Blago: Getting Old

This guy is getting so old that the mold is starting to grow.

Standing up for your values and principles

Good for the GOP for finally taking a stand against this ridiculous insane and many other unmentionable words to describe these insane bail outs.

The Circus Begins: Blago

The next four years will be a political circus. Can you say Clinton 2.0?

The governor’s strange behavior has been fertile ground for local armchair psychologists. Last summer, the downstate newspaper the Peoria Journal Star declared that the governor was “going bonkers.” Privately, a few people who know the governor describe him as a “sociopath,” and they insist they’re not using hyperbole. State representative Joe Lyons, a fellow Democrat from Chicago, told reporters that Blagojevich was a “madman” and “insane.” “He shows absolutely no remorse,” says Jack Franks, the Democratic state representative. “I don’t think he gives a damn about anybody else’s feelings. He tries to demonize people who disagree with him; he’s got delusions of grandeur.”

How did Obama Get Elected

This video is pretty revealing:

Should We Really Believe?

Should we really believe that Obama is as clean as the wind driven snow when it comes to his involvement with the governor of Illinois? Believing that demands a "willing suspension of disbelief."

This whole web that Barack has weaved will be a huge test of Barack Obama to show himself to be a man of character. Does he mean what he say and say what he means? This is a big test of the man, and his response to this will tell us a lot about what we can expect from the man for the next four years of his presidency.

If he really wants the country to believe that he is really for a new level of ethics, he needs to come out strong in his condemnation of the governor of Illinois. He mus absolutely stand up and show that he has the courage to be a strong president of the United States of America.

Barack Obama - What a Tangled Web We Weave

President-elect Barack Obama’s ties to indicted Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich run primarily through Chicago slum lord and felon Tony Rezko.

Rezko served as the political godfather for both Blagojevich and Obama, helping both to rise in Chicago and Illinois politics. Obama himself has credited Rezko with helping to his political career.

Rezko raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for both politicians.

A 76-page FBI affidavit released today after the arrest of Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, says Blagojevich conspired “to sell” the Illinois Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called the effort to barter the seat the “most sinister and appalling” of a long list of accusations against Blagojevich. Blagojevich, as governor, is responsible for naming Obama’s replacement.

Rezko has had extensive ties to both men:


Rezko’s Ties to Obama

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the two met in 1990 while Obama was still attending Harvard Law School. Rezko offered Obama a job, but Obama declined.

In 1995, Obama billed 32 hours for work done on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a company involved in a low-income housing partnership with Rezko. He also wrote letters supporting the proposed development.

Rezko was Obama’s second largest individual contributor when he began his run for an Illinois state Senate seat in 1995. Two Rezko companies contributed $2,000 to Obama’s campaign, and Rezko and wife Rita reportedly worked on Obama’s campaign.

In the first half of 1997, according to a report by Newsmax Contributing Editor Kenneth R. Timmerman, two Rezko companies contributed $2,000 to Obama’s ongoing political operation.

In the first half of 1998, Rezko provided Obama’s campaign food worth an estimated $457.70 as an “in-kind contribution.”

Rezko was one of Obama’s biggest contributors when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2003 and 2004, and Rezko was a member of Obama’s campaign finance committee, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

In June 2003, Rezko held a ritzy fund-raiser for Obama at his tony Wilmette mansion. Obama later said, “Rezko was not my largest fundraiser but a significant fundraiser.” According to Reuters, Obama said Rezko raised as much as $250,000.

In 2005, as news began to spread that federal authorities were investigating Rezko, Obama bought a house in Chicago’s Kenwood neighborhood for $1.65 million. Rezko’s wife, Rita, paid $625,000 for a lot adjacent to Obama’s new home, and the two deals closed on the same day.

Seven months later, Rezko’s wife sold one-sixth of her lot – a 10-foot strip of a 60-foot lot -- to Obama for $104,500.

In December 2006, Obama told the Washington Post the deal was a “boneheaded” mistake. “There’s no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him,” Obama said.

The Post reports Rezko and Obama later “collaborated” to construct a fence to divide the two properties, which Obama said was required by city code. Obama paid for lawn maintenance for both properties.

In March 2008, Obama said Rezko had raised up to $250,000 to help underwrite his prior campaigns in Illinois – a much higher figure than had previously been reported.

Rezko helped Obama’s presidential campaign raise over $150,000. The campaign later donated Rezko’s contributions to charity.


Rezko Ties to Blagojevich

The FBI says between June 2001 and August 2004 Rezko raised over $1.4 million for Blagojevich’s political campaigns, according to the Los Angeles Times. (Blagojevich was elected governor of Illinois in 2002, and reelected in 2006.)

Rezko hosted Blagojevich’s first post-election party at his mansion. Although he had no official role in the Blagojevich administration, he reportedly participated in several Blagojevich strategy retreats.

In October 2006, authorities indicted Rezko for soliciting kickbacks from companies seeking state contracts that were awarded by officials under the governor’s authority. According to the Los Angeles Times and others, $20,000 that Rezko garnered from kickbacks found its way via a middleman into Obama’s Senate campaign coffers.

Rezko’s June 2008 trial on corruption strongly implicated Blagojevich. Blagojevich allegedly discussed a state job for a donor, after that donor wrote a $25,000 check for his campaign.

During the trial, prosecutors maintained that Rezko routinely arranged shakedowns while serving as a top Blagojevich adviser.

In all, prosecutors said, Rezko squeezed various companies for some $7 million in kickbacks.

Following his conviction on 16 counts of fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery, Rezko said federal authorities tried to pressure him “to tell the wrong things” about the Obama and Blagojevich. The Sun-Times reported prosecutors pushed Rezko to cooperate in the corruption probe against Blagojevich.

It should be noted that Obama has consistently stated he never intervened on behalf of Rezko in any state or federal business. Authorities have yet to suggest any wrongdoing on the part of either Obama or his staff.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Michael Steele

At the CBN interview he gives a quick account of his reason for joining the RLC. He had made friends with Christie Todd Whitman through another event, and she invited him to become a board member.

The RLC calls for diversity on a variety of issues not just abortion, for example environmental issues. My suspicion is Steele joined as a way to highlight the need for racial diverity in the GOP.

As he tells it, they both thought it would send a good signal if a pro life Republican were a member (as I believe a few others besides Steele have been).

What is making confusion on the right (and particularly in this forum) is the equation of the word moderate as a synonym for "pro choice".

Moderate, of course, as a generic descriptor is no such thing. (Proof of which is the attitude toward Mike Huckabee, a pro life moderate, liberal, socialist to many movement conservatives).

Rather, moderate can refer to temperment. I.E., one is neither boisterous nor lethargic, or they are neither fully for or against one side or the other, but they are patiently and respectfully engaged: they are moderate, they are a moderating influence. Moderates recognize political realities and tend to be brokers, like Bob Dole.

IOW, another way to describe a moderate is as realists, whereas strong conservatives and strong liberals are idealists. Thus, where we get our term ideologue.

Ideologues are principled, but not very practical, and they view moderate practicality as unprincipled. Moderates view ideologues as long on pontificating, but short on dispute resolution.

As Southern Doc has noted Abraham Lincoln is a classic example of a quintessential moderate.

He was neither an abolitionist, nor a promoter of chattel slavery. He thought slavery repugnant, but he saw no federal role in addressing it, save stopping its expansion into new territories. Likely Lincoln would leave abortion up to the states.

My point about Michael Steele is a different one. That is, he is no different than Mr. Big Tent Lee Atwater, or Haley Barbour. All RNC chairman accept the will of local Republicans to nominate whom they wish, and all RNC chairman "support" such nominees, even if such nominees disagree with half the party platform (with rare notable exception, like David Duke).

What is a curious thing in this thread is folks nervousness about Steele's inclusivist comments, yet few seemed appalled that President Bush supported one of the most noterious RINO moderates and dissing a conservative with impeccable credentials, as discussed here: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:06 am.

Next post I will disagree with Michael Steele.

Tough on Crime

I think these are great ideas. Maybe we could even campaign by being tough on crime, which will in turn help the poor people in inner cities and other places where it's really hard to succeed. We should put a positive emphasis on being a law abiding, hard-working citizen who doesn't wait for the government to rescue them. The democrats have done a good job convincing people that they need the government to rescue them, and I feel like the republican party has a rap of "we don't care about the people, let them suffer" instead of a message of individual empowerment which is IMO what we should be talking about. We can find ways of including minority voters in this as well, because Republicans have the rap of "being the bad guy who doesn't care" and by being inclusive we will do much better. Sort of like Huckabee's "Hucktown" example.

The RNC ought to be all the people at Huck's Army :D

As for Steele, I still think that conservatives ought to be conservatives first and not republicans first. I believe that the people ought to have a choice about their government, and they ought to know the stances of every candidate they vote for. Most people do not do their homework when it comes to voting for congressional candidates, and they just vote party lines. I don't think we should actively be trying to get moral conservatives to vote for pro-choice people just because they're Republican. As Mike Huckabee says, better to lose an election than lose the principals that got you into politics. What good is it if we have a 60-40 Senate majority and 15 Republicans don't agree with the majority of people who voted for them on the issue that matters most to a lot of that majority?

I hope someone can answer my thoughts. I did pass judgement a little too quickly on Steele (sorry guys!) as I really don't know much about him, but this seems like a "party" over "policy" message. Is he saying we should promote moderate republicans in primary races against conservative republicans just so we're more inclusive? If so, that message does not sit well with me.

Huck's Army Archives and Quotes

Problems with the Republican Party

Republicans have always done well with, though frequently grown bored with, championing law and order issues.

If we sink into deep recession, we will have an uptick of violence, crime, and political militancy (think ACORN). Obama has already shown with the current sit-in at the Chicago factory that his default setting will be to both support and encourage such direct action. The understandable sympathy can easiliy be read as licence by the disaffected and desperate. It would not take much to spark mayhem (as is occurring in Athens today). There are many moderate voters (especially the suburb, exurb Obama voters) who would be very attracted to a party that maintains security and private property.

I love the tough on crime idea, I think most think things are getting out of control, car jacking, bank robberies, I mean all lawlessness is on the rise.

But as to the abortion issue this is also where energy and passion comes from, I know some for life group that travels hundreds of miles away for rallies. Life, Fair Tax, Religion and things like that brings in energized supporters with pure passion behind them that will go the extra mile. You get more energy when you actually fighting for something and this energy brings excitement that spreads to others that may not even know what originally got the excitement started. This is exactly why McCain could get no excitement because he did not go after any of these Passion groups until picking Palin and letting her do it, however I believe by that point it was to late.

Direction of the Country

Bloggin' Blogo... does anything matter anymore?

Ok, so you'll sell BHO's senate seat.

Nice.

So what do we care? What's the difference anymore? You have no ethics obviously. Or rather, your set of ethics simply fits whatever is best for you.

But then again, in our society these days, that pretty much makes sense.

Do You Smell What Barack is Cookin'?

still cooking...

The Vision of The Left: TEOTWAWKI

The End Of The World As We Know It.

That's the vision of the left.

Call them visionaries. They have big plans for America and they have big plans for us.

They tell us they envision a perfect world. A world where the skies are blue, the earth is green, people never shoot each other because they have no guns, there are no terrorists because we quit creating them and everyone is all the same. Everyone is happy because we've done away with capitalism, we live longer, richer lives and everything is free. Nobody is overweight or underweight, no one smokes, there's no "junk food" or saturated fat and the government basically runs everything.

The scenario I've written above probably doesn't even sound remotely possible to anyone with any common sense. You look at yourself and realize that you wouldn't achieve success if you didn't have some competition. What would be the point of Olympics, sports, art, music if there weren't winners and losers? Without competition, humanity follows the law of thermodynamics in which things progressively deteriorate. So no matter what government does, there will be always be "winners and losers," even if the government is the one who decides who those winners and losers will be. But is this even government's job is? To create winners and losers based on who they decide should be? Is this really what we want?

This world that the far left envisions is the very antithesis of what the founders of America envisioned. The first 10 amendments of the constitution where all created to restrict government, not to restrict the people. Individual liberty and freedom is the core principle upon which "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are created.

Are these people really pro-choice? Nope. They don't really believe that you can do what you want. If they think that your actions are creating pollution, even though they have no evidence of pollution being created, then they reserve the right to tax you or force you to buy carbon credits. They want to destroy the best health care system in the world. The system that all the other medical systems around the world have relied upon for resources and research and the system to which people all around the world flock to for care and education.

The left wants to take us back to the 15th century. This is the wrong direction for America and the wrong direction for The World as We Know It. Defeat the left and move on too a better world with more freedom and more liberty for all!

Does Barack Obama Want To Make "White Slaves"?

Lately it seems that people have been starting to see a little different side of Obama than they had formerly seen. Instead of the charming personality that was presented to us for the last number of years, we, through Rev. Wright and through comments that Michelle has made and also the most recent gaffe by Obama himself have been seeing a very different picture.

We're beginning to see the emergence of an extremely liberal senator who supports the ideology of the far left. This version of Obama refuses to condemn terrorists. Instead, he seems to sympathize with their cause.

So is the Obama that we don't know yet one that really does believe in affirmative action in a very extreme way? I'm not saying that it's definitely true that he does believe this, but his willingness to trash his own grandmother in an attempt to save himself politically does make me wonder if he might be more than willing to accept affirmative action in an extreme that we've never seen it before.

Perhaps he believes that the original sin of slavery that so many liberation theology talk about has not yet been atoned for; perhaps he believes that in order for America to be redeemed from this sin white folks must get a dose of their own medicine and become slaves.

Again, not saying I think these are true, just speculating. After all, wasn't it Obama himself that quoted his pastor in saying that "white folk's greed runs a world in need"(source here)? Wasn't it Obama himself that stated that many small town folks are bitter and cling to their guns and religion for hope? Barack seems to think that he's got white folks all figured out and I tend to think that it wouldn't be a far cry for him to believe in a sort of retribution where whites become slaves in order to atone for the sins of their forefathers.

Maybe Micheal Savage isn't so far out in his description of Barack Obama after all!

Obama's "Bully Pulpit" -- very scary!

Do we really want a bully preacher for a president?

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," he wrote. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

Obama pledges to use a "bully pulpit" to overcome states' rights in choosing to recognize marriage. He seems to be saying that he will fight for states' rights to make their own decisions re guarding marriage, but in reality he is on the opposite side of states' rights, since he will essentially force states to recognize the marriage laws of other states. Whatever your take on the issue of gay marriage, this should continuance of the patter of the Democrats to trample over every remaining state right left should scare you badly. The Federal government under Democratic control next year will continue to usurp authority, taking more and more ground, becoming less and less efficient, tax more and more until the American people are pretty much stifled out of existence as a nation.




Original source.

American Dream Fading Fast?

Is the American dream a dying breed?

The American dream is a dream I've had for a while. I'd love to have a nice car, nice house, family... all the things that have been long associated with the American dream.

But is this dream fading away?

I know very few peers who even have the ability to reach this dream. Most of those that I know who even have the financial stability and security to be able to start a family, continue to delay it.

Will we soon be saying, "it was just a dream"?

America has long been based on principles of family and freedom. Slowly but surely politicians have been chipping away at those principles until they've become so faint that the ability to trace and find them has all but nearly disappeared. A few Americans still know what it means to be free but are they passing those principles on down to their children? Where has freedom gone? Is it just a pipe-dream? A lost reality that no one any longer can embrace or hold with pride?

A New Generation: Hope (but not in the government)

Hope. Change. Hope. Change.

Such is the slogan of a presidential candidates. It sounds so "hopeful." Apparently, since this candidate's campaign really has taken off, American's are quite hungry for a message of hope and change. Yet this politician has hope in all the wrong places. He's placing it entirely in the fact that he is a politician and can give people what they want for their hope... "free" healthcare, more government support of education, more entitlements.

This type of change may be welcome by many but for those who possess common sense realize that there's "no such thing as a free lunch" even when it is the government that's making the promise. The government can't just create money (without inflation anyway) so the resources have to come from somewhere. The government gets it's money from the people.

So obviously, the people's source of hope is the government and the government's source of resources is the individual taxpayers. There's something wrong with logic that goes in circles like that. The people end up as the resource of their "hope" in the long run anyway.

So why have the middleman government to begin with? Why not just get the big middleman government out of the way and let the people determine their future? America is great because it was founded on a principle of individual people exercising individual freedom. That's commonsense politics.

The death of common sense?

The Death of Common Sense
Lori Borgman
www.loriborgman.com

Three yards of black fabric enshroud my computer terminal. I am mourning the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense.

His obituary reads as follows:

Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape.
Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering. Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S.

A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet. C.S. also developed sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adult is in charge, not the kid) and prudent dietary plans (offset eggs and bacon with a little fiber and orange juice).

A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technological Revolution and the Smoking Crusades, C.S. survived sundry cultural and educational trends including disco, the men's movement, body piercing, whole language and new math.

C.S.'s health began declining in the late 1960s when he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus. In the following decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal and state rules and regulations and an oppressive tax code. C.S. was sapped of strength and the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, criminals received better treatment than victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional baseball and golf.

His deterioration accelerated as schools implemented zero-tolerance policies. Reports of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing classmates, a teen suspended for taking a swig of Scope mouthwash after lunch, girls suspended for possessing Midol and an honor student expelled for having a table knife in her school lunch were more than his heart could endure.

As the end neared, doctors say C.S. drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding regulations on low-flow toilets and mandatory air bags. Finally, upon hearing about a government plan to ban inhalers from 14 million asthmatics due to a trace of a pollutant that may be harmful to the environment, C.S. breathed his last.

Services will be at Whispering Pines Cemetery. C.S. was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion; one daughter, Responsibility; and one son, Reason. He is survived by two step-brothers, Half-Wit and Dim-Wit.

Memorial Contributions may be sent to the Institute for Rational Thought.

Farewell, Common Sense. May you rest in peace.

No Nonsense Politics

What is no nonsense politics? It's politics that allows for individual freedom, not government intervention. It calls on politicians of both political parties to stop pandering and create policies that are based on principles of justice and liberty for individuals.

It's ideal yet not idealogical.

It recognizes the death of "common sense" and sees that as a sad thing. It is a new breed of politics that realizes there is not just a past, but there is a future as well. It realizes that we cannot continue to live in the past but move on to the future and the challenges that we face.

No-nonsense politics has been embraced by some but still is eschewed by many if not most.

It is not merely political but is significantly spiritual. It is the spirit of Patrick Henry when he says "give me liberty or give me death." It is also embodied in the spirit of Abe Lincoln when he states that "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

It transcends political figures and personalities and recognizes that individual people with creativity are what have made great nations great. It recognizes that harsh reality that some individuals are more talented than other individuals, but yet each individual has value in society.

It represents a can-do attitude and overcomes opposition of impossibility of great odds.

It is the policy that our nation was founded upon but has somehow been made to believe is a thing of the past.