Tuesday, April 29, 2008

They got one right!

The Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana state law that requires voters to produce a government-issued photo ID to vote. Supporters say the law cuts down on election fraud. Opponents say it specifically targets the poor and the elderly in hopes of denying them their Constitutional rights. Here is what WEP says:

First, as a Federalist I support any state's right to regulate their elections process, as long as the laws don't target specific citizens or groups of citizens. This law does no such thing and so I support Indiana's right to pass it and enforce it. The argument that it targets the poor and the elderly is thin and weak. I can just as easily argue that a Wall Street executive who spends his day in the backseat of a limo is just as likely to not have a government issued photo ID. This poor and elderly thing doesn't stick with me. The ACLU says it could potentially disenfranchise tens of thousands and even though the law has been in effect for years they can't produce any of these people or prove the supposed bias. Again, Indiana has the Constitutional right to do this as long as it doesn't deliberately target a group of citizens. The SCOTUS felt there was no evidence of such a thing and therefore ruled appropriately. It's the court's job to interpret the law, not interject their personal views, as Justice Ginsburg has a reputation for doing.

The next argument is that the law makes voting more inconvenient for certain people. I say...so what? Voting is inconvenient for many people but that shouldn't stop us from doing our duty as citizens. The law requires that we register to vote and the law dictates what hours the polls are open. Based on the "inconvenient" argument I could easily say these things may disenfranchise some people. After all, if the polls close at 7PM the accompanying inconvenience could keep some people from voting. But that doesn't mean we should change the law. The right to vote is a right, but it is also a responsibility that should be taken seriously. If you can't get to the polls until after 7PM, then you have the responsibility to figure out another way. If you don't have a photo ID, then you have the responsibility to go get one. If you're not willing to put forth the effort to vote, then you obviously don't appreciate your rights and are probably better off not voting at all. Our rights come with great responsibility. Just my opinion.

Just because I have the right to own a gun doesn't mean I am allowed to be irresponsible with it. I have to register my gun, keep it properly stored, and not carry it in public without a proper license. This doesn't mean my Constitutional rights are being violated, it simply means there are rules that must be followed. The same goes for voting.

But, let's cut through the bull and get to the real issue here. In my mind, this law DOES discriminate against a particular group of people. Republicans will deny it. Democrats will deny it. SCOTUS will deny it. But common sense tells me this law is designed to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants and non-citizens to vote. This is a big voting bloc for the Dems, so they don't want any barriers between these people and the polls. If you're being honest, you know I am right here.

And that's just another reason for this law to stand. Not only is it Constitutional, but it also helps prevent illegals from interfering in our elections, and that is a good thing. Bravo to the SCOTUS. At last, common sense prevails and they get one right.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Global warming, ethanol and food riots

Hysteria and panic...History has taught us that these two things often lead to suffering, and the current global warming hysteria is no different. Part of our "avert disaster" strategy includes diverting food crops into biofuels which has contributed to a growing global food shortage. Granted, there are many factors at play in this, but one can't ignore the fact that more biofuel means less food. It's a simple inverse relationship. Here is the latest commentary from Fox News' junk science expert, Steven Milloy:

Food riots caused by rising food prices have erupted around the world. Five people died in uprisings in Haiti, perhaps the first of many casualties to come from the fad of being "green."
Food riots also broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. The military is being deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to protect fields and warehouses. Higher energy costs and policies promoting the use of biofuels such as ethanol are being blamed.

"When millions of people are going hungry, it’s a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal. Turkey’s finance minister labeled the use of biofuels as "appalling," according to the paper.

Biofuels have turned out to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. Once touted by the greens and the biofuel industry as being able to reduce the demand for oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have accomplished neither goal and have no prospect for accomplishing either in the foreseeable future.

The latest research shows that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions on a total lifecycle basis. Add in that taxpayer-subsidized diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to fuel production has contributed to higher food prices and reduced food supply, and biofuels turn out to be nothing less than a public policy disaster.

The situation is not likely to get any better any time soon, as cutting the farm subsidies and tariffs on sugar cane-based ethanol imports that have fueled the ethanol craze seems to be yet another third rail of U.S. politics. Biofuel proponents hope the reliance on food crops to produce biofuels is temporary, and they point to a future where non-food biomass (such as corn stalks and grasses) is used to produce so-called cellulosic ethanol. But in addition to the fact that the technology for producing cellulosic ethanol on a cost-effective basis is nowhere near ready for prime time, the greenhouse gas footprint of cellulosic ethanol likely will be far worse than that of corn-based ethanol.

It’s one thing to transport relatively compact corn kernels to be processed into ethanol; it’s quite another to transport bulky biomass. The bulk problem would require a multitude of cellulosic ethanol plants to be built around the country — a project that could be quite costly and difficult to locate given the phenomenon of NIMBY-ism and the problem of plant emissions making it more difficult for states to comply with federal air quality standards.....


Friday, April 18, 2008

For those who follow WEP, you no doubt have noticed that my opinion of Barack Obama has evolved a good deal over the past year. After reading "The Audacity of Hope" I came away thinking that Obama was an honest, wholesome family man with very different political views from myself. I would never vote for him, but I could see myself being friends with him. But this campaign has soured my opinion of him and it seems with each passing day my initial impression of him was way off. The way he has composed himself during this campaign has been horribly disappointing. To put it simple, I now see Obama as elitist, smug, arrogant and pompous. Despite how he characterizes himself, I don't think he has a clue about mainstream American life, and his behavior seems to reinforce that description. Most recently in North Carolina:

Just when you thought the Democratic race couldn’t get uglier, Barack Obama is being accused of giving Hillary Clinton the finger at a town hall meeting in North Carolina. The gesture — which may have been an innocent scratch of the face or, according to some, something more mischievous — came as Obama was complaining Thursday about the debate in Philadelphia the night before...Obama started his address in Raleigh, N.C., by complaining that the debate on ABC “set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.”....“And I’d say Senator Clinton looked in her element,” he said. He paused. Then he raised his right hand and scratched his cheek with his middle finger. He smiled slightly, and the crowd cheered. FULL STORY

First, the middle finger. He can and will claim that it was innocent. I viewed it on youtube and can't say for sure whether that's true, you can decide for yourself. Obviously, if he meant to give Hillary the "bird" then it would be quite tacky. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I can hardly fault someone for wanting to give Hillary the finger. But there is something else at play that does bother me. It has to do with what he said.

"...it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people..."

This is what I mean by pompous and arrogant. You see, attending a church for 20 years headed by a preacher that spews hatred, racism and anti-American sentiment while allowing Hamas to publish its terrorist manifesto in the church bulletin matters to the American people. Consorting with known terrorists like William Ayers matters to the American people. Characterizing someone's religious beliefs as a crutch matters to the American people.

That's what the debate questions were about, yet Obama feels compelled to dismiss it as politics, unimportant to the American people, a non-issue. Out of touch? I'd say so. I don't think Obama cares if these things matter to Americans. I don't think he feels obligated to explain himself and is obviously aggravated that it keeps coming up. Well, Senator, it keeps coming up because it matters to the American people. Giving an impertinent speech that makes the Obama lemmings swoon isn't going to change that.

Besides, I wonder what Obama expected the debate to be about. His record? That's a 15 minute conversation. They had to fill the extra time somehow. The issues? There's basically no difference between the two candidates in that regard, which means there's no debate to be had. The only real difference between the two is character, one candidate lacks it and the other doesn't seem to be completely honest about it. So, that's something to be debated and I think the moderators did an okay job.

As for Obama, he either doesn't know or doesn't care that a candidate's past, his friends, his words matter to Americans. And he obviously takes offense when people want to talk about these things, to the point of belittling those who bring it up. Pompous? You decide.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Hamas endorses Obama

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections. I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he's a friend of the Israelis. All that would change if Obama would get elected. I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse.... "

--Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip

Perhaps Hamas is returning the favor from Obama's Trinity Church when it published the organization's terrorist manifesto as part of its church bulletin:

Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence. The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr...


Barak Obama: "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."

Karl Marx: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Say what you want, but this is no coincidence. The point is that Obama's thoughts and words came from somewhere and I think it's his basic thought process, and when that thought process mirrors Karl Marx, we have a serious problem on our hands. Obama a socialist? You decide.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Tonight I watched the Democrat debate. Same old stuff. Blah, blah, blah, raise taxes...blah,blah...raise taxes only for the rich...blah, blah, unconditional immediate retreat from Iraq. But there was something that did catch my attention. It was a question directed at Hillary about Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. When he did this, Clinton told Richardson that Obama was unelectable. She didn't say why. The moderator asked her about this and Clinton backed away from the remark...a mistake in my mind. She is "clinging" to a fraction of a chance at this nomination and the only hope she has is to convince democrats that Obama is not electable. She missed an opportunity. I would have stood by the comments and reiterated his inexperience in foreign affairs and national defense. McCain is going to hammer him on these issues.

But the electability issue is intriguing, so I looked into it. I post this with little reservation since Obama has virtually wrapped up the nomination. So here goes.

Hillary may have some moronic ideas for America, and would certainly be a disaster for this country if she won, but she is very good at politics (not so much at debate). She played a central role in getting her husband elected twice, that in itself requires substantial talent. So when it comes to playing politics, she knows what she's doing. That's why I thought she may be on to something regarding Obama's electability.

When it comes to winning the presidency, nowadays it basically comes down to three states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. All the others are basically solidified as red or blue, with little fluctuation. History has shown that in order to win the White House, these three states are key, and winning the election means winning at least two out of three in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

If you look at national polls, you basically see Obama with a slight lead in a head-to-head contest with McCain. The same is true for Hillary. But these polls mean little in the face of the electoral college, where states are the key. And the "big 3" show some early unfavorable numbers for Obama. Here is the head-to-head data based on a conglomerate of independent polls as provided by Real Clear Politics:

In Florida, McCain leads Obama by as much as 15 points. McCain and Clinton are virtually tied.
In Ohio, McCain leads Obama by as many as 8 points. Clinton polls higher by up to 9 points over McCain.

And in Pennsylvania, Obama holds a slim lead depending on which poll you look at while Clinton leads McCain by as many as 11 points.

Basically, Hillary is saying that more of her supporters will vote for McCain over Obama than Obama's supporters would over her, and the polls (albeit early polls) seem to support her claim. Yet, she fails to point this out effectively. As a result, her chance at the nomination is virtually gone and her only hope now is to accept a running mate position which may or may not happen. Whether this will keep Hillary's folks from defecting to McCain is yet another question.

So I think she has a point about Obama's electability and I also think we're seeing a problem with the democrat party as a whole. Americans don't respond well to socialism. They do respond to moderatism. McCain is a moderate conservative, Obama is a socialist. That in itself is enough to question his electability.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Happy Tax Day!

Today is the day when most Americans officially pay our income taxes, or to be more accurate this is the day the government takes a certain percentage of our hard-earned income. Today, we Americans make a poor investment, with little chance of getting a good return on our dollars. Much of the money we send to Washington will likely be wasted on earmark spending, discretionary spending and failed social programs. And this spending will be done by politicians who openly complain about corporate corruption and all the waste, abuse and fraud in the corporate world that must be reined in by Washington. The difference between the two is that we voluntarily invest in corporations, and the corporate world pales in comparison to Washington when it comes to waste, abuse and fraud.

As we've all heard, the Democrats have a major problem with our current tax system. They feel the rich pay too little, and the poor pay too much. Their solution: "roll back" the Bush tax cuts, which would amount to a MASSIVE tax increase for all Americans. The truth is that the Bush tax cuts were a percentage, approximately the same for all taxpayers. Of course, the rich will pay dollar-for-dollar less money than they did before but that's obviously because they initially paid a much larger amount. The dems have latched on to this as a way to say that the Bush tax cuts have "unfairly favored the rich". Here are the facts, as of 2007:

-The top 20% of income earners pay 86% of America's income tax revenue
-The top 40% pay 99.4% of the tax revenue
-The bottom 60% pay 0.6% of the tax revenue

Can somebody explain how this unfairly favors the rich? What exactly do Obama and Hillary object to? Of course, they object to the notion of Americans paying less in taxes...period. The less we pay, the less control the government has on our lives, which is a cornerstone principle for the democrats. Their contention that the current tax system unfairly favors the rich is an outright lie! So Hillary and Obama have the same ideas, more government programs and higher taxes. Same song, different verse.

And today, John McCain announces his plan. Before I get into it, I'll repeat my previous position that the government already has plenty of our money, taking more is simply out of the question. If they need money for something, they need to find it by cutting spending somewhere else. That's the main thing I like about McCain's plan. Here are the details:

-doubling the federal income tax exemptions for dependents, from $3,500 to $7,000
-declare a summer gas-tax holiday, suspending the 18.4-cent gas tax and 24.4-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year (I like this because the dems love to complain about gas prices, but McCain seems poised to put it to a Senate vote, no doubt putting his opponent to the test)
-offering people at risk of foreclosure a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan backed by the federal government (not sure I like this, but I'll tolerate it if it means passing the rest of his plan)
-phase out the alternative minimum tax (an absolute must, the AMT is ridiculously unfair)
-tweak the prescription drug benefit to exclude taxpayers who can afford medicine without government assistance
-overhaul the tax code, close "costly, unfair" corporate loopholes and veto every bill containing earmarks (this is a promise that I truly believe)
-use the money saved via his proposals to ease the burden on employers by lowering the business income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent
-one-year pause in discretionary spending while the government conducts a "prompt and thorough" review of each department's and agency's budget. Military spending and veterans benefits would be exempt (it's about time someone actually looked hard at how our tax dollars are spent)

This is a sound plan. It is fair. It does NOT raise taxes and it would be the first step in cutting back on the wasteful spending, something that is long overdue. The idea is that the government can afford more tax cuts by becoming more efficient in how it spends money...what a refreshing concept! It's better than anything either dem candidate has to offer and, best of all, it's realistic. I'm tired of hearing the dems promise tons of government programs while claiming the can pay for it by only raising taxes on the rich. They obviously think we voters are incredibly stupid. McCain takes a different approach and I think it will be well-received.

I also like reducing the corporate tax rate. The dems have long complained about the outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries (as evidenced by Obama's recent "cling" comments), yet they seem to think that free trade is the reason for this without even mentioning our corporate tax rate. The fact is, free trade is a detriment if we are trading with countries who have lower corporate tax rates. It's inevitable that corporations will pack up and move away to avoid our outrageous taxes, taking the jobs with them. Who wouldn't? We have the world's second-highest corporate tax rate and if that doesn't change we will continue to lose industry and jobs to foreign countries that promise NOT to punish corporations for setting up shop. Decreasing from 35% to 25% (the international average) would be huge in stopping this trend, but you'll never hear the dems admit this. In their eyes, business is evil and must be taxed to the brink of bankruptcy no matter how many people they employ. That way they can tax businesses while complaining about the common man losing their jobs to foreign competitors. This is to their benefit since they can then step in and make promises to this common man that the government will "take care" of him, a cornerstone in socialist thinking.

So bravo for Senator McCain. I support his plan 100%. I'm okay with paying taxes, but I'm not okay with Congress wasting my money. It's about time someone actually changed things. It's about time someone offered a sound plan, free of fancy speeches, that promises less government and more individual liberty. Now, let the attacks from the Left begin.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Open mouth, insert foot

By now I'm sure everyone has heard or seen the latest big news in the political arena. I'm referring, of course, to Senator Obama's recent statement in California. You know, the whole "cling to guns, or religion..." comment. Here are my thoughts:

As a small-towner with strong Constitutional and religious beliefs and no anti-immigrant or racist sentiments, I found his remark incredibly offensive...and I'm not one who gets offended easily. Let's put aside the obvious broad generalization and stereotype and focus on the things that I think most people would find offensive about what he said.

First, he's speaking to a group of high-society Californistan smarmies who, as a general rule, tend to look down their cosmetically-enhanced noses at us ignorant small-town folks, which basically means that Obama was pandering to his audience. He took a cheap shot at working class citizens in order to gain a few favor points with the Calisocialists. Most small-town midwest people don't relate well to the Cali crowd and certainly don't share the same values, so when a candidate makes a back-handed comment about the hicks of America to get a few chuckles from his high-society Left Coast audience, it's generally not going to go over well on Main Street USA. Granted, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, that may not have been his intent. But, nonetheless, that's how it looks and we all know in politics that perception is very much reality. Bill Clinton won twice with this notion.

Second, Obama's comment once again shows a disconnect between the working class and the Democrat party, which is supposed to be THE PARTY of the working class. The working class tends to be religious, and faith is very important to their culture. To the Dem elites, this is a mystery, since religion is usually viewed as archaic...implying a certain degree of ignorance or lack of enlightenment and sophistication. Religious people simply don't know any better and they should be pitied for it. We should seek to teach them, enlighten them, show them the "truth". And the government should take the lead in this. Religion is the dividing issue between democrats and the middle class. Dems don't get it, don't support it, don't understand it, don't relate to it, seek to minimize it and, as a result, lose votes because of it.

Us hee-haw folk are just ignornt backwoods hick fools who dont know no better, we just love Jesus and shoot our guns and hate the colored folk and it's all 'cause the govment took our jobs and left us without no pot to pee in. This is basically what Obama said, whether or not he meant it, that's what he said and that's what many people heard.

Obama continues to disappoint me. He's championed himself as the voice of change, of hope, of reform, but these recent comments were spoken in the voice of a pompous, elitist ass...for lack of a better term. He issued his usual obligatory explanation, thin on apology and heavy with exasperation, as though it's the fault of those he offended for being offended by his remarks. How dare they? They should know what he "meant" and leave it at that.

As far as political ramifications, I think this will hurt Obama, probably more in the general election than the primary. Pennsylvania is over. I don't think he has a chance. But it doesn't matter, he doesn't need Pennsylvania to win the nomination. However, he very much needs it to win the general election. His image as a voice for the common man has been tarnished and it will be tough to repolish.

Maybe one day the Dems will get it. Maybe they'll understand that people don't "cling" to religion like a crutch, they adhere to it because it is a central, vital part of their lives. And our affinity for guns is simply part of our culture. It doesn't go hand-in-hand with racism or xenophobia. And it has nothing to do with the status of the economy. We believe in gun rights and adhere to a deep faith and always will, regardless of what the economy is doing.

And, no, we're not bitter. We're hard working American citizens who (as Alan Jackson says) bow our heads to Jesus and stand up for Uncle Sam. We don't need your pity. We don't need to be enlightened. But a little respect and understanding would be nice.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

I have included a link to a story about ABC News and their recent interaction with US troops in Iraq. Basically, ABC conducted a poll of US troops to determine their voting preference and, of course, "discovered" that the majority of troops are split between Hillary and Obama. The poll was not scientific, just based on "random" interviews.

Immediately, I question the results. The military has traditionally been strongly supportive of conservative candidates somewhere in the range of 70-90%. The idea that this year they have somehow flipped completely into the liberal camp is more than suspicious. But no one has ever accused ABC of being fair and balanced.

But there is another big issue here, and that has to do with ethical journalism. What ABC News did was extremely unethical, perhaps even against the law (I'll let the legal folks debate that). But the ethics here (or lack thereof) aren't debatable. ABC has put these troops in a bad predicament. The UCMJ is clear on this issue. A US soldier can not endorse a political candidate from behind the uniform while on active duty service. And a soldier is not allowed to use their military status, on or off duty, as a means of supporting a candidate. On their own time, apart from military duty, a soldier is free to do what they want provided it does not conflict with Dept of Defense or US policy.

For example, an off-duty soldier can't participate in a rally advocating the overthrow of the US government. That's an extreme example, but you get the point. A soldier, even in civilian attire, can't say "I am a Captain in the US Army and I support Obama". That's using your status in the military to support a candidate. Leave the "I am a Captain in the US Army" part off, and it's okay. And if the soldier is on duty, wearing the uniform, they are NOT allowed to formally endorse a political candidate. They can attend an Obama rally in civilian attire, but not in their military uniform. You get the point.

ABC News surely was aware of this, yet they asked the question anyway. I doubt these troops will face significant disciplinary action, but they could if the military so decided. Granted, it's the duty of ALL soldiers to know the boundaries and limitations regarding their own conduct, but I still have a big problem with what ABC News did. They were wrong and these troops may pay a price for it.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Jay Rockefeller, a democrat Senator and avid Obama supporter, is the latest Democrat leader to blatantly insult the military. His comments, directed at John McCain, follow:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues," Rockefeller said.

I don't have to say how despicable this is. Rockefeller may have thought he was only taking a shot at McCain, but the truth is he just slammed every man and woman who puts on the uniform on a daily basis.

McCain has responded with anger, but don't be fooled. There is nothing better for McCain than making this election about prior military service and national defense. I'm sure McCain was loving every word of Rockefeller's comment. Keep it up, libs. There is no better way to get a Republican elected.

How exactly do you insult a man for his service when that man spent 6 years in a Vietnamese prison camp? I'm not exactly sure what his intentions were, but his opinion on America's military is quite obvious. Indeed, America's democrat party has left little to question in this area.

--John Kerry basically calls the military uneducated and claims they are terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night. This is years after he testifies before Congress and claims the military is guilty of crimes reminiscent of Genghis Khan

--Dick Durbin compares our troops at Gitmo to the Gestapo

--Hillary Clinton accuses the commanding General in Iraq of lying

--Barak Obama suggest the military is just "air raiding villages and killing civilians"

--Harry Reid labels General Peter Pace, a commander greatly respected among his peers, as "incompetent". Reid is the same person who declared defeat in Iraq as our soldiers were actively engaged with the enemy

And now, Senator Rockefeller weighs in. He has since issued the obligatory bland apology, no doubt under pressure from Obama who is looking to avoid further labels of weak and anti-military. Senator Obama has issued a statement that he disagrees with Rockefeller's comments, but stopped short of condemning his key supporter.

But remember.....they support the troops!

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

April 6, 2008 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton "misspoke" again on the campaign trail - and a distraught Ohio family is furious about it. Several times in recent months while talking about her plan for universal health care, Clinton told a tale of woe about a young pregnant woman who sought medical care at a local hospital and was turned away for lack of insurance - and both she and the baby died. But the family of the 35-year-old woman - Trina Bachtel - says the story is simply not true. "Trina had good insurance. She was a good girl, and she worked hard. That story made her look like she was a welfare bum," her 80-year-old grandmother May Mayle told The Post yesterday. FULL STORY

The hits just keep coming for Clinton, who continues to have problems telling the truth. But what kills me about her whoppers is how she dismisses the gaffe by saying she "misspoke". Huh?

Misspoke means you said the wrong date, or didn't pronounce someone's name right, or said the wrong time or place. What Clinton is doing is far from mis-speaking. She's telling lies that would make a third grade child or an amateur fisherman proud. But let's put aside the lies for a moment. After all, if you're surprised that the Clintons are liars then you aren't too fast on the uptake in the world of politics.

Instead, let's focus on the intelligence, or lack thereof, in her tales. First, the sniper incident. Did she really expect us to believe this one? If the first lady had landed under hostile fire it would have made every newscast across the country and people would still talk about it today. The commander at the respective facility, along with the pilot, would have faced some tough questions and probably disciplinary action. It would have been a big deal, and not something easily forgotten by the American people. Clinton overshot a bit with this one. Maybe she should have said she visited a place that just one week prior was under sniper fire. That one she could've gotten away with.

Now, the heartbreaking tale of the woman and her baby who died simply because they didn't have health insurance. This, of course, fits Hillary's agenda. She would have us believe that people are dying every day because of lack of insurance. The truth is, hospitals can't and don't turn people away because of inability to pay. If there is a medical emergency, the hospital is obligated to treat it. That's why hospitals along the border are closing their doors. Too many people walk across the line and show up in the ER for "free" health care. So when Hillary told this story I immediately knew it was crap, and the family later came out to verify it. Turns out the woman did have the money to pay, and did have very good health insurance. Her death was an unavoidable medical tragedy, not George Bush's fault.

So Hillary continues to get caught lying. These aren't accidents. They're not gaffes, or examples of mis-speaking. They are bold-faced lies and she appears to be losing her edge a bit. But one really has to question the intelligence here. Yes, the lies are bad, but they are stupid lies at that, not something we would typically see in a presidential candidate.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

As originally posted by John Lott on Fox News.com

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine. But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing. Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession. A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories


I always appreciate it when the mainstream media gets caught doing what they adamantly claim they don't do, which is show bias. For the past several months, every time I turn around I hear the word "recession" even though I don't really see any evidence around me that the economy is going backwards. Nevertheless, these so-called objective journalists continue to report about the recession.

I like what Lott did with his Nexis search. Most people would say that the last time we were in a recession was during Daddy Bush's last term. Actually, there was no recession during the Bush presidency and the last time we were in an actual recession was during Clinton's last year in office. Funny how the media seems to have so much power over our perception.

And Senator Obama has joined the mix: “As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.” Well, this is not true. Isn't doesn't take an economic expert to know that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have yet to experience one quarter of negative growth, so it's pretty foolish to speculate that we are in a recession. And notice that Obama doesn't mention who these "experts" are that he refers to. Either Obama doesn't know how a recession is defined or he is being rather reckless with his verbage. Either way, it really makes me wonder if the whole "inexperience" attacks on him may have some merit.

Well, for Obama's sake, here are the facts about our economy as cited by Lott:

-- The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

-- The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate.

--seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

And yet, most people seem to believe that the economy was SO much stronger under Clinton. Too many people believe what they read in the newspaper, and when you couple that with biased journalism it makes for some dangerous politics. Seek the facts, people. You may be surprised at what you find.