The Democrats play loose with the rules again…the rules that they wrote. They have decided to give the Florida and Michigan delegates 1/2 votes. Hmmm…isn’t that what the Republican did before the primary elections.
It seems that predetermined rules for running an election in Floriday mean absolutely nothing to Democrats.
This is typical of Democrats and it is why we have such a screwed up legal system. Rules mean nothing to a liberal. Laws mean nothing to a liberal. The appearance of fairness is the only thing that matters.
This loose adherence to rules is why our courts are consider ruling for someone who stands before the court with absolutely no legal basis for being there. You can sue anyone for just about anything…and hope you get a liberal judge. All a liberal needs to do is redefine one word in the law and bingo…fairness in their eyes is achieved.
That is why liberals like Chuck Schumer want judges who have shown that they will have empathy for women…or minorities…or whomever the special victim of the month is. In otherwords, he wants someone to look beyond the law to help the little guy. This rhetoric gets him votes. It also gives us a confusing legal system.
The law should be blind. You are suppose to get a fair shake in court even if you are white guy.
Barack Obama is finally leaving the Trinity United Church. Not because it is a bastion of hate and racism, but because the press coverage was unfair to Trinity church goers…those people getting a kick out of Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger. We don’t want to shine a light on them.
So Barack is ready to make a change you can believe in. Don’t be cynical. He isn’t doing this for political expedience as he approaches the general election and needs to appeal to moderates. He is leaving the church so the good people of Trinty can hate white people without the glare of a spotlight…and he hopes we are too dumb to figure it out.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on May 31st, 2008
To me, a “right” is something that the government can not take from me. These rights are free for me to exercise as long as they don’t infring upon someone elses rights.
To Hillary Clinton, a right is something that the government owes you…and by government…she means your fellow citizens. She gave a speech in Puerto Rico saying that health care is a “moral right”. If you see health care as a “moral right” then it make sense that pandering to Puerto Rican makes sense (at least in the primaries).
But this pandering goes way beyond effecting Puerto Ricans. If health care is a “moral right”, then we must provided health care to illegal immigrants as well. How long before this misguided policy opens up the flood gates to even more illegals?
Making health care a “right” will totally swamp the government with health care costs? Once the government realizes that universal health care is unaffordable, they are not going to admit their mistake and end it. They will ration it. Patient will be denied services, or as in Canada, you will have to wait months or years for some procedures.
Many will die waiting for treatment. Those who die will have their right to live supplanted by the greater good of universal health care. Those who place the ”greater good” above the individual sound like communists and facists. They scares the hell out of me.
Once the government is paying for your medical bills, they will soon follow up with rules on how to live your life. You can see this already with tobacco restrictions. We are beginning to see it with food restrictions (ban on transfat). How long before the government says that football causes increased medical bills and that tickets to the game require an additional tax? Universal health care is a doorway for the government to have a say in all aspects of your life.
If we redefine what a “right” is…how long before we have a “right” to a home, a “right” to a job, a “right” to all sorts of priorities set by liberals. Does this seem far fetched? It’s not. In 1944, the liberal hero Franklin Roosevelt proposed these “rights” in a Second Bill of Rights (LINK)
In the end, redefining rights in the liberal vision will override all other rights. You will be granted your “moral right” to health care but have to give up some many more that it won’t be worth it.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Health Care on May 31st, 2008
Last year at this time, John McCain and Barack Obama were both supporting a change in Iraq policy. John McCain wanted a change of strategy. One that would enable us to crush the purveyors of violence in Iraq. Barack Obama wanted to pull troops out.
A new strategy was developed. A new commander took over operations. We have come to know it as “the surge”. RESULTS: May 2008 was the lowest U.S. Casualty count since the war began. Most who have made repeated trips (Not Obama) to Iraq has come back with overwhelming support of the troops. We can now think about retreating with our heads high now that the violence is down and the Iraqi forces ability and willingness to fight Al Queda in Iraq.
We will never know what the outcome of pulling troops out would have been, but we can assume that thugs who were killing indiscriminately would fill the void as the U.S. military retreated. Letting terrorist take charge of an oil rich nation would have been incredibly dangerous. Even if we place troops all around the border, Iraq oil revenue could be diverted to shadowing terrorist organization all over the globe.
Change is neither good, nor bad. Consider Barack Obama empty slogan of change and the long term dangers that his proposed change in Iraq could have caused.
We know about Barack Obama’s radical friends. There are many. I was wondering if Obama has any conservative friends. So far, it appears like he only hangs out with Democrats and complete loons.
John McCain on the other hand looks like he has friends from all walks of life. Beyond his extended military family, it appears that he has genuine friendships with liberals like Joe Lieberman.
Does the “agent of change” who claims to be able to change Washington politics have any conservative friends? If he does ( I doubt it) , I bet he keeps them far away from his other friends.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on May 30th, 2008
Unlike Jimmy Carter, I like Bob Dole more now that he is out of office (LINK)
There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues, Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.
You really have to go out of you way to get a response like this from Bob Dole.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Common Sense on May 30th, 2008
Compare these maps. The one on top is the state party voting patterns over that last 4 election cycles. The one on the bottom is the regional price by county for gasoline. See the pattern?
 
Gasoline Pricing provided by GasBuddy.com
Just this Sunday, Barack Obama’s church was the again was the scene of hatred for white people…this time by a white preacher. As transcribed by Michelle Malkin.
Well, don’t hold me responsible (gesticulating) for what my ancestors did. But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits (voice rising), throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you WALKED INTO BECAUSE YO’ DADDY AND YO’ GRANDDADDY AND YO’ GREATGRANDDADDY–(screaming at the top of his lungs)–UNLESS YOU’RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE BENEFITS, THEN YOU MUST BE REPSONSIBLE FOR WHAT WAS DONE IN YOUR GENERATION ‘CUZ YOU ARE THE BENEFICIARY OF THIS INSURANCE POLICY!
So this white guy shows up in a black church and fans the flames of racism. Watch the video on Michelle Malkin’s blog. The crowd loves it. Can you imagine the outrage if white people enjoyed racism as much as the parishoners of the Trintity United Church.
Forget Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright. The whole place stinks of racism.
Â
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on May 29th, 2008
Scott Johnson of Power Line Blog fame has a review of John Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev and the dangers of “talking to our enemies”.
Kennedy was seen as week and inexperienced after meeting with Khrushchev with no preconditions. Not only did this weakness lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis, it also prompted Kennedy to the call for action.
Persuaded that he needed further to demonstrate “fearlessness and backbone,” in the words of William Manchester, Kennedy observed to Reston that the only place where the Communists were challenging the West in a shooting war was in Southeast Asia. Summarizing Kennedy’s own evaluation of the aftermath of the Vienna conference in his 2003 biography of Kennedy, Robert Dallek writes that Kennedy “now needed to convince Khrushchev that he could not be pushed around, and the best place currently to make U.S. power credible seemed to be in Vietnam.” (LINK)
Barack Obama does not see the harm in talking. He sights John Kennedy’s meeting with Khrushchev as a model for how he would engage our enemies. Maybe he needs to study history and run for President when he has grasped how the world works.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on May 28th, 2008
Many Americans do not understand the importance of the Iraq War. Peace activists think that we should never fight wars. What a wonderful thought, but wholly unrealistic. Others think that the fight should be concentrated in Afghanistan. This is more thoughtful…but wrong.
The war needs to be fought is a strategically vital region. Afghanistan is a wasteland. If the terrorist lost a foothold there, it would not matter. They would pick up an move to some other forgotten place.
An important aspect of the broader war on terrorism is to change the way Muslims view terrorism as a means of fighting. We can’t kill all the Muslims and we likely can’t beat them into submission. What we can change is their view of terrorism and we can do that by having them experience the pain of a ruthless terrorist campaign.
This is not just theory. There is evidence to support this strategy.
A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported that between 2002 and 2007 Muslim support for attacks on civilians fell by 50 percent in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Lebanon and Pakistan. Only one percent of Afghans expressed “strong support†for the Taliban and local jihadist groups, according to a 2006 ABC News/BBC survey. (LINK)
Our soldiers are standing in harms way amongst the civilians. Each attack by Al Queda in Iraq is a blow against the Muslim civilians. We may never be seen as liberators, but with each civilian death caused by terrorism, Al Quada makes 20 new Muslim enemies. This strategy will not only hurt Al Queda’s standing in the Muslim world…it also brings the pain and evil of terrorism to civilian Muslims.
Those crazy terrorist are so funny. They call the civilians “involuntary martyrs” (Hat Tip to Tiger Hawk Blog)
The definition of martyr is: One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles (LINK). So “involuntary martyr” is an oxymoron.
Â
Let me paint a scenario. You are driving down the street and your car is almost on empty. You can shop around for gas. Luckily, you come to a corner where there are two stations. One is charging 20 cents a gallon more than the other.
What do you do? Do you buy the cheaper gas or do you chose the more expensive gas and wonder why the government allows you to be so stupid? Such stupidity can be found here in Pennsylvania (LINK)
“It’s awful that the government is allowing this to happen and that one station can charge you 20 cents more a gallon right across the street,” she said.
We really need to start teaching introductory economics and free market basics in high school.
The article is about the locally high priced gasoline. The woman with the need for government involvement lives about 30-45 minutes away from the town in question. She could save 40 cents a gallon if she bought gas before she left. However, her need for the government to protect her from herself is what she wants.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on May 28th, 2008
Imagine the ridicule if George Bush said something so stupid (HAT TIP: Power Line Blog)
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong…Barack Obama
Does Obama think that dead people are in the audience? Of course I don’t think he is crazy. Just to be clear. I am not trying to play “Gotcha” with Obama. I can imagine myself saying something as foolish. What is obvious to me is the arrogance on the left when conservatives or Republicans make similar statements. Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George Bush are portrayed as stupid and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama are portrayed as extremely intelligent…yet all of them have misspoken. The more someone speaks under the microscope, the more mis-statements they will make.
You can’t determine intelligence by mis-statements. When someone makes an unintelligent statement and then defends it…now that is dumb.
“I would (Meet Unconditionally With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria, And Other Nations)” (LINK)…Barack Obama, Charleston, SC 7/23/2007
That was not a mis-statement. That was dumb.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on May 27th, 2008
At the end of the Clinton Administration, Real Gross Domestic product was about 2%
It is now about 2.5%
At the end of the Clinton Administration, inflation was at about 3.5%
It is currently about 4%
At the end of the Clinton Administration, unemployment was at about 4.5%
It is now about 5%
At the end of the Clinton Administration, 30 year mortgages were at about 7%
They are not at about 6%
How is it that the end of the Clinton’s 2 terms we were told that he reigned over prosperity,
Yet now we here how awful it is now?
Yes, gas prices are high and that is worrisome…but we have weathered far worse in the last 8 years.
(UPDATE 10/11/2010…in retrospect…Yes, it was bad. I wonder if high gas prices led the bubble bursting in the housing market)
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Economics on May 26th, 2008
While browsing for information about ethanol from swtich grass, I ran into a column published by Car and Driver about energy independence. (LINK) The author claims that we could be energy independent now if we were willing to pay an extra dollar per gallon for our fuel.
We could be self-sufficient now. All it would take would be a willingness to pay nearly a buck extra per gallon for ethanol made from corn. But paying more for each mile we drive — without some other benefit — would just make us poorer.
That date on the article is 1996. The average gallon of gas in 1996 was $2.90…it is now $3.90. (LINK)Â We also have mandated ethanol in our fuel.
The reality is that we are no closer to energy independence at $3.90 a gallon with ethanol then we were at $2.90 a gallon without it.
The reality is that food costs more. Partly because of increased global demand for food and party because inflation in the energy sectors makes its way into every other sector.
The reality is that bold predictions by enviornmentalist rarely come true.
Older Posts »
Share on Facebook