“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., was taken to a Virginia hospital Monday after his caregiver noticed he was running a fever and feeling lethargic and sluggish, NBC News reported, citing Byrd’s staff.
Sen. Byrd hospitalized with fever - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com
A day away from a black man becoming the democratic nominee, and former Klan member Robert Byrd heads to the hospital “running a fever, feeling lethargic”.
Coincidence? You decide.
As those reading here might know, I’ve been a supporter of Barack Obama for a little while now. Well, I recently came across a recent photo of Obama giving one of his stump speeches, and something just didn’t sit right with me about it.
After a little deliberation, I’ve come to a startling conclusion. The rumors, whisper campaigns, and inbred WV moonshiners were right… Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim terrorist!
You may think I’m being sarcastic here, but truthfully, look at the photo below and judge for yourself…
Note the following unmistakable signs:
I’m not sure where this photo was taken, but it was no doubt at one of the terrorist extremists’ training camps, such as the ACLU headquarters. Mullah Obama would not be so foolish as to don such an atrocity in public. Not until he and his secret partners at Dunkin Donuts have completed America’s transformation into a caliphate, that is.
One thing is for sure: I’ve had enough of the Hussein!
Tanner and “Blue Dog” Democrats — conservative fiscal hawks “choked blue” by their party’s liberal flank — are building their own political operation to propel like-minded candidates to victory this fall. They’re also quietly raising their own influence within a party personified by liberals like Sens. Edward Kennedy and presidential candidate Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Blue Dogs building sway on the campaign trail - msnbc.com
Many in the Democratic party may see the rise of the ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats as a double-edged sword. I, on the other hand (who considers myself independent at the moment) see this as a net positive. A lot has been said recently about the “Reagan Democrats”- Democrats who went across the aisle to support Reagan’s presidency in the 80s. It seems that the underpinnings of the Blue Dog movement is not so much to convert stalwart Republicans to hop on the donkey (though I’m sure they welcome that), but to reclaim those more conservative members of the party that were wooed away by Reagan.
Personally, I tend to be happy to see such ‘insurgent’ groups in the majority party, and by most projections, the Democrats stand to expand their majority in Congress and have an advantage in the presidential race. Whether you agree with the positions of the Blue Dogs or not (on the face of it, I suspect I agree with their economic positions, disagree with their social positions), you must agree that they nevertheless provide a counterbalance, lest the more leftist wing of the party allow their heads to get too inflated- like the Republicans after securing their razor-thin majorities.
It seems that the Blue Dogs are already having this effect, for the better I think, on budgetary policy… forcing the Democratic leadership to reign in their traditionally prolific spending tendencies. After eight years of the Bush administration’s ‘rape and pillage’ policy of cutting taxes for the rich, gutting government programs and departments, while borrowing insane amounts of money to reward corrupt insider connections with fat contracts for doing diddly, some responsible spending is very much due.
As for social issues, while I disagree with these guys on issues like abortion and imaginary omnipotent ghosts, nevertheless, I think it’s valuable that they feel like such positions have a place and a forum once again in the Democratic party, rather than leaving their constituents with only the fascist wing of the Republican party to vote for.
As members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws panel voted in favor of the measures, some supporters of Hillary Clinton’s White House bid rose from their seats and began to shout “Don’t steal my vote!” and “Let’s go, McCain!”
CNN Political Ticker: Angry Clinton supporters tell party leaders: ‘Let’s go McCain!’
I can see the point of all these women for Hillary who are upset. Her support is especially strong among older women. These women are already post-menopause or nearly there, they don’t have to worry about abortion rights anymore… and why should they care about their younger sisters who might still want some reproductive rights? They are more skewed toward Obama anyway. Can you believe that? Some women might support a man!
The press, society in general, and now the DNC Rules and By-Laws has been so sexist in their treatment of Hillary Clinton while Obama has had smooth sailing ever since declaring he was running back in February 2007. I mean, as soon as he declared in Feb ‘07, the media, men and black immediately favored him in droves, while Hillary Clinton was forced to do all of the laundry and dishes for the US Senate. “Phew,” Democrats said back in Feb.. “we almost had to nominate a woman.”
There is only one reasonable resolution here. Ladies, if you don’t get everything you want from your man, what else can you do but jump into bed with another guy… any guy. McCain is that guy. What a perfect way to not only get revenge on the male chauvinist Democratic party, but also teach those uppity young white and black women who have the audacity to support Barack Obama. Let’s see how you feel when your husband is off in Iraq and you’re raising your “pleasant surprise” children by your lonesome cause you had the good fortune to live in an anti-abortion state.
What's On The Internets?
