Hillary Clinton – A Unified Front

Yesterday in Unity, New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton joined Barrack Obama onstage in an attempt to unify the Democrat Party and encourage her supporters to vote for Obama in the fall. There is a definite difference between the two - Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat, one who is admired by the blue-collar working class Democrats who overwhelmingly supported Clinton in Key States and women – women who have lived through discrimination and understand that this race was hard fought by a candidate that faced sexism at every step of the campaign trail, especially from the media and members within her own party who felt that the country might not yet be ready for a woman. Barrack Obama on the other hand is a Progressive. This is a critical difference in political ideology – Hillary Clinton could never be accused of being anything less than a Patriot, while a Progressive is more inclined to have a world view, one that includes governments that are socialist in nature. Progressive, in political ideology, does not refer to Progress, rather, it refers to the Progressive Movement, one which many are lead to believe to be “dead” in this country, however, it is most assuredly alive – in our universities and in our media. Progressives admire individuals like Marx and Lenin and believe there is a distinct difference between the Elites (those who would run the country) and the Masses (those who would work for the country). There simply is no Middle Class in Progressive ideology. Many pundits, on both the right and the left, have called into question, the sincerity of Hillary Clinton’s speech. She is a member of the Democrat Party, and therefore, will ally herself with the party speak, that said, she must certainly be aware of the growing power and the absolute danger of the Progressive Party, one which has invaded the Democrat party over the past thirty years, simply because many understood that the country was not about to vote for a Socialist Agenda. Now, with the help of the media, and individuals with deep pockets such as George Sorros, the Progressive Party standard-bearer, Barack Obama is on the road to the White House.





Text from Hillary Clinton Email to Supporters: Subject line: “Unity”


“On February 8, in Unity, New Hampshire, 107 people voted for me, and 107 people voted for Senator Barack Obama.

Today, Barack and I were in Unity to celebrate a unified Democratic Party focused on electing him the next president. I was proud to stand with him today, and I will do whatever I can to help his campaign between now and November.

Senator McCain and the Republicans may have hoped that we wouldn't join forces like this. They may have wished that we wouldn't stand united to fight this battle with everything we've got.

But I've got news for them: We are one party; we are one America; and we are not going to rest until we take back our country and put it once again on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress in the 21st century.”

The question remains, will Clinton backers buy the party line, or send a clear message that it is time for the Democrat party to be taken back to its roots; and not become a Progressive party, one that is based on the failed ideology of communism. One can look to her speech and her letter to supporters – speaking of the party and politely enjoining her supporters to vote for Obama, but overall, the message is clear – 2012.

Words to the Wise – Do Your Own Candidate Research - Huckabee, McCain, Romney and the National Review

There is a growing unease among the rank and file in the Republican Party regarding the ability of the media and special interest groups to foist one candidate over another on the rank and file - so much so that these entities will generally mislead or flat-out lie about the competition in order to achieve a desired outcome. An interesting piece by Adam Graham, a conservative, regarding National Review and their relentless and misleading attacks on Governor Mike Huckabee is one worth noting. In the article found here, at American Daily, Graham regrets believing what he was told about Governor Mike Huckabee's fiscal record by these party elites – finding when he did his own research that the truth was a bit different. Mike Huckabee was by far the best candidate that the Republican Party had seen in decades, and yet because the Governor was not part of the Washington elite inner circle, he was ostracized and demonized endlessly by his own party. Their first choice, Mitt Romney, is now a footnote, and the man that was not even considered a threat, John McCain, is now the party standard bearer.

They are not in the best position to judge or make judgment calls for anyone in the party. Graham indicates that the Review is set to release the names of people who should not be considered for the V.P. slot. Not surprisingly Mitt Romney is not on that list. Mike Huckabee is, along with Crist of Florida – two governors that would help McCain with the all important southern states as well as more conservative voters within the party. The problem with Mitt Romney is that he had little appeal outside the beltway, and had it not been for a mis-statement by Shannon O’Brian the Democrat that was leading him by 20 plus points going into the Mass. Gubernatorial race, he would never had managed to become Governor of Massachusetts. It was not so much the fact that he was a Republican running in a blue state; it was the fact that he was not particularly well-liked or trusted; he won that race by default. It is the National Review that has failed to do its homework when it comes to choosing a candidate, how then, can they be in a position to choose a running mate?

The Daily Kos, just a side note, did the same to Hillary Clinton. Voters are now faced with a choice between the lesser incompetence of two candidates. It is where ideology, not enthusiasm, drives the vote. It may well be the first time in history that choosing an acceptable running mate actually makes a difference.

Rep. James Fagan - Democrat – The Shame of Massachusetts

Massachusetts has no laws on the book that protect the rights of children when it comes to Sex Offenders and mandatory sentencing. Sentences handed down by judges for rape of a child can be as harsh as 5 to 6 years - and when they break probation, they are given an astounding 2 to 3 additional years in prison Springfield Republican Article The fact is, as more states adopt Jessica’s Law or a similar version (mandatory sentencing for Rape of a Child), those states that do not, such as Massachusetts, have an increase in residency, (Visit www.familywatchdog.us for a list of Level 2 and 3 offenders in your neighborhood – free service) and that is good news for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorneys. It’s all about the money, and should a version of Jessica’s Law pass - It would cut into someone’s income.


It should not comes as a surprise, therefore, that during hearings in the Massachusetts State Legislature, Represenative James Fagan Democrat, Defense Attorney, representing the Third District, went on an absolute rant, in the most abusive and obscene manner towards children.



Should one believe that Fagan’s zeal is an aberration, think again, Law firms across the Bay state actively advertise their services to sexual predators, some even specializing in Internet Sex Crimes. Live in Massachusetts? Watch your Monthly Mailer coupon book for seemingly innocuous advertisements regarding real estate law – reading closer one can find that some attorneys are capable of having one’s sexual predator designation removed or eliminated. Listed below are attorneys who actively advertise to sexual predators with promises of expertise and reduced sentences or no time served. These results are from a 30 second Google search!

The message is clear, children are cheap and it is all about the money. James Fagan made that patently clear in the Massachusetts Legislature. It is time for the citizens of this state to make it patently clear to these representatives who vote against mandatory sentencing and practice criminal law, "Yes We Can" send them into legislative retirement. How they voted: research: Massachustts Legislature

Google 30 Second Seach Results

Ianello
Springfield, MA


Altman
Arlington Massachusetts



Halpern, Boston, MA

Neyman Law
Boston, MA


United Defense Group – Los Angeles Firm Advertising through search engines
(Included due to blatancy!)

Jeff Beatty – Poised to Defeat John Kerry

An article this morning from Human Events asks the question: “Is Massachusetts Ready to Dump Kerry?” Ken Pittman, the article author, points to the problems Kerry is facing in his own party and the general appeal of Jeff Beatty, which transcends political affiliation. This is the first solid anaylsis of the Baystate seen from any National Media, with specific attention paid to the credibility of Beatty as a candidate. Additionally, Pittman ties the Kennedy “Dynasty” to Kerry’s rise in Massachusetts and National politics with accuracy. Read: Pittman article here

Obama’s Interpretation of Christianity – The Progressive Plan

James Dobson, Focus on the Family founder and prominent Christian Leader has accused Barrack Obama of distorting the Bible. Dobson referenced the speech that Obama gave to the Call for Renewal Christian Group. Obama came back with Dobson is “Making stuff up”. Dobsons fears are well-fouonded but he is missing a point.
Full Obama article, Dallas Morning News. Dobson has a fundamentalist view of the Bible, one that is consistent with most Christian think, while Obama holds a progressive viewpoint. Is Dobson being over-critical of Obama’s view of Christianity? The text of the speech can be found at Obama’s senate site
here Christians, as Obama points out, often allow their religious viewpoint to affect their political think. To combat that point of view, he gives a template for getting along with those who hold overly religious views in order to attract them politically. It’s all in the turn of a phrase. Dobson should not be concerned with Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, as any Christian can point out, the Bible has multiple versions (King James, American, Catholic, Teaching) however, the premise and theme remain the same, with only slight variations in the language, these variations do not dilute or distort the message. It is a fact that a Christian refers to Jesus Christ as their savior, one who lived a life that was based on a message of peace, tolerance, law and personal responsibility. A practicing Christian, whether Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, And Baptist, etc. understands that their responsibility is to act in accordance with principles set forth by the law that Jesus referenced: The laws handed down by God to Moses – the commandments. Paraphrasing: Jesus spoke to his disciples saying, I did not come to change the law but to fulfill the law. Therefore, arguing that the Old Testament is irrelevant, distorts the basic values of Christianity. Jesus also pointed out the difference between the law of man and the law of God, and the inconsistency between the two. In order to be a Christian, one must follow the law of God and continue to pay taxes to man.

Those that profess to be Christians yet support abortion use the bible as well as reference the US Constitution in the same breath – they combine the two to prove a political point. The problem is; this is not consistent with Christianity. Christians are exhorted to act according to their faith – and that faith does not condone or support so called “Reproductive Rights”. The thought that one can vote for partial birth abortion, taking an active roll in promoting death, then one can call oneself a Christian, when it is politically expedient to do so. It is not fair to point to Obama as the only one who follows this type of Christian-political manipulation, one need only to look to the Bay state and multiple elected officials who will attend a Catholic Mass and then vote their conscience in accordance with a secular point of view.

Obama raises the question that is raised every time an election cycle occurs. Should there not be a separation of church and state with regards to one’s personal religious feelings not infringing on the rights of all citizens by actively practicing their faith once elected? That is the one most fallacious arguments used by progressives. The country was founded by Christians who were seeking to escape the persecution of religion, not escaping religion entirely. The thought that one can vote or uphold a law that is antithetical to any world religion (reproductive rights), based on the founders beliefs should be given more than a second glance. The point of the constitution and that clause that is so abused: to make a separation between church and state, to avoid creating a theocracy that would establish one religion over another. It was not designed to completely eradicate religion from the public square. Obama in his speech suggests that people do not read their bibles – and that the religious right distorts the bible for their own political gain. The same could be said of those politicians that distort the constitution and inject religion into the same speech for political gain.

What Dobson and any clear-thinking American who wishes to preserve our democracy and the republic under which we live should be concerned with in regards to this particular speech is the following: Obama constantly refers to “we as progressives”.

Progressives are simply stated, communists who refute religion, believe they are elite and entitled to control the masses. The fact that the Democrat Party has been taken over by Progressives in the past 20 years or so, should be completely vetted. The Progressives would destroy our current form of government replacing it with one similar to the Soviet Union. (A country they greatly admire). To learn more about progressive think visit:
Progressive Democrats of America. To understand the correlation between Progressives, Socialists and Communists read a good book on Post-Marxism such as “Key Thinkers from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism”.
Even allowing a cursory study of the material is enough to “curl the hair” of any American, regardless of Religious Affiliation. Therefore, debating or decrying Obama’s interpretation of the Bible, is the least of our problems. In the analysis of the speech that Dobson criticizes – it appears that the problem truly is Obama’s use of his Christianity as a political tool to further the Progressive agenda.

Jeff Beatty – Massachusetts Senate Campaign - Shoring Up the Grassroots

Political campaigns, outside of the national spotlight, generally take the summer in stride, campaigns are limited to an occasional press release and a stop here and there for a photo opportunity; there are the parades and the party meetings – all aimed at gearing up for the race come September. Campaigns, especially U.S. Senate Campaigns have been noticeably absent from the Massachusetts landscape for decades. John F. Kerry has a website: John Kerry.com, but has not made appearances in the state, with the exception of one visit to Western Massachusetts; meeting with officials in Springfield and Northampton back in late May Springfield Republican article.

This summer is noticeably different. Jeff Beatty has been on the road, making appearances weekly and meeting with local town Republican Committees as well as well as meeting families in a variety of small settings across the state.

Local weekly and daily media are reporting these visits and adding Jeff’s website link in their articles. His visit to Marblehead to meet with local working class families as reported in the Marblehead News is one such example.

On Flag Day (June 14), Jeff and campaign staff attended a monument unveiling for retired navy captain, Thomas Hudner. That evening he was in Dedham, followed by visits to New Bedford and Longmeadow, with appearance on NECN (New England Cable News). Beatty and his campaign staff have been crisscrossing the state non-stop, the campaign invitation to a meeting in Agawam last evening, asked those who were attending to bring along family and friends; Independents and Democrats. Beatty intends to work to accomplish a great deal in the nation and for Massachusetts, by working with Democrats and Independents, and not excluding them based on party bias. Beatty is not excluding the national media from his summer campaign, making an appearance on Michael Regan’s talk show on the 23rd.

Meanwhile, the Democrat contender for Kerry’s spot on the primary ticket has also been working the local circuit. Edward O’Reilly (Edward O’Reilly.com), a Progressive Democrat, has been similarly working hard getting his stand on the issues out through the press. As a Progressive, he can be viewed as a real challenger to Kerry. Although the local pundits refused to believe he’d even get onto the primary ballot, and now doubt that he will beat Kerry in the primary, one has only to examine the Democrat party in Massachusetts to understand that it is vibrantly Progressive and O’Reilly is a grand fit for the base. There is a difference between traditional Democrats (the working class party (alleged), and the Progressive movement (clearly socialist with no apologies). This is an ideology that appeals to the base – given the current climate in Massachusetts, either O’Reilly or Kerry will face a strong challenge in the fall from Beatty. As for Kerry, outside of one quick visit to the state in May, he has been noticeably absent. This is nothing new, he has been noticeably absent except for rare occasions when he feels he must make an appearance. He’s busy on the national stage, just like Daschle (D) South Dakota, removed.



A favorite You-Tube Beatty Video features Col. David Hunt. Col. Hunt is supporting Jeff Beatty.

If you live in the BayState, or are just interested in learning more about Massachusetts politics and those who would represent us; it is strongly suggested that one visit all three campaign websites in order to learn more about each candidate and make an informed decision.

McCain vs. Obama - Age and Race Poll at CBS - Opinion

McCain and Clinton - crossing party lines - Age and Gender a Factor?

Does age or race really matter in the day to day lives of average American’s when it comes to picking a president? CBS News conducted a poll which asked those two questions and the answer (according to CBS) is definitely – yes. That said, when looking at a neighbor, pastor, police officer, school teacher, doctor, nurse, or other person upon whom one must rely in a life-promoting or life-threatening situation – neither race, ethnicity, (which are parallel), gender, age, or religious affiliation seem to matter. Why then, is there such a focus on these issues during this 2008 election cycle. Does racism (add ethnicity) exist in America? Of course it does – because it is taught at the university level (college courses abound on race and its significance), it is perpetuated through our music (rap specifically), our media (program aimed at targeting – it exists at all levels – whether a person is Hispanic, Black, Asian), and now, it is brought up daily by the news outlets – the later because it sells. – Friction between race and gender, like a car crash, is news. One would think, given the homogonous society in which we live, entrusting the care of our children and our lives to individuals of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds, that race would be a non-issue.

Barrack Obama and Chris Dodd - Race and Gender bias?

When it comes to choosing a president – the reality of the situation for the most part (giving that poll a generous 10% credence) is that neither race, nor age really matters – it is all about the Party - the political experience and the ideology of a particular candidate.

Gender and religious affiliation, on the other hand, have played a significant role in this particular election cycle. The “news” outlets consistently referred to Hillary Clinton in the most denigrating gender based reporting seen since Geraldine Ferraro was chosen as Walter Mondale’s VP; only in Clinton’s case it was far more blatant and far more frequent. Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas, was consistently introduced in print articles and in broadcasts as: a Baptist Minister, with no or late mention of the fact that he was a 2-1/2 term successful Governor of the state of Arkansas.

Now the focus has shifted, and McCain and Obama are treated daily to comments regarding race and age. So, does it really matter? Try this simple poll with neighbors, family and friends: McCain or Obama – which one and why? The answers are varied, but what it comes down to is experience and trust. One might hear the following:
Re: Obama – “We don’t’ really know much about him, how can we trust him?” He’s a Democrat, but too far left”, “The Party shoved him down our throats” “He’s too guarded in his statements – not natural”. On McCain: “He’s not Obama” (No kidding), “He’s got the experience”, “I think he’ll continue to reach across the aisle and get some work done” The Respondents (this is Massachusetts): Independents and Democrats. (The lone Republican was asking the questions).

Neither age nor race was considered – Also, of note: neither candidate was a first choice which was made clear. People do agree that it is time for a change, but feel that little has changed in the quality of candidate. The only factor that is a bit different this election cycle from the last is that one party has been left far more divided that the other. It remains to be seen how the obvious “witch hunt” (irony), within the party vise a vise Hillary Clinton will impact the outcome of the general election. All of this is a bit premature, as neither political party has gone through the convention process (rather a moot point one would think), where the polls generally reflect a “bounce” or increase in interest, for each Party’s nominee. Once that dust settles and October rolls around, the real issues will come to the forefront, whether it is economics or national security, and who is more trusted to lead their party and the country for the betterment of the nation. It will not be a vote against one or the others race and/or age, rather the vote will be against or for the political affiliation and personal ideology of the candidate.