CHANGE is a joke on the Democratic Party

Obama campaigned on a CHANGE ticket, but we got the first inkling that he was not really dedicated to CHANGE when he chose Washington insider, Joe Biden (aka 'Loose Change'), as his vice presidential candidate.

Now that he is our President-Elect, Obama is assembling a Cabinet that is a duplicate of the Clinton Administration. Heck, he's even embraced Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State! That is going to be an interesting juxtaposition as she is mightily power hungry. Obama is not giving any concessions to those who campaigned so hard for CHANGE.

The names he has chosen for his cabinet so far are surprisingly stale, as these people have failed in various moral and legal ways in the recent past.

Hillary Clinton has her own very visible skeletons and heavy baggage with Whitewater and a litany of dodgy choices.

Tom Daschle's represents humiliating defeat in his own state because of his failure to connect with his own party and people while Senate Majority Leader.

The possible choice of Bill Richardson, who leads the worst education system in the nation - better than only Puerto Rico in most areas of government service - speaks for itself.

Eric Holder, who oversaw the egregious Clinton pardons (Need I say more?) begs the question of his values.

Rahm Emmanuel, Chief of Staff and Democratic hatchet man who sends dead fish to people who disagree with him, does not represent positive change. He's a bully.

YEAH, THAT'S THE CHANGE WE NEED!!!!

Can we destroy the Democratic Party Dream by making the same mistakes over and over? "YES, WE CAN!!"

Don't take me wrong! We have dear friends in the Democratic Party. We want to have compassion on the poor, and we believe in stewardship of the environment and alternative energy sources. We believe in 'green' jobs. We believe that working people should not have to pay $500 - 1000 per month for medical insurance - of which probably half of that is lawyer fees. We don't understand why India can sell fuel cell vehicles for $5000 (here is more information of the REVA )when the Chevy Volt base price is going to be $40,000. We don't believe that American Car companies can do much right, and they should be run by the government until responsible leadership can take over - not by those inflated childish fat cats in their Lear Jets coming to Washington to beg for money so they can produce more cars we don't need and can't afford, like the Hummer, the Escalade, the ugly Ford Flex, and the hideous crossovers as well as other SUV types.

But will Obama's 'Back to the Future" cabinet bring about CHANGE? I doubt it and the joke is on the Democrats who elected him.

Explain something to me, please!

Barack Obama, our President-Elect, campaigned on a "CHANGE" ticket.

Why in heaven's name is Obama choosing second tier Clinton personnel for his cabinet?
Why did he choose Hillary, herself, for Secretary of State? (Kind of a direct opposite of Condi Rice)

Democrats, I don't call this change. I call it more of the same old stuff.

Was this your plan?

Really?

?

What Obama Sez!

OBAMA CAUGHT SAYING ACORN AND FRIENDS WILL SHAPE HIS PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA

Hat tip to my Lizardly friend 'abolitionist'


Here's another must read article about Obama and ACORN. Obama's more involved with ACORN than he likes to admit!

Change Candidates

Spare Change and Loose Change

Spare Change because he was who the Democrats had left over after the uber-primary season. Spare in that he doesn't really have any real "change" for us - just warmed over socialism. He can give a prepared speech like no other but has no experience. He does not have any special skills or magical powers. Spare in his ability to keep America safe. Spare in his military experience. Spare in his economic plan because he keeps using the failed plans and words of the past, as well as crooked economic advisors. Obama is Jimmy Carter "Lite". Our enemies know it, too. No wonder they root for him!

Loose Change because he can become unhinged.

We'll see it in the debate with Palin...
his eyes will start to twitch and he'll say something outrageous. Joe Biden is "change"? He's been witnessed making things up, being rude to members of his own party. (which he actually has in common with McCain) His childish prattle causes even young senators to fall asleep in meetings. Biden's been called by other Democrats a "Loose Cannon" - Hence the concept "loose change." It's change you get, but not the type you want. Think Monty Python.

Obama blew it.

Hillary would have had a lot more class!
She would have been a better VP. Even Biden admits that!

Pelosi not out to save the Planet - Updated

Pelosi's adamant refusal to bring the issue of drilling for oil on the continental shelf to a vote is not so much about saving the planet as it is about saving Democratic backsides.

UPDATE: Today, August 1, 2008, Pelosi and the Democrats turned off the lights and microphones and adjourned the House while the Republicans were still debating the drilling issue. Please view the Video update.

If Democrats don't have to publicly vote for or against increasing American oil production, the "great unwashed populus" of the United States does not need to know where they stand. If the masses don't know for sure that Democrats would rather the United States remain dependent on other countries for oil (much the same way they want the American people dependent on a 'nanny' government for basic needs), then they will not do any damage to the great Obama's (bow down, unworthy ones!) chances for winning the Presidency - not just of the US but of the WORLD!

Pelosi would rather our country lurch leftward and toward second world status in the name of "saving the environment" with a socialist/Marxist leaning President than for our country to regain and maintain greatness and strength among the nations.

Let's Drill Our Own!

There is oil available in the Rockies, offshore and in ANWAR in Alaska - plenty of oil to tide us over until we can make greater strides toward becoming energy independent. It can be accessed in a low impact way environmentally, and, best of all, it's OURS!

Unless we depend on ourselves for our energy needs, we are going to be dependent on foreign "oil ticks" who get rich off our need for their oil. You know who they are and they are not necessarily friendly to us! They are prospering at our cost.

What is keeping us from harvesting our energy bounty? Hate to be partisan, but it's the Democrats in Congress! They vote down every proposal to use our own energy resources? I'd like to know why. Does anyone have a real answer? Do they think blocking the development of our own oil fields is going to make us lean towards renewable sources of energy quicker? The average Joe already wants to convert to other forms of energy, but it's way too expensive at the moment. The change has to be gradual, but, while we are waiting let's get our own oil out of the ground and keep US monies in the US, for goodness sake!

With Friends Like These.........

Who needs enemies!

Wow! I'm not enamored with McCain, but if this guy is a typical representative of an Obama supporter, his campaign is in a LOT of trouble! I wonder whose koolaid he's been drinking.....there are so many moonbat fountains!




Thanks to Blogs for McCain for sharing that tidbit!

Not the Obama I Know

Is it time?

What a disappointment this primary season has been. The end result is going to be two main presidential candidates who both hold very liberal positions. Conservatives have essentially been shut out.

Is it time to consider a new political party? The Republican party, nationally, seems to prefer being "Democrats Lite" with a strong leftward shift on policy issues from federal spending to abortion. Conservative voters have been marginalized in the primary process, and many cannot and will not vote for McCain as a matter of conscience.

I've started looking into the American Conservative Party. If things don't change in the Republican party, perhaps a strong conservative coalition will bring balance to this out of balance political situation.

Feeling Disenfranchised

I will not pretend to be able to read into the future and tell you which of the presidential candidates will be left standing to proceed toward the nomination of their parties or if there will be brokered conventions. I am only expressing my personal opinion in this article.

People talk a lot about Reagan's "three legged stool" and how they represent the different sectors of conservative voters - the fiscal conservatives, the security conservatives and the social conservatives. They rave about how Reagan brought those three groups together, and he did well at that because he was able to effectively communicate with all conservatives and with those called the "Reagan Democrats". It was what the Republican Party needed at the time.

The Republican party is again fractured and somehow needs to be brought together. George W. Bush has not left us with an 'heir-apparent", and the fractured sections of the conservative base have again become evident. This makes for an exciting, if frustrating, selection process as we try to determine the Republican nominee. Our current choices are a very socially liberal candidate who is strong on national security, a one-term governor and business man who seems to be buying the election and is only recently 'conservative', a successful multi-term conservative governor who communicates well, but is branded as a liberal because of his compassion for the poor and because he had to raise some taxes to benefit the people of his state, and an anti-war Libertarian who should have run as a Libertarian, but decided he had a better chance running as a Republican.

Additionally, those in the media whom we deemed trustworthy are fully supporting Republican candidates who either hold firmly to liberal positions or who are recent converts to conservatism with no evidence to back up their new positions. One candidate, whose companies own part of a popular "fair and balanced" television station, is being foisted on us by that station. The one candidate who is most conservative is sidelined and ignored in the mainstream media. The most liberal of the Republican candidates, the one who has done the most to denigrate his Republican credentials, is seen as the 'front runner."

The irony in our current scenario is that the current 'front runner' does not adhere to the Republican party platform, led a revolt of Senators against the President, collaborated with the Democrats to limit our free speech and give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and was even courted by Democrats to be a vice presidential candidate. The one pushed by the 'fair and balanced' media outlet promised to be even more liberal than his democratic opponent when he ran as governor, and made gay marriage and legalized abortion (only $50) available during his term as governor.

All of these candidates need the large block of social conservatives to successfully gain the Republican nomination. This block, branded as the "evangelicals" consist of social conservatives who believe in traditional values. Republican candidates try to court this large group of voters and are often successful because of promises made to them - promises that usually do not come to fruition.

This leads me to the point of this rambling article. As a social conservative, I feel disenfranchised by my own political party. The party has certain political platforms that are supposed to define and unify those who agree with them, but the majority of candidates being foisted upon us do not adhere to the platform (probably out of fear of losing elections). This causes the Republican party to appear as if it does not have significant differences from the opposing party, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. As mentioned before, these candidates aggressively court the 'evangelical' vote, only to disappoint those very voters by supporting issues that they consider socially liberal. Could it be that evangelicals are being used by the Republican Party the same way Blacks and Hispanics are used by the Democratic Party? It's something to think about! And maybe it's time to determinedly pursue an alternative to the current two party system, and organize a third party.


Feb. 3, 2008
Quick update: To those on the Ron Paul Information site - I am not LouDobbs!!!
Radiant Times is a humble music teacher in New Mexico.

McCain a Democratic Candidate?

I fully expect massive quantities of vitriol for even considering this topic.

I'm quite concerned that the general population follows media reports in this primary season like lemmings following their leader and hurling themselves over a cliff to their own destruction.

Today's media darling is John McCain. He's taken the forefront in the media's attention, and his poll numbers have gone up proportionally. What this reveals to me is the naiveté and intellectual laziness of a large portion of the Republican populus. McCain's record has been forgotten and all that is heard is what he is saying today. John McCain is one of those senators whom one wonders why they have not switched parties. His positions on domestic issues read like the Democratic playbook.

Can McCain be considered a true conservative? Is he really the candidate to carry the Republican banner? Many say "NO" because of his clearly liberal positions based on his record in the Senate.

McCain had been a fierce opponent of Bush until after the 2004 elections. During that election cycle, McCain had been approached about the possibility of being Kerry's running mate.

Rick Santorum maintains that a McCain presidency would be dangerous for the country. From the article:

“It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

Santorum cited the campaign finance reform bill sponsored by McCain, the McCain-Feingold Act, which limits campaign contributions and has been called by some an “incumbent protection act.”

Santorum called the act “an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we’ve seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community … is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you’re a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.

“It’s a shame, but he was obviously out front on that.”

The former Senator also criticized McCain for voting against the Bush Tax cuts — he was one of only two Republicans to do so.

“The reduction in [tax] rates and lowering the rates on capital gains and dividends … did so much to get this economy up and going. [But] we would have had a much bigger tax cut if it were not for John McCain.”

Santorum pointed to McCain’s opposition to conservative positions on drug re-importation, federally funded embryonic stem cell research, immigration, the questioning of terror detainees and other issues, and said he has a “big fear” of a McCain presidency.

He asserted it would create a “huge rift” in the Republican Party, and told Levin’s listeners:

“I think he’s been solid in the war on terror … but on domestic policy, he’s very, very dangerous for Republicans.

“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”

I hope my readers will take time to really examine McCain's record. At this point in the primary season, poll show that either McCain or Huckabee could win against a Democratic Candidate. As my readers know, I support Huckabee's effective and proven leadership.

Republican Party Degeneration?

When I look at the field of presidential candidates on the Republican side, I wonder whose side they are running for. The 'front runner', Rudy Guiliani, has social views that line up with the Democrat front runner, Hillary Clinton. He's not a real conservative. Fred Thompson, seen as the 'great hope' for conservatives, doesn't seem to know how to run a campaign, nor what work to do in order to gain popularity. We wonder if he would be able to debate Clinton. Romney seems to have changed his mind about critical issues when convenient to do so.....like being "pro-choice" until deciding to run for President.

Is the Republican party so diluted that locally a person cannot clearly distinguish the party of a candidate by looking at their stand on issues alone? Why do we have to go to our party headquarters to find out who the candidates are? Are the candidates afraid to make their position clear?

The lack of clarity of position is evidenced by Republican dissatisfaction with the current slate of leading presidential candidates. I happened upon a poll in the sidebar of a random blog today. Here are the results:

Who is your favorite Republican Presidential Candidate?

• None of the above. I want a real Conservative! (38%, 279 Votes)
• Fred Thompson (28%, 207 Votes)
• Rudy Giuliani (16%, 116 Votes)
• Mitt Romney (8%, 59 Votes)
• Newt Gingrich (8%, 57 Votes)
• John McCain (2%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 735

There are so few Republican candidates that really exemplify what "conservative" means. The only one that talks the talk and has real world experience that will transfer to the role of President is Mike Huckabee. He would be a natural choice to lead the nation because of his successful experience as governor of Arkansas, and because he is a true conservative. I hope his hard work in Iowa and New Hampshire bears fruit, and that Republicans will not dismiss him as unelectable.

Did I Mention Hillary Is a Socialist?

Here is a shocking list of questions which I shall quote in their entirety. Thanks to Right Truth for posting this eye-opening list.

Who said this? (answers at the bottom, but don't look)

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

These views do not represent the vision of America - the land of the free and the home of the brave. These are overtly communist values which represent redistribution of wealth and complete nationwide entitlement. Communism is a failed system. We've known that for years now. How sad that the Democratic "frontrunner" is so blatantly against the free market system that has been economically successful and has done the most good for this world in motivating people to aspire to be the best they can and work hard to achieve great goals.

Voters, if you want a nanny that will take care of your every need without the necessity of you having to work for what you have, then vote for Hillary. I will save my vote for a candidate who will inspire me to work for my dreams because I will achieve them by my own merit and not based on the 'equal share' of what a government will give me.

You become like the ones ya hang with!

Hillary Clinton is coming under fire for seeking advice from good old Sandy "is that a classified document in my pants" Berger. Here's a quote from Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsch:

The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).

My question is this - did Clinton go bad like Berger or did Berger go bad like Clinton.

"What's in Your Wallet?"

That's what I want to know from Democratic candidates in this election cycle. Who's providing them the big bucks to promote their "Progressive" Socialist agenda?

Consider the Democrats who won't speak out against the MoveOn.org ad, including Hillary Clinton. MoveOn is generously supported by George Soros - a man who wants to be a political chessmaster in the world, and who uses his capital to influence elections. This was obvious during the last presidential election and is still continuing.

So, Soros wants to spend money to over throw what he considers 'fascist regimes' and has an obsessively negative view of the United States. Should he be allowed to 'buy' elections? Should he become the defacto King of America (and the world)?

A fair warning to Democratic candidates - What is in your wallet and who is controlling you with their dollars?

Dems Debate on Raising Taxes for Healthcare

Tonight on the AARP debate, Democratic candidates were touting their fabulous comprehensive and universal health care plans.....all paid for by raising Taxes on the "Rich" and by raising Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 27%.

I don't think Edwards, Richardson,Clinton, Biden and Dodd really have a background in economics. What they propose may satisfy the itching ears of the "poor" who are bitter and have a grudge against those who are blessed with the ability to accumulate wealth, but in reality it is those who have a little extra capital who can start businesses without borrowing and who can create jobs which increases the revenue base from which people pay more taxes. They don't realize that "Bush's Tax Cuts" - they speak that like a derogatory word - are what have fueled the strong economy we have now.

In their lofty and even pompous proclamations about health care, they fail to address the one great unmentionable in Democratic politics - Illegal aliens are sucking the health care system dry and not contributing via taxes. If that issue were dealt with, along with tort reform and a purging of corruption form the Medicare system that still pays our $12 for a tylenol, it would go a long way toward solving some of our health care issues.

In a Roundabout Way it all Becomes Clear

Hmmmm......Bin Ladin praises Chomsky......Chomsky is the darling of the progressive far left.......the far left is anti-war, pro-tolerance toward our enemies, and blames the US for 9/11........

Maybe, just maybe we should start examining the agenda of the far left and call a spade a spade.

Another Massachusetts Moonbat

A very wise and well known religious figure told us "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." I find this is a wonderful guide for judging our leaders.

Recently, one of our Congressmen put his brain on hold and spewed forth what was in his heart. John Olver D-Massachusetts described Republicans in this way - "They are nihilists. They are jihadists."

What inspired this vitriol? Here is part of the article from CQ.com:

This year’s appropriations tug-of-war between a new majority in Congress and a president of the opposing party does not appear to be headed for a government shutdown, but a rhetorical taboo was lifted when the word became part of the partisan message of the moment.

“The obvious plan of the Democrats is to not do appropriations bills but put everything together in a giant omnibus appropriations bill in a kind of legislative blackmail with all of the policy and increased spending, to in effect threaten the president to either sign the bill or be accused of shutting down the government,” Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference, said Wednesday.

President Bush has threatened to veto seven appropriations bills because together they would exceed his discretionary spending limit by more than $20 billion.

Congressional veterans are certain the two sides are headed for a whopper of a fight over a catchall, omnibus appropriations bill.

Democratic leaders insist, however, that they really want separate bills to pass and that they prefer to avoid an omnibus.

“That is not our intention at all,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. “If they want to cooperate with us and bring the bills to the floor, we have six or seven bills that have cleared committee. We’re ready to move.”

So, because Republicans won't bend over and take the Democrat koolaid on spending, Olver thinks they are Jihadists? What an ignorant man. Here is his voting record as a Representative. Here's more on his voting record. He's also been a Representative since 1991 - that makes him a poster child for term limits, too!

Here is something else John Olver believes:

He is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections.

Moonbat, anyone??

Do you ever feel sorry for the citizens of Massachusetts? They have Kennedy, Kerry, ......and Olver!

Radiant

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another Liberal but...

Yes, Bill Richardson is just another liberal. What sets him apart is his success as a governor of New Mexico as well as his vast experience as a former cabinet member and his international diplomatic experience, which the other Democratic candidates sorely lack.

Here in New Mexico he has cut taxes and been very pro-business. This has improved living circumstances immensely. I live in one of the cities that is experiencing tremendous growth and a rise in the standard of living (although, admittedly, vast poverty exists south of us due to the swell of illegal immigration.)

I am not a Democrat, but if my values were in agreement with theirs, I would consider Richardson the most qualified candidate of all in the field. Here’s hoping Hillary’s skeletons come out of the closet to haunt her, and that Obama’s charm is a thin veil revealing his shocking lack of experience and extreme views.

Murtha's Magical Money Pot

Have you ever heard of the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure??

Neither have I. And neither had Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, but it's getting a million dollars.

Here's the story from the Politico:

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.

After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it." And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.

Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.

Someone should investigate Murtha on this. It deals with money going to some nebulous place. Kind of like Abscam. Is he padding his retirement fund with this bogus Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure? We really need to ask some more questions on this.......oh wait! The investigations are all directed at Republicans now...no time to clean the Democratic messes!

And what should we call this appropriation?? Ah!!! Another 'success' of the current Democratic Congress?

Radiant