McCain Votes Against Ban On Waterboarding

While waterboarding is not torture, and I agree with his vote ... he has some explaining to do. Especially because of this exchange on waterboarding at the YouTube debate.


This appears to be a way for McCain to try to show the conservative base that he will listen to them, and is a true conservative. In other words, he's trying to shore up support so we don't stay home on his ass.

Think Progress:

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

He voted no on the Intelligence Authorization Bill which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that bans waterboarding.

Live Super Tuesday Results As They Happen

A bunch of news outlets are continuing to make the mistake of calling states for candidates when only 12% of the precincts are reporting. I've had enough of that crap. You won't find us calling states for candidates early here. Only up to the minute live results of the Super Tuesday primaries/caucuses.

Hillary Says Buy Health Insurance Or I'll Garnish Your Wages

It's so nice to hear her admit it though, but remember she claims she doesn't support socialized health care. That's only a "right wing attack" on her. When she was confronted about how her socialized health care plan, and how it would harm minorities, she flat out denied this would be the case. However, with her most recent statements on garnishing your wages ... one can't help but imagine a poor black family that chooses to pay their rent over buying insurance having their pay suddenly taken away from them by Hillary. What's more important Hillary, a roof over your head or health care?

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Remember, Hillary said she doesn't support socialized medicine. So why did she attack Obama for not requiring everyone to get health insurance?

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Hmmm, require everyone to get coverage, if they don't ... punish them by garnishing wages. Yeah, that's not socialized medicine.

Clearly Hillary is going after Edwards supporters, and Johnny's official endorsement. Remember Edwards wanted to garnish wages also, and there was a little scandal involving Hillary and Edwards teaming up a while back.

Ron Paul Says Some Crazy Stuff In This Interview

Some highlights include him explaining why he has flip flopped on the border fence, Amber Alert is unconstitutional, the North American Union is real, it is not kidnapping to take a minor across state lines without the parents knowing, and tip toeing around the neo-Nazi money while denying giving part of Alex Jones' donation back.

Run time is 10 minutes.



To download the interview yourself go here. It's on the right hand side in podcasts.

I know I'll get emails about the border fence thing, but Paul has flip flopped on that several times. His website says he wants physical barriers on the border, but earlier this month he told Stossel he didn't like the border fence.

Also, his denying having any knowledge of returning campaign donations before was laughable. Here is the story.

Democrats Create 51st State To Vote In Primary

With 22 delegates I might add. If I were a Democrat living in the US I would be pissed off right now.

AP:

This year, for the first time, US expatriates who are Democrats can cast their ballots on the Internet in a presidential primary for people living outside the US.

Democrats Abroad, an official branch of the party representing overseas voters, will hold its first global presidential preference primary from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12, with expats selecting the candidate of their choice by Internet as well as fax, mail and in person at polling places in more than 100 countries.

So far so good right? No problem with citizens being able to vote from abroad. While voting in the primary is new ... voting in the general election is not. I assure you, this will get very good real soon.

"The online system is incredibly secure: That was one of our biggest goals," said Lindsey Reynolds, executive director of Democrats Abroad. "And it does allow access to folks who ordinarily wouldn't get to participate."

Incredibly secure? Online? As a network admin I can attest that this is a near impossibility. However, my co-host decided to take it one step further and really test the "security" of the Dems online system.

She was able to register with the party using the information of a 14 year old, and the address and phone number of a restaurant in another country. So far she has been accepted into the program. I wouldn't call that secure at all.

We did this live on the air during our broadcast tonight. They still may ask for additional information before she is finally approved so I will keep you updated over the next few days.

Meanwhile, it gets better.

Members get a personal identification number from Everyone Counts, the San Diego-based company running the online election. They can then use the number to log in and cast their ballots.

Their votes will be represented at the August Democratic National Convention by 22 delegates, who according to party rules get half a vote each for a total of 11. That's more than US territories get, but fewer than the least populous states, Wyoming and Alaska, which get 18 delegate votes each.

That's the main issue with this program. By allowing 22 delegates representing around 6 million Americans outside of the US to participate in the national convention the Dems have effectively created a 51st state thats delegates will cast their votes at the national convention. That's a big problem, and completely unfair to other Democrat voters here in the US.

In the current atmosphere of our electoral process this could sway a whole election.

If you aren't familiar with politics ... delegates are the most important part of the primary process. They were selected to go to the national convention to choose which candidate will represent the party.

Rather than allow the expats votes to be counted with their home state's ... the Dems have created a previously nonexistent third party that will behave in every way as a 51st state. Thus, potentially tipping the scales in favor of one candidate over the others when that advantage has never existed before. With the hotly contested race the Dems have on their hands right now the 11 votes the 22 delegates get could be the difference.

In case you were wondering ... people can vote in the Dem primary from Iraq and Afghanistan. Given how easy it was for my co-host to sign up for the program with false information, how can we be sure some unsavory people won't screw with our elections from other countries?

For those of you worried about globalism ... this figurative 51st state will represent the rest of the world. It doesn't get more globalist than that.

Shocker! Polls Were Right About Obama & Huckabee Winning Iowa.

We didn't really have a reason to doubt this year's polling, but I am surprised at how accurate the polls were for all candidates. Obama and Huckabee won't win their respective nominations, but it was a result we would have never expected several months ago.

UPDATE:

Biden to quit.

Same with Dodd.

The 12 Biggest Mistakes Of The Presidential Campaign

I ran across this on Townhall earlier, and found it to be a good read. I don't agree with all of them, but overall it is an accurate list of the biggest mistakes the 2008 candidates have made ... so far.

I would have liked to see Kucinich on the list with his trip to an enemy nation (Syria), and attacking this country on their news channel. Ron Paul's accepting money from neo-nazis was pretty bad as well.

Think You Know Which Candidate Best Represents Your Views? Take This Quick Quiz To Find Out Who You Should Support In 2008.

I hope everyone had a great Christmas. I love getting people to sit down and take typology tests to find out what their "true" political affiliation is. Most liberals are more conservative than they thought, and the same goes for conservatives. They just need an objective method sorting through the issues.

I ran across this little quiz (2 minutes tops) that will compare your beliefs with the entire 2008 presidential field. You may think you are supporting the candidate that best represents your views, but you might be wrong. I was slightly off in my thinking. I have had Fred Thompson as my number one guy for a while now followed closely by Duncan Hunter. Well, according to the quiz I had that backwards ... who knew.

Here's my full results.

1. Hunter 68%
2. Thompson 63%
3. Romney 58%
4. Huckabee 55%
5. Giuliani 53%
6. McCain 45%
7. Paul 40%
8. Richardson 23%
9. Edwards 15%
10. Obama 15%
11. Biden 13%
12. Clinton 13%
13. Gravel 13%
14. Dodd 8%
15. Kucinich 5%

Take the quiz yourself and post your results in the comments, and let us know if you were surprised by the results.

Viva La Revolution ... Lieberman Endorses McCain

Complete shock and awesome! H/T (Hotair) ...

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Ron Paul Says Surge Failed, & We Lost In Southern Iraq

Scroll Down For Updates ... I Have The Video Of Paul Endorsing Sadr, Saying The Surge Failed, & We Lost ...

This guy is becoming even more of an idiot than I thought. It's ok to want out of Iraq, but it's another thing to lie about it in order to get votes.

He was properly smacked by McCain for his comments. To which Ron Paul supporters tried to boo McCain, but were drowned out with cheers for McCain as McCain schooled Paul on the facts of Vietnam.

I will post video as soon as I have it, and the latest numbers of a decline in violence in Iraq. Which Paul says is because the Brits are pulling out of Basra. Problem is that the violence in Basra declined 80% WHILE the Brits were there. They are pulling out because there is no more need for them there.

Update:

Here is a graph that shows the decline in violence in Iraq since the surge.

H/T: Gateway Pundit ...

• Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
• Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
• Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
• Basra violence is down by 90%.
• Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
• IED attacks down by 55%.
• Average daily attacks down by 42%.

The numbers were taken from Aljazeera, DefenseLink, and Investor's Business Daily.

Here is a link to confirm those numbers further, and below is a video from the Pentagon Channel (courtesy of Amy Proctor).


Let's not forget that Iraq has just asked us to stay indefinitely while kicking the UN to the curb. This happened just days after AQI's last stronghold in Iraq was taken by the coalition.

As AQI is running for their lives ... 6000 Sunnis just signed up with the coalition to cut off their escape routes.

I've been telling you for a while now about the progress in Iraq before, and since, the surge.

It's bad enough that Ron Paul believes in conspiracies, opposed Amber Alert, thinks it's ok for minor children to be taken out of state to get abortions without the parents knowing, is a huge porker, and don't even get me started on his views of the CIA and FBI. He's got to tone down the lies about Iraq, and focus on potential conflicts in the future.

As soon as I can find video of Ron Paul saying we lost ... I'll post it.

Update 2:

Here is the transcript for the debate when Ron Paul said the surge failed.

"Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They’re in charge up north — the Shia — the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there’s no violence up there or nearly as much."

I've seen a few people post my story in full around the net (please provide a link back to me), and I've been reading comments from RP supporters saying how violence went down because the Brits left. Not so, and here's the proof.

As you can see, when the Brits initially pulled back violence went up. What Paul and his supporters keep neglecting to tell you is that we only maintain control of Iraqi territory until the Iraqis can take over security there. This is hardly an empirical strategy Rep. Paul.

I outlined how much of Iraq is being turned over to Iraqi forces here.

The Brits pulled back because Basra was always a relatively safe place in Iraq due to the low diversity level, and the Iraqis were ready to take control there. So they did, and they kicked the crap out of the Shiite militia to restore order. That's the template for Iraq. Once the Iraqis are ready ... let them do the work, but they have to be ready. If we pull back when they aren't ready ... the results will be disastrous.

Paul also said that Sadr won in souther Iraq. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on Paul's part. Not only has Sadr not won ... his forces are in shambles.

After Sadr went into hiding shortly before the surge, his forces split into rival factions. He would later reemerge to attempt to reunite his militia, but a particularly nasty battle for Sadre's forces in Karbala forced him to call for a 6 month cessation of hostilities so he could repair the damage done to his organization.

Hardly the actions of someone who was victorious.

Finally, I found the video from the debate where Ron Paul says the surge failed, we lost, and seemed to endorse a Sadr victory in Basra as a good thing.


Oh, and Rep. Paul, those people in the north are called the Kurds. They want us to stay, and it isn't a good sign to have a presidential candidate that can't identify who the Kurds are. Especially with the issues between Kurds and Turkey.

Here's another video where Ron Paul talks about his $4.3 million raised on Guy Fawkes day. The question and answer start at 1:38 into the vid.


Paul forgot to mention that a decent chunk of that money came from Stormfront, a white supremacist group, and whether or not he's returned any of the racist's money. Since he cited the full $4.3 million ... I doubt he's refunded anything.

Here's a link about the Paul/Stormfront connection.

Another.

Here's a vid with Stormfront radio.


You get the idea.

I am in no way saying that Paul is a racist, but racists have latched onto his campaign, and he is not preventing their support from reaching his campaign funds. Nor is he denouncing them.

It is also important to note that while the honcho at Stormfront only donated $500 ... he and other racist groups lobbied for Paul in mass for the 5th of November fundraiser.

Let's Face It, Hillary Will Struggle As President Because She Is A Woman

Before I start getting the obligatory hate mail stating that I am a misogynist, I must clarify that I am ok with a woman as president. While there are numerous reasons to not support Hillary, we should not kid ourselves that her gender will inhibit her ability to lead as president.

Last week on my show, my co-host and I were railing Hillary for playing the gender card, and then denying doing so. I have no problem with the gender card being played, but I would like her to admit that she's doing it.

We began to give reasons why Hillary's sex is important to her ability to lead should she win. My co-host, a woman, stated that she wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman ... even if she did like her politics. Simply because of the global situation the US is in right now. Whether you like it or not ... Middle Eastern nations will not respect a woman, even if she is president of the United States.

A young woman called to say that she didn't care what other countries thought of Hillary. She would not allow another country's opinion of Hillary to sway her vote.

On the surface this sounds like the proper attitude in selecting a leader. I immediately reminded her that the Democrats have made it a part of their official platform to attack President Bush because of what other nations think of him ... especially Hillary.

The notion that we should elect a president based on whether they are popular in other nations is laughable. That is what Bush supporters have been saying for years now. However, the Democrats have said the exact opposite. They believe that we should elect a president that is popular in other countries because they feel that will ease relations. The problems is that Hillary is not popular in the most important, and volatile, part of the world that she will deal with as president ... the Middle East.

It is one thing to have the Middle East not like a US president because they are tough. There is at least the possibility of respect if our leader is a man. A woman is not afforded that courtesy. Not only will Hillary be unpopular in the Middle East, but she will have no respect ... simply because she is a woman. Which means she may not be an effective leader for our country when it comes to that part of the world. That could be dangerous.

I cited Condaleeza Rice as an example. Condi is infinitely more intelligent, articulate, experienced, and likable compared to Hillary. Yet she struggles in the Middle East, and you'd be foolish to think her sex has nothing to do with it.

Now this doesn't mean that no woman can be effective in the Middle East as president, but you owe it to yourself, the country, and the world to find out if Hillary is that woman. So far, no one has asked the questions that will allow the voters to determine if Hillary can be effective with her Middle East policy.

So far, all we know about Hillary's Middle East policy is that she would talk to Iran without conditions. She also said she would leave US troops in Iraq, but allow ethnic cleansing without US interference.

What else do we really know about Hillary's Middle East policy? How will she deal with those countries we are not at war with? Can she warm relations with those countries, and how will she do it? How will she stick up for human rights in those countries ... especially women's rights?

While none of those questions have been answered, or asked for that matter, the last one about women's rights could easily have been addressed by Hillary during the last debate here in Las Vegas.

The current situation in Saudi Arabia provided Hillary the opportunity to shine, and show the American people that she will stick up for women's rights ... even if it meant going against an ally.

A woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped, and gang raped by seven men. She was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes from a whip because the man she was with before they were kidnapped was not her husband. Apparently, her family attempted to bring the media into the case. As a result of this effort, the court increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Though people have survived 200 lashes in the past ... they have also died from it. The family said they will appeal the ruling, but have been told by the Saudi court that if she loses the appeal, the sentence will increase yet again.

Now why didn't anyone at the debate ask Hillary (or the other candidates) how they would handle the incident? Oh yeah, I forgot everyone who asked a question was a plant.

Let's not forget that Hillary labels herself a champion of women's rights. What's wrong with asking her to address the current situation in Saudi Arabia? It has everything she would need to prove that she can be a strong leader in dealing with that part of the world. She can prove that she will stick up for women's rights against an ally, and that she has that extra toughness required of a woman to have influence in that region.

She also had the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration for its weak stance on the matter. Yet she is silent ... why?

It is possible she doesn't even know it is happening. She wouldn't be the first candidate to forget about reading the news while campaigning. She may not really care about the woman, and the situation surrounding her. Perhaps she doesn't want to anger a critical US ally in the Middle East ... which warrants criticism. Then there is the possibility that she doesn't want to expose the Middle East's lack of reception to her leadership. All are plausible, and all are very concerning to prospective voters.

We can no longer ignore the fact that Hillary is different from the other candidates, and her gender will provide unique challenges never before encountered by a US president. The American voter needs to assess whether or not Hillary has what it takes to address the challenges we face in the Middle East today. Yet we continue to refuse to ask those all important questions of the defacto next president.

Biden Says What We All Know: "Democrats Have No Faith In The American People"

Hell, we've been saying that for a long time. Decades actually if you count every year Rush has been on the air. This really isn't news that Democrats feel this way, but it is news to hear one of them finally say it.

Biden said:

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

“We’ve got to trust the American people more,” Biden said.

“I think they’ve really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them,” he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

Seriously, think about it. The entire Democrat platform is based on not believing you can take care of yourself ... that they need to help you in some way.

Even their stance on the military right now is the same thing. The poor, uneducated, helpless military needs us to help them understand what is really happening around them. They are just kids who had no alternative but to enlist, and the idea that they support this war just shows that they are truly naive ... we Democrats must help them.

Richard Belzer best summed it up when he said:

That's bull---t: ask them! They're not, they don't read twenty newspapers a day. They're under the threat of death every minute. They're not the best people to ask about the war because they're gonna die any second. You know, the soldiers are not scholars, they're not war experts.

Now Belzer is a third rate actor on a popular third rate show, and shouldn't be taken seriously ... I know. However, he isn't the first or last Democrat to say such things. Keep in mind he was responding to Congresswoman Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen statements about her visit to Iraq in which she stated that the military personnel she spoke with told here:

"We're proud of our mission, we know what we're doing over here. We don't want you guys in Washington to lose it over there."

That's when Belzer blew up.

Then Ros-Lehtinen cited the knowledge of her Marine officer stepson in Iraq. To which Belzer responded by saying:

“Doesn't mean he's a brilliant scholar about the war because he's there.”

See? They can't take care of themselves.

Biden is generally a distasteful man, but he is right on here. The conservative movement has dominated the liberal movement because we have faith in the American people, and the left doesn't. We believe you only need opportunity to succeed. You don't need your hand held, nor do you need handouts to get by. When Republicans start ignoring this premise, and believing that they know better than the people ... the people don't show up to vote, and Congress is taken over by the Democrats.

Should the American people always be trusted? No. Should they never be trusted? No. The middle ground is where we will find success. You can't always do what the people say, but you should always listen to what they have to say because they will surprise you.

So, Now John Edwards Is A Conservative On Immigration?

We all know that Edwards doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. Mainly because he's a kook, and not a smart one either. However, he has latched onto the most important issue among 2008 voters ... immigration.

Most Americans support a hard-line stance on illegals, and Edwards has (up to this point) been the exact opposite of what the American people want on this issue.

We must remember that there is an election to win, and Edwards being himself hasn't been getting it done. So ... it's time for the tried-and-true Democrat strategy to gain ground in an election ... change yourself.

Huffington Post:

At the debate and on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.

Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.

Now his base (Huffington Post, Daily Kos types) are not too happy with his complete reversal of his stance on illegals.

Edwards' stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver's licenses to the undocumented.

So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.

First off, I'd like to point out that Edwards' new stance on licenses is not a conservative position as is being stated in the quoted post. True it is more conservative than the typical liberal stance, but not quite conservative.

As for this being a tactic to win the all important Iowa ... it's more likely than not, very true.

I've been reading what some liberal bloggers have been saying about Edwards' turnaround, and they seem to miss the point. They are critical of Edwards because this new stance is "conservative", but that is not the issue. The crux is that Edwards, like Clinton, has decided that it is more important to lie to potential voters in order to win. I credit Obama for not having done this.

We now have two of the three Democrat front-runners who have openly shown you their willingness to tell you what you want to hear rather than what they believe. That should be far more upsetting to liberals than Edwards taking a "conservative" stance on an issue.

Obama Speaks More Religiously Than Bush

I'm sure you recall all the criticism Bush has received for being religious, and the ridiculous things that have been said about him for it. I've heard stupid things like Bush wants to convert all Muslims to Christianity, he wants to remove separation of church and state (which doesn't exist anyway), he speaks to God (literally), and bunch of other nonsense. Naturally, the SP left has made it a goal to attack him and the religious right because of their beliefs. However, I can't recall Bush ever saying that he wanted to create the 'kingdom' on earth here in the US. If Bush would have said that ... there would have been no end to the attacks on his faith.

There is someone who wants to create the 'kingdom' right here, and it isn't a Republican. It's Barack Obama ... who's religious speech to evangelicals this weekend far surpassed any religious rhetoric ever heard out of Bush's mouth. Obama, however, is being praised ... not criticized for his words.

CNN:

Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama told Sunday worshippers.

"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

There are times on the stump when Obama even sounds like a pastor himself, referencing New Testament phrases and sometimes saying "I'm not gonna preach to ya!" when emphasizing a point to his audience.

According to the religion-based Web site Beliefnet.com and its "God-o-Meter" tool that measures "God-talk" in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors.

Let me be clear ... I don't have a problem with him talking about religion or his beliefs. I found it odd that many people who criticize Bush over his religion are silent about Obama's speech.

Here's a small sample of the comments on CNN's website for the story.

25 Democrats Refuse To Condemn 'Betray Us' Ad In Senate Vote

Hillary has been ducking, dodging and flat out refusing to respond to questions about the MoveOn.org ad taken out against Gen. Petraeus.

Today she had her chance to speak up with the rest of the Senate and condemn the ad ... something that most Democrats have refrained from doing.

Amanda Carpenter:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would not criticize MoveOn.org on the campaign trail for an offensive advertisement the group produced to attack Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, but she sided with the anti-war lobby in a vote on Thursday.

Motivated by the full-page advertisement MoveOn.org published in the New York Times that accused Petraeus of betrayal, the Senate passed a resolution condemning “attacks of honor and integrity” on the general and other members of the Armed Forces.

The advertisement, purchased at a discounted rate, mocked Petraeus’ name as “Betray Us,” suggested he was “cooking the books” for the White House and characterized the general as a “military man constantly at war with the facts” who “will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s “sense of the Senate” resolution passed 72-25.

At least now we know which Democrats are so knee deep in MoveOn money they are willing to accuse a four star general of breaking the law, and violating his oath.

1. Akaka (D-HI)
2. Bingaman (D-NM)
3. Boxer (D-CA)
4. Brown (D-OH)
5. Byrd (D-WV)
6. Clinton (D-NY)
7. Dodd (D-CT)
8. Durbin (D-IL)
9. Feingold (D-WI)
10. Harkin (D-IA)
11. Inouye (D-HI)
12. Kennedy (D-MA)
13. Kerry (D-MA)
14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
15. Levin (D-MI)
16. Menendez (D-NJ)
17. Murray (D-WA)
18. Reed (D-RI)
19. Reid (D-NV)
20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
21. Sanders (I-VT)
22. Schumer (D-NY)
23. Stabenow (D-MI)
24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
25. Wyden (D-OR)

You can see the full role call here.

The following didn't vote.

1. Biden (D-DE)
2. Cantwell (D-WA)
3. Obama (D-IL)

You'll notice that John Kerry voted against the measure to condemn the ad. This is odd given that he was one of only three Democrats to criticize the MoveOn ad shortly after it came out. Kerry is on record as saying the following:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, criticized MoveOn.org Monday for taking an ad out in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus. The general is testifying before Congress today about the situation in Iraq. (Related: Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus)

“I don’t like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general,” Kerry told CNN, adding “who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country.”

Gee, I wonder what changed his mind?

The GOP also asked the Democrat leadership to condemn the ad in an internal memo, but didn't get many takers.

Today, Bush finally spoke out against the ad, and Democrats that support it, publicly for the first time. We have had reports that he was furious in private meetings.

In a press conference Thursday morning, President Bush told reporters he thought the advertisement was “disgusting.”

He also spoke candidly about Democrats who were reluctant to criticize MoveOn.org. “That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military."

"That was a sorry deal,” Bush said.

To top this whole thing off, Democrats have been running to hide under their desks to avoid having to go on record in support of the MoveOn ad. Dick "The Turbin" Durbin tried to block the vote from even happening.

Cornyn first offered his resolution immediately after the offending advertisement was printed on September 10—the day Petraeus was scheduled to make his first appearance to testify about progress in Iraq. When it was offered, Democratic Majority Whip, Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) used a parliamentary move--issued a point of order based on “germaneness”--against the measure to prevent the Senate from voting on it.

Make sure you don't question their patriotism everyone.

Remember When Hillary Said Her Socialized Health Plan Wasn't Socialized? Well, It Is.

Take the poll at the top right of this page ...


UPDATE:

Will you be punished if you refuse to enroll in Hillary's new socialist health plan?


Many of you will remember when Hillary was asked by black journalists about the negative effects of her socialized health plan on the black community ... she responded by saying:

"I have never advocated socialized medicine. That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Yesterday, Hillary rolled out her new "American Health Choices Plan." Well, it turns out that her 'non-socialized' health plan is very much ... socialized.

To refresh everyone on what socialized and socialized medicine means, I have included the following definitions:

Socialized Medicine:

Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government.

Socialize:

1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.

There, now we are all up to speed on what we are actually talking about here.

On Hillary's own website, you can read the summary of the plan in her own words.

Before we get started I'd like to point out that the idea you can increase the number of people insured, and increase the benefits while reducing the cost is absurd at best. Especially when you are talking about a minimum of 47 million new people.

This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality. Specifically, the American Health Choices Plan will:

The language makes it sound good, but again you can't increase the number of the insured, and provide more benefits for less cost. This is grade school math people.

The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive:
Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

A Guarantee of Quality Coverage:
The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

Notice that they will have a 'public plan' to choose from. That's socialized medicine.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

Again ... not possible.

Reducing Costs:
By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

Strengthening Security:
The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination:
By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

This is the part that people will roll with their emotions on. Certainly, no one wants to be denied insurance, and I'd support that provision by itself. However, to not allow an insurance company to set their premium based on the health of the insured is blatant socialism. Many small companies will go under because of this provision. I don't believe people should not be able to get insurance, but I also believe that a company has the right to charge an appropriate premium based on the financial risk of the insured.

Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.

This is damn risky! This allows the consumer influence over how a company operates. A company in a free market economy has the right to operate as it sees fit. Sometimes it works ... sometimes not. That's what the market is for. You do not let the customer tell the company how to do business.

Insurance and Drug Companies:
insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

Individuals:
will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

Providers:
will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

Employers:
will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

Government:
will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

It doesn't get more socialize than to REQUIRE that all people get health insurance. What if I don't want health insurance? Maybe I have a medical savings account, or maybe I have enough money to pay cash for any medical issue that arises. Oh wait ... I get it now. I am going to be required to pay into the system so that my money will help cover the cost of those that are unhealthy who now get a discount on their premiums. I'M BEING TAXED!

Go to Hillary's site to read the last provisions of the plan.

At the very least, most Americans will now pay more money for their health care than they were before so we can provide lower cost insurance to people who have health problems. The plan is categorically unfair to those Americans that don't want health insurance for whatever reason.

To top it all off ... a very prudent question was asked about the plan that 'requires' all people to enroll. Will it cover illegals, or just American citizens?

Now Hillary has been working on this plan for over a decade now. You'd think she would have thought about this all important issue. Especially since illegals are such a massive burden on our medical industry. In fact, this could be the most important aspect of the plan's success or failure. So what was her response?

Senior [Clinton] policy adviser Laurie Rubiner–-while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a “huge issue” in this country–-said, “That’s one we’re going to have to think through a little bit.”

“We have not dealt with every single detail with this plan,” Rubiner continued.

They haven't even bothered to address the issue yet?

There is a couple of things to look at here. One of those being that illegals cost the medical industry about $35 billion a year. Which raises health care costs and premiums.

1. If illegals are not required to enroll ... will they still receive the same medical care as everyone else?
2. If so, won't premiums and costs continue to increase as the financial burden grows ... as it does now?
3. If they are required to enroll ... will we then deport them as they come forward?
4. If not, how can we confirm their income, and will their employers be punished?

If illegals are not required to enroll, but still receive the same benefits as Americans do you will see a backlash of which the likes have never been seen before.

I'm also wondering if abortion will be covered, but I think we all know the answer to that question.

Bill Richardson Pissed That Spanish Debate Was In English

I wish I were kidding, but I'm not.

WaPo:

"And I do want to say at this point that I was under the impression that in this debate Spanish was going to be permitted because I've always supported Univision all my career, but I'm disappointed today that 43 million Latinos in this country, for them not to hear one of their own speak Spanish -- (applause) -- is unfortunate," Richardson said. "In other words, Univision has promoted English only in this debate."

He then began speaking in Spanish, only to get cut off by the moderators. "The rules that the seven candidates have accepted for this debate is that everyone is going to communicate in English," one responded, "and everything would be translated into Spanish. Thank you very much."

The rebuke didn't stop the governor and only Latino candidate from speaking in Spanish. In the press room after the debate, both Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the only other fluent Spanish speaker of the seven candidates, both answered question after question in Spanish.

While picking this fight on camera allowed Richardson to speak more about his heritage, Univision had informed the candidates months before the debate answers would be in English and reminded them repeatedly before the debate, when Dodd and Richardson both started speaking in Spanish while testing their microphones. If Richardson had gotten his wish to speak Spanish, it's unlikely Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have showed up to the debate in the first place, defeating the purpose for Richardson.

Disgusting.

John Edwards Asks: Is Cuba's Healthcare System Run By The Government?

H/T: Newsbusters

As reported by ABC ...

When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn't know enough to answer the question.

"I'm going to be honest with you - I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

Newsbusters astutely points out that it is difficult to believe than any adult, let alone a former senator and presidential candidate, would not know that Cuba runs their own healthcare.

Muslim American To Challenge Harry Reid For Senate

Well, this should be good.

LVRJ:

Mansoor Ijaz says he is considering testing his wings against none other than Majority Leader Reid.

An American Muslim of Pakistani heritage, Ijaz is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Virginia. At 46, he's the founder and president of the Crescent Investment Group of New York, which sports former CIA Director James Woolsey, Lt. Gen. James Abrahamson, and Gen. James L. Jones as members of its advisory board.

Ijaz's corporate biography notes that Crescent "is investing private equity to develop technologies that protect vital infrastructure and secure against an array of terrorist threats."

Among the companies where he's listed as chairman are WorldSpectrum, which is developing "high-altitude airships ... to provide telecommunications, surveillance and disaster management functions."

There's also Eco-Drive Technologies, which focuses on developing advanced hybrid automobiles, and Crescent Hydropolis Resorts, which touts itself as a developer of underwater hotels and resorts.

I told you he was intriguing.

He's written many op-ed pieces on terrorism and foreign relations in major newspapers and magazines. He's also appeared on CNN and Fox News, among others, on the subjects of terrorism and the Muslim world.

Ijaz made headlines when he made an effort to negotiate a counterterrorism agreement between the Sudan and the United States during the Clinton administration. He's been attacked by critics, including former members of the Clinton administration, for his insistence that he had persuaded the Sudan to turn over the location of Osama bin Laden, only to find the United States too distracted. Although right-leaning media outlets have made much of the Sudanese issue, according to SourceWatch.org the 9/11 Commission didn't find credible evidence to support the most dramatic claims.

Ijaz, who calls himself an independent, also is listed as a generous contributor to Democratic Party causes, including $525,000 on Al Gore's behalf, according to The Washington Post. Although he's never run for public office, Ijaz obviously understands what makes the campaign wheels turn.

John L. ends his piece flawlessly ...

Would Republicans embrace him? Would Democrats stop laughing long enough to take him seriously?

I suppose you'd like me to direct you to some of his work now? Fine then, have at it.

On Iran having nuclear weapons.

Iran and nuclear terrorism.

On Muhammad cartoons (scroll down).

Dubai Ports.

So, would you support a Muslim running against a politician you want removed?