Obama Delegate Resigns for “Racist” Comment
Barack Obama’s campaign asked for and received the resignation of one of Obama’s delegates today. Why? What was her crime?
Ramirez-Sliwinski “came outside and told the children to quit playing in the tree like monkeys.”
Unfortunately for Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski the children she called monkeys were black. I am well aware of how this term can be used as a racial slur, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here. I remember growing up with my brother and sister and having my grandmother call us monkeys for climbing on things and up trees. Hell, I have called my children monkeys in the past when they were doing the same. There was no intent by my grandmother to insult as there was no intent by me to insult. It was simply a term used to describe children behaving like monkeys you would see in the zoo or on television.
On the surface it seems to me that Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski was using the term in the same way.
“Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski said she saw the kids playing in the tree and didn’t want them falling out of the tree and getting hurt. She said she calls her own grandchildren ‘monkeys,’ “
It would appear to me that Linda’s only fault here would be that she looked at the children and DIDN’T see color. What I am trying to say, I guess, is that she wasn’t politically correct. She simply saw children playing in a tree and called them monkeys. Perhaps if she had seen them as BLACK children and not just as CHILDREN she would have thought twice about using the term. That is my problem with being politically correct. Children should be seen as children first and foremost, not as a black child or a white child or an Asian child. Just as an adult should be seen the same way.
Political correctness, while it was meant to bring people closer together by limiting free speech and possible offensive language, has actually done more to harm race relations than it has helped. Instead of treating people the same, we are being trained to look at people and categorize them by race before we speak. If Linda had done this she would still be an Obama delegate. But does that make it right? Is it right that if she saw color before she spoke, instead of just seeing people, she would still be a delegate? I don’t think so.
This woman is obviously not a racist in my opinion, she was a delegate for Barack Obama, that alone should tell you that she isn’t a racist. If she were a racist, she would look at Obama and see a black man running for president instead of a man running for president and she would not have agreed to be a delegate for him in the first place.
She looked at Obama as a man first, just as she looked at the children as children first. For that, she had to resign.
Political correctness claims another victim.
Our Children are Being Brainwashed About Global Warming
As the liberal push is in high gear to indoctrinate our children into the whole global warming hoax it appears as though more and more realists are starting to fight back. At least I hope so.
“We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore’s alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background,” Gray ( a well known hurricane forecaster) wrote.
BINGO! This is something that I have been writing about for a while now. I am conserned that our children are being taught as fact a theory which has not yet and never will be proven. It is a lie.
The alarmists, who are in it for either the monetary gain that can be made through the carbon offset “business”, or the taxes and restrictions that can be imposed, are going after the weakest of us all. Our children. They are being indoctrinated into a belief that man, even though we are a part of nature, is destroying nature. Our children will grow up knowing no other truth and because of this will be brainwashed into believing taxes are good to save the planet.
I feel better when I find articles like the one I have linked above, it makes me feel as though there is still hope. It seems to me that there are more and more scientists and meteorologists who are beginning to publically question this whole idea of man made global warming. It isn’t a moment too soon, I just hope it isn’t too late.
Los Angeles to Consider a Global Warming Tax
Anyone who frequents here knows that it is my belief that man-made global warming is a hoax being perpetrated on the American people in the interest of rasing taxes and imposing more restrictions and regulations on everyday life.
Then a story such as this one comes along and justifies my opinion. Los Angeles is about to take a serious look at imposing a global warming tax on motorists.
Billed as a “climate change mitigation and adaptation fee,” the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions. The new charges would be on top of taxes already paid at the pump.
This is just another example of the true aganda behind the global warming hoax. I am going to say it again, there is a reason that the leading voices on this issue are politicians and not scientists. Global warming stands to become a million if not billion dollar industry if we let them get away with this bullshit.
During this time of a supposed economic slowdown with talk of a recession, what do these politicians suggest? More taxes? If the liberals in government really cared about working class families they would be proposing bills that let us keep our money, not legislation to take more away from us.
We need to stand up now and not let them get away with this fraud. Slowly but surely Americans are being indoctrinated into this mindset. It is being taught in school as fact even though there are plenty of dissenting view out there.
Al Gore has declared the science settled and has proclaimed the debate over when if comes to climate change. We have never had a debate on this issue. We have been force fed this “science” and told we must accept it. I WILL NOT! Al Gore is afraid to debate the issue on it’s merits because it has none. So instead it is being stuffed down our throats.
Slowly but surely, through taxes and regulations, Americans are pushed into false environmentalism. Science be damned.
This global warming tax being considered in Los Angeles is only the beginning. If citizens there let them get away with it, there will be more and more to come. And it will spread across the country. Once politicians find out that people are willing to accept taxes for any purpose the door will be open for any and all taxes to come.
All three of the remaining presidential candidates are on board with this bullshit. Get ready to pay!
I read this editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader today with great interest. It involves my congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter and her position, or lack thereof, on the second amendment.
Specifically, she seems unsure of her position on the 2nd Amendment. She has always proclaimed herself a supporter of the 2nd Amendment’s declaration that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Nothing wrong with that, however does she really? What about her position on the Washington D.C. handgun ban that is now in front of the supreme court? Where does she stand on this issue? The editorial goes on to say that she was the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation to refuse to sign a statement supporting overturning the ban.
“Well, I’ll tell you. I support the 2nd Amendment as well. And I come from a state where people hunt. I understand that. I’ve lived in the North Country, and I support their right to hunt. I support all that. However, there is another issue: states’ rights. And so I am waiting for the court to make a decision about this.
“And there are two different issues here. And we also want to make sure we protect states’ rights.”
So here we have a case where one state, or in this case the District of Columbia, is passing rules for themselves, and the federal government’s coming in, and I’m stepping aside until we decide what comes, and you know, who has the priority here. Is it a states’ rights issue, or, or exactly how will it shake out?”
The first thing that I noticed when reading her comment above, and it was also quickly addressed in the editorial, was where the hell is the right to hunt in the constitution? There is no right to hunt in the constitution, that is not what the second amendment was created for. The second amendment was created for self defense and protection against an oppressive government.
Carol Shea-Porter’s ignorance on the issue of state’s rights is astounding. The editorial goes on to say the following:
if you have no opinion on whether “states’ rights” trump the 2nd Amendment, then you don’t support the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees the individual right to bear arms in self defense. What other constitutional rights does Rep. Shea-Porter think states can override?
Carol Shea-Porter doesn’t understand that while state have the right to rule and regulate themselves, they can’t over-rule the constitution.
This ignorance is astounding coming from an elected official.
Where Does Barack Obama Stand on the Second Amendment?
From this Robert Novak article:
He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association (NRA) grades him (and Clinton) at “F.”
First, when filling out a liberal questionaire he was for the ban of the sale, manufacturing, and owning of all handguns. Second, the article states that he has changed this position. Has he? Or has he just said that he has because he was in front of a different audience?
He refuses to take a position on the Washington D.C. case that is currently in front of the supreme court. This is part of what Robert Novak calls the gun dance.
As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid re-enacting the fate of many Democratic candidates who lost elections because of gun control advocacy.
Funny how that works, isn’t it? Saying whatever it takes to get elected depending on who they are talking to.
I just want to know Barack Obama, where do you stand on the second amendment? Just be truthful for better or for worse. Show us your conviction on this issue, you must have a solid position. It is inconceivable that you wouldn’t have a postion on an issue such as this.
Just let us know where you stand, and then let us make a decision on you.
It’s not that hard.
The Clinton’s Tax Records Show an Unusual Tie to Dubai
Much has been made about the Clinton’s tax returns since they have been released, from the fact that the Clinton’s made $109 million since Bill left office to the fact that they donated $10 million to their own foundation, thereby paying themselves and getting a $10 million tax deduction. I wanted to write about another aspect of their tax returns that I haven’t seen much written about. I am referring to this article.
Former President Bill Clinton has earned $15.4 million from billionaire Ron Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. investment firm since 2003, according to tax documents released.
That may raise new questions about what services he performed for Los Angeles-based Yucaipa, whose investors include the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al- Maktoum.
Tax lawyers said the Yucaipa partnership income for Bill Clinton looks to be a form of salary.
Could Bill Clinton be in the back pocket of the ruler of Dubai? You remember Dubai, don’t you? A Dubai company was looking to take over the security of the United States ports, yet there was outcry against this ally by Republicans and Democrats alike as both parties played politics with the potential deal. Dubai withdrew their bid to take over the ports.
Now we find out that Bill Clinton may have dealings with the ruler of Dubai himself and we hear virtually nothing about it. As the article questions, rightfully so, If Dubai is paying Bill Clinton $15 million and his wife may become president, what do they think they are paying for?
What are they being paid for, and if it’s the Sheikh of Dubai paying the husband of somebody who might be the next president of the United States, what do they think they’re paying for?”
It seems to me that somebody should be asking these questions, yet the media remains silent on this. Imagine if Goerge Bush was on the payroll of the ruler of Dubai. I don’t think that would go unnoticed.
The rumor here is that Condi Rice is actively persuing John McCain for the vice presidential nomination. There has been talk about this for a long time, and Condi has always denied any interest in the position. However that appears to be changing.
“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor ( a Republican strategist) said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
Having never held any elected position this would be an interesting choice. John McCain needs to pick a strong conservative candidate in order to reassure disgruntled conservatives that they can trust him. I’m not sure if this would help to bring back the conservatives to him that he has lost.
“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren’t that familiar with,” Senor said. “The challenge they’re realizing is that they’ll have to have to spend 30 to 45 days, which they won’t have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
I don’t agree with the above statement because I just don’t believe that most Americans would have to be educated on who Condi Rice is, for better or worse. In fact I think that John McCain would probably be hurt by this choice because of Condi’s association with President Bush. I don’t agree that she would be considered an outsider, or a fresh face. I think Democrats would probably use her close association with the president to paint a McCain/Rice ticket as more of the same.
I wrote earlier that McCain needs to choose his VP candidate wisely in order to win back conservatives, I am one of those conservatives. I have written about my dislike of McCain, dislike is a mild word in this case. I have also written that I don’t think he could choose a vice president candidate that could bring me back to him.
Maybe Condi Rice is just such a candidate.
While on the campaign trail Hillary Clinton has been telling a story about a pregnant woman whose baby was stillborn, and who also died because of complications during chilbirth. She has been using this story as a way to tout her socialized heath care plan.
While the woman and the baby in the story did in fact die, Mrs. Clinton’s storytelling doesn’t quite match what actually happened.
hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
Furthermore, the hospital wants her to stop telling her lies.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
While it is not shocking that Hillary Clinton would stoop so low as to lie about a woman and a baby who died during childbirth for her own political gain, it is still depicable. I have said it time and time again and I will say it again, there is no level the Clinton’s won’t stoop to regain the White House.
This is just another example. In that regard, they never disappoint, do they?
Read the NY Times article here.
Planned Parenthood’s Revenue Exceeds One Billion Dollars
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Last year Planned Parenthood recieved revenues of over one billion dollas. THAT”S ONE BILLION DOLLARS! As if that wasn’t outrageous enough, 1/3 of the revenue comes from you and I. Planned Parenthood received $336.7 million taxpayer dollars, a 10% increase from last year.
According to the report, Planned Parenthood gets 33 percent of its revenue from federal grants and contracts under the Title X family planning program. Last year, the organization received $336.7 million of taxpayers’ money.
Planned Parenthood received a $31.4 million pay raise in taxpayer funds – a 10.8 percent increase
It looks as though the baby killing business is really paying off for the “non-profit” organization. With such high revenues I waould argue that they no longer need taxpayer monies to pay fot their “business” any more. They should be able to get along just fine if we stopped giving them tax dollars. Planned Parenthood still would have an income in the neighborhood of $700 million. However they are looking for even more of our money.
With the 2008 Title X appropriation decisions due out this summer, Planned Parenthood is lobbying for an increase in funding, despite figures in the annual report that show the organization has $114.8 million “excess of revenue over expenses.”
Excess of revenue over expenses? What does that mean? I think it means PROFIT! Planned Parenthood had a profit of $115 million and they still want me to help them pay for killing babies. I can’t tell you how anbry I get when I see how much money we pay to Planned Parenthood so that they can do their “work.”
Read more, including an increase in abortions, here.
Nancy Pelosi issued a warning to General Petraeus that he better not “put a shine on the events in Iraq” when he meets congress next week.
“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.
Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were “probably dictated from Iran.”
“We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.
The nerve of this woman to warn the great general about how he should testify is 
astounding. She is insinuating that he can’t be trusted to give an honest account of what is going on over there. If I were general Petraeus I would find this insulting, condescending, and pathetic. She is trying to score political points with her constituents while impugning the integrity of one of the nation’s leading generals.
“Gen. Petraeus … is not a political figure,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “The testimony he gives reflects the facts on the ground. If he reports that the security situation in Iraq is improving, as we hope he does, he will be echoing the assessment of many Democratic House members who have visited Iraq recently. Our priorities should be learning the facts and acting on them, not using any development as a pretext for irresponsible withdrawal.”
That is true, they treat him like he is a politician who will say whatever it takes to be elected. General Petraeus gains nothing one way or the other based on his testimony, and to insinuate otherwise is insulting.
Nancy Pelosi is already trying to discredit testimony that hasn’t even been given yet in an effort to spin General Petraeus’ testimony as nothing more than the Bush administration’s propaganda.
If Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are this predisposed to the notion that General Petraeus is going to just say what the Bush administration wants him to, and they also feel the war is illegal and immoral, than they have an obligation to the American people to end it. They have the power to end the war tomorrow if they see fit.
Yet they don’t. Why is that? Could it be because they are only using the war for political gain? I think so.
Democrats, put your money where your mouth is and end this war.
Or shut up!
Read more here.
