With the three remaining candidates for president being so weak, inspiring, and just plain nauseating, it is time to start looking somewhere else, anywhere else. My search has led me here, for starters.
Bob Barr, a former Republican, has announced he is running to become the Libertarian party nominee for president.
“My name is Bob Barr and I’m a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America,” said the former Republican lawmaker, who played a key role in the congressional impeachment of former president Bill Clinton.
Barr said he was running because there was not “currently or anywhere on the horizon” any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.
AMEN! Our whole system of government has been corrupted and it truly is sad to watch.
This could pull votes away from John McCain, but so what? At best he will pull as many votes away from McCain as Ralph Nader will from Obama or Clinton. And if by any chance a vote for Barr is the same as a vote for the Democrat candidate, and it leads to a Democrat president, so be it. I don’t care. To me there isn’t a hell of a lot of difference between McCain, Obama, or Clinton. They are all on the wrong side of illegal immigration, taxes, and global warming for starters.
Do I agree with everything that Bob Barr stands for? No. But I probably agree with more of his stances than with John McCain’s.
I will be voting for a third party candidate, and I will do so with a clear conscience. I will not vote for John McCain just because he is a Republican, and I sure as hell won’t vote for Obama or Clinton, so I have no other choice than to vote third party. If by voting for a third party candidate Obama or Clinton becomes president, don’t blame me or the other Republicans who decided to vote third party. Blame John McCain, and blame the voters who nominated McCain.
You led us to this point.
John McCain Gives a Speech on Global Warming, Another Middle Finger Directed at Republicans
John McCain gave a speech today on global warming that sent shivers up and down my spine, and not good shivers either. John McCain has jumped aboard the global warming alarmist bandwagon, and has hitched his horse to the came carriage as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This is just another issue where he is no better than either of the other two candidates.
I am not going to use this post to debate the whole global warming fiasco, rather I want to look at another part of John McCain’s speech.
Just when you begin to forget how bad John McCain is as the Republican nominee because of all the attention that has been given to the Democrat race, He opens up his mouth and pisses all of us conservatives off again. He seems to enjoy it.
On top of all of the other statements that he made about global warming today (the usual drivel about cap and trade), he made the comment about how he has angered Republicans in the past and he probably will again on the issue of global warming. The part that pissed me off the most about that comment was how he laughed that little evil laugh, you know the one I mean, after he said he angered Republicans in the past.
You are so right about this Senator McCain, you can’t even begin to understand how much I despise you as the Republican nominee, and guess what? You just angered me again with that holier than though, elitist, I know better than you, arrogant, sly little comment. Go ahead and keep playing to the moderates, independents, and undeclared, while alienating the conservatives. When you wake up on the morning of November 5th, hungover, and you are STILL NOT THE PRESIDENT, and you are wondering why, look no further than me, and people like me, for your demise. It won’t seem so funny to you that you angered Republicans in the past because we are going to take the presidency from you.
I look forward to November so that I can either vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. My vote will not be cast for a winning candidate, but it will be cast against you. Just one last middle finger directed at you for all of the ones you have directed at me.
What is the difference between a maverick and a turncoat?
That is the question I would like to pose to everybody today. I forget who first used the term or how long ago it was first used to describe John McCain, but I do know one thing, the media has loved referring to John McCain as a maverick. He is a maverick when he opposes the president, and he is a maverick when he votes against his own party. He is a maverick when he sides with Ted Kennedy to sell our country out to illegal aliens. He is a maverick when he sides with Russ Feingold to restrict free speech before an election, we wouldn’t want the truth about a candidate getting out just before an election, would we?
While he did all of this, the media glowingly called him a maverick. He was a straight talker who told us how it is. To me he sounds like a turncoat. To me he sounds bitter (sorry Barack) about losing the 2000 election. To me he sounds like a man who was trying to sell his party out. Hell, he even almost left the Republican party and became a Democrat. And of course, the maverick label was thought of so highly that John Kerry asked him to be his vice presidential running mate before settling for John Edwards.
Yet he was the media darling. The maverick senator. The straight talker.
Then there is the story of another senator who turned on his party. He was never branded a maverick, he was never heralded as a man who rises above party affiliations. He was never called a straight talker. This man was Joe Lieberman. He did not receive the same media accolades when he opposed his party and declared we must not pull out of Iraq. He was not called a straight talker for telling America that we must fight until we win in Iraq. Quite the contrary, the media jumped on him, they did not glowingly refer to him as anything. How did the party voters respond? He lost his seat in the primary to an ultra liberal moonbat, that’s how. Luckily for Lieberman more sane voters showed up in the general election and voted him in as an independent. Now he is a man without a party, a turncoat. But is what he did really any different than what McCain did? I don’t think so. So it is pretty interesting to see how two candidates can be treated and labeled so differently by the media.
We know the reason for this, it is a no-brainer. One opposed President Bush, and the other joined President Bush. Maverickization is in the eyes of the beholder. And we know how the media beholds President Bush, don’t we?
Remember Zell Miller? He was a Democrat, who was also a hawk, but he spoke at the Republican convention in 2004 claiming that the Democrat party left him behind. His speech was aimed pointedly at John Kerry as he said the following:
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Enduring Freedom. The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq. The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadafi’s Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora. The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation’s Capital and this very city after 9/11. I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against. This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?”
Was Zell Miller branded a maverick? No. Was he called a straight talker? No. He was a turncoat. There was no room for him in the Democrat party and the media didn’t paint him as a maverick or a straight talker. He was labeled as a crackpot.
What was the difference between him and John McCain? The same as the difference between McCain and Lieberman. One opposed President Bush and one joined President Bush.
So the difference between a maverick and a turncoat depends on what party you vote for, and in the media’s case they have made it perfectly clear on which side they stand.
I would call Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller mavericks, while I would brand John McCain as a turncoat. Democrats and the media, just the opposite.
Your maverick is my turncoat, and visa-versa I suppose.
This has just been kind of interesting to watch. Massachusetts has approved another $1.00 a pack tax on cigarettes, a tax burden that unfairly affects the poor and disadvantaged at a disproportionate level by the way. A tax that preys on a person’s weakness seems like an extremely vile tax to me in the first place.
Anyway, once New Hampshire’s liberal, tax and spend, irresponsible governor, John Lynch, heard that Massachusetts was going to raise it’s cigarette tax what do you think that he decided to do? That’s right, raise New Hampshire’s cigarette tax, just not as much as Massachusetts so that Massachusetts residents would still come to New Hampshire for their cigarettes. This will be New Hampshire’s third cigarette tax increase since Governor Lynch took office, and Governor Lynch actually DID justify it during his announcement with the third grade mentality of “I know you are but what am I” politics. He basically said, I know this is another tax increase, but hey, at least it isn’t as much as Massachusetts, as if any state policy should be compared to or based on another state’s policy. In his excitement, Governor Lynch didn’t even wait for Massachusetts new cigarette tax to be voted on or implemented before he announced his new tax. He just couldn’t wait.
But Massachusetts had a secret little plan in store for New Hampshire to try to slow the tide of residents pouring over the border to feed John Lynch’s (not so) little coffers. A repeal of the state price regulations law that has been in effect since 1945. This little known law made it a fine able offence for stores to sell cigarettes below a state imposed minimum. That’s right, the state actually guaranteed a higher profit for tobacco companies by refusing to allow lower prices on cigarettes. This law was promoted as helping to sway younger people from smoking. Needless to say, the anti-smoking nazis are up in arms about the repeal of this law, but you know what? If it means more people putting tax dollars into the hands of Deval Patrick, than he says to hell with stopping young people from smoking. Deval Patrick and Massachusetts needs more revenue because the bill to gamble online for real money fell through while Deval was in New York signing a million dollar book deal.
The repeal of the price regulations law in Massachusetts is designed to hopefully lower cigarette prices and keep Massachusetts residents in Massachusetts to buy their cigarettes. In reality cigarette prices will probably remained unchanged, only more money will be headed to the government instead of the tobacco companies.
It will give those who buy cigarettes a break because the price will probably drop enough to mitigate the tax increase,” said the amendment’s sponsor, Sen. Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield). “So consumers might not get whacked with a huge increase.”
I guess I just have a fundamental difference with this type of thinking. I don’t find it any more reassuring that smokers won’t get wacked, as Senator Tisei puts it, because more and more money is still going to the government that should be left in the people’s pockets. Spending should be cut before taxes are increased but both Massachusetts and New Hampshire don’t seem to understand that simple little point.
Now that Massachusetts has pulled this little fast one on New Hampshire Governor Lynch, who 
jumped the gun on his tax increase, has been urged to hold off increasing the cigarette tax to study the effects of the combined Massachusetts tax hike and price control deregulation. Governor Lynch, in an effort to suck Massachusetts residents dry, played his hand way too early, he exposed his aces in the hole and Massachusetts has caught him.
Governor Lunch is being told that New Hampshire may gain more revenue by keeping a larger gap in the price of cigarettes between New Hampshire and Massachusetts than if New Hampshire was to increase taxes which would persuade more to just stay in Massachusetts. However Governor Lynch is addicted to new taxes and he wont be able to keep his greedy little hands out of the pot. Cigarette taxes will go up in New Hampshire, Governor Lynch can’t help himself.
Governor Lynch got played in this whole deal. In his uncontrollable urge for more taxes he played his hand too early and Massachusetts pulled one over on him. Don’t be so overanxious the next time, it is really unbecoming. Especially when you consider the groups you are about to screw over the most.
Recently Barack Obama claimed that Republican turncoat, John McCain was losing his bearings. It was an obvious prejudice towards John McCain’s age.
But if you watch this video you will see Barack Obama “lose his bearings” while trying to say how many states he has visited. It is pretty obvious that he meant to say 47 states, not 57, but then he says “with one to go”, he realizes he is still two states short even if he meant 47, and then tries to talk his way out of it.
It’s just kind of funny.
An interesting editorial appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader today, here it is reprinted in it’s entirety:
THE CLASSIC Popeye cartoon character named Wimpy had a taste for hamburgers that exceeded his budget. Always short on cash, he would go into a restaurant and utter his famous catch-phrase, “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
On Thursday the Legislature passed an education funding plan on the Wimpy payment system. Legislators decided that whoever gets elected to the General Court this fall will gladly pay next year for the school funding plan passed yesterday.
The state currently spends $897 million for education. Legislators on Thursday raised that to $940 million in the 2009-10 school year and $975 million a year in the future. They did so knowing full well that there is no source of additional funding to raise school spending even a dime higher than the amount contained in the existing budget. Current estimates predict a roughly $250 million shortfall in this two-year state budget. So even funding the current level of state education spending will be a challenge, never mind finding an additional $43 million to $78 million.
Where will that extra money come from? That’s for the next Legislature to decide after the next election.
The plan also violates the state constitution as interpreted by the state Supreme Court. It determines how much money the state must give each community to fund an adequate education, then doesn’t fully fund that amount for some communities during a two-year transition period.
The point of the two-year transition is to prevent sudden, enormous fluctuations in local school budgets. Politically, it makes sense. But technically, it violates the Supreme Court’s mandate that the state provide 100 percent of adequate education funding for every community.
It is yet another example of how the Claremont jurisprudence makes reasonable political compromises on school funding virtually impossible.
This whole mess of an education funding plan is the direct result of trying in vain to obey court decisions that make no real-world sense. Education funding is a political exercise. The court has tried to take politics out of it and make it an issue of rights, which creates an untenable situation.
Next year, legislators will find themselves engaged in the political task of finding additional money to fund this politically crafted school spending plan. They will do that under the pretense of ignoring politics and looking only to secure each student’s right to an adequate education.
That is dishonest and absurd.
There are two things that I find interesting, if not disturbing, about this latest school funding proposal, the first of which is the fact that it violates the state constitution. There is already state supreme court precedence in regards to passing spending legislation without actually finding the means to fund the legislation, which is what this does. The New Hampshire supreme court has already found this to be unconstitutional. Evidently this doesn’t mean too much to the far left moonbats that have taken over control of the state. They don’t care how much something costs, or even how to pay for it. It is for someone else to worry about, as far as they are concerned.
The second aspect that I find interesting is the fact that they purposely postponed funding this bill until after the election. There is no way in hell the legislators would ever vote to fund this bill before the election. Governor Lynch and the rest of his tax and spend buddies are going to have to institute either a sales or income tax to pay for this. It’s either that or further raise all of the other taxes that Governor Lynch enjoys raising. Either way it would be political suicide to proceed with actually funding this irresponsible legislation, so they will just postpone the spending aspect of the bill until after the election (illegally, mind you.)
People of New Hampshire, YOU NEED TO WAKE UP, AND WAKE UP RIGHT NOW. Can’t you see what is going on here? The wool is being pulled over your eyes and you are either not paying attention, don’t care, or we have simply become Massachusetts north.
It is probably all of the above, and it sucks!
How many fucking times to we have to go through this bullshit? COME ON NEW HAMPSHIRE, SOLVE THE BUDGET DEFICIT GOVERNOR LYNCH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AND STOP WASTING YOUR FUCKING TIME WITH THIS! If anybody should be impeached it is Governor Lynch for his reckless and idiotic tax and spend legislation that is about to bankrupt this once great and fiscally responsible state. We have turned into nothing but a bunch of government dependent, nanny state followers, and it is Governor Lynch’s fault. I DEMAND HIS IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW, DAMN IT!
If you can’t tell, I am so tired of New Hampshire wasting time on bullshit legislation such as the impeachment of the president by this senile 300 year old useless representative Betty Hall I could just scream. We have so many other problems to worry about here in New Hampshire, impeaching the president is not one of them. President Bush will be gone in less than one year, LET IT GO! The state legislature just broke the state constitution by passing spending legislation without a means to fund it and we are worried about impeachment? I AM MORE WORRIED ABOUT GOVERNOR LYNCH AND STATE DEMOCRATS SHITTING ON THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
Betty Hall still regrets that she voted against impeaching Richard Nixon and that is what is driving her to proceed on this resolution. I am not making that up:
“My failure to vote for the New Hampshire House resolution for the Nixon impeachment is absolutely the biggest regret of my legislative career. That is why I am so dedicated to doing this now,” she said.
This is how far that New Hampshire has turned left? I find it hard to believe, but it appears to be the case.
Democrats have long held the public stance that they will end the war if only we send a larger majority of Democrats to the house and senate, as well as a Democrat to the White House of course. Privately I believe they hold a totally different stance. It would be very easy for Democrats to end the war, they could begin the ending tomorrow if they wanted to, hell they could end it today if their really were so inclined. All that they have to do is vote to defund the war. It would be over and troops would almost immediately start to come home.
Democrats know deep down inside the dangers of ending the war before it is over and they don’t have the balls to vote for defunding it. Democrats don’t want their names tied to the wrong side of a vote on national security if something happens after they defunded the war, so they refuse to vote for defunding the war.
However, they had a chance to defund the war and bring it to an end without voting on it, and they refused to do so. All that the Democrat house leader had to do was not allow the latest Iraq war funding bill to come up for a vote. This would have effectively ended the war. This would have delivered to their constituency on the promise that they have been making to them for four years, ending the war. Here is what the Democrat majority leader in the house had to say about the possibility of ending the war in this manner:
“I don’t personally believe it’s a practical alternative not to put a bill on the floor and not to let the House of Representatives work its will on what it wants to do on this issue,”
I thought we knew what their will was. Weren’t we told that Democrats were elected in 2006 to end the unpopular war? Shouldn’t their will be to end the war then? This would have been an easy, ball-less way to end the war and they are even too scared to make good on their biggest campaign promise of ’06.
What a bunch of frauds.
By now everybody has heard the infamous “sermons” from Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor and pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Barack Obama stood by his pastor when the video clips first hit the airwaves, but as the controversy grew and Reverend Wright became a serious detriment to the Obama campaign Obama was forced to denounce his former reverend.
Obama has maintained that he had never, ever heard Wright make such statements in the TWENTY YEARS he attended Wright’s church. Apparently we are to believe that the only time Reverend Wright made controversial statements was coincidentally times where Barack Obama just happened to miss church. It wasn’t until Reverend Wright decided that he liked his new found fifteen minutes of fame and decided to turn it into an hour that Obama found it politically exponential to denounce Wright’s statements as divisive and destructive. He claims that the man he heard utter those words during his magical mystery media tour was not the same man that he had grown to know over the years.
However, we are now beginning to hear about church bulletins from Obama’s church that also preach the same type of hate as late as last year. I suppose we are to believe Obama just happened to not read these bulletins either.
Articles published in the Trinity United Church of Christ bulletin in 2007 carried controversial comments written by people other than Jeremiah Wright. Those comments included the claim that Israel worked with South Africa to build an “ethnic bomb” that would kill blacks and Arabs, that the Pentagon was training Latin Americans to be terrorists, and that the TV networks are run by right-wing racists.
This is the type of hate that Barack Obama and his wife took his young girls to listen to on a weekly basis. How is that for judgement from the man who is running on his judgement because he claims he would not have voted for war with Iraq? This shows a lack of judgement to me.
When interviewed about his denouncement of Reverend Wright, Obama claimed that he wasn’t committing to Wright by joining the church, rather the church itself.
“I think that the American people understand that when I joined Trinity United Church of Christ, I was committing not to Pastor Wright. I was committing to a church and I was committing to Christ. And it is a wonderful church.”
Now it appears as if the church itself harbors the same hateful and anti-American ideology as Reverend Wright. It will be interesting to see now Barack Obama tries to distance himself from this, if he does at all, however Obama’s campaign refused to comment on these new revelations (pardon the pun.)
You can read more in this article.
New Hampshire may now have a second Republican candidate for governor. His name is James Adams and he seems to have party insiders excited. For whatever reason party insiders aren’t real excited about their other candidate, Joe Kenney. Several Republicans have considered taking on the popular, liberal governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, including the mayor of Manchester, but they have all decided against it.
Now Republicans may have a couple of options in the election. Here is what New Hampshire GOP chairman, Fergus Cullen had to say about Adams, who would be running for his first elective office:
“Jim’s initial strengths are management experience with a large organization with large budgets and a less tangible set of political skills that comes from rising to the top in a large political, bureaucratic organization and staying there,” he said.
I don’t know anything about this man, but here is a little about where he stands on taxing and spending:
“I was concerned with the state of the economy and with the 17.5 percent spending increase in the state budget,” he said. “Where I came from, that sort of budget would have meant the individual in charge would no longer be there.”
Adams called Democratic Gov. John Lynch “a good man and a very popular governor,” but he believes the budget and government can be cut.
He took the anti-broad based tax pledge in an interview
He is on the right side of this issue, that is for sure. If Adams decides to run it will be interesting to hear both of these candidates on the issues. I may not know much about these men right now, but I will learn all that I can about them during the primary season. It looks to be interesting.
I will leave you with a good quote from Joe Kenney on liberal John Lynch’s plan to tax Texas Hold’em card games that raise money for charities that would effectively leave 10% less money to go to the charities the games are supposed to benefit.
Kenney has been calling Lynch’s new plan for a higher cigarette tax and a tax on Texas Hold ‘Em charity games “tax and hold ’em,” Crane said.
It looks to be interesting in New Hampshire this election year. I am still holding out a faint hope that Republicans in New Hampshire can gain control and stop the bleeding that liberal Democrats have started in regard to taxes.
Read more here.
