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.
Opinion and Commentary on state, regional and national news articles from a conservative feminist point of view expressed and written by conservative moderate: Tina Hemond
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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!)
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!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)