Thursday, July 17, 2008

Culture of Corruption?


“I didn’t see anything unfair about it.”
-- Congressman Charlie B. Rangel (D-NY) on the four rent-stabilized (read "below market values") apartments he rents from the Olnick Organization, a "Big Real State" outfit.

At Lenox Terrace, the luxury development in Harlem, management uses two sets of standards when it comes to rent-stabilized tenants, many residents say.

For the select group of prominent or politically connected apartment dwellers like Representative Charles B. Rangel, Lenox Terrace provides below-market accommodations and does little to scrutinize whether the arrangements comply with rent-stabilization laws.

For other residents, however, the owner has a different posture: aggressively enforcing even arcane provisions of the regulations, threatening costly court battles to drive tenants from their rent-stabilized homes, and using other tactics that some housing advocates describe as harassment.

Although landlord-tenant battles, especially in rent-stabilized buildings, are a staple of New York life, residents and housing advocates say that after the Harlem real estate market began to soar around 2000, the situation at Lenox Terrace grew intense. The Olnick Organization, the owner of the development, brought in a new manager at that time and began aggressively seeking to evict tenants from rent-stabilized units.

While some of those evicted were clearly in violation of rent laws, tenants say the company went beyond those cases, pressuring legitimate residents to give up their homes.

Gov. David A. Paterson, who maintains a rent-stabilized apartment at Lenox Terrace, says he was “alarmed” by the evictions when he was asked to mediate between tenants and the management company in 2004. A state senator at the time, Mr. Paterson suspected that the company was going beyond the letter of the law, he said this week in an interview.

Court documents and company correspondence since 2006 underscore the company’s aggressiveness. One man, who was going blind and could no longer write his monthly rent check, was threatened with eviction for having a relative pay the rent from a joint account. Another tenant faced eviction proceedings because he objected when Lenox Terrace demanded that he sign separate leases for his apartment and for his parking space. A husband whose illness forced him to move from the apartment is fighting to prevent his wife and child from being evicted.

Mr. Rangel said last week that he never considered that he was getting a special deal from the Olnick Organization, even as he acknowledged that he had for years been allowed to lease four rent-stabilized units at Lenox Terrace at about half the market rate.

That kind of generosity from Olnick, however, is unheard of for those lacking political power, other tenants say.

While Rangel paid $3,894 a month for the four units he rents in the Lenox Complex in 2007, the Olnick Organization rents similar apartments for $7,465 - $8,125 a month. Each.

Rangel's hypocrisy is in full bloom here. While he enjoys "rent-stabilized" living, his fellow tenants and constituents are being heartlessly evicted so their apartments can be rented at market values. I wonder when Rangel is going to start blaming President Bush.

The New Yorker Magazine Cover Controversy: Kernel of Truth or Freudian Slip? You Decide


The hypersensitive Obama and his campaign pounced on the most recent cover of the New Yorker magazine - conveniently ignoring the fact that the story inside is nothing more than a love piece - by calling it "tasteless and offensive." The indefatigable Michelle Malkin rightly advised Obama to " grow a pair."

Obama may need the extra set if Jesse Jackson has his way.

EvilBobby on the Cult of Personality in Politics




Blogmeister Dave Roberts over at EvilBobby has written a masterful piece on the dangers of the cult of personality in politics, particularly in democracies. You owe yourself to read "Personality Cults, Big and Small Undermine Democracy," agree or disagree.


Dave's musings are especially relevant given the mindless Obama worship among media liberals (the Associated Press has been notably, and shamelessly, deferential to the presumptive Democrat nominee) and garden variety non-thinking Obamafans.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Davis Beats Walz in Net Fundraising in the 2nd Quarter in Minnesota's CD1 Race

For immediate release
July 16, 2008
Contact: Brad Biers
651.261.2182

(Rochester, MN) - Today, the Brian Davis for Congress campaign announces that their second quarter net fundraising was the strongest of all candidates seeking election to Minnesota's First District in 2008.

During the second quarter - April 1 to June 30 - Brian Davis for Congress had $391,601 in total receipts and a net gain in cash-on-hand of $326,273, compared to $186,584 for Congressman Walz. Total contributions from individuals to the Davis campaign were over $268,000 with a net of $376,718 cash-on-hand. This difference in net fundraising is due to campaign expenses with the Davis campaign reporting $65,330 in disbursements compared to $251,502 for the Walz campaign.

Stated Davis, "We're receiving strong grass roots support from Minnesotans, both financially and by volunteer efforts. Residents of the First District are concerned about their financial future and the future health of our nation. Like me, most voters are deeply troubled that Congress cannot remove barriers to oil and gas development in our country so that gas prices will improve."

Brad Biers, the Davis campaign manager commented, "Congressman Walz ran the most expensive Congressional campaign this past quarter in the state by spending over a quarter of a million dollars. His voting record on spending, which is among the worst in Congress, appears to mirror his campaign finances. His report also shows that his campaign continues to be funded by special interest PAC's from outside the state of Minnesota."

Brian Davis is the endorsed Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Minnesota's First Congressional District. He and his wife, Lori, live in Rochester with their four children.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

"Freep of the Week"


Free Republic, arguably one of the premier online conservative sites, picked up on my Olmsted County Republican Party counter protest post from last Wednesday. See "Rochester MN MoveOn.org & Democrat media event punked by GOP activists!"


Paleocon Strikes was cited and properly credited. My active meter went through the roof over the weekend: over 600 hits and counting.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Certifiable: Climate Change Delusion


"If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

-- Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd


Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change
Andrew Bolt
July 09, 2008 12:00am

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Obamacons: Cutting Off Their Noses to Spite Their Faces



"When he leaves the room, everybody thinks he just agreed with them. We don't know if you're really buying a pig in a poke here. It could be the second coming of the Clinton administration. If people have any confidence in that, I think a whole lot of conservatives would votefor him."

-- Michael Greve, director of the Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.


Why some conservatives are backing Obama
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Monday, July 7, 2008

(07-07) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The "Obamacans" that Sen. Barack Obama used to joke about - Republican apostates who whispered their support for his candidacy - have morphed into a new phenomenon, or syndrome, as detractors like to call it: the Obamacons.

These are conservatives who have publicly endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee, dissidents from the brain trust of think tanks, ex-officials and policy magazines that have fueled the Republican Party since the 1960s. Scratch the surface of this elite, and one finds a profound dismay that is far more damaging to the GOP than the usual 10 percent of registered Republicans expected to switch sides during a presidential election.


"The untold story of the Bush administration is the deliberate annihilation of the Reaganite, small-government wing of the Republican Party," said Michael Greve, director of the Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "A lot of people are very bitter about it."




I can understand the frustration over real or perceived capitulation of conservative principles, but voting for Obama is the wrong response. Obama has now resorted to lying to everyone he meets on the campaign trail. If elected, he will betray conservatives who voted for him much like he has been betraying liberals who are on the verge of nominating him.



Conservatives who may be tempted to vote for Obama would do well to remember the tale of the scorpion.

A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side.

Suddenly, he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.

The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me, and I'll drown."

The scorpion assured him, "If I do that, we'll both drown."

The fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed
up on his back, and the fox began to swim.

But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him. As poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown, too."

"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."



Obama is a scorpion. He can't help it. It's his poisonous liberal nature.

Jesse Jackson's Pathetic (Passive Agressive?) Non-Apology Apology For Threatening to Emasculate Barack Obama



"Quick to go on the offensive?" Jackson is treating this as damage control, not an apology. Nothing new here.

OUCH!

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Olmsted County GOP Broadsides MoveOn.Org, Local DFL

MoveOn.org tried to stage one of their pitiful made-for-the-evening-news events here in Rochester. Their goal? Blame Bush, McCain and the GOP for high gas prices. The Olmsted County GOP caught wind of it and within 48 hours staged one of the most fun coups ever.

MoveOn activist Lyle (didn't catch the last name) was befuddled by the strong GOP counter-protest for drilling domestic oil. On the KTTC six o'clock news broadcast he could do no more than stutter when asked if he knew that there
was going to be a counterpoint to his protest. He did manage to claim that gas prices would drop by a dollar in a month if our military leaves Iraq. He provided no proof of his wild claim, of course. Here are a few pictures.


I got there early and took this picture. Little did the Move.On/DFL types anticipate what was to come.


It didn't take very long for a couple of MoveOn/DFL protesters to get belligerent. Such liberal intolerance for divergent views.


By the time rush hour got going, we had taken over the Civic Center Drive spot in front of Kwik Trip.

The best sign ever. The DFL {hearts} OPEC.

KTTC (fair and balanced too?) interviewed fearless Olmsted County GOP Co-chair Bruce Kaskubar



The Olmsted County DFL and MoveOn.org were outnumbered, overwhelmed and outclassed by our counter protest. Well done, girls and boys!

Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!

"Change You Can Believe In" (I)

Obamamansion. Sweetheart deal?


Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 10:36 AM

By: Rick Pedraza

Presidential nominee Barack Obama joins the list of several other high-profile Democratic Party members who received highly favorable home loans.

Obama, D-Ill., reportedly purchased a $1.65 million mansion in Chicago through a “super, super jumbo” loan he received from Northern Trust Bank in Illinois, the Washington Post reports. The portion of the money financed through the lender ($1.32 million) was offered to the Obamas at an unusually low discount interest rate locked in at 5.625 percent over the life of the 30-year fixed-rate loan, which was below the average of what a typical Chicagoan pursuing a similar low loan rate received at the time.

For his part, Obama and his camp are defending the lower rate as lender competition for business. A spokesman for the camp says, “The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust."

Obama joins Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., on the list of high-profile public figures who received “VIP” loans that some now are scrutinizing as alleged trade-offs for political favors.



What is it that Nancy Pelosi was saying about the "culture of corruption" Democrats were going to supposedly vanquish when they took over Congress in 2006?



For a narrative of how the Obamas went about purchasing their mansion and Tony "Slum Lord" Rezko's role in the deal, read "How to Buy a Mansion You Can't Afford" and be disgusted. Be very disgusted.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Democrat-led Congress's JAR in the Tank, Reid Blames Bush


Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history.

This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings.
Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.


The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged.

Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.


Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.
Even liberals are disgusted with their own Democrat-led Congress. They went to Washington filled with bluster and bravado. They were going to "rein in" President George W. Bush, they said. They were going to bring the troops home, they said. They were going to end the "culture of corruption", they said.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader, national embarrassment and miserable failure Harry Reid has found a rational (for a liberal) explanation for his abysmal approval rating. You guessed it: President George W. Bush.
"Any time you have a president that is down so, so far in poll numbers, it drags down a city council member. It drags down any elected official, including us, and we recognize that."
Meanwhile, President George W. Bush's JAR is three times that of Reid and his liberal minions.

Monday, July 07, 2008

Brian Davis for Congress Raises $391,601 in the 2nd Quarter in Minnesota's CD1 Race



July 7, 2008
Contact: Brad Biers
651.261.2182

(Rochester, MN) - Today, Brian Davis, the endorsed Republican candidate in Minnesota's First Congressional District, released his second quarter fundraising numbers for 2008.

During the second quarter - April 1 to June 30 - Brian Davis for Congress had $391,601 in total receipts. Total contributions from individuals were over $268,000, more than any quarter reported by the freshman incumbent, Congressman Tim Walz. Davis reported $376,718 cash-on-hand at the end of the quarter and $21,150 of political party and other PAC donations.

Since winning the Party's endorsement on March 29, 2008, the campaign continues to build momentum as the number of total donations nearly tripled. Stated Davis, "We're pleased by the strong support we're receiving. We continue working to unify the party behind our campaign." The Davis campaign received contributions from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the Republican Party of Minnesota, the Minnesota First Congressional District Committee, and Republican party county organizations and activists across the entire First District.

"Our fundraising numbers reflect the support we're receiving from activists and concerned citizens in Minnesota. Voters are responding to our message focused on finding solutions to gas prices, energy, and an out-of-control federal budget." said Davis.

Brad Biers, the Davis campaign manager commented, "We're happy with our grass roots campaign because nearly 90% of the individual donations received were from Minnesota residents and half of all donations received this quarter were $50 or less. This contrasts sharply with the Walz campaign where a much greater portion of their fundraising comes from out-of-state PACs, the type of PACs that are frequently out-of-step with mainstream Minnesota values."

Brian and his wife, Lori, live in Rochester with their four children.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Happy Birthday, Mr. President!


Jon Cary is Back


By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry says Republican John McCain doesn't have the judgment to be president. If that's the case, then it's probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Kerry had no kind words his Senate colleague Sunday, accusing McCain of poor decision-making on everything from backing tax cuts for the wealthy to making support for continuing the U.S. military presence in Iraq the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

"John McCain ... has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he's made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves," Kerry, who supports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"If you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove," the Massachusetts senator added, echoing an Obama campaign talking point.

How can someone who married Teresa Heinz possibly criticize anyone else's judgement about anything?

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Senator Jesse Helms: October 18, 1921 - July 4, 2008


"Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line — and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

— Helms writing in 1959 on compromise in politics.

Add another presidential qualification to Obama's resume


Poll: Obama beats McCain as barbecue guest
Jul 2, 6:28 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain.While many are still deciding who should be president, by 52 percent to 45 percent they would prefer having Obama than McCain to their summer cookout, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Wednesday.

Men are about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11 percentage points. Whites prefer McCain, minorities Obama. And Obama is a more popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest.

Having Obama to a barbecue would be like a relaxed family gathering, while inviting McCain "would be more like a retirement party than something fun," said Wesley Welbourne, 38, a systems engineer from Washington, D.C.


Party label means a lot, with three-quarters of Democrats picking the Democrat Obama and the same number of Republicans picking McCain, a Republican. Independents are about evenly split.


Let's see. So far Obama's qualifications to be president are his community organizer and state senator who voted "present" when it counted. Add "barbecue guest" to the list and voila, liberals have presidential material. How pathetic!

Besides, isn't Obama a tofu muncher?

Bovine Follies: To Paleocon, With Love


Bluestem Prairie blogger Ollie Ox, Sally Jo Sorensen's nom de plume, has had it with Southern Minnesota's Most Beloved Conservative blogger. Unaccustomed to having her self-importance and faulty reasoning challenged, she has taken to "warring" with me in the comments section of the Rochester Post-Bulletin's Political Party blog.

Sally Jo/Ollie has graciously (childishly?) offered me
a musical tribute to "soothe his anxiety." Hilarious!

I am humbled that a liberal luminary would devote so much of her time to an amateur blogger such as I.

I note with delight that Ms. Ox has updated her profile to indicate that even though she worships at the feet of incumbent First District congressman Tim Walz, she actually lives in Hutchinson, MN, which is located in District 7.

I have often wondered why Ollie does not devote as much time and energy to singing the praises of her own congressman, incumbent liberal Democrat Collin Peterson.

I have often suspected that Sally Jo's motives to lavish such hyperbolical and unwarranted praise on Walz are pecuniary in nature. However, she has assured me in the most unequivocally defensive and self-righteous terms that she is motivated by nothing more than whatever the most current and mediocre liberal definition of patriotism happens to be.

Dover Parade



Family values: Bill Kuisle's supporters




District 30B familes for Bill

The DFL had a smaller than anticipated presence at the event


This ain't no hybrid. But then again, given the state senate per diem plus "reimbursements," Sen. Ann Lynch can surely afford to fill up a luxury gas guzzler.

Liberal Patriotism


The Rochester Post-Bulletin has seen it fit to "celebrate" the Fourth of July by reprinting Philadelphia Enquirer columnist Chris Satullo's dishonorable piece titled " We deserve no Fourth, for we have dishonored our flag." The first few sentences are enough to turn one's stomach.

Put the fireworks in storage. Cancel the parade. Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.

This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion.

Today, our nation does such things in the name of our safety. Petrified, unwilling to take the risks that love of liberty demands, we close our eyes.

So, that’s how liberals celebrate Independence Day: by bashing America and mischaracterizing her history. What a surprise.

Liberalism has reached such depths that its twisted version of patriotism now includes NOT celebrating the Fourth of July.

Liberals would have us give “rights” to those whose version of "the pursuit of happiness" centers on the mass murder of American citizens.

It’s liberals like Mr. Satullo who do not deserve The Fourth of July.

Let liberals of Mr. Satullo's stripe not celebrate American's hard-fought independence. Ironically, they have the freedom to do so.

Liberals should be thankful they live in a country where they have the right to be ungrateful and spiteful of America, the Greatest Country in the History of the World.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Rush Limbaugh, Scourge of the America-Hating Liberal Democratic Left

“I’ll approach Obama with fearless honesty. He’s a liberal. I oppose liberals. That’s all that’s involved here.”
-- El Rushbo on the "challenge" of criticizing the liberal Barack Obama


This article will appear in this Sunday's Times Magazine. Love him or hate him but read it. Here are a few excerpts.

Late-Period Limbaugh
By ZEV CHAFETS
It already seemed, when I made my visit, that McCain’s opponent might well be Senator Obama, and I was curious to know how Limbaugh planned to take on America’s first African-American major-party nominee. “I’ll approach Obama with fearless honesty,” said Limbaugh, who speaks of himself in heroic terms on air and off. “He’s a liberal. I oppose liberals. That’s all that’s involved here.”

I asked if he had any specific tactics in mind.

“I haven’t yet figured that out exactly,” he said. “You know, I’ve had a problem with substance abuse. I don’t deal with the future anymore. I take things one day at a time.”

In this case, it took two. I was back in New York, listening to the radio, when I heard Limbaugh say: “Ladies and gentlemen, I had a conversation with a friend Wednesday afternoon after the program, and he said, ‘Nobody’s criticizing Obama. How are you going to do this? How are you going to handle criticizing the first black American to run for president?’ I said: ‘I’m going to do it the way I always do it. First, at the top of the list, I’m going to do it fearlessly. I’m not going to bow to political correctness. I’m going to do it with humor. I’m going to focus on the issues. I’m going to react to what he says. Simple. I’m going to do it just like it were any other case — he’s a man, right? He’s a liberal. How do I criticize liberals? I criticize them.’ But I have devised, ladies and gentlemen, an even more creative way of criticizing Obama. I have, just this morning, named a new position here on the staff that is the Official Obama Criticizer. The E.I.B. Network now has an Official Obama Criticizer. He is Bo Snerdly.”

Snerdly introduced himself as an “African-American-in-good-standing-and-certified-black-enough-to-criticize-Obama guy,” and declared that he was speaking, “on behalf of our E.I.B. brothers and sisters in the hood.” The bit was typical Limbaugh — confrontational, deliberately insensitive and funny. It was also a declaration of independence. Whatever special courtesies John McCain might plan to extend to Barack Obama, Limbaugh is going to conduct his air war, as he always has, by his own rules of engagement.
On May 16, Limbaugh delivered a monologue on what you can’t say about Obama: “With Obama we started out, we couldn’t talk about his big ears ’cause that made him nervous. We’ve gone from that to this: Not only can we not mention his ears, we can’t talk about his mother. We can’t talk about his father. We can’t talk about his grandmother unless he does, brings her up as a ‘typical white person.’ We can’t talk about his wife, can’t talk about his preacher, can’t talk about his terrorist friends, can’t talk about his voting record, can’t talk about his religion. We can’t talk about appeasement. We can’t talk about color; we can’t talk about lack of color. We can’t talk about race. We can’t talk about bombers and mobsters who are his friends. We can’t talk about schooling. We can’t talk about his name, ‘Hussein.’ We can’t talk about his lack of experience. Can’t talk about his income. Can’t talk about his flag pin. This started out we can’t call him a liberal. It started out we just couldn’t talk about his ears. Now we can’t say anything about him.”

Limbaugh has been a factor in every national election of the past 20 years, but not since the mid-1990s has he been so prominent. Democrats have blamed him for everything from invading their primaries to starting scurrilous rumors aboutMichelle Obama. Limbaugh denies the latter accusation, but he happily embraces the
former.

His vehicle was so-called Operation Chaos, a radio campaign designed to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton and prolong internecine fighting among liberals.

Nobody quite knows how effective Operation Chaos was. Karl Rove said he thinks it helped tilt Texas for Clinton. She herself gave this some credence on the day after the vote by jauntily saying, “Be careful what you wish for, Rush.” Howard Dean implored primary voters in Indiana and North Carolina to ignore Limbaugh. The Obama supporter Arianna Huffington called Limbaugh and other conservative hosts “toxic curiosities.”

After Clinton won in Indiana, where 10 percent of Democratic primary voters admitted to exit pollsters that they were really Republicans, Senator John Kerry accused Limbaugh of “tampering with the primary” and causing Obama’s defeat.

Limbaugh was delighted. He deemed Operation Chaos to have “exceeded all expectations” (his customary self-evaluation) and explained once again that he wasn’t supporting Clinton but merely trying to bloody Obama because John McCain was too chicken to do it and because he believed that Obama would then be easier to beat in November.

NY Times "Distressed" Over Obama's Flip-Flops

The MSM noticed and they are worried.

Uh-oh. The NY Times editorial board is keeping track of Barack Obama's flip-flops. And they seem afraid that the presumptive liberal Democratic nominee may start equivocating when it comes to the far left's most sacred cows: cutting and running in Iraq, abusive taxation, socialized medicine and abortion "rights."

The board could have saved a lot of time and ink by simply referring readers to an op-ed piece written by the NY Times' very own token "conservative" David Brooks' June 20th column titled "The Two Obamas." In his column, Brooks describes Obama as "the most split-personality politician in the country today" and introduces his readers to "Dr. Barack" and "Fast Eddie Obama." Read it and laugh or cry or both.

The editorial states that there seems to be a "new and not improved" Barack Obama on the scene. One who has flip-flopped on public financing limits, electronic wiretapping - particularly the Illinois freshman senator's support for the immunity clause for telecommunications companies, expansion of faith-based initiatives as well as his recent pronouncements about Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty and gun control.

"Perplexing," "distressed" and "striking" are only a few of the choice words the Obama-loving NY Times editorial board used to express the belated discovery that their candidate for president is just another run-of-the-mill politician who will do and say anything to anyone in order to get elected. Read this pathetic paragraph:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Gee, do you suppose Obama was faking it to begin with? Is it possible he was never about change we or anyone else can believe in? Could it be that he is not a man of convictions, passionate or otherwise? Is Obama, perhaps, just another politician beholden to special interests and someone to whom political expedience always trumps publicly stated "principles?"

The NY Times editorial board concludes with a not-so-veiled threat:

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

In other words: "We'll put up with your flip-flops and continue to carry the water for you, but don't you dare sell out on Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations (i.e. abortion). Or else."

Like they would endorse or vote for anyone else. Obama is not shaking in his boots. He owns the liberal media and they know it. They will continue to be his sycophants, no matter how many liberal "principles" Obama kicks to the curb.


Remember, Obama threw Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his mentor and father figure of twenty years, as well as the grandmother who raised him under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so.

What makes the main stream media believe Obama would treat them any differently?

"OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, OUR SACRED HONOR"


"The Americans Who Risked Everything"
By Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall, bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72 and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stocking was as nothing to them." All discussion was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the President's desk, was a panoply--consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name if the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole, The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power."


"Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, Sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.

Much to lose...

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the Crown? To each of you the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock, and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56, almost half--24--were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, 9 were land-owners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so "that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward." Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately." Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember: a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.

They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics, yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S.Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers (it was he, Francis Hopkinson--not Betsy Ross--who designed the United States flag).

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic is his concluding remarks:"Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law. The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repose. If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American legislators of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephen Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."

"Most glorious service"...

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Francis Lewis, New York delegate, saw his home plundered and his estates, in what is now Harlem, completely destroyed by British soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home, they found a devastated ruin.

Phillips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.

Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause. He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

John Morton, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I rendered to my country."

William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.

Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large land holdings and estates.

Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched.

Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?" They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.

Lives, fortunes, honor...

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create, is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to the infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York harbor known as the hell ship "Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food.


With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Barack Obama's Fourth of July Celebration Button


As Clear As Mud


"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience."
-- Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant.



Obama wades into controversy with Iraq comments
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Thu Jul 3, 6:36 PM ET

FARGO, North Dakota (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama waded into controversy on Thursday over his plans to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, first saying he might "refine" his views but later declaring his stance had remained unchanged for more than a year.

Obama was forced to call reporters back for a second news conference in Fargo, North Dakota, after he initially left open the possibility of revising his 16-month timetable for pulling U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war," Obama told reporters in his second news conference.

But he added: "I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account."

At an earlier news conference, the Illinois senator had said he could "refine" his stance after he visits Iraq.
Obama was for withdrawing American troops from Iraq before he was for "refining" his position before he decided to call a second press conference on the same day to say he was going to retain the "unrefined" position he had held for more than a year.
Confused? So is Obama's Iraq policy, if you can call it that.
Is anyone still taking this buffoon seriously?

Davis Press Conferene Today


MEDIA ADVISORY


Congressman Tom Cole, Chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, will be joining First District Congressional Candidate Brian Davis to discuss high gas prices and the petition that the Brian Davis for Congress campaign will be sending to Congressman Tim Walz asking him to remove all barriers to further domestic and off shore oil exploration and drilling.


When: Thursday July 3rd, 9:15 AM

Where: 1530 Greenview Drive SW, across from the Pump'n'Munch station (NOT in the GOP office as misreported - surprise, surprise - by Walz's bought-and-paid-for Bluestem Prairie blog)

Contact: Brad Biers, 651-261-2182

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Franken Front Group Smears Coleman

Minessota Democrats Exposed's Mike Brodkorb and the Minnesota GOP are making mincemeat out of the latest rabid liberal anti-Coleman smear by a group with ties to DFL U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an ethics complaint against Coleman alleging that the freshman Minnesota Senator's living arrangements on Capitol Hill violate Senate rules.

Coleman pays $600 a month for a basement apartment in the town home of political consultant Jeff Larson. CREW wants the Senate Ethics Committe to determine if Coleman is paying rent at a "fair market value" and if two missing rent payments would have been made had the magazine National Journal not flagged them.

While CREW makes a big stink about Norm's $600 a month rent for a small basement bedroom and bathroom, they are strangely silent on Democratic Sen. Schumer's $750 a month rent for a full house.

Could it be because at least two of CREW's board members have contributed to Franken's and Schumer's campaigns? Real Clear Politics reports that board member John Luongo has contributed $2,000 to Franken and board member Daniel Berger forked a whopping $44,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Minnesota GOP noted that CREW's executive director, Melanie Sloan "worked as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's crime subcommittee when it was chaired by then-Rep.Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who now chairs the DSCC."

That dog won't hunt. Liberals and their surrogates are trying to distract the electorate from Franken's numerous ethical shennanigans to no avail.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Obama's Southern Strategy: D.O.A?





The South Will Fall Again
By THOMAS F. SCHALLER
Washington

THE interim between the primaries and the parties’ nominating conventions is, according to ancient writ, a fertile period for presidential campaigns to talk about how they plan to expand the political map in the fall. This year is no different. Barack Obama’s strategists are suggesting that the first African-American presidential nominee of a major political party can parlay increased turnout among black voters into a string of victories in the South.

Given that roughly half of all African-Americans live in the 11 former Confederate states, the idea seems intuitive enough. It’s also wrong. Prying Southern electoral votes away from the Republicans is not so simple.

According to news reports, the Obama campaign is agressively pursuing southern votes, particularly in the African-American community. Author and University of Maryland political science professor Thomas F. Schaller concedes that Obama's approach is a losing proposition based on what he calls the two myths about the Black vote.
First, contrary to popular belief, the Black vote turnout in the South is NOT low.
In the 11 states of the former Confederacy, African-Americans were 17.9 percent of the age-eligible population and 17.9 percent of actual voters in 2004, analysis of Census Bureau data shows.

And when socioeconomic status is held constant, black voters go to the polls at higher rates than white voters in the South. In other words, a 40-year-old African-American plumber making $60,000 a year is, on average, more likely to vote than a white man of similar background.

Myth number two will come as a kick in the head to liberals. Contrary to conventional wisdom, liberal presidential candidates do not do better in Southern states with large Black populations.
In fact, the reverse is true, because the more blacks there are in a Southern
state, the more likely the white voters are to vote Republican.

Take Mississippi. It has the nation's highest percentage of Blacks in its population, but

Four years ago, President Bush beat John Kerry there by 20 points. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Mr. Obama could increase black turnout in Mississippi to 39 percent of the statewide electorate, up from 34 percent in 2004, according to exit polls. And let’s assume that Mr. Obama will win 95 percent of those voters, up from the 90 percent who voted for Mr. Kerry four years ago.

If that happened, the black vote would yield Mr. Obama 37 percent of Mississippi’s statewide votes. To get the last 13 percent he needs for a majority, Mr. Obama would need to persuade a mere 21 percent of white voters in Mississippi to support him. Sounds easy, right?

But only 14 percent of white voters in the state supported Mr. Kerry. Mr. Obama would need to increase that number by 7 percentage points — a 50 percent increase. Mr. Obama struggled to attract white Democrats in states like Ohio and South Dakota. It strains credulity to believe that he will attract three white voters in Mississippi for every two that Mr. Kerry did.


According to Schaller, Obama's predictions regarding an increase in the turnout of Black voters naively does not consider a rise in the White vote turnout. Georgia and North Carolina are not in play for the same reasons Mississippi isn't. Virginia is a different story, however.
The demographic makeup of the electorate in Virginia is unlike that of any other state in the South. The black population in Virginia is, as a percentage, among the lowest in the region. And during the last two decades, the state has also experienced a huge influx of upscale non-Southerners, who have taken over the Washington suburbs of northern Virginia. (Florida is a perennial target for similar reasons. With a relatively small black population, a big Hispanic voting bloc and a large contingent of relocated retirees from the North, it is the least Southern of the Southern states.)

And here is Schaller's epiteth for the Obama campaign's Southern strategy .
In the rest of the South, Mr. Obama cannot overcome reality. Even if unprecedented numbers of black voters turn out to vote for him, the white vote will serve as a formidable counterbalance. Mr. Obama should not hope to capture states in the country’s most racially polarized region.

Unity!




When Barack "Slum Lord Tony Rezko" Obama and Hillary "Wal-mart" Clinton told the truth about each other, tensions flared between the candidates at the South Carolina debate on January 21, 2008. And the two would have us believe that it's all love and roses between them now.

Harry "Chicken Little" Reid: "Coal Makes Us Sick! Oil Makes Us Sick! It's Global Warming! Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!

Oops! He did it again! Here is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest bout with verbal diarrhea.




Nothing new really. Remember his defeatist pronouncement on the Iraq War almost exactly a year ago?








Dennis Miller said it all in the following clip. It was broadcast a little over a year ago but could have followed Reid's latest ignorant rant the minute it was uttered.