Ann Coulter nails it

I won't go as far as voting for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife, but I certainly can't vote for McCain. And Ann gives some compelling reasons:

• She (Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife) is more conservative than is McAmnesty
  
• She is smarter than he is
  
• She lies less than he does (when he's caught in a lie, he doesn't know to stop telling it)
  
• She hasn't taken a stand on closing Guantanamo, he has (he wants it closed)
  
• She is a Defeat-ocrat, he is (supposedly) a Republican, and yet their positions are millimeters apart

If he wins the nomination, he'll be the ruination of the Republican party.

I know this is a bad thing - Rick "39%" Perry has endorsed McCain

He endorsed Rudy. But now that Rudy has withdrawn, he's backing the McCainiac.

"He and I may not agree on every issue," Mr. Perry said of the Arizona senator. "But we do agree that this country cannot flinch when it comes to the war against the Islamic terrorists."

Mr. Perry's move followed by hours California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's endorsement of Mr. McCain at a joint appearance on the West Coast. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist endorsed the senator Saturday night, just three days before Mr. McCain's big win in that state's GOP primary.

Mr. Perry, who earlier had backed former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, dismissed suggestions that he again has defied his conservative supporters' wishes.

Though Mr. McCain has angered party loyalists by authoring bills to overhaul campaign finance and immigration and by voting twice against President Bush's tax cuts, Mr. Perry praised Mr. McCain for promising to get rid of pork barrel "earmarks" in the federal budget.

As he had earlier in endorsing Mr. Giuliani, the governor framed his choice as driven by national security considerations.

"I happen to think John McCain can and will win the war on terror," Mr. Perry said at a news conference in his Capitol office. "Everything else is secondary."

The RINOs are lining up like good little lemmings.

Rudy has gone . . . to the Dark Side

This is a painful post to write, but one I must if I want to be intellectually honest with my readers. My first choice for the Republican Presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has dropped out of the race. How I wish I could stop right there. But I can't. Rudy has taken the unfortunate further step of endorsing . . . wait for it . . . John McCain.

It's like a nightmare that you can't wake up from. Things just keep getting worse. My only hope now is that Mitt Romney will beat the McCainiac on Super Tuesday. What an awful state of affairs for the Republican Party.

Florida votes for . . . McCain? Really???

Here are some of McCain's Greatest Hits:

• Member of the Keating Five
• Co-leader of the Gang of 14
• McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform
• McCain-Kennedy Amnesty for Illegals Act
• McCain-Lieberman Greenhouse Gas Act
• McCain-Anything, which most assuredly represents a compromise of Conservative principles
• Voted against the Bush tax cuts - twice

This man represents the epitome of RINO behavior. Make no mistake, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, we will have a Democrat in the White House in 2009. No other way around it. Too many Republicans and Conservatives will simply not vote for McCain. How do we stop him?

What should we do about the "I don't want to be held responsible for my actions" crisis?

Here's the scene in Cleveland, Ohio.

At 9422 Chagrin Street, a hand-scrawled sign attached to a window indicates someone lives there: "Please Used."

After three rings of the bell, Sarah Evans, 60, opens the door with a mixture of curiosity and alarm.

She says she is one of the last people left on the street. And she is on the verge of losing this two-bedroom house in which she has lived for more than 30 years because she simply cannot afford her monthly payments.

It is a complicated story. She refinanced in 2003, but did not realize the document she signed included provisions to radically increase the interest rate.

She stopped making payments in 2006 and shows her unpaid bills totaling 24,000 dollars.

Her bank is in the midst of eviction procedures.

As well it should be. I am quite certain that, if Mrs. Light Bulb and I were to fall $24,000 behind in our mortgage payments, it wouldn't take over a year for our bank to evict us from our home. I'd guess six months at most.

But why did this happen in the first place? According to the fourth paragraph, "it's a complicated story." Really? How complicated can a refinance be? From the same paragraph:

She refinanced in 2003, but did not realize the document she signed included provisions to radically increase the interest rate.

Did not realize? Let's translate that into reality, shall we? "Ms. Evans did not read the document she signed." And so, instead of living up to the agreement to which she legally committed herself, she has decided to purposefully become delinquent in her mortgage payments. And just who is to blame for this?

For county treasurer Jim Rokakis, the greed of the banks is to blame for this man-made disaster.

"All you needed was a pulse to buy a house. Some loans were written with no money down, no proof of buyer's incomes. They did not even check what people were saying. Most of those folks were jobless," he said in an interview.

"Shaker Heights was the perfect storm: poor folks, unemployed and a desire to get a piece of the American Dream."

Ah yes, the greed of the banks. Because, you know, the banks came into town and held a gun to the head of each home owner and made them refinance their fixed rate mortgages into adjustable rate mortgages. Those nasty banks.

I gotta tell you, I'm sick to death of hearing about these cases. I do have compassion for these people; losing your home must be an awful, awful thing. But if they want to find someone to blame, they need to look in the mirror. For most of us, purchasing a home is the single biggest financial transaction we will ever make in our lives. If you and I don't read every single word on every single page of our mortgage agreements, shame on us.

What should we do about the "I don't want to be held responsible for my actions" crisis? As Michelle Malkin says, "Suck. It. Up."

What a crock of stimulus

Via Michelle Malkin, this excerpt from The Examiner explains "stimulus" Washington style:

If somebody grabbed your wallet and then handed you back a $20 bill, would you be grateful? Realizing the money was yours to begin with, you would probably call the cops rather than thank the thief.

President Bush’s latest gimmick to stimulate the economy by giving back to taxpayers $800 of their own money is the Washington equivalent of the “generous” thief. The biggest fairy tale in Washington isn’t Barack Obama’s voting record on the war in Iraq, but the notion peddled by Republicans and Democrats alike that the government has a big pot of its own money that it generously gives to people by “injecting” it into the economy as a stimulus.

In fact, government has only our money or money it borrows from lenders. The problem is it costs the government a major portion of every dollar it takes from us in collecting it and paying the interest on dollars it borrows. Why not just let us keep our money in the first place?

Want real economic stimulus? Make the 2003 tax cuts permanent. And slash government spending by 5%, just five percent. I've heard it said before: "any manager who can't cut their budget by 10% should be fired." Of course, government isn't the real world, so we'll set their goal at half that, just to make it easy on them.

Want to jump-start home buying? Reduce property taxes. Let people know that when they find a house they think they can afford, the taxes added on to their mortgage payment won't make the house unaffordable.

Want to reduce the price of oil? Have a big oil company announce that they're increasing production/supply or, God forbid, that they're going to start drilling in ANWR.

The worst part is that Republicans in Congress have gone along with the Defeat-ocrats in all this. Neil Cavuto was right: the Defeat-ocrats have truly won the day.

Obama's Clinton Education

Please read this excellent commentary from the Wall Street Journal.

One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do."

We're reminded of that story listening to Barack Obama protest his treatment by the now ex-President Clinton on behalf of his wanna-be-President wife. "You know the former President, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Mr. Obama told a TV interviewer. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts — whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas."

Now he knows how the rest of us feel.

The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?"

You have to admit, the Clintons are exceptionally skilled at triangulation. We even saw it at the Defeat-ocrats last debate. Senator Obama spoke about lies that Bill was telling. Mrs. Clinton's response? "He's not here."

She could have also said "he's everywhere but here." It's very cunning to have your chief attack dog not be an official member of your campaign and able to go and speak anywhere on your behalf with the full expectation of media coverage. After all, who wouldn't cover a former President's speeches? From there, it's an all-too-easy bait-and-switch.

"Did you hear what Bill said?"

"Yes, I did. But he's not running. Her Vileness is."

Let's see how long they get away with it. With the media behind them, my guess is a long, long time.

Life is still precious

Today was March for Life day, the unfortunate anniversary of the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision.

What can be done in a society that no longer values life? We who know the truth about abortion should firmly and lovingly speak up about it. We should ask forgiveness as a nation for the millions of children who have been killed as a result of this decision. And yes, we should do all we can to get elected to the Presidency a man who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will interpret the law and not create their own horrifying laws.

As an awful bookend to the day comes news that actor Heath Ledger was found dead in his New York City apartment of an apparent "accidental" overdose. What a shame. His career was most likely about to take off with his upcoming portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight. He leaves behind a daughter whose mother was not worth marrying for some reason. Stardom, money, a child, all at age 28. All I can think of is...

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

— Matthew 16:26

Answer: nothing.

Ten years ago today

It was just ten short years ago today that we began to learn just how much William Jefferson Blythe Clinton would choose to tarnish the office of President.

On the evening of Saturday January 17, 1998, the internet gossip merchant Matt Drudge posted a story that opened the most sensational scandal season in the history of the American presidency. He reported that Newsweek magazine had killed a story about President Clinton’s sexual relationship with a former intern. The next day he had her name: Monica Lewinsky.

The mainstream media were slow to catch up, but by the following Tuesday they were reporting that Clinton was being investigated for encouraging others to lie to cover up the affair.

For the next year the story dominated the headlines as Clinton was investigated, impeached and eventually found not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours in a Senate trial.

And now another Clinton seeks the same office, the "enabler" you might call her.

She [Kathleen Willey] believes that Clinton is a sex addict and Hillary is an enabler. “Rather than address the problem, it’s this ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’. Rather than give him an ultimatum and kick him out and say you are not coming back until you get well, she has enabled his behaviour and it hasn’t stopped.

Really, how much public humiliation can one woman stand?”

She goes as far as to call Hillary Clinton “evil” for what she believes was her role in trying to destroy the credibility of the women who claimed sexual relationships with her husband. “A lot of women out there are voting for the first time and are excited about voting for a woman. This country is certainly ready to be run by a woman. Just not this woman.”

From her lips to the voters' ears.

If you can fake sincerity...

...you can get a lot of New Hampshire voters on your side.

And here's her spouse at Ron Brown's funeral:

These people will say anything and do anything in order to get elected.

Ron Paul is "the Pee-Wee Herman of the Republican Party"

Yet another hat tip to the PowerLine brainiacs. And, I promise, my last Ron Paul post.

Some years ago, after popular children's television performer Pee-Wee Herman was arrested in a pornographic movie house, a friend commented that he wasn't surprised, as he'd always felt there was something "off" with respect to Herman. In hindsight, that wasn't too tough a call. I had a similar reaction to James Kirchick's revelations about Ron Paul.

...

It seemed obvious to me during the debates that Ron Paul is not just a principled, if quixotic, libertarian. Like Pee-Wee Herman, he is visibly "off." Paul's newsletters reveal him as prone to hatred and fond of conspiracy theories. So, in practice, he is much more like an internet liberal than a libertarian of the Steve Forbes or Cato Institute ilk. This is, of course, exactly how he came across in the presidential debates.

Read the Kirchick report. 'Nuff said.

Further proof that New Hampshire leans left

John McCain has won the New Hampshire Republican primary.

I don't get it. A man who voted FOR amnesty. A man who co-authored the bill to abridge our free speech rights in election seasons. A Gang of 14 member. This is so obvious a case of a wolf in sheep's clothing that I can't comprehend anyone being fooled by such behavior. Apparently, such incomprehensibleness exists in great supply in the Granite State.

Thanks for nothing, New Hampshire.

And Her Vileness has won the Democratic primary.

Oh, I get this one. Stick with what works. Eight years of Clintonian rule did such wonders for our country, for our standing in the eyes of Muslin terrorists, for the Oval Office carpet. Support the candidate who wants as many babies as possible killed in their mothers' wombs. Vote for Healthcare supplied by your local Department of Motor Vehicles office.

Makes perfect sense.

Both beatables won in Iowa

BAD - Huckabee won. He is not a conservative, bad on immigration, bad on fiscal responsibility, bad on the war. He will be easily beatable in November if he gets the nomination. It will be a replay of the 2006 elections. People voted in 2004 for representatives they thought were conservative, but when those representatives got into office they behaved like liberals instead. So when 2006 came around the people went ahead and voted for liberals thinking, "why should I vote for a conservative to be liberal when I can vote for a liberal to be liberal."

GOOD - Obama won. He is very beatable in November. He has yet to be asked a question about his record. When those questions are asked (by someone other than Her Vileness), the public will see him for the socialist he is.

GREAT - Her Vileness lost. The candidate of inevitability is no longer inevitable. And she's down by 10 in New Hampshire.

Happy New Year 2008!

Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."

— James 4:13-15

Father God, lead me to your will in 2008.

"What's a conservative to do?"

A sentiment voiced by many conservatives this election cycle, I'm certain. And one voiced by Playwriter Girl in a comment to my Huckabee post below. For, despite what the drive-bys would have us believe, there is no real conservative in this year's presidential race. Here are the Republican candidates as I see them.

Huckabee	A Liberal's Republican. Vote for Mike if you want your taxes raised.
Hunter	Solid conservative, but where is he? Where's his passion?
McCain	Nope. Already rejected by Republicans. Besides, Star Wars is passe—we don't need another Luke Skywalker.
Paul	Kook, kook, kook.
Romney	Accomplished businessman and Governor. But waffles too much for my taste.
Thompson	Possibly the most conservative of the bunch. Seems to have little energy. Great statesman, unproven leader.

And that leaves my choice, Rudy Giuliani.

Here is my criteria for selecting Rudy. Line up all the candidates side by side and ask yourself this question: which one of these candidates will the terrorists be most afraid of? For me, it's Rudy. Yes, he's not the most conservative of the bunch, there's no question about that. However, he has stated that he will appoint constructionists to the Supreme Court. While he is personally pro-abortion, he recognizes that it is the people's decision through the governments of their respective states. He is an accomplished administrator, having cleaned up New York City of crime before September 11 and of tragedy afterward. He is an accomplish prosecutor. He led the charge to rid New York of organized crime with tremendous success.

For what it's worth, Mr. Light Bulb recommends voting for Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate for President of the United States.

Operation Streamline is working!

30% reduction in crime. What's not to like about this?

The first 45 days of Operation Streamline — a collaborative effort of local, state and federal agencies in Texas — has resulted in decreased illegal border crossings and crime since its implementation Oct. 31 compared with last year's numbers, said Laredo Border Patrol Sector chief patrol agent Carlos X. Carrillo.

"As more and more illegal aliens are prosecuted and incarcerated under Streamline-Laredo, the word is spreading quickly that illegal entry has its consequences," Mr. Carrillo said. "Those found guilty of violating this statute face penalties that can include fines and up to six months in prison."

During the first 45-day period of Operation Streamline in the Laredo sector only 2,833 illegal entries were reported, compared with last fiscal year, when 4,424 illegal entries were reported during a similar period.

And one of the leaders responsible for Operation Streamline is my Congressman, John Culberson. From his web site:

My proudest accomplishment this week was obtaining $80 million in additional funds to significantly strengthen America’s borders. Of this amount, $15 million will be used to expand and support the zero tolerance program I helped implement on October 30 in the Laredo Sector. Under "Operation Streamline," anyone who crosses our border illegally is arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. In the Del Rio sector, Operation Streamline reduced the crime rate by 76 percent, and this year will see the lowest number of illegal border crossings in Del Rio since the Border Patrol started keeping records in 1972! I expect to see zero tolerance implemented in the Tuscon Sector in January and my next target is the Brownsville Sector.

But why is John having to worry about law enforcement?

Since the bureaucrats in the Washington headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security have failed to secure our borders, I have learned to bypass headquarters in order to get results along the border. The Texas border county sheriffs will receive $5 million to work alongside Border Patrol agents. Last year, I was also able to provide $5 million to Texas border sheriffs, and they are using the money to put more deputies on the streets, buy equipment, and reduce illegal crossings. In addition to the funds they are receiving from the State of Texas, this is money well spent in the battle to defend our borders.

Keep bypassing headquarters, John! It seems to be the only way to get things done.

Wait a minute, I thought we were having a conversation...

If I remember her candidacy announcement correctly, and I think I do, Mrs. Clinton's final thought went something like this:

"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"

How interesting (not really) and typical (definitely) to read this:

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she’s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was "moved" by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.

Her daughter, Chelsea, had the same reaction when a reporter approached her with a question.

Hillary Clinton’s no-question policy didn’t sit well with some of the Iowans who came to see her speak.

"I was a little bit underwhelmed," said Doug Rohde, 46, as he left her a rally in a fire station in Denison. "The message was very generic — and no questions."

Yep, it's a one-sided conversation alright.

Liberal compassion and tolerance on display...through "Global Warming"

You can write books on liberal hypocrisy, and some already have. Here's an example for the next volume. Scanning through the Drudge Report this morning, I saw this link: "PAPER: Global Warming Will Save America from the Right Wing". And I couldn't resist.

It's a commentary written by Dave Lindorff for the Baltimore Chronicle. First of all, he's a believer in the Religion of Global Warming. Therefore, we know he's incredibly gullible and will believe the wildest of ideas based on little or no evidence. Anyway, the premise of Dave's commentary is that as the sea level rises, as the Religion prescribes, the most affected areas will be:

the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.

Hmmm. Notice anything about the future below sea level areas? There's more.

Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.

Wow. Feel the love.

Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.

Gee, how did he eve manage to write something while being so overwhelmed with sympathy...never mind.

Here's some advice to you believers in the Religion of Global Warming. Just let us Conservatives (that is, users of brains) do what we want and warm the globe. You continue to drive your hybrids, bring your own bags to the grocery store, and not use toilet paper (please stay out of my nasal sensorium). And in a few years the sea level will rise enough to wipe us Conservatives away. Because, of course, we won't move or anything like that. We'll just stay put here in Houston and allow the water to rise over our heads. We simply wouldn't contemplate moving to higher ground.

Note: I recently read State of Fear. Fantastic blog material on this topic. Stay tuned.

He is born

But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

— Luke 2:10-12

Merry Christmas!

What has Ron Paul accomplished? redux

I knew it. It was so incredibly predictable.

But before I continue, I do need to congratulate the Paulaholics. They are very well organized, and they are phenomenally passionate. Those are two outstanding qualities in politics. (Too bad their guy is a kook.) O.K., back to the post.

After posting my "what has Ron Paul accomplished" question two days ago, I received an anonymous comment a little over six hours later from a Paulaholic. And it followed the typical Paulaholic response. Let's break it down, shall we?

You are asking the wrong question of Paul supporters. If we wanted an activist government to go out and achieve things, we'd support Socialists like Hilary and Rudy.

Oh so clever. Anonymous equates government achievement with Socialism. And then (correctly) lists Mrs. Clinton and (incorrectly) Rudy as examples of Socialism.

Yes, we do want government and our government's employees and representatives to actually achieve things, like . . . oh, I don't know . . . ending the Cold War or keeping our taxes low in order to fuel economic growth. To a certain degree, I agree with the Paulaholics that government is too big and that it does to much and way more than is constitutionally mandated. But it has to DO something. It has to get something done. There is a minimum threshold of achievement that must be met. Remember this phrase?

...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

Those are some basics that our government needs to achieve. If it doesn't get some of those correct, we have no nation, and all of our discourse will be for naught.

Continuing with the Paulaholic comment.

I'd say in general, Ron Paul supporters hope that he will bring the size of government down in line with its present level of effectiveness, and the cost of that government down in line with that size.

O.K. That's nice. I'd like for every elected representative to pursue that goal. But what has he done that shows us he's capable of (here's that nasty word again) accomplishing that goal? Let's read on.

What Ron Paul did in his career was to stand firm for the philosophy of limited government as his own party stampeded away from it the moment they took power. By definition, the voice in the wilderness is not the leader of the pack. But if we ever find ourselves in a country where a politician can say, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government *is* the problem," without being derided as a racist kook, Ron Paul will be remembered as a great keeper of that flame.

"STAND FIRM." That's all they can come up with! No accomplishment. No record of getting something done. Nothing in history that will give us a clue as to what might actually occur, besides a whole bunch of speaking and standing firm.

And then...

And then...my dear anonymous commenter displays his/her ignorance of true accomplishment. For Anonymous misquotes the Great Accomplisher himself. Here's the correct quote:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, spoke of true conservatism when he said this. And, dear Anonymous, Ron Paul is most certainly not a keeper of the Reagan flame.

Predictably, the question remains unanswered; what has Ron Paul accomplished?

Mike Huckabee, a Liberal's Republican

Yes indeed, a liberal's Republican. In fact, we could call him another Tax Hike Mike, Jr. (Sr. being the former governor of Massachusets). Here's an excerpt from a National Review interview with congressman Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth:

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Is Mike Huckabee really as bad as you say he is?

Pat Toomey: He’s every bit as bad, and you don’t have to just take our word for it. Jonah Goldberg, you and your fellow editors at National Review, Bob Novak, and John Fund — to name just a few conservative writers — agree that Mike Huckabee is no conservative. You can read the Club’s white paper on our website, but here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either.

Run away. Run away.

What has Ron Paul accomplished?

Well, I've been away for quite a while, busy with house stuff and work stuff. But now the holidays are here, and it is my goal to blog each and every day until I return to work, sometime the first week of January.

For my first Holiday 2007 post, I altruistically seek information from the Paulaholics. So, for you Paulaholics out there, please answer this question: what has Ron Paul accomplished?

Some disclosure is appropriate: I cannot lay claim to the originality of this line of questioning. I hear the unbeatable Edd Hendee and Pat Gray on AM 700 KSEV and AM 1160 KVCE ask this question every time a Paulaholic calls in. But they never answer the question. They'll start out with "Ron Paul has defended the Constitution..." or "Ron Paul has stood for American principles..." or some other platitudinous drivel. Never do they list an accomplishment.

Therefore, I ask of you, dear Paulaholics on the internet, with sincerity, what has Ron Paul accomplished?


By the way . . . by "accomplished" I mean something in government, not fund raising. He's an incredible fundraiser, no one can deny that.

Book Review: Hell To Pay

The late, great Barbara Olson was a brainy woman. As a passenger on board American Airlines Flight 77, she was among the first to perish in the War Against Terror. In her honor, a yearly lecture is presented at the Federalist Society. Her husband, then Solicitor General Ted Olson, gave the first of these lectures in on November 16, 2001. In summing up his wife's life he said,

It was typically Barbara that when Al Regnery suggested that she write a book about Hillary Rodham Clinton, she literally jumped at the chance. She told me at the time that she wasn't sure that she was a writer, but a friend of ours told her that she didn't have to be a writer to be an author. So, with her legendary energy and limitless self-confidence, she poured herself into the book, finished it in nine months and, against seemingly insurmountable odds, without any previous experience with serious writing, climbed onto the New York Times best seller list during the heaviest competitive time of the year, and stayed there for nine weeks. Ten days ago, her second book, written in about six months and finished just days before her death, opened at number two on the New York Times bestseller list, ahead of Bill O'Reilly, Jack Welch and Tiger Woods. Not bad.

Barbara was everywhere in Washington. A witness for Clarence Thomas at his confirmation, a co-founder of the Independent Women's Forum, hosting Federalist Society members from all over the country in her home, at the epicenter of the travel office and filegate investigations, and the China campaign contributions investigation, the second-most invited guest on "Larry King Live," appearing on MSNBC, FOX, "Meet the Press," "Cross-Fire," "Geraldo," "Politically Incorrect," you name it. Ready to talk about any subject, ready to face down any adversary. She always had an opinion. And she always had that smile.

I could tell you Barbara stories for hours, and I think that you would be glad to listen. But, in short, Barbara partook of everything life gave her. She saw no limits in the people around her and she accepted no limits on what she could accomplish. She could be charming, tough, indefatigable, ferocious and lovable. And all those things at once.

Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike anyplace in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be. Is there any other place on earth where someone could do all these things in forty-five years?

So, sadly, and ironically, Barbara may have been the perfect victim for these wretched, twisted, hateful people. Because she was so thoroughly and hugely an American. And such a symbol of America's values, ideals, and robust ambition. But she died as she lived. Fighting, believing in herself, and determined to succeed. And, if she was the perfect victim, she is also a perfect symbol of what we are fighting for now and for why we will prevail.

Ms. Olson's first book, Hell To Pay, shows us the real Hillary Rodham Clinton. We learn about her first forays into funding Defeat-ocrat candidates with federal tax dollars. We learn about her first acts of enabling her husband's lascivious behaviour. We learn about her exposure to liberalism in law school and her study of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. And we learn why children are so very important to her, politically.

We also see, on almost every page, a combination of shock, amazement, and revulsion at what a person will do for personal power. That's because Mrs. Olson, like so many people, was the anti-Hillary. Where Mrs. Olson would have seen the best in people, Hillary sees either an asset to be used or an enemy to be investigated and crushed. Where Mrs. Olson would answer questions forthrightly, Hillary will evade or prevaricate or do whatever must be done in order to avoid the truth.

A telling excerpt:

There is another side to their early relationship. Hillary was well acquainted with Arkansas long before she moved to Fayetteville. She had lived in Arkansas for part of 1974, when Bill Clinton had decided to run against incumbent Republican Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt. The Clintons and their boosters rarely talk about that race, and for good reason. It was during this time that Hillary learned all too well what kind of husband Bill Clinton would make.

Two legacies were created during this period. First, in the Clinton marriage, the personal fused with the political. The risks that Bill Clinton took with his relationship with Hillary were inseparable from the risks he took with his own career.

The second legacy is the need for what Clinton consultant and friend Dick Morris called "the secret police." Hillary learned about private investigators in her work on behalf of the Black Panthers and the Communist apologists Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford. Now Hillary was constantly checking up on bill, not just to learn the extent of his betrayals, but to assess the danger he posed to their joint political career.

Hillary began her surveillance of bill during this period in simple ways, eavesdropping and checking his desk. While Hillary knew Bill was cheating, she didn't know that Mary Lee Fray—the woman charged with making Hillary more attractive—was also the shepherd who kept the doors revolving so that Hillary never umped into what she called "Bill's special friends." Clinton campaign coordinator Neal McDonald remembered that Bill "had a girl friend in every county."

While Hillary assumed that her intellect would keep Bill at her side, Mary Lee Fray lamented that Hillary "had a weight problem and she wouldn't diet.... She didn't have a body for a dress. So I told her to at least buy some nice underclothes."

If it came to a choice between changing her lingerie or snooping on Bill, Hillary preferred to search for scraps of paper with phone numbers on them and tear them up, mutilating the paper as though it were a Black Panther informant betraying Bobby Seale to "the pigs."

With liberals, and most certainly with Mrs. Clinton, it's all about personal power; accumulating it, maintaining it, and exercising it. This book covers all three. I consider this book an indispensable guide into the mind of Mrs. Clinton. If you want to know how Her Vileness became Her Vileness and why she acts the way she does, read this book.

Finally, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila has been arrested for smuggling drugs

It's about time.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, the drug smuggler who testified for the prosecution during the trials for Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, has been arrested on charges of bringing more than 750 pounds of marijuana into the United States.

Aldrete-Davila was arrested today at the El Paso border crossing on charges involving what has become know as the "second load," in which he smuggled a second 750-pound load of marijuana into the U.S. after he was given immunity by the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, for the first load

More than two years after transporting over 750 pounds of marijuana across our southern border, this cretin is finally behind bars. That is, after receiving medical care paid for by United States taxpayers for a bullet wound in his buttocks. And after receiving a Department of Homeland Security border pass card from District Attorney Johnny "Satan" Sutton. And after testifying against Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, who now sit in federal prison in conditions worse that terrorists receive.

Personal Responsibility - it's outdated

Via NewsMax comes this story about personal responsibility and its lack of being mentioned in the drive-by media.

Major news outlets are largely ignoring personal responsibility in their coverage of a recent increase in loan foreclosures, according to a new report from the Business & Media Institute (BMI).

"Everyone who enters into any kind of financial agreement should be expected to read and understand the documents he or she is signing, and if they don't, they shouldn't sign the papers," the report stated. "This was clearly not the position the evening news programs took."

And here's the first six points of the report:

Irresponsible Borrowers off the Hook: Sixty-two percent of the stories on the three networks ignored the consumer's responsibility for debt. Just as many portrayed borrowers as victims, such as the North Carolina family "living off peanut butter and jelly" just to make the mortgage payment.

Business Gets a Black Eye: Lenders and related companies were blamed for borrowers' debt trouble six times as often as borrowers. ABC and NBC even blamed the National Football League for retired players' financial woes.

A Penny Saved or Spent: While network reporters occasionally complained about Americans' negative savings rate, the ideas of savings and thrift were virtually ignored throughout the nine-month period. Only 14 percent of debt-related stories mentioned a savings or thrift theme.

Scary Words about the Economy: Exaggerated descriptions were often used to describe the economy. the terms "economic tsunami," "chaos," "crisis" and "meltdown" painted a bleak scenario that could undermine consumer confidence. Networks included doom-and-gloom remarks from ordinary people and experts 88 times, and the term "recession" was mentioned 10 times.

NBC the Worst: "Nightly News" blamed business nine times as often as borrowers (19 to 2), and tied with "World News with Charles Gibson" in ignoring the issue of personal responsibility. Both networks omitted it in 66 percent of the stories but NBC outdid itself with its poor coverage.

CBS the Best: CBS was the network most likely to address or promote personal responsibility and also had eight stories promoting savings. The "Evening News" also portrayed fewer people as victims than the other networks.

I am very glad to see this. I've been wondering, as news of banking write downs becomes more common, when someone would talk about the fact that these people (the borrowers) should have known what they were getting into. The fact that they cannot now pay their inflated mortgage payments is their problem alone, not the banks' and most certainly not the taxpayers'.