A little reading.........

Enemy In The Ranks
Joe Lieberman's Outspoken Support For John McCain Could Hurt Democrats Among Jewish Voters

Lieberman and Democratic Donors for McCain
(IsraelNN.com) Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is attracting the support of Jewish Democratic donors, a U.S. congressional newspaper reports.

The war for the White House
Calculating the impact on America's presidential campaign

McCain, GOP Face Hispanic Tipping Point
As the largest minority group in the United States, Hispanics are finding their political sea legs in a year in which their votes could, and likely will, swing the presidential election.

If you haven't found it yet check out No Quarter....always a lot of good stuff to read there.

FOR FUN:

A reading from the Obama Scriptures - The 10 Obamaments.

I am findingout.............UPDATE>>

What I am finding out as I go around the internet is that some people still have not heard about or read about Black Liberal Theology. I haven't really looked to see if more has been written about it lately. Black Liberal Theology, if you didn't know, is and was what has been taught at Senator Barack Obama's church by Rev. J. Wright. I found this on the subject awhile back. Here is a Google search page. There are some good pieces there and some that aren't so good. Yes I know he left the church......now......but it was his home church that he went to for 20 years. Has he ever answered the question....Does he lives by this theology?....he went there for so long one would think he must. Here is a piece by Marie Jon written back in February of this year. I will do some looking and if I find anything that is worth posting I will.

______________________________________________________________________

Earlier this week something happen and it never really got covered by the MSM so I thought I would write a little about it. It has to do with Dan Boren. I first heard about it on the radio and the person reporting pointed out that he would not endorse Mr. Obama but would vote for him in Denver. Here is what I found at one web site.

Dan Boren Won't Endorse Obama

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Democratic Rep. Dan Boren says he will not endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race.

Boren is one of 10 superdelegates from Oklahoma. He says he plans to vote Democratic in the presidential election but that he will not endorse anyone in the race.

Boren says Hillary Clinton carried his 2nd Congressional District by 66 % in the state's presidential primary. Statewide, Clinton won the Democratic primary with 55 % of the vote. But she has suspended her campaign and Obama is the presumptive nominee.

He says he will vote with the rest of Oklahoma's delegation to nominate Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Boren says his district is much more conservative than Obama, whom he described as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate.

Boren says he has to reflect the people of his district.

Now what I would like to know is how his voting for Obama in Denver is reflecting the voters in his district? Remember who won?...."Boren says Hillary Clinton carried his 2nd Congressional District by 66 % in the state's presidential primary" What is happening here is what happened all over the United States. The voters vote one way and the superdelegates vote another. He is up for reelection and does not want to loose. Notice how he is talking out both sides of his mouth? He won't endorse, he has to reflect the people of his district, he will vote with the rest of Oklahoma's delegation to nominate Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.That DOES NOT reflect the people of his district. Please look at this map from CNN and tell me who you think won more districts in Oklahoma. Oh my, Obama won 1 county out of the whole state! Big winner isn't he? Yes he is when the superdelegates are the decider's in the race. The voters are the losers in this election no matter how you look at it. Our votes don't count!!!

Here is piece I found about Boren from News Busters.

Dem Congressman's Refusal to Endorse 'Liberal' Obama Goes Largely Ignored

What we saw in the primary coming from the media will continue throughout the GE. Don't fall for the lies. Do your own research....."Get out and vote in November" is something I like to tell people but after we were all disenfranchised in the primary by the way superdelegates did not reflect the peoples votes in the states that clearly went for Clinton, I think it is even more important than ever. If they didn't listen the first time around we will tell them again....NO Obama!!!

UPDATE: The Obama Holdouts

____________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.

The DNC's political department, housed in Washington, D.C., will be dramatically rebuilt, with staffers offered a choice of moving to Chicago, joining state operations, or staying in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said.

But the power will clearly be shifting to a centralized Chicago hub.

The DNC's key role in coordinating political operations with state parties is expected to largely be taken over and overseen by Obama's senior staff in Chicago, state party officials said.

"This is part of the implementation of the plans Paul [Tewes] discussed last week with the state party chairs," Finney said. "As part of the efforts to fully integrate DNC operations with the Obama campaign here in Washington, in Chicago and in the states, political, field and constituency operations are moving to Chicago to work in the Obama headquarters. The goal is to consolidate these efforts into one operation and effectively drive one national strategy."

People familiar with the plan said that state party staffers paid for under Howard Dean's 50 State Program would be shifted to working for the presidential campaign, at least in targeted battleground states.

The move reflects Obama's desire to maintain an unusually streamlined campaign, as well as his swift and complete takeover of a Democratic Party that isn't always known for its unity. The move may also save the campaign money, as the Obama campaign can use DNC salaries and staff to pay for elements of its organizing campaign and avoid some of the duplication that has often dogged presidential efforts.

____________________________________________________________________

Katie Couric Speaks Out.......

I found this at GretaWire this morning, and who do you think put it up? No Quarter. That site, (No Quarter) has had its trouble throughout this election but they are still fighting the good fight for Hillary.Be sure to read the comments left at Greta's place.

The Whining Has Begun For The GE..........UPDATE

Yes Obama's press is whining all ready.....The GOP is going to go after their "Precious"

GOP dirty tricks machine readies a charge that Obama is not eligible to be president

UPDATE: A MUST READ

The Friends of O
Inside the circle of Chicagoans who spotted Barack Obama's talent, helped guide his path—and made it hard for him to close the deal (even before the Reverend Wright eruptions)

Here is a piece by PJB that you may want to read.

How Obama won – and may win again

Pat seems to give both sides of the story in a way.

McCain, Obama Clash Over Ties to Lobbyists

Have you heard?

Johnson resigns

Obama and his campaign staunchly defended Jim Johnson against the charge that his ties to troubled mortgage lender Countrywide disqualified him from sitting on Obama's vice presidential search committee, but Johnson just pulled the plug: He resigned as chairman of the steering committee just now.

“Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept. We have a very good selection process underway, and I am confident that it will produce a number of highly qualified candidates for me to choose from in the weeks ahead. I remain grateful to Jim for his service and his efforts in this process,” Obama said in a statement.

Johnson also put out a statement.

"I believe Barack Obama's candidacy for president of the United States is the most exciting and important of my lifetime," he said, according to a Bloomberg report. "I would not dream of being a party to distracting attention from that historic effort."

Johnson also decried the "blatantly false statements and misrepresentations" that he said were at the center of the controversy.

Both McCain and Obama have set for themselves high standards of purity while running what are, after all, political campaigns; these feeding frenzies are consequences, in part, of how easy it is to write about internal contradictions and hypocrisy.

The other story out there along these lines, that Obama, who -- unlike McCain -- won't raise money from lobbyists, has to do with the Democratic National Convention: how it will raise its money, and if a lobbyist can continue to lead its fundraising.

Not writing a long post today.

Check out No Quarter some great post going up there today.

They Are Still Fighting For Hillary........

Clinton Supporters Voices Will Be Heard In Denver!


from: PrincesseJen

I would love to be able to vote for Hillary in November but I don't see it happening. Obama is picking his VP. now so I have moved on. If by chance or some miracle she is the nominee she will get my vote!

No One Has The Right To Ask You To Vote For......

My vote is mine and yours is yours and you should vote for the person that you believe has enough experience in government, a person who has been around long enough to know how things work in Washington. I do not believe Barack Obama is that person. I have listened to him and I don't like what I hear. Speeches don't go very far for me when a person is running for president. I like someone with some history in government. To put it simply he does not pass the commander in chief test for me. No one should ask you to vote for someone. You should look at the person and their record and decide for yourself. I did that with Clinton, Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards before I made up my mind to vote for Clinton in the primary and now I have done that with McCain. McCain will get my vote.

Today I am going to cover abortion because it is a subject that is important to me. Obama's record on abortion is very extreme...he opposed the ban on partial birth abortion and then criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. When he was in the Illinois state senate he opposed a bill that was very much like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that prevents the killing of infants that have been left alive by abortion. When Obama said he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" lets just say....that made me sick. Babies are not punishment. Does your mother love you or are you a punishment sent to her from God. Do you love your children or are they just a punishment you have to live with? I don't completely oppose abortion, in cases of rape or incest or if the mothers life is at risk then I think it is up to the mother. I could even say if there is something wrong with the baby and the mother does not feel she would be able to care for the child over time that I would understand.To kill a baby who has been left alive after an abortion is murder and Obama approves of this. You really should do some research on this before it all gets scrubbed off the internet.

Read this piece from The Jerusalem Post titled Obama is no moderate: His radical position on 'abortion' after birth....I will post it here encase it can't be found. Why do I say that....because things that I looked at yesterday are now gone. But first I want to put up their voting record on this subject. I agree with McCain on this subject not Obama. Roe v Wade will not be repealed so don't try to tell me it will.

Obama's voting record:ABORTION

• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

McCain's voting record:ABORTION

• Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
• Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

____________________________________________________________________

Obama is no moderate: His radical position on 'abortion' after birth

Recently, Hillary Clinton presciently warned that she would be the best Democrat presidential candidate because she's already been "vetted." Now, that's not necessarily a good thing for Mrs. Clinton considering her (and her husband's) checkered past. But she does have a point when it comes to Barack Obama, the new, fresh, moderate-sounding, wildly popular-and largely uninvestigated-frontrunner candidate. And, as it turns out, pro-abortion radical.

We all know Obama's style, his regal, visionary bearing, his above-the-fray persona, his inspired - and, give him his due, inspiring - performances, his "Audacity of Hope," and his hypnotic, upbeat, unifying message. He is skilled. If we were voting for a chief motivational speaker or a political "American Idol," even I'd be on the bandwagon.

But for a candidate for Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and leader of the free world, we need more. We need some record or some history. His soaring rhetoric aside, it's long-past the time to ask: just who is this guy? What's at his core? Where is his moral compass? Do we share the same basic values? Is he as moderate in deed as in word? Apparently not, at least judging by his record on a key sanctity-of-life issue. It is beyond extreme; it is jarring.

Reasonable people may differ in their opinions regarding abortion and thorny questions of precisely when life begins. Jewish doctrine, with its focus on the health of the mother, may differ from Christian or other religious positions over the circumstances under which abortion may be permitted. But once a baby is born, even prematurely, there is across-the-board agreement that a new human life exists. Certainly, there is no longer any threat to the health of the mother. Abortion is no longer an option, as there is no longer a pregnancy to terminate.

So, what are we to make of Obama's votes against protecting the right to life for living babies who have survived attempted abortions? Such babies are sometimes born alive as a result of late-term induced labor abortions, often sought when babies are believed (sometimes in error) to have genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

Earlier this decade, such living, breathing, babies who survived labor were "shelved" - left to die and disposed of with other medical waste, or were "aborted" - killed outside the womb. The practice was ultimately banned by unanimous Congressional votes, as even the most pro-abortion Senate Democrats - including every defender of partial-birth abortion - recognized that killing these breathing babies is no longer abortion in any real sense. It crosses the line; it is infanticide. Yet, incredibly, Obama repeatedly worked to deny these living babies any right to life.

Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, testified in the US Congress in 2000 and 2001 - and before Obama's Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - about how induced labor abortions were handled at her hospital, relating this story: "One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived." Powerful stuff. Obama, however, was reportedly "unfazed" by her testimony.

Various state and federal attempts ensued to curb the gruesome practice, including the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in 2002 (It did not immediately become law.)

In essence, these acts state that, whether wanted or not, once a baby is fully born, it is recognized as fully human and is entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Even pro-abortion Democrats supported the BAIPA because it contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion rights. Democrat Barbara Boxer, arguably the Senate's most zealous pro-choice advocate, agreed that, with this language, the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

But not Obama. In March of 2001, Obama's Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law substantially identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. In front of the full Illinois Senate, Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies (ponder that) could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted "present," tantamount to a "no" vote. In March of 2002, Obama's Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions - Obama again voting "present," arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."

In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law.

In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law.

Obama's position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman's "right to choose;" it attacks a living baby's right to life. His position is not simply "pro-choice;" it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a "uniter" would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies?

In the coming years, the United States Supreme Court is likely to decide landmark cases dealing with life-sanctity issues of eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion. Is mainstream, centrist America ready to put Court appointments in the hands of a far-left candidate with such a radical, ghoulish record?

Perhaps most disappointing is that Obama's handling of the issue suggests he is actually just another slippery politician - more "spin" than substance. For all the supposed integrity he projects, Obama has not even shown the courage to honestly defend his votes.

In 2004, during a campaign debate, Republican US Senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama on his opposition to the 2003 Illinois BAIPA. Obama replied: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill." What a marvelously Clintonian answer! As noted above, that language did not make it into the Illinois bill because Obama himself blocked It. Now that is first-rate Audacity. But it doesn't inspire much Hope.

____________________________________________________________________

I am not sure what my topic will be tomorrow you will just have to check back..........

____________________________________________________________________

Because of the comments I have had to delete I am putting up a link to a past post of mine and I will be moderating comments so the vile crap does not post.

BREAKING NEWS!!!

____________________________________________________________________

NEED TO RELAX A BIT?

Critics say that Presidential candidate Barack Obama tries to “be all things to all people” and that he makes too many “pie-in-the-sky” promises. At a recent political rally, Obama tried to overcome these criticisms by emphasizing his commitment to principles. Afterwards, audience members lined up at a microphone to ask Obama questions.

The first person at the microphone said, “I oppose the war in Iraq. If you are elected, what will you do about that?”

“I will end the war in Iraq within two weeks of taking office,” answered Obama. “All our troops will come home, and I will simultaneously make sure the Iraqi government is functioning and secure.”

The second person in line said, “I’m an illegal alien. What will you do for people like me?”

“If I am elected,” answered Obama, “every illegal alien will receive U.S. citizenship, free health coverage, and a scholarship to the university of your choice.”

The third person in line said, “I’m a conservative. If elected, what will you do for me?”

“I’ll send that first guy to Iraq, and the second guy back to Mexico.”

____________________________________________________________________

What Hillary Really Wants

Many people, including Hillary Clinton supporters, have been asking themselves recently: What does Hillary Clinton really want? After any level of examination, the answer should be quite clear; she wants all of her supporters to vote for John McCain. This conclusion may seem at odds with her endorsement of Barack Obama, but only if you have not paid close attention to the entire primary election.

As many of you remember, Hillary Clinton gave it all for her candidacy. She spent months making the case that Barack Hussein Obama was unelectable, inexperienced, immature about foreign policy, even dangerous in comparison to John S. McCain. She also made the case that SHE was highly qualified, had the strong record on social issues and had the necessary judgment to be Commander in Chief. Many times she even made it a point to mention that McCain had already crossed the Commander in Chief threshold, while Obama had obviously failed to do the same. It would be fair to conclude that this was not dishonest rhetoric on her part, since even a casual study of Obama’s record confirms her multiple contentions. In addition, she also bluntly told most superdelegates in private that “Obama CAN’T win!”. In other words, she basically laid ALL of her credibility and experience on the line to make the case that the only two capable candidates in the race to the White House were John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Even Bill Clinton participated in this spread of this theme and made public statements in which he clearly pointed out that “it would be great to see a race between two people who really love their Country”, something that made all within the Obama campaign cringe, for the obvious implications of said statement; Obama is NOT patriotic enough to run for our highest office (the nefarious legacy of Rev. Wright, Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Ayers).more

____________________________________________________________________

Wonderful New Place...... Updated

I have found a wonderful new forum. I found it by way of Democrats For McCain. It is the PUMA Party Unity? forum. I think this will be a great place for people to meet up get information about different things going on. It looks to be relatively new so give it time for information to be posted and if you have something that you think needs to be shared look through and see if the topic is being covered and post it. For the future if you are looking for a link to get there it will be on the left of this blog and you just click on this picture...... For example, do you know when the dead line to change to Independent is in your state, if you do post it, if you don't then call your local election board and find out then get it posted. I posted for my state in this thread in the forum. That is under Hillary Independent Movement . While you are surfing around today Check out this place.. I'm Uppity it is a cool place and she has some information up that people need to read...They have covered it at The Confluence and Uppity is one of the people who identity has been stolen.

That is it for now. I will update when I feel the need....We Must Get Organized!!!!
____________________________________________________________________

People are asking who has this forum....PUMA is all over the place. Look here at Turn Down Obama. I do not know if it comes from here or not but will try to get more information.

Have you seen Just Say No Deal yet. It has a list of sites that are saying no to Obama.

____________________________________________________________________


jslat told me about this story and I wanted to post it here for you all encase you missed it .

June 3, 2008

Right now, major U.S. media corporations are trying to sway the outcome of the Democratic primaries, in part by sabotaging the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Evidently, the parent companies or affiliates of these press outlets hope to avert many of the regulatory changes she has proposed for Wall Street and the oil companies, as well as her New Deal-type jobs program and alternative energy plan. Such intiatives have the potential for negatively impacting their businesses. more

____________________________________________________________________

Another Forum if you like to communicate that way is Hillary Voters For McCain ...

I have been told at No Quarter that the PUMA forum is from The Confluence but I have no conformation on that yet. I have sent a PM still waiting for a reply....will update...

UPDATE: Still no answer so I think I will assume it is NOT connected to The Confluence by riverdaughter. I can get no answer from anyone at the forum or at riverdaughters site.

____________________________________________________________________

Corbett is still turning down Barrack Obama.
____________________________________________________________________


Kristi said...

Georgia does not have a deadline. They do not official register voters by party. When a voter votes in November they fill in their party affiliation. This information from the SOGR office.

Thank you for the information Kristi. I think I will start a list at the left.

____________________________________________________________________

ABOUT THE P U M A SITE:

I finally got an answer….

not a dem anymore wrote:
I am getting tired of asking this but who has this site? Is it The Confluence or not?

No, it’s nobody. I started dems4mccain.info and somehow it got linked up and down the internet overnight. The people commenting there were looking for a place to organize on a variety of issues so I put this website up. This site is completely unaffiliated with any other long established site.

Thanks

Page Removed Today....Updated 6/9/08

____________________________________________________________________

Found this Youtube at No Quarter. He has up a good piece about the above page.

GOOD LUCK HILLARY....in what ever you do...