Mojo reports that Mitt Romney worked at company that disposed of dead aborted babies

I knew something like this would come up!

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate’s reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.
But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney’s exit from Bain.
Read the rest at Mother Jones.

This will not help Romney one bit. I could sit here and yowl on about how much Romney likes money, more than Babies. But, honestly, I do not know that to be true and I just cannot and will not liable a man who I know nothing about. I did that sort of thing with Bush, when I was on the left, and you know what? I looked like an idiot for it. So, I am not playing the left’s game for them. I just believe that Christians would like to know about this, which is why I am publishing it.

Others: Washington Post, Salon, Cognitive Dissidence, PERRspectives, ThinkProgress, TBogg, Daily Kos, New York Magazine, Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, US Politics, Mother Jones and The Huffington Post

A followup on an previous entry

Now before I begin this, let me state for the record, that this is not a walk back of any sort, but rather a followup to an older posting.

It appears that when I posted my entry titled, “It’s a damned shame” that I did not have all of the information related to what was going on.

It does seem that a particular person does have a bit of a problem; and that problem is hate. For the record; yes, I did check out his timeline and yes, I did see some stuff that, yes, even bothered me.

Let me also state that I am one of the most open minded persons in the World. I even have been known to stick my own size 12 foot in my own mouth during the heat of the battle and I have ended up apologizing for it afterward too.

However, when I see someone joking about one of the biggest players in the Jewish Holocaust and thinking that it is actually funny — that is a problem. Please Note: I am not a rabid anything and I tend to keep in open mind. However, what happened during that time period is not funny or even something that should be even remotely joked about, at all. If one does this, it does, in my mind; bring into question one’s motives and — quite bluntly, their sanity.

Anyone that knows me and anything about my blogs that I have ran for the last 8 years; knows that I have been a “Tell it like it is, shoot from the hip” type of a guy. However, I also happen to be someone, who has a build-in moral compass. When that moral compass senses evil and wrong; I head in the opposite direction. This is what happened here and this is why I blocked said person mentioned in the blog posting linked to in this blog posting here. I also blocked a few of his friends too.

I tend to make a point to stay out of blog disputes and wars. But, I do not wish to be associated with those who traffic in hate. Not after what happened to me a few years ago. No way, No how.

Video: Glenn Beck says that the Legacy of SCOTUS decision on Obamacare is George W. Bush’s legacy

I ought the same thing earlier about the Obamacare ruling: (H/T to AllahPundit)

Your browser does not support iframes.

DrewM over at Ace of Spades is just as blunt:

Dear GOP,
This is your last chance. If you blow this, I’m out and you need to be destroyed.
What is it? Repeal ObamaCare on Day 1. Don’t worry about replace, don’t worry about anything else. We will do everything we have to drag your sorry asses over the line this fall, including electing Mitt Fucking Romney.
In return this is what you will do:
Instead of adjourning for pictures and tea and cake to celebrate getting your pathetic asses elected to 2 or 6 years on the government teet, you will immediately pass a one line bill that says, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and whatever statute number has to be included) is hereby repealed.”
That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since Congress meets before Inauguration Day, Obama will still be President. Simply hold the legislation at the desk so the 10 day pocket veto clock doesn’t start. If other parliamentary BS is needed, just do it.
Then as soon as Mitt takes the oath of office, before his speech no one will care or remember, walk the bill up to him at the podium to sign.
If this does not happen, the GOP must be destroyed and a new party built to replace it. We’ve tried the carrot approach (votes, money, volunteers) to change your behavior. Now it’s time to show you the stick.
No more, “oh the other guys are worse” scare tactics. That might be true but it doesn’t mean you are any good.
This is your one job, do it or join the Whig Party in the dustbin of history.

I have to say that I do agree with all of the above. This is what happens when Conservatives and Republican settle for what they can get, instead of what they want to elect. I will say this, as the resident skeptical libertarian of the Blogosphere; if you all think that Mittens is going to rip out Obamacare, you are going to be in for a huge let down. Moderates always settle and compromise, they never take a stand, ever.

As I wrote earlier; from now until election day, is going to be very interesting.

Obamacare to stand says SCOUTS

Well, this was not what I was hoping to wake up to hearing on my 40’th birthday.

The Memeoradum round up is here.

The link round up is here: (H/T to Drudge)

TAKE YOUR MEDICINE!

Now for what I think: I believe this to be the biggest set back in American freedom since the McCarthy hearings and the red scare of the 1950’s. I guess I should not surprised, the this out of control federal behemoth that we call Government has always valued the idea of a tax on the American people. I will comment on one thing that I read over at the Weekly Standard, that I linked to above:

It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.
This means, of course, that the more they think about it, the better it will be for Mitt Romney. It also means (of course) that Romney should encourage them to think about it, reminding them at every turn that this election isn’t merely — or even principally — about the economy; that it’s about something bigger; that we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform. And he should convey to them what real reform would look like, thereby bringing into the fold those independents who don’t want to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo. He should start playing to win people’s votes, instead of merely trying not to lose them.
Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be the most important outcome of this election. On some level, the American people know this. There’s a reason why Romney gets standing ovations simply for mentioning repeal.
The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about. Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does. Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does.
Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide.

Yes, and you can bet that Barack Obama will have a army of lawyers to make sure that he remains President too. In fact, that is just what the Boston Globe is reporting:

OLYMPIA, Wash.—President Barack Obama’s campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year’s election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate.

Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent. Obama’s campaign says it is particularly concerned about the implementation of new voter ID laws across the country, the possibility of anti-fraud activists challenging legitimate voters and the handling of voter registrations in the most competitive states.
Republicans are building their own legal teams for the election. They say they’re focused on preventing fraud — making sure people don’t vote unless they’re eligible — rather than turning away qualified voters.
Since the disputed 2000 presidential election, both parties have increasingly concentrated on building legal teams — including high-priced lawyers who are well-known in political circles — for the Election Day run-up. The Bush-Gore election demonstrated to both sides the importance of every vote and the fact that the rules for voting and counting might actually determine the outcome. The Florida count in 2000 was decided by just 537 votes and ultimately landed in the Supreme Court.
This year in that state alone, Obama and his Democratic allies are poised to have thousands of lawyers ready for the election and hope to have more than the 5,800 attorneys available four years ago. That figure was nearly twice the 3,200 lawyers the Democrats had at their disposal in 2004.
Romney has been organizing his own legal help for the election. Campaign attorney Ben Ginsberg did not provide numbers but said the campaign has been gratified by the “overwhelming number of attorneys who have volunteered to assist.”
“We will have enough lawyers to handle all situations that arise,” he said.

The GOP doesn’t necessarily need to have a numerical counterweight to Obama’s attorneys; the 2000 election showed that experienced, connected lawyers on either side can be effective in court.

Believe me when I tell you; President Barack Obama and the left have been emboldened by this decision and they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Furthermore, the President knows that if he is to protect Obamacare and everything else he and Congress have worked for; they will have to win the election. So, if you all think that Obama and Co. are just going to let White America, which, by proxy will be represented by Mitt Romney —- roll over them and defeat them, you are crazy. They are now going to be emboldened to, in figurative sense — of course — fight to the death to protect everything that they have worked for in the last 3 years.

Putting it in “Southwest Detroit ghetto” terms: things just got very real. The Republicans must know, the kiddie stuff just ended, and now the real fight is now underway. From today, till election day is going to be a bare knuckle brawl. I just hope that the right; bloggers, writers, news people and the politicos know what they are in for. I also hope they know how to fight it, without getting overly stupid and letting their words and actions get them into trouble. This is not 1957 and if they fight like it is, they will lose and lose badly.

Needless to say, it is going to be a very interesting next couple of months.

More of Charles Foster Johnson’s blatant hypocrisy

Quoting the head lizard:

There it is, folks. A naked admission that the purpose of making it more difficult to vote is to tilt elections toward the Republican Party. The people most affected by Voter ID laws are the ones most likely to vote Democratic; it’s a simple equation.
That’s the end game for all of these bogus “vote fraud” allegations: if they can whip up enough fear over non-existent vote fraud, they’ll be able to pass laws restricting who can vote.
And the fewer people who vote, the better for the Republican Party.
via Little Green Footballs – PA Republican Leader Admits: The Fewer People Who Vote, the Better for the GOP.

You sure were not bitching about that, when that was working for President George W. Bush —- were you Chuckles?

Yes, I have read your archives; in fact, I have read everything from 2004 and 2000 and I fail to find anything of the sort about George W. Bush; of whom you supported.

But now that there is a black Democrat in the White House, according to you —- the Republican Party is now the corrupt party of voter suppression. 🙄

You sanctimonious twit, you are such a hypocrite that it is spewing from your ears and you know it.

As much as I hate to admit it, Libby Spencer has a point

…and no I don’t mean the one on the top of her head either…. 😉 😛

As you know, I am not a big fan of the previous President. In fact, his stupidity got me to start blogging — That was in 2006 — 8 Years ago. WOW. Makes me feel old. 😯

Anyhow, reacting to the news today and Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to it, Progressive blogger Libby Spencer says:

To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?
Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.
That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.
via The Impolitic: Contemptible Congress.

I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election. This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty. Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.

It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.

It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.

President Obama pushes Nuke button on Fast and Furious Documents, Issa goes ahead with contempt vote and gets it

I saw this coming and I was right!

Rep. Darrell Issa pressed ahead with a committee vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, despite an eleventh-hour move by President Obama to assert executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents at the heart of the dispute.
The announcement touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that lasted well into the afternoon, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a “political witch hunt” and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder’s “stonewalling” over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was first informed of the president’s decision to assert executive privilege in a letter Wednesday morning, shortly before the contempt vote was scheduled.
Issa said committee staff are evaluating the letter but described the move as too little, too late as he and other GOP lawmakers questioned the basis for the assertion.
“This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings,” Issa said.
via Issa pushes ahead with Holder contempt vote despite Obama intervention | Fox News.

Nancy Pelosi is not happy:

Pelosi sounded off on the ordeal ahead of the committee vote.
“This is just strictly political,” she said. “It’s just the irresponsibility of the Republicans. We want jobs. Why are they spending this time doing this?”
The Democratic leader also took a shot at Issa for abusing the process of holding an official in contempt.
“‘Loose cannon’ would sort of be like such a compliment to Darrell Issa. ‘Loose cannon’ would be a moderate phrase. This is an explosive device,” she said. “It doesn’t serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of Congress.”
“That’s why I didn’t arrest Karl Rove when I had the chance.”

Issa got his vote though…:

A House panel voted Wednesday to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a subpoena, defying an assertion of executive privilege from President Obama.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Republican Chairman Darrell Issa (Calif.), approved a resolution along party lines to place Holder in contempt after battling him for months over access to internal agency documents about the gun-tracking operation Fast and Furious.
The vote came after Obama escalated the conflict by sending a letter to the committee claiming executive privilege over the documents that the panel had sought.
All 23 Republicans on the committee voted for the contempt resolution, while all 17 Democrats voted against it. Every member of the panel was present for the vote.

The Daily Kos reminds us:

If the House committee actually cites Holder for criminal contempt, it would require House Speaker John A. Boehner to schedule a vote. If passed by the full House, the matter would then wind up in the hands of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen Jr.
President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times during his terms of office while President Bill Clinton did so 14 times. This would be the first time for President Obama.

Which President Obama did condemn: (Via Macsmind)

…..and now, President Obama is doing the same very thing. Seems there is something to that whole, “New Boss, same as the old boss” thing eh? I think so and I am sure many of my libertarian friends agree with that too. As you can tell, I was not a fan of Bush and I am really not a fan of this President either.

Others Bloggers covering this: Michelle Malkin, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Hot Air, The PJ Tatler, JOSHUAPUNDIT, NO QUARTER, iOwnTheWorld.com, RedState, nation.foxnews.com, Sister Toldjah, Weasel Zippers, The Shark Tank, Pirate’s Cove, The Rightnewz, Weekly Standard, Pundit & Pundette, Jammie Wearing Fools, Macsmind and Sense of Events — Via Memeorandum

In to which I say, “Irony Much, Asshole?”

This right here is irony at its best.

Here is the best ironic quote since President Obama backtracking on closing Gitmo:

President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.
via Executive Overreach – The Corner – National Review Online.

Who wrote this rather lengthy piece on executive overreach? No other than that slant-eyed motherfucker —- John Yoo. Yes, that John Yoo. The goddamned John Yoo who told President George W. Bush that torturing terrorist suspects was just perfectly fine and should be sitting in a jail cell to this very damned day. However, because we have a Democratic Party that has no fucking balls and because the Republican Party still kind of thinks that Neoconservatism is just fucking peachy keen; this little slant-eyed puke is still living as a free man.

It is not only that I object to torture. I detest this ignorant piece of shit for another damned reason. This asshole did more to injure, discredit and bring harm to the Conservative and Republican cause than any of the Neoconservatives, hands down. It was because of this man’s actions; suddenly, everyone — including me at the time — believed that ALL Conservatives and Republican believed that torture of prisoners of war was just perfectly fine. Which I now know is horribly wrong. This man has done more to ruin the image of the political party that still believes in restraint of the fiscal, militarist and some, of the social kind. This man and his idiotic thought process is why I have never, and most like will never send the Republican Party a fucking dime and why I choose to call myself a right-libertarian.

So, in closing: John Yoo, shut the hell up, you slant-eyed fool; because nobody, least of all me — honestly gives two shits what you say, think or even feel. Please, just go back to your damned homeland of South Korea and take your goddamned borderline Communist attitudes about Constitutionality with you sir. Because quite frankly, Americans like myself, find your inane bullshit writings idiotic at best.

…..and I say all of the above, in the best Christian manner than I can muster. You’re welcome.

Signed,

A very proud Constitutionalist and right-libertarian

————————-

I mean, I hate to even write stuff like this, in this blunt of a manner. But, I am reading this guy’s crap on NRO and about into the second paragraph, my freakin’ head is about to explode! 😡

Again, the stupidity of this jack ass and the Iraq War debacle was what got my start in blogging about politics in the first place. So, this posting was a long time coming for me.

That is all…

Others: JustOneMinute, Outside the Beltway, Balloon Juice, Chicago Boyz, americanthinker.com, neo-neocon, Washington Monthly, Pundit & Pundette and The PJ Tatler

Removed some postings

I’ve decided to remove some postings on this blog. Seeing I cannot even get a mention for stepping up to the plate and defending someone; I am removing any and all postings of recent that mentioned a few bloggers names.

As for the swatting stuff, and the harassment; couldn’t happen to a better bunch if you ask me. As for a particular Jewish blogger, that I defended, I retract my defense. She is too stuck on herself to acknowledge we commoners. So, she’s on her own. Maybe one day she’ll learn to be a bit more gracious to people.

I’m just tired of elitist bullshit in the Conservative Blogging World. Why I hardly even write anymore. It is almost as bad as the elitist bullshit in the liberal Blogging world! Might even be a little bit worse.

That is all.

Why Scott Walker Won and the Democrats in Wisconsin lost

I was going to try avoid writing about this, but I am seeing some rather silly stuff being written about this win; So, I thought I would offer my thoughts as a former Democratic Party voter. Update: Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post hits the post a bit, but fails, as most progressives do; to see the full picture.

Putting it plain and simple, The Democrats in Wisconsin picked a fight that they could not win. — They were outspent, out-organized, and out-boxed; the Democrats had zero chance of winning this recall election at all. But yet, they still decided to fight for a recall election. They should have taken their cues from Michigan and left well enough alone. The Democrats in Michigan tried unsuccessfully to get Governor Snyder recalled here twice and both times they failed horribly. This is because residents of Michigan knew that the former Governor of Michigan was a incompetent moron who could not Govern worth a damn and they did not want a Democrat back in office again. Thus, the Democrats wisely dropped the issue and decided to try and win the 2012 election. Wisconsin should have followed their lead, but they did not and decided to try and force their hand and failed.

Mother Jones has some good ideas as well:

1) Campaign Money is King
Walker crushed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the political money wars. The governor raised $30.5 million while Barrett pulled in $3.9 million—a nearly 8-to-1 advantage in candidate fundraising. Walker banked on in- and out-of-state donors, including heavyweight GOP contributors such as Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Amway heir Dick Devos. Walker was able to raise so much money because of a quirk in state law that lets candidates potentially facing a recall raise unlimited funds for their defense. (The normal limit for individual donors in $10,000.) Barrett did not get to raise unlimited funds in his recall campaign—which placed him at a great disadvantage.
All that money helped Walker pound Barrett in the ad wars. An analysis by Hotline On Call found that Walker and his GOP allies outspent Barrett and his backers 3-to-1 on TV ad buys in the three months before Tuesday’s recall. The dark-money-peddling Republican Governors Association itself spent $9.4 million to keep Walker in office.
Just as the political money advantage proved crucial to labor’s win last year in repealing Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 law, campaign cash appears to have played a pivotal role in the GOP’s Wisconsin wins .
2) The Candidate
Filing nearly one million signatures to trigger a recall election, Democrats and union leaders and members had their sights trained on the governor. The recall election’s Democratic primary forced them to take their eyes off the prize. A primary fight between Barrett and former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk splintered the labor movement. The major unions endorsed Falk early on, sometimes over the opposition of their own rank-and-file. Several other unions held out until late March, when Barrett entered the race, and then endorsed the mayor. This primary drama knocked the anti-Walker effort off course for weeks, if not a month, in a race where every single day counts. It divided a unified movement into Barrett supporters and Falk supporters.
3) No New Ground
Democrats and labor unions touted their massive get-out-the-vote operation, which was supposed to tip the scales in their favor. Turn-out was way up in the elections, at 2.4 million, but the left failed to win over the types of people who elected Walker in 2010. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnotes, Walker’s Tuesday win is a mirror image of his 2010 victory—just with more voters. He won men and lost women; won independents and lost moderates; and won suburban and rural voters but not urban voters.
More notably, Walker won 38 percent of votes from union households—an increase of 1 percent from 2010. Remember, union members or their spouses didn’t know in 2012 that Walker planned to target them after the election with his anti-union “budget repair” bill curbing collective bargaining rights. Yet 16 months after Walker launched his attack on unions, just as many people in union households voted for him. The unions failed to rally their own ranks.

My thoughts on the Unions — One of the main reasons why the unions failed; not because of a lack of members or money. The unions failed because for the following:

They over played their hand, by storming the capital building and occupying it. This made them look like total buffoons in the eyes of the people, not mention the heavy handed tactics that were on par with communist gulags.
The second reason is a rather simple one; not all union members are on board with the progressive movement, just because someone has a union card, does not necessarily make him a Democrat. Some union members are free thinkers and some of them resent being culled in together with the socialist crowd.
The last reason is this; some union members are just not happy with the Democratic Party and with Obama. I believe Obama fatigue played a big part in the loss in Wisconsin. I believe it will also play out in November as well.

Needless to say, Scott Walker won big and the Unions and Democrats lost big. The results of this will be far-reaching and the Democrats in Wisconsin would be wise to lay low and try to hang on in 2012. But if they do not, they should learn the lessons of the massive over-reach that took place in Wisconsin and with the Democratic Party as a whole. However, knowing Democrats like I do; they will not learn a thing from this.