Ouch.

The Obamas have themselves raised legitimate questions about their love of country. Unfortunately, those legitimate questions have been drowned out at times by illegitimate ones spread by mass e-mails. Those have rightly been called “smears” by the Obama campaign.

But still, in his Monday speech Obama again gave cause to question not his patriotism, but his belief that America is a great nation. He said, “what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better.”

Really? America isn’t great because of what it is now, but because of what it might become?

They do cause us to ask the questions they claim we have no right to ask. I do question whether he even likes this country. I don’t think he or his Mrs. Messiah are proud of America; in fact I believe they are ashamed. Therefore, in my opinion he has no business in being our President.

Peter Beinart’s as liberal as they come- and he doesn’t try to hide this fact. He expresses himself in a way that doesn’t bring out anger and defensiveness among many on the right, though. Here he writes a piece that is thought provoking and, in some sense, challenging.

So is wearing the flag pin good or bad? It is both; it all depends on where and why. If you’re going to a Young Americans for Freedom meeting, where people think patriotism means “my country right or wrong,” leave it at home and tell them about Frederick Douglass, who wouldn’t celebrate the Fourth of July while his fellow Americans were in bondage. And if you’re going to a meeting of the cultural-studies department at Left-Wing U., where patriotism often means “my country wrong and wronger,” slap it on, and tell them about Mike Christian, who lay half-dead in a North Vietnamese jail, stitching an American flag.

And if anyone gives you a hard time, tell him he doesn’t know what true patriotism is.

…challenging to liberals, that is.

A most excellent read. If you’re a liberal though, you might not agree with my assessment. LOL!!!

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left. In my experience, they are also more honest, friendly and well-adjusted.

Much of this springs from the destructive influence of modern liberal ideas.

In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.

The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being ‘true’ to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.

Ouch! There is much more to read though, and it’s all the cold hard truth. I used to call myself a liberal and it brings me much shame. Thankfully I saw the right light and came to it, and have been a better person ever since.

so he can be president.

The all-but certain nomination of John McCain to be the Republican candidate for president has again raised a question nagging the Arizona senator: does his birth outside the United States prevent him from holding the nation’s highest office?

McCain, part of a storied naval family and a Vietnam War hero in his own right, was born in 1936 on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone. The issue of his birthplace raises the question of whether it qualifies as a foreign birth and therefore violates the constitutional requirement that a commander in chief be a “natural-born citizen.”

There is a long flowchart that immigration and customs officials use to determine the citizenship of a person born outside of the United States. I can guarantee that John McCain, born of two American citizens, is a “natural-born citizen”, regardless of the location on the globe he came into this world. I am sure that there are some on the left, and especially the right, who believe that this would disqualify him as President. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Russ Vaughn sent this via email and I reposting it here in it’s entirety.

Entertaining Considerations

Russ Vaughn

Fred Thompson tells Mike Huckabee he is sounding more like a Democrat every time he opens his mouth….

This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

Another reason I don’t support Huckabee. I just don’t think he gets it as well as Thompson, or any of the other candidates (except for McCain). I hope that the flash in the pants surge that was the Huckaboom disappears as quickly as it arrived. As for Thompson’s stance on the U.S. Constitution:

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

Now that’s a Republican I can vote for….

The big news story concerning the Clinton presidental campaign concerns the former First Daugher, Chelsea, refusing to answer questions from a child reporter during the campaign trail….

It’s one thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to turn down interview requests for the candidate’s daughter, Chelsea. But can’t a 9-year-old reporter catch a break?

Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and “kid reporter” for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they’ve campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.

…

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute,” Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

I don’t think that it is that big of a deal. Chelsea isn’t going to play any favorites by talking to a reporter, even one that happens to be a child. Good for her. Whatever… who cares….

No. Here is what caught my eye….

Tall and attractive, Chelsea cuts an impressive figure on the campaign trail; she plunges enthusiastically into the crowd after her mother’s speeches, shaking hands and posing for pictures while asking, “Are you going to caucus for my mom?”

Read that again.

See it? Yep. Tall and…. attractive?!?!?!11?!! Chelsea Clinton might be attractive if the rest of the women on earth looked like this

I just don’t see it. There are many things a person can call Chelsea… but attractive is not one of them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…. riiiiiiiiight…

The political landscape is looking bleak. And rightfully so.

Read the rest of this entry »

Many people are wondering just what is going on with Hillary Clinton’s campaign donations. At best it’s questionable, at worst some say she is directly involved with fraudulent fund raising activities. Now we have another venue at our disposal and perhaps it will shed more light on this issue.

WASHINGTON —
One gift that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to enjoy on her 60th birthday Friday is the premiere of “Hillary Uncensored,” a scathing documentary whose 13-minute trailer has been No. 1 on Google Video since Oct. 10, with more than 1.1 million views to date.

The film’s first full-length showing is scheduled for Friday night at Harvard University, followed by viewings at universities through the weekend and a wrap Tuesday at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.

Among the allegations summarized in the documentary:

— Bill and Hillary Clinton solicited cash from Peter F. Paul, an international lawyer and businessman, even after Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager told The Washington Post she would not take money from him;

— FBI agents and U.S. attorneys colluded with the Clintons to keep Paul, who was convicted of cocaine possession and fraud, tangled up in the criminal courts for years;

— The Clintons later made sure Paul was kept in a Brazilian prison for 25 months, including 58 days in a maximum security cellblock nicknamed the “Corridor of Death,” while the Justice Department waited to extradite him;

— Hillary Clinton still hasn’t filed reports to the FEC enumerating Paul’s excessive contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign.

I’ve seen the trailer and hope to see the entire film.

Douglas Cogan, a businessman-turned-associate producer and researcher for the film, said he’s made it his mission to expose what he calls “the greatest campaign finance fraud that ever has been committed.”

The Clintons think “they are truly above the law,” Cogan said. “My country has never seen anyone like Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The allegations in the film are not new, although much of the video is. The film resurrects claims made by the thrice-convicted Paul that he unwittingly agreed to violate election-funding laws in exchange for a pledge from Bill Clinton to work with him in his new venture, Stan Lee Media, after Clinton left the presidency.

The documentary revisits Paul’s claim that, in exchange for Bill Clinton’s promise to promote Stan Lee Media overseas, for which Paul said he was willing to pay $17 million, he also agreed to produce an August 2000 fundraising gala in Hollywood for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 New York Senate campaign.

“My interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton,” Paul told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview, noting that Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign “concocted” the whole idea of the fundraiser.

Paul said he believed that in exchange for organizing the gala, “I had accomplished the hiring of the president of the United States to work with me when he left the White House.”

The gala cost $1.2 million, which was under-reported to the Federal Election Commission and led to the arrest of Clinton’s then-Senate campaign fundraising chief, David Rosen.

Rosen was found not guilty; a co-host of the gala, Aaron Tonken, was sentenced in a separate case to more than five years in prison for misappropriating funds for charity to pay for fundraisers featuring Hollywood celebrities.

There are more questions than answers about the Clintons fund raising tactics. In this case they are trying to force Hillary to come forth and answer some of these questions. So far she has been above the law. How can people extend their vote to a person with such questionable ethics? Why should we care? Does it matter that the person holding the highest ratings in the field of candidates for the party of the people, Democrats, is perhaps a law breaker? And do Democrats care anymore?

I decided I wasn’t going to share some of the hate emails I got a couple weeks ago. Most of them were just ugly renditions of the human spirit revved up in angst and cowardly bravo.

Read the rest of this entry »

S CHIP is back. With little changes- and the Lemoncrats (TM) are trying to sneak this through without much input from the Republicans. A quick vote may happen tomorrow.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats, having made modest changes to a children’s health bill that President Bush vetoed, plan to bring the issue to another vote Thursday in hopes of scoring a win on a top domestic issue.

House Democratic leaders, and key Republicans supporting them, said Wednesday they believe they have altered the measure enough to pick up the handful of GOP members they need to assemble a veto-proof majority, or two-thirds of the House. Republican leaders urged their colleagues to resist, saying the changes are too insignificant to justify abandoning the president on a high-profile issue.

Democrats said they will not know whether they have attracted enough Republican converts until the vote is taken. If enough Republicans again stick with the president, Democrats said, they will pay a political price.

The revised bill “addresses all the concerns that were expressed by our colleagues and by the president,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. “This is a clarification of the legislation” vetoed by Bush.

Exactly what is now clarified Nancy?

“The reason Congress is held in low esteem is lack of achievement,” said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. Expanding the health care program, with or without Bush’s consent, would be a major accomplishment, he said in an interview.

Oh now that’s a good reason now isn’t it? The Do Nothing Congress should pass a bill that creates another class of government dependent citizens, just so Congress can say, “We did something”?? No.

The proposed changes would not affect the heart of the bill that drew Bush’s veto, which the House narrowly sustained last week. The measure still would add $35 billion over five years to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a figure the administration has called too high. It would enable the program, which now covers 6 million children, to cover 4 million more.

The increase would be paid for with a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. Bush has said he opposes any tax increase.

The proposed revisions, designed to woo a few more Republicans, involve eligibility matters. Families earning more than three times the federal poverty rate would be excluded, except in New Jersey, where a higher threshold could continue at least for a while.

Low-income childless adults, which some states cover, would be phased out in one year. And states would have to be more rigorous in checking the validity of applicants’ Social Security numbers, an effort to exclude illegal immigrants.

I think the Lemoncrats are taking advantage of this popular but expensive waste of money…and of course they know it. Bush has said he is willing to talk; to give some if they take some- in other words- negotiate. It appears as though our Congressional leaders don’t wish to do this. No wonder we hold them all to such low appeal these days.

Democrats are targeting three dozen House Republicans who backed the veto and said in a letter they were mainly concerned about eliminating higher-income families, adults and illegal immigrants. “All three issues have been addressed,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said Wednesday. “Now the question is, can they take yes for an answer.”

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said lawmakers have not justified the need for a $35 billion expansion to cover 10 million children.

I know this is a popular bill; I know many like to think they are entitled to government sponsored insurance- many who make a good living. But I have a huge problem with the choices people are making that lead them to be uninsured. I’m not re-hashing all that now. I’m not fooled by the Lemoncrats lies on this. Neither should anyone else: They will do whatever it takes to cover illegals, higher (Much higher) income families and adults…with my tax dollars. While I sit back and work very hard and chose to cover myself. I WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR this coverage if I decided to take over insuring my kids. Hell, I could save my X over $400 BUCKS a month! But I have principles and integrity. And pride. I don’t NEED to abuse my government and fellow citizens. Others really do need this coverage and I for one could not take from them that which I could provide for myself!

In an interview, Leavitt said about $10 billion could be shaved from the bill by tightening requirements for applicants to prove citizenship, by more quickly removing adults from the rolls, and by reducing what he described as excessive allotments to states.

Yeah…let’s not look at this. Let’s just try to bullshit the people into believing it’s all for the children. Guess I’ll be making more phone calls in the morning to my elected reps on this.

Chris Matthews writes an Op/Ed in today’s Boston Globe:

What you see when the cameras aren’t watching

By Chris Matthews | October 19, 2007

I SAW something at last week’s Republican presidential debate in Michigan you couldn’t see on television.

It was how the candidates acted off camera.

For much of the two hours in Dearborn, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and the others wore their game faces. They showed a serious sense of purpose we expect from people seeking the presidency.

What grabbed me was how differently they all behaved when the lights dimmed for CNBC and MSNBC commercials. As they each drifted away from their lecterns I felt a palpable shift of mood.

Matthews is experiencing some melancholy??

I’m no political Pollyanna. I love debate. Democracy is noisy. And sometimes it gets hot. In matters of war, it ought to be hot. And sometimes rules are broken - Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Scooter Libby matter.

But the scenes I witnessed during the breaks in the Dearborn debate are the glue that holds the rest together.

I’ve spent 36 years in Washington and this is the political world I’ve come to love. It is the place where people, especially the professionals, get along.

Certainly it’s the way it was on Capitol Hill back when I worked for House Speaker Tip O’Neill. After all the fighting over tax cuts and how to end the Cold War, people got along.
[...]
It’s possible to live another way. Some people have the luxury of rendering unchallenged political opinion. They work on keyboards. Politicians have to pass one another in the hallway. They have to meet in rooms and get things done.

My favorite lesson from the great politicians is not to let it get personal. “Welcome to the room where we plot against you,” I welcomed Ronald Reagan to the speaker’s ceremonial office when he came to give the 1982 State of the Union speech. “Oh no, not after six. The speaker says we’re all friends after six.”

Hmm it doesn’t appear to me that Matthews learned any of the lessons his old boss taught him. Not at all. Has it ever occurred to Matthews that HE is a part of the problem with the modern political discourse? That his snickering partisan remarks, body language and overall tone add to the increasingly vile and negative tone? That his obviously slanted and biased views shine through every time he opens his mouth?

We’re all friends after six, Chris… Are you?

I was surprised to read this.

NEW YORK — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton may be No. 1 in the presidential polls, but Bill Clinton is falling off the best-seller lists.

Sales for the former president’s “Giving,” a handbook for civic activism published by Alfred A. Knopf with an announced first printing of 750,000, have dropped far since its release in early September, when Clinton made numerous media appearances, including interviews with Oprah Winfrey and Larry King.

Wow. I am a book worm- I read dozens every month. I admit that I purchased this book and, I thought it was actually very good. I highly recommend it.

According to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks about 70 percent of industry sales, “Giving” sold nearly 50,000 copies its first week, but hasn’t approached that since. For the week ending Oct. 7, only 9,600 copies sold.

Clinton’s previous book was the million-selling memoir “My Life.”

Even in Washington, D.C., sales are down. A leading independent store, Politics & Prose, ordered 96 copies of “Giving,” but so far has sold just 50.

I wonder if the lack of sales has to do with the subject matter? Giving, after all, isn’t something all people do. Considering this book was penned by one of our most popular Presidents, Bill Clinton, one would think it would be a best seller. Maybe the subject really turns off some people- liberals for example. The government can force itself upon citizens via welfare programs and entitlements for the poor and middle class…we shouldn’t have to GIVE more of ourselves. Why give when we can take, right?

A recent poll by USA Today shows that I am not alone with my opinion that the expansion of the S-CHIP program is not good for America.

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children’s health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should be targeted to low-income families, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows

Look at the details of this poll, that we know of:

• 52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

• 55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.

Taken together, the results show that while Bush may be losing the political battle with Democrats, he may be doing better on policy.

Mike Leavitt, Bush’s secretary of Health and Human Services, said the policy is most important. “There’s a lot of politics going on right now. But the politics will last a matter of weeks,” Leavitt said Monday. “The policy here will go on for decades. We have to get this right.”

Rick Moran explains some of the thinking that I share, in better words than I:

The left doesn’t want to discuss what we lose when government steps in where the citizen is capable of taking care of themselves. They refuse to acknowledge that every step toward establishing a government giving the people what they want rather than what is needed or desirable is a step back from human liberty and into the trough of virtual slavery.

You can hardly blame liberals in the end. It is extremely seductive (not to mention conducive to winning elections) to promise people that government will relieve the citizen of their burdens and make their lives easier. It is also convenient to then tar your opponents as unfeeling, uncaring monsters. Playing Santa Claus while painting the opposition as Scrooge has been part and parcel of the Democratic electoral game plan since the 1960’s.

Exactly. While I am called a monster for asking my fellow Americans to take care of themselves first, or at least attempt to do so, others on the left are telling Americans that it’s not their personal responsibility to do this. We have two forces colliding on this S CHIP tug of war game. In spite of the politics though, it does seem that Americans see this as a step in the socialism direction. Many are claiming that the middle class people can no longer afford to insure their kids. I think this is ridiculous. Of course they can afford it; they choose not to. Instead they live above their means; they buy their boats and $400,000 houses instead of buying the insurance. There is no other way to put it.

The Right has been accused of going on a witch hunt when they looked into the finances of the family the Left chose as it’s poster “child” family. In reality this is about educating Americans as to who exactly will receive benefits of the S CHIP program. We have a right to know.

Amy Ridenour explains her opinion after Paul Krugman attacked her:

Subject: The SCHIP/Graeme Frost affair and whether adults on public assistance have a right to withhold financial information about themselves from taxpayers.

Krugman believes a column I had published on TownHall last Thursday is evidence that “conservatives want those in need to be dependent on the charity of people who will seek to dictate their behavior.”

He couldn’t be more wrong. Conservatives actually want those in need to not be in need. It’s a little odd that after decades of liberals accusing conservatives of not being willing to fund welfare because we’re cheap skinflints, Krugman is accusing us of wanting to fund it so we can use it to tell people on public assistance what to do.

So we have those on the left who are swiping us for daring to ask exactly WHO will be covered by this HUGE expansion of welfare programming. The fact is this bill that was vetoed by the President would have included a far wider group of people than it’s original target. This bill would have allowed middle class families to rely on welfare in order to maintain their standard of living.

This is not good for America. The “witch hunts” MUST happen; the facts MUST be shown. In order to truly debate these things, we have to ask the hard questions and investigate the tough answers we will find. And think about this last statement from Rick Moran on this subject:

Lost in all of this has been the belief that freedom is preferable to dependency and that walking away from a society based on self-reliant, rational men and women by infantilizing their lives threatens to change the United States into a far different place than that which was bequeathed to us by our fathers and their fathers before them going back to the beginning.

Our founding fathers wouldn’t recognize America at all. I don’t recognize my county anymore. What a shame this has all become.

***UPDATE***
Big Dog has a post up about this- and he makes the statement that I did not, here, but should have; call me cold and tell me I have no compassion but health care is NOT A RIGHT.

Health care is not a right. I know it is hard for the left to wrap its arms around that but it is a truth. Everyone in America has access to health care (why do you think ILLEGALS can get it) but there is no right that it will be provided free of charge. There are programs to help the truly destitute ans S-CHIP has been one to help poor kids but in its new form it helps people who should be able to afford their own health care. Cell phones, computers, cable TV, expensive cars, and fancy clothes are luxuries. I see children in poor neighborhoods wearing expensive sneakers and clothing that, had the parents bought bargain items, might have paid for health care. Living life is about choices and one of those choices is what you will spend you money on. If a parent spends disposable income for the luxuries then they are taking a decision to neglect buying health insurance. The old adage goes, you must pay yourself first. This is the key to saving and it is the key to health care insurance. After this, then what is left may go to the luxuries. The problem is, people have the priorities wrong. That and they believe that it is a God given right for them to have insurance at the expense of others. As an aside, libs will take away your right to own/carry firearms but demand we provide health care. Only one of those is a right under our Constitution.

Yes. Well said Big Dog and I want to add that many people DO NOT fully understand the current S CHIP as it is. Each state gets federal money to fund insurance for children, whose parents are working, who make just “enough” to render them ineligible for Medicaid; S CHIP is for working families who are very likely living in apartments and driving around in old beat up cars; who cannot afford to go out to eat or the other things. The program isn’t free either. Parents are expected and do pay a premium for this insurance- which in my state, is managed by an insurance company. Health care is not a right, nor is the insurance to cover it’s costs. I have no problem with people who pay into the system- even it it’s just a small amount. I do have huge problems with people who expect this program to expand, while they loot the system.