With the announcement by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson that he is withdrawing his nomination to be Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary, the Obama team has been rocked with yet another scandal.
Never before in modern history has an administration been so thoroughly defined by corruption and scandal, even before the new team officially takes office.
Despite those who are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the Blagojevich scandal, the fact remains that we have yet to see all of the evidence that continues to be collected by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald on the alleged scheme to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
It would be the height of naivete to believe that neither Obama nor his staff chief Rahm Emanuel had contact with Blagojevich concerning the seat, since it belonged to Obama, and since all three are part of the infamous Chicago political machine.
In addition, it is odd that most of Obama's closest longterm associates and friends are of dubious reputation at best.
And then there is Norman Hsu, who could very well further taint the careers of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton before his trial is over. Hsu's Ponzi scheme to raise money for Obama and Clinton could implicate both.
Now we discover that Bill Richardson, Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary, is under a federal investigation for corruption.
Obama and the Democrats clearly have a culture of corruption at present. And the Obama team will take office under a heavy cloud of suspicion.
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Clinton Betrayers: 'Et Tu, Brute?'
Despite the fact that I am no fan of the Clintons, I will admit that they have been betrayed, unfortunately, by some longtime friends during this campaign.
Some of it is understandable. Politics is about winning, and many within the ranks of the Democrats simply feel that Hillary has shown herself to be unelectable. Prudence would therefore dictate that many would throw their support to Obama in spite of the fact that he may even be more of a liability than Hillary when it is all said and done.
However, many of the Clinton betrayers are longtime friends who have now proven themselves to be companions of the fair-weather variety. These would include Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others.
The most stinging and embarrassing defection in the Clintons' point of view, however, is that of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Administration official Bill Richardson.
While on a campaign swing through California to lobby Democratic super-delegates, Bill Clinton exploded into rage when asked about James Carville's reference to Richardson as 'Judas.'
News reporters and observers alike report that the former President's face immediately turned blood red as he seethed with anger in his response to the question. 'He (Richardson) promised me at least 5 times he would not do that,' Clinton claimed.
Richardson's staff immediately issued a complete denial, that the Governor never promised the Clintons that he would not endorse Obama.
Bill Clinton's reaction, however, tells another story.
True, Clinton is known to lie. We have all seen it many times on prime time TV. But when Clinton lies there is lacking the spontaneity and split-second emotional outburst that is characteristic of the former President's demeanor when he is truly upset and when he truly believes what he is saying is the truth.
One reporter noted that Clinton's outburst sounded and felt more like hurt than anger.
Perhaps the former President has every right to be hurt very deeply. Perhaps Richardson is the one who didn't have the guts to be upfront with the Clintons concerning his decision to go with Obama after he had affirmed his friendship with and support for Hillary Clinton.
Just as in Shakespeare's famous tragedy when Julius Caesar began to realize that even his best friend had participated in the fatal betrayal, and thus the words, 'Et tu, Brute?' (Even you, Brutus?), Bill and Hillary Clinton find themselves stunned that even Bill Richardson, of all people, would participate in the betrayal.
Two things are certain--Bill Clinton has lost his 'political sex appeal,' and Hillary is suddenly fighting for her very political survival.
Some of it is understandable. Politics is about winning, and many within the ranks of the Democrats simply feel that Hillary has shown herself to be unelectable. Prudence would therefore dictate that many would throw their support to Obama in spite of the fact that he may even be more of a liability than Hillary when it is all said and done.
However, many of the Clinton betrayers are longtime friends who have now proven themselves to be companions of the fair-weather variety. These would include Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others.
The most stinging and embarrassing defection in the Clintons' point of view, however, is that of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Administration official Bill Richardson.
While on a campaign swing through California to lobby Democratic super-delegates, Bill Clinton exploded into rage when asked about James Carville's reference to Richardson as 'Judas.'
News reporters and observers alike report that the former President's face immediately turned blood red as he seethed with anger in his response to the question. 'He (Richardson) promised me at least 5 times he would not do that,' Clinton claimed.
Richardson's staff immediately issued a complete denial, that the Governor never promised the Clintons that he would not endorse Obama.
Bill Clinton's reaction, however, tells another story.
True, Clinton is known to lie. We have all seen it many times on prime time TV. But when Clinton lies there is lacking the spontaneity and split-second emotional outburst that is characteristic of the former President's demeanor when he is truly upset and when he truly believes what he is saying is the truth.
One reporter noted that Clinton's outburst sounded and felt more like hurt than anger.
Perhaps the former President has every right to be hurt very deeply. Perhaps Richardson is the one who didn't have the guts to be upfront with the Clintons concerning his decision to go with Obama after he had affirmed his friendship with and support for Hillary Clinton.
Just as in Shakespeare's famous tragedy when Julius Caesar began to realize that even his best friend had participated in the fatal betrayal, and thus the words, 'Et tu, Brute?' (Even you, Brutus?), Bill and Hillary Clinton find themselves stunned that even Bill Richardson, of all people, would participate in the betrayal.
Two things are certain--Bill Clinton has lost his 'political sex appeal,' and Hillary is suddenly fighting for her very political survival.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Hillary Counterpunch: Barack Obama Can't Win
ABC News is reporting that the latest punch thrown in the war between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is Hillary's contention that 'Barack Obama can't win.'
News reports from the campaign trail indicate that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been strongly lobbying the Democratic 'super-delegates' to encourage them to vote for Hillary.
Super-delegates are told by the Clintons that the main reason they should vote for Hillary is that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
Insiders say that when Bill and Hillary lobbied Governor Bill Richardson, who later endorsed Obama, Hillary pleaded, 'Barack Obama cannot win, Bill, he cannot win.'
In all likelihood Hillary is right, although it is not impossible for Barack to win. But the problem for Hillary is that in all likelihood she cannot win, either. Polls are showing McCain ahead of both Obama and Hillary in potential head-to-head matchups.
The ABC report also states that the latest jugular tactic employed by the Clintons against Obama has created a firestorm of new controversy in what's already been a tumultuous Democratic campaign.
The Obama campaign is crying foul, but Hillary is likely closer to the truth about Barack than most people realize.
As we reported earlier today on the Roundup, even some within the Obama campaign staff are beginning to 'lose faith' in the Obamessiah, stating that beneath the smooth rhetoric and Hollywood-style persona, there is no substance.
The question is, when your own staff begins to lose faith, how long will it take for the sheeple to follow suit?
News reports from the campaign trail indicate that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been strongly lobbying the Democratic 'super-delegates' to encourage them to vote for Hillary.
Super-delegates are told by the Clintons that the main reason they should vote for Hillary is that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
Insiders say that when Bill and Hillary lobbied Governor Bill Richardson, who later endorsed Obama, Hillary pleaded, 'Barack Obama cannot win, Bill, he cannot win.'
In all likelihood Hillary is right, although it is not impossible for Barack to win. But the problem for Hillary is that in all likelihood she cannot win, either. Polls are showing McCain ahead of both Obama and Hillary in potential head-to-head matchups.
The ABC report also states that the latest jugular tactic employed by the Clintons against Obama has created a firestorm of new controversy in what's already been a tumultuous Democratic campaign.
The Obama campaign is crying foul, but Hillary is likely closer to the truth about Barack than most people realize.
As we reported earlier today on the Roundup, even some within the Obama campaign staff are beginning to 'lose faith' in the Obamessiah, stating that beneath the smooth rhetoric and Hollywood-style persona, there is no substance.
The question is, when your own staff begins to lose faith, how long will it take for the sheeple to follow suit?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Gov. Billy Richardson Proves My Point
New Mexico Governor and former Democratic Presidential contender Billy Richardson today endorsed Barack Obama for President.
I have said all along that Billy lacked the intelligence and judgment to be President, despite his relatively pro-gun record.
Today Billy showed the country and the world that I was right. Anyone who is pro-gun would not be supporting Barack Obama, unless they are about three cards shy of a full deck...that is, unless Billy is not really as pro-gun as people think.
In addition, I have said all along that Billy is a big government Socialist just like Hillary Clinton. There I was only partially right. He is worse than Hillary.
Anyone who hitches their wagon to Obama may as well go ahead and publicly state their affinity with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, during which the Commies toppled the government and brought in the likes of Lenin and Stalin.
But I digress. Billy is an idiot. Would anyone at this point disagree?
I have said all along that Billy lacked the intelligence and judgment to be President, despite his relatively pro-gun record.
Today Billy showed the country and the world that I was right. Anyone who is pro-gun would not be supporting Barack Obama, unless they are about three cards shy of a full deck...that is, unless Billy is not really as pro-gun as people think.
In addition, I have said all along that Billy is a big government Socialist just like Hillary Clinton. There I was only partially right. He is worse than Hillary.
Anyone who hitches their wagon to Obama may as well go ahead and publicly state their affinity with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, during which the Commies toppled the government and brought in the likes of Lenin and Stalin.
But I digress. Billy is an idiot. Would anyone at this point disagree?
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Why Richardson is as Bad as Hillary
So, he supports gun rights. I suppose that if one is a single-issue voter, then no matter where Bill Richardson stands on anything else it is perfectly acceptable to support him.
I am not and never have been a single-issue voter. I believe to the depth of my being that such a thing is dangerous. There are too many other critical issues that must be considered.
And when it comes to Billy, there is plenty of reason to oppose him every bit as much as Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama.
Listen to or read Billy Richardson's stance on the ALL of the issues. It is clear that he is a big-government, European-styled Socialist. Add up the costs of all of his proposals, and we are looking at trillions of dollars of extra taxes to pay for them.
I have yet to understand the support that Billy gets from some gun-rights proponents in light of the fact that outside of the issue of guns the candidate supports socialized medicine, increasing the tax burden on younger working Americans in order to bail out and support Social Security and Medicare rather than look at alternative plans, and this is only for starters.
The candidate is also weak on the immigration issue. He opposes the building of the border fence that Congress has already authorized yet failed to build. His proposals for immigration reform mirrored those of John McCain (before he 'saw the light'), Hillary Clinton, and Lindsey Graham.
Perhaps the most damning of all of Richardson's ideas is the notion that he would 'set government mandates' for U.S. corporations after which he would allow the 'free market to respond.'
Doublespeak. The market is not free if the government sets mandates. And the market will respond, alright. When government puts the squeeze on American free enterprise the markets typically respond by taking a plunge.
And this is precisely what America would do if Billy Richardson is elected to the U.S. Presidency.
I am not and never have been a single-issue voter. I believe to the depth of my being that such a thing is dangerous. There are too many other critical issues that must be considered.
And when it comes to Billy, there is plenty of reason to oppose him every bit as much as Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama.
Listen to or read Billy Richardson's stance on the ALL of the issues. It is clear that he is a big-government, European-styled Socialist. Add up the costs of all of his proposals, and we are looking at trillions of dollars of extra taxes to pay for them.
I have yet to understand the support that Billy gets from some gun-rights proponents in light of the fact that outside of the issue of guns the candidate supports socialized medicine, increasing the tax burden on younger working Americans in order to bail out and support Social Security and Medicare rather than look at alternative plans, and this is only for starters.
The candidate is also weak on the immigration issue. He opposes the building of the border fence that Congress has already authorized yet failed to build. His proposals for immigration reform mirrored those of John McCain (before he 'saw the light'), Hillary Clinton, and Lindsey Graham.
Perhaps the most damning of all of Richardson's ideas is the notion that he would 'set government mandates' for U.S. corporations after which he would allow the 'free market to respond.'
Doublespeak. The market is not free if the government sets mandates. And the market will respond, alright. When government puts the squeeze on American free enterprise the markets typically respond by taking a plunge.
And this is precisely what America would do if Billy Richardson is elected to the U.S. Presidency.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
What If: Thoughts on Dems' Campaigns So Far
To hear the pundits and major politicians call it, one would think the Democratic race for the Party's Presidential nomination is over. Both President Bush and Newt Gingrich, along with countless politicos, have stated definitively that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.
Certainly this would be the most plausible scenario. From the very start the Democratic nomination has been Hillary's to lose. She has been planning for this moment at least as far back as the end of her husband's second term, and many claim this has been her dream since her days as a lawyer in Arkansas.
While we tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that Hillary will receive her coronation at the Democratic Convention next summer, there are some significant landmines that could blow up her face at any moment, thus sending the conventional wisdom downward in a deathly tailspin.
Several campaign finance scandals lurk just behind her in the shadows, the latest being the Norman Hsu-ponzi scheme to use the illegal 'pyramid' technique to raise millions of dollars that would be donated to Hillary's Senate and Presidential campaigns in the names of thousands of donors who would contribute nothing from their own pockets.
The thing that adds shock-value to the story is that Hsu had been a fugitive from justice for nearly 15 years--a decade and a half during which Hsu played cozy with the Clintons while developing further illegal schemes to pad their pockets with dirty campaign cash.
Further, a man by the name of Peter Franklin Paul, a former crony of Bill and Hillary Clinton, filed a civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons claiming that both committed felonies in agreeing to a massive $17 million dollar deal in which the Clintons would promote Paul's entertainment company in exchange for stock, cash options, and large contributions to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senatorial campaign.
Paul introduced a videotape which he claims is evidence that the Clintons engaged in illegal activity, which includes Bill Clinton allegedly destroying Paul's entertainment company in order to get out of the $17 million dollar deal.
The video also allegedly shows that Hillary Clinton had direct knowledge and input into a Hollywood fundraiser organized by Paul at which Hillary was seen and heard engaging in direct solicitation of campaign funds in excess of the $25,000 per person limit--a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
This particular case went to trial in the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, two weeks ago. A ruling will be issued in 90 days.
The sleaze factor has always been a ticking time-bomb for Hillary Clinton, as any number of scandals both large and small have the potential for blowing up in her face at any moment in time.
So far she has remained relatively unscathed. If she continues to escape personal culpability in the scandals swirling around her, there is no reason to believe she will not sail to the nomination. The speculation begins at the point that one of these scandals torpedoes the Clinton campaign into oblivion. What then?
It would be much too easy to discount the strength of Barack Obama. While Obama's problems as a candidate begin to multiply if he makes it to the general election, those problems are no problem for most Democratic Party activists, who would likely hand him the nomination in the event that Hillary implodes.
He rings all the right bells for the Party faithful, particularly the powerful leftwing. He is anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and he has rolled out a trillion dollar tax increase to pay for socialized medicine and a myriad of programs that will vastly expand the scope and size of government.
If Hillary falters, expect the Dems to turn to Obama. If she prevails, he will likely be her running mate.
Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro knighted the 'dream ticket' last month as he gave his blessing to such a pairing, stating it would be good for America and good for Cuba.
If, however, Obama turns out to be the nominee, look for someone like Bill Richardson to be chosen as running mate in order to provide balance to the ticket. As it stands now Richardson is a long shot for the nomination, but his stock rises in the event that Hillary is forced to drop out of the race. The Dems could well turn to him instead of Obama, although at this point we do not see that happening.
As for the rest in the Democrats' field of candidates, for all intents and purposes they can fold up their tents and head home. We see no reason for hope at this point for Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, or Gravel. And the time is growing short. January 1 will mark the beginning of the primary season in America.
Thus, it is do or die time. Unless one of the dark horses in the race exhibits a miraculous up-surge in support and campaign cash in the final quarter of 2007, we can look for at least five of these candidates to begin dropping by the wayside.
But there is still that nagging question concerning Hillary--what if?
Certainly this would be the most plausible scenario. From the very start the Democratic nomination has been Hillary's to lose. She has been planning for this moment at least as far back as the end of her husband's second term, and many claim this has been her dream since her days as a lawyer in Arkansas.
While we tend to agree with the conventional wisdom that Hillary will receive her coronation at the Democratic Convention next summer, there are some significant landmines that could blow up her face at any moment, thus sending the conventional wisdom downward in a deathly tailspin.
Several campaign finance scandals lurk just behind her in the shadows, the latest being the Norman Hsu-ponzi scheme to use the illegal 'pyramid' technique to raise millions of dollars that would be donated to Hillary's Senate and Presidential campaigns in the names of thousands of donors who would contribute nothing from their own pockets.
The thing that adds shock-value to the story is that Hsu had been a fugitive from justice for nearly 15 years--a decade and a half during which Hsu played cozy with the Clintons while developing further illegal schemes to pad their pockets with dirty campaign cash.
Further, a man by the name of Peter Franklin Paul, a former crony of Bill and Hillary Clinton, filed a civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons claiming that both committed felonies in agreeing to a massive $17 million dollar deal in which the Clintons would promote Paul's entertainment company in exchange for stock, cash options, and large contributions to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senatorial campaign.
Paul introduced a videotape which he claims is evidence that the Clintons engaged in illegal activity, which includes Bill Clinton allegedly destroying Paul's entertainment company in order to get out of the $17 million dollar deal.
The video also allegedly shows that Hillary Clinton had direct knowledge and input into a Hollywood fundraiser organized by Paul at which Hillary was seen and heard engaging in direct solicitation of campaign funds in excess of the $25,000 per person limit--a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.
This particular case went to trial in the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, two weeks ago. A ruling will be issued in 90 days.
The sleaze factor has always been a ticking time-bomb for Hillary Clinton, as any number of scandals both large and small have the potential for blowing up in her face at any moment in time.
So far she has remained relatively unscathed. If she continues to escape personal culpability in the scandals swirling around her, there is no reason to believe she will not sail to the nomination. The speculation begins at the point that one of these scandals torpedoes the Clinton campaign into oblivion. What then?
It would be much too easy to discount the strength of Barack Obama. While Obama's problems as a candidate begin to multiply if he makes it to the general election, those problems are no problem for most Democratic Party activists, who would likely hand him the nomination in the event that Hillary implodes.
He rings all the right bells for the Party faithful, particularly the powerful leftwing. He is anti-war, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and he has rolled out a trillion dollar tax increase to pay for socialized medicine and a myriad of programs that will vastly expand the scope and size of government.
If Hillary falters, expect the Dems to turn to Obama. If she prevails, he will likely be her running mate.
Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro knighted the 'dream ticket' last month as he gave his blessing to such a pairing, stating it would be good for America and good for Cuba.
If, however, Obama turns out to be the nominee, look for someone like Bill Richardson to be chosen as running mate in order to provide balance to the ticket. As it stands now Richardson is a long shot for the nomination, but his stock rises in the event that Hillary is forced to drop out of the race. The Dems could well turn to him instead of Obama, although at this point we do not see that happening.
As for the rest in the Democrats' field of candidates, for all intents and purposes they can fold up their tents and head home. We see no reason for hope at this point for Dodd, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, or Gravel. And the time is growing short. January 1 will mark the beginning of the primary season in America.
Thus, it is do or die time. Unless one of the dark horses in the race exhibits a miraculous up-surge in support and campaign cash in the final quarter of 2007, we can look for at least five of these candidates to begin dropping by the wayside.
But there is still that nagging question concerning Hillary--what if?
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 9/4/07
Scroll down for the news:
Images and graphics courtesy of A Human Right.
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The Bitch Girls note that there is simply no pleasing the tree-huggers, and here is an example:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7357
The Bitch Girls also comment on the Federalist Society debate on the Parker D.C. case:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7354
Of Arms and the Law posts VERY interesting data showing the profile of homicide victims:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/09/profile_of_homi.php
Random Ramblings of a Republitarian has this gem entitled, 'NRA, Gun Guys, and Lunacy':
http://republitarians.blogspot.com/2007/09/nra-gun-guys-and-lunacy.html
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel post a brief video of their visit to the shooting range over the weekend:
http://capnbob.us/blog/2007/09/04/hot-shots/
Mike McCarville has the New York Daily News editorial on the candidacy of Fred Thompson:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-york-daily-news-thompsons-candidacy.html
Triticale blogs on a most disturbing phenomenon that happened right here in America, reminiscent of the infamous Nazi demand to citizens in Europe, 'Show me your papers':
http://triticale.mu.nu/archives/239105.php
Alphecca says that Mayor Fenty of D.C. makes a poor case in defending his decision to appeal the Parker case to the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=384
Alphecca also points out the complete fallacy of the argument of a Canadian writer who claims that Canada's system of checking the mental health stability of gun buyers is superior to that of the U.S.:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=383
Blogonomicon says that Concealed Carry Magazine has a great interview that makes for good reading:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-with-michael-debose-in-uscca.html
Say Uncle points to commentary on the so-called 'gun culture':
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/09/04/another_fisking/
Snow Flakes in Hell has an example of blatant political pandering to religious folk on the part of Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson (and you won't believe what Richardson actually said):
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1469
The War on Guns has the latest update on the political aspirations of Ryan Horsley, as well as the latest developments in Idaho concerning the Senate seat of Larry Craig:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/09/ryan-horsley-for-congress.html
John Lott reports that gun crime in the U.K. is soaring. Gee, I thought that wasn't supposed to happen when a society bans guns:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/09/uk-gun-crime-soaring-labor-government.html
The Volokh Conspiracy reviews a great new book on global warming entitled, 'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming':
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_02-2007_09_08.shtml#1188911901
Volokh also has updated information on the D.C. government's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Second Amendment and the D.C. gun ban:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_02-2007_09_08.shtml#1188921871
The Captain's Quarters has the latest on the Hillary Clinton-fundraising scandal that just keeps getting deeper by the day, although you would never know it if you listen to the mainstream media:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012463.php
Images and graphics courtesy of A Human Right.
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The Bitch Girls note that there is simply no pleasing the tree-huggers, and here is an example:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7357
The Bitch Girls also comment on the Federalist Society debate on the Parker D.C. case:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7354
Of Arms and the Law posts VERY interesting data showing the profile of homicide victims:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/09/profile_of_homi.php
Random Ramblings of a Republitarian has this gem entitled, 'NRA, Gun Guys, and Lunacy':
http://republitarians.blogspot.com/2007/09/nra-gun-guys-and-lunacy.html
Cap'n Bob and the Damsel post a brief video of their visit to the shooting range over the weekend:
http://capnbob.us/blog/2007/09/04/hot-shots/
Mike McCarville has the New York Daily News editorial on the candidacy of Fred Thompson:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-york-daily-news-thompsons-candidacy.html
Triticale blogs on a most disturbing phenomenon that happened right here in America, reminiscent of the infamous Nazi demand to citizens in Europe, 'Show me your papers':
http://triticale.mu.nu/archives/239105.php
Alphecca says that Mayor Fenty of D.C. makes a poor case in defending his decision to appeal the Parker case to the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=384
Alphecca also points out the complete fallacy of the argument of a Canadian writer who claims that Canada's system of checking the mental health stability of gun buyers is superior to that of the U.S.:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=383
Blogonomicon says that Concealed Carry Magazine has a great interview that makes for good reading:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-with-michael-debose-in-uscca.html
Say Uncle points to commentary on the so-called 'gun culture':
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/09/04/another_fisking/
Snow Flakes in Hell has an example of blatant political pandering to religious folk on the part of Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson (and you won't believe what Richardson actually said):
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1469
The War on Guns has the latest update on the political aspirations of Ryan Horsley, as well as the latest developments in Idaho concerning the Senate seat of Larry Craig:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/09/ryan-horsley-for-congress.html
John Lott reports that gun crime in the U.K. is soaring. Gee, I thought that wasn't supposed to happen when a society bans guns:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/09/uk-gun-crime-soaring-labor-government.html
The Volokh Conspiracy reviews a great new book on global warming entitled, 'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming':
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_02-2007_09_08.shtml#1188911901
Volokh also has updated information on the D.C. government's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Second Amendment and the D.C. gun ban:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_02-2007_09_08.shtml#1188921871
The Captain's Quarters has the latest on the Hillary Clinton-fundraising scandal that just keeps getting deeper by the day, although you would never know it if you listen to the mainstream media:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012463.php
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 7/31/07
Scroll down for the news:
Here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
The Volokh Conspiracy has a timely article on the perils of so-called 'hate crimes' legislation:
Speaking of hate crimes, A Keyboard and a .45 shows evidence that censorship is involved in the debate over hate crimes legislation, which is a First Amendment issue (and this eventually impacts Second Amendment issues as well):
Alphecca reports that the Los Angeles Times thinks that the notion of the Second Amendment being an 'individual right' is a radical idea. ROFL!! I suppose the imbeciles never read the Federalist Papers or the writings of Jefferson or any of the Framers! Read this, but be ready to get boiling mad:
Alphecca also reports that the nation of England is having a hissy fit over the fact that Olympic shooters are being granted a temporary exemption from the country's anti-handgun laws (I am continually embarrassed by the home country's incessant irrationality about such things):
The Buckeye Firearms Association says that the Castle Doctrine bill is gaining support in Ohio:
Say Uncle reports that yet another gun dealer has been targeted by the ATF:
Snow Flakes in Hell has more on the demise of the Brady Campaign's blog:
The Bitch Girls have a few choice words for Hillary Clinton's proposal to take tax dollars to create a national academy to 'train young people for public service'--which is Hillary-speak for taking kids and making them socialists who wish to expand big government:
Nicki at The Liberty Zone provides excellent commentary on Switzerland's new proposal for gun control--the first attempt at such a thing in the nation's history:
The McCarville Report states that Congress recently pulled a fast one on its supposed attempt to 'pass earmark reform legislation,' as it promised to do during the 2006 election cycle. Apparently, the Democrats were all talk, for now the new legislation does absolutely nothing to address earmarks, much to the chagrin of Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn:
Red's Trading Post provides information on several ways we can help with the costs of his legal defense against the ATF, which will exceed $90,000.00. As you can see, unless a person is independently wealthy, there is no way one can afford such an expense. And the ATF apparently has no plans on letting up on their relentless and LAWLESS persecution of Red's:
Speaking of the ATF, The War on Guns reports that the oppressive, jackbooted thug unit of the Justice Department has shown absolutely no signs of backing down on its war against gun owners and dealers:
Of Arms and the Law says that Bill Richardson has flip-flopped on his views on gun shows. As I have said all along, that weasel is no more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton:
Open Carry has a thread on their forum you are going to love. It concerns the ATF and its vendetta:
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Campaign Fundraising: Who's Ahead So Far?
Washington, DC (TLS). With precious time ticking away as we draw ever closer to that important but early deadline of 1/1/08, Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates are reporting their fundraising totals for the second quarter.
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Never before in a campaign has money been so vitally important this early. And it is way too early, indeed. Yet, in order to be competitive in the early 2008 primaries, each of the candidates will need at least 100 million bucks on hand.
We can thank the masterminds of both Parties for setting up this scenario, moving state primaries earlier and earlier supposedly giving their states more clout. What they may succeed in doing instead is making the electorate totally sick of politics a year ahead of the election.
Nonetheless, this is the situation we have, and we must deal with it.
So, who is ahead so far?
Republican campaign contributions are lackluster. This is due in part to a fairly unpopular President who continues to make gargantuan mistakes, all in the name of attempting to secure a positive 'legacy.' The other factor is Fred Thompson.
And this points to a much deeper problem. The present field of candidates are not catching on with the Party's base, and thus, most are holding on to their money until Fred Thompson makes his announcement.
Among the announced Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are still the top three, although McCain's 2nd quarter totals were totally disappointing, leading the candidate to cut campaign staff. Although Romney's totals look fairly good, his 2nd quarter was not up to par with his 1st quarter totals, and the candidate loaned personal cash to his campaign. Giuliani still leads the pack with a steady and consistent stream of contributions.
Giuliani's 2nd quarter totals were approximately equal to his 1st quarter totals, bringing his grand total to over 32 million.
While the Ron Paul campaign claims it has more cash on hand than McCain, in terms of totals raised so far Dr. Paul is not in the top tier. When his 1st and 2nd quarter totals are combined he comes up with roughly 2.5 million in campaign funds.
However, Paul runs a very frugal campaign. He rarely travels to campaign on the stump, and most of his funds are raised on the Internet. Thus, the candidate can make a couple of million go a very long way, and he doesn't have to worry about overhead that eats through money faster than Michael Moore can inhale four Big Macs from Mickey D's.
Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee appear to be in a dead-heat with regard to funds, and the rest of the 2nd tier lags far behind.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the 2nd quarter, raising 32.5 million. This means that he is now ahead of Hillary for the year, raising 55.7 million as compared to her 53 million.
John Edwards comes in third with a lackluster 9 million, followed by Bill Richardson with 7.2 million.
Although the money has taken on more importance than normal given the unusually early primaries, it is nonetheless common in campaigns for candidates who have the most money to lose in the actual vote counts. This would give hope to candidates such as Bill Richardson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Mike Huckabee.
Here is a quick wrap-up of the top fundraisers so far, in order of their year-to-date totals:
REPUBLICANS
**Rudy Giuliani
**Mitt Romney
**John McCain
**Ron Paul
**Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee
**Sam Brownback
**Jim Gilmore
**Tom Tancredo
**Tommy Thompson
DEMOCRATS
**Barack Obama
**Hillary Clinton
**John Edwards
**Bill Richardson
**Chris Dodd
**Joe Biden
**Dennis Kucinich
**Mike Gravel
Friday, April 27, 2007
Ratings of Democratic Presidential Candidates
Orangeburg, SC (TLS). The first major debate of the upcoming campaign cycle took place tonight in Orangeburg, South Carolina, at the campus of a traditionally black college, South Carolina State University. The University has a first class facility that only bolstered its reputation, and the debate was professionally conducted.
The Democratic candidates gathered on the stage to discuss the major issues of the day and to present their views about America's future.
The Liberty Sphere has rated each of these candidates as a service to those who study politics and public discourse, and to those who are honestly seeking clarification on a myriad of issues that can appear daunting and confusing.
According to the mission statement of The Liberty Sphere, we are here to advocate for groups, candidates, Parties, and organizations that promote human liberty all around the world. Thus, the heart of our rating system revolves around the candidates' views on those issues that we deem to be essential to human liberty.
More about that in a moment.
First, however, we would like to rate the candidates in tonight's debate based upon the strength of their presentation alone. A central element to being a good leader is being a great communicator. We will first rate the candidates based upon their style, manner of presentation, clarity, persuasiveness, and that often elusive quality of ANSWERING THE QUESTION that is posed.
Based upon our analysis of these elements of communication, we feel that John Edwards was strongest. He rarely dodged the question, although he did so a couple of times, and his style of communication was relaxed, succinct, and substantive, all encapsulated in a pleasant, deliberative demeanor that came across very well.
Three candidates tied for second place when it comes to strength of presentation...Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich. Each of these presented their case very well, but none came up to the level of Edwards.
In third place is Chris Dodd, who is no slouch as a debater but who often came across this evening as a bit tentative at times.
Fourth is Hillary Clinton. Her performance was predictably lackluster and did nothing to change the opinions that have already been formed of her. To those who love her, she did nothing to disappoint. To those who dislike her, she did nothing to persuade the leery.
Surprisingly, Barack Hussein Obama came in fifth. Obama was unusually ill-prepared in our view. He seemed to strain for his sentences, coming off as rather hesitant, disjointed, haphazard, and lacking in his usual energy and charisma. One wonders if this was simply a bad night for Obama...one of those days when a person is off their game, or if more significantly, being on the same stage with Democratic veterans was sufficiently intimidating to knock him off-balance.
But for whatever reason, Obama certainly did not help his case at all this evening, and if anything he may have hurt himself with many voters.
Coming in last is the former Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, who is such an unknown that his performance would be totally unremarkable, except for his striking anger and vitriol. The candidate came across as a gruff, angry, and irritable curmudgeon who is a bit frightening.
Now, on to the more substantive issues.
In rating the candidates in tonight's debate, The Liberty Sphere looked at 8 key issues that are central to the cause of liberty--national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
National defense is the ONLY thing mandated by the U.S. Constitution as a legitimate role of government, other than to protect and preserve basic human freedom. Without a strong defense, we cannot expect to maintain liberty in a world full of oppression and danger.
Taxes can be oppressive or they can be an adjunct to a healthy society. When taxes become so burdensome that average citizens feel oppressed, with little or no recourse or adequate representation, then liberty suffers. Currently the U.S. Tax Code is oppressive by its sheer size, scope, and contradictory provisions, leaving the electorate with nothing but mass confusion. The IRS is the single biggest example of taxation without representation in America today.
Healthcare is an issue that collectivists are using presently to take away more of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If this nation goes with a 'nationalized healthcare plan' funded by tax dollars, all freedom of choice goes out the window both on the part of patients AND doctors.
Gun rights are paramount in the preservation of liberty. Enough said.
Abortion is an issue of human freedom due to the fact that no government can maintain the moral authority to govern if it sanctions atrocity, murder, and barbarism. The Supreme Court passed an important corrective to absolute abortion rights by placing rational restrictions on the practice based upon the view that even medical procedures should be humane and not barbaric. Partial birth abortion is simply barbaric, and every single Democratic candidate stated on the record that they oppose the recent Court decision to ban this blood-thirsty, savage procedure.
This alone was enough to rob every single candidate of a top rating.
America must fight the War on Terror with the resolve to win or else we will not exist as a nation. Our enemies have sworn our annihilation. To back off, cut and run, or proclaim defeat is to accept our demise. We can do much better. The Democrats have little to offer in this most important endeavor.
U.S. foreign policy is crucial in the preservation of liberty. Do we stand with the EU with its Leftist leanings? Do we continue to support the U.N., which has become an organization of murderous thugs that bash America constantly? Or do we stand with our friends, such as NATO, Israel, Australia, Japan, and the eastern European block?
The support of Leftists and their anti-American rhetoric is a prescription for disaster for liberty.
Finally, without immigration control the nation is lost as a bastion of freedom. We CANNOT continue to allow non-citizens to come here illegally, benefit from our way of life without a willingness to adopt our language and customs, and make a mockery out of law-abiding immigrants who obey the law and go through the legal procedure for becoming citizens.
We MUST begin to enforce the nation's immigration laws, or else every single freedom for which our forefathers fought will come to naught.
Thus, based on these 8 key, critical issues that are central to the cause of liberty, The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates as follows, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best score), based upon tonight's debate and the previously-stated views of the candidates:
Governor Bill Richardson--6
Former Senator John Edwards--4
Senator Hillary Clinton--2
Senator Joseph Biden--2
Senator Chris Dodd--2
Rep. Dennis Kucinich--1
Senator Barach Obama--1
Former Senator Mike Gravel--1
As you will note from our ratings, of the 8 Democratic candidates in tonight's debate, Bill Richardson rates way ahead of the pack on the issues that impact liberty. But even then he has rated only a '6.' Thus, while there are aspects of Richardson's views that are encouraging, such as his stance on gun rights, there is actually little to recommend any of the Democrats thus far as potential guardians of our precious liberties.
The Democratic candidates gathered on the stage to discuss the major issues of the day and to present their views about America's future.
The Liberty Sphere has rated each of these candidates as a service to those who study politics and public discourse, and to those who are honestly seeking clarification on a myriad of issues that can appear daunting and confusing.
According to the mission statement of The Liberty Sphere, we are here to advocate for groups, candidates, Parties, and organizations that promote human liberty all around the world. Thus, the heart of our rating system revolves around the candidates' views on those issues that we deem to be essential to human liberty.
More about that in a moment.
First, however, we would like to rate the candidates in tonight's debate based upon the strength of their presentation alone. A central element to being a good leader is being a great communicator. We will first rate the candidates based upon their style, manner of presentation, clarity, persuasiveness, and that often elusive quality of ANSWERING THE QUESTION that is posed.
Based upon our analysis of these elements of communication, we feel that John Edwards was strongest. He rarely dodged the question, although he did so a couple of times, and his style of communication was relaxed, succinct, and substantive, all encapsulated in a pleasant, deliberative demeanor that came across very well.
Three candidates tied for second place when it comes to strength of presentation...Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich. Each of these presented their case very well, but none came up to the level of Edwards.
In third place is Chris Dodd, who is no slouch as a debater but who often came across this evening as a bit tentative at times.
Fourth is Hillary Clinton. Her performance was predictably lackluster and did nothing to change the opinions that have already been formed of her. To those who love her, she did nothing to disappoint. To those who dislike her, she did nothing to persuade the leery.
Surprisingly, Barack Hussein Obama came in fifth. Obama was unusually ill-prepared in our view. He seemed to strain for his sentences, coming off as rather hesitant, disjointed, haphazard, and lacking in his usual energy and charisma. One wonders if this was simply a bad night for Obama...one of those days when a person is off their game, or if more significantly, being on the same stage with Democratic veterans was sufficiently intimidating to knock him off-balance.
But for whatever reason, Obama certainly did not help his case at all this evening, and if anything he may have hurt himself with many voters.
Coming in last is the former Senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, who is such an unknown that his performance would be totally unremarkable, except for his striking anger and vitriol. The candidate came across as a gruff, angry, and irritable curmudgeon who is a bit frightening.
Now, on to the more substantive issues.
In rating the candidates in tonight's debate, The Liberty Sphere looked at 8 key issues that are central to the cause of liberty--national defense, taxes, healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war on terror, U.S. foreign policy, and immigration control.
National defense is the ONLY thing mandated by the U.S. Constitution as a legitimate role of government, other than to protect and preserve basic human freedom. Without a strong defense, we cannot expect to maintain liberty in a world full of oppression and danger.
Taxes can be oppressive or they can be an adjunct to a healthy society. When taxes become so burdensome that average citizens feel oppressed, with little or no recourse or adequate representation, then liberty suffers. Currently the U.S. Tax Code is oppressive by its sheer size, scope, and contradictory provisions, leaving the electorate with nothing but mass confusion. The IRS is the single biggest example of taxation without representation in America today.
Healthcare is an issue that collectivists are using presently to take away more of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. If this nation goes with a 'nationalized healthcare plan' funded by tax dollars, all freedom of choice goes out the window both on the part of patients AND doctors.
Gun rights are paramount in the preservation of liberty. Enough said.
Abortion is an issue of human freedom due to the fact that no government can maintain the moral authority to govern if it sanctions atrocity, murder, and barbarism. The Supreme Court passed an important corrective to absolute abortion rights by placing rational restrictions on the practice based upon the view that even medical procedures should be humane and not barbaric. Partial birth abortion is simply barbaric, and every single Democratic candidate stated on the record that they oppose the recent Court decision to ban this blood-thirsty, savage procedure.
This alone was enough to rob every single candidate of a top rating.
America must fight the War on Terror with the resolve to win or else we will not exist as a nation. Our enemies have sworn our annihilation. To back off, cut and run, or proclaim defeat is to accept our demise. We can do much better. The Democrats have little to offer in this most important endeavor.
U.S. foreign policy is crucial in the preservation of liberty. Do we stand with the EU with its Leftist leanings? Do we continue to support the U.N., which has become an organization of murderous thugs that bash America constantly? Or do we stand with our friends, such as NATO, Israel, Australia, Japan, and the eastern European block?
The support of Leftists and their anti-American rhetoric is a prescription for disaster for liberty.
Finally, without immigration control the nation is lost as a bastion of freedom. We CANNOT continue to allow non-citizens to come here illegally, benefit from our way of life without a willingness to adopt our language and customs, and make a mockery out of law-abiding immigrants who obey the law and go through the legal procedure for becoming citizens.
We MUST begin to enforce the nation's immigration laws, or else every single freedom for which our forefathers fought will come to naught.
Thus, based on these 8 key, critical issues that are central to the cause of liberty, The Liberty Sphere rates the Democratic candidates as follows, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best score), based upon tonight's debate and the previously-stated views of the candidates:
Governor Bill Richardson--6
Former Senator John Edwards--4
Senator Hillary Clinton--2
Senator Joseph Biden--2
Senator Chris Dodd--2
Rep. Dennis Kucinich--1
Senator Barach Obama--1
Former Senator Mike Gravel--1
As you will note from our ratings, of the 8 Democratic candidates in tonight's debate, Bill Richardson rates way ahead of the pack on the issues that impact liberty. But even then he has rated only a '6.' Thus, while there are aspects of Richardson's views that are encouraging, such as his stance on gun rights, there is actually little to recommend any of the Democrats thus far as potential guardians of our precious liberties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)