Saturday, September 19, 2009

Ahmadinejad Asked To Leave NY Hotel – Protests In Tehran - Hezbollah Banner Removed, Chant: “Torture and Assault Won’t Work Anymore”.

While Iranian “President” Ahmadinejad, visiting the United Nations in New York, made his usual ridiculous remarks regarding Israel – the end result, he was asked to leave his hotel in Manhattan. While away, anti-government protests erupted again, in Iran, despite the hard-line approach, (murder, imprisonment, torture) the regime has displayed in the past few months. Thousands took to the streets rejecting the current regime – proving, once again, that the the country is on the brink of an eventual change in government and specifically, the actions taken by the Supreme Leader Khamenei in hiring outside Arab forces (Hezbollah), to brutalize protestors have driven those Iranians (Persians), to continue to fight back.

The quest for their own self-determination and removal of the hard-line dictator in favor of a Democracy has been evidenced by the latest round of protests and the language now being used in chants. In addition to “Death to the Dictator”, a new chant: “Torture and Assault Don’t Work Anymore” is being heard (video below) – the ramifications of this particular change in tone are telling – the hard-line is in the minority – with an estimated 70,000,000 citizens, many of whom have been pushed to the very brink.

In addition, the direct distaste for the “hired guns” of Khamenei is evidenced by the tearing down of the terrorist group Hezbollah, (video below). It is a not a question of if, it is a question of when the people of Iran will rise and remove the current regime – done without the aid of any Western nation, particularly the United State’s current administration, which, for all intents and purposes, has stood silent on the issue – working with the Russians (allies of the Iranian Regime) by removing missile shields from Eastern European Countries, in deference to Putin. Therefore, alone and unaided, the people of Iran are continuing to impress and inspire those who love freedom and self-determination.

Iran Protestors Tear Down Hezbollah Banner

Iran Protestors – Torture and Assault Don’t Work Anymore

Friday, September 18, 2009

Mass. House Votes 97 to 58 for Interim Appointment to Vacant U.S. Senate Seat. The Big Story: 41 Democrats Join 16 Republicans -NO! – Roll Call

The Massachusetts House of Representatives voted to change the elections laws (reversing the last change they made to prevent then Govenor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican), to allow Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for Ted Kenney’s Seat. The individual placed in that temporary seat will vacate on the 19th of January (assuming they are not running for the permanent seat) when a special election will take place in the Commonwealth. The Final bill can be found here short and to the point.

This bill did not pass, as indicated in most media, with full Democrat Support and only Republicans dissenting. In fact, 41 Democrats in fear of losing their job in 2010, voted NO, with the sixteen Republican’s who they joined in an attempt to stop the hypocrisy driven by the White House and the Governor’s Office (See David Axelrod, mentor to Deval Patrick and advisor to Obama calling on Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murphy (contact information included)to change the law, again.)

A roll call from the Boston Globe Boston Globe is provided below.

A thank you note, and or a note of admonishment can be sent to any state representative: Contact State Representatives Here

The List:
(Note: there are 16 members of the House which are Republican)

Kevin Aguiar, D-Fall River - Y
Geraldo Alicea, D-Charlton - Y
Willie Mae Allen, D-Boston - Y
James Arciero, D-Westford – N (Democrat)
Brian Michael Ashe, D-Longmeadow – N (Democrat)
Cory Atkins, D-Concord - Y
Demetrius J. Atsalis, D-Hyannis - Y
Bruce J. Ayers, D-Quincy – N (Democrat)
Ruth B. Balser, D-Newton - Y
Fred Barrows, R-Mansfield – N (Republican)
Carlo J. Basile, D-Boston, - Y
Jennifer E. Benson, D-Lunenburg - Y
John J. Binienda, D-Worcester – X (Democrat Not Voting)
Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams - Y
Bill Bowles, D-Attleboro - Y
Garrett J. Bradley, D-Hingham - Y
Michael D. Brady, D-Brockton - Y
William N. Brownsberger, D-Belmont - Y
Antonio F. D. Cabral, D-New Bedford - Y
Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton – N (Democrat)
Thomas Calter, D-Kingston – N (Democrat)
Linda Dean Campbell, D-Methuen – N (Democrat)
Christine E. Canavan, D-Brockton – N (Democrat)
Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford – N (Democrat)
James M. Cantwell, D-Marshfield – N (Democrat)
Katherine Clark, D-Melrose - Y
Cheryl A. Coakley-Rivera, D-Springfield - Y
Thomas F. Conroy, D-Wayland - Y
Michael A. Costello, D-Newburyport - Y
Geraldine Creedon, D-Brockton - Y
Sean Curran, D-Springfield – N (Democrat)
Steven J. D'Amico, D-Seekonk - Y
Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop - Y
Viriato Manuel deMacedo, R-Plymouth – N (Republican)
Brian S. Dempsey, D-Haverhill – N (Democrat)
Stephen DiNatale, D-Fitchburg – N (Democrat)
Paul J. Donato, D-Medford - Y
Christopher J. Donelan, D-Orange - Y
Joseph R. Driscoll Jr., D-Braintree - Y
James J. Dwyer, D-Woburn - N
Carolyn C. Dykema, D-Holliston – N (Democrat)
Lori A. Ehrlich, D-Marblehead – N (Democrat)
Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden – N (Democrat)
James H. Fagan, D-Taunton – X
Christopher G. Fallon, D-Malden – N (Democrat)
Mark V. Falzone, D-Saugus - Y
Robert F. Fennell, D-Lynn – N (Democrat)
John V. Fernandes, D-Milford – N (Democrat)
Ann-Margaret Ferrante, D-Gloucester - Y
Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover - Y
David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater - Y
Linda Dorcena Forry, D-Boston - Y
Gloria L. Fox, D-Boston - Y
John P. Fresolo, D-Worcester – N (Democrat)
Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn – N (Repbulican)
William C. Galvin, D-Canton - Y
Sean Garballey, D-Arlington - Y
Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut - Y
Susan W. Gifford, R-Wareham – N (Republican)
Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer – N (Democrat)
Thomas A. Golden Jr., D-Lowell - Y
Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly - Y
William G. Greene Jr., D-Billerica – N (Democrat)
Danielle W. Gregoire, D-Marlborough - Y
Denis Guyer, D-Dalton - Y
Patricia A. Haddad, D-Somerset - Y
Robert S. Hargraves, R-Groton – N (Republican)
Lida E. Harkins, D-Needham – N (Democrat)
Jonathan Hecht, D-Watertown - Y
Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich – N (Republican)
Kate Hogan, D-Stow - Y
Kevin G. Honan, D-Boston - Y
Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield – N (Republican)
Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading – N (Republican)
Louis L. Kafka, D-Stoughton - Y
Michael F. Kane, D-Holyoke - Y
Jay R. Kaufman, D-Lexington – X (Democrat – Not Voting)
John D. Keenan, D-Salem - Y
Kay Khan, D-Newton - Y
Peter V. Kocot, D-Northampton - Y
Robert M. Koczera, D-New Bedford - Y
Peter J. Koutoujian, D-Waltham - Y
Paul Kujawski, D-Webster - N
Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington - Y
William Lantigua, D-Lawrence - Y
Jason M. Lewis, D-Winchester - Y
David P. Linsky, D-Natick - Y
Barbara A. L'Italien, D-Andover - Y
Timothy R. Madden, D-Nantucket - Y
Elizabeth A. Malia, D-Boston - Y
Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy - Y
Allen J. McCarthy, D-East Bridgewater – N (Democrat)
Paul McMurtry, D-Dedham – N (Democrat)
James R. Miceli, D-Wilmington – N (Democrat)
Aaron Michlewitz, D-Boston - Y
Michael Moran, D-Boston - Y
Charles A. Murphy, D-Burlington - Y
James M. Murphy, D-Weymouth - Y
Kevin J. Murphy, D-Lowell – N (Democrat)
David M. Nangle, D-Lowell – N (Democrat)
Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton - Y
Robert J. Nyman, D-Hanover – N (Democrat)
James O'Day, D-West Boylston - Y
Eugene L. O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea - Y
Matthew C. Patrick, D-Falmouth - Y
Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown - Y
Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester - Y
Alice H. Peisch, D-Wellesley - Y
Jeffrey D. Perry, R-Sandwich – N (Democrat)
George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton – N (Republican)
Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow - Y
William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox - Y
Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro – N (Republican)
Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury – N (Republican)
Denise Provost, D-Somerville - Y
Angelo Puppolo, D-Wilbraham – N (Democrat)
John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth – N (Democrat)
Kathi-Anne Reinstein, D-Revere - Y
Robert Rice Jr., D-Gardner - Y
Pam Richardson, D-Framingham - Y
Michael J. Rodrigues, D-Westport – N (Democrat)
John H. Rogers, D-Norwood – N (Democrat)
Dennis A. Rosa, D-Leominster - Y
Richard J. Ross, R-Wrentham – N (Republican)
Michael F. Rush, D-Boston – N (Democrat)
Byron Rushing, D-Boston - Y
Jeffrey Sanchez, D-Boston - Y
Rosemary Sandlin, D-Agawam – N (Democrat)
Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland - Y
Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Boston - Y
John W. Scibak, D-South Hadley - Y
Carl M. Sciortino Jr., D-Somerville - Y
Stephen Smith, D-Everett - Y
Frank I. Smizik, D-Brookline - Y
Todd M. Smola, R-Palmer – N (Republican)
Theodore C. Speliotis, D-Danvers - Y
Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester - Y
Christopher N. Speranzo - D-Pittsfield - Y
Joyce A. Spiliotis, D-Peabody – N (Democrat)
Marie P. St. Fleur, D-Boston - Y
Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury - P
Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham – N (Democrat)
Ellen Story, D-Amherst - Y
William M. Straus, D-Mattapoisett – N (Democrat)
David B. Sullivan, D-Fall River - Y
Benjamin Swan, D-Springfield – X (Democrat Not Voting)
Walter F. Timilty, D-Milton – N (Democrat)
A. Stephen Tobin, D-Quincy – N (Democrat)
Timothy J. Toomey Jr., D-Cambridge - Y
David M. Torrisi, D-North Andover – N (Democrat)
Cleon H. Turner, D-Dennis – N (Democrat)
James E. Vallee, D-Franklin - Y
Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee – X (Democrat Not Voting)
Brian P. Wallace, D-Boston – X (Democrat Not Voting)
Martin J. Walsh, D-Boston - Y
Steven M. Walsh, D-Lynn - Y
Martha M. Walz, D-Boston - Y
Daniel K. Webster, R-Hanson – N (Republican)
James T. Welch, D-West Springfield - Y
Alice K. Wolf, D-Cambridge - Y
N no
Y yes
X not voting

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Jimmy Carter Believes “Racism Drives Opposition to Obama” – The Delusional Inability of the Left to Accept Opposition to Progressive Ideology

Carter with Arafat, image theyeshivaword

Former President, Jimmy Carter, remarking on Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R- S.C.) “outburst” during the Presidents recent address to Congress, has decided that it must be racism that drove the House Member to yell “Lair” during remarks made by the President regarding certain aspects of the Democrats Health Care Reform plan. Although it is generally accepted that the respect of the Office of the Presidency should have precluded Wilson from such an “outburst”, one can also accept the fact that Wilson’s gaffe was based more on emotion over a program that is not being well accepted by the general public, and not on the fact that the President is, as Carter put it during an NBC interview: “that he is a black man, that he's African American.”

Although one can agree with Carter that bigotry, still exists in the United States to some extent – one cannot believe this truly applies to this President – who was elected to office by winning, not only African-American votes, but the votes of all citizens, including those who reside in the south. It is Carter’s denial of the fact that Obama’s policies, which are a mirror image of his own, are the cause of opposition, and that opposition is not confined to the President’s ideology but the ideology of certain members of Carter’s political party – Frank, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
What Obama enjoys, at the moment, is the backing of a like-minded press, something that Carter failed to achieve – that said, while Carter was in office decimating the economy through failed job stimulus programs, auto bailouts, disastrous budgets, the destruction of our military and intelligence forces and a foreign policy that was an embarrassment, he still enjoyed a bit of a break from certain major news outlets – once the economy became untenable, certain organizations still believed he would surely best that actor from California, Ronald Reagan. It is called denial and this cry of “Racism” from Carter borders on the delusional.

Barack Obama with Chavez, image: theage, Austrailia

Carter, an avowed Progressive, broke decorum during the Bush Presidency by actively critiquing the President – one was treated to headlines such as Bush is the Worst in History in Foreign Relations, Carter Says” and, perhaps, the best in a comedic sense, ” Carter Criticizes “Radical Changes” in U.S. Policy”. When one Google’s “Carter Criticizes Bush”, page after page of articles appear – while one can assume that Carter, a former President, would understand that decorum would prevent direct criticism of a sitting president, his remarks could not possibly have been based on “Race”. Granted Carter did not make these remarks during a Bush address to the Congress, and two wrongs, so to speak do not make a “right”, but the premise, a disagreement with ideology, is what drove both remarks. To label Wilson as a racist is, in a word ridiculous.

Further, Wilson, immediately after uttering the infamous “Liar” during a lull in the "boos" coming from the opposing floor of the House aimed at the President, apologized - to the President and the President accepted his apology. Wilson also explained ad naseum that he was driven by emotion over the policy of the administration – this was not enough for Carter, apparently, nor for the current bunch of lunatics in charge of the asylum formally known as the U.S. House of Representatives. The House has taken precious time from the work they should be doing for the people (not their political party), to write a set of Guidelines regarding what one can and what one cannot say on the floor of the House while the President is paying a visit.
From Politico:

Disgrace" and "nitwits" -- okay.
"Liar" or "sexual misconduct" -- ixnay.
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

Apparently, those who took the time to write this nonsense, had three administrations in mind (Bush, Carter and Obama), that said, once Wilson had made the apology, the matter should have been dropped, by sensible people. Unfortunately, political opportunism runs counter to sensibility. It is not for nothing that, while the Office of the President deserves respect, regardless of the political ideology of the person holding the office, it also behooves the Congress and those former Presidents to stop acting like children, and move on to the more pressing problems facing the nation – many of which can be directly laid at their doorstep. Pulling combat troops out of Iraq, leaving behind regular forces, has caused that country to go to “hell in a hand basket” – this based more on a “Campaign promise” than any specific strategy. The addition of, as yet undefined, troops to Afghanistan (unwinnable from the ground – historically speaking), in order to fulfill another “campaign promise” to “get Bin Ladin”, has the unfortunate potential to turn into yet another “Viet Nam”, the mismanagement of the Stimulus program, the growing ACORN scandal, and a host of issues more pressing that what a member of Congress from South Carolina, who just happens to be a Republican (key politically charged word) called the President (it was not a persona attack) from the floor. It was wrong, Wilson apologized, and the Congress and Carter should move on. Why won’t they? It’s a perfect stop gap to keep the media appeased, keep their names in the paper, and beat up the opposing party at the same time, or so they believe.

Due to the unprecedented hoopla from the left (Congress) Wilson has, to date, received over a million dollars in contributions. According to Carter, those must be racist donations, not donations from individuals who have had enough of Obama’s Carter-like qualities. The two, Carter and Obama, are so like-minded (and incidentally, inexperienced going into the office), that comparisons were made prior to Obama’s election, and once the legislative process began to take shape, the similarities were eerily similar – the word “doppelganger” is apt in this case. This is something Carter should be celebrating – perhaps in his next interview, he might revel in the fact that President Obama and he are so much alike, and commiserate with Obama that, those policies that Carter employed, the same progressive mentality, was soundly rejected by the American voting public, after one term in office – he should be counseling Obama now, that it is a likelihood that even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will not be carried by Obama in 2012. (He should also note that it is also a possibility that both the House and the Congress will change hands in 2010 and that the opposition will put the nail in the coffin of their ideology in 2012 (This is should Obama continue to follow Carter, if, and only if, Obama moves to the center, with a Congress that is in direct opposition, does he stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of seeing a second term – (likability factor that Carter lacked). The aforementioned scenario is possible, but not probable, given both men’s deep rooted progressive (sic: Communist-Socialist) beliefs.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Fear Strikes Beacon Hill & Beyond - Republican Scott Brown’s Mass Senate Bid – Patrick Administration Investigation to Huffington Post - Analysis

Republican Scott Brown, a member of the Massachusetts Senate, with strong grassroots support, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate this past Saturday, joining a field of Democrat hopefuls vying for Ted Kennedy’s seat. How much of a threat is Brown to the powers that be on Beacon Hill and in D.C.? Apparently, the populist State Senator has the opposing party a bit concerned – from the Boston Globe:

“State Senator Scott Brown, the Republican frontrunner for the late Edward Kennedy's US Senate seat, is asking Governor Deval Patrick to investigate whether state employees on state time researched whether Brown could run for Congress while serving in the National Guard.”

In reading this particular article, there are several instances of note: one, the Globe is calling Brown the “Republican frontrunner”, and two, the fact that the Globe ran the story as a straight news piece, stating more fact, rather than inserting an opinion into the article.

The gist: Brown, who has severed in the Army National Guard for 29 years, also serves in the office of the judge advocate general. Brown was told that an employee of the Executive Office of Public Safety had made a call to that office inquiring about his eligibility to run for the Senate Seat, going so far as to ask for a legal opinion. Brown then made a formal complaint to the Govenor asking for an investigation. Brown, as a member of the Guard, and not a member of the U.S. Military is not prohibited from seeking public office (Note to the Patrick Administration: He is currently holding a public office, in the Massachusetts State Senate.)

The big question being asked at the Huffington Post is whether or not Brown will be funded by the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee). The fact that the Huffington Post is even asking the question, and then placing a mere $1 million dollar limit on funding from the aforementioned is telling in that the Huffington Post leans left towards the White House, and further the Globe (The Posts New England Counterpart in Print) is reporting that Martha Coakley, the Democrat’s best bet in this race, out of a field of three and growing (includes Capuano and Lynch)will need at least $5 million in order to have a shot at the Senate.

Brown, who is one of the few legislators who is in constant contact with his constituents, has a large fan base among both Republicans and Independents in the Bay State; he has more than a “shot” at the seat. To answer the question posed by the Huffington Post – First, as the Globe stated Brown is the “Republican Frontrunner”, and as such, should the Massachusetts State GOP offer its blessing, (unknown at this time – but probable) then the National Committee’s would follow suit. Without the G.O.P. Scott still has the ability to raise funds through a growing network of grassroots supporters, and, taking a bit of G.O.P. recent history into consideration (See Iowa Caucus, Mike Huckabee versus Mitt Romney), it is not always the cash that carry’s the day, rather the boots on the ground. The support of the GOP would merely be the icing on the cake.

Not for nothing, this is the first time in recent memory that a Republican from Massachusetts has evoked speculation on a national level to this extent, this quickly. The reason – Scott Brown is seen as a serious threat to the U.S. Senate Seat in Massachusetts, where for the past 30 plus years, Democrats have believed they owned that particular piece of real-estate – it is obvious, from the articles and aforementioned events, that the seat is considered to be in jeopardy. Additionally, with a Republican likely to take the Governor’s race in New Jersey and elsewhere in 2009, a loss of a U.S. Senate Seat in Massachusetts within that same time-frame would indicate real problems for the DNC that would be difficult to bury in the media.

For more information: Scott Brown for U.S. Senate
Scott (Original Constituant Services Website)

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Up to 2 Million March on Washington DC to protest Spending and Policy – Largest Protest In DC History

Fiscal Conservatives Largest March in DC History - photo Daily MailUK

Several fiscally conservative organizations rallied a march on Washington D.C yesterday, the coverage from C-Span (Here) was, perhaps, the best coverage of the event from all media sources. Several of the groups who participated or sponsored the event included: Freedom Works the National Taxpayer Union, Tea Party Patriots, Institute for Liberty, Let Freedom Ring, The People Revolution, Club for Growth, Young Americans for Liberty, Smart Girl Politics, Ann Rand Center for Individual Rights, Campaign for Liberty, Leadership Institute, Tea Party Nation, Free Republic, Young American Foundations, Center for Individual Freedom, The Freedom Activist Network, American’s for Tax Reform, American Liberty Alliance, Citizen Against Government Waste, The Patrick Henry Center, Competitive Enterprise Institute, The American Conservative Union,, and the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Although the vast majority of American Media Outlets placed the attendance at “Tens of Thousands”, C-Span produced coverage that not only indicated the magnitude of the crowd, but the bi-partisan nature of those who rallied, crossing racial, ethnic and socio-economic lines. Video from several sources is shown below. (C-Span link to coverage is available in the first paragraph of this article.) The only newspaper source to accurately depict the size of the crowd, came from the UK ‘Up to Two Million March To U.S. Capital’, although the Washington Post and New York Times, CNN and Fox News Network reported crowds of “Tens of Thousands”.

Additionally, these networks and media outlets focused on “Republican’s” and “Health Care Reform”, while the focus of the Day’s March was geared towards Government Waste and Spending (which includes some aspects of the administration’s Health Care Reform). What appears to be lost on American Media, is the fact that the Republican Party, or Republican’s in general, are not the whip behind these groups, and individuals, as previously stated, cross party lines, and incidentally now, more than ever, are turning away from media which does not accurately report events, or, views reports with suspicion, searching several sources for comparison. In this case, with video indicating otherwise, as well as actual bus counts from groups that were there, appear to have been insufficient for the aforementioned outlets to consider “newsworthy sources”. On the other hand, perhaps the reporting was somewhat colored by the fact that Conservatives or average American’s, as a rule, do not march or protest for that matter, and journalist, editors, publishers who are invested with their own political ideology, are dumbstruck. With that said, it is quite apparent that Change has indeed come to the nation – a change whereby those who merely voted, are now activists. It is merely a question of time before the major media outlets catch on. The same happened in 1980 – media outlets buffooned then Govenor of California, Ronald Reagan, and were shocked when he bested Carter in a general election, a win that included all fifty of these United States.

Video Coverage of the Event

CNN Video

Finally CNN reporter shouted down after being condescending to those Protestors:

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address