Custom Search

Monday, June 30, 2008

Prosecutors Tell a Tale Of Dog Cages, Beatings, Rape and Satan Worship

[Update] 7/1/08- Another person has been arrested in this case and more details about the original charges and allegations found here on a follow up piece.

At a bond hearing for Joy Johnson and Joseph Craig the prosecutor alleges that the crimes they are accused of are connected to Satan worship.
Craig's bond was set at $590,000 and Johnson's at $270,000 in a court in Durham, North Carolina, and they are charged with kidnapping, rape and assault with prosecutors alleging that the crimes involved a satanic cult.

The prosecution claims that the couple met another man and woman through a shared interest in Satan worship and from there they describe crimes involving being shackled to beds, dog cages, starving the couple, beatings with a cane and a cord and raping the woman.

Although the meeting was mutual, the man and the woman assert that they never gave consent for physical abuse.

The assistant Durham County district attorney said, "This goes well above what they were interested in doing."

Craig was charged with the beatings and rape and Johnson was charged with aiding and abetting.

Johnson, who was third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair for the Young Democrats, was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting. Prosecutors said she knew her husband planned the crime and watched as they were committed.

She has resigned her positions with the Democratic Party, said state Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham.

The couple accused of these crimes run a business called Indigo Dawn Inc., which according to their website's "who we are", Johnson is a political, peace and social activist who has devoted her life to peace activism and searching for proactive means to bring about world peace.

The site also says that besides Johnson's former position as third vice chair of the Durham County Democratic Party, she also is president of the United Nations Association of Wake County, vice president of the Young Democrats in Durham County and last but not least, a member of the Human Relations Commission of Durham, N.C.

Craig is described on that same page as "Rev. Joseph Craig" and says he has always been fascinated with magick and anything related to the topic.

Both Craig and Johnson have been instructed by the court to have no contact with the alleged victims.


Barack Obama and Bill Clinton Speak

Notice how word comes out from the Obama campaign about Obama and Bill speaking, yet no one has heard a peep out of Bill Clinton himself?

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said: “Senator Obama had a terrific conversation with President Clinton and is honored to have his support in this campaign. He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation’s great leaders and most brilliant minds, and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel in the months to come."

Clinton's spokesperson issued a statement as well.

President Clinton had a very good conversation with Senator Obama today. He renewed his offer to do whatever he can to ensure Senator Obama is our next President.

President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come. The President believes that Senator Obama has been a great inspiration for millions of people around the country, and he knows that he will bring the change America needs as our next President.

Come on Bill, you are gonna have to eventually get up in front of the press, smile pretty and be a good boy and make the statement yourself......eventually.

Or... you could always join the PUMAS, I am sure they would welcome you with open arms.

Just a thought....


Bush Signs War Funding Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008

Congress had approved it, the Senate passed it and today President Bush signed the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 aka the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

The bill was passed through both the House and Senate with no timelines for withdrawing from Iraq.

Hailing the $162 billion US measure as a rare product of bipartisan co-operation, Bush said Monday at the White House: "This bill shows the American people that even in an election year, Republicans and Democrats can come together to stand behind our troops and their families."

He thanked specifically members of both parties in Congress and singled out some sponsors of the long-delayed, compromise measure for praise.

His positive comments were in contrast with the combative tone that has dominated the drawn-out debate between Congress and his administration over Iraq that took more than 500 days to conclude.

You can see the bill itself here.


When Auto-Replace Backfires

Some things just tickle the funny bone and today one of those things hit me. Sites that use auto-replace on certain words to be politically correct can see that attempt to manipulate what readers see, backfire in a tremendous manner. The American Family Association has a site called OneNewsNow and evidently they didn't like their readers seeing the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals, so they set up an auto-replace system that would change the words of certain stories to replace them with politically correct words.

Can anyone think of a specific danger in this process?

Obviously they didn't and they didn't think it through very well either.

There was an Associated Press article about a sprinter named Tyson Gay who won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials.

Beginning to get the feeling that something went very wrong?

The headline on the OneNewsNow was changed from "Gay eases into 100 final at Olympic trials" to "Homosexual eases into 100 final at Olympic trials".

Throughout the article the man's name was changed to homosexual where his last name of "gay" was written.

Tyson Homosexual easily won his semifinal for the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials and seemed to save something for the final later Sunday.

His wind-aided 9.85 seconds was a fairly cut-and-dry performance compared to what happened a day earlier. On Saturday, Homosexual misjudged the finish in his opening heat and had to scramble to finish fourth, then in his quarterfinal a couple of hours later, ran 9.77 to break the American record that had stood since 1999.

The American Family Association did discover the little problem and corrected it post haste, but not before People for the American way caught it as a screen shot.

(Click image to enlarge)

As is pointed out at People for the American Way, this is not a new problem and although they did fix that particular article, they didn't fix some others.

Memphis Grizzlies backers hit the hay hoping that Kevin Love would open things up for Rudy Homosexual in the frontcourt.

The man's name is Rudy Gay, not Rudy Homosexual.

Other examples of headlines, via screenshots, are shown over at People for the American Way.


Obama Rebukes MoveOn in Patriotism Speech

This might not promote the "Unity" message very much but considering Obama did not vote for the Senate Resolution to denounce MoveOn.Org for their "General Betray Us" ad, this came as a complete shock to see him rebuke them for it now...then again, he has won the presumptive nominee status so he really doesn't need MoveOn as much as he needs the Independents and Moderates and he may just be sick and tired of them trying to push him around about his FISA statement saying he would support the Compromise bill that the left has been howling about.

In his speech he gave today he not only distanced himself from General Clark's comments about John McCain's military service, but he also said, "most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.”

That was a direct hit on MoveOn.Org which is the group responsible for the Betray Us ad that caused such controversy.

Is Barack Obama pushing back against MoveOn? Is he simply doing what he has to do in order to appeal to the Independents and Moderates or is he committing political suicide by turning his back on a group that has been known to "eat their own" for doing something they don't approve of?

Unity just went out the window along with MoveOn being thrown under the proverbial bus.

It should be interesting to see how this plays itself out since the Democratic party supporters truly don't have much of a choice now but to vote for Barack Obama, since they handed the nomination to him.

He has them where he wants them and now he is working on his appeal to other groups.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters are probably smiling right about now and thinking "I told you so".


Equal Pay For Women: Barack Obama Says One Thing and Does Another....Again

I was going to write a piece about a group of Barack Obama supporters that are gathering together online to hold his feet to the fire on FISA and their determination to pressure him into changing his mind about his publicly stated support for the new FISA compromise bill that was approved by the US House and is waiting for a vote in the Senate.

So, I decided to first see if their was any hypocritical statements or policy stances that Obama has changed for today, since they seem to coming at a mile a minute (FISA, public financing, second Amendment, death penalty for child rapists....etc...) and what I found was a report showing that despite Obama claiming that he was a proponent on equal pay for women, his actions tell a far different story.

Last week in Albuquerque, N.M., Barack Obama spoke about his commitment and support for a Senate bill which would make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination.

In that speech he took a swipe at John McCain by saying, "Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer. It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay."

Plans are one thing, but actions are quite another and CNS News decided to take a look at the actual numbers that are public record over at the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered a six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007, showing how much Barack Obama paid his campaign staffers compared to how much John McCain paid his.

The results are chuckle worthy, especially after reading his previous statement in New Mexico.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

The women working for Barack Obama in his Senate office make, on average, $6,000 less than the men that work for his Senate office.

Female Pay as Percentage of Male Pay Average Employee Making at Least $23,000 (Annualized Salary), the graph at this link shows that Hillary Clinton pays her female staff members almost 100 percent as much as her male staff members, John McCain pays them over 100 percent as much and Obama just over 80 percent of the annual pay that he pays his male staffers. This graph shows the amounts that male staffers made compared to female staffers in Clinton, McCain and Obama's Senate offices.

CNS News' method of calculations can be found here.

Plans, initiatives and supporting bills that would help women take action over pay discrimination, does not equal living by what you say.

It is quite possible that the women on Obama's campaign staff are not as qualified as the men he has on staff and that could very well be the explanation for the difference in pay, yet in that same speech that Obama gave in New Mexico, he addressed a bill he was supporting, called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act which would extend the time women have available to file a complaint.

Ledbetter sued her employer for pay discrimination, but because she had waited too long to bring the complaint, the Supreme Court threw her case out.

McCain agreed with the Supreme Court's decision and opposed the Fair Pay Restoration Act, saying it would open the door for too much litigation.

Obama criticized that McCain decision, saying, "Senator McCain thinks the Supreme Court got it right. He opposed the Fair Pay Restoration Act. He suggested that the reason women don't have equal pay isn't discrimination on the job - it's because they need more education and training. That's just totally wrong."

This leads us to the question of whether the female staffers on Obama's campaign are less qualified or less trained than the male staffers, to which confirms McCain's initial assertion, or if Barack Obama is discriminating against his female staffers?

Barack Obama once said, "Don't tell me words don't matter" and after seeing his changing positions on a variety of issues these past few weeks, I would counter that with "Words don't matter if your actions do not match them".


Wesley Clark: Getting 'shot down in plane' doesn't make John McCain qualified- UPDATE, Obama response added.

Video of Clark's remarks at YouTube here and below.

In the video above General Wesley Clark says, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president", about John McCain.

In an interview on Face the Nation, General Wesley Clark, who is a a key military adviser for Barack Obama, issued a critique that the LA Times 'Top of the Ticket' describes as something "Obama and his aides would just as soon stay away from", when he questioned John McCain's qualifications to be the president of the United States of America.

Clark claims that McCain is "untested and untried".

Pressed on that quote by moderator Bob Schieffer, Clark said that "in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. ... He hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. ..."

These comments have caused a flurry of media stories as well as an uproar in the conservative blogosphere wondering if Clark or the Obama campaign understand the ramifications of questioning McCain's readiness considering how little experience Barack Obama has as well as having no military experience at all.

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for John McCain issued a statement immediately after Clark's remarks, saying, "The reality is he’s proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain’s military service record.

John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first — from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam and through to today. And on the biggest question we’ve faced in recent years, the war in Iraq, the facts on the ground show that John McCain was right, as Barack Obama is about to find out after failing to visit there in over 900 days."

Retired Admiral Leighton "Snuffy" Smith, also criticized Clark's comments.

"If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates. If he expects the American people to believe his pledges about a new kind of politics, Barack Obama has a responsibility to condemn these attacks. Smith said.

These exchanges between McCain and Obama and/or McCain surrogates and Obama surrogates comes just a day after McCain questioned Obama's trustworthiness while he was speaking at a fundraiser in Kentucky.

McCain had pointed to Obama’s not voting on a resolution to condemn a political ad; Obama’s slowness to be briefed on Iraq; Obama’s not taking him up on his offer to hold joint town hall meetings; and Obama’s decision to forego the public campaign financing system.

The question of experience is a conversation that many believe that John McCain would welcome having, one on one, with Barack Obama considering the military experience McCain and the lack thereof for Obama as well as the decades more legislative experience that McCain has.

This is one discussion Barack Obama truly does not want to have but since his surrogate has opened the door, he doesn't have much of a choice now.

More from Politico.

[Update] Barack Obama gave a speech I watched and in it he seems to be distancing himself from Clark's words when he says, "For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country — no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

[Update #2] The Obama campaign's response to Clark's comments:

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."


Sunday, June 29, 2008

Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Salt Shakers - Food Nazis or Public Health Service?

Problems facing the United Kingdom include pot-holed streets, crumbling schools and garbage in the streets, yet councils in the UK have decided to spend taxpayers money on producing and distributing salt shakers with 5 holes to local chip shops.
Food Nazis or public health service?

It started with the Gateshead Council who spent taxpayers money to research how much salt was being used in take out foods.

They sent their officers out to collect data, obtain samples of fish and chips, measure the amounts of salt in the foods and "carried out experiments to determine how the problem of excessive salt being dispensed could be overcome by design."

Then they declared they had a solution, 5 holes in salt shakers instead of the typical 17.

The further spent taxpayers monies on commissioning Drywite Ltd which is a catering equipment company to make their 5 hole salt shakers, which they bought 1,000 of at £2,000, then they went and handed them out at fast joints in their local areas.

As of now, it is reported that at least six councils have placed orders for these 5 hole salt shakers.

The salt shaker mission is being implemented by the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services who holds the responsibility for making sure that councils follow food hygiene rules and according to a spokesperson "Heart disease costs taxpayers £7billion a year so to say that projects such as this are a waste of money is mind-boggling.’

They ran into some criticism in the Middlesbrough Council which is controlled by Labour, to which the leader of the Conservatives, Cllr Chris Hobson, said, "This is just silly, a total waste of money in an area where council tax is very high. I’m all for good health but do they really think they are going to stop people using as much salt simply by putting fewer holes in the cellar? They’ll just shake it for longer."

Then comes the obvious problem which was the first thing that entered my head, being a ticking time bomb myself with overly high cholesterol (and I mean off the charts high) and elevated blood pressure, but being a salt fiend anyway, and that is people shake it longer or as one example mentioned by the owner of a local chip shop called Carol’s Plaice, Carol Ackerman who says, "People will just put on more salt if they want more. In fact, we have had some people unscrewing the lids to do so."

Ya think?

Common sense dictates that if people want a saltier flavor they are going to add more salt, lessening the holes in the shakers is just going to mean a couple extra seconds of shaking and for those that have no patience, the caps come off easily enough, believe me, I know.

So when your schools are falling down around your children and crumbling and you have garbage strewn all over your streets and you roads have holes in them because monies are not being spent to fix them.... exactly how helpful is it to pay people to research, collect samples, run experiments, produce the new shakers and pay them to go hand them out, all using the money that is collected from taxpayers, when those same people they claim to be trying to help can simply add as much salt as they want anyway?

(Click image to enlarge-The Soup Nazi from the popular television show "Seinfeld" by Bill Roehl-Flickr)

Reminds me of that Seinfeld show with the soup nazi, but instead of soup the saying would be, "No Salt For You.....ONE YEAR!!!!"

H/T Blue Crab Boulevard.


John McCain Takes The Lead In Battleground State Of Missouri

John McCain has taken the lead in the state of Missouri, going from being behind Barack Obama by two points to gaining a seven point lead. One reason could be that McCain aired three times as many campaign ads as Obama has in Missouri.
As shown clearly in the graphs shown by the blog Open Left, Barack Obama in round one of polling has a two percentage point lead over John McCain in the state of Missouri which was considered a battleground state.

Round two of the polling, and shown by Survey USA, shows that John McCain when up against Barack Obama now holds a seven point lead over Barack Obama with 50 percent to 43 percent.

One of the reasons that people are speculating could account for this net gain of 9 percentage points is the fact that John McCain's campaign has aired three times the amount of campaign ads in Missouri as Obama has.

McCain’s campaign outspent and out-aired Obama in every major media market in Missouri, including St. Louis, from June 19 through last Wednesday. McCain held a town-hall forum in Springfield, Mo. on June 18.

McCain spent $224,696 for 791 spots that ran on local broadcast stations around Missouri. That compares to $115,054 spent by the Obama campaign to air 212 spots.
McCain’s more aggressive spending comes as both campaigns say that Missouri is among their targeted states as they head into the remaining four months before the Nov. 4 general election.

Some are calling these results curious with the amount of personal fundraising that Obama has been able to achieve and wondering why McCain can and is outspending Obama in a state that was believed to be a battleground state, but as was recently reported, while Obama does out raise McCain in personal campaign contributions, the Republican National Committee, more than makes up for that by having 13 times the amount of funds in the bank as the Democratic National Committee does.

That levels the playing field as well as offers John McCain the opportunity to fight in states thats are considered battleground states.

Also what stands out seems to be the core audience that the Obama and McCain ads are appealing to.

Both also seem to be targeting women and the elderly. Both campaigns are running spots on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show, the Wheel of Fortune game show and Entertainment Tonight, a celebrity gossip show.

As well as those core audiences it might be telling to some that Obama is also running ads during the top prime time show "Law and Order", and McCain is running his ads during Rachael Ray’s show, as well as the numerous courtroom shows, such as “Judge Judy” and “The People’s Court", which seems to suggest that McCain is trying to appeal to women in large part, which is the area his demographics say he needs to win over.

It bears noting, just as an end note, that Missouri is known as a bellwether state that has "picked the winner of every presidential election except one in the past 100 years — in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson."

That does not mean that they cannot pick the loser, it does not mean that they cannot be wrong, it is simply a piece of trivia that could or could not be indicative of the tight race ahead between John McCain and Barack Obama.


Florida Women Offers Incentive To Sell Her House- Her Love

Prostitution, sales gimmick or an act of desperation from a woman desperate to sell her home and to find true love? Adding $500,000 to the cost of the home as a "shipping fee" to include herself, brings up a variety of questions.
Deven Trabosh is a single 42 year-old mother who has tried online dating sites and nightclubs but has not found the true love she is looking for.... she also has a four bedroom home for sale in Palm Beach Gardens Florida that she has been trying to sell.

After trying to sell her house for a year and being single for eight years, looking for love, Trabosh has decided to combine the efforts.

She had previously had her house listed at $340,000 at a website where you sell your own home, but she then added the listing to Ebay, tacking on an additional $500,000 which includes the "shipping fee" for herself.

Ebay removed Trabosh's listing because according to their site's prohibited services policy, relationships, human beings and/or body parts are not allowed to be sold on Ebay.

One of the examples listed at Ebay's prohibited services policy is, "Any service that offers, suggests, or in any way conveys an intimate service contact, including dates, escorts or other such services."

Trabosh listed herself and her home not only on Ebay but on Craigslist as well, titled, "MARRY A PRINCESS LOST IN AMERICA (West Palm Beach, Florida)".

Create the Magic with this Fairy Tale Princess

Traveling Lady in immediate need of her Prince Charming, someone who wants to share & create magical moments, imaginations & fantasies for LIFE!!!

If you want to live the never ending dream and experience the real love, life and the romance you have always felt was a fairytale then this is the vibrant outstanding woman of your dreams!

To sweep this European Loving Lady off her feet send in your application right now

Trabosh says she has not had any serious offers but she shows off Claudio, who is an Italian wine and cheese taster who responded to her ad and whom she has been corresponding with since she placed her ad.

They are hoping to meet in Miami in a few weeks.

This brings up memories of a recent article where a babysitter responded to a Craigslist ad and was later found dead in the trunk of her car.

One of the most heinous examples of meeting people, strangers really, online and then setting up meetings with them, was back in 2002 with the man known online as the "slavemaster". His real name was John E. Robinson and he was convicted in 2003 for the murder of several women.

Some of his victims ended up dead in sealed chemical drums.

These are but examples of how the fairytale princess ad from Trabosh, while seeming to be an attempt to find true love, and attempting to meet people, for whatever reason, after simply corresponding with them, can indeed turn a fairytale into a nightmare.

"I'm not selling myself. I'm selling meet that true love," Trabosh says. "Of course, it's gonna take more chemistry and connection. It's not going to be instantaneous that I'm just going to be automatically for's a package deal for true love."

Many will wish Trabosh luck and hope that she will indeed find the fairytale she is looking for, others would caution her to be very careful of where she looks for that love, not only for her own safety, but that of her 14 year-old daughter.


Why Snooper Will Vote Against Obama Or Clinton


I will not sit on my ass and let the world slide by to a Marxist.

I will not abandon The Troops.

Those that have fought for it, Freedom has a taste the "PROTECTED" will NEVER know.

I don't give a damn about the Republican Party. Nor do I desire to "teach them a lesson". We see how that lame attitude worked in 2006, did we not?

"McCain", in the words of many a familiar blogger, "MIGHT secure the border. Obama will not. McCain MIGHT continue the Bush tax cuts. Obama will not. McCain DOES support The Troops and their Mission. Obama does not. McCain might emplace conservative judges. Obama will not". That right there is a no brainer.

It is McCain for many reasons which goes against the grain of a feigned and ill-conceived principle based on emotion and disappointment and frustration.

The silliness and folly of "teaching the GOP a lesson" by "staying home" and thereby and by default casting a vote for a known Marxist and Troop Hater, does not and cannot pass muster, no matter the alleged reasoning. Such folly is a direct groin kick from behind to the crotch of every veteran of every war we have ever fought. It is pissing on the graves of every Fallen Hero from every war we have ever fought. This is unacceptable. Recent SCOTUS decisions should be a clear indicator even to the casual observer.

I am a Troop. My son is a Troop. My wife is a Troop. My brother (KIA VN '68) is a Troop. My father is a Troop and all my uncles are Troops. Our family has served this Nation since the Revolutionary War and before. We know what sacrifice is and what it means. Most Americans don't know what it means.

The C'est la Guerre post still stands as it is written and is even more applicable today than it was when I wrote it as does Go Ahead: Allow Obama To Win...I find it chillingly eerie that a Pfc has more common sense than those of "principle" no matter who that person may or may not be. Once again, someone with Boots On The Ground trumps those that have no earthly concept what that would be like. And, more's the pity.

No. Snooper will not roll over in frustration and weariness of The Good Fight to teach anyone a lesson about anything because I don't have the time to play that game of hysterics. I will lead by example. I am a fighter. When a Flag falls, I will pick it up and charge forward, not sit down and let someone else do it. If not me, who?

The Battle Field lies in the House and Senate, not in the Presidency. That much is obvious even to the oblivious. Over the next 2 to 6 years, that is where the conflict lies- in the House and Senate - and bears merit. All other argument(s) fall flat because they carry no merit or worth. The Good Fight has yet to be realized and that which we have accomplished in the last 8 years will all be for naught should we sit back and let the country fall to a Marxist.

I didn't serve this nation to allow the silliness and folly of "teaching the GOP/RNC/RINO/MORON class of sycophant a lesson" about anything to become some demonstrative chant of see-I-told-ya-so. That attitude causes me to practically hurl. Our Troops' blood is worth so much more than that. You want to "teach someone" a lesson? Get off of your ass, turn off the idiotic boob tube - the device of complacency, indoctrination, and escapism - and begin to write letters, send faxes and emails and phone calls to every CONgressman and every Senator. Be a pest. That is what the enemy does and is good at it. Your basic Conservative is about as lazy as a hog in mud by design and it hurts to work and fight.

If I can take power naps on a rocky crag while observing enemy movements to keep you safe at night; if our Troops can sleep in mud holes in the rain to keep you safe at night; if my son could sleep in an environment that would make an outdoorsman cringe to keep you safe at night; the least you can do is turn your goddamn TV off and commence to fight and at least try to repay them what they are so deserving of...your support. And, turning the country over to a known Marxist is not the support we Troops will except. EVER.

We got Reagan because of several events: the aftermath of Vietnam, Nixon, Agnew, Ford, Carter and the economy. And, we are STILL digging out of the Carter Quagmire on many levels. We will never see another Reagan. Period. Get over it. Step away from the 'shrooms. We got McCain because of lazy Silent Majority Conservatives too damned lazy to act until it is too late and then they whine and complain and bitch when the going gets tough.

The "lesson" to be taught and learned right here and now is this: when the going gets toughest, that is when you lay the pressure on, without mercy and without remorse. We beat Shamnesty thrice. We have exposed the Leftinistra for what they are and we are gaining. Why surrender now to teach the unteachable a lesson? What will they learn and who will teach them? There are men and women poised to snag seats away from RINOs and socialists and we are going to let Obama defeat them?

Vanity. All is vanity. And, there is nothing new under the sun.

No. It is McCain because the alternative is not only unthinkable, it is unacceptable.

Snooper speaks.

Vote it up at: Digital Journal & RCP


The Majority of Americans Oppose Income Redistribution

The question asked by Gallup was which approach should government focus on to fix the economy?

84 percent of Americans want the government to focus on improving overall economic conditions and the job situation in the United States instead of trying to redistribute wealth and half of Americans think the government does too much, not too little.

The answers from national adults, broken down between Republicans, Democrats and Independents showed that an overwhelming majority, 84 percent, believe the government should be focused on improving overall economic conditions and the job situation rather than trying to redistribute wealth.

90 percent of Republicans, 85 percent of the Independents and 77 percent of the Democrats all believe the government should focus on overall economy versus redistributing wealth.

When broken down by income levels the same sentiment is felt throughout them all, with 78 percent of those making less than $30,000 believing that the government should also focus on fixing the overall economic conditions and the jobs instead of trying to redistribute the wealth, followed by by 83 percent of those making $30,000 to $75,000 believing the same thing and 88 percent of those making $75,000 or more agree.

That answer differs when the "abstract" question of "should the wealthy pay more taxes" is asked showing that when given a choice of remedies, Americans favor that the government focus on fixing the problems and not taking from one group to give to another.

Half of Americans also feel the government does too much, not too little.

50 percent of Americans believe the government does too many things that should be left to individuals or businesses while 43 percent believe the government should do more.

The question was also broken down by political party lines showing that 72 percent of Republicans believe the government does too much while 24 percent think the government does not do enough, 47 percent of Independents believe the government oversteps while 44 percent believe they should do more and the Democrats are the one group that feel, by 58 percent to 36 percent, that the government does not do enough.

Upper and middle-income groups agree that the government does too much instead of too little with lower income respondents believing the government should do more.

In sum, free-market advocates can take considerable solace in Americans' overwhelming belief that the government should not focus on redistributing income and wealth, but on improving the overall economy. And, to a lesser degree, Americans also believe government continues to do too much -- not too little -- to solve the nation's problems. On the other hand, the economic turbulence of 2008 could end up getting government into significant new income and wealth redistribution programs unless the Treasury and the Federal Reserve act soon to stabilize and reduce today's unmanageable food and energy price increases.

The fact that the abstract question of whether the wealthy should be taxed more than they already are showed such a differing answer than when respondents were given a choice of remedies would imply that it is almost a knee-jerk type of response to automatically want to take from the wealthy to give to the poor, yet such an overwhelmingly majority choosing a different option when it is presented to them also goes to highlight how polling results can be skewered based on the form of the question asked.


Saturday, June 28, 2008

Bill Clinton: Obama Must Kiss My Ass

Too funny and when are politicians going to learn that when they talk to "friends", their words end up in the papers?

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.

Might be time for John McCain to call and have a little talk with Bill......HEH


Family Research Council Airs New Ad Attacking Barack Obama On Abortion

(YouTube URL here)

The Family Research Council which is a conservative Christian organization started airing the above ad which questions Barack Obama on his stance on the issue of abortions.
The ad addresses a speech made by Barack Obama on June 15, 2008, which he called for more responsibility from black fathers and the quote the Family Research Council is questioning in the ad that aired in Cincinnati on Friday, to be followed up by airing in Dallas and Atlanta, was when Obama said, “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”

The ad itself is a personal note to Barack Obama from the President of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, while Perkins holds his son Samuel in his arms, asking Obama, “If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?” Perkins continues on to ask, "Or more to the point – and more personally – “If I became a father at conception, when did Samuel here become my son?”

He refers to Barack Obama's previous record on abortion, which of course forced this writer to start with the endless Google, Yahoo, and MSN searches so I could see for myself exactly what that record entailed to have a conservative religious group spend this kind of advertising money to attack Obama's views.

The first thing that started coming up in my searches was the recent remarks Barack Obama made in reference to his own daughters, which was highly criticized by members of the conservative community where he made the statement, "When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

The criticisms largely dealt with his comment about not wanting them "punished" with a baby.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

Further searches brought up criticisms which go back to the year 2001, to the The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was a law passed by the United States Congress in 2002 to protect an infant after a failed attempt to abort the fetus.

In 2001 there was the Senate Bill 1095, which describes what is meant by the term "born alive":

Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Barack Obama was one of 4 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, to vote "no" on the final action. (Right side of form)

On March 30, 2001, Barack Obama explained his opposition to "Born Alive" On the Illinois Senate floor. (Page 85 to 87 of PDF file)

In 2002, it was bill number 1662 and again Obama gave his verbal opposition on the floor of the Illinois Senate on April 4, 2002 (pages 31 to 34 of PDF file) and then he voted "no" the same day.

In 2003, it was bill 1082 and the Democrats had taken control of the Illinois Senate in 2002, so the bill was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, which was chaired by Barack Obama.

You can see the action docket for that bill for the year of 2003, right here.

Partial Birth Abortion.

In October of 2007, Obama voted against banning partial birth abortions.

Partial birth abortions which are a form of late term abortions, and are defined by U.S. laws as:

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

Other issues.

Other issues that put Barack Obama on the opposite side of the ideological divide as conservative religious groups such as the Family Research Council, who created the video ad shown above, include but are not limited to votes to prevent parents from being notified when their minor children get out-of-state abortions (July 2006) and prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion (March 2008).

Voting record shown at "On the issues".

While strict conservative religious groups have been slow to embrace John McCain, the video ad and recent comments from evangelical leader, James C. Dobson, shows that they are no longer willing to stand back and are actively coming out against Barack Obama on issues that concern them the most.


John McCain's View Of law Impresses Conservatives

Hard core conservatives were slow to embrace John McCain but he has impressed many of them of late, specifically regarding his views on law.

The grudging respect and newfound support for John McCain stems from his strong words on the campaign trail as well as his choices of legal advisers whom are well respected in conservative circles.

John McCain, a man that who has been called a maverick and at one time was booed at the Conservative Political Action Conference, has gone a long way in reassuring his conservative base that he would appoint high court justices more in line with Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito rather than the more moderate type such as Justice David Souter who has more of a liberal record.

An example regarding Roberts and Alito that was used in the original article was the fact that both justices were almost assured to vote to strike down portions of an initiative that McCain himself helped get passed into law, which was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) better known as McCain-Feingold.

McCain-Feingold is a federal law, passed in 2002, on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits of expenditure set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (soft money) to national political parties.

Knowing that Roberts and Alito would vote against such a law, John McCain still voted for both men to which Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice which is a conservative group points out, "That addresses the concern that he might not appoint strict constructionist judges who are more likely to oppose McCain/Feingold.”

There was much ink dedicated to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the second amendment and an individuals right to bear arms, but what many did not hear hear much about was another decision that was handed down that day from the Supreme Court where they struck down the "Millionaire's Amendment" otherwise known as Davis v. FEC .

The Supreme Court has upheld campaign finance laws meant to drive the potentially corrupting influence of large contributions out of politics. But the millionaire’s amendment, part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, is based on a different rationale: that of compensating for the additional financial resources available to candidates willing to spend their own money.

The case was brought by Jack Davis, a Democrat who twice ran for the House of Representatives from western New York, spending or lending himself millions of dollars of his own money. He lost both times.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the asymmetry imposed by the law was unacceptable. “We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other,” Justice Alito wrote.

The ruling on the "Millionaires Law" found here.

McCain's actions co-authoring the McCain-Fengold bill earned him scorn from conservatives at the time, but his stand on voting for judges to whom he knew would potentially strike down parts of that bill, has given conservatives the reassurance that when it comes to the rule of law and appointing high court justices, McCain will appoint those that will follow the rule of law, even when that stance will not benefit himself or his initiatives.

Hard core conservatives are traditionally one of the most reliable voting blocs in general elections for Republicans, but John McCain, having sewn up the position of the Republican presumptive nominee has not taken them for granted and has been actively working to reassure them as evidenced by his choices in legal advisers.

To that end McCain has the former Bush administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who co-chairs McCain’s advisory committee on judicial appointments along with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS.) and speaks to conservative groups on behalf of the McCain campaign.

That choice with others has gone a long way in impressing conservatives and convincing them that "a McCain White House will nominate sufficiently conservative jurists. "

Larry Hart, director of government relations at the American Conservative Union, makes the point, "Ted Olson being his key advisor is very promising. If people like Ted Olson are guiding selection of judges, the outcome will be very good for conservatives.”

Hart also mentions a speech that John McCain gave on May 6, 2008, at Wake Forest University, which went a long way toward reassuring uneasy conservatives and bringing them back into the fold, so to speak.

According to Hart, "We thought it was the best speech of the campaign. We were very impressed.”

The speech itself was on the topic of Judicial Philosophy can be found here.


I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power. They will be men and women of experience and wisdom, and the humility that comes with both. They will do their work with impartiality, honor, and humanity, with an alert conscience, immune to flattery and fashionable theory, and faithful in all things to the Constitution of the United States.

With recent controversial decisions of late, many of which having been decided with a 5 to 4 split, conservatives are very concerned with judicial activism replacing the written laws and McCain's choices, his speeches and his recent criticism of certain decisions has gone a long way toward earning the respect of hard core conservatives as well showing them that he is not taking them for granted and working to earn their trust.

Winning the nomination for presidency for a political party is difficult and once that presumptive nominee status has been obtained it is easy to assume that the invested parties will all "fall in line" but one must remember that it doesn't always work that way and be very careful of taking reliable voting blocs for granted in an attempt to appeal to different demographics.


Friday, June 27, 2008

Democratic Congressman, Bill Delahunt's al-Qaeda Remark Sparks Conservative Ire

A top aide to Dick Cheney was speaking at a House hearing on interrogation and declined to answer a question on waterboarding saying "al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN." Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass) replied "I'm glad they finally have the chance to see you, Mr. Addington."

The aide, David Addington replied, "Yeah, I'm sure you're pleased."

"Right," Delahunt responded. "Well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have the chance to see you, Mr. Addington."

"Yeah, I'm sure you're pleased," Addington shot back.

"Given your penchant for being unobtrusive," Delahunt said of Addington's ability to stay behind the scenes.

The remarks are in the video 1 minute 16 second video above and has sparked quite a bit of anger from conservative websites as well as Republican politicians and spokespeople.

Immediately after the exchange, the spokeswoman for VP Dick Cheney, Lea Anne McBride, stated that the Congressman's words were "inappropriate".

Republican Representative, Steve King, issued a statement to which it said:

"With Rep. Bill Delahunt's remarks inciting al Qaeda to violence, David Addington and his family will need protection until the war on terror is over. I wonder if Bill Delahunt is ready to guard Mr. Addington's home and family."

Delahunt denies that he was implying anything untoward and claims that he said "I," not "they," during the testimony.

C-Span does air these hearings live and many caught the exchange on video, which was of course uploaded to YouTube and you can watch the video for yourself to see if Delahunt says "I" or "They".

Delahunt went on to tell Fox News, "I'm sure that he understood. I would be surprised if he had any other interpretation other than the one that I suggested I intended. And if he believes in any way I wish him ill, I assure him that's not the case and I'd be happy to have another conversation with him."

That comment has set off a firestorm on the right side of the blogosphere, with RedState entitling their piece with, "Damn us all and our party if we let this go" and going on to publish Delahunt email address as well as his phone numbers, stating, "If you do not call your Congressman today and demand the House of Representatives, at the very *least*, censure Congressman Delahunt, well damn us all. We have no right to carry on our fight."

The outrage has just begun in the conservative blogosphere and RedState's comments are representative of what is being seen from them.

I have listened to the video a few times now and Delahunt did say they, not I, despite his recollection to the contrary, so did he mean what seemed to be implied or as his chief of staff, Mark Forest, claims, were his words just not as "artful" as they could have been?

Watch the video, body language and tone are just as important as the words and imagine the outrage on the left if this had been a Republican Congressman saying this to a Democratic aide or politician.

If you believe as RedState does when they state:

Mr. Addington volunteered for public service, not a death sentence with Congressional encouragement. Mr. Delahunt is both a vile liar and a cowardly lion willing to roar down at Mr. Addington while encouraging terrorists to do his dirty work in a war he has been ineffective at stopping.

The left, while attacking Charlie Black for stating the obvious -- that a terrorist incident helps the GOP politically because they are seen as more competent in the national security arena -- is defending this degradation of congressional discourse and vile swipe at Mr. Addington.

This discourse — a member of Congress glad Al Qaeda has a face it can pursue — is beneath the dignity of the Congress and beneath the dignity of civil discourse in this country.

Here is the contact information they provide.

The number is 202-224-3121 and Congressman Delahunt's email address is

If Delahunt thought he was being "cute", he wasn't.


The Family Research Council To Air Ad Against Barack Obama On Abortion

From The Caucus:

The lobbying arm of the Family Research Council, the conservative Christian organization, is going on the air in several cities on Friday with a television ad featuring a personal note from the group’s president, Tony Perkins, to Senator Barack Obama. The message: Mr. Obama’s abortion rights stance is hypocritical.

The 30 second ad can be found on YouTube here and shown below.

In the 30-second ad, Mr. Perkins appears seated and cradling his young son, Samuel. It begins with a clip of Mr. Obama’s recent Father’s Day speech in which he said: “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” (In the speech, which he gave at a Chicago church, Mr. Obama spoke about the problem of absent black fathers.)

As he holds his toddler, Mr. Perkins turns Senator Obama’s words back on him, asking, “If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?” Or more to the point – and more personally – “If I became a father at conception, when did Samuel here become my son?” Young Samuel fidgets a bit in his father’s arms.

As The Caucus points out, the evangelical Conservatives have not completely embraced John McCain, but they will go after Obama hard and fast and there is no doubt that they will work to see McCain elected as President.

The alternative option is unacceptable to them, which will guarantee McCain their support, while Moderates and Independents, who are needed as well, already have a favorable opinion of John McCain.

Considering the race is already close, Democratic supporters are realizing that while Obama needed them to become the Democratic presumptive nominee during the primaries, once he took that title, he has turned his back on them over FISA, which has them angered, he has moved further to the right which in the far left progressives mind is a betrayal, and he has managed to even alienate some of the media with his antics.

So while McCain is still gathering support, Obama has peaked as is now losing some.


While Obama and Clinton Speak Of Unity, Democrats Stray From The Herd

(Photo- Democrats For McCain)

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign for unity, some Democratic Activists come out in support....of John McCain.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made their first joint appearance at a Washington Hotel to promote unity in the Democratic party, some tensions remained.

Obama received a standing ovation when he addressed the issue of helping to take care of Hilary Clinton's campaign debts but both Clinton and Obama were asked questions about Hillary's future role in the Obama campaign, VP spot, campaign plane used for appearances, would she speak at the Democratic convention and one specific question that was mentioned in multiple media reports about the event was whether there would be a roll-call vote at the Denver convention.

A roll call vote is where each delegate at the convention would have to actually state who they are supporting and in answer to that question, it is said that Hillary and Obama exchanged looks and said that was still being "negotiated".

Some that spoke about the Washington event said it was successful, yet others described it as tense.

One major Clinton donor went as far as to say, "This felt like when your mom forces you to go visit your Aunt Ida and she has to pinch your cheeks and you're sitting there in an uncomfortable suit and you can't wait to leave."

Another Clinton-leaning person who was in the room said after the meeting wrapped up that there is still "a lot of anger" toward Obama among Clinton's wealthiest fans.

"It was pretty bad," this source said. He said donors were joking that the scene was like "an Irish wake" and that you "could cut the air with a knife" it was so tense in the room.

"He better go back to the internet," said one donor about the Democratic nominee’s fundraising tactics.

This tension brings up the ongoing tension and ambiguity that is felt toward Obama by members of the Democratic party, specifically Clinton supporters.

For example, following up on Debra Bartoshevich who is a Wisconsin convention delegate and an avid supporter of Hillary Clinton, announced in mid June that she would be supporting John McCain for president of the United States of America, stunning members of the Democratic party leadership.

It is reported today that the Wisconsin Democrats filed a formal credentials challenge against Bartoshevich yesterday, asking the Democratic National Committee to unseat to unseat her.

The state party argued that Bartoshevich:

• Violated party rules in expressing support for the other party’s presumptive nominee.

• Violated party rules requiring that delegates be “bona fide Democrats who are faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States.”

• Failed to honor a pledge that delegates sign stating their intent to vote for the party’s presidential ticket in the fall.

The challenge also states that the "Democratic Party of Wisconsin and its members have been embarrassed in the local and national media by the decision of Ms. Bartoshevich to endorse Senator McCain.”

The DNC will wait for Bartoshevich to respond to the challenge before taking any action.

Bartoshevich is not the only one that is bucking the unity train though. It is also being announced by the NH Union Leader, Top of the Ticket and The Swamp, that a longtime Democrat, who was a former Clinton administration farm official in New Hampshire, James McConaha, and his Democratic activist wife, Valery Mitchell, have no intention of joining in with the unity platform and are, in fact, going to chair the "New Hampshire Democrats for McCain."

Picking up a story in the Nashua Telegraph, the couple have agreed to lead Democrats for John McCain. And that's not the only anti-Obama group out there comprising Clinton supporters. In fact, though polls show most of her backers moving to Obama, there is a large and vociferous crowd out there that refuses to go along.

McConaha's statement regarding the reasoning was "I think in general both of us felt that this is such an important position, perhaps the most important job in the world that it requires a person who has the experience and the competence to hold it. We just liked Senator McCain for a lot of reasons. In our minds, he is that person."

Mitchell was a member of Kerry's Steering Committee in 2004 and supported Dodd in 2008. She is a former organizer of the Democratic Network.

Mitchell's states in a press release, "It was not easy to step away from my party in the McCain-Obama race, but I want a president whose judgment we know and trust, and a leader who will do what is in the best interest of our country without regard to politics or ideology."

Jim McConaha and Valery Mitchell will serve as co-chairs for the "New Hampshire Democrats for McCain" and Independents Marcia Moran, of Concord, and David Lee will serve as the co-chairs of "New Hampshire Independents for McCain."

Many believed that despite threats to the contrary, once Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign that anger would die down, the party would unify and in large part it has, even those claiming there is tension are still planning to back Barack Obama as Clinton is asking them to.

There is a group though, at first it was very vocal supporters, that vowed to either sit the election out or more worrisome to Democratic leaders, vote for John McCain. Then Democratic politicians started questioning Obama's ability and/or ties, then reports of Bartoshevich's public support of McCain was announced and still we are seeing more layers of active longtime Democrats peeling away from the Democratic party and their message of uniting the party and healing the wounds.

As the people of Unity, New Hampshire prepare for Clinton and Obama to appear in their town, many make it clear that anger is not the problem that they are finding with Obama, it is experience as is mentioned by multiple people.

"I felt good about Hillary Clinton. I loved Bill Clinton. I thought he did a fantastic job," said Tammy Dowd, a secretary from Unity.

Her impression of Obama?

"Inexperience," she said.

In another part of the state, Andrea DeMars, a Manchester college student, had similar thoughts. "Clinton had the experience. Obama doesn't really have it," she said.

So while Hillary Clinton does what she believes is best for the party and stands side by side with Barack Obama to promote the unity of the party, the focus, which by any right should have shifted to be on Obama and Obama alone as he moves into the general election phase of the campaign, is still on Clinton.

Her shadow is being cast on Obama not be herself, but by her supporters and other members of the Democratic party.

For some, unity should have been thought about before the party pushed the Clinton supporters aside and to speak of it now is simply not enough.


TIME Magazine Poll Shows Tight Race Between John McCain and Barack Obama

In the latest TIME Magazine poll they show that as the two presumptive presidential candidates enter the general election campaign phase, the race is tight.
The TIME Magazine poll was conducted from June 19 to June 25, 2008 and it shows Barack Obama with 43 percent and John McCain with 38 percent.

It also shows that among undecided voters, 30 percent lean toward John McCain while 20 percent leaned towards Obama and 46 percent stating no preference.

When TIME added those figures into the mix they found Obama's lead narrowed to just 4 percent.

Interestingly, in the first paragraph of the article TIME states, "The poll shows Obama gaining only a slight bounce from Hillary Clinton's departure from the campaign early this month, " yet in the third paragraph they seem to contradict the bounce by pointing out that Obama's lead over McCain is narrower now that it was during their poll conducted in February, before Clinton suspended her campaign, which had Obama at 48 percent and McCain at 41 percent, including leaners.

The contrast between those two statements is not explained in the article itself.

As they break down the results they found that Obama led McCain with Latino voters, 51 percent to 34 percent and McCain leads Obama with Catholics, 57 percent to 43 percent.

Independents are split between the candidates with Obama holding a 1 percent lead, but Obama does better with women voters and is more likable than McCain.

McCain holds a 20 point lead on the question of who "would best protect the U.S. against terrorism," with 53 percent to 33 percent.

On the issue of handling the war in Iraq, again McCain comes out ahead with 48 percent and Obama with 38 percent.

Obama leads though on economy with 44 percent to McCain's 37 percent and tackling special interest groups goes to Obama with 46 percent compared to McCain's 31 percent.

Even more interesting is that Obama leads McCain in all age groups, specifically the younger group of 18-34, yet McCain leads Obama in all income level brackets, save the poorest.

Despite all the drama over Obama's church and his former pastor's inflammatory remarks, 40% said they felt he was more comfortable talking about his religious beliefs versus 34% for McCain. And in evidence that McCain has some work to do shoring up social conservative voters, when asked which of the candidates "is closest to your views on so-called values issues, such as abortion and gay marriage," McCain edged out Obama by just a single percentage point 40% to 39%, even though 51% of respondents opposed gay marriage.

Tight is definitely the key word here where on specifics, each candidate has their strong suits and their weak points, and while character always plays a part in how voters end up making their selection process, the November election will hinge, for either candidate on issues, as it should be.

Barring either candidate doing what politicians do so well and shooting themselves in the foot that is.


The Mankini Hits Milan

British designer Alexander McQueen launched the mankin, inspired by Borat's makini from Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan.

It hit the runway at this year's Milan Fashion Week.

The inspiration, obviously was this from Borat:

What McQueen designed and some courageous model actually wore on the runway is:

For entertainment purposes and to see what kind of reaction men get when they wear the original neon green version in public, here is a video, via YouTube, called "The Mankini"

That is your entertainment and ridiculous item of the day.


UFO Sightings In Liverpool Spark Fears of Alien Invasion

There have been reported UFO sightings in Liverpool and many believe their city is "on the brink" of an alien invasion?

Sounds like a bad movie plot, but a former policeman and his daughter claim to have seen "13 orange orbs and filmed the unexplained phenomena on a mobile phone."

Another witness also claims to have captured footage and the radio stations telephones were jammed with people reporting the sightings.

The sightings came as three soldiers reported seeing UFOs spinning over an army base in Shropshire, in the west of the country.

The 13 flying objects were captured on film and are now reportedly being investigated by army officials.

A schoolboy photographed a UFO on the same day that three soldiers reported their mystery sighting.

More here.

In the comment section of the first article linked it says, "The airborne objects reported recently in Liverpool and Shropshire were almost certainly Thai or Chinese lanterns, which have proliferated in our skies over the past year or so…"

All that is for sure right now is hundreds of people saw "something".

Fact is UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object and just because an object is unidentified does not automatically suggest it is alien.

The sightings were enough to terrify the city though.

H/T J, thanks for the email.


$165 Billion War Funding Approved By The Senate

The House passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 aka the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, last week and it was sent to the Senate.

Tonight the Senate passed $165 Billion War Funding, with no restrictions or time lines on withdrawing from Iraq.

the vote was 92 to 6, roll call found here.

The $165 billion bill funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into early 2009 with no restrictions.

It also includes extended unemployment benefits and the expansion of the GI Bill, two key domestic priorities of Democrats.

The bill also provides more than $2 billion in disaster assistance for areas in the Midwest dealing with massive flooding.

The House passed the bill last week after Democrats and Republicans reached a compromise that satisfied Bush administration officials. It now goes to the White House for the president's signature.

More tomorrow............


Thursday, June 26, 2008

‘Millionaire’s Amendment’ struck down by the Supreme Court

Much attention was fucosed on the Heller ruling today where the Supreme Court struck down Washington DC's gun ban law as unconstitutional and upheld that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

That is covered here.

The Supreme Court also struck down what is called the ‘Millionaire’s Amendment’:

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law meant to level the financial playing field when rich candidates pay for their own political campaigns.

The 5-to-4 decision, legal experts said, was significant for rejecting the rationale behind the law, known as the “millionaire’s amendment,” and for confirming the court’s continuing skepticism about the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations.

You can read the 39 page ruling here.

The whole background on the Davis v. FEC can be read here.


The Responsibility of Feminism

Has Feminism helped or harmed American women since the second wave in the 1960's? Maybe a little of both but we are living in a time where Feminism has hindered our entire society more than it has helped it.

In the time of chivalry women were treated with respect and revered for the essentials of what they were. As chivalry died so did the respect women received and that respect was replaced with expectation and humiliation. Men, rather than a female’s unique skills and inherent abilities, defined a woman’s role. These same men still respected the natural power of woman, as evident by words of Samuel Johnson in the 18th Century. He states “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little." However, the general male incapability to express these feelings left women empty, this emptiness turned into unrest and defiance. The feelings restlessness and defiance lead to the birth of feminism.

Feminism has slowly grown in strength and over the years and gained steady momentum. The first increase of momentum happened in Seneca Falls, New York in the July of 1848. On this day, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, presented the Declaration of Sentiments to proclaim the rights demanded by women and the ideals that represent those rights. After the gaining of suffrage the feminist movement slowed until the 1960’s. During this time radical women, inspired by Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique,” launched a new campaign of Feminism focused on gaining equal treatment in the workplace. This is where feminism took a turn for the worse. These women embraced the mentality of men and ripped away the choice of those women who disagreed with them. They also devalued the rest of America to achieve their own goals. Women used to contribute uniquely to society sustaining a delicate balance that held together the roles of family and morals in America; since the inception of neo-feminism the identity of women has been lost and society has also suffered the loss of identity, family, and mental stability.

The Achievements of Feminism

To understand where feminism has failed one must first understand how it succeeded. In the Declaration of Sentiments, feminists outlined the expectations of their movement. Each of the tenets set forth in this document has been accomplished. The right of suffrage is the first tenet discussed and in 1920 was ratified as a constitutional amendment. Another demand of feminists was the right for married women to own property. This was another success as evidence today by joint and separate income tax returns; the way assets are divided in divorce proceedings, and inheritance laws. Another success was to allow women in educational establishments. Today there a more women attending college than men, it is obvious the right to attend school is one freely exercised. The last demand was that of equal treatment in the workplace. Women have achieved this goal as well. With all these things achieved why is feminism still around? While these tenets have been accomplished, some still have not reached a level acceptable by some feminists. More ideals have also been established in the feminist movement.

Why Feminism Has Failed Women

Feminism has been altered from its noble beginnings to a less than respected female movement in America. This turn for the worse has come from the ways in which feminism has failed. Modern, or what the author calls “neo feminism,” has promoted ideals that negatively influenced America. As a result society now has an identity crisis which effects men and women alike. Women have lost the right and support to fulfill their natural role. Many feminists, not men, have made it difficult for some women to be stay-at-home wives and mothers. The sexual revolution has cost women sexual respect. The lives of children have been devalued by abortion. The family unit has been compromised, which has caused an increase in mental illness and divorce. All these negative influences have had a cascade of negative effects.

The Change in the Identity of Women

Being a wife and mother has been the role of women since the beginning of time. Nature has given women certain innate abilities that have made them powerful nurturers, caregivers, and most importantly a balance to men. By being who they are and maintaining this delicate balance, women held in their hands the power to change the world for the better. Not only was their inner role important, but also their outer role. The feminine appearance attracted men. By securing this attraction women ensured that they were influential in all matters. This attraction also allowed them the chance of becoming a mother and giving birth. The ability to give birth is something unique, only possessed by a female and was embraced for the power it gave. She also was a mother to children and in charge of teaching young men and women to take on the world. The hand that rocks the cradle truly is the hand the rules the world; the role of women was complex but very powerful.

By the 1960’s the world changed greatly and women started to feel helpless and insignificant. This can be contributed to male insecurity. During WWII women went to work in factories to keep America running. When men came back from War the women did not want to return to the home and thus intimidated men by taking their jobs. Men lashed back by furthering their disrespect of women and inspired feminist to rise and demand equal treatment. This wave peeked in the 1960’s heralded in by the burning of bras.

This is where the influence of men ended on women’s lives and where the influence of feminism began. The burning of bras was a symbol of leaving behind a feminine identity and embracing a masculine role. The first action feminists took was to ridicule and devalue the women who wished to stay as they were and follow in their mother’s footsteps. These women wanted to go to University to find a good husband and become a wife and mother. Gloria Steinem was at the forefront on this war on women. In an article in Time Magazine, 1970, she is quoted as saying
,"[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children...parasites."
After achieving goals of breaking down a traditional household, starting with the role of woman as wife and mother, they turned to the appearance and mannerisms of women.

Provocative clothing was considered useless and a devaluing uniform imposed by men. Many feminists believed to dress in that way set women back. Feminists then deemed it necessary to dress like men to achieve the power and respect men have. This enforced ideal was that another point where women began to lose their feminine ways. By dressing like a man they soon took on the mannerisms and mindset of men thus becoming nothing more than a glorified male instead of an empowered woman. In a way these women did achieve a semblance of equality, but at an immense cost. Women have lost themselves to find power. Housewives and mothers were devalued in the 1960’s society, but today there have been painful consequences for the loss of this important role. The first casualty in the war on womanhood is the choice to fulfill happiness through a traditional role. Danielle Crittenden says,

We have absorbed the lesson that we should forgo--or postpone--marriage and children in order to forge careers; when married, we should not depend upon our husbands, either to stay married to us for the long haul or to support us when we have children; we should not ultimately look to our families for satisfaction or happiness--those things are best realized in our jobs, and in our spiritual growth as individuals .

Instead of giving up as housewives, feminists should have pushed for respect for the position while still allowing it to be an influential and mainstream role. They could also have introduced the role of a career woman as an alternative. Women could have fulfilled themselves without imposing upon the rights and choices of others.

The Sexual Revolution

The feminist inspired sexual revolution has devalued women more than any act men have imposed upon women. A great example of the sexual revolution can be seen in the move Down With Love. In this movie women are encouraged to take on a man’s sexual appetite and habits to gain power through and over sexual relationships. The question is, has this sexual revolution truly given women power? I believe that instead of gaining sexual power, women have lost it. F. Caroyln Graglia says it best
"The only result feminists accomplished by endorsing the sexual revolution was to deprive women of the societal support they needed to refuse to engage in casual sex … Women once confidently controlled the sexual aspects of their dating relationships, setting and enforcing the rules while viewing the male as a suppliant who would be grateful for whatever sexual favors he received (which usually would be something short of intercourse). Not yet misled by feminist teachings, females knew these were favors."
The sexual revolution has perpetuated a feeling of expected sexual contact from women and has contributed to the rise in rape and sexual degradation of women.

Devaluing Children

The loss of the maternal role not only effected women but also children. When women entered the workplace children lost a valuable sense of stability and a valuable role model. Children are now taken care of by a third party caregiver most of the time not a family member. Many of the institutions children are sent to for daycare do not provide enough safety and nurturing which can lead to aggressiveness, anxiety and depression. Take into account, “this study, by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), reports that kids in non-maternal care tend to be associated with qualities such as "gets in lots of fights," "cruelty," "explosive behavior," "talking too much," "argues a lot," and "demands a lot of attention." Reports of abuse at a daycare facility are not unheard of, which makes daycare not only potentially neglectful but also potentially unsafe.

One of the greatest way women have devalued children is by accepting abortion. A respected feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said “"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." The action of abortion in essence put children on the same level of disrespect that women once found themselves forced to endure. Medical complications and forced necessity are not longer the main reasons for abortion. Now many women use this act as a form of birth control because of the inconvenience pregnancy may present to their weight, career, or social excursions. These women form different excuses to take away from the guilt that these reasons invoke. This guilt is the evidence of one-way feminism has failed. No woman should ever feel that they should have to make a choice between the life of a child and her own. Feminism should look to end the reasons for abortion, like pregnancy discrimination, safety issues, and lack of contraception.

How Feminism Has Failed The Family

The breaking down of the family structure has caused instability in society. This instability is evident by higher divorce rates, a drop in marriage rates, a rise in unwed birth rates. There is also evidence of a rise in depression and homosexuality. Since Feminism went mainstream in the 1960’s these problems have become more evident and thus can be linked.

It is evident that women are pushing aside their identity, forsaking what is natural to live up to the reputation of radical women. It is noble to want equal treatment and to reclaim the respect women once held in the days of chivalry. However, it is not acceptable to damage the identities of men, women and children to achieve that goal. There is a better way, a compromise that can be reached, that will not take away the choice to live life in a way that makes women happy. A compromise where women who do not want to choose between career and family can have families early and be stay-at-home moms until their children are in school, then pursue successful careers. A compromise where all people, men, women, and children have value without compromising the value of another. Feminists need to take back their place as women and once again add balance to the family and to America.