Posts filed under 'Corruption'
Geesh - all hail the Great Guiding Light Barack Obama, our Leader and Teacher….’cause if you don’t, you’re out…
Wisconsin Democrats have ousted a delegate to their national convention for saying she would vote for Republican Sen. John McCain.
The Wisconsin Democratic Party’s administrative committee voted Friday to strip Debra Bartoshevich of her status as a delegate to the Denver convention.
Bartoshevich was elected as a pledged delegate for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But after Clinton dropped out of the race, Bartoshevich told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel she would support McCain.
Bartoshevich says she made the comments during an emotional time and she hasn’t made up her mind.
But the party says she violated rules requiring delegates to support its nominee.
Don’t try to convince her to support you, just force her out so that you can have complete unanimity, because we know how leftists hate deviationists and other Trotskyite wreckers. In our great task of defeating the forces of McCainite counter-revolution, there can be no room for those who are weak - to the wall with such traitors to the proletariat!
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Convention, John McCain
July 26th, 2008
Courtesy of the Democrats:
Congress has relaxed rules that would have required public disclosure of contributions and parties paid for by lobbyists, narrowing the scope of new ethics rules intended to draw back the veil on Washington’s influence game.
New guidance released by Congress late Wednesday exempts lobbyists from reporting their financing of an array of political and charitable contributions, events and parties at political conventions.
What? You expected something different? If you did, its because you still haven’t purchased Caucus of Corruption.
I know, I know - you liberals out there think Matt and I just wrote a book blaming corruption on Democrats, but that isn’t what we wrote at all. What we wrote is a book detailing how the Democrats are locked into corruption because no one ever holds them accountable - not the MSM, not rank-and-file Democrats and most certainly not other elected Democrats. People are people, and that means that a certain percentage of them will sin - and for a politician, the sin usually revolves around abuse of power by various means. We can’t get all corruption out of politics because we can’t get all people out of it. But we can lessen it greatly if we hold everyone accountable for their actions. By one means or another, Republicans are held accountable…so Cunningham goes to jail, while Jefferson is set to be re-elected, again. So Foley resigns, while Frank is a powerful member of the Democratic caucus. So Rowland is threatened with impeachment by his fellow GOPers to force him out, while Blagojevich is still in office even though he figures prominently in myriad corruption scandals. On and on it goes like that.
Look, Democrats, its not for us to tell you what you must do, but we will tell you what you should do - and what you should do is start to understand that good intentions don’t excuse crimes. It doesn’t matter that these are all good liberals who are reliably on your side on the issues - they are poisoning our politics and contributing to the contempt government is held in. They have to go - but only you, on your side, can actually make them go. Do you really want to be a party which is ok with corruption? Don’t you want to be honest as you can be?
Tags: Caucus of Corruption, liberal lies, lobbyists
July 19th, 2008
From NRO’s The Campaign Spot:
From the Chicago Sun-Times article on grants distributed by then-state-legislator Barack Obama.
(Records from 1997 to 2000 weren’t available.)
There’s a shock.
His state legislative office records may have been thrown out, he told us.
He’s never released a specific list of law clients, instead giving a list of all of his firm’s clients, numbering several hundred each year. His campaign will only confirm representation when the media comes to them with a specific case.
He won’t release his application to the state bar. He’s never released any legal or billing records to verify that he only did a few hours of work for a nonprofit tied to Tony Rezko.
He’s never released any medical records, just a one-page letter from his doctor.
Does it bother anyone that a guy with political ambitions for his entire adult life has not left a paper trail?
It does bother me…what is Obama hiding? The “Un-Named Democrat” made flesh, that is what he is - the problem is that we don’t need an International Man of Mystery as President of the United States…especially one connected with racists, anti-Americans, corrupt wheeler-dealers and the odd terrorist or two.
Tags: Barack Obama, liberal lies
July 18th, 2008
Geesh:
Today, Obama Told CNN He Supports The Death Penalty For Osama Bin Laden:
In A CNN Interview, Obama Says He Supports The Death Penalty For Osama Bin Laden. “In an interview with CNN, the Senator says he’s no ‘cheerleader for the death penalty,’ but ‘I think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.’” (Mark Halperin, “Obama: Death Penalty For Bin Laden,” Time’s “The Page” Blog, thepage.time.com, 7/11/08)
In June, Obama Said That If Bin Laden Were Captured, He Would Not Make Him A “Martyr“:
Obama: “I think what would be important would be for us to deal with him in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr.” (Caren Bohan, “Obama: U.S. Should Avoid Making Bin Laden A Martyr,” Reuters, 6/18/08)
Its getting harder and harder to find a position Obama hasn’t betrayed yet. This is the guy the left wants as President? A man who can’t hold to a position for even a month? What happens, dear lefties, when its time to push that universal health care plan and he runs up against GOP opposition? Has he given you any indication that he won’t surrender?
Tags: Barack Obama, bin Laden, Death Penalty, John McCain, Obama Deceptions
July 13th, 2008
So says this Newsmax report:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dropped a bombshell by reversing course and suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might take up the issue of impeaching President Bush.
Pelosi’s change of heart comes after Rep. Dennis Kucinich moved a “privileged resolution” to force the House to consider whether Bush should be impeached for, according to the Ohio Democrat, lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Pelosi had previously declared impeachment to be “off the table” before the 2006 election. But she now believes hearings on the impeachment issue are “a distinct possibility,” according to The Nation magazine.
Pelosi told reporters on Thursday: “My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee. This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee.”
Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the committee, has said he is reviewing the articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed. Previously he had felt constrained by the Speaker’s “off the table” comment.
This is either a sop to the kook left - a means of keeping them occupied by smoke and mirrors (they are rather gullible, after all) while Obama shifts right for the fall election…or its a desperate attempt to make people hate President Bush enough to carry Obama over the finish line in November (this would be the case if internal Democratic polling shows that only a tremendously and continuously unpopular Bush gives Obama an edge over McCain). In either case, its a dishonorable thing to do…and, of course, real hearings will never happen, nor will articles of impeachment be passed by the House, because a trial in the Senate would expose that each and every criticism of President Bush vis a vis Iraq is massively overstated, at best, or an outright lie, at worst. The last thing Democrats want is a full airing of the Iraq issue prior to the November election.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Dennis Kucinich, impeachment, Iraq, John Conyers, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi
July 12th, 2008
Seems to be more and more the case that while Obama will outspend McCain, the overall battle between Democrat and Republican will be more equal:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised more than $22 million in June, his best fundraising performance of the year, and ended the month with nearly $27 million cash on hand.
Campaign manager Rick Davis said Thursday that McCain and the national Republican Party together entered July with about $95 million in the bank. The Republican National Committee, which has been raising money jointly with McCain, collected nearly $26 million in June and had nearly $69 million on hand, officials said.
The campaign’s fundraising has given McCain the ability to spend more on television advertising than Democrat Barack Obama in key battleground states. Davis said about half of its income had been spent on television advertising.
Obama has not revealed his June fundraising.
In announcing McCain’s fundraising, Davis portrayed the campaign’s financial position as far brighter than ever before. He said the joint RNC-McCain fundraising through direct mail is now exceeding President Bush’s direct mail fundraising in 2004.
“We will have significant resources to prosecute a campaign that is very robust,” Davis said.
I wonder why Obama hasn’t released his June totals yet? I guess he doesn’t have to - but you’d think that if he were greatly outpacing McCain, he’d want to trumpet that…hey, just askin’….
The really crucial thing here for the GOP is the $69 million the RNC has - McCain is taking public financing, so all the money McCain raises must be spent by the end of August. That $69 million (which is likely to rise) will be used on party efforts to help McCain - and down-ballot GOPers (where we are trying to turn expected losses at least into holding our own). Meanwhile, the DNC is effectively broke, the Democrats can’t raise enough to pay for their convention and while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a good sized bank account, it seems that Obama is sucking up all the rest of leftwing money, which opens the question about how down-ballot Democrats will fare even if Obama wins.
Things like the money totals; the continued ability of the military to secure recruits; the ability of President Bush to win on FISA and on war funding; the abysmal Congressional approval ratings….all fo this indicates that while Obama is still the favorite to win in November, he’s only marginally so and, meanwhile, the overall left - and the Democratic party - can’t figure itself a shoo-in (though, of course, they do believe that…and I hope they keep on believing they’ve got it in the bag).
My view is that the American people are worn out - tired out Iraq, true (but not so tired they are willing to lose in order to get out), but also tired of Congressional scandals (and, Donks, William Jefferson - you forced him to resign, yet?), tired of political back-biting, tired of heated rhetoric on energy while gas prices continue to rise, tired of shrinking home equity…change is, indeed, wanted and that is the whole point of Obama…but if specific change is proposed, which way will the electorate go? McCain is offering concrete proposals, while Obama keeps things as vague as he can. Which will actually resonate come November?
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, fundrasing, John McCain, oil price, RNC
July 11th, 2008
Never heard of the guy or the website before this evening, but here’s a website encouraging Obama delegates to ditch him over his policy shifts since wrapping up the nomination:
Richard Nixon famously said: When you are seeking the nomination for president of the Republican Party, you run to the far right; once you’ve secured the nomination, you run to right of center during the election campaign; once you’ve won the presidency, you govern from the center.
Barack Obama has embraced The Nixon Strategy lock, stock and barrel, adapting its mirror-opposite to the Left. He suckered the hard-working base of the party — the Left-wing — into voting for him during the primaries by appealing to the issues dearest to their hearts. These are the very people responsible for getting him to where he is today! Yet once Obama felt he secured the nomination, he has tripped over himself running to the center (some would argue the center-right). Oh, Barack, we thought we knew ye!
How wrong we were.
But Obama made a mistake; he started his move rightwards before securing the nomination. And what he didn’t realize was that…
What the Left giveth, the Left can taketh away!
Question: For you leftwing supporters of Obama, is the desire to beat Bush via McCain worth putting someone as ambitious and dishonest as Obama into the White House?
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Convention, John McCain
July 7th, 2008
Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work - don’t believe it for a moment:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)
“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)
“But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/10/07)
“But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq . We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum — military and civilian, conservative and liberal — expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq .” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)
“And what was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work. The almost near unanimity among experts on the Middle East and Iraq that the president’s strategy would not work. I was further struck by a consensus among the majority of witnesses that I heard — and, you know, I was not in every minute of every hearing — that we needed to, rather than escalate our troop levels, we actually needed to de-escalate; that, consistent with what the Iraq Study Group had stated, only by indicating in a strong fashion to the Iraqi government that we will not be there in perpetuity will we be able to change the dynamic and force the Shia, Sunni and Kurds to make the political accommodations that are required in order for us to bring some cessation to the violence that exists there. So, what’s striking to me is, at least, outside of politics, consensus seems to be building. It certainly is built among the American people. It is built among the experts in the area. And what remains, then, is the need for us to act.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/24/07)
Again and again and again Obama clearly and without qualification stated his view that the surge wouldn’t work and he backed up his view by citing alleged expert testimony stating that it wouldn’t work. There’s no two ways about it - Obama committed himself from the start to the position that the surge would not work. Now that it has worked and Obama is essentially being forced to acknowledge it he is choosing the standard Democratic tactic when faced with gross error - lie, lie and then lie some more. We can’t let Obama get away with this - he owns defeat in Iraq and can’t claim the slightest bit of credit for the fact that we are now winning.
Not only is it disgusting that Obama is trying to slither out of his 2007 defeatism but this attempt shows, if we needed more proof, that Obama is manifestly unfit to be President. A President is a person who must be willing to take the hard decision even if they are unpopular and who must be willing to endure the slings and arrows to ensure that the required things are done - Obama is proving himself a feather blown upon the winds of fashion and motivated entirely by a desire for personal power and prestige.
McCain advocated the surge even before President Bush did - heck, even when I thought the surge wouldn’t be necessary, McCain was out there saying it was. Kudos to McCain for perceiving correctly what needed to be done and more honor to him for staking out a position which was very unpopular at the time it was implemented. McCain, just in this alone, has shown that he has what it takes to be President - in the test of leadership, McCain has passed with flying colors, while Obama is still trying to copy the answers off the smart kid in the room.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, Troop Surge
July 2nd, 2008
You’d think that with Obama’s success at obtaining a low-cost mansion for himself that he’d have been more effective on housing for the poor:
The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else.
But it’s not safe to live here.
About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.
Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.
As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.
But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama’s former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.
Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.
When we first started building public housing it became a complete disaster - the government ponied up the money to have them built and then managed the housing with a maze of bureaucratic rules which made it impossible to get rid of bad elements and dead certain that the housing would become blighted in short order. The phrase “public housing” by the early 1980’s immediately brought to mind images of crime and filth. And so reforms were proposed - the crowning effort to actually fix the problem was initiated by “bleeding heart” conservative Jack Kemp who initiated the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) program while he was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Elder Bush Administration…unfortunately, budget battles in cabinet and unwillingness of the Democratic Congress to spend money on a GOP-inspired anti-poverty scheme which would disempower Democratic-donating bureaucrats essentially killed the very promising program - it does linger on to this day, but it never was able to accomplish its primary purpose of making poor people into home owners so that they would be empowered and have the incentive to keep their neighborhoods up to snuff.
What has happened since then has mostly been a boondoggle, as we can see from the quoted article - favored contractors getting government swag to build low-cost housing and as these contractors are protected by their bought-and-paid-for political patrons, there isn’t much incentive for the contractors to actually build something useful. The problem isn’t just in Chicago, to be completely fair to Obama here - we have a low cost housing development here in Las Vegas which was built on toxic soil and was useless from the get-go. But the problem for Obama is that with a rather thin resume’, he can’t afford to have any of this corrupt business-as-usual political backscratching going on - and it appears that he was very happy to be hip deep in it. Now the connections to the corrupt Rezko and his shady mansion deal become more stark…coupled with the revelations that Obama’s supporters profited off Obama-backed slum construction, it shows that Obama is deeply involved - indeed, owes his rise to - the hopelessly corrupt Chicago-area Democratic politics.
So, good people, if you want a President who will ensure that well-connected contractors make money by building unlivable slums for the poor, Obama is your man…if you want something different that warmed-over liberal politics of the past, then McCain would have to by your choice.
Tags: Barack Obama, government reform, government spending, housing, John McCain, liberal lies
June 28th, 2008
As I write this, Lieberman Must Go has 35,000+ signatures on this petition:
We CANNOT tolerate a leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus who supports George Bush and McCain’s War in Iraq. We CANNOT tolerate a Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee who endorses and stumps for McCain. We call on the Senate Democratic Steering Committee to strip Joe Lieberman of his chairmanship and his leadership role.
Which action, of course, would also probably strip the Democrats of their Senate majority, at least until January - either the petitioners don’t realise this, or they are supremely confident in picking up a net of at least one Senate seat in November. Still, it is a bit arrogant for them to make that presumption - the time to strip Lieberman, if that is to be done, would be in January, and then only if the Democrats have 51 seats without him. I’ll bet they get to 350,000 signatures in short order, so great is the leftwing hatred of President Bush and of anyone who doesn’t hate him as the left does.
Please note that they are calling it “George Bush and McCain’s War in Iraq” - it is, of course, America’s campaign in Iraq, part of America’s fight in the War on Terrorism, but so hatefilled is the left these days that they are not animated by a desire of what is best for America, but by a desire of what is most harmful to President Bush and his possible GOP successor, John McCain. There is also the rank moral cowardice of making such a statement - it is the left saying, “its not me!”; as if one can be a true and loyal American citizen and not be morally responsible for all of the acts of the United States of America. Only a traitor can really say of Iraq that it is not his campaign - but it remains America’s campaign, even if a traitor eschews it; a traitor, or someone so hate filled that they don’t understand what they are actually doing.
And before anyone out there says I’m exaggerating about the hate, herewith some samples from the signatures:
Awful person…He is among the biggest scumbags on the planet…He’s is worsre than a traitor…Lieberman has set the reality of self serving, despicable politicians at a new plateau…His country is Israel not the USA.
How many of our young men and women must die to defend Israel and the powerful AIPAC?…Are peoplle like him mindless idiots or hellbent on destroying America?…A totally classless jerk…Joe Liberman’s position is more in line with Israel’s than US’s…AIPAC is his allegiance. He takes his orders from them…He is a traiter, but more than that, he is such a non human…Not only must he go, strip him of his citizenship…This man is a menace to society…Joe belongs in the GOP-aipac section…Joe go live in Israel now. You are a war monger supreme…more loyal to Israel than to our country…
I think that pretty much says it all - fanatic hatred destroying the souls of those on the left to the point where they don’t even realise they’re slipping into anti-Semitism…
Tags: Iraq, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, liberal anti-Semitism, liberal lies
June 27th, 2008
Older Posts
