Something to think about.

I am not bitter nor do I cling to my religion and guns.

This ad hits it out of the park. This is one of the issues that will cost NOBAMA the election, because he is out of touch with the main stream.

Here is a nother great ad on why NOBAMA is bad for the USA.

Fact Check on Palin…

Okay lefties lets get this straight here are the facts from fact check.

Sliming Palin

September 8, 2008

False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain’s running mate.

Summary

We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she increased funding and signed a bill that will triple per-pupil funding over three years for special needs students with high-cost requirements.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesy” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

BHO “I will Win” (Sounds Arrogant to me)

I found this article over on the Politico and Ben Smith is nothing more than a lap dog for Obama but check out some of the arrogant rhetoric that BHO is spewing.

I beginning to think that Obama believes some of the hype of about this being a coronation. Talk about being out of touch and clueless. What is the left going to do when they lose the presidential election? I predict there is going to be rioting in the streets when the messiah loses.

Obama: ‘I will win’

A confident Barack Obama raised an extraordinary $7.8 million Sunday at three California fundraisers, most if it in large checks to a Democratic Party committee.

“I will win. Don’t worry about that,” Barry said to the crowd of about 1,300 at his third event of the evening, according to the pool report.

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi, who called him “a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.”

Obama echoed some of the themes he discussed when he described Pennsylvanians as “bitter” and stoked controversy three months ago, but did so much more adroitly.

“Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so,” he told the crowd. “It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.”

“So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, this should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ‘em out. But American politics aren’t that simple,” he said.

“The fact of the matter is, at a certain point, when government has not been serving the people for this long, people get cynical. They tune out. And they start saying to themselves, a plague on both your houses. They are willing to consume negative information more frequently than positive information, for good reason. They’ve seen how promises haven’t been kept,” he said.

Full pool report after the jump.

Cross Posted at sayanythingblog.com

Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC

I am actually looking forward to the DNC, this is going to be a train wreck and I can't wait to tune in to watch the fire works. I think that NOBAMA better be careful and he better walk on egg shells because has to make a serious attempt to not make the Hillary supporter upset or he might see his nomination going down to the Pumas.

It is no mystery that Barack Hussein Obama is an empty suit and the left is worried that NOBAMA will go down in flames as the last two presidential candidates have. Obama is an out of touch liberal elite and is not running away with the presidency like some had predicted.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she’s happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention — and she predicts that as many as half of the Democrats in the House could join her.

Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former first lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so — whether they want to or not.

On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. Under proposed convention bylaws, delegates would be forced to register their votes on a tally sheet with the convention secretary — the rules could be altered or suspended before the start of the convention.

“By putting her name in nomination, you're putting people on the spot,” said former delegate counter Matt Seyfang, adding a second potential drawback: “Having a roll call ... just chews into your broadcast time.”

Lower-key options were available. For example, Clinton’s name could have been entered into nomination, followed by laudatory speeches, ending with her release of delegates to Obama and proposal that he be nomination by acclamation, Seyfang said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the “mechanics” of the roll call vote are still being worked out, but he conceded that Clinton probably will garner many votes on the first ballot.

For Obama’s camp, the roll call is a ritual that will defuse any potential tension with Clinton or her supporters without affecting the outcome or the theater of Obama’s dramatic nomination.

Said Sanchez: “I believe there are a lot of supporters for Hillary among the superdelegates, especially now that they’ve agreed to place her name in nomination. I think half the House Democrats would probably be Hillary supporters, especially women. ... I felt she was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way.”

Clinton herself has said she plans to vote for Obama.

A longtime Clinton adviser said it was “crazy” to guess at numbers but estimated that the former first lady would garner between 600 and 1,200 delegates — considerably short of the approximately 1,800 she had collected at the time of her departure from the race in early June.

“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said one Democratic strategist of the roll call. “It could backfire and show that her influence is waning. Chances are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the floor as she had in the primary.”

Indeed, many Hillary diehards, including at least one member of the New York delegation, are reluctant to vote for Clinton after switching over to Obama.

“I think that most superdelegates, including myself, are going for Obama,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who campaigned with Clinton around the country. “I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again.”

Other onetime Clinton backers are reluctant to reverse course for fear of angering their black constituents.

“My boss is totally conflicted about it — and pissed Hillary is putting us in this position,” said a congressional staffer for another New York House member. “We still haven’t made up our mind and I don’t know when we are going to.”

Another New York delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, predicted that as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of the New York delegation would pick Clinton over Obama during the symbolic vote.

Obama’s decision to accept a roll call vote, which came after weeks of talks with the Clinton camp, doesn’t mean he’ll let the process get out of hand, observers say.

“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.”

Vote for Obama and you could lose your jobs.

The Wall Street Journal had an article about on August first and I have to agree with the premise and it makes a lot of sense. Unions are killing this country with their outrageous demands that they make.I don't know what the Huffpost is all upset about but they are right, a vote for Obama could cost you your job. It's right. If politicians start forcing people to pay a certain wage, businesses will cut their loses and cut workers or shut down their business all together. Of course Obama and the left don't get this. Andrew Wilkow is right and these out of touch left wingers don't get it.

What apparently has Wal-Mart executives' panties in a snit is the belief that if Obama becomes president it's more likely that its employees will unionize, which is something the notoriously stingy employer fears. Wal-Mart's reputation as a lousy employer is legendary. Charges of low wages, poor benefits and overall workplace mistreatment have plagued the company for years.

At issue now is a bill, co-sponsored by Obama and opposed by the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, that could force the retail giant's hand and serve to appreciably lighten its pocketbook. The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow unions to organize workplaces without secret ballot elections, thus making it much easier to turn companies from non-union to union. Should this happen at Wal-Mart, it would cost the company bazillions, eating into its sizable earnings. Wal-Mart recently reported first quarter 2008 profits of over $3-billion, a 6.9% increase over last year. Our collective hearts bleed for them, huh?

So what exactly is Wal-Mart up to? The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the company has been holding mandatory Chicken Little meetings with store managers and department supervisors warning that the bill would likely pass in an Obama administration and that that would negatively impact its workers. To what degree the warnings were issued is not confirmed, but many Wal-Mart employees anonymously have said that the company's message is quite clear: "a vote for Obama could mean a loss of jobs." And while the company may not have specifically instructed any of its employees -- be they management or rank-and-file -- to vote specifically for McCain, the intention is obvious: "We don't like Obama. We don't like Unions. Obama will unionize us. That will hurt business and result in massive layoffs. We do not want Obama to be president." They don't need to finish this with, "and if you vote for Obama you will lose your job." The perceived threat is already there. Of course, Wal-Mart denies that it's threatened or intimidated its workers.

As expected, right-wing spinheads are rushing to Wal-Mart's defense. On his national Sirius Satellite Radio program Friday, The Wilkow Majority, Andrew Wilkow emphatically and repeatedly asserted that Wal-Mart, or any company for that matter, not only has the right to maintain whatever size workforce it so desires, but that it would be well within their right to warn employees outright that "If you vote for Obama you will be fired."

In an email exchange, I pointed out to Wilkow that not only is his suggestion unconscionable in terms of voter intimidation, but that it was convoluted in its enforceability. How would Wal-Mart know who their employees voted for? And how, therefore, could they fire only those who voted for Obama? It's moronic no matter how you slice it.

This is what has the left all up in arms; Andrew Wilkow chimes in on the debate…

Wilkow replied:
“What I said was that a company has the right to inform the workers of the stark reality of the effect the election may have on their business. I wasn’t endorsing voter intimidation. A company doesn’t have any obligation to maintain a particular number of employees or production output. If a company feels that the political climate is going to add weight or cost to doing business a company is free to cut staff or production. If that is not the case then who is going to force a company to maintain said levels of production and staff or stay in business at all for that matter?”

Cross Posted @ sayanythingblog.com

The morons at the Daily Kos thinks Obama has a chance of winning ND.

Give me a break Obama is not going to win in North Dakota. Talk about wishful thinking. Markos Moulitsas is a moron and I think the Democrats are over stepping, while they are currently leading in a lot of races they aren't going to win the State of North Dakota. Today I had a North Dakota democratic pollster from the DNC call me and ask me who I was voting for I am not voting for Barack Hussein Obama.
ND-Pres: This one is a real battleground
by kos
Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 12:40:20 PM PDT
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 7/21-23. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)

McCain (R) 45
Obama (D) 42



A couple of weeks ago, Rasmussen had the race tied 43-43, and some wondered whether it might be an outlier. Obama campaigned in the state over the Fourth of July holiday, suggesting their own internals showed a race in the cards, but Ras had offered the only recent public poll in the state. This R2K poll now confirms the fact that yes, North Dakota is a bona fide battleground.

::
North Dakota Poll
July 21-23, 2008, 500 likely voters interviewed statewide by telephone.
Margin for error is 4.5 percent.


Sample Figures:

Men 244 49%
Women 256 51%

Dem 150 30%
Rep 198 40%
Ind 152 30%

18-29 95 19%
30-44 124 25%
45-59 166 33%
60+ 115 23%

North 134 interviews
East 205 interviews
South 161 interviews


If the election for President were held today, would you vote for Barack Obama, the Democrat,
or John McCain the Repblican?

McCain Obama Und

All 45% 42% 13%

Men 51% 39% 10%
Women 39% 45% 16%

Dem 6% 85% 9%
Rep 78% 7% 15%
Ind 41% 45% 14%

18-29 40% 46% 14%
30-44 50% 39% 11%
45-59 46% 41% 13%
60+ 44% 43% 13%

North 48% 39% 13%
East 39% 47% 14%
South 50% 39% 11%


Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is
doing as President?

Approve Disapprove Not Sure

All 34% 65% 1%

Men 38% 61% 1%
Women 30% 69% 1%

Dem 6% 94%
Rep 66% 33% 1%
Ind 20% 78% 2%

18-29 30% 69% 1%
30-44 37% 62% 1%
45-59 35% 64% 1%
60+ 34% 65% 1%

He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

You have to listen to this moron. Inflating your tires is not going to have that big of an impact on the oil crisis, come on lets not be silly. Drilling, drilling, drilling and then refining all of this oil that was just recovered from the earth; that is the only thing that is going to solve the energy crisis. It is called supply and demand. Besides; my tires are already inflated to the proper tire pressure. This guys is a fucken idiot.

Here is the empty suits comments:

It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

They think it’s funny that they’re making fun of something that is actually true.

No it is you BHO that is ignorant. Does anyone else find his voice annoying?
Cross Posted at sayanythingblog.com