Thursday, February 21, 2008
 MCCAIN SMEAR?
 Looks like the New York Times is playing its hand a bit early in this
election. The front page of today's edition contains a story about an alleged
affair John McCain had with a lobbyist about eight years ago. The story cites
no named sources and no details other than reports from unnamed (and apparently
disgruntled) former aids who talk about having to keep the lobbyist, Vicki
Iseman, away from McCain in public. Pretty weak stuff.
There will certainly be a lot of conversation across the airwaves about
McCain and the lobbyist. But how about Huma Abedin? Where is the front page
New York Times story about Huma Abedin? Go ahead ... Google the name. You'll
find no shortages of stories suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin
have been engaged in a long-term lesbian relationship. These stories are as
well sourced as the story about McCain and the lobbyist. So ... where's the New
York Times story?
Man .. I must have taken the wrong pills this morning.
COULD IT REALLY BE OVER?
 Here is comes, folks. Slowly but surely we are getting assured predictions
that it is over for Hillary Clinton's campaign. How sad. Really ... I'm
serious. Do you know how much I've been looking forward to hosting this radio
show while that horrid woman was running for president? Now my good times are
going to be cut short. It's just not fair, I tell you.
It looks like Rodham is about to go tango uniform. Trust me, that isn't
going to be a pretty sight. There may still be hope.. but you need to
read this column by Lawrence Kudlow that was yesterday's big hit on the
Internet Kudlow is the Economics Editor at National Review Online and hosts a
TV program on CNBC. He believes that it is over. He says that "Obama got to
the far left faster than Hillary did. He out-organized her, out-fundraised her,
out-speechified her, out-hustled her, out-dressed her, and out-presidentialed
her. He outbid Hillary for votes, one promised government check at a time."
Kudlow points to that desperate speech Hillary made in Ohio where she trashed
business, free trade, and free-market capitalism ... he recognized it too. It was
an act of desperation. Hillary was grabbing at straws, and it just doesn't seem
to be working. He points out the exit polls from Wisconsin. Here's a little
list:
Trade protectionist voters – Obama
Union members – Obama
People worried about the economy – Obama
People who aren't worried about the economy – Obama
People making less than $50,000 – Obama
People making more than $50,000 - Obama
Are you starting to get the picture, folks? The list continues ... religious
or non-religious, college degree or no college degree, white males, blacks ... all
of them voted for Obama.
For the sake of wanting Hillary to succeed (which is purely to further my
talk radio career), she did win the women vote by a margin of 52 to 47. But
even when it came to those infamous unmarried women, Hillary tied with Obama in
Wisconsin. In other words, according to Kudlow, "The market has officially
pulled the plug on Hillary."
So where is the Hillary campaign focusing on next?
Puerto Rico. Looks like all of those terrorist pardons from Bill may pay
off yet again. The Clinton campaign says that Hillary will be in a position to
"clinch the nomination" by the time Puerto Rico votes. It is the last caucus,
which does not happen until June 7th.
DEBATE TONIGHT ...
In the meantime, there's an Obama – Clinton debate tonight. It will air on
CNN at 7:00 Eastern. The debate comes from the land of the teasips .. TU in
Austin. Hillary is going to have to pull out the stops on this one .. go for
the kill. Without an astounding appearance tonight she's very likely dead in
the water. Desparation time. Can't miss television.
Here's more info.
THIS IS GETTING JUST A BIT ABSURD
First we have all of these females fainting at Obama appearances. Now we
have the crowd actually applauding when Obama blows his nose. Just how serious
do you take supports who faint and applaud nose blowing. Are these people who
really know what's at stake here, or are these celebrity worshipers who would be
watching reruns of American Idol if they weren't at an Obama rally?
SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.
 Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every excuse
for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let's face it ... these
government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the
truth. Let's take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance. I
would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its
hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy. Now don't you find
this just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of
Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 state
even contain the word "democracy?" Isn't it odder still that the Constitution
specifically says that our form of government is "Republican?"
Yes .. there's a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea
of government welfare programs that were outside of the grant of authority in
our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to
tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather
difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea
started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the
law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After
all, isn't that what democracy (majority rule) means?
You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of
the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding
Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation.
Here's your link if you might like to get a copy. The author, historian
Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding
fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of
democrats:
"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"
I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the
Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary
have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless
whims of the masses."
So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the
"democracy" lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger
government becomes. If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a
democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class
convinces the majority of Americans it should do ... then we have stronger
politicians and weaker protections for our rights.
OK .. enough about the democracy thing. Let's move to another area of
widespread ignorance among the American people. Again ... you came by it
honestly. Government schools. I speaking here of the almost universal belief
that you have a constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Hint ..
.you do not.
I talked about this right to vote thing on the show a few days ago, and Web
Guy (the poor SOB) tells me that we have been receiving a string of rather
unfriendly emails from people calling me a moron, an idiot and other similar
names for my statement on the right to vote. Some of these emailers cite
various Constitutional provisions in an attempt to prove their brilliance and my
abject ignorance.
Look .. I don't really mind the fact that many of you have been indoctrinated
into this "right to vote" bit by our government schools. You were had. You
were intentionally misinformed. You should not feel ashamed that you were
fooled this way. After all, every where you go you hear about this right to
vote BS ... so it's no wonder you've bought it. The shame is in sticking to your
erroneous beliefs when the facts are presented to you.
Facts, you say? Yeah ... here are a couple of points for you to consider:
Let's make our first stop at Wikipedia. We'll make two stops. First, the
entry for
"Voting rights in the United States." There you will find the following
sentence:
There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S.
Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the
aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for
any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony).
Next stop .. .the Wikipedia entry for "Sufferage." A subsection of this
entry covers the history of suffrage (the vote) in the United States. Here you
go:
In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not
federally. There is no national "right to vote". The states and the people have
changed the U.S. Constitution five times to disallow states from limiting
suffrage, thereby expanding it.
-
15th Amendment (1870): no law may restrict any race from voting
-
19th Amendment (1920): no law may restrict any sex from voting
-
23rd Amendment (1961): residents of the
District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President
-
24th Amendment (1964): neither Congress nor the states may condition the
right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other type of
tax
-
26th Amendment
(1971): no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting
because of their age
Moving right along now, here's an article written by Congressman Jesse
Jackson Jr. entitled "The Right to Vote." Jackson writes: "And yet the right
to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution." I guess that you folks
who have been sending in those emails are right, and the Congressman is wrong ...
right? Jackson has introduced a voting rights amendment in the congress. Now
just why would he need to do that if the right already existed?
I'm not through with you yet. Let's go to Michael C. Dorf. Dorf is the Vice
Dean and professor of law at Columbia University. Dorf wrote this article
entitled
"We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Tell
me, would a law professor write a column calling for a constitutional right to
vote if we already had one?
Final stop ... the complete text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of
George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Take a look
at Section II, Paragraph B. The very first sentence there reads: "The
individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for
the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature
chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint
members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1."
Enough? I would certainly hope so. So you clowns out there keep sending all
of those emails telling me what an idiot I am for saying that there is no
constitutional right to vote in a federal election. Read the sources I've
presented to you above ... and send me another email.
Some would say that intelligence can be measured by your ability to recognize
that you're wrong on an issue. Many times in my 38-year talk radio career I've
had to admit that I got something wrong. I hope I never grow too old to learn.
Some of you are already there.
By the way ... why is this issue so important to me? Well .... Look what these
damned voters are doing to the greatest experiment in governance in the history
of the world! Once we have accepted the truth – that they don't have a
constitution right to vote – then we can set about the task of getting some of
these dumb masses out of our voting booths. Think about it ... we offer parasites
the opportunity to register to vote when they sign up for welfare! What the
hell kind of sense does that make?
The hell with the idea of pandering to the poor, poor pitiful poor. We
didn't put them there. They did it to themselves .. .and I damned sure don't
want them making decisions that can affect the way I live my life .. and how
much of the money that I earn I can keep. If we must, we'll take care of them
and make sure they don't starve, get basic medical care, and have a place to go
when it rains or gets cold. Fine. That's nothing we wouldn't do for stray
animals .. .but they sure don't need to be voting.
Oh ... and you people at Media Morons can kiss ole' Rusty.
SAN FRANCISCO'S OWLGORE
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has decided that his city is not doing
enough to combat climate change. So what is his solution? More government!
Not only more government, but a new government bureaucrat will be added to the
payroll in San Francisco. Looking for a job?
San Francisco's Director of Climate Protection Initiatives will make a generous
$160,000 a year. Not bad for a government bureaucrat dedicated to hack
science and a phony cause.
Wait .. there's more. Newsom could, perhaps, get away with this new position
... if he didn't already have 25 employees on the city's roster that are dedicated
to "climate issues." This means that the taxpayers of San Francisco are already
paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to tackle climate issues, and now they
will only be paying more. Not to mention that the city is bracing for a $233
million budget deficit next fiscal year. So while lawmakers are sitting in the
chambers trying to figure out ways to cut down on emergency room hours and
delaying playground improvement projects, Mayor Newsom gets to sit in his office
and create a new job in the name of climate change.
So who are these 25 employees already dedicated to fighting the good fight
against global warming? And how much are they costing the tax payers?
$160,720: Salary for the Director of Climate Protection Initiatives in the
mayor's office.
$800,000: Combined salary for the eight-person Energy and Climate Program
team led by a climate action coordinator - at a total cost of more than $800,000
$207,500: Salary for the Head of the city's Environment Department, which has
a staff of 65 and annual budget of about $14 million.
$146,218: Salary for the projects manager for the climate action plan of the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
$156,655: Salary for the assistant to the general manager for water
enterprise (works on how climate change is going to impact the region's water
supply)
$130,700: Salary for the "Greening Director" in Mayor Newsom's office
$190,091: Salary for the manager of environmental services at San Francisco
International Airport
$116,584: Salary for the manager of emissions reductions and sustainability
programs at the Municipal Transportation Agency
You San Francisco taxpayers must be absolutely orgasmic in your appreciation
for your mayor and his spending priorities.
ANTI-SEMITISM TASK FORCE
 Representative Keith Ellison (a Muslim Democrat from Minnesota)
has been assigned to a Congressional Task Force on Anti-Semitism. That
would be like assigning me to head a task force for universal suffrage. That
wouldn't be a wise appointment. Now some groups are calling for Chairman Joe
Kaufman (a Democrat from Florida) to remove Ellison ... and perhaps with good
reason.
It's ironic that a man with direct contact with radical Muslim organizations
would be placed on a task force on anti-Semitism. Ellison has ties to both the
Muslim American Society and our favorite Council on American-Islamic Relations ...
both of which have been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood by the US government.
And CAIR has been linked to Hamas. Ellison spoke
at CAIR's national convention in November of 2006 as an honorary guest. He
was the keynote speaker at a Muslim American Society event, which at the very
time he was speaking boasted statements on its website
calling for the murder of Jews. On top of which, the Muslim American
Society is believed to be the political front in the U.S. for the Muslim
Brotherhood, which is the ideological basis of al Qaeda and other Islamic
terrorist organizations. And for a time, Ellison was highly involved with the
Nation of Islam. As a law student at the University of Minnesota, he helped to
bring speakers to campus who spoke against Jews, Israel and white Americans.
Ellison says that he has publicly denounced the anti-Semitism in these
groups ... but we find no evidence to support his claim. Perhaps he's lying.
Muslims, you know, are free to lie as long as they're lying to us dirty
infidels. This is the closest you will find to an "enlightening" moment from
Ellison,
a letter he wrote to the Jewish Community Relations Council claiming that he
was unaware of the Nation of Islam's anti-Semitism. But actions do speak louder
than words. Nonetheless, Joe Kaufman says that Ellison will stay on the task
force.
REDNECK SCRAP BOOK
How do you know a band on tour
just might be redneck? More in the Redneck Scrap Book.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Barack Obama got yet
another union endorsement yesterday, this time from the Teamsters.
It seems that some black Americans are upset with Barack Obama.
They say he's not "black enough." Well .. you just knew it was going to
come to this, didn't you? What does he need to do? Demand reparations?
What has Barack Obama accomplished in the Senate? Texas State Sen. Kirk
Watson on national TV
couldn't name one legislative accomplishment ... and he is a state Senator and
a big Obama supporter.
Here's some insight into
this obsessive Obama cult that is forming... actresses proclaiming they will
do "anything he says," people fainting, what's next?
The Chicago Sun Times has decided to "return to its liberal, working-class
roots" and
dedicate an entire section of the paper to Barack Obama.
Will John McCain be able to
get those independent votes like he claims he will be able to?
A lot of you wanted the link to the information I gave you yesterday on this
global warming scam. So,
your wish is my command!
Here are some questions about health care that the lamestream media will
probably not ask Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in their next debate in Texas.
I know you all were really worried, but
Cynthia McKinney says that her bid for the presidency will not hurt Barack
or Hillary's chances for becoming the first African American or woman
president. I sure miss that insipid, idiotic woman.
A city in Pennsylvania is caught in a controversy over
whether residents can display political signs in their yards 30 days before
an election.
Reuters has decided to define the word "jihad" for its readers:
a Muslim's a spiritual struggle. Yes I am sure the 3,000 victims of 9/11
would agree. Reuters sucks.
CAIR is asking the FBI to investigate supposed threats that were made on a
blog
against a mosque in south St. Louis. I looked into it .. I haven't said
anything about any Mosque (Arabic for ant hill) in St. Louis.
This is what one Swedish politician
had to say about Muslim radicals in his country: "If they want to live in a
religious dictatorship so badly, they can go to those countries in the Middle
East where such dictatorships exist."
Did you know that 55% of health care costs are
due to smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise? Makes you really want
universal healthcare ... so your tax dollars can fund the health habits of
lardasses and idiots.
Islam's version of dog fighting ... remember, they can't have dog fighting
because dogs are impure according to Islam.
Liquor companies in China are fighting to government
for their right to drink alcohol during their lunch breaks.
Today's time waster...the
25 greatest duets of all time...with videos! | 
Search Boortz.com
Still have questions? March 6th Neal is going to give a FairTax
seminar...online presented by Comcast High Speed Internet! Details to follow.
