John McCain, Tax Cheat?

You know, I can see a couple of months, but FOUR YEARS?!??!?! Please. Something stinks to high heaven about this story.

When you’re poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you’re rich, it’s hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It’s a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.

San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain’s trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain’s lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: “The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due.”Cindy McCain Pays Back Taxes on San Diego Condo | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com

Now, if Barack Obama had let his taxes go that long, you just know that every Republican and other Conservative Blogger would have their tongues wagging and keyboards everywhere would be smoking from all the writing that would be going on about how he was a tax cheat and how would not be qualified to be President. AmericaBlog puts it quite correctly:

McCain’s friends in the traditional media will surely give him yet another pass on this. And, why not? McCain obviously has some great houses to which he can invite his media pals. But, just for a second, imagine the furor if Barack Obama didn’t pay his property taxes.

Amen. I could not have written it better myself. Of course, when you own 7 different Houses, it is a little hard to keep up.

Others:
The Jed Report, The Other McCain, L.A. Now, TPM Election Central and Brilliant at Breakfast and Others via Mememorandum

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Bill Clinton Small man extraordinaire

Taking a small break from my Birthday exile….

Mr. Sir Pout a Bunch

Quote:

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my ass” in return for his support. Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my ass’ for his support (Via U.K. Telegraph)

While I somewhat balk at Blogging about this, because the U.K Telegraph isn’t exactly known for it’s truthful reporting. But if this is even remotely true. I doubt seriously that you will be seeing Bill Clinton at Obama events anytime soon.

Either way, Bill needs to just grow up, Obama represents the new democrat party. Hillary is the old guard.

My feelings of Obama aside, The man won, Bill just needs to get over it.

Okay, back to my Birthday…

Update: Ha! One of my readers., commenter ChuckAtPodunkOutpost, says that Bill up there looks like Jeff Dunham’s Walter. Check it out:

I do, too, notice a big resemblance. After all, Liberals are tolerant of “different” Sexual practices, Moonlighting are we Bill?

Others:Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, The Other McCain and The Corner and more via Memeorandum

Off for the weekend…..

As you could tell from my previous posting, I am in dire need for a weekend off from Blogging. So, I will be not blogging the stories this weekend. Unless something major happens.

There’s another reason.

It’s my birthday. I will be 36 tomorrow. I’m getting clothes, and hopefully a little money.

So, I’m off to just be a spectator for the weekend. There’s a thing known in these parts as the “Downriver Cruise” I might go take that in this weekend.

Meanwhile, check out Memeorandum for the latest stories and reactions from the Blogging World. 

See you all on Monday!

Obama, Hillary Unity…..*Yawn*

Color me, unimpressed….. totally.

Click here
to read all about it.

I guess I’m either jaded or just burned out and maybe just bored….

It’s the big talking subject for Friday, to give the talking heads something to speculate on. I find it all rather boring…

Jack Moss makes a a rather humorous reference to the Beast and Anti-Christ. Obama might be many things, but that’s not one of them, The Rapture of the Church has not happened yet, Jack. Read your Bible man! Magic Negro? Yes. Marxist? Yes. Liberal? Yes. Anti-Christ, Not hardly

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Some Republican Senators in Congress want Africans to catch AIDS and die.

This comes via Cernig over at NewsHoggers, It seems that we have some Republicans who are so damn self righteous that they would rather people in Africa to die of AIDS, so, they can say, “I prevented run-away spending”, than they would like to see their party improve their image.

From McClatchy Washington Bureau, we have the substance of why these senators are against this Bill:

In a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the seven senators — Coburn, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana — criticized the bills’ increased spending over the next five years from $15 billion to $50 billion, the expansion of AIDS funding to countries such as China and India and the inclusion of funding for agricultural-assistance and poverty-alleviation programs.

"The bills’ support would allow morally questionable activities, including advocating with host governments to change gender norms and policies and promoting activities that could include needle distribution to drug users," the senators wrote.

McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., support the legislation and said they were pushing for a compromise. Reid has been reluctant to move the legislation forward until an agreement is struck, and this week Democratic leaders focused blame for the delay on the seven senators.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, supports expanding the program, and the White House has pressed lawmakers for the legislation’s passage.

"President Bush himself talks to members of Congress about it to make sure that they know how important he thinks it is that they pass this bill because of all the good work that it’s doing," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And I think that members of Congress recognize that, as well. I think we’re just working on these details. There have been some concerns, but I think that we’re able to address them."

The bills are backed by a wide range of humanitarian groups. Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently pressed McConnell to convince the Republican senators who’ve balked to pass the legislation.

"With the quick passage of this legislation, the United States could send a strong signal of its continuing global health leadership that will leverage support from other G-8 nations," Tutu wrote in a letter to McConnell. "That is why I am so deeply troubled by the impasse in the U.S. Senate regarding this legislation. I see signs that global determination to keep the promises made on AIDS, TB and malaria is waning, and I know that passage of this legislation, prior to the G-8, is crucial to regaining momentum."

Ya know, I’m just going to call this, for what it is, and that is blatant stupidity. For all the things that I have criticized President Bush for, this was not one of them. This is where I and the people who call themselves Nationalists, disagree. I believe in reigning in on spending and in spending money to foreign countries. But on humanitarian issues, I make an exception. AIDS is a terrible disease, and anything our Government can do to prevent it’s spread, should be pursued to the best of our abilities.   

Not only this, the Republican Party has a serious image problem, that is really in need of fixing, at let me just say, this is doing absolutely nothing to fix it. I mean, if the Republicans want to repair their highly tarnished image, which was all but destroyed by the actions of a Neo-Conservative Administration. This is really going to set the party back, very far back.

Bush insiders prove to be hostile witnesses

As if the country needed any further proof that the Bush Administration engaged in unconstitutional, not to mention unlawful, behavior, this little fine nugget of information drops today in the media.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports that the hearing yesterday failed to produce any substantive information, but rather exposed the parties involved for the heartless, condescending, disdainful people that these men really are.

Consider a couple snippets:

Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? "I’m not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of," Addington growled. Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws? "That’s irrelevant," he barked. Would it be legal to torture a detainee’s child? "I’m not here to render legal advice to your committee," he snarled. "You do have attorneys of your own."

[…]

He had the grace of Gollum as he quarreled with his questioners. In response to one of the chairman’s questions, he neither looked up nor spoke before finishing a note he was writing to himself. When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) questioned his failure to remember conversations about interrogation techniques, he only looked at her and asked: "Is there a question pending, ma’am?" Finally, at the end of the hearing, Addington was asked whether he would meet privately to discuss classified matters. "You have my number," he said. "If you issue a subpoena, we’ll go through this again.

[…]

However, that was just a warm up of things to come, It also become very testy as the hearing went forward:

He sat slouched in his chair, scratching his mustache, as Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, warned about "the unaccountable monarchy" before offering Addington five minutes to make an opening statement. Addington spoke for a minute and 12 seconds — most of which was devoted to correcting two errors in Nadler’s introduction.

"Is that the entirety of your statement?" the chairman asked.

"Yes, thank you," Addington replied. "I’m ready to answer your questions."

He sure was. When John Conyers (D-Mich.) inquired about Addington’s pet legal concept, a "unitary executive theory" that confers extreme powers on the president, Addington dished out disdain.

"I frankly don’t know what you mean by unitary theory," Addington replied.

"Have you ever heard of that theory before?"

"I see it in the newspapers all the time," Addington replied.

"Do you support it?"

"I don’t know what it is."

The usually mild Conyers was angry. "You’re telling me you don’t know what the unitary theory means?"

"I don’t know what you mean by it," Addington answered.

"Do you know what you mean by it?"

"I know exactly what I mean by it."

[….]

Addington’s insolence appeared to embolden another witness, his former administration colleague John Yoo. Yoo took Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on a semantic spin when asked about whether a torture memo was implemented.

"What do you mean by ‘implemented’?" Yoo asked.

"Mr. Yoo," Ellison pressed, "are you denying knowledge of what the word ‘implement’ means?"

"You’re asking me to define what you mean by the word?"

"No, I’m asking you to define what you mean by the word ‘implement,’ " the exasperated lawmaker clarified.

"It can mean a wide number of things," Yoo demurred.

After several such dances around the questions (whether, for example, the president could order somebody buried alive), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) offered his grudging respect: "You guys are great on ‘Beat the Clock,’ " he said.

"I don’t play basketball," replied the 41-year-old Yoo.

"That was a game show," Cohen explained.

As you can see, convicting these guys on charges that they broke the law, and violated the Constitution is not going to be an easy task. Because obviously, these guys are not going to cooperate with Congress or with any other sort of criminal investigation. Lew Rockwell, a fellow Libertarian minded person, says, “Maybe now they’ll impeach them”.  Lew, I respect your work and writings, but I highly doubt that the impeachment or any sort of criminal hearings will take place, until after the November election and until the next President is in office.

Living Proof that Socialized Healthcare does not work

I saw this tonight and I just about fell out of my chair.

Finally, some solid proof that the Socialized healthcare in Canada is not the solution to the Healthcare crisis .

This comes from my fellow Amateur Radio Operator buddy Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com, who gets paid to do, what I do, for free. (The lucky bastard…)

Unlike Ed, I’m quoting this whole thing, hopefully, I won’t get sued… It comes from Investors Business Daily, check it out, especially the bolded parts:

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates’ comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn’t an American and hasn’t held office in over three decades.

Castonguay’s evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It’s as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires’ case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn’t properly filled out a form. At death’s door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario’s government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario’s example.

Canada isn’t the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain’s system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can’t centrally plan their way to better health care.

A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can’t solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you’re starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it’s not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain’s health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn’t seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada’s government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.

Liberal Socialized Healthcare advocate and suspected Homosexual, Michael Moore was unavailable for comment.

SCOTUS overturns DC Gun Law, and Obama Flip Flops…….again….

There is some hope for America as the Supreme Court of the United States basically struck down a ruling by the DC court, banning Guns. 

Of course, the Obamassiah, flip flopped, again.

A while back it seems that Obama said that DC gun law should be upheld. Now he’s saying that it was an “inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position.”   I have to hand it to ol’ Barry, he’s even very artful at his back peddling. He will fit in quite well up in the White House. God knows we have had quite a few Presidents who were good at spin, back peddling and outright lying, this current administration being a very good example.

What stunned me, was the reaction to the ruling by some of the commenters over at Crooks and Liars, one of the most Liberal Blogs outside of DailyKos. It seems that most liberals feel that the gun issue is a non-issue anymore, and that other more important issues are at hand. That is very surprising.

Overall, I believe this ruling is a good thing, we still have our rights to own guns, this means that the liberals have not totally destroyed our courts yet.

Others: TownHall Blog, Crooks and Liars, SCOTUSblog, The Trail, Jonathan Martin’s Blogs, The Carpetbagger Report, Flopping Aces, City Desk, La Shawn Barber’s Corner, Don Surber, Confederate Yankee, Hotline On Call, michellemalkin.com, protein wisdom, Think Progress, The Campaign Spot, American Spectator, Ben Smith’s Blogs, Hot Air, TownHall Blog, The Strata-Sphere, Redstate, TIME.com, Reason Magazine, Sister Toldjah and More via Memeorandum

You know, I do not know what is worse…

The idiots at the New York Post, printing the untrue bullcrap about Keith Olbermann or that Hillary worshiping Shumuck Larry Johnson over at No Quarter for even Blogging about it. Of course, we all know now that Larry Johnson was the one who floated the rumor about the "Whitey" tape, but is still yet to release said tape.

You know, when Michelle Malkin says that you’re unreliable, that’s pretty freakin’ bad.

Oh, and by the way, Here’s Keith’s "Worst person in the World" from last night basically letting people know that the Post’s Page six is, as always, full of it.: