Alito and Roberts with moderate judges.
John McCain has held a grudge against President Bush for eight years, perhaps he relishes undoing what President Bush has accomplished in the supreme court. Perhaps this would be his form of retribution against the president. Or perhaps John McCain just isn’t a conservative and relishes the opportunity to stick it to Bush.
I think it is all of the above.
Tony Rezco, who just happens to have been one of Barack Obama’s major fundraisers, has been convicted on 16 money laundering charges.
Tony Rezco is more than just a campaign fund raiser for Obama, he also provided Barack Obama with a sweet little land deal.
Obama bought a house and lot. Rezko’s wife bought an undeveloped property next door. The two parcels had once been a single tract of land.
Obama paid $1.65 million for the house and lot while Rezko paid $625,000 for the undeveloped lot. Six months later, Rezko sold a strip of his property to Obama, who wanted to increase the size of his side yard. Obama paid Rezko $104,500, which he says was the market rate.
While Obama has said that the transaction was handled ethically, he has conceded the perception of favor-trading it created was a “boneheaded” mistake.
A boneheaded mistake? They say that you can judge a man’s character by the company he keeps, and Obama keeps some very slimy company. This is just one example. Yet the media remains silent. People are all too willing to let this slide. Hillary Clinton was, GULP, right about one thing….Barack Obama IS getting a free ride from the press. Not even one questions about his former friend and fundraiser.
This conviction is more tan just about Rezco, it highlights the corruption in the Democrat party in Illinois, and just in case you missed it, that would be Barack Obama’s state.
Birkett added, “The conviction of Tony Rezko represents a deep stain on the Democratic Party in Illinois. Democrats from top to bottom, including Barack Obama, stood idly by — and in some instances directly benefited — while the massive Blagojevich corruption scheme flourished. They rode into office promising to clean up after the George Ryan scandals and they have taken corruption in Illinois to a new low. They ought to be held accountable at the polls starting this November.”
Barack Obama stood idly by while all this corruption was going on all around him and he did nothing. Maybe he was a beneficiary, but even if we was not he allowed it to happen, he should be held accountable for not holding anyone accountable. How can we trust this man’s judgement if his judgement told him to ignore this corruption? If he was unaware, what does this say about him? All this corruption around him and he is blissfully ignorant. So in my eyes he either can’t be trusted for his judgement, or he can’t be trusted for his blindness to events circling around him. Or he can’t be trusted because he benefited from the corruption.
And if anybody wants to comment here about John McCain and the Keating 5 to counter my Obama criticism, please feel free. You will be proving my earlier point on media bias.
