Check out this link at your own risk: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/

This is the post I tried entering:

This is a very biased piece. In fact the leader of Hamas did endorse Obama. Everyone should look up the quote right from the man's mouth. Also, this article is a way to stoke false fears that Republicans are engaging in targeting religious groups by suggesting that Bush and McCain are merely saying this to win Jewish Americans. Not so. In fact every one of us should think twice about voting Obama if he's this generation's Neville Chamberlain. It's a real concern no matter what your religious affiliation.

No prafanity or anything, but how likely is it that my post will make it past the CNN censors? I typed it some time ago and it's still "awaiting moderation" . . .

 Yes disaster looms for Congressional Republicans. It does because we have given up the mantle of what it means to be/think/react like a Conservative, to the Dems. We have let the "Rockefeller Republicans" take over again, the penthouse Republicans. We're letting the Dems frame the contest. AC mentioned that not a few Dems run as Conservative, get elected and vote like Marx. We need this to stop, and stop at this election.

The Republican Congressional Committee had better get on the stick because the crap is fixing to get a whole lot deeper.

If Congressional Republicans hadn't spent the last eight years spending money like water and "compromising" on McCain-Feingold, they'd have a lot more homegrown support.

The Clintons, Triangulating with China

Bashing “Chinese money” in public, accepting it in private

Any role played by Bill Clinton in dealings between a Chinese state-owned
company and a U.S. company should be vetted during a presidential
campaign.

Presidential
campaigner Sen. Hillary Clinton often vocalizes about China on the
stump for public consumption. Brought to you on YouTube, her complaints
include unsafe Chinese imports—“Let’s be tougher on China going
forward!” (Possibly carried away, she brings forth rhetorical offspring
we never knew she had—referring to “my children having toys from China that are going to make them
sick.”) Clinton has also spoken about human rights abuses in China.
Possibly her single strongest statement as first lady came in 1995
when, speaking in China, she proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.”

But notwithstanding forceful speech about needing “to undercut the
power the Chinese have over us,” the Clinton campaign has yet to
clarify the nature and extent of the Clintons’ own financial ties with
China. These ties go well beyond the longtime support of troubled
fundraiser and alleged Ponzi schemer Norman Hsu, who raised over
$800,000 to the Clinton campaign (which later pledged to return the contributions).
They include two Chinese government-owned media entities, a California
billionaire, and a former Clinton administration official with
international connections.

The first of these more businesslike Clinton-China connections is California billionaire and ‘Hillraiser’ Ron Burkle, a high-end supporter who has raised over $100,000 for Hillary Clinton and who is reportedly paying $20 million to Bill Clinton as a settlement for Mr. Clinton’s services and ownership stake in Burkle’s private investment firm, The Yucaipa Companies.

In September 2007, Yucaipa agreed to purchase a major stake in Xinhua
Finance Media, part of the Chinese government-owned media conglomerate
Xinha. Under the deal, Chicago banker David Olson, a Yucaipa partner
and Clinton supporter, became part of the board of Xinhua Finance Media
as a director.

The benefits to Xinhua from the deal are apparent. The U.S.-listed
securities of the overseas company rose to their highest level in more
than three months after the announcement of the Yucaipa stake. The deal
might not be a one-way street. A year before Burkle announced the purchase in Xinhua Finance Media,
China’s Xinhua News Agency had instituted a demand that financial news
services including Bloomberg and Reuters in China sell information
through Xinhua.

This demand, the kind usually represented as communistic, anti-Western,
or anti-free press, could dovetail neatly with some
capitalist-running-dog interests.

Reporters for Xinhua, sensitive to a potential appearance of
impropriety, have tried to balance coverage of the Clinton and Obama
campaigns. The Clinton campaign has not responded to emailed questions
and request for comment.

In March 2008, the Chicago Tribune
reported another connection linking Bill Clinton with the Chinese news
industry. Clinton was compensated for his support for an Internet
company called Accoona, whose main partner is China Daily Information
Co., a subsidiary of Chinese government-run China Daily, the country’s largest English-language newspaper.

Accoona, privately held, paid the former president with options for
200,000 shares of stock for the William J. Clinton Foundation. The
Foundation sold the shares in 2006 for $700,000.

As the Tribune reported,

“Twice in the last year, Accoona filed, and subsequently withdrew, plans for a public offering, once on London’s AIM market and more recently in the U.S. on the NASDAQ exchange.

"Accoona’s prospectus for its aborted U.S. offering pointed to some of
its difficulties. The company never had made a profit; a co-founder and
major shareholder had pleaded guilty to a felony fraud charge; and
Accoona’s key partner is a media company controlled by the Chinese
government, which often is criticized for censoring the Internet....

"Accoona’s prospectus acknowledged that the company is subject to
censorship by the Chinese government and that the “Ministry of Public
Security has the authority to order any local Internet service provider
to block any Internet Web site at its sole discretion.... Furthermore,
we are required to report any suspicious content to relevant
governmental authorities.”

China Daily put the Accoona search engine on the front page of its Web version.

A third and more personal China-Clinton connection is Sandy Berger,
Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor and recently a foreign policy
advisor to the Clinton campaign. Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger,
as readers may recall, was the former Clinton national security chief
who removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room
in October 2003, shortly before Berger was to testify to the
Independent 9/11 Commission. Berger reportedly took away one copy of
five classified copies of a Millennial Plots report, produced for
former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke, in September 2003, and
then took away the four remaining copies of the report the next month,
stowing them first in his clothing and then at a nearby construction
site.

Like Ron Burkle, Sandy Berger is listed as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation established by former president Clinton which has funded his presidential library.

Berger’s recent role as foreign policy advisor in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign
extends his previous roles as a fixture in foreign policy for both
Clintons. Already developing global connections, Berger was
then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton’s foreign policy advisor during his
presidential campaign, became Assistant Transition Director for
National Security during the 1992 Clinton-Gore transition, moved into
the Clinton administration as Deputy National Security Advisor and then
became NSA.

Even back during the Clinton administration, Berger apparently did not
want China to get in trouble with his boss the then-president. He
delayed for more than a year to inform Bill Clinton that China had acquired designs of U.S. nuclear warheads.

Extending his longtime global connections, Berger is now co-Chairman and co-founder of Stonebridge International,
a DC-based advisory firm which has made substantial contributions to
the Clinton campaign and which offers its services to help companies
expand in foreign markets including China...

More >>

-->

Source: The Baltimore Chronicle

---
Communist vs. Statist '08

Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"

One of the biggest problems Republicans will face in the Congress elected in November 2008 will be selecting its leadership. There is virtually no GOP leadership in the current Congress and there will be even fewer "leaders" to choose from after the upcoming trouncing. If only the Republicans could get Bob Michel back to show them how to bend over and spread their cheeks for the majority . . . .

You know what strikes me about the recent loss in Mississippi? The winning Democrat is conservative.

The national strategy, apparently designed by Rahm Emmanuel, is for Democrats to put forward conservatives in normally conservative districts. Let the liberals hold their own in liberal districts, but use conservatives to win the rest. Think of Heath Shuler in 2006, a mostly conservative Democrat. In those districts, then, the choice is no longer between liberals and conservatives (where the liberals would get crushed). Instead, since the ideology is a washout, the only differentiator is the party. And since the Republican party has been guilty of scandals, spending, and stupidity over the last few years, people are perfectly willing to accept Democrats, so long as they're conservative.

Emmanuel's trick, of course, is to pad the party caucus with enough conservatives to hold the majority, without allowing the conservatives to actually affect any ideological change within the party. The Democrat conservatives are simply stooges, used to advance an ultimately liberal agenda. Will the Republican party learn this lesson? They lose when they abandon conservativism.

Which brings to mind two points:

1. When Bush campaigned for Chaffee in Rhode Island, or for Spector in Pennsylvania, it was the same principle. The Republicans were happy abandon conservatives for the sake of holding the seat. They have no right to complain now that the Democrats are doing the same thing.
2. You may hate the guy, but you have to respect Emmanuel. He's a very smart guy. I wish we had him on our side.

Maybe the only hope for conservatives is to "flood the zone" with conservative Democrats, so that the conservatives will acquire enough strength within the party to muffle the extreme liberalism. Probably too much to hope for, I suppose. But who knows? Maybe we can redeem Democrats. When Reagan said that he never left the Democrat party, but that they left him ... maybe the Democrats can return. We'll take them back.

The one thing I did notice here in La, is that many of the candidate are not advertising their party affiliate. A conservative neighboring district voted in a Dem, and many of them that I talked to suggested they thought by his speeches he was a Repub. Now they have all found out that Nancy Pelosi was financing his campaign. So I was wondering, are the Dems going out of their way to hide their political party in some parts?

Even so it should had been clear on the ballet.

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Amazing, isn't it, the last time the Republicans won control of Congress, many were talking about a "permanent Republican majority". Now, look where we are. Something big has got to happen. Where are the 1980 Reagans and the 1994 Gingriches? Are there any giants left, or are they all midgets now?

Hollywood and the media have successfully changed public opinion and there will be no changing it back until a few huge disasters happens under the Obama Administration in his second term.

Everything that happens in Obama's first term will still be blamed on Bush.
The media will never be very critical of Obama and the Dem House and Senate except when they aren't far left enough.

I don't think we will ever come back from this so I'm going to try to get used to the idea of living off the government. I think I'm going to go buy a nice new house that I can't afford and let the government bail me out while they still can.

I've responded with a letter and a simple 'plan' to nearly every request from the RNC, and Republican leadership committee (many) requests for donations in the last 3 years with ZERO $ donations.  Prior to that I contributed modestly ($300 - $600/year) with no correspondence.  I've been receiving phone calls from these committees practically begging for donations, and I ask a series of questions (mostly all 'why should I support Republicans?' and 'who is leading the party?' and 'what is your plan for America?'.  Their answer is always 'We can't let the Democrats take control!'  I ask how they are any different?  They hang up on me.  I do not use profanity, I ask pertinent questions.  The current GOP 'doesn't get it'.  Hanging up on previous donors isn't going to help.  Strong  conservative leadership is the answer.  This answer does not exist in any political party today.  For America to continue to prosper, this is a necessity.  It will happen.  Hopefully the pending short-term disasters will not be too severe, so that they may truly be 'short-term'.  Only time will tell.  I have NEVER received a written response to ANY of my correspondence.  It's clear they are not listening, nor really care. I have zero confidence they will be able to correct this in 6 months.  God help us all.

To know and not do, is to not yet know

Alan Keyes, upon being rejected by one smaller-than-the-Libertarians political party, goes and forms his own, even smaller, version.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Is it as bad as Politico makes out? Do such potential losses make it
even more imperative for disenchanted Conservatives to vote for McCain?
Can he have any coattail at all, especially against a socialist like
Obama? Is there anything Republicans can do in the next five and a half
months to avoid this trainwreck, or is it too late?

Politico is being optimistic. Panamanian Strongman Juan McCain is an old school Statist. The only difference between a Statist and a Socialist is the color of the boot they use to kick in your front door. The GOP can't survive the endorsment of a lunatic like McCain.

The convention delegates haven't cast their ballots yet, so it's not too late to turn the boot on Panamanian born John McCain, but time's a wastin'. We must shine the spotlight on McCain's fatal flaw; his non-US birthplace disqualifies him from obtaining the office of President.

Read the article linked below, and spread the word, John McCain's campaign ship has slammed into an iceberg called the US Constitution's "Natural Born" clause.

---
Communist vs. Statist '08

Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"

Just when conservatives don't think things can get worse -- get ready for rage...

Rush is touting his second hour on a McCain speech today that's going to have all conservatives in a purple faced rage.

Sounds like anyone on heart medicine would be well advised to sit out Libaugh today.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the
60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political
attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with
terrorists."

Obama campaign May 15, 2008, in response to the President of the United States' speech on the 60th aniversary of Israel.

If Barack Obama's campaign's believes the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, would prefer his embrace to the Fierce Justice of Now -- he's probably right.

By a 4-3 decision, Calif's supreme court said "Civil unions simply aren't enough -- we gotta make man-to-man lovin' legal, else all the San Fran queers might hate us".

Another successful attempt by a court to overturn thousands of years worth of society, and replace it with the "definition-de-jour".

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber