Goodfellow Jon Corzine has stolen and wasted the money of a lot of people. Then, after he was no longer Governor of New Jersey, he lost the money of a lot of other people. Corzine’s MF Global went belly up and there is a lot of money that can’t be accounted for. Billions of dollars in people’s money vanished in thin air faster than an Obama grant to a green energy company.

Corzine was grilled on Capitol Hill and some of that grilling came from fellow Democrats. Since it is not unusual for large sums of money to disappear when a Democrat is involved one must assume that the grilling was because it is an election year and Democrats need to play their election year game of pretending to look out for people.

However, it appears as if one Democrat, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, was relentless for another reason. Corzine did not donate money to her reelection campaign even though she called several times a week asking for donations.

The Democratic senator who savaged Jon Corzine at a high-profile Capitol Hill hearing this week had another reason to go hard on her former colleague — she recently pressed him for campaign contributions but didn’t get any.

“She would literally call once every two or three weeks,” one Corzine intimate said of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (DMich.). New York Post

Now we know why she was so relentless. She did not get her money. The Wiseguy Corzine did not pay tribute to his former colleague so she took him to task.

There is no doubt that Corzine should be in jail with others who have bilked people out of money.

And when he goes there are 535 members of the US Congress who should join him. That number would go way up if we could get those who no longer serve in Congress but are just as guilty of bilking us out of our money.

Perhaps we should set the people in Gitmo free in some country in the Middle East and send all the Congress critters, past and present, there so taxpayers could have a respite from the daily crimes perpetrated on them.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

And then Stabenow and Corzine would have lots of alone time to discuss things.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Joe Biden said that people who did not pay their fair share were unpatriotic. He told us it was time for everyone to pay their fair share. What he meant to say was that the wealthy, the ones who pay most of the federal taxes in this country, had to pay more while 47% of wage earners paid no federal taxes. I want to ensure that I point out that it is federal taxes because even though we discuss federal officials and their desire for more taxes to the federal government there are still people who are a little slow and will tell me that all wage earners pay Social Security or some moronic thing.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton is on the bandwagon again and she said the rich do not pay enough taxes. There are quite a few wealthy liberals who agree with her but strangely enough, none of them write checks to the government for the increase they think they should pay.

Make no mistake about this. Any citizen can write a check for any amount (that he can afford) to the Treasury in order to pay off the debt. If liberals think they should pay more in taxes then they can write a check to pay more. None of them do. You know that none of them do because if they did they would brag about it and it would run nonstop on the state run media. None of them have sent extra money and they all look for ways to reduce their tax burdens.

They want the rich to pay more but only the other rich people.

Clinton is a liberal moron (though she would have been better than Obama) and this is the creed that liberal morons live by. Tax the rich because even though they pay most of the federal taxes in this country they do not pay enough to satisfy the overlords in DC.

If you are a rich person and you agree with Clinton then take out your checkbook and write a hefty check to the Treasury. If you are a rich person who agrees with her and you do not do this then you are a hypocrite and need to stop calling for higher taxes because you really don’t want them.

If you are rich and don’t agree with Clinton then stop donating your money to any of the morons in DC. Especially ignore the requests of the liberals who want to raise your taxes.

It is time to stop feeding the beast.

And it is time for Hillary to write a big check to the Treasury.

As an aside, has she paid off her campaign debt yet? She is begging for others to pay her debt and she has over 100 million dollars in the bank. Isn’t amazing how she always wants to use someone else’s money?

Of course, her hubby made a deal with Obama to help with the cover-up of the Sestak bribe so maybe her debt will magically disappear.

Bill did not get involved for free…

Never surrender, never submit.

Campaign promises are easier to make than they are to keep and no sane person expects much from a politician once he wins office. Those promises become so yesterday as the politician works to keep the office he has obtained. During the next election cycle there are more promises, more people who believe them and then disappointment as the cycle starts over.

During the campaign last year, then candidate Obama, said that George Bush and John McCain became too focused on Iraq, a war he contends was wrong, and took their eye off Afghanistan. Obama told us that Afghanistan was the right war, that the bad guys must be defeated and that he would put less focus on Iraq and move the required number of troops to Afghanistan to win a war he claimed we had to win.

Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.

The proposed force increase – about 7,000 troops – is part of Obama’s plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

“As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan,” Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there,” Obama said.

Obama argued the emphasis on Iraq placed by the Bush administration – and supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain – stands in the way, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds CBS

This year Obama made it clear that he was still focused on Afghanistan and that winning there “[That] is a cause that could not be more just.

That was then and this is now and now contains a 180 degree turnabout from Mr. Obama. The guy who said that he had to earn the trust of the military and would listen to the commanders on the ground has turned a deaf ear to those very commanders now that he has “focused” on Afghanistan.

General Stanley Mcchrystal has stated that he needs about 30-40 thousand more troops and that the war could be lost in the next year if he does not get more manpower. This is in his assessment report that has been delayed (but leaked) and it is quite clear, the commander on the ground needs more boots on the ground.

The campaign Obama made it clear he would put resources in Afghanistan and he continued with that theme after his coronation. He shifted some troops and his half baked plan was put into action but it is not working. His commanders are asking for more troops and Obama is stonewalling them. It is reported that his peeps have asked that the Generals scrub the report because Obama is reluctant to send any more troops to Afghanistan.

The man who vowed to do what it takes to win, who said Bush took his eye off the ball, who said that he would listen to the commanders, who said that winning was a cause that could not be more just and that has to be our BIGGEST national security issue, is turning his back on the troops and waffling on honoring his commitment to listen to the commanders and to provide resources to win.

No one expects a Democrat to have the will to fight because it is not in their blood. The only thing they will fight to the death for is their office and abortion. The country, not so much. The left has always thrown our military under the bus and Obama is no different. He wants one world order with a global community rather than keeping the separate and distinct identity that has made America the greatest nation on Earth.

But when that Democrat is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces he must, regardless of his personal feelings, do everything to support those troops. The politicians put the men and women who serve this country in harm’s way and it is their duty and they are obligated to give them everything they need to succeed. Failure should never be an option and neither should vacillating with resourcing the troops. The lack of forces could result in more deaths of US service personnel.

He talked like a Hawk but flies like a Dove, Obama lied. Let’s hope our troops don’t have to die because of it.

The only exit strategy is WINNING.

Resource the troops now.

Back during the campaign John McCain talked about taxing health care benefits provided by employers. I am not in favor of taxing benefits such as health care that employers provide and think it is counter productive. Taxing it would make employers less inclined to provide it. The left was not impressed with it either and Obama scoffed at the idea and called it a large increase on the middle class. Obama failed to mention that McCain intended to offset the tax with a tax credit for their health care.

The International Herald Tribune is reporting this regarding Obama’s position at the time:

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.

The article goes on to state that Obama might regret his position if he were to win and now it appears that their concern had merit. Barack Obama is open to taxing the health care benefits that employers provide as a way to obtain money to pay for those who do not have health care. Once again, this rookie is working to require those of us who pay our bills to pay the bills of others. We have to pay for their houses so why not their health care?

Obama, at the time of the campaign, called McCain’s proposal the the largest tax increase on the middle class in history but now it looks as if he is open to imposing the largest tax increase on the middle class in history. Once again we see that Obama is not doing what he promised. He is now aligning himself with the policy of a rival, a policy he clearly denounced.

Will the media pick this up and run with it? Will they denounce this and scream about how unfair it is? Will they attack Obama like they went after McCain?

Of course not and his toadies, some of whom comment here, will excuse this and say it is for the good of the nation. They will not look at it as a flip-flop, or worse a lie, but will instead discuss how much this guy cares for people.

I think Obama had these kinds of plans in mind when he was debating McCain. Obama wants to have all health care provided by the government and the way to do that is to destroy the private sector and force employers to abandon health care benefits for employees. If he intended to do this all along then he was lying back then.

One thing is certain, he described it as the largest tax increase on the middle class which means he is not being truthful when he says he will cut taxes for 95% of the people.

This is just another example of spreading the wealth. It is also another example of Obama not being able to do what he said or to stand up for what he said were his beliefs. He is a typical politician and this is not change we can believe in.

They are painting Republicans as the party of NO but it looks like Obama is the leader with NO (scruples, truth, or convictions).

I hope those of you who voted for this guy are learning something though I seriously doubt that you can teach them much. The Kool Aid is very strong.

Also:
NYT

Barack Obama likes to talk about how he has received so many donations under 200 dollars and all the regular people who are donating to his campaign. There are certainly quite a few people who donated $200 or less but they are not the people who make up the bulk of the donations.

Obama claims he is an outsider and that he is not taking money from special interests but there is no doubt that he is getting money from lawyers who work for companies that have lobbying branches, hedge fund managers, Hollywood (of course), and even BIG OIL (say it isn’t so). Obama has a number of bundlers who have raised $50,000 to $1 million. These are people who will expect something in return for their work and despite what Obama says, he knows it and he will give them what they want.

Obama, according to the Herald Tribune, developed a network of wealthy donors and other contacts when he was a crooked politician in Chicago and he cultivated those relationships until they grew into the money producing machine he has become. His ability to raise huge sums of money is why Obama broke his word on public financing of his campaign. I don’t know if I would call what he did a lie because I think he believed it when he said it but once he saw the huge sums roll in he got greedy and went back on his word. This is not a good character trait and not what I expect in a president. The only thing a man can give and that no one except him can take away is his word.

Don’t let Barack Hubris Obama fool you at all. He is nothing more than a typical politician. He will say or do anything to get elected and if he does there will be a bunch of people with their hands out for repayment. Even though Obambi says he will take on the lobbyists, I think it is likely he will take them on for work rather than to stop their influence peddling.

One more thing about donors. The totals Obama has reported are quite impressive but he did not do it with small donors, he did it with large bundlers. There is also an indication that he has accepted illegal donations from non citizens overseas. Two such donors are Palestinians living in Gaza in Hamas territory. In addition to their problem of not being legally eligible to donate, they also ended up giving well over the legal limit. How much of this is going on and how convenient Obama has held up the FEC appointments.

Obama has raised quite a bit of money and good for him. However, he got it from big donors. Regardless, with $340 million dollars donated to him, it is a sure sign that the economy is not really that bad.

Sieg Heil!

The Fuhrer, Barack Obama, spoke in Berlin to a crowd of people who interrupted his speech nearly 30 times with applause as he described ways to make America weaker and to spend more of her money on Socialism. The Fuhrer drew applause for expressing a desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons because the uneducated believe that, like with gun control, everyone will disarm. He drew applause for committing to spending our money on the global economy and on the hoax of global warming. The Fuhrer was in full swing and though he said it was not a campaign speech it was.

He started off by playing the race card. He told everyone that he did not look like the other Americans who had spoken there. He also intertwined memories of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in his speech so as to be on considered on the same level as they. He mentioned change, and hope as well as other catch phrases from his campaign like “this is our time.” For a Congressional fact finding mission this sure sounded like a campaign speech. I do not remember a fact finding mission ever having a speech of this magnitude in it so if it looks like a duck…

This was well staged to make Obama look like he has the credentials to run this country and that he is loved in Europe. We are supposed to come away thinking that Obama can unite the world and his speech addressed the global aspects of the world. He sounded like a one world order kind of guy. Obama mentioned how America was there for the Berlin airlift and how we got that wall removed. It is likely that these events would never have happened if Obama had been president at those moments in history because they were provocative and Obama wants to talk not provoke.

The interesting thing to me is that he came off looking like another speaker that drew large German crowds who interrupted him with applause. That speaker also talked about new world order and his party even has the word Socialist in it.

I was not impressed with the speech. It was a campaign speech designed to make a political hack with little experience look presidential. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

Transcript

I had the opportunity to attend a fund raiser for Andy Harris. Andy is running for Congress in Maryland’s 1^st Congressional District. I have been a supporter of Andy Harris since he announced he was running and, as many of you who read this blog know, I worked hard at exposing the failings of Wayne Gilchrest, the RINO who is currently the Representative from the 1^st. Harris beat Gilchrest by a pretty good margin.

Andy Harris is a true conservative but more than that, he is genuine. I met him tonight and I immediately felt that he was sincere, warm, dedicated, and committed. In other words, he wasn’t playing “politician”. He seems like a man of the people who has the best interests of the constituents at heart. It is common in the Army to call a great leader a soldier’s soldier. These are leaders who belonged to the soldiers, not the politicians. Omar Bradley was one such person. Andy Harris gives the impression of being the civilian equivalent of a soldier’s soldier in that he belongs to the people, not to the politicians or political machine. It would probably pain Andy to see the comparison to a soldier since he is an officer in the Naval reserve. Take heart Andy, it pains me every time Navy beats Army in football…

Former Governor Bob Ehrlich was there as well and he gave a nice talk. I met him and I, for the life of me, cannot figure out what Marylanders were thinking when they voted for Ehrlich’s opponent. I imagine there are quite a few people with a bit of buyer’s remorse right about now. Governor Ehrlich had some nice things to say about those of us in attendance and about Andy Harris.

I supported Andy Harris right out of the box because I listened to him and I read about him. He gave every appearance of being a true conservative and the kind of person we need to have in Congress. I worked to ensure his primary opponent was taken to task for of all his failings because I wanted to ensure a real conservative won that seat. I have to admit though, a little part of me was concerned that I might be backing someone who would turn out to be a typical politician (but nearly anything would be better than what we had).

After meeting Andy Harris tonight I no concerns about him whatsoever. I can say without reservation that this man is a genuine leader who will serve with honor and dignity. You could not ask to meet a nicer person. A big plus is that he is a doctor and not a lawyer. Congress has enough of them already.

Andy Harris has an interesting biography and I recommend you go to his site and read it. I am not permitted to solicit donations for any candidate so I will just say that if you are so inclined to donate to him, you can find the necessary information at his site.

Andy Harris in 08!

Hillary Clinton lied to America at least three times about being under sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia. When a pesky video of the trip showed a casual visit without the slightest hint of sniper fire or any other dangers, Hillary was forced to change course and she did so by suggesting that she had misspoken and that she was tired. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, reopened that painful incident by mentioning it and then lying about the lie. He stated that Hillary was tired after a long day and that she made a mistake at 11 pm. Her lie occurred in the morning, not the night.

Bill is out talking about Obama’s smoke and mirrors campaign and how the older voters would be too smart to fall for Obama and would gravitate to Hillary. Bill spent part of the time trying to ensure his legacy was left intact by comparing his years in office with those of George Bush. Bill wants us to think that his eight years were full of peace and prosperity while the Bush years have been full of war and economic disaster. Of course these claims require a willing suspension of disbelief, but the Clintons are great at rewriting history. In any event, Bill is counting on senior citizens to elect his wife when he recently said that they would be forgetful people (as is his wife):

Last week, however, Clinton seemed to suggest that older voters might be more absent-minded than wise. Defending Hillary Clinton’s faulty recollection of landing under sniper fire during a 1996 humanitarian visit to Bosnia, the former president said of her critics, “When they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11 o’clock at night, too.” Boston.com

I know that when people get older they sometimes have trouble remembering things. But this is Hillary Clinton we are talking about. Forgetting for a moment that she spoke in the morning and not at night (thus making Bill’s claims a lie), what does it say about Hillary if she is tired at 11 pm? For any other person we might say that it is not unusual but Hillary has already told us in one of her ads that she is ready to answer the phone at 3 am.

If Hillary is too tired at 11 pm and that is why she misspoke then how is she fit to answer that phone at 3 am? How will she be fresh and ready to answer the call without misspeaking or taking the wrong decisions? It would appear as if Hillary lied once again because in her commercial she is all dressed, make-up and jewelery in place and answering a phone to handle an emergency while the rest of us sleep under the blanket of protection she provides. However, in reality she and her husband have both admitted that she poops out by 11 pm and is not capable of competent thought at that time of night.

Her excuse for her lie contradicts the claims she made in the campaign ad. Bill and Hillary are used to having it both ways but during this campaign those two are yesterday’s news and people are much more critical. The MSM and the Democrats are only loyal to the moment and this moment belongs to Obama. The former Clinton supporters have jumped ship because there is a new kid in town. This means that the Clintons get tough scrutiny and in this case the lies keep getting exposed.

The Clintons can no longer have it both ways so either she was tired or she is ready to go at 3 am. I think she was tired and is not ready to go at any time. I also think her fatigue had nothing to do with what she said because it was a deliberate lie as was Bill’s assertion that she made the statement near midnight when she actually said it in the morning (and several other times in the past).

Maybe Obama can come up with an ad that says “It is 11 pm and there is an emergency. Do you want a tired old woman answering that phone and misspeaking us into a disaster?”

The Clintons are under a stronger microscope at this time. If Americans had paid this much attention when he ran for office the first time we would have never had the abomination that was his presidency. I hope America is smart enough not to make the same mistake twice.

Then again, Obama would be a worse disaster than either Clinton.

No matter what happens, we are so screwed…

Gloria Steinem, the aging feminazi, is on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton. While Steinem is out discussing the supposed qualifications of she who would be Queen, it boils down to one qualification and that is, Hillary is a woman. Steinem discusses the campaign and how Hillary is not given a fair chance or how the media is better to Obama or any of the other claims made by the Clinton apologists. She throws in a few of the references to male domination and all the other excuses that women use when they fail to achieve. Women have made quantum leaps with regard to equality in the workplace and in education. There are many women in institutes of higher learning and there are plenty in the workplace and they are protected under Equal Opportunity laws to such a great extent that they receive benefits of affirmative action. Women owned businesses receive special treatment so much so that contractors align with them in order to win competitive bids. This is not good enough for the feminist Steinem because, in her eyes, there must be sexism involved if Hillary is losing. Steinem goes so far as to indicate John McCain’s time as a POW was overrated and if he were a woman men would ask what she did wrong to get shot down and captured. I think we all remember this being the case with Jessica Lynch, who by the way, was rescued by a bunch of men.

Steinem, while claiming to be a feminist, is supporting a candidate who cried, who relied on a man (her husband), who debated by whining about getting questions first and who generally ran a poor campaign. Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead when this whole thing started and she was the presumptive nominee long before the contests began in earnest. The campaign process was a mere formality. Instead of sexism, isn’t it just possible that people do not think she would be a good president? Isn’t it possible that after the population had a chance to see Hillary on the campaign trail they were less enamored with her? Top this off with a candidate who has the ability to say absolutely nothing and still thrill people (especially women) and it spells disaster for any candidate regardless of that person’s sex.

The idea that Hillary is being rejected because of sexism is absolutely ludicrous but the mere suggestion shows that even staunch Democrats believe that their party is comprised of sexists. It is not the Republican Party that is giving the nod to Obama, it is the Democrats who are voting for him over the woman who has been dubbed the smartest woman in the world. The Democratic establishment has also recognized that it has racists in it because anyone who opposes Obama is tagged as a racist. Remember, this is all coming from the party of diversity and tolerance.

Hillary Clinton is being rejected because she is a polarizing person. She rubs people the wrong way and, when compared to Obama, her lack of personality is glaringly obvious. The suggestion that America rejects her because of her sex ignores the flaws of the person and lays blame on the voters who are obviously too stupid to see that she deserves to win. The fact that she is a woman does not qualify her for the job though Steinem would have us believe this. There are plenty of women in this country who would do an admirable job as President just as there are many blacks who would do an equally good job. Yes, America is ready for a black or a woman but we are not ready for this black or that woman, not because of those qualities but because of what they represent with regard to the issues.

Steinem believes that Hillary is the best candidate and that is her opinion. Just because people do not accept Hillary does not mean people are sexists any more than those who reject Obama are racists. Does this mean there is no racism or sexism? Certainly not. There are people who will not vote for either of these candidates based solely on their race or sex. I would bet though, there are more people who will vote FOR them based on these attributes than against and that is just as bad. Some however, will vote for a person based upon a perception of qualifications. In some cases it will be the lesser of two evils as it usually is in politics.

If Steinem wants a woman to win perhaps they should run one who can win. I would also wonder if Steinem would have the same feelings were the losing female candidate a Republican? BTW Gloria, I would vote for a Conservative woman or black person if I thought they would do the best job.

We have 300 million people in this country and these three are the best we can come up with? That, in and of itself, is depressing.

Related item:
Boston.com
Interesting Post:
Sonnabend

The race for the nomination in each party continues through this weekend in the lead up to Tsunami Tuesday where 21 states will cast their ballots. The NYT says that campaigning is furious over the final weekend. They must mean there is a lot of furor because of the races. However, the picture on the front of the Drudge Report made me think of a different Fuhrer. That picture, shown to the right, is a glimpse into the future if Hillary becomes the leader of America, or the formerly free world.

Hillary’s outbursts and demands for loyalty are well known as are the consequences of showing less than a complete and total lack of support for her. People are shunned from politics, embarrassed, belittled, chewed up and spit out when they dare to cross “The Leader.” Hillary stands for socialism and I would not be surprised if, a few years into her term, we don’t have school kids standing with similar salutes. They will be chanting Sieg Hill, Sieg Hill while the Fuhrer tells them how to be good little Socialists.

When they discuss campaign furor they are talking about everyone. When I hear furor I think fuhrer, because they are talking about Hillary.

“Sieg Hill, Heil Hillary, Sieg Hill”