• Barack Obama,  Iran,  Iran Nuclear Watch

    Iran Nuclear Watch: The IAEA Inspectors

    Iran and the IAEA

    Michael Ramirez on Barack Obama and Iran

    President Bush, the European Union and the United Nations have been unable to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    But, never fear, Barack Obama WILL talk to Iran President Ahmadinejad and we will be on the rim of a golden world.

    Right.

    Previous:

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Israel – Iran Could Have Nukes by 2009

    Iran “Reminded” with Deployment of USS Abraham Lincoln

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Demands Azerbaijan Deliver Russian Nuclear Shipment

    Shocker: Iran Threatens To Eliminate Israel


  • John Bolton

    George Monbiot to ARREST John Bolton as Iraq War Criminal?

    George Monbiot

    George Monbiot

    Journalist George Monbiot is taking the law into his own hands by promisng to arrest former United States ambassador to the United Nations as an Iraq War criminal.

    George Monbiot, the journalist and activist, is planning the action because he believes Mr Bolton is a “war criminal”.

    He said he was surprised that Mr Bolton would be allowed to “swim through the politest of polite soirees – which is of course Hay.”

    Mr Bolton, who was the American ambassador to the UN from August 2005 to January 2006, is due to talk at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival at 6.30pm on international relations.

    Now, this should be good. The legal authorities in the United Kingdom say Monbiot’s actions are unlawful.

    Flap wonders what Bolton will do?

    Will he allow Monbiot take him into custody and then file a civil suit for assault and unlawful detainment? Or will Bolton simply resist the Moonbat Monbiot and punch him in the nose?

    Flap bets the police will be there and escort Monbiot off of the premises.

    Shame….would love to see Bolton punch his way out of the flap.

    John Bolton

    John Bolton former United States Ambassador to the United Nations


  • Gay Marriage

    A Majority of Californians Approve of Gay Marriage?

    Gay Marriage

    In this May 15, 2008, file photo, Sharon Papo, left, and her partner Amber Weiss fill out paperwork as they apply for an appointment for a marriage license at the county clerks office at City Hall in San Francisco. In court papers submitted Thursday, May 22, 2008, a conservative legal group asked the California Supreme Court to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage until November, when voters are likely to encounter a ballot measure would amend the state’s constitution to ban gay marriage.

    A new California Field Poll says a majority of Californians support Gay Marriage.

    Signaling a generational shift in attitudes, a new Field Poll on Tuesday said California voters now support legal marriage between same-sex couples and oppose a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

    By 51 to 42 percent, state voters believe gay couples have the right to marry, according to a May 17-26 poll of 1,052 registered voters.

    However, the same poll revealed a California electorate that remains sharply divided over gay marriage – split by age, political affiliation, religion and the regions where they live.

    The poll is here.

    Key graphs:

    • Reflecting stark differences in generational attitudes, 68 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years old said they favored allowing same-sex couples to marry. Fifty-eight percent of voters 30 to 39 and 51 percent of voters 40-49 favored gay marriage. That compared with 47 percent of voters 50-64 and 36 percent of those over 65 who supported the idea.
    • Gay marriage was strongly opposed by inland California residents. Central Valley voters disapproved of same-sex marriage 55 to 38 percent.
    • Support surged on the coast, with Bay Area voters supporting gay marriage by 68 to 24 percent, and Los Angeles County voters supporting it by 55 to 38 percent.
    • While Democrats overwhelmingly supported gay marriage and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it, there was also a significant religious split.
    • Born-again Christians objected to gay marriage, 68 to 24 percent. Protestants were opposed, 57 to 34 percent. Catholics were nearly evenly split. Voters from other religious groups favored gay marriage, 61 to 33 percent. Eighty-one percent of people with no religious preferences supported gay marriage.

    The campaign is on.

    If there is a higher turnout of younger voters in the fall Presidential election, these poll results may withstand a challenge. Should Obama have California in the bag, they may stay home – as usual and the California Marriage Protection Act, a California State Constitutional amendment will pass.

    However, the Catholic church has yet to weigh into the issue in a substantial way. IF the California Bishops make a pronouncement it could move some of the Catholic voters.

    This poll may be a wake up call to the churches in California to become more politically involved this summer.

    Stay tuned…..

    Previous:

    California Catholic Bishops Weigh in on Gay Marriage Ruling

    California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George Likens Gay Marriage to Civil Rights Battles

    California Gay Marriage Ruling Fuels Political Battle

    California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response

    California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban


  • William Jefferson

    Representative William Jefferson Watch: Not a Good Day

    William Jefferson

    Democrat Representative William Jefferson, Louisiana

    U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III has refused to dismiss bribery charges against Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

    Jefferson is accused of orchestrating a complicated, and multi-layered scheme to receive bribes from companies seeking business in Western Africa. Proving bribery against a lawmaker is difficult because prosecutors must show that the defendant provided an “official act” such as a voting a certain way or sponsoring legislation in return for money or items he received. His lawyers argued that Jefferson didn’t do anything in his capacity as a congressman that could be considered a bribe.

    U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III turned that legal theory on its head in his denial of the motion to dismiss, filed late last week. He ruled that bribery charges could be brought even if the activity in question doesn’t appear to fit into “responsibilities assigned by law.”

    He said it is up to the jury to decide whether Jefferson’s promotion or advocacy of certain business projects to the politicians in the African countries and the travel associated with that are related to his duties as a congressman.

    In his denial, Judge Ellis declared that the question of whether or not the government is able to prove its bribery case “is a question properly addressed at trial, not on a motion to dismiss an indictment.”

    So, off to trial EVENTUALLY (there is another motion pending in the appellate court) Congressman William Jefferson goes – while maintaining his office for all of these many months.

    But, now there are APPARENTLY further legal troubles on the horizon for Freezer Cash Bill.

    Not a good day in the life of William Jefferson.

    William Jefferson

    Michael Ramirez on William Jefferson

    Previous:

    Representative William Jefferson Watch: Federal Prosecutors Lay Out Their Case Against Jefferson


  • Del.icio.us Links

    links for 2008-05-28

  • Laura Richardson,  Laura Richardson

    MORE Conflicting Stories Over U.S. Representative Laura Richardson’s Home Foreclosure

    United States Representative Laura Richardson (D-California) was officially sworn into office on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 to represent California’s 37th Congressional District.

    Now, there is more to the United States Representative Laura Richardson’s (D, CA-37) home foreclosure problems.

    Rep. Laura Richardson, who lost her Sacramento home in a recent foreclosure auction, has also defaulted on properties in Long Beach and San Pedro, records show.

    Richardson, D-Long Beach, was able to bring her payments up to date on the Long Beach home relatively quickly, but the San Pedro property lingered in the foreclosure process for almost eight months, and still has a pending auction date.

    In her first interview since the news broke Tuesday that her Sacramento home had been foreclosed, Richardson blamed the foreclosure on a miscommunication by her lender. She offered no apologies for failing to make payments on three separate homes and expressed no regret for failing to pay nearly $9,000 in property taxes.

    Laura Richardson Sacramento house

    The Sacramento home owned by Representative Laura Richardson was sold at auction. The buyer agreed to pay her property tax bill, and her lender (Washington Mutual) lost $200,000 on the deal. She is trying to rescind the foreclosure.

    Flap described the bait and switch with campaign cash that Richardson is working.

    Richardson, in the meantime, has worked a pretty good deal. She has been elected to a safe (lifetime tenure) African American seat in a Los Angeles area Congressional district, where she reaps campaign contributions from many special interests, including area defense contractors and unions. She walks away from this home and lets the lender, Washington Mutual, take the loss.

    To pay for her campaign expenses and personal loan debt to HER OWN campaign she collects additional campaign contributions AFTER Washington Mutual forecloses on her equity strapped Sacramento property and takes the loss.

    Her credit score takes a hit but she is an elected Member of Congress with a steady and sizable income. Richardson pays herself back from campaign contributions she accumulates over the course of her election year campaign.

    But, two more houses of Richardson’s have lapsed into foreclosure. What is this Member of Congress doing with her salary?

    Answer: Paying back campaign loans to herself and her campaign consultants to whom she owes over $200K.

    It is obvious that Richardson overextended herself financially to run for Congress and that she has used extremely poor judgment in settling her financial obligations. However, lying about the situation as the Congresswoman apparetnly did to the AP is not helping her.

    Will the Democrat controlled Congress of Speaker Nancy Pelosi launch an investigation into this matter? Probably not.

    Will the newly constituted Federal Elections Commission look at this fiasco, Perhaps.

    Laura Richardson

    A San Pedro home on Parker Street, reportedly owned by Rep. Richardson, went into default in September 2007, at which point she was $12,410.71 behind in payments on the property

    How will this shake out politically?

    Representative Laura Richardson will be mildly humiliated but she is elected to a safe Congressional seat(unless reapportioned out of it in 2012) and will enjoy many years of special interest fundraising to recover from these foreclosures and credit hardships.

    Washington Mutual might be left holding the bag though – at least for the short term. Who knows what this lender can exact in legislation a decade or so from now?

    Stay tuned……

    Update:

    Read Michelle Malkin’s take here.

    In fact, it appears there is a pattern here of cashing out her homes to fill her campaign coffers. But there has been no uproar in Congress over this lawmaker’s appalling behavior. Why? Because it would upset the bipartisan narrative that all homeowners are victims, all lenders are sharks, and that no bad incentives to walk away exist.

    Previous:

    Conflicting Stories Over U.S. Representative Laura Richardson’s Home Foreclosure


  • John McCain,  President 2008,  Sarah Palin

    Sarah Palin Watch: Why Not Sarah for Vice President?

    From the Club for Growth on Governor Sarah Palin’s political popularity

    Jonah Goldberg over at National Review asks why shouldn’t Alaska Governor Sarah Palin be considered as John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate?

    If we’re consigned to choosing among Republicans for the Republican Veep (heh), I’m more and more keen on Sarah Palin. Yes, Yuval’s right that the GOP won’t beat the Democrats for excitement, but the GOP might excite particular constituencies. Palin is tackling the establishment in Alaska, including the oil and gas industry (much to the chagrin of some of my relatives!). She’s attractive (former Ms. Alaska). She could get some real profile out of this polar bear lawsuit. She reinforces McCain’s outsider-reformer-Western credentials. And, for the moderate soccer mom types who were all jazzed about Hillary being the first woman president, she might win a few suburbanite female swing-voters for the same reason. Obama is going to have to pick a boring white guy precisely because he’s not one. McCain doesn’t need to pick a boring white guy because he’s got that locked up already.

    Flap thinks this is an outstanding idea and analysis. Sarah Palin would make an excellent choice for Vice President.

    Palin has the RIGHT stuff.

    Previous:

    John McCain Watch: VP Sweepstakes – Crist, Jindal and Romney? Part Three – With VP Poll


  • Barack Obama,  President 2008

    RNC Hits Obama Over Auschwitz Claim

    *****Update*****

    The Obama Campaign responds: Obama’s maternal grandmother’s brother, Charlie Payne, served with the 89th Infantry Division that liberated Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald concentration camp. “Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically,” an Obama spokesman said in a statement.

    Wow, Obama gets the wrong relative, the wrong Army and the wrong Concentration Camp. Sloppy preparation, poor memory or an attempt at embellishment? You be the judge. But, sloppy nonetheless.

    Flap’s friend Kavon over at Race42008 bemoans the lack of MSM outrage over the GAFFE. And, he is right.

    Barack Obama meets with veterans on Memorial Day (2008) at the Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum in Las Cruces. Skip ahead to 5:13

    Now the Republican National Committee is questioning Barack Obama’s statement yesterday that his Uncle was involved with liberating the Auschwitz Concentration Camp from the Nazis during World War II.

    The Republican National Committee sharply criticized Barack Obama Tuesday over the Illinois senator’s recent claim that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz while serving in the American military during World War II.

    In fact, American troops did not liberate that particular concentration camp, Soviet soldiers did in 1945.

    Obama’s comments came Monday during a Las Cruces, New Mexico speech marking Memorial Day. The Illinois senator was specifically advocating better care for veterans who experience post-traumatic stress syndrome when he made the reference.

    “I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months,” Obama said. “Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain.”

    On Tuesday, RNC spokesman Alex Conant called the claim “inconsistent with world history.”

    “Barack Obama’s dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation,” he said. “It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true.”

    “Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief,” Conant also said.

    Over to Obama who has thus far not responded to ANY inquiry.

    Previous:

    Barack Obama Watch: Rewriting Family Military Service History?


  • Barack Obama,  John McCain,  President 2008

    Barack Obama and the Western States

    Barack Obama vs John McCain in the Electoral College

    Graphic from Electoral-Vote.com

    Marc Ambinder and the AP today are saying today that Barack Obama WILL fight for Electoral Collge votes in the Western United States.

    Obama is signaling, even before the Democratic primary formally wraps up, that he intends to fight this fall for Western states that narrowly went Republican four years ago.

    New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado aren’t definitely Democratic blue or Republican red. Instead, they’re known as “purple states” by political junkies.

    Together, they account for only 19 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. But those votes could be vital in a close race, particularly if Obama’s weakness among white, blue-collar voters carries over from the primary race and cuts his chance of winning some other states where Democrats usually do well.

    “We’re going to fight as hard as we can in these states. We want to send the message now that we’re going to go after them and I expect to win them,” the Illinois senator said Monday.

    But, let’s look at the Electoral College map.

    Obama is running well in California, Oregon and Washington. These are all blue states and no surprise here. Obama will win these states and their Electoral College votes without a problem. California will only be visited by McCain and Obama for fundraising.

    Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado may be up for grabs. But, ONLY Nevada and perhaps New Mexico MAY be competitive for McCain. President Bush won both states in 2004 and McCain will run well with the Hispanics in both states. His neighbor status as an Arizona Senator will help some.

    Colorado has been trending blue for the last few election cycles and will be easy picking for Obama.

    But, how many Electoral College votes are we discussing here? Nevada and New Mexico each have 5. 10 Electoral College votes total.

    And, how many votes does Michigan have? Answer: 17 Electoral College votes.

    How about Pennsylvania? Answer: 21 Electoral College votes.

    How about Ohio? Answer: 20 Electoral College votes

    How about Missouri? Answer: 11 Electoral College votes

    Obama nor McCain will be competing over ANY Western States. The Midwest again will be the battleground for the Presidency.

    Why do you think McCain today is running television ads in Michigan and Pennsylvania?