A Warning To The Republican Party Establishment RE: Trying To Force ‘Moderates’ On Conservatives

As a California conservative, politics are almost invariably less than “happy.”

A conservative trying to be happy in the People’s Republic of California is rather like like trying to be “Happy” in Iran; we just don’t get to be.

Even when the people vote our way, some fascist liberal judge dictates that the will of the people WILL NOT be respected.  As an example, TWICE now, with Proposition 22 and again with Proposition 8, a judge has overturned the clear will of the people and acted like an ayatollah.  Progressive liberal activists exploited the donor lists as well as their own innate fascism to pursue a vendetta of political thuggery against Prop 8 donors.  And of course we just saw that hard-core leftist fascism demonstrated again when a CEO who had helped build a major company was destroyed because he foolishly thought he had a right to donate to political issues that he believed in (and see here).

So, yeah, as a California conservative, I know that things will rarely ever work out the way I want them to.

And therefore, I’m willing – eager even – to compromise if I can at least have some of my core priorities maintained.

But that won’t happen in California.  Or California would stop being California, wouldn’t it?

We’ve got our primaries coming up and there are two candidates for governor on the ballot to oppose Democrat Jerry Brown in November.

One of them is – by most media accounts – a rabid nutjob who is a racist, who hates immigrants and who has an unnatural love of guns.  The other one is a “moderate” who celebrates homosexual marriage and the right of women to kill their babies with those children’s fathers being denied any rights to their children whatsoever.

Turnout in June is expected to be far older, more white and more conservative than the overall California electorate, posing additional challenges for moderate candidates like Kashkari, who supports gay marriage and abortion rights.

Concern over Donnelly’s emergence prompted businessman Bill Bloomfield to put $142,000 into an independent expenditure campaign for Kashkari. Bloomfield quit the GOP in 2011 over what he saw as extremist views.

So do I vote for the whackjob conservative or the baby-murdering sodomite worshiper?  Decisions, decisions.

I’m not a fan of Donnelly.  I think he’s an inferior candidate at best.  But at least I don’t have to participate in two of the most grievous sins in order to vote for the guy.

It’s not exactly a happy pace to be.  So Iran doesn’t have to worry about my “Happy” video.  There will be no Snoopy dancing for conservatives in California.

Do you know why California is going to have a truly disastrous “wrath of God” style earthquake soon?  Because it will deserve it.  We’re already experiencing the wrath of God in the form of devastating drought.

Let me tell you who I am going to vote for in the primary, California Republican Party.  I’m going to vote for the guy who ISN’T a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.

There are a lot of hills that as a conservative I’m not willing to die on.  I’m willing, for instance, to support a candidate who favors immigration policies that I would rather not see implemented.  Because I would just like to have somebody who represents me at least a little bit on the issues I most care about.

But I will NOT violate my conscience.

I am NOT going to add my name to the list of people who are directly, personally responsible for the murder of more than 55 million innocent human beings since 1973.  I’m just not.

I am NOT going to add my name to the list of people who are defying God to impose His wrath according to Romans Chapter One.  I’m just not.

That is why I am NOT going to cast my vote for Neel Kashkari.  I am not going to vote for him now in the primary and I am not going to vote for him if he is the candidate in November.  I am not going to be put in a position where I am saying, “Hmm.  This baby-murdering sodomite worshiper isn’t quite as bad as this baby-murdering sodomite worshiper.”

I’ve been amazed at Neel Kashkari’s ads.  He keeps calling himself a “conservative.”  Like that means ANYTHING when a guy like him is saying it.  And his ads keep announcing “I’m not a politician.”  Nope – you are just desperate to BECOME one.  But you’ve already sold your soul.

I understand that Donnelly doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning.  Because California has BECOME hell and will soon surely burn in hell due to it’s wrath-of-God drought as it collapses into the ocean due to its wrath-of-God earthquake.

The funny thing is that in spite of ALL the big money going to Kashkari, Donnelly is STILL well ahead of the leftist “moderate” RINO in the polls.  So it doesn’t look like Kashkari has much of a chance of winning, either, does it?

I’m just writing this to the so-called “moderates” who want to expand the Republican Party base.  There are issues you can “expand” on and there are issues you can’t and hope to keep voters like me WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO GO OUT AND VOTE.  The Republican Party platform very clearly states that the Republican Party is pro-life – which means anti-abortion – and pro-marriage – which means anti-homosexual marriage.  Don’t betray the foundation of the party to “reach out” to people who will ultimately end up voting for the other side, anyway.

Abortion and the perversion of marriage are my two hills to die on.  And that is going to remain true even as I watch the American people and the people of California become increasingly wicked in these last days just as the Bible warned me would happen.

DO NOT THINK THAT I (OR CONSERVATIVES LIKE ME) WILL BE WILLING TO PUT ASIDE MY CONSCIENCE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY JUST BECAUSE THERE IS AN ‘R’ IN PARENTHESES AFTER HIS OR HER NAME.  THAT AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If Neel Kashari wins, I will leave my ballot blank for governor.  And that’s a promise from a guy who truly is NOT a politician.

 

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR. 

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.

Mainstream Media Propagandists Refuse To Do Their Jobs; Up To A College Kid To Expose Democrat 2008 Election Cheating In Indiana

Just another example that the mainstream media consists of a bunch of depraved and dishonest propagandists who are as much in the tank for the Democrat Party as Joseph Goebbels and his Ministry of Propaganda was in the tank for Adolf Hitler:

College Student Credited With Uncovering Possible Election Fraud in Indiana’s 2008 Primary
By Eric Shawn
Published October 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008 presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

“This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,” 22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008 Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact, that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.

“What seems to have happened is that a variety of people in northern Indiana knew that this fraud occurred, and actively participated and perpetuated the fraud, and did so on behalf of two presidential campaigns,” according to Nees.

Prosecutors are now investigating. The scandal has already led to the sudden resignation Monday night of Butch Morgan, chairman of the St. Joseph County Democratic Party. He denied any wrongdoing, saying he looks “forward to an investigation that will exonerate me.”

Nees, a junior at Yale University, served as an intern in the Obama White House last year and supports the president’s re-election. But as an intern at the non-partisan political newsletter Howey Politics Indiana, he delved into the Byzantine and complicated world of petition signatures and found reams of signatures that he says appeared to be written in the same handwriting, some apparently copied from previous petitions.

The names were subsequently submitted to Indiana election authorities as the signatures of legitimate voters. Nees and Brian Howey, the newsletter’s publisher, then teamed up with the South Bend Tribune to break the story.

St. Joseph County Prosecuting Attorney Michael Dvorak announced Tuesday that the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana will not be investigating these allegations. So Dvorak is doing so and has requested the assistance of the Indiana State Police.

In a statement, Dvorak said the U.S. attorney “does not investigate allegations of fraud in the submission of petitions by political parties for the placement of the names of candidates on the ballot for federal primary elections. They do, however, investigate fraud in voter registration, the actual voting process and in the tabulation of ballots.”

The state Republican Party Chairman Eric Holcomb had called for a federal investigation.

“We don’t know the extent of the crime. We don’t know how many people. We don’t know if it was organized. Those were some of my questions. How deep does it go? Does it go to one county? Does it go to one district? Does it go to one state? Does it go to 49 other states?”

Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker also supports an investigation. He released a statement that said, in part, “We continue to fully support the investigation into this isolated incident in St. Joseph County. We want to know who committed this act, and we want that person held accountable.”

Nees thinks the candidates did not have knowledge of the alleged forgeries, but he says such things can easily happen.

“This appears to have been the actions of the northern Indiana political machine that operated within the Indiana Democratic Party, not within the campaigns of either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton,” he said.

“What’s important to me is that this sort of thing not occur in the future. This happened with impunity because no one thought that they would ever get caught, and in fact it was likely that no one would ever catch them because no structural safeguard existed to ensure that this wouldn’t occur.”

Howey, the publisher of the political newsletter, told Fox News he also plans to examine the petitions that put Sen. John McCain’s name on the Republican ballot. “It makes sense to look at the whole thing,” he said.

As Nees sat on a bench on the leafy downtown green in New Haven, Conn., with the imposing ivy and Gothic architecture of Yale behind him, he reflected on what he had found back home in his home state.

“Election fraud is particularly troublesome, because it undermines the integrity of our voting process and basically of our democracy. Maintaining the integrity of elections in the United States is an important thing.”

Democrats are dishonest.  And the most dishonest Democrat of all has become our president.

As to the final paragraph of the story, just let me quote Obama:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

A month after making that statement, Barack Obama did the very thing that he himself had just said would be un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional to do.

The wicked, lying weasel who now occupies our White House is not above even the lowest dirtball tactic.  He was a political slimeball from his first campaign.  At his core he is a Chicago thug.  And even the liberal New York Times ripped Obama on his loathsome personal character.

And frankly nothing this wicked scion of “God damn America” does will surprise me.

Why Sarah Palin Should NOT Run For President In 2012

There seem to be two camps regarding Sarah Palin: there is the camp who hates her, demonizes her, trivializes her, etc.; and then there is the camp that fanatically adores her.

Imagine how lonely I must be for not being in either camp.

I genuinely admire Sarah Palin, and if anyone takes the time to search my blog, he or she will find only positive things about Sarah Barracuda.

And yet I do not want Sarah Palin to run; and in fact I would argue that it is BECAUSE I admire Palin and her past and future contribution to this nation that I do not want her to run.

I write this the day after Sarah’s Iowa speech, during which she offered no clues whatsoever on whether she would enter the race.

First, let me present the list of things that I think would make Sarah Palin a great future president:  She is fearless; she has proven that she is ready to take on the entrenched special interests of EITHER party; she has a rare degree of common sense; she has a talent at zeroing in on the heart of an issue and framing it in a way that enables a real solution; and I believe she has genuine integrity and that she truly understands America in a way that we’d have to go back to Ronald Reagan to rival.

Does that sound like something that would come from a Sarah Palin hater?

So why don’t I think – after all the above accolade singing – that Sarah should NOT run for president this year?

Another list: she is too young; too inexperienced; too distant from Washington to understand the people or the political system; too much of a lightening rod; and too polarizing.

Sarah Palin had more relevant experience than did Barack Obama when Obama ran for president, because she had served as a governor.  That said, she was the governor of one of the smallest states in the nation by population, and a state that is almost entirely dependent upon federal money.  And she only served half of her term as governor.

While I personally believe she was forced to leave the governorship for the sake of her family due to a system that allowed the left to despicably personally target her over and over again, the fact remains that she left office.  And the left will never let America forget that she left.  And of course you can’t quit when you’re president, can you?

Barack Obama has demonstrated that he was far too young and far too inexperienced to be the president of the United States.  But the man has the single virtue of being nearly three years OLDER than Sarah Palin.

It certainly is not Sarah Palin’s fault that the mainstream media went beyond morally rabid and psychologically unhinged in their coverage of her; the fact of the matter is that to too large of a degree, their blood libel paid off.  Sarah Palin was torn down one vicious, hateful lie at a time.  And at this point in her career, she simply has not recovered from that.

According to the Fox News polling (hardly unfavorably to her), Sarah Palin would begin with 8% in the polls if she ran.  And that is way too little, way too late.

Barack Obama announced in February of 2007.  He ran for president for nearly two full years.  If Sarah Palin had wanted in, she frankly should have got in a long time ago.

I support Rick Perry, and most of the reasons I support him have to do with the fact that where Palin has deficiencies, Perry has assets.  He is in his sixties; he has been the longest-serving governor of one of the largest states; he very much understands how the Washington system works; he has a documented record of job-creation that Sarah Palin simply cannot match.  And he has the ability to both unite the Tea Party and the GOP establishment AND to raise large institutional money that Sarah Palin simply will not be able to do.

Barack Obama will have a billion dollar war chest, by most accounts.  He is a cynical disingenuous hypocrite and liar to amass that war chest, given his previous rhetoric, but he will have a billion dollars nevertheless.  Sarah Palin’s unfunded moxy will simply not defeat a billion dollars’ worth of ads that will make her look like a Christian fanatic “last days psycho” version of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the time the smoke clears.

The other reason I hope that Sarah Palin does not run is that doing so would tremendously undermine the brand of none other than Sarah Palin.

As long as she dances on the edges, the fact remains that no one will know what would have happened had she run.  She’ll continue to possess her mystique.  If she runs and loses, that bloom will forever be off the rose, and Sarah Palin will be nothing more than another failed presidential candidate.  She’ll be a loser.  Yes, if she were to lose in a closely fought campaign, it could actually help her – as it helped Ronald Reagan who ran a primary challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976 (which sadly guaranteed the presidency of one unmitigated fool named Jimmy Carter, but that’s another story).  But if she loses by a wide margin – which I predict would happen this season – she would be done as a future viable Republican candidate.  She would never get the attention or the money of the establishment she needs to win, because that establishment would judge her by her performance this time around and simply never give her another chance.

Sarah Palin is currently incredibly successful at identifying and helping good candidates, raising funds and framing issues.  I still marvel at how she transformed the narrative in the ObamaCare debate using Facebook while on vacation.  That capacity – which I would argue all Republicans should treasure – would be massively undermined by an unsuccessful primary run now.

To put it into gun metaphors, Sarah, keep your powder dry.

Stay out, keep working, keep raising money, keep your profile up and come to America’s rescue in (hopefully!) 2020 when you are older and demonstrably wiser.

Rick Perry Surges To Huge Lead After TWO DAYS As A Candidate

From Rasmussen:

GOP Primary: Perry 29%, Romney 18%, Bachmann 13%
Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
 
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.

Rick Perry announced his candidacy on Saturday.

I wrote about my own personal support for him that same day (with that article coming out early Sunday morning).

Two days, and he’s already got the lead in the primaries.

I was hoping Perry would quickly move ahead of Mitt Romney, but who could have dreamed it would happen this quickly?

Rick Perry can unite the conservative-Tea Party-Republican base like no one else in the field.  And Democrats who think they can ignore Perry’s record of creating nearly half the jobs IN ALL AMERICA by trying to morph Perry into George Bush merely because both men happen to be from Texas, they are on the verge of a massive defeat.

Obama White House Accused By Democrat Of Federal Crime In Specter, Bennet Races

Richard Nixon was honest to a fault compared to Barack Obama – and Obama is displaying corruption in only a year (Nixon was into his second term before he got caught).

We have Obama on video telling what we now recognize were seven major lies in less than two minutes when he was lying his way to the presidency:

[Youtube link]

We’ve got Obama displaying a shocking pattern of corruption and lack of transparency in a case involving a friend and a sacred-cow program.  It is also a case of a president firing an Inspector General for the crime of investigating a crime in a manner that was not merely Nixonian, but Stalinist (link1; link2; link3; link4).  Rest assured that Obama has his own enemies list.

The case of the illegal firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin is far from over as it works its way through the legal system.

Getting closer to what we now have before us, we have the cases of the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and a list of political bribery shenanigans that gets too long to follow.

All from an administration that deceitfully promised unprecedented transparency and openness and continues to shamelessly represent itself as being the best thing since sliced bread.

But this story – supported by the testimony of Democrats – may be in a whole new class of corruption:

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races
By Jeffrey Lord on 2.22.10 @ 6:09AM

“Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” — 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

“In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a “high-ranking” government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.”
— Philadelphia Inquirer
February 19, 2010

“D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff”
—Denver Post
September 27, 2009

A bombshell has just exploded in the 2010 elections.

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrat challenging Specter for re-nomination, launched the controversy by accusing the Obama White House of offering him a federal job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter.

In August of 2009, the Denver Post reported last September, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet was appointed to the seat upon the resignation of then-Senator Ken Salazar after Salazar was appointed by Obama to serve as Secretary of the Interior. According to the Post, the specific job mentioned was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Post cited “several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.”

The paper also describes Messina as “President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop.” Messina’s immediate boss is White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

In an interview with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane, who broke the story on Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Comcast Network show, Sestak says someone — unnamed — in the Obama White House offered him a federal job if he would quit the Senate race against Specter, the latter having the support of President Obama, Vice President Biden and, in the state itself, outgoing Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. Both Biden and Rendell are longtime friends of Specter, with Biden taking personal credit for convincing Specter to leave the Republican Party and switch to the Democrats. Rendell served as a deputy to Specter when the future senator’s career began as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, a job Rendell himself would eventually hold.

Asked Kane of Sestak in the Comcast interview:

“Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”

“Yes” replied Sestak.

Kane: “Was it Secretary of the Navy?”

To which the Congressman replied:

“No comment.”

Sestak is a retired Navy admiral.

In the Colorado case, the Post reported that while Romanoff refused comment on a withdrawal-for-a-job offer, “several top Colorado Democrats described Messina’s outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

The Post also noted that the day after Romanoff announced his Senate candidacy, President Obama quickly announced his endorsement of Senator Bennet.

The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law — in order to preserve the Democrats’ Senate majority — could prove explosive in this highly political year. The 60-seat majority slipped to 59 seats with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democrat, and the election of Republican Senator Scott Brown. Many political analysts are suggesting Democrats could lose enough seats to lose their majority altogether.

This is the stuff of congressional investigations and cable news alerts, as an array of questions will inevitably start being asked of the Obama White House.

Here are but a few lines of inquiry, some inevitably straight out of Watergate.

* Who in the White House had this conversation with Congressman Sestak?

* Did Deputy Chief of Staff Messina have the same conversation with Sestak he is alleged to have had with Romanoff — and has he or anyone else on the White House staff had similar conversations with other candidates that promise federal jobs for political favors?

* They keep logs of these calls. How quickly will they be produced?

* How quickly would e-mails between the White House, Sestak, Specter, Romanoff and Bennet be produced?

* Secretary of the Navy is an important job. Did this job offer or the reported offer of the US AID position to Romanoff have the approval of President Obama or Vice President Biden?

* What did the President know and when did he know it?

* What did the Vice President know and when did he know it? (Note: Vice President Biden, in this tale, is Specter’s longtime friend who takes credit for luring Specter to switch parties. Can it really be that an offer of Secretary of the Navy to get Sestak out of Specter’s race would not be known and or approved by the Vice President? Does Messina or some other White House staffer — like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — have that authority?)

* What did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel know, and when did he know it?

* What did Congressman Sestak know and when did he know it? Was he aware that the offer of a federal job in return for a political favor — his withdrawal from the Senate race — could open the White House to a criminal investigation?

* What did Senator Specter know about any of this and when did he know it? .

* What did Governor Rendell, who, as the titular leader of Pennsylvania Democrats, is throwing his political weight and machine to his old friend Specter, know about this? And when did he know it?

* Will the Department of Justice be looking into these two separate news stories, one supplied by a sitting United States Congressman, that paint a clear picture of jobs for political favors?

* Will Attorney General Holder recuse himself from such an investigation?

While in recent years there have been bribery scandals that centered on the exchange of favors for a business deal (Democrat William Jefferson, a Louisiana Congressman) or cash for earmarks (Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham), the idea of violating federal law by offering a federal job in return for a political favor (leaving two hotly contested Senate races in this instance) is not new.

Let’s go back in history for a moment.

It’s the spring of 1960, in the middle of a bitter fight for the Democratic presidential nomination between then Senators John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Stuart Symington and the 1952 and 1956 nominee, ex-Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson.

Covering the campaign for what would become the grandfather of all political campaign books was journalist and JFK friend Theodore H. White. In his book, the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the President 1960, published in 1961, White tells the story of a plane flight with JFK on the candidate’s private plane The Caroline. The nomination fight is going on at a furious pace, and White and Kennedy are having another of their innumerable private chats for White’s book while the plane brings JFK back from a campaign swing where he spoke to delegates in Montana.

The subject? Let’s let White tell the story.

The conversation began in a burst of anger. A story had appeared in a New York newspaper that evening that an Eastern Governor had claimed that Kennedy had offered him a cabinet post in return for his Convention support. His anger was cold, furious. When Kennedy is angry, he is at his most precise, almost schoolmasterish. It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor. This was an accusation of a federal offense. It was not so.

Let’s focus on that JFK line again:

“It is a federal offense, he said, to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

With a fine and jail time attached if convicted.

What Larry Kane discovered with the response of Congressman Sestak — and Sestak is sticking to his story — combined with what the Denver Post has previously reported in the Romanoff case — appears to be a series of connecting dots.

A connecting of dots — by Democrats — that leads from Colorado to Pennsylvania straight into the West Wing of the White House.

And possibly the jail house.

“It is a federal offense,” said John F. Kennedy, “to offer any man a federal job in return for a favor.”

And so it is.

Obama – who is loudly and frequently patting himself on the back for how “bipartisan” he is, is the most radically ideological partisan who ever sat in the Oval Office.

And as Obama continues to push his ObamaCare boondoggle apparently to the very last Democrat, it is more than fair to ask: why on earth are we trusting these dishonest rat bastards with our health care system and literally with our very lives in the event that their government takeover succeeds?

What If Obama Loses “Bitter” Pennsylvania?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean is hardly alone in calling Pennsylvania a “must win” state for Barack Obama.  But it’s a genuine possibility that he won’t.  Chris Matthews, that paradigm of journalistic objectivity, confessed to his “worry” that Obama may not be able to carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton carried Pennsylvania over Obama by 10 points, fueled at least partly by Obama’s infamous “bitter” statement about Pennsylvanians at an elite San Francisco fundraiser:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Who wants to bet that Pennsylvanian voters won’t be reminded of that one a few thousand times between now and November?

Lest we forget, the pre-primary polling had Obama gaining on and actually overtaking Clinton in Pennsylvania.  And then they actually voted.

The current Real Clear Politics (RCP) average has Obama up by only 1.8 percent, which is within the margin of error.  And there are good reasons to believe that Obama will not do as well as the polls indicate.

There is a current barrage of stories that are already blaming racism for a potential Obama defeat.  These stories, while undoubtedly attempting to solicit a “guilt vote” for Obama, may actually backfire, as voters angered by having their motives questioned and impugned may harden against Obama.

If Barack Obama loses Pennsylvania, he will be the political equivalent of a smoldering chunk of dead meat.  Most experts agree that he MUST WIN Pennsylvania due to the electoral map calculus, and the loss of this state will likely single a very long night for Obama supporters.