hillary

Why I Prefer to Be a Bad Sport for Now


<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE













MicrosoftInternetExplorer4













<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>


















UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>



<![endif]-->

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->

On November 5 John Kasich wrote: “We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.”  I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment.  But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.

 

In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.  While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two.  But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission.  No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game.  Perhaps they don’t want to appear sore losers.  Perhaps they want to come across as “high-roaders.”  But in whose eyes?  I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don’t care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise.  Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image.  We have been drubbed.  We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck.  We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.

 

Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen?  Do liberals hold a patent on passion?  Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn’t looking?  The liberals seem to wield it freely enough.  History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are.  Permit me to remind all of those blasé “we’ll-gettum-next-timers” a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose.  Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of “Conehead” Biden; (2) showed the “common man” his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for “redistributive justice”; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran’s parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.

 

And another thing.  Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions.  I know attorneys because I am one.  The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible.  Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart.  People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because “we” made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history.  Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for.  Let’s face it.  Obama didn’t have to make sense.  He needed no substance.  And he didn’t need to curry favor with moderates.  All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with “cool” people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen.  And he knew it from day one.  When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism.  I’m sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.

 

This is the America our complacency has nurtured.  So spare me the silver-lining pablum.  I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there.  I’m not talking about rioting or bullying.  Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do.  I only hope you’ll find the motivation to do it.  As for the rest of you, try this as an example.  When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies.  Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn’t Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general.  When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray."  But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into “voting” for a liberal in an important race.  With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father.  I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time.  Though I don’t hang out as much with my sister’s family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father’s way of thinking is not the only way.

 

So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized.  It lies dead in the gutter.  How do we resurrect it?  The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism.  All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon.  Who do we attract?  On the count of three, let’s all scratch our heads.  One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People.  But just what is a real person?  As a rule of thumb, real people don’t toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer.  Take me, for instance.  I’m into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted.  I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public.  I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home.  On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting.  I am an agnostic.  I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality.  Though I am a heterosexual, I don’t understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights.  By the same token, I don’t understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship.  I don’t indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there’s no reason to spoil the party for responsible users.  Blah, blah, enough about me.

 

The point is that today’s conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s.  That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around.  The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it.  Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.

 

-R. Thomas Risk

 

 

IS PALIN PLAYING POSSUM????

I was on the phone with Lis Wiehl of Fox News. Lis was filling in for Steve Malzberg, a popular conservative radio talk show host here in New York. Basically, I called into give my assessment of the Vice Presidential debates tomorrow night. Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up! It’s…

SARAH BARRACUDA PALIN vs. SLOPPY JOE BIDEN.

I don’t know about you but I’d rather be a "barracuda" than a "sloppy Joe".

Anyways, I believe that this debate will be watched more than the first McCain/Obama debate that went down last Friday. No question, the whole world will be watching. Why? It’s the only VP debate and BOTH candidates have so much to lose.

So what was Mr.L’s assessment to Ms. Weihl?

Playing possum.

I’m taking a gamble when I say this but, Sarah Palin, and the entire McCain campaign, have been "playing possum" with the national knee jerk liberal news media. John McCain knows what the liberal media did to him. After all, for many of us conservatives, McCain wasn’t our first choice. Since our "come to Jesus" moment, we can recall that, during the primaries, the media held McCain up like their darling.

We knew this was a set up from the get-go. They were setting McCain up for the ultimate fall. They patted Gramps on the head until he was nominated and, when he was, they turned on him like rabid pit bulls. All of a sudden, they brought up everything. They brought up his age, McCain/(enter) and his association Keating Five. The latter for which he was long ago exonerated.

They played possum.

But it didn’t work. John McCain is a man who spent time in solitary confinement in a Viet-Cong prison. When you spent time in a room the size of a box you know how to stay alive. You know how to fight.

Flash forward to the present.

Sarah Palin is playing possum.

This is just one man’s humble opinion. I could be right, I could be wrong. I’d rather be any of those two than be left.

Sarah Palin, an avid hunter, knows what playing possum is all about. It’s the art of apparent death. It’s a defense mechanism. Play dead, the predator thinks your dead you live another day and figure out when to strike out at your opponent.

Think it can’t be applied to presidential politics? Think again.

The media underestimated Palin before. They did it from the moment that John McCain picked her. They commented that she wasn’t ready. They doubted whether or not she could deliver a home run speech at the RNC. They doubted whether or not she could hold the public’s attention. McCain’s rallies, which only had 2-5,000 people in attendance pre-Palin, now average 10 to 12, 0000. Not to mention her appearance in Flordia, which drew 70,000 people.

You see where I’m going with this?

You saw the Katie Couric interview. What do you think? Do you really believe that Palin doesn’t know what McCain stands for specifically? And why should Sarah Palin or John McCain reveal ANYTHING to a person who once had the Clintons over to her Park Avenue apartment for a sleepover?

And why should Palin even tell this woman, who’s just one appendage of the Obama campaign, who let SLOPPY JOE slide when he told her that "FDR was president during the great depression" or "I’d like to introduce Barack America", what newspapers she reads?

They attacked her. They attacked her kids.

Play possum. Let them think you’re stupid Sarah.

It’s worked for you so many times before.

And when the time is right, pull out the shotgun and blow his fucking head off.

 

WHAT SARAH WOULD'VE SAID

This week Macmooddidajihad comes to America once again and is given a platform to spew his hate and anti Israel and American rhetoric at the headquarters of the toothless tiger we like to call the United Nations. If you read into his speech you'll see that the American left and most jilted Ron Paul voters share the same sentiment as the middle eastern Hitler in platform shoes.

He spoke of the "evil Zionists murders, American empire nearing it's end, freeing Palestine and the withdrawal US troops from Iraq." Scroll through the top myspace blogs and you'll see liberals and jilted Ron Paulies spewing the same shit.

I'm most disappointed and disillusioned with liberal Jews here in New York who politicked Sarah Palin and denied her a chance to speak at an anti-AM rally. This, of course, was due to Hillary Clinton being invited at this rally as well. Hillary made a non-partisan issue a partisan one, refused to attend and the liberal Jewish organizations honored Clinton by un-inviting Palin.

If you're Jewish or someone who "stands with Israel", please don't come to this blog and call me anti-Semite. I understand why we're allies with Israel. But what are we getting out of it? I've had Jewish friends all of my life and I've always asked them, why are you a liberal Democrat? Why do you support a political party of liberals who continue to hang Israel out to dry? Why do you support a political group who endorse "talking" to those who want to wipe your people off the map? Why don't you support Republicans or conservatives who continually support your home country and bend over backwards for your people?

I never get a straight answer. Below is the speech that Sarah Palin would give if she was allowed. It's clear she gets it. Liberals and Jewish Organizations who have pledged their allegiance to the Democratic Party, as usual, don't.

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

ALL ABOUT EVE....ahem....HILLARY & REAL UNITY

 

Photobucket

 

 
So I watched the witch, Hillary Clinton, give her speech last night. To her credit, she was the only speaker to breathe some life into this God awful convention.  It's not just me, a conservative, who thinks so. The American people, liberal or conservative, do as well. Ratings for this week's coverage on ALL the networks have been abysmal.
 
 
I'm a movie buff and watching Slick Hilly last night, I couldn't help think of the 1950 film with Bettie Davis called "All About Eve". It's been a couple of years since I last saw it, so I went to Wikipedia to refresh my memory. I realized that, if you took the characters of Margo Channing (Bette Davis) and Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), replaced them with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you see that life is really imitating art in this campaign.
 
So I did. Here's the switch:
Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest politicians in America. But despite her unmatched success, she is beginning to show her age. After a speech one night on the campaign trail, she encounters a young man named Barack Obama. He claims to be her biggest admirers from Chicago, but gradually, Obama shows that he is a scheming and duplicitous man who plans to take from Hillary everything she holds dear: her colleagues, voters and her political career and fame. Obama becomes a political star and is presented with the party's nomination.
I've obviously tailored other aspects of the plot description and if you want to see the real plot line just plug it into Wikipedia or just watch the movie. I suggest doing the latter if you have the time because they don't make movies like that anymore. 
 
Last night, while party unity flowed from one side of Hilly's mouth, this was coming out of Billy's:
"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"  He's also said he will not attend Obama's speech on Thursday.
 
 
Sounds like some jilted mofos. I'd like to channel the great Bette Davis when she said, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night." Or, for Obama and the DNC, a bumpy couple of months.  It is clear, not from her miele-mouthed speech about health care and women's rights, but from the supporters in the audience who demonstrated to Obama and Howard Dean that, once again, they've made a grave mistake. Because, as a God fearing conservative and registered Republican, the one thing I feared more than God was Obama picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
 
 
All this talk about party unity from Hillary or the Lib-Dims is bullshit. It's clear that WE, the Republicans and conservatives, are the only ones who understand unity. Most of us didn't want John McCain as our nominee and fought against him, but now it is he and it is WE who understand the common goal that we are fighting for here. WE, the conservative republicans, understand the danger of an Obama presidency and refuse a man with no experience and with ties to terrorists and WE WILL GLADLY take a man with a robust resume who served his country.
 
 
No matter who John McCain picks as his VP this week, at least his will not be chosen for him by Russia. That's right. It is clear to me that Obama choose Biden because of the problems in Georgia (as I write this, Russians are threatening to roll into Poland) and Obama's obvious lack of foreign policy experience. However, his camp is wrong again. While Sloppy Joe has been a so called "expert" on foreign affairs by the MSN, in reality, he's often been wrong on most of his foreign policy decisions.
 
 
And so what if McCain picks Mitt Romney? Who cares? So what if they had a tumultuous campaign against each other? At least Romney, or any other Republican candidates for that matter, never, EVER said that John McCain wasn't ready to lead and unfit for command. Biden has of Obama. Hillary stated it as well.
 
 
If John McCain was watching Hillary last night, as I'm sure he was, he will have a tough decision to either stick with the person who he's had his mind on all this time or, pick a female wild card to tap into the menopause vote. 
 
 
If he does, it's clear to me that it will be "cha ching" for Yoda in November. 
 
 
We'll have to wait and see.
 
Mr.L

 

Democratic Party official accused in satanic rape, kidnap

Woman, husband said to shackle victims to beds, keep them in dog cages without food
<!-- end deck -->
Posted: July 01, 2008
1:49 am Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily <!-- end copyright -->


 

 

<!-- begin bodytext -->

Joy Johnson

A Democratic Party official and her husband are facing charges in connection with alleged satanic rituals involving the kidnap, rape and starvation of another couple in North Carolina.

Joy Johnson, 30, a vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, made an appearance in court yesterday after she and her spouse, Joseph Craig, were arrested Friday.

Craig, 25, is charged with second-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in January and another in May. Johnson is charged with two counts of aiding and abetting.

According to published and broadcast reports, prosecutors said a man and a woman met Craig through a shared interest in Satan worship, although the couple never consented to any physical abuse.


Joseph Craig

Craig allegedly shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his home. Police say he beat the man with a cane and a cord, and raped the woman.
 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68469

Nutroots Divided?

It seems the Liberal sissy Moonbats have no love for one another. Devil

This comes via Ann Althouse.

TNR's Dana Goldstein writes:

As anybody with high-speed Internet knows, MyDD and Daily Kos sit at the top of the liberal Netroots movement, which over the last five years has made astonishing strides in its campaign to transform the Democratic Party into a hard-fighting, proudly liberal, and, most importantly, victorious entity. Though their websites offer distinct communities and commentaries, and though they have very different personalities, MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong (a former astrologer) and Kos's Markos Moulitsas (a former Army man) have always gotten along--the two co-authored a 2006 book, Crashing the Gate, about the rise of their movement. Their bond has been rooted mostly in common foes: Republicans, namby-pamby Democrats, the Iraq War, divisive "identity politics," and the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. But the harmony that existed between MyDD and Kos since the birth of the Netroots no longer exists today, and a bitter internecine struggle within the progressive blogosphere is to blame. Just as bilious in tone as previous fights with Republicans or Joe Lieberman, it has revealed fault lines in the movement that will be tough to cover back up. There have been charges of misogyny and of bullying, and some longtime members have walked away from their cause altogether. And what's at the heart of it all is that most loaded of questions: Barack or Hillary?

[....]

After announcing her departure from the site, Alegre was the subject of insults by dozens of commenters. Moulitsas fumed on the site's front page, "People expect me to give a damn that a bunch of whiny posters 'go on strike' and leave in a huff. When I don't give a damn, people get angry that their expectations aren't being met." Of course, characterizing Clinton supporters, especially female Clinton supporters, as "whiny," didn't sit well with many. A Maryland mother of two in her mid-40s, Alegre said she won't publicize her real name because she fears harassment from anti-Clinton bloggers and commenters.

There's no doubt that the tone of the Netroots' Clinton-bashing has veered rather far from policy substance. After the Huffington Post scoop, Daily Kos front page writer Dana Houle wrote a bizarre diary (one he didn't post to the homepage) recounting how his impressions of Hillary Clinton had changed since 1992, when he saw Bill Clinton give a speech at the University of Michigan. "It was the night I learned the term MILF, and it was applied to Hillary Clinton," wrote Houle. In the same post, he described seeing a couple in the crowd at the Clinton speech engaged in a sex act. Later Houle, who is 43 and was once  chief-of-staff for New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, brushed off the suggestion that sexualizing Clinton had been inappropriate. "Some people will look for a reason to be outraged no matter what," he explained, telling me that most of Clinton's support in the liberal blogosphere comes from marginal writers.

However, Ann Althouse disagrees:

Really? Upper middle class? I can believe there are more men than women, but enough to make it "relatively homogenous"?

She has a point, I did not care of Barry's style either, Being a former Conservative-Minded Democrat, He lacked substance, this was before all the Jeremiah Wright nonsense came out. He never could directly answer a question. He would always, and still does, dance around direct questions, he has zero substance, it is all flash and glam and personality. He might be a great person, but if he has no substance, what good is he? Nobody seems to want to address that question.

The answer is simply this, the Democrat Party is all about entitlements, Hillary is a Woman, she seems to believe that she is entitled to be President, because she was Bill Clinton's wife and because she is a woman, because she has a vagina, that makes her entitled to be President. The same way with Barry, He is a black man, He believes that he is entitled to be President, because of the injustices that were perpetuated against his people over 300 years ago, that makes B. Hussein Obama entitled to be President. Never mind that the fact that he is an empty suit with zero political experience. Never mind the fact that he did little or nothing of great impact in the Chicago senate, that is unless you count the cocaine snorting and gay sex.  However, because he is black, and he is the Obamassiah, he will ride into the White House on the shoulders of one the biggest liberals and communist sympathizers out there, the late Martin Luther King Jr.  By the way, the true story on Larry Sinclair's Lie detector is:

The raw computer readings showed that Larry Sinclair passed the test with flying colours. But two testers hired by Whitehouse.com re-interpreted the readings to claim that they showed deception. One of the testers was Edward I. Gelb who has been exposed by specialists in the field for claiming a phony Ph.D.

Can you say, Cover up? I knew you could!

Like I said, it is all about the entitlements. It is what the Democrats are all about. That and identity Politics, and we all know, Barry is a master at that.

 
 
 
Cross-Posted @ Political Byline

 

What the Democrats are doing 'Right'

Originally posted at www.maidensong.wordpress.com

If ever there was evidence needed to prove that the GOP finds itself in a place where its message lacks resonance with with the American voting public, it was provided by the stunning special election upsets that have taken place in recent weeks in traditionally Republican strongholds. The Republican losses appear to be a disturbing precursor of things to come.

These losses set the House and Senate Republicans atwitter as they came to realize that there was no longer any seat that could be considered a 'safe seat,' and started the main stream liberal media buzzing happily about the coming Democratic apocalypse.

What no one seems to be talking about however, is HOW the dems are winning in these GOP strongholds. They are doing it by running as far to the right as they can, without actually being a Repubican conservative. If this trend continues, and if elected officials actually follow through on the platforms on which they run, a Democratic 'majority' may not be the liberal nightmare we see coming down the pike after all. That caucus may in fact be a party potentially divided against itself, with senators and congressmen ripe for crossover picking.

This does not mean that Republicans shouldn't fight agressively to retain or win seats in the fall. It does mean, however, that Americans in general may not suffer as much 'damage' as they might, if a Democratic majority in congress was more liberal than conservative.

The congressional Blue Dogs are increasing in numbers, and continue to flex their clout, (as they have demonstrated already at least once this session, see link beow)

http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=90894

Their presence in congress, along with that of Republicans who have rediscovered their conservative roots, may be enough to stymie much of the liberal tax and spend agenda that the Pelosi coalition might try to push through.

On a recent MSNBC Sunday morning round table analysis, Harold Ford Jr. (D) observed that there was a 'lesson to be learned' by Democrats from the southern special election upsets. "Democrats cannot run liberal campaigns" he said. Republican panelists in on the discussion, including former presidential candidate governor Mike Huckabee, pointed out the dangers that would be inherant in running against conservative Democrats, including the possible backlash caused by attempting to smear them generically as 'liberal' if they are known within the community as being pro-life, pro-gun and otherwise 'conservative' by the layman's standards. Republicans are going to have to run as conservatives, and not 'against 'liberals' if they want to be successful.

The one good thing about the leftist extremism being discovered this primary cycle, scary as it is,..is that it is forcing the true Democratic base to find their moderate center identity again. More and more on pro Hillary blogs, I'm seeing Barack Obama labled Marxist/Socialist. Many who were swept up in Move On sympathy for Bill, have realized just how far left of center their party has veered, and are determined to win it back; even if that means electing John McCain.

This website is about being forward thinking and creatively agressive about the next direction that the Right needs to take. As events unfolded this primary season, it became more and more obvious to me at least, that the survival of the right, seems tied to its ability to be the dominant partner of the 'conservative Middle'. This is why John McCain and Mike Huckabee with their almost populist appeal, were the last men standing on the right. The great irony of Obama's campaign, is that he's running as the great unifier, when every indication is that his idea of unity, is everybody taking two steps to the left. Not going to happen.

But the people do want change...so where does that leave us? I'm going to make a stretch and argue that McCain/Moderate conservative VP is going to hold the whitehouse, because Obama will not be able to find his way to the center again if the opposition research and 527s have their way. But I think the dems are going to crush the GOP in the congressional races.

Watch for the make up of the majority though. The Democrats if they are smart, will run Blue Dogs in conservative districts, and they will be our ace in the hole on the really big bills. (I hope!)

If a 'moderate' president McCain has a largely 'moderate' congress to work with, it is to be hoped that 'moderately more' progress can be made in Washington that we have seen in recent years.

Maybe the Next Right... is the Middle.

Thoughts?

Syndicate content