Thursday, January 31, 2008
Usually, when a media source endorses a candidate, it mainly hypes the good qualities of the candidate, and sometimes even explains why it didn't endorse his or her rival. In the following NY Post endorsement of Obama in the NY Primary to be held next Tuesday, the paper shoves Hillary Clinton under the bus - then hits Obama over the head as well.
We can bet that Obama will not be posting this whole endorsement on his web site.
OBAMA FOR THE DEMOCRATS
Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.
Obama represents a fresh start.
His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.
Does America really want to go through all that once again? It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.
That much has become painfully apparent.
Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.
Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago.
Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.
You can almost feel the blood draining out of Hillary Clinton's face if she read this. And, below, there is more.
But now check out how the paper hits Obama as well:
Now, Obama is not without flaws.
For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naive - blithely unaware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
Meanwhile, Obama's all-things-to-all-people approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.
Now, are you ready for more reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be allowed anywhere near the White House, even to use the restroom?
A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?
No, thank you.
And don't forget the Clintons' trademark political cynicism. How else to explain Sen. Clinton's oft-contradictory policy stands: She voted for the war in Iraq, but now says it was a bad idea. She'd end it yesterday - but refuses to say how.
It's called "triangulation" - the Clintonian tactic by which the ends are played against the middle.
Once, it was effective - almost brilliant. Today, it is tired and tattered - and it reeks of cynicism and opportunism.
Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.
At least Obama has the ability to inspire.
Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.
But many Democrats will.
He should be their choice on Tuesday.
Devastating - to both candidates.
This is why Joobo's prediction holds: John McCain will be the next President of the United States.
Barack Obama has now been caught in a lie in his vain attempt to woo the votes of far left loonies in his 2004 US Senate campaign. Whereas he said then that he wanted to decriminalize marijuana, now he says something different.
"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during the debate at Northwestern University in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."
Check out the video: first, his 2004 comment made during a US Senate debate:
Now, during a debate late last year, Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana.
So, what is Obama's reasoning behind these two different answers?
Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign said he in fact has "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall.
Oops! He "mistakenly" raised his hand! Wow!
Imagine if this were "President Obama," and he is asked whether or not he thought that a Pakistani invasion of Kashmir was a good idea. Of course, "President Obama" can raise his hand and say yes, then tell Pakistan not to do it.
That is called being on both sides of the fence. After eight years of Clintonian dissembling and lying, can we afford to have a naive and inexperienced man as the leader of our country who cannot even answer a question on marijuana properly?
This is why Obama's lack of experience - only three years in the US Senate - is one of his many flaws, and is probably his Achilles' Heel. In a debate with anyone of substance, including John McCain, Obama would stand there like a deer caught in the headlights and melt down.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
As you can tell, Joobo and his Gang hate the Left. Simply put, the Left in America is filled with the human crud and rejects who desire to destroy this country and surrender it to our enemies at any price they can get for their sick causes. Berkeley, California, is the center of the Disgusting Left, and they proved it when they voted to tell the Marines that they were "uninvited intruders."
Oh, and they made sure that antiwar fuckers Code Pink have a spot from which they can protest the Marines.
Berkeley council tells Marines to leave
Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.
In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.
Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.
The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.
"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.
A Marines representative did not respond to requests for comment.
The resolution telling the Marines they are unwelcome and directing the city attorney to explore issues of sexual orientation discrimination was brought to the council by the city's Peace and Justice commission The recommendation to give Code Pink a parking space for protesting and a free sound permit was brought by council members Linda Maio and Max Anderson.
Code Pink on Wednesday started circulating petitions to put a measure on the November ballot in Berkeley that would make it more difficult to open military recruiting offices near homes, parks, schools, churches libraries or health clinics. The group needs 5,000 signatures to make the ballot.
Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.
"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."
An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.
"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.
Here is our prescription for dealing with these psychos: people should head to Berkeley with as many tomatoes as they can. They should then drive past the group of protestors and let loose with as many ripe tomatoes as possible, making sure to strike the pieces of excrement in the head if they can. When car after car drives past, perhaps more and more flying tomatoes finding their target will let these assholes know what Americans think about them.
Not only is the UK caving in to Islamic nuttery, but it is also submitting to the worst areas of leftwing political correctness.
Now, you cannot talk about a child having a "mum and a dad" because some kids have two gay parents.
Yep - no more mother and father.
Shit, does liberalism suck.
Don't say mum and dad... teachers told not to assume pupils have hetrosexual parents
Teachers should not assume that their pupils have a "mum and dad" under guidance aimed at tackling anti-gay bullying in schools.
It says primary pupils as young as four should be familiarised with the idea of same-sex couples to help combat homophobic attitudes.
Teachers should attempt to avoid assumptions that pupils will have a conventional family background, it urges.
It goes on to suggest the word "parents" may be more appropriate than "mum and dad", particularly in letters and emails to the child's home.
When discussing marriage with secondary pupils, teachers should also educate pupils about civil partnerships and gay adoption rights.
The guidance - produced for the Government by gay rights group Stonewall - will be formally launched today by Schools Secretary Ed Balls.
It states that children who call classmates "gay" should be treated the same as racists as part of a "zero tolerance" crackdown on the use of the word as an insult.
Teachers should avoid telling boys to 'be a man' or accuse them of behaving like a "bunch of women".
Would you want a man named Ed Balls telling you how your children should be taught? What about Sammy Dicksucker? Or Mary Dykemaster? Are they available for the British government?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
John McCain won Florida tonight in a major victory.
Elderly, Moderates Power McCain in Fla
WASHINGTON (AP) - John McCain's support from Republican moderates, Hispanics and Florida's numerous older voters helped lift him to victory in Florida's GOP presidential primary on Tuesday.
Mitt Romney relied on solid backing from conservatives and people troubled by illegal immigration and abortion, but could not persuade voters he was the one to cure the country's economic ills.
In a blow to Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, McCain led among people who said the economy was the country's No. 1 issue, according to results of an exit poll conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.
As with most other early voting states so far in the campaign, the troubled economy was cited by Florida GOP voters as the top problem. Romney had been flaunting his finance background as the perfect resume to handle declining real estate values, job losses and a plunging stock market, but 40 percent of them supported McCain, 8 percentage points better than Romney. McCain also had a clear lead among people who said the economy was in poor condition, while those who said it was fine flocked to Romney.
Here is Joobo's prediction for the 2008 presidential campaign:
McCain gets the GOP nomination, with Hillary Clinton getting the Downie nod.
McCain wins in a 2-way race, 53%-47%. If Bloomberg and/or Nader gets into the race, the end vote will be McCain 52%-45%, with the others taking 3% of the vote. Any more of a vote for a third and/or fourth party candidate comes out of Hillary Clinton's hide.
So, at the end of January 2008, we predict here that on January 20, 2009, John McCain will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.
Further predictions to follow.
Monday, January 28, 2008
As Bill and Hillary Clinton use every dirty tactic, every race baiting remark, every disgusting edge to win back the White House, they are destroying the darling of the Left, Barack Obama. And now that same Left that defended the Clintons every time they were caught doing something illegal or lying is now coming to the slow realization that the Clintons are just two pieces of shit.
Of course, they still hate the right who, like us, having been saying this same thing for the past 15 years. But how sweet it is to hear those Clinton defenders of old wake up to some sort of hazy reality clouded for years by ignorance and sheer stupidity.
Is the right right on the Clintons?
Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.
The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.
Of course, the dimwit who wrote this still blames us for the ills of the world - but, as said before, how sweet it is to see the Left have to say, "Okay - you told us so. We blew it. Sorry."
The Muslims are now in complete control of Britain. Check out this frightening article by Mark Steyn, and mourn for the British, who allowed the cancer of Islam to destroy their beautiful country.
Orwell Would be Proud
My favorite headline of the year so far comes from The Daily Mail in Britain: "Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As 'Anti-Islamic Activity' To Woo Muslims."
Her Majesty's Government is not alone in feeling it's not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed "respect" is no longer sufficient. So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated "anti-Islamic activity." Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. "There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief," she told her audience. "Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic."
Well, yes, one sort of sees what she means. Killing thousands of people in Manhattan skyscrapers in the name of Islam does, among a certain narrow-minded type of person, give Islam a bad name, and thus could be said to be "anti-Islamic" — in the same way that the Luftwaffe raining down death and destruction on Londoners during the Blitz was an "anti-German activity." But I don't recall even Neville Chamberlain explaining, as if to a five-year old, that there is nothing German about the wish to terrorize and invade, and that this is entirely at odds with the core German values of sitting around eating huge sausages in beer gardens while wearing lederhosen.
How terribly sad. The only hope we have is that people in this country reject this sickness, although in some quarters run by the Left, the news is as bad.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Nut from Ohio who wears roadkill on his head for a hairstyle, Dennis Kucinich, is dropping out of the presidential race.
How devastating! And here we thought he had a real shot at the Downie nomination! Darn darn darn!
Democrat Kucinich quits White House race
Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job — U.S. congressman.
In an interview with Cleveland's Plain Dealer, the six-term House member said he was quitting the race and would make a formal announcement on Friday.
"I will be announcing that I'm transitioning out of the presidential campaign," Kucinich said. "I'm making that announcement tomorrow about a new direction."
Kucinich has received little support in his presidential bid; he got 1 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was shut out in the Iowa caucuses. He did have a devoted following.
The Little Nutcase is facing a primary challenge for his House seat. Wouldn't it be hilarious if he loses that seat, too? Hey, folks of his district - how about making it happen?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Al Qaeda is hurting in a big way, because George W. Bush refused to listen to the defeatist liberals in the US and abroad and chose to fight to win in Iraq. And now Al Qaeda is on the run there.
So, what is their strategy to continue fighting us? They will have their number two psycho, Ayman "Watch Me Fuck a Goat" al-Zawahiri, answer questions posed to him by other Islamic psychos around the world.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Sympathizers seek answers from al-Qaida
Sympathizers submitted hundreds of questions to al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri's "on-line interview" before a recent deadline. Among them: Why hasn't al-Qaida attacked the U.S. again, why isn't it attacking the Israelis and when will it be more active in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria?
So far, there have been no answers.
Al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab, announced in December that al-Zawahri would take questions from the public posted on Islamic militant Web sites and would respond "as soon as possible."
More than 900 entries — many with multiple questions — were posted on the main Islamist Web site until the cutoff date of Jan. 16. After the deadline, the questions disappeared from that site and no answers have yet appeared.
One thing is clear from the questions: Self-proclaimed al-Qaida supporters are as much in the dark about the terror network's operations and intentions as Western analysts and intelligence agencies.
Some of those posting questions sound worried: Does al-Qaida have a long-term strategy?
One, allegedly a former Arab al-Qaida fighter in Iraq, complained about Iraqi fighters discriminating against non-Iraqi mujahedeen.
Others wanted advice: Should followers be focusing their jihad, or holy war, against Arab regimes, or against Americans?
Like many in the West, the questioners appear uncertain whether al-Qaida's central leadership directly controls the multiple, small militant groups around the Mideast that work in its name, or whether those groups operate on their own.
Journalists also were invited to send questions and a few of the entries are labeled with the names of European and Asian newspapers. Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian security expert in Cairo, also suggested some questions were probably submitted by intelligence agents looking for clues to al-Qaida's thinking, but there was no way to verify that.
The vast majority of questioners, identified only by their computer usernames, appear to be supporters of al-Qaida or the jihadi cause, often expressing praise for "our beloved sheik" and "the lion of jihad, Sheik Osama."
Many appear frustrated that al-Qaida is not doing more.
"When we will see the men of al-Qaida waging holy war in Palestine? Because frankly our situation has become very bad," writes one, with the username "Seeking the Path." "As for al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia," he asks, "are there efforts to revive jihadi action there after the blows that hurt us?"
Another, signed "Osama the Lion," asks: "Why doesn't al-Qaida open a front in Egypt, where there are wide opportunities and fertile ground for drawing in mujahedeen?"
Another, called "Knight of Islam," asks, "We are awaiting a strike against American soil. Why has that not been done? Why are the Jews in the world not struck?"
Here are some of the questions posed by us to the nutties, er, leaders, of Al Qaeda:
1. How many goats have you fucked this month?
2. Why do the Jews continue to beat you like a Muslim woman who wants to drive?
3. Can you say "Nancy Pelosi" without thanking her for all her hard work on your behalf?
4. How much have you donated to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
5. Isn't that cave you are hiding in for 6+ years now getting a litty stuffy? Aren't you bored with your surroundings by now?
6. How bad does the food suck for you? Isn't roast asshole of sheep getting monotonous already?
That's it. Wanna bet we get no answers to these important queries?
And, now, for something different: Bin Laden's son says Osama the Goatfucker should "end his terrorism" and "find another way"!
Yep, you heard it here: Omar "Ralphie" bin Laden, the 33rd son from Bin Laden's 228th wife and/or concubine, says he supports his father but that he is doing damage to Islam by fighting with terror. You think?
Bin Laden's son to father: Change your ways
CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- Omar bin Laden has a message for his father, Osama: "Find another way."
The son of the most-wanted man in the world spoke Sunday to CNN in a quiet, middle-class suburb about an hour outside Cairo, Egypt.
Omar bin Laden, who works as a contractor, said he is talking publicly because he wants an end to the violence his father has inspired -- violence that has killed innocent civilians in a spate of attacks around the world, including those of September 11, 2001.
"I try and say to my father: 'Try to find another way to help or find your goal. This bomb, this weapons, it's not good to use it for anybody,' " he said in English learned in recent months from his British wife.
He said that's not just his own message, but one that a friend of his father's and other Muslims have expressed to him. "They too say ... my father should change [his] way," he said. Watch whether Omar bin Laden thinks his father will ever be caught »
He said he hasn't spoken to his father since 2000, when he walked away from an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan with his father's blessings. He said he has no idea where his father is, but is confident he will never be caught because locals support him.
Asked if his father might be living along the Afghan-Pakistan border, he said, "Maybe, maybe not."
"Either way, the people there are different," he said. "They don't care about the government."
Now, he and his wife are preparing to launch a movement far different from the one his father, Osama bin Laden, launched. They are pursuing a movement for peace.
At first glance, Omar bin Laden appears to have little in common with the man who has eluded international efforts to find him. The 26-year-old's hair is bound in neat braids, he drives a Jeep and is married to a British national twice his age.
But the physical resemblance quickly sinks in, even without the long beard his father favors. It is a resemblance he doesn't avoid. "Being Osama's son, I don't hide it. I don't hide my name," he said.
"I am proud by my name, but if you have a name like mine you will find people run away from you, are afraid of you."
He said he doesn't consider his father to be a terrorist. When his father was fighting the Soviets, Washington considered him a hero, he said.
"Before they call it war; now they call it terrorism," he said. He said his father believes his duty is to protect Muslims from attack.
This word to Ralphie: Don't expect anything from dear old Dad. Just remember that all this will end as soon as a missile is fired up his Islamic ass.
Off subject but part of the discussion on that cult of lunatics known as Islam, we hear that Saudi Arabia may actually cave in and let women there drive on their own.
Wow! Perhaps this will bring them into the 14th century! What progress! Next they will let woman not be beaten and not have to wear full burqas! Will wonders never cease?
Saudi Arabia to lift ban on women drivers
Saudi Arabia is to lift its ban on women drivers in an attempt to stem a rising suffragette-style movement in the deeply conservative state.
Government officials have confirmed the landmark decision and plan to issue a decree by the end of the year.
The move is designed to forestall campaigns for greater freedom by women, which have recently included protesters driving cars through the Islamic state in defiance of a threat of detention and loss of livelihoods.
The royal family has previously balked at granting women driving permits, claiming the step did not have full public support. The driving ban dates back to the establishment of the state in 1932, although recently the government line has weakened.
"There has been a decision to move on this by the Royal Court because it is recognised that if girls have been in schools since the 1960s, they have a capability to function behind the wheel when they grow up," a government official told The Daily Telegraph. "We will make an announcement soon."
Modernity is such a nice thing. Even in that shithole called Saudi Arabia.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Want to shit in your pants? Because here it comes: Muslims in the UK are slowly pushing their "sharia law" bullcrap right in everyone's faces, and while insisting that they are "offering" it to the British people, in fact they are foisting it on them.
And despite the comments at the bottom of this story, the British people seem too dumb or too tired to resist.
'We want to offer sharia law to Britain'
Islamic courts meet every week in the UK to rule on divorces and financial disputes. Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones report on demands by senior Muslims that sharia be given legal authority
Amnah is a modern British Muslim. She is dressed in a denim skirt and her head is covered in a hijab. Poised and self-assured, she has come to meet Dr Suhaib Hasan, a silver-bearded sheikh who sits behind his desk, surrounded by religious books.
"But why would I have to observe the waiting period?" she asks him. "What are the reasons?" There is an urgency to her questions.
"These reasons don't apply to me, that's what I'm very confused about. If you could give me the reasons why I have to wait three months, then I'll understand."
Amnah is going through a divorce and is baffled at being told that she must wait for three months to remarry, considering that she hasn't seen her estranged husband for two years.
She twists her sock-clad toes into the carpet, grasping one hand with the other in her lap, and fixes Dr Hasan with an intense look. He meets this with a simple reply: "These rulings are all in the Koran. The rulings are made for all."
Amnah has little choice but to comply: Dr Hasan is a judge, and this is a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.
It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain. The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.
To many in the West, talk of sharia law conjures up images of the floggings, stonings, amputations and beheadings carried out in hardline Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, the form practised in Britain is more mundane, focusing mainly on marriage, divorce and financial disputes.
Understand now? These nice Muslims want a "more mundane" sharia law implemented. Divorce and marriage now - but when you placate these people, and give them an inch, they see fit to take a mile. What next - stonings? Beheadings? The legalization of honor killings?
When will the British people wake up to the cancer growing in their midst? Must they continue to allow it to metastasize until it can never be contained?
Just a year ago, the MSM was warning Republicans that 2008 was a Downie year, and it was just a matter of time until the GOP was just swept away in a tidal wave of hatred and relief and other bizarre notions to make the Downies the majority party in 2009.
However, a little thing happened on the way to the forum: Downies dissembled as usual, and the war in Iraq - that time-tested idea to slug Republicans with - has gone from a losing proposition to something we could win. And those three letters - W-I-N - are not in the liberals' lexicon when it comes to fighting for the security of America or being victorious in fighting wars.
Now, we have another unrepentant liberal warning his party that 2008 is slipping out of their grasp, like 1980, 1988, 2000, and 2004 did.
Watch It, Democrats. You Could Still Slip Up
Until recently, like most liberals, I was convinced that 2008 was going to be a Democratic year. While Republicans have been listless and divided, Democrats have been passionate and enthusiastic about their candidates for president. An unpopular war, a sinking economy, a general sense of conservative exhaustion: All pointed toward a Democratic triumph in November. A lot of conservatives had come to grudgingly agree and were preparing to spend four years in political rehab.
But after the first rounds of caucuses and primaries, the prospects don't look so rosy for the Democrats or so bleak for the Republicans. The presidential race now looks like a tossup -- perhaps even with a Republican edge. If Democrats don't stay smart, tough-minded and realistic, we could blow it yet again.
Yikes, Batman! How could this have happened? Our take is the following: take three worthless liberals, including a liar from New York, a blowhard from North Carolina, and an empty suit from Illinois, and then change Iraq from a winner for the party of numbnuts to a loser (so much so that they barely mention it now, which is quite telling), and you get a sea change of "we're gonna win!" to "holy shit we lost again!"
So, what does this now-deposed liberal have to say?
But the major reason I see trouble ahead for the Democrats is that voting patterns so far, as well as rumbling tensions over race and gender, suggest serious vulnerabilities in both of the Democratic front-runners that McCain (or another rival) could exploit. Most pundits assume it's the Republicans who have the weak field, but the leading Democrats -- both attractive and impressive people -- carry dangerous downsides of their own.
All of which leaves 2008 looking like an uncertain gamble, rather than the sure thing that so many Democrats were anticipating last year. According to every indicator of trends in public opinion, fundraising and the economy, this should be a Democratic moment. But a referendum on racism and sexism in the spring does not seem like a prelude to victory in the fall. Keeping the election focused on the manifest failures of conservative Republican leadership is the only way the Democrats can grasp the opportunity at hand.
Yep - let's paper over that Downies have racism and sexism run amock in their party of fruitcakes and let's mock the Republicans. A winning strategy if we ever saw one!
It blesses our hearts to see liberals start to doubt their chances. And if this liberal is saying this, what must the major liberals be saying behind closed doors?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Boss Hugo Chavez, the darlings of liberals worldwide for his principled stance of raping his country and imprisoning anyone who deigns to oppose him in word or thought, is now threatening farmers who actally dare to sell milk for cheese and other products in an attempt to make a profit.
Holy shit, Batman! Profits! What could come next?
Chavez to farmers: Sell within Venezuela or it's 'treason'
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez threatened on Sunday to take over farms or milk plants if owners refuse to sell their milk for domestic consumption and instead seek higher profits abroad or from cheese-makers.
With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.
"In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.
"I'm putting you on alert," Chavez said. "If there's a producer that refuses to sell the product ... and sells it at a higher price abroad ... ministers, find me the proof so it can be expropriated."
Addressing his Cabinet, he said: "If the army must be brought in, you bring in the army."
What is so utterly hilarious about this thug and his threats is that the Left accuses George W. Bush of doing this when he doesn't. But when their man does it, the Left either cheers or remains silent. Which is just what the Left did during the Holocaust and the mass murders in the USSR and China.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Christopher Hitchens, no conservative, posts a dramatic and devastating indictment of Hillary Clinton on Slate Magazine: The Case against Hillary Clinton.
Hitchens asks the simple question: With the unethical, nefarious, and utterly criminal activities that the Clintons have been involved in since their days in power in Arkansas, why on Earth would we put them back in control of the presidency again?
That seems to be a question that all Clinton supporters should be asked.
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.
Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add."
Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama — yet again — a central part of our own politics?
Read the whole thing, and ask yourself why the powers that be at CNN and MSNBC are pushing like mad to have this family of criminals foisted back on the American people.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A woman tried to buy a Bible book in a store called Marks & Spencer in England. The clerk, a Muslim, decided that the Bible is unclean, and refused to serve the woman.
What happened? Nothing much. Just another day in the life of Islam, the cult seeking to destroy humanity.
OUTCRY AS MUSLIM M&S WORKER REFUSES TO SELL ‘UNCLEAN’ BIBLE BOOK
A MUSLIM store worker refused to serve a customer buying a children’s book on Christianity because she said it was “unclean”.
Shopper Sally Friday felt publicly humiliated at a branch of Marks & Spencer when she tried to pay for First Bible Stories as a gift for her young grandson.
When she put the book on the check-out counter, the young assistant refused to touch it, declared it was unclean and summoned another member of staff to serve instead.
Mrs Friday said she was so upset that she has now complained to the store’s management.
Last night politicians and religious leaders supported her in condemning the high street giant and reigniting the debate over religious beliefs in the workplace.
Conservative MP Philip Davies said the refusal to serve Mrs Friday, 69, was “unacceptable” and “damaging” to community relations.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, described the assistant’s comments as “offensive” and called for Marks & Spencer to carry out a thorough investigation.
Mrs Friday said her trip to the sales in Reading, Berks, with her daughter had been ruined.
“I went to the till and heard the girl say it was unclean and then she got someone else to serve me,” said Mrs Friday.
“At first I wasn’t sure what was going on and then I realised she was wearing a headdress and I clicked that the title of the book had Bible in it. I felt very humiliated and immediately left the store.”
Mrs Friday, from Old Basing, Hants, added: “I have given it careful thought and still feel humiliated that, because I am purchasing a children’s Bible story book, a cashier is able to object and refuse to put it through the till.
“Had this been a copy of the Koran I am confident any Christian person would be happy to do her job, and for this to happen in a Marks & Spencer of all places beggars belief.
“I am not racist but I have vowed never to let a person wearing a headdress serve me again. It will be a long, long time before I shop again at M&S.” Mr Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, west Yorkshire, said: “I find it unbelievable. We are a Christian country. I’m afraid it is no good for people to work in Marks & Spencer and not serve their products.
“For M&S to put one of their customers in that position is totally unacceptable. If a Christian lady had refused to serve a Muslim on religious grounds there would have been hell to pay.
“In fact, I am sure someone would be sacked if it had been the other way round. But that won’t happen this time, will it? These kind of things do not do anything for community cohesion. In fact, they damage it.”
Let us see if the store fires this piece of excrement. One doubts it, because under those wonderful liberal European Union laws, he has a civil right to be a piece of shit towards others. Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot, that clerk who refused to serve a Muslim would be called a racist and would be fired and they could go fuck themselves, law or no law.
How long before Muslims try this in America? They are doing it already with cabs in Minneapolis.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Lawrence O'Donnell, a Downie adviser and activist who could never be mistaken for a Republican, has some harsh words for the dimwitted liar known as Little Johnny Downwards: You are a loser.
Welcome to the party, O'Donnell - we have been saying that for years.
John Edwards Is A Loser
John Edwards is a loser. He has won exactly two elections in his life and lost 31. Only one of his wins and all of his losses were in presidential primaries and caucuses. He remains perfectly positioned to continue to lose with a Kucinich-like consistency. Nothing but egomania keeps Edwards in the race now. All presidential candidates are egomaniacs but some of them have party status worth preserving that forces them to drop out when they hit the wall. A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose. Campaigning and losing is his life. So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.
If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.
Maybe Edwards is already not a factor in the campaign because Edwards voters would split evenly between Senators Obama and Clinton if Edwards dropped out. But we'll never know unless Edwards does the right thing and gets out of the way of the only two candidates who have a chance to get the nomination.
The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards.
Downwards is such a loser that the man who picked him to run for VP just four short years ago, John "I Have a Problem Telling the Truth" Kerry, endorsed Barack Obama this time around, and never even bothered to call Downwards to tell him.
Ouch - does that hurt!
Why is Downwards a loser? Because you cannot be a multimillionaire trial lawyer who is worth $50 million or more and say that you sympathize with the middle class and poor. It just isn't believable.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
When the American media begins to highlight what a lightweight Barack Obama is, things will get tough for the Senator Who Has Done Nothing in Three Years in the Senate.
But this editorial hurts. Ouch.
Obama in perspective
Give Barack Obama his due. He won a smashing victory in Iowa, then gave a stirring speech framed as a transformational moment in American history. Millions watching him speak Thursday night presumably saw a plausible president, quite possibly the next president.
But first, a few gritty details.
Obama is still the presidential contender with a one-page resume. The Illinois state legislature and half of one term in the U.S. Senate is scant preparation to be president of the United States. In his brief Senate tenure, Obama has no legislative accomplishments, mainly because for most of that short time he's been running for president.
For a candidate aspiring to the toughest, most important job in the world, shouldn't experience count for something?
Foreign policy and national security are a president's top responsibilities, especially in time of war. Obama is devoid of experience in either field. His gaffes – threatening to invade Pakistan, offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots – bespeak his amateur standing on matters vital to the safety and security of the American people.
Obama's inconsistency on Iraq is amply documented. He's been alternately for and against withholding funding for the troops, for and against setting timelines for withdrawal, and for and against a quick retreat from Iraq.
Whatever one's views on Iraq strategy and homefront support, these vacillations on a war in progress don't inspire confidence; in Obama's judgment, his grasp of Iraq realities and his constancy of purpose. Whatever this is, it isn't leadership.
All of this betrays Obama's lack of experience; a glaring deficiency that should be raising profound questions about his qualifications and fitness, at least now, for the presidency.
Then there's the disturbing disconnect between Obama's carefully crafted persona as a unifier and a supposed “trans-ideological” agent of change, and his actual record in office.
Obama is running, quite effectively, as both a change agent and an unconventional politician. That fits his campaign motif, a fresh-faced, idealistic outsider running against the Washington establishment voters so distrust. That, in turn, also suggests that Obama is a different kind of Democrat; one perhaps less reflexively partisan and divisive than, say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Certainly that was an implicit message sent in his eloquent Iowa victory speech.
What's troubling, however, is that Obama's record doesn't match his reassuring persona.
The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama's voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA's ideological opposite, rates Obama's voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave no doubt that Obama's actual votes mark him as a traditionally liberal Democrat, not a moderate.
Where in these votes is the evidence of trans-ideological change that Obama is selling so successfully on the campaign trail? Where in this record is the evidence that Obama is the unifier he claims to be?
On domestic, economic, foreign policy and national security issues, Obama's actual record is consistently liberal and consistently orthodox in Democratic Party terms. Obama typically talks like a centrist but votes like a liberal.
Obama's record also raises another disturbing matter – his penchant for ducking tough issues. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama compiled a record of voting “present” on controversial and politically explosive bills. However politically convenient, this isn't leadership. Obama's three years in the U.S. Senate are similarly devoid of any leadership examples on legislation of consequence.
This doesn't necessarily indict Obama's claimed leadership skills as fraudulent. It does demonstrate that those skills have not yet been in evidence in his legislative work. That's a curious, and worrying, fact.
Cataloguing the doubts about Obama isn't nitpicking or partisanship. It's the sort of scrutiny every presidential candidate should get. This is information that every voter deserves, and should want before making fateful decisions about this country's future.
Barack Obama is showing that he's a skilled campaigner with a deeply inspirational message. His appeals to hope, to change and to less divisive politics are proving compelling and popular, as arguably they should be. Obama is poised, possibly, to surpass Hillary Clinton as the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
Before that sale is made, however, voters should be looking closer and learning more about Barack Obama.
The problem with all of this is that many Downies and a lot of Independents could care less if Obama has done nothing whatsoever. They hear his empty speeches about "hope" and "change" and believe they are hearing the second coming of John F. Kennedy. And it is an empty suit that we don't need as our next President.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
The Euro-peons and their "tolerance" have been met with massive illegal immigration from Africa and terrorism from Muslims. So, what is the response of the Euro-peons in charge of things over there? We need MORE tolerance, not less.
Remember that the next time some Muslim is blowing up a train packed with people.
Cultural tolerance 'is not enough,' says EU culture commissioner
Tolerance of different cultures is no longer enough: Europeans should create an "inter-cultural society" in which interaction across cultural boundaries is the norm, the European Union's top cultural official said Friday.
"We want to go beyond multi-cultural societies, where cultures and cultural groups simply coexist side by side: mere tolerance is not enough any more," the EU's Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth, Jan Figel, said ahead of the official launch of the European Year of Inter-cultural Dialogue 2008.
"We need to give an impulse for a true metamorphosis in our societies, so that we can create an inter-cultural Europe where cultures exchange and interact constructively," he said.
On Tuesday, top EU officials are set to launch the Year of Inter- cultural Dialogue at a ceremony in Slovenia, the country which currently holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency.
European officials have already announced events across the 27- member bloc aimed at getting different national, linguistic, religious and other groups to listen to one another.
Seven cross-border projects are set to include artistic shows and discussions on hip-hop culture, video workshops for young people, radio broadcasts on migration in European history, and meetings between storytellers, artists, musicians and primary school children.
What is so frightening about these comments is that the Downercrats and the liberals in the US share these same feelings. Which is why they should not be allowed anywhere near the halls of power, because thoughts like that are downright dangerous.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Let us remember that this year we elect a President who must fight the war on Islamic terror. We need to pray that a Downercrat is not elected to the presidency, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye starting in 2009.
In the meantime, we need to work to make sure Nancy Pelosi is a one-term Speaker, and Harry Reid is sent back to Searchlight, Nevada, in handcuffs.