Michelle Obama Calls Americans Ignorant?
This is an excerpt from a speech that Michelle Obama gave recently:
“Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance… That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?”
To tell you the truth I am getting sick and tired of people who talk down to the American people. I am getting sick and tired of people who constantly belittle America.
I can almost understand what Michelle Obama is saying. There probably are many people who hold onto stereotypes and misconceptions, and God knows there are many ignorant people out there. But for the woman who would be first lady to then throw in the comment “that’s America”, implying that Americans as a whole are misguided and ignorant, that pisses me off.
This statement, coupled with her statement about how she was proud for the first time in her adult life to be an American not too long ago, raises serious questions in my mind about this woman. I would be willing to accept the fact that maybe she “misspoke” if it wasn’t for this previous incident.
I find this statement to be arrogant and condescending, and beneath someone who is hoping to become first lady.
For her to say “that’s America” thereby basically calling all Americans ignorant really rubs me the wrong way. I think that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has definitely had an influence on Michelle Obama’s outlook on the American people.
She asks America “are we ready for change?” So I ask Michelle Obama, are you ready for change? Until you stop looking down on America and realize the opportunities that were afforded you because you live in America, and until you stop talking down to the people you want to vote for your husband, you won’t get the “change” you think is so rightfully yours.
Nancy Pelosi Threatened by Wealthy Clinton Supporters
Remember at the beginning of the primary season after Huckabee, McCain, and Romney each won a different state’s caucus or primary? Remember how the media spun this as the Republicans being in trouble because they had no clear front-runner? Remember how the media spun it that the Democrats were indeed the stronger party because they had two great front-runners? How’s that working out for you?
That seems a long, long time ago now doesn’t it? As of today Republicans have their nominee, even if I think he is the worse candidate they could have nominated, and the Democrats still have their two “strong” candidates.
Today the Democrat candidates are shredding each other to pieces, there is in-fighting by party insiders on what to do and who should drop out, Democrat supports of either candidate say if their candidate loses they will vote for McCain, and party leaders are afraid the winner will come out so bloodied that he/she will not be able to win the white house.
There is even recent talk that Al Gore is going to rise out of the ashes of this bloody political campaign like a Phoenix and be the savior of the party.
All of this is just to much fun to watch.
Now we have 20 wealthy supporters of Hillary Clinton threatening Nancy Pelosi.
“We have been strong supporters of the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee],” they wrote, referring to the House fund-raising arm overseen by Pelosi. “We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view.”
They are telling her to clarify her position? I thought her position was pretty damn clear. She said whoever has the most delegates is the person the super delegates should vote for. How hard is that to understand? I love the line about “a more open view.” That line is the kicker. They aren’t really asking her to clarify her view, they are asking her to change it. By a “more open view”, they really mean that they want her to be of the opinion that the super delegates should be open to over-ruling the will of the Democrat voters.
According to this article, Nancy Pelosi is now enraged at the Clinton campaign for this veiled threat at not helping to fund the Democrat nominee if it is not Hillary Clinton. And rightfully so.
The House speaker was not backing down, however, and is still insisting that superdelegates respect “the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted,” her aide Brendan Daly said.
I can’t believe that I have just put myself in position to defend Nancy Pelosi, but I guess I have. The audacity of the Clinton campaign, while not surprising, is unbelievable. Actually it isn’t unbelievable coming from the Clinton’s, I just can’t seem to find the right word. The Clinton’s think it is their right to return to the white house. It is Hillary’s long time dream to become the first woman president. Why else would she have put up with all of Bill’s shit for all of these years?
Now it is slipping away and she will stop at nothing to get what she wants. Even “convincing” super delegates to vote against the will of her party is acceptable to her and her campaign.
All of this has given me great pleasure to watch, and surely the Republicans stand a better chance of winning because of it. Too bad conservatives don’t have a horse in this race.
Wake Up America Un-endorses Hillary Clinton
On March 14th I endorsed Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination. This was not easy for me to do, and I have felt dirty ever since. After Obama’s pastor’s videos surfaced on the internet I could no longer route for him to beat Hillary. I found his anti-American hatred to be troubling to say the least.
Naturally I wasn’t endorsing Hillary for president, I was just urging Democrats to vote for her over Obama. As I have written before, watching Hillary’s downfall in the primaries is slightly erotic but the eroticism was tempered by the fact that someone who may be as anti-American as Obama (judging by the man he considers his spiritual leader and great friend) would be the beneficiary of a Hillary defeat.
Last week Hillary made the absurd claim that when her helicopter landed in Bosnia in 1996 she came under sniper fire. This was immediately disproved by video of her and Chelsea hugging children and in no danger. She was using this trip to Bosnia, and the sniper fire she encountered as proof that she is ready to lead on day one.
We all know that the Clinton’s have make an art out of lying, this comes as no surprise. But the sheer arrogance of this woman is astounding. She lied about an experience that she knew was being filmed for public relation reasons and either thought she wouldn’t be caught or figured the American people were to stupid to care.
If she would lie about something as easy to disprove as something like this, what else would she be willing to lie about? Nothing that the former first lady says can be trusted.
The Clinton’s will stop at nothing to regain the power they so desperately crave, including “misspeaking” about something so easily disproved as a trip we are supposed to believe qualifies her to be president. I still can’t figure out exactly how this trip makes her qualified to be president.
I also can’t understand how she thinks we are so stupid to think that we would believe that the president of the United States of America would send her into a region that she claimed was as unstable as Bosnia if there was a threat of sniper fire. We are to believe that Bill Clinton would send his wife to a place that was too dangerous for him to go personally. And would also okay his daughter to visit if it was this unsafe?
I can no longer endorse, no matter how flimsy my endorsement was, a woman who holds the intelligence of the American people so low. It is with great pleasure that I now un-endorse Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination.
I feel cleaner already.
Manchester mayor Frank Guinta has decided he is not going to run for governor. The New Hampshire Republican party has to consider this a blow to their chances in November. Frank Guinta was the “biggest name” that was considering a run at John Lynch.
The following statement, from this article, paints a bleak picture for Republicans in New Hampshire come November:
Now, with a potential vacuum at the top, the Democrats can focus virtually all of their attention on Sununu and McCain, while Lynch can work as he did two years ago to try to secure continued Democratic majorities in the House, Senate and Executive Council.
Influential state Republicans, surprised by Guinta’s unexpected decision, are now searching for a candidate who can perhaps come within 10 or 12 percentage points of Lynch to bolster the ticket and, theoretically at least, prevent a 2006-style blowout.
The Republican party leadership is now just hopeful that they can field a candidate that can stay within 12% of John Lynch just to try to hold on to the Republicans that are still in office.
I don’t know enough about Frank Guinta’s record to have made a decision on who I would have supported come primary season. There are still a couple of candidates running, but none with the name recognition of Guinta.
Just last week Frank Guinta called for the resignation of a legislator solely because he didn’t agree with the way this legislator voted on a bill. The bill decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, and the legislator voted in favor. Regardless of how a person feels about this, you can’t expect a man to resign because you didn’t like his vote. The voters will take care of that if they don’t agree with him. Guinta has been backtracking from this all week. I am wondering if this had anything to do with his decision. Frank Guinta will eventually run for governor or maybe even for the senate, he has bigger aspirations than mayor of Manchester, perhaps he thought his resignation demand would hurt him too much and he would let it die down for a couple of years.
This leaves New Hampshire Republicans lowering their expectations from winning back the governorship, or at least a majority in the house and/or senate, to just trying to be competitive.
That is bad news.
Could Al Gore Still Win the Democrat Nomination?
I know how stupid the title of this post sounds, but could he? It is possible, at least according to one Democrat super delegate.
“If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket,” Mahoney said.
If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.
Every day the Democrat race gets more cloudy, and because of this it gets more interesting. Can you imagine if Al Gore were to actually become the Democrat presidential nominee over Hillary and Obama? A man who isn’t even running for president, at least not publicly? This would be too good to even consider.
Could Al Gore be working behind the scenes to persuade Democrat super delegates to vote for him? I wouldn’t be surprised. Would this be a likely scenario? I highly doubt it. But as the Democrats push on, trying to desperately come up with a candidate while not tearing apart the party perhaps this seems like a reasonable option. Unless you are either Hillary or Obama, one of which will have settled for a vice presidential bid to someone who isn’t even running for president, and the other, who will be left off the ballot altogether.
Likely, NO. Delicious, YES.
Read more here.
New Hampshire Democrat State Rep. Resigns, a Case Study on What is Wrong in New Hampshire
I have written in the past about my dissatisfaction not only with the current liberal New Hampshire state government but also with the people who put them there, the voters. I have written posts berating New Hampshire voters for not paying attention to who they were voting for on the local level because of their dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. In a protest vote, many New Hampshire voters voted straight ticket Democrat without realizing or caring who they were voting for on a local level. We are now paying the price.
This is a perfect example of what I mean. Today Rep. Michael R. DesRoches resigned from the House, if you don’t know who he is don’t worry, you are not alone. Even his collegues don’t know who he is. He just ran in 2006 on a whim and never thought he would win, he didn’t even care about getting elected, yet New Hampshire voters voted for him anyway.
In the 16 months since he was sworn in, state Rep. Michael R. DesRoches did not cast a single vote. Colleagues in the House say they have not seen him in Concord this session.
DesRoches did not cast any votes last year, either, when there were 154 roll call votes, according to the site. Several House Democrats said the only time they saw DesRoches was when he showed up for the swearing-in ceremony in December 2006.
DesRoches, a Democrat, said he did not expect to win when he agreed to put his name on the ballot in 2006. Once elected, he said, he was sidetracked by a series of personal and financial problems, including a bad knee, a breakup and a bout with depression.
New Hampshire voters put a man who was “sidetracked” by various problems and was ill prepared to do the job. Not only that, but he didn’t want to have to actually “work” at the job.
DesRoches now says he was “under a misconception” about the work state legislators are expected to do. He said he did not understand he would be given a committee assignment that had the potential to fill up his schedule each week.
This is the type of person that New Hampshire voters were willing to vote for to send a message to the president that they were upset with the war. This is what pisses me off so much about the state of affairs in New Hampshire. People going to the polls and just voting for someone because they either have a “D” or an “R” after their name and not knowing where they stand on an issue is what has ruined this state in such a short period of time. Hell, voters didn’t even care that this moron had no intention to serve them.
They say that people deserve the government they get, and you know what? I agree, too many people in New Hampshire didn’t care about anything except voting against the war. They didn’t care, or were too stupid to realize that local politicians can do nothing to stop the war. Now the price has to be piad for the voters of New Hampshire’s short sightedness. It is time for voters to wake up and realize that their vote has a meaning, it is time to educate yourselves on where the local candidates stand, or even if they are serious about the job.
New Hampshire can’t afford another election like 2006, where unqualified, uncaring, and uncommitted candidates win simply because of the letter after their name.
Detroit Democrat Mayor Indicted for Perjury
The so-called culture of corruption that the Democrats labeled Republicans with before the 2006 election has been catching up with Democrats lately. Just two weeks ago we had the Eliot Spitzer debacle followed by the ongoing disgrace of his replacement, and now we have a Democrat Mayor charged with perjury. Of course if there is one thing that we learned from Democrats in the 1990’s, it is the fact that perjuring yourself is no big deal, and has no consequences, right Bill?
Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star and Detroit’s youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide.
The charges could signal the end of Kilpatrick’s six-year career as mayor of one of America’s largest cities.
Perjury is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But for Kilpatrick, a conviction also would mean his immediate expulsion from office. The Detroit City Charter calls for any elected official convicted of a felony while in office to be removed.
In fact, this type of behavior is a badge of honor with Democrats. Criminal activity legitimizes Democrat politicians and gives them “street cred” in the same type of way that rappers earn “street cred” for their illegal activities. If you don’t believe me, just ask Barney Frank, who ran a gay prostitute ring is his home, or Gerry Studds who raped a minor repeatedly, or more recently Carl Stanley Mcgee, a top aide to Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who raped a minor in a steam room. Or William Jefferson, who took Katrina rescuers away from their duties to recover $100,000 he was hiding in his flooded home, or Ted Kennedy who left a woman to die a slow death in a submerged car while he went home to sober up.
The list goes on and on. Something tells me he will come out of this okay.
Read more here.
Hillary Clinton Lied About Her Bosnia Trip in 1996
Please don’t let this ruin your faith in the Clinton’s. I know it is hard to believe but a Clinton was caught in a lie last week. Last week Hillary recalled her trip to Bosnia in 1996, she recalled it alright, the problem is she didn’t recall it correctly.
In a speech last week Hillary talked about how she landed in Bosnia under the fire of snipers and had to duck and cover upon landing. This wasn’t exactly the truth however, as the video below shows.
Hillary was using her Bosnia “experience” as proof that she has the experience to be commander in chief, this has now gone up in flames. She is showing us that she has learned quite a bit from Bill, lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny.
Her campaign is now spinning her fabrication as a “misremembering”, but we know the truth. A cornered Clinton is a dangerous Clinton, just ask Vincent Foster.
Democrats in Philadelphia, who are concerned with violence in the city, want either Obama or Clinton, whoever wins the nomination, to support stricter gun laws. Instead of going after criminals, and enforcing the criminal laws of the state, Democrats want to go after law abiding citizens who chose to protect themselves from the very people that are allowed to walk the streets because of ill enforced criminal laws.
Philadelphia’s Democratic leaders say they’ll press Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to back stricter gun laws, despite the risk of angering voters throughout the rest of Pennsylvania and possibly damaging the party’s nominee in the general election.
Gun violence in Philadelphia — 331 homicides from gunfire in 2007 — thrust firearms laws to the top of the agenda for city voters, and they don’t care about the potential political pitfalls for the presidential candidates, said Carol Campbell, a Democratic ward leader in the city.
Perhaps if Philadelphia took a page out of New Hampshire’s playbook, the city would become as safe to live in as New Hampshire, which was recently ruled the safest state in the nation.
According to this article, both Obama and Clinton get an ‘F’ when it comes to second amendment rights.
Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Obama’s voting records, which includes support of a federal assault-weapons ban, get an “F” grade from National Rifle Association (NRA), which has about 4 million members.
“They will do everything they can to run away from the past, run away from their record and camouflage their position on gun control,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief Washington lobbyist.
While Philly residents want stricter gun laws, this may not play well with the rest of the state because Pennsylvania has one of the highest per capita NRA membership in the country.
This could turn into a hot button issue in the general election as the supreme court is in the middle of deciding if the Washington D.C. handgun ban is constitutional. The court appears to have decided that an individual does have the right to keep and bear arms, but with some reasonable restrictions. It will be interesting to see what restrictions the court says is reasonable, and how this will affect Democrats in the election.
It seems to me that this will not play well with southern voters or with mid-westerners who, I think, would be opposed to any stricter gun laws.
Lobbyist fees Hit New Records in New Hampshire
Democrats have been in charge of all branches of New Hampshire state government for just over a year now, and it hasn’t taken them long to show the state why they haven’t been entrusted with this type of majority in over 100 years.
The latest fiasco is this story about the growing influences of lobbyists in the state.
Fees paid to lobbyists in New Hampshire soared to an all-time high last year, according to an analysis by The Telegraph of Nashua.
The $9.6 million paid to lobbyists in 2007 was a 78 percent increase over the previous record of $5.4 million set in 2005.
Just a modest little jump, eh? 78%? Spending has risen across the board in New Hampshire in the last year. This is not a coincidence, and senate Republican leader Ted Gastas doesn’t think so either.
Senate Republican Leader Ted Gatsas, of Manchester, attributes the spike in lobbying fees to the fact that Democrats took control of the entire Legislature in 2006.
“When Democrats took over, you saw a lot of corporations worried about where this would take them,” he said.
From this Nashua Telegraph article, here are the highest paid lobbyists and their best paying customers:
Sheehan, Phinney Capital Group $1,011,470 Cigna, Verizon, pharmaceuticals
Dupont Group $857,291 Loudon speedway, insurance, energy
Demers Group $844,451 Credit cards, gaming; trial lawyers
Devine, Millimet, et al $676,355 Telcom, gaming, energy
Rath, Young, Pignatelli $631,281 PSNH, Anthem, health care
Bianco law firm $524,747 Payday loans, health care, real estate
Gallagher, Callahan, Gartrell $524,139 NH Bankers, insurance, energy
Maura Weston $385,774 Cingular, health care, cable TV
Bouley Associates $364,225 Gaming, billboards, Teamsters
Orr and Reno $342,989 Domestic insurers, NH Fire Chiefs
Big government, nanny state, tax and spend, liberals coupled with special interest groups now emboldened to spend even more money (78% more in one year) is a recipe for the fiscal disaster that looms over New Hampshire.
But have no fear, there is legislation in the senate to reform the lobbyists laws in New Hampshire ( which is ranked 48th in the nation for it’s lobbyist laws), there is only one problem:
The only changes lawmakers are considering to lobbying laws would weaken them. The state Senate is considering a House-passed bill that reduces reporting to four times a year and eliminates the requirement that lobbyists disclose campaign contributions.
