ConservativeINC

August 6, 2008

Hillary Clinton Could Bring Democrat Nomination to a Vote

Filed under: Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Elections — admin @ 2:53 pm

Calm down Hillary Clinton supporters, which is about half the dem. party after all, she’s not going to be your nominee. But the threat of throwing the party into disarray gives her power. She’s playing the part of “if I can’t have it, no one can.” By forcing a vote, it is reasoned, she would be reopening “old” wounds and hurting Obama’s chances.

Sources close to both Obama and Clinton told ABC News that the New York senator is highly unlikely to allow her name to be formally submitted for a roll-call vote on the convention floor. The Obama campaign wants to avoid such a vote, since it would underscore the party’s splits and remind voters of the divisive primary campaign between the two Democrats.

The refusal to publicly announce her intentions is widely seen as a bargaining chip Clinton is holding on to as party officials negotiate logistics regarding her convention speech and other activities, according to several Democrats who are closely involved in the matter.

Clinton plans to hold a Web chat with supporters Thursday afternoon where she might clarify her convention role. In announcing the Web chat, she urged her supporters to continue to stay tuned to her Web site for updates about her convention activities.

But the very fact that details of her convention role remain unresolved less than three weeks before the Democrats descend upon Denver is a fresh sign of the difficulties the party will face at a convention when nearly half the delegates were chosen because of their support for a candidate who will not be the nominee.

So, is there anything to this festering support of Mrs. Clinton putting this thing to a vote? Glad I asked - because, yes, there is a little something to this. A female delegate of Mrs. Clinton’s from Oregon “…is gathering the 200 signatures from delegates that Clinton would need in case she decides she wants to be part of convention balloting.” Here’s what she has to say:

“We will have this in hand for Sen. Clinton, should this be needed,” said Castner, who said that she’s already gathered about half the necessary signatures.

Castner said she and many other Clinton supporters will only feel as if their voices are being heard if they are allowed to vote for Clinton on a first ballot.

“It’s been a tradition since the late 1800s — it’s a nominating convention, you vote, you nominate someone, and you come out unified. I don’t see how alienating 1,800 delegates gives you party unity when we walk out of the stadium,” she said. “Hillary delegates feel like we’re not welcome, needed, or valued.”

“I cannot believe that Sen. Clinton, after putting in that much time, energy and effort, would just say, ’ Nah, take my name out,’ “ Castner said.

BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Take Me To Your Homepage!

AddThis Feed Button




July 30, 2008

Obama’s “Economic Justice” Comes from his Socialist Past

Filed under: Statism, Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Elections — admin @ 3:54 pm

a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as “liberal,” let alone socialist.

But is that true?

A careful reading of Obama’s first memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as “Frank” — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his “subversive,” “un-American activities.”

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis’ feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

“They’ll train you so good,” he said, “you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**.”

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences “for inspiration,” Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps, becoming a “community organizer” in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman’s a disciple of the late Saul “The Red” Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the “Rules for Radicals” and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama’s early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to “bring about real change” — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky’s “agitation” tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama’s Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words “Power Analysis” and “Relationships Built on Self Interest” — terms right out of Alinsky’s rule book.)

So, no, it’s not true. Senator Obama is, based on his cumulative voting record, the most leftist Senator in America.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he’s the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be “more left,” as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama’s voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

Just thought you wanted to know the real Obama. Have a nice day.
BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Take Me To Your Homepage!

AddThis Feed Button




July 5, 2008

Al Qaeda out of Iraq

Filed under: War, Wolves in Sheeps Clothing — admin @ 4:33 pm

In a joint effort between the Iraqis and the Americans al Qaeda in Iraq has lost its last stronghold in the city of Mosul. Here, from the July 6th Edition of the (London) Times:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.

And in the Baghdad region the Iraqis have cracked down on the Shi’ites:

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.

“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”

The Iraq victory deniers in the comment section for this story predictably went to one of their favorite talking points: “al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before the war.”

Alright, let’s just accept this premise (even though it woefully misrepresents the facts). So what?

Al Qaeda is, I mean, was in Iraq. They were there because they knew that a failed Iraq meant a victory for them. In fact, I think it is safe to say that al Qaeda put most of their marbles into working towards a failed Iraq.

Now they’re almost completely wiped out. Gone.

And this brings me to an extremely important point. Those who have lead the vanguard against the War in Iraq hate America and wants Iraq to fail. They will never acquiesce the fact that things are improving there by always fighting old and tired battles. These men and women would rather have an Iraq ruled by a man who has tried to kill a president, taken over a neighboring country, fought a war with another, supported terrorists with money, and many, many more heinous things. They would rather have Saddam Hussein in power than a democracy that is trying its hardest to make things work.

The defeat of al Qaeda and other extremist elements in Iraq is undeniably a good thing for Iraq and its supporters. It just makes you wonder who’s side these people who continuously undermine the war effort in Iraq are really on. I’ve made up my mind, have you? BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Take Me To Your Homepage!

AddThis Feed Button




« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress