WELCOME TO MY MANY VISITORS FROM BRAZIL. IF YOU KEEP COMING, I PROMISE TO LEARN SOME PORTUGESE. WHEN IT COMES TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, WE HAVE A LOT TO LEARN FROM BRAZILIANS.
NEW COLUMN UP AT 7 A.M. EASTERN TIME.
Michelle Obama says that her husband has always had "a healthy ego."
Katie Couric asked her: "How do you keep it in check?"
My Answer: "Have him read this blog."
Over the next week, I'll be writing about Barack Obama, who he is, what he's done, and why his election as President would be bad for America. Recently, I noted that Obama -- in terms of finances -- is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, billionaire founder of Moveon.org and a full-time "Amerika-hater." I noted that Soros is a supporter of Hamas, the terrorist organization centered in Gaza.
One of my critics replied that I was part of "the Republican attack machine" in regard to Obama -- and that Soros merely wanted to "negotiate" with Hamas.
My response to him is as follows: "Negotiate" with Hamas about what? The morality of suicide bombings? The wisdom of firing Kastusha rockets into Israeli settlements? The seriousness of Hamas about its stated commitment to the destruction -- the annihilation -- of Israel? Or about the mass murder of members of the rival Fatah political group?
Go over to Moveon.org, the nation's largest hate-machine, and you will find out all you need about George Soros and his minions. They despise their country, the one that enabled someone like Soros to amass a fortune of roughtly $10 billion.
In my criticisms of Obama, I've noted that he was not only militantly pro-abortion, but also that he favored a form of infanticide. As Michael Barone, favorable in many ways to Obama's political skills, said in the curent edition of The Almanac of American Politics (p. 539): "He [Obama] voted against requiring medical care for fetuses who survived abortions." Unfortunately, I'm not making this up, and, yes, I do attack Obama for refusing to support any limitations on abortion.
Obama will talk a lot in his campaign about the importance of "our children." He won't indicate that he favors the destruction of our most vulnerable children, those gasping for air. I guess his commitment to "universal health care" doesn't apply to children who are victims of botched abortions. How does this man sleep at night? Would he have advocated such a fate for his own beautiful children?
In all his empty talk about bringing the country together and "reaching across the aisle" to Republicans, Obama neglects to mention that his political stands allow for no real compromises. Yes, he will occasionally work with Republicans on non-controversial issues, but on anything of true significance, he will function as a militant leftist.
When I noted that the non-partisan National Journal had designated Obama as the most liberal Senator, my critic replied that was only true of 2007. In the previous year, he has been "only" the 9th most liberal Senator. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess the point is that Obama is a militant Leftist only when he's running for President.
Obama is the first presidential candidate ever endorsed by Soros' Moveon.org. The three million members of that group comprise most of the 20% of the Democrats in national survey who indicate they want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. Obama's prescription for what we should do in Iraq is to have us flee as soon as possible, leaving the country to the tender mercies of al Qaeda and other sectarian fanatics.
On the other hand, he apparently doesn't have a problem with having us invade Pakistan in search of al Qaeda leaders. In other words, his foreign policy is to desert one ally and alienate another. This is Soros-ism to a fault. It makes no sense, but it does produce standing ovations from the mindless Moveon types.
Honestly, I wish I were making this stuff up, but I'm not. I wish Obama were the attractive candidate he sometimes he tries to convince us he is. But he's not.
Yes, I'm going to continue attacking Barack Obama. I will never, never make up any charges against him. He has a terrible record, one of extreme partisanship and dishonesty about his motives. An individual who favors denying medical care to injured infants is beneath contempt.
That's not a gratuitous attack on Obama. Rather, it's just a call for him to practice some basic human decency.
The other day, before he attacked McCain, Obama said "John McCain is an American hero." What he should have said afterwards, but didn't, was "And I'm not." Like Soros, he's an American nightmare, and he must be defeated.
_________________________
OBAMA, CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES BACKING HUGE TAX INCREASE
Senator Obama's office today disseminated the following news release:
"Obama, Hagel, Cantwell, Smith Hail Committee Passage of the Global Poverty Act."
U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
Here's the link to the entire release: http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1/
The following is an assessment of the "Global Poverty Act" by Cliff Kincaid, director of Accuracy in Media (AIM) who, unlike Senator Obama, talks about the small matter of costs:
"A nice-sounding bill called the 'Global Poverty Act,' sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. "
Here's the link to the entire Kincaid article: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm
Steve says: Frankly, I wish Senator Obama had asked his billionaire friend and financial backer George Soros (worth about $10 billion) and the folks at Moveon.org to use their own vast resources to eliminate poverty throughout the world. It doesn't seem fair to saddle U.S. taxpayers, in a time of economic downturn, with the obligation. It seems likely that most of the $845 billion will go down the usual rathole that is the repository of much economic aid.
Showing posts with label George Soros. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Soros. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
MURTHA IN ORANGE JUMP SUIT?
The following three paragraphs are from an e-mail I wrote to a friend. I will expand on these comments in Monday's column.
Most conservatives are against Campaign Finance Reform (CFR), but frankly, something has to be done -- otherwise our congressional elections will continue to look more like coronations. Any suggestions?
Right now, the congressional candidate who has the most money wins 94% of the time. Is that really what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
In my blog, I write regularly about John Murtha's financing, which is basically bribery money. In 2004, when he had NO opponent (he got 100% of the votes cast), he spent nearly $1.6 million on his "campaign."
Can any of my readers figure out how he "spent" $1.6 million in a race with NO OPPONENT? (Hint: It's going to pay off supporters for their votes and donations. Yeah, I'm saying he's transferring back money that orginally came about as earmarks. Yikes.)
Apparently, he has spent nearly $1,000,000 in 2007 (for a race in 2008). Think your very worst thoughts about where that money is going. The exact figures should be out in approximately 10 days on http://www.opensecrets.org/.
The best way you can do something about this situation is to send a contribution to William Russell.
James H. said the following in the Comments section:
Let ME say this about Campaign Finance reform. I think the key to reform is not limiting money but it being very transparent!!!
If I wish to spend my money promoting political cause x I think that is sacred. I think that should be protected.
As to Murtha. I guess after last year and his weird comments on troop deployments I can never understand why people would vote him in. I suppose as Tip O'Neil said All politics is local and he must have an angle there that I am not seeing a thousand miles away.
The following is my response:
James: I hope there is a debate about campaign finance. Some of the donations (so-called) are transparent. In Murtha's case, they are from people (UPMC, PMA Group, CTC) who have benefited from huge handouts (earmarks) and are paying Murtha back for them.
If Murtha accepts a bag-full of money from the PMA Lobbying Group, it's illegal. If it comes in the form of checks, it's legal. The Democratic Left (George Soros and friends) is winning the fund-raising battle.
As long as that happens, "democracy" becomes something of a sham, a process designed to re-elect incumbents unto something approaching eternity. We will have the "right" to go out and vote for candidates who don't have a chance of winning. (We will win the race against Murtha, but it won't be because we outspent him.)
All that said, I hope you'll contribute to William Russell, which you can do by going to: http://williamrussellforcongress.com/. He's an outstanding candidate.
My Fellow Conservatives, Please Grow Up!
Like my fellow conservative Cindy, at The Pink Flamingo, I must be part of a declining breed: i.e., someone who'd rather win an election with a good candidate than lose one with an ideologically pure individual. On one board, someone was writing about how Republican presidential candidates had to be more conservative. I wrote the following:
My response is that the candidates seem to be running for President of the United States not the President of Alabama and Mississippi. I've just been reading the wonderful Almanac of American Politics about the election of 2006. All the Democrats in the House (more than two-thirds of them) who voted against the border fence got re-elected -- not most of them, all of them.
Many of the Republicans who voted for it (and all but six did) lost. That scenario is of course the opposite of what some people are assuring us will happen in 2008, though there's no poll evidence to suggest they're right. Do we really need to make ourselves into a permanent minority? We're very much headed in that direction.
Look at it this way: in 2006, many Republican conservatives (in the upper house, Sen. George Allen, Sen. Jim Tallent, Sen. Mike DeWine, Tom Kean, and Sen. Rick Santorum) lost. Who won against them? Oh, a bunch of Democratic liberals. Anyone who ignores that development has nothing to say on the political situation.
Most conservatives are against Campaign Finance Reform (CFR), but frankly, something has to be done -- otherwise our congressional elections will continue to look more like coronations. Any suggestions?
Right now, the congressional candidate who has the most money wins 94% of the time. Is that really what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
In my blog, I write regularly about John Murtha's financing, which is basically bribery money. In 2004, when he had NO opponent (he got 100% of the votes cast), he spent nearly $1.6 million on his "campaign."
Can any of my readers figure out how he "spent" $1.6 million in a race with NO OPPONENT? (Hint: It's going to pay off supporters for their votes and donations. Yeah, I'm saying he's transferring back money that orginally came about as earmarks. Yikes.)
Apparently, he has spent nearly $1,000,000 in 2007 (for a race in 2008). Think your very worst thoughts about where that money is going. The exact figures should be out in approximately 10 days on http://www.opensecrets.org/.
The best way you can do something about this situation is to send a contribution to William Russell.
James H. said the following in the Comments section:
Let ME say this about Campaign Finance reform. I think the key to reform is not limiting money but it being very transparent!!!
If I wish to spend my money promoting political cause x I think that is sacred. I think that should be protected.
As to Murtha. I guess after last year and his weird comments on troop deployments I can never understand why people would vote him in. I suppose as Tip O'Neil said All politics is local and he must have an angle there that I am not seeing a thousand miles away.
The following is my response:
James: I hope there is a debate about campaign finance. Some of the donations (so-called) are transparent. In Murtha's case, they are from people (UPMC, PMA Group, CTC) who have benefited from huge handouts (earmarks) and are paying Murtha back for them.
If Murtha accepts a bag-full of money from the PMA Lobbying Group, it's illegal. If it comes in the form of checks, it's legal. The Democratic Left (George Soros and friends) is winning the fund-raising battle.
As long as that happens, "democracy" becomes something of a sham, a process designed to re-elect incumbents unto something approaching eternity. We will have the "right" to go out and vote for candidates who don't have a chance of winning. (We will win the race against Murtha, but it won't be because we outspent him.)
All that said, I hope you'll contribute to William Russell, which you can do by going to: http://williamrussellforcongress.com/. He's an outstanding candidate.
My Fellow Conservatives, Please Grow Up!
Like my fellow conservative Cindy, at The Pink Flamingo, I must be part of a declining breed: i.e., someone who'd rather win an election with a good candidate than lose one with an ideologically pure individual. On one board, someone was writing about how Republican presidential candidates had to be more conservative. I wrote the following:
My response is that the candidates seem to be running for President of the United States not the President of Alabama and Mississippi. I've just been reading the wonderful Almanac of American Politics about the election of 2006. All the Democrats in the House (more than two-thirds of them) who voted against the border fence got re-elected -- not most of them, all of them.
Many of the Republicans who voted for it (and all but six did) lost. That scenario is of course the opposite of what some people are assuring us will happen in 2008, though there's no poll evidence to suggest they're right. Do we really need to make ourselves into a permanent minority? We're very much headed in that direction.
Look at it this way: in 2006, many Republican conservatives (in the upper house, Sen. George Allen, Sen. Jim Tallent, Sen. Mike DeWine, Tom Kean, and Sen. Rick Santorum) lost. Who won against them? Oh, a bunch of Democratic liberals. Anyone who ignores that development has nothing to say on the political situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
