Right Wing Dog

The FIGHT for The RIGHT!

Senator Edward Moore Kennedy endorses Barack Obama , everyone EXCITED!!

Senator Edward Moore Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President. Everyone is excited because he is the last of the Kennedy boys. The head of the Kennedy political dynasty. Along with Edward aka Teddy, two other Kennedy family members also endorsed Obama. They were Patrick Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy.

Let’s focus on Teddy for this piece. I can’t see why anyone would be excited about his endorsement. His endorsement in 2000 of Al Bore may have been the kiss of death for Bore’s failed campaign. In his own campaign in 1980 he was beaten by a margin of 2 to 1 by none other than that stellar example of a President “Jimmah Cartah”. When he was in college, he was kicked out of Harvard for CHEATING. After a campaign interview in 1980 Roger Mudd said of Kennedy “he is a bumbling, incoherent person who is less than honest about the marriage and the Chappaquiddick incident”. That incident  is where he drove off a bridge and left the girl in the car with him to drown! This man belongs in prison and if he were anyone else but a Kennedy, he would be there for life.

It simply amazes me that any candidate would want his endorsement or for that matter anything to do with him. He is the personification of a loser. He has been a Senator for Massachusetts for 9 six year terms (54 years at the end of his current term). It’s beyond me how the People keep re-electing him over and over again. He is 76 years old and has been involved in so many scandals he makes Bill Clinton look like a choir boy! 

If voters bother to look,  Kennedy is probably most liberal Senator we have.

Senator Obama, good luck with this one!

RWD

January 30, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Al Gore, America, Blogroll, Democrat, election, Liberal Democrat, Obama, Political, POLITICS, President, Presidential Candidate, Senator, Ted Kennedy | , , | 2 Comments

Was South Carolina a Train Wreck for Hillary??

Train wreck in South Carolina for HillaryMaybe not! What’s the bigger story, Obama winning with 55% of the vote or the Clinton’s losing with 27% of the vote? I think Obama was expected to win BIG although none of the polls I saw had him taking her by more than 20%. A week ago the RCP composite poll only showed a 10.5% difference between the two with Obama on top. This is no doubt another shock for the pollsters and another reason why the voter should not use the polls as a guide.

Regardless of the above, I still believe the BIG story is the Clinton’s losing and here is the reason I think that way and while many are saying this is an omen of doom for the Clinton’s, I am not so sure. Before I go any further with this, I expect you have noted that I have referred to “the Clinton’s” and not Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina section. It is because husband Bill was so heavily involved in the campaign there. I also think the large spread in the votes is due to the black vote. The Clinton’s forced Obama into using the race issue. That made Obama THE black President! Then the Clinton campaign’s use of “dirty politics” galvanized the black vote for Obama and took away the black supporters the Clinton’s did have. Then again, it may have been the Clinton campaign strategy to lose South Carolina and label Obama as THE black candidate and dwell on that in the future primaries in Florida and the 22 taking place on “super Tuesday” hoping for an advantage with the white vote. Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that Jesse Jackson, when he ran in 1984 and again in 1988 won the state of South Carolina meaning that he, as a black candidate, won the black vote but it meant little in the entire picture.

Remember Carolina and Iowa does not necessarily a nominee make. Let’s take a look at all five state races thus far and how they shake out for number of votes per candidate, and what the electoral vote total is after these five contests. Primaries:

  • Clinton received 581,242 votes
  • Obama received 400,211 votes
  • Edwards received 142,394 votes
  • Uncommitted and Dropouts received 288,942 votes

Caucuses:

  • Obama received 9512 votes
  • Clinton received 9510 votes
  • Edwards received 4605 votes
  • Uncommitted and dropouts received 507 votes

Delegates:

  • Obama has 63 delegates
  • Clinton has 48 delegates
  • Edwards has 26 delegates
  • Unallocated has 37 delegates

Obama has only 15 more delegates than Clinton at this juncture and in popular vote he is behind her by 181,240 votes. There are 37 unallocated delegates that could go either way at this point. I do not see this as a losing position for the Clinton’s because there are 57 delegates to be awarded in Florida, 280 in New York, 185 in Illinois and 440 in California. It is “super Tuesday’s outcome that will most likely tell a solid story on WHO the nominee will be.

When the Democratic Convention convenes in The Pepsi Center in Denver on August 25, 2008 the candidate who has a number equal to or greater than 2025 will be the Party’s Presidential candidate. Take a look at this website after the February 5th totals are all in and it will give you and idea of where each candidate stands delegate wise.

RWD

January 28, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Clinton, Democrat, Hillary, Investigative, Liberal Blog, Liberal Democrat, Obama, Political, POLITICS, President, Presidential Candidate, RIGHTWINGDOG, Senator, Voting | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nancy Pelosi just can’t get it right! Last in a series

Ms. Pelosi just can’t seem to get it straight!This is the third and last article in my series on the first year anniversary of the Democratic (read Liberal) control of the House of Representatives lead by none other than The Queen, Nancy Pelosi!The question she was asked was: “What will Congress do to fix healthcare? This is a big topic on everyone’s agenda.The answer was typical Pelosi! “We sent the SCHIP Bill (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) to the President and HE vetoed it. It would have provided health insurance to 10 million more children”.What Ms. Pelosi forgot to mention was that the President vetoed the SCHIP Bill because:

·         There were no safeguards that YOUR tax money wouldn’t be spent on ineligible people

·         There were no limitations that illegal aliens or even ADULTS would benefit from SCHIP

·         The bill contained an additional funding mandate for $35 million more over five years

·         The bill also mandated adding four to six million more children in the next five yearsPresident Bush countered with a proposal to add $5 billion in funding and add 800,000 ELIGIBLE children to the program.

The Democrats (read Liberal’s) wanted absolutely nothing to do with his compromise. They wanted it their way or no way! They will try again to get this passed after the November 2008 elections. You may wonder WHY they are so adamant in passing a giveaway bill like the one they proposed. The reason is that IF they covered more people who were not eligible in the first place (such as illegal’s or those working with income levels greater than allowed? they would have more voters to help keep them in office.

As an aside to the above but still, I believe pertinent, I offer the following:

Does anyone recall the “relaxed” immigration rules that were ordered by the Clinton administration prior to the election for Bill Clinton’s second term? This is when the waiting times were shortened and the background checks were dispensed with and the United States got undesirables (including the worst possible criminal types) with no jobs and large families that ended up on welfare rolls and Bill Clinton got elected! Who paid for all of this? It wasn’t Hillary, it wasn’t Bill, IT WAS YOU! 

 RWD

January 26, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Bush, Clinton, Congress, Democrat, Hillary, House, Liberal Democrat, pelosi, Political, POLITICS, President, RIGHTWINGDOG | , , , , | 1 Comment

Nanacy Pelosi on HER first year as Speaker of The House, The 2nd in Series

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives

One Year in Charge of Congress

 

In speaking about the first year of the Democrats in control of Congress, Nancy Pelosi who was chosen Speaker of The House of Representatives answered some questions about the happenings in her initial year in office. This is the second in a series where the answers to the questions are hers and the comments are mine.

She was asked about the infighting in the last year between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and if she felt that is why there was such a Congressional “deadlock”. Can the two parties get along?

Her answer was “that almost 75% on the Democrat agenda in the House was passed with broad bipartisan support. It’s critical to outline where the differences are, but I live by the adage that we will find common ground where we can and we will stand our ground where we cannot”. (In other words, THEY will not cooperate but expect the Republicans to consent to do so)

The agenda that the Democrats publicized when elected would be passed in the first 100 hours has not for the most part come to fruition. First, let me say that the “first 100 hours” is NOT 100 hours as you and I know it, it is 100 Congressional hours or probably 3 or 4 weeks.

One of the big- issues was pay as you go spending or if you spent money it was to be offset with a similar spending cut. Earmarks were to go away. In reality the earmarks have not gone away and possibly they have increased in number and dollar amount. In a previous article I noted that Hillary Clinton was the earmark queen with $500 million worth requested at year end 2007. Some of the most flagrant abusers of earmarks according to Concerned Citizens Against Government Waste are current Presidential candidates such as Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and even Edwards when he was a Senator. 

In Pelosi’s own House of Representatives, CCAGW has labeled the following 8 Democrats as “Porkers” in 2007: Peterson, Minn., Farr, Ca. Murtha, Pa., Baucus, Mont., Feinstein, Ca., Oberstar, Minn., Clyburn, S.C., and Lincoln, Ark. There were 2 Republicans named and 2 House Subcommittees as well. CCAGW defines their label of “Porker” as one who willfully neglects proper use of tax monies and sheer arrogance of their conduct. I guess this is evidence that Nancy Pelosi’s “pay as you go” policy and her elimination of earmarks mean absolutely nothing when it comes to application by fellow Democrats.

Of the 75% of the Democratic agenda bills that she claimed were passed with “broad bi-partisan support”, many were changed or diluted so the Republicans would vote for them. Then they went to the Senate where the Democrats did not have the 60 votes needed to pass a bill in most cases. Here they were again modified and if passed sent to the President who, in many cases either simply did not sign the bill or he vetoed it. I would ask the question of Ms. Pelosi; Of the 75% of the bills that you claim passed with “broad bi-partisan support”, how many ACTUALLY became law?

RWD

January 23, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Congress, Democrat, Edwards, election, House, Liberal Blog, Liberal Democrat, pelosi, Political, POLITICS, Republican, RIGHTWINGDOG | , , | 1 Comment

Did you forget January 20, 2001? I hope not!

Does the date January 20, 2001 mean anything to you? It should! It is the date the Marc Rich received his pardon from The United States of America.

Does the name Marc Rich mean anything to you? It should! He is the man who was convicted of evading $48 million in taxes owed to the United States of America. In addition he was known to have been actively involved in a trading business with the terrorist rulers of Iran, Libya and Cuba against the express rules of The United States of America. He is an extremely wealthy man who gained his fortune by cheating, lying, stealing and fraud. He was actually on the FBI’s list of most wanted international fugitives. You see when he got in trouble here, he left for Europe and having as much money as he did, had houses all over the world. He lived in Switzerland where he could not be extradited from.How did he convince those in The United States of America to grant the pardon? It was easy, he found a person who was willing to ignore the law, who was not beyond taking money (lots of money in this case) who was known to lie incessantly, at times for no reason at all and whose entire life was almost a fraud.

I imagine that you would like to know who the person was that was ready, oh so willing and able to grant the pardon. It was President William Jefferson Clinton and he did the unspeakable deed just before leaving office.Marc Rich paid for the pardon. He contacted influential people around the world but mainly in Israel and asked for, paid for help to contact Clinton to arrange for the pardon. He saw to it that the Clinton Library received large donation. Through his ex-wife, Denise Rich, he spread even more money around the Clinton’s. Hillary’s campaign for the Senate received a large donation. Denise Rich donated furniture to the Clinton’s new house in New York. Denise Rich was rumored to have had a “special relationship” with  Bill Clinton, one of his  “women”. Those in the know said they had slept together more than once.

In a strange coincidence, the head prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office that got the conviction against Marc Rich was none other than – Rudy Giuliani. He was dumbfounded when he heard about the pardon.

When I realized that the date had completely slipped by without any notice or comment.  I saw nothing at all in the press in the newspapers or on television; I knew I had to remind everyone of this important date in history. The day that March Rich and The Clinton’s screwed the United State of America!

To top off the egregious actions of Bill Clinton and the self-righteous attitude that Marc Rich had after receiving the pardon he bought and paid for (he had the chutzpah to claim HE was wronged and should not have been convicted) the Congress did not even look into the way in which Bill Clinton doled out parson as if he was passing out candy on Halloween.

I hope you will remember January 20, 2001 now and how Marc Ric and The Clinton’s stuck it to America.

RWD

January 22, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Clinton, corruption, Democrat, Hillary, Investigative, Liberal Blog, Liberal Democrat, Main Stream Media, New Yrok Times, Pardon's, Political, POLITICS, President, Presidential Candidate, RIGHTWINGDOG | , , , | Leave a comment

Nancy Pelosi on HER first year as Speaker of The House!

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives

One Year in Charge of Congress

In speaking about the first year of the Democrats in control of Congress, Nancy Pelosi who was chosen Speaker of The House of Representatives answered some questions about the happenings in her initial year in office.

When asked what she considered to be her greatest achievement in office in 2007 she responded as follows:I believe it was the energy security bill. Congress has finally increased the fuel-economy standards for motor vehicles. This alone could save drivers as much as $1000.00 per year and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Let’s look at that for a moment:

The operative word COULD, makes the saving of $1000.00 per year on fuel costs questionable. It also leaves questions on how much fuel would be saved and therefore the reduction of dependence on foreign oil is an unknown as well.

What was not addressed was the cost per vehicle increase to allow manufacturers to comply with the new governmental regulations. While this is an unknown, we know it will be passed on to the consumer. WHERE IS THE SAVINGS HERE?

In addition the mandate in the energy bill that incandesant light bulbs are phased out beginning in 2012 and continuing to include all bulbs by 2014. The new bulbs are the “cork screw” type fluorescent bulb that are supposed to be an energy saving alternative. It is touted to last longer and save electric use dollars. Well, I certainly hope it does save users some money because the cost to purchase the new money/energy “saving” bulb in the stores in my area is around $3.00 to $4.00 per bulb. Immediately next to those bulbs are the incandesant bulbs of comparable lighting size that we have used for years at a cost of 2 for a $1.00.

I had purchased several of these new bulbs last summer and replaced perfectly serviceable bulbs with them to see how they worked out. In my opinion the lighting quality was less (causing eye strain) and for a fact instead of lasting for the number of hours stated on the package, they burned out in a matter of months as opposed to the incandesant bulbs in the same sockets that were used for the same length of “lighting time” that would last over a year. WHERE IS THE SAVINGS HERE? In other words, her greatest achievement in office was to pass legislation that will ultimately cost the American public more money and enrich the manufactures bank accounts. I did not touch on the increased governmental tax collections due to increased costs.

There is more to come,this is the first in a series. The answers are hers and the comments are mine.

RWD

January 22, 2008 Posted by | America, Blogroll, Change, commentaries, Democrat, Energy, House, Liberal Democrat, pelosi, Political, POLITICS, RIGHTWINGDOG | , , | Leave a comment

Start your Day in A Better Way!

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK 
 
1. Open a new file in your computer. 
 
2. Name it ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton’ 
 
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin. 
 
4. Empty the Recycle Bin. 
 
5. Your PC will ask you. ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton ?’ 
 
6 Firmly Click ‘Yes.’ 
 
7. Feel better. 
 
PS – Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi
 

I feel better already!

January 17, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Clinton, Hillary, Humor, Liberal Democrat, pelosi, Political, POLITICS, President, Presidential Candidate, RIGHTWINGDOG, Senator | , , , | 3 Comments

“Loose” Change!

When you take a close look at the current race for President and concentrate on the Democratic Party candidates they ALL are talking about CHANGE as the base for their platform. If I am not mistaken Senator Barack Obama is the candidate who started the idea of making CHANGE as a campaign slogan and the others picked up on it due to them thinking that was part of the cause for Obama’s celebrity. The problem is they all advocate CHANGE but aside from saying they are for a CHANGE in leadership in Washington (isn’t that what the election is all about anyway?) they don’t expand on much else. Obama’s campaign slogan is “CHANGE we can believe in”. Clinton says “I believe in CHANGE”. Edwards, in a campaign speech recently is quoted as saying “Obama believes deeply in CHANGE and I believe deeply in CHANGE” (sounds like his looking for spot #2 on Obama’s ticket to me). The rest of the candidates should make a great CHANGE and get off trying to win the nomination as they have as much chance of winning as Jesse Jackson did when he ran in 1988!What form of CHANGE then are they talking about? One can only guess that is must have to do with some of the programs they have bandied about in their stump speeches and the propaganda their staff hands out to gullible voters. They want to CHANGE the war on terrorism (some candidates say there is no terrorism so why wage war on something that is not there). Some are talking about a CHANGE in immigration laws to make it easier to gain citizenship and others are going to make a CHANGE so everyone has healthcare and on and on it goes. The only thing I can see happening with the CHANGES I have mentioned as well as the others I have not is that they cost money. Money the government does not have. So, where will the money come from? I will tell you: they will borrow it and then they will raise our taxes in order to pay back the debt and then we will have only LOOSE CHANGE left in our pockets to spend after we get our paychecks!

I see absolutely no CHANGE here at all. It is the usual tax and spend policy of the left.

RWD

January 16, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Change, Clinton, Congress, Conservative, Democrat, Edwards, election, Hillary, huckabee, Kerry, Kucinich, Liberal Democrat, Obama, Political, POLITICS, President, Presidential Candidate, Republican, RIGHTWINGDOG, Senator, Ted Kennedy, Voting | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Father has a talk with his daughter

A young woman was about to finish her first  year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself
to be a very  liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the
redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed
that
her father was a rather staunch
Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to
higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare
programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had
to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0
GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that
she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying,
which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.
She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many
college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t
even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct
a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both
have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have
worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey
has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off !”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
“Welcome to the Republican Party.”
 The above message is SO timely that when I received it from a friend, I had to share the message with y’all! ENJOY ! RWD

January 13, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Blogroll, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal Democrat, Political, POLITICS, Republican, RIGHTWINGDOG, Voting | , | Leave a comment

Barack Obama’s Gang of Four!

If this isn’t just like those who foment the liberal philosophy, they blame their own shortcomings on someone else instead of looking toward themselves as a reason for their problem/defeat. 

 There was an article posted at NewsMax http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/John_Kerry_and_his
_Anti-H/2008/01/10/63282.html
about the “Gang of Four” all endorsing Obama because of their all consuming hatred for Hillary and Bill Clinton.  It would seem to me that they would state some issue that Obama has as a reason for the endorsement to offset the REAL reason that I previously mentioned.  

This act of complete disregard for intelligent thought (what am I saying, I am talking about Kennedy, Bore, Kerry and Dean and I reference intelligence??) is possibly in all reality giving Hillary an indirect boost because there are many of those who have less than undying admiration for those who make up the “the gang of Four”.  

I can’t help but figure this was expected by Hillary’s people and should she be elected (oh my God, there I go again, must be something I ate) SHE will get HER revenge! Count on it!

Incidentally, “THe Gang of Four should really be called “The Useless Gang of Four”.

RWD

January 11, 2008 Posted by | 2008 Election, Al Gore, commentaries, Conservative, Democrat, election, Hillary, huckabee, Kerry, Liberal Democrat, Obama, Political, POLITICS, Presidential Candidate, Senator | , , , , , | Leave a comment