1
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

From Right Voices • Iowahawk

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don't care whether you are a conservative or a liberal -- when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation's highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.

Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country's top job -- which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn't mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.

It's also heartening to realize that as president Mr. Obama will soon be working hand-in-hand with a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard like Senator Robert Byrd to craft the incoherent and destructive programs that will plunge the American economy into a nightmare of full-blown sustained depression. As Vice President-Elect Joe Biden has repeatedly warned, there will be difficult times ahead and the programs will not always be popular, or even sane. But as we look out over the wreckage of bankrupt coal companies, nationalized banks, and hyperinflation, we can always look back with sustained pride on the great National Reconciliation of 2008. Call me an optimist, but I like to think when America's breadlines erupt into riots it will be because of our shared starvation, not the differences in our color.

It's obvious that this newfound pride is not confined to Americans alone. All across the world, Mr. Obama's election has helped mend America's tattered image as a racist, violent cowboy, willing to retaliate with bombs at the slightest provocation. The huge outpouring of international support following the election shows that America can still win new friendships while rebuilding its old ones, and provides Mr. Obama with unprecedented diplomatic leverage over our remaining enemies. When Russian tanks start pouring into eastern Europe and Iranian missiles begin raining down on Jerusalem, their leaders will know they will be facing a man who not only conquered America's racial divide but the hearts of the entire Cannes film community. And those Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a dirty nuke or chemical attack on San Francisco face a stark new reality: while they may no longer need to worry about US Marines, they are looking down the barrel of a strongly worded diplomatic condemnation by a Europe fully united in their deep sympathy for surviving Americans.
 

So for now, let's put politics aside and celebrate this historic milestone. In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.

1
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

'Yes we can'? Make that: 'Oops, we may not'

Barack Obama suddenly looks vulnerable. And the more the focus is on him, the less likely he is to become president

By Gerard Baker -- UK Times Online

There's trouble in paradise. Cancel the coronation. Send back the commemorative medals. Put those “Yes We Can” T-shirts up on eBay. Keep the Change.

Barack Obama's historic procession to the American presidency has been rudely interrupted. The global healing he promised is in jeopardy. If you're prone to emotional breakdown, you might want to take a seat before I say this. He might not win.

How can it be, you ask? Didn't we see him just last month speaking to 200,000 adoring Germans in Berlin? Didn't he get the red carpet treatment in France - France of all places? Doesn't every British politician want to be seen clutching the hem of his garment?

All true. But as cruel geography and the selfish designs of the American Founding Fathers would have it, Europeans don't get to choose the US president. Somewhere along the way to the Obama presidency, somebody forgot to ask the American people.

And wouldn't you know it, they insist on looking this gift thoroughbred in the mouth. Who'd have thought it? You present them with the man who deigns to deliver them from their plight and they want to sit around and ask hard questions about who he is and what he believes and where he might actually take the country. The ingrates!

So we arrive this weekend at the true starting line of the US presidential race and the rituals that begin the real election campaign: the selection of the vice-presidential running-mates, and the back-to-back party nominating conventions. A year and a half after the warm-ups began, the two remaining candidates are more or less tied. Senator Obama's summer lead in the opinion polls has evaporated. John McCain, that grumpy, grisly, gnarled old Republican, that Gollum to Senator Obama's Bilbo Baggins, might, just might, actually win this thing.

What happened?

Of course, the conventional view is that it's all the work of that most terrifyingly effective piece of artillery since the invention of the howitzer, the Republican Attack Machine.

The credulous American voter, we're told, has been subjected in the last month to a televised blitzkrieg of right-wing lies about the hapless Democrat. He's not patriotic. He might be a Muslim. He might not even be American. He probably is a Muslim. There's no evidence he's ever said anything nice about Michael Phelps. He goes to the mosque on Fridays. If Obama's the leader of the free world, it won't be the Caucasian Georgia the Russians invade but the one sandwiched between Florida and South Carolina. Gullible Americans are going to fall for it, just as they fell for Stupid George W over Brilliant Al Gore and Brave John Kerry.

Forgive me for interrupting this reverie but in the real world something else is going on.

In the reality-based community the rest of us inhabit, the first thing to be said about the current state of the race is that the actual shift in the campaign's dynamics is not quite as dramatic as the pundit class would have you believe. A month ago, according to an average of polls for Real ClearPolitics.com, Senator Obama had about a four-point lead over Senator McCain. This week the tally suggests the lead is about one percentage point.

The bigger change has occurred in perceptions about the race. A month ago the prevailing view among the wise was that Senator Obama would steadily increase his lead and by the time his convention concluded next week, it would be insurmountable.

But instead, it looks as though, even if he has a really good convention in Denver next week, and Hillary and Bill Clinton play the unlikely role of loyal followers, the race will still be close when the Republicans start their gathering in a week's time. Whatever happens, in other words. it looks like yet another close election.

Why is this? Why has the Democrat failed to capitalise on the mood of deep discontent within the country?

First, it's true that the negative campaigning by John McCain has hurt him somewhat. But there's nothing wrong with that. The 2008 presidential election has so far been a referendum on Senator Obama. it's perfectly reasonable for the Republicans to make the case against him, and the attacks have been fair. My account of the McCain campaign above was a caricature, of course. There's been no mention of Senator Obama's race or the silly fiction that he might be a Muslim.

The fact is that the 47-year-old Democrat, less than four years in the Senate, is still largely a blank page for American voters: a great orator and an attractive figure, but unknown and untested. The Republicans have been filling in some of the gaps and pointing out how thin his real biography is.

The second problem is that Senator Obama is having difficulty - curiously enough - with Democratic voters. Polls indicate that while Senator McCain has just about locked up the votes of those who supported other Republicans in the primary election, Senator Obama is still regarded with mistrust and dislike by large numbers of Hillary Clinton's former supporters.

For many of these working-class types, he's just a bit too cerebral, a little vague. His campaign lacks both substance and passion. While unemployment is rising, incomes are slipping fqarther behind rising inflation and house prices are falling, Senator Obama keeps talking about hope and change, keeps promising a new type of politics. These benighted Democratic voters don't really want a new type of politics. They want to know what exactly he's going to do to raise their living standards.

The irony for Senator Obama is that he has built a campaign on a pledge to put an end to cynicism in the political system, but the more he offers only vague promises of hope, the greater the danger that he increases voter cynicism about politicians in general and him in particular.

The third problem is that events have not helped the Democrats. The war in Georgia has emphasised that the world is a dangerous place, and that simply being willing to talk to your enemies, as Senator Obama sometimes seems to suggest, isn't going to keep your people safe.

The key to understanding the presidential campaign as it enters its phase of maximum intensity is this. The more the campaign is about the concerns of the American voter, especially the state of the economy but also the general anxiety about the direction of the country, the more likely they are to throw the Republicans out.

But the uncomfortable truth for the many devoted fans of Senator Obama is that the more the race is about him, the less likely he is to win it.

Comments
UK Times Online ~ Gerard Baker ** 'Yes we can'? Make that: 'Oops, we may not'

1
Mood:  loud
Topic: Columns

Libtard Greens Thwart Gasoline Production

By Steven Milloy

Four-plus-dollar gasoline is forcing Americans to realize that we need increased domestic oil production to meet our ever-growing demand for affordable fuel. But even if the greens lose the political battle over drilling offshore and in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they nevertheless are way ahead of the game as they implement a back-up plan to make sure that not a drop of that oil ever eases our gasoline crunch.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough. NRDC’s opposition is quite ironic since ConocoPhillips and the activist group actually are teammates in the global warming game. Both belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of eco-activist groups and large companies that is lobbying for global warming regulation.

So even though ConocoPhillips is aiding and abetting the NRDC to achieve the green dream of absolute government control over the U.S. energy supply, the enviros still are in take-no-prisoners mode, refusing to allow the expansion of a single refinery.

Imagine what the rest of us can expect from the greens.

Meanwhile, in California, green groups are working through the state attorney general’s office to block the upgrade of the Chevron refinery in the city of Richmond. The $800 million upgrade essentially would expand the useable oil supply by permitting the refinery to process lower-quality, less-expensive crude oil.

California Attorney General, ex-Gov. and climate crusader Jerry Brown claims the upgrade will produce an additional 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. But Chevron says the upgrade actually will reduce the emissions by 220,000 tons.

Whose figure is closer to the truth?

It’s hard to know for sure at this point, but it’s worth noting that material false statements made by Chevron are prosecutable under the federal securities laws and California state law, while Brown and the activists pretty much can say whatever they want without legal accountability.

Whatever the facts are, Brown and the city of Richmond insist that Chevron eliminate 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions so that the upgrade will be "carbon neutral." While the greens remain vehemently opposed to the project, it seems their plans for blocking the refinery might go awry as Brown and the local government eventually may side with Chevron rather than the greens, but only because the company has deep pockets and is open to being shaken down.

Brown and the city have proposed that Chevron ensure that half the total emissions-reduction projects be undertaken on-site at the refinery and the other half be done either in the city of Richmond itself or elsewhere in California.

Translating the latter part of this "offer that can’t be refused:" Chevron essentially must purchase 450,000 tons of "carbon credits" annually from the city of Richmond or the state. As the street value of carbon credits is about $10 per ton, Chevron is being "green-mailed" to the tune of perhaps $4.5 million per year to upgrade its refinery — amounting to perhaps a 1 percent annual "tax" on the gains in gross revenue produced by the upgrade. And the local government officials are not the least embarrassed about this extortion.

"When you’re dealing with a refinery where the project will cost close to a billion dollars and someone like Chevron with tremendous resources, that’s not a constraint, so they should do everything possible," an unidentified state official told Carbon Control News in a June 9 article.

The farcical nature of the entire transaction is underscored by that state official’s apparent lack of understanding about how greenhouse gas-induced global warming is supposed to work.

The official told Carbon Control News that the greenhouse gas emission reductions "are vital to protect low-income minority communities in the Richmond area, which already suffer disproportionate pollution impacts."

Climate alarmism, of course, is based on the notion of global emissions causing global warming, not local emissions causing local warming; moreover, the allegation that low-income minority populations are disproportionately harmed by industrial emissions — the basis of the so-called "environmental justice" concept of the 1990s — hasn’t stuck since no scientific evidence supports it.

Though green and local government shenanigans can be a source of endless amusement, let’s get back to the main point. As the 2005 hurricane season dramatized, oil production, itself, is only one factor in determining gasoline supply and prices.

Damage to Gulf Coast refineries by hurricanes Katrina and Rita reduced gasoline supplies and increased prices worldwide — a real problem given that U.S. refineries operate at or near capacity thanks to other green constraints.

We may produce all the oil we need, but if we can’t refine it, then it won’t do much for reducing gasoline supply problems. So while working to expand domestic drilling, we’ll simultaneously need to expand domestic refining capacity.

It will be quite the Pyrrhic victory to finally produce oil from ANWR and then not be able to do anything with it.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Fox News.com ~ Steven Milloy ** Junk Science: Greens Thwart Gasoline Production
Related: • Junk Science: Time to Retire 'Denier'
• Junk Science: Poseur Shareholders
• Junk Science: Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
• Junk Science: McCain’s Embarrassing Climate Speech
• Obama: I was for high gas prices before I was against them
• Voters Say 'Drill'
• Solar Physicists Worried Over Death of Sunspots
• Congress Fiddled With Warming While Earth Cooled

1
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

Voters Say 'Drill'

By Lawrence Kudlow

The recent spike in oil prices and unemployment is dramatically changing this presidential campaign -- virtually overnight. The near $20 jump in oil to $140 a barrel, the unexpected half-point increase in the jobless rate to 5.5 percent (the biggest monthly increase in twenty years), and the resulting 400-point plunge in stocks has created a new campaign issue right before our eyes.

Public worry number one is now oil, jobs, and the economy, with the inflationary woes of the U.S. dollar right underneath. The candidate who can connect with these issues will win in November. But so far neither Obama nor McCain are dealing with the new political reality.

In fact, it's all about oil right now. The price has doubled over the past year while the economy has slumped.

But here's an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup show the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline prices has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. At the same time, support for more drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas has increased to 57 percent from 41 percent.

And the candidates remain blind to these shifts.

Obama continues to lambaste oil companies while congressional Democrats push for cap-and-trade. They're missing the point, big time. The public wants more energy and more fuel to cut high prices and spur economic growth. But the costly cap-and-trade plan would produce less fuel and less growth. It would only raise gas pump prices while mounting a Gosplan-type taxing, spending, and regulating program that would be the moral equivalent of Hillarycare on nationalized medicine.

Sen. McCain has an opening here. Yet he, like Obama, would have voted for cap-and-trade, which went down to defeat in last week's Senate vote. And while Mr. McCain favors some off-shore production and has been strong on nuclear development, he is against drilling in ANWR Alaska.

Then there's the oil nobody is talking about. The Bakken fields beneath North Dakota, Montana, and Canada hold an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil. In comparison, Saudi Arabia's biggest field, Gahawar, has an estimated 55 billion barrels, while ANWR has an estimated 10.4 billion barrels.

Hat tip to Mark Perry at the Carpe Diem blog site for these figures. Perry also is reporting a Bureau of Land Management study showing 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially be extracted. But more than half of this is totally off limits. Off-shore, where another 86 billion barrels lie in wait, is also restricted. Then there's liquefied natural gas, oil shale, and the various coal-to-liquid carbon-capture and sequestration technologies that would be priced out of the market by cap-and-trade.

The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we can't produce. We're still the world's third-largest oil producer, but we could be the Saudi Arabia of oil if our companies were free to drill. Oil CEOs like Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil and David O'Reilly of Chevron keep saying this. But politicians aren't heeding their message.

Israeli saber-rattling against Iran could have accounted for some of last week's huge oil spike. And the unemployment story may not be as bad as the May jobs report suggests. An unexpected inflow of teenagers probably bloated the jobless figure by a couple tenths of 1 percent. And economist Jerry Bowyer points out that an unprecedented hike in the minimum wage may be derailing students looking for summer work. However, in a sign of future job improvement, the civilian labor force grew by nearly 600,000, meaning that more people looking for work could signal recovery. Weekly jobless claims are near 350,000, not the 500,000 of past recessions. Overall, at 5.5 percent, unemployment continues to be historically low.

But the economy is still in a slump, not a boom. And the fact remains that Americans are very worried about the economic outlook. This could be a recession election. And right now voter economic anxieties are all about oil, even more than the sub-prime housing credit problem.

Sen. McCain has a great pro-growth plan to slash corporate tax rates, a move that would be a strong tonic for jobs and wages. But he must bolster that plan with a new emphasis on deregulated energy markets that can produce a total portfolio of conventional and non-conventional energy, including major new drilling. He should couple that with a strong-dollar message to curb both energy and non-energy inflation, which is shrinking consumer paychecks and damaging corporate profits.

More oil, more jobs, better wages, and low inflation. That's a winning GOP message this fall. But what if Sen. Obama gets there first? It's unlikely, but not out of the question. Either way, voters will move to the candidate who connects with their worries. Right now those worries are up for grabs.

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.
Comments --- Real Clear Politics.com ~ Lawrence Kudlow ** Voters Say 'Drill'
Related: CNN Money.com ~ Ben Rooney ** Fearing $5 gas, Americans cut back

1
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

MRSA Outbreak Among 'Gays'- Let the Whitewash Begin

By Matt Barber

You can’t help but feel a little sorry for Amanda Beck. She’s a reporter from Reuters who was among the first to cover a new study conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, which warns about an outbreak of a virulent, drug-resistant, and potentially deadly strain of Staph infection afflicting certain segments of the homosexual community.

Although outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, have primarily been confined to hospitals in the past, the study determined that, due to “high risk behaviors” beyond hospital walls — such as “anal sex” — men who have sex with men are now 13 times more likely to contract the infection.

Because this particular strain can be transmitted through “skin-to-skin contact,” researchers fear the outbreak “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” and will spread to “the general population.” Once it does, they say it will be “unstoppable.”

The initial reporting by some in the mainstream media, even The New York Times, was fairly accurate and balanced. It superficially addressed the study’s lucid data and sound conclusions.

But all that quickly changed.

You see, by even reporting on this study, Amanda Beck and her media codefendants deviated from the script. They broke the rules. And in so doing, they really, really ticked off that 500-pound homosexual activist gorilla and his yappy, apple polishing lapdogs back at media central.

Here’s where Amanda went wrong. She objectively provided scientific information to the public which cast “high risk” homosexual conduct in a negative light. She led people to a credible medical study that underscores the potential consequences of a demonstrably dangerous and desperately empty lifestyle.

She dared to report the study’s genuine findings, and for that, Amanda Beck and her media co-condemned will, no doubt, be working the obits beat in journalistic Siberia until they’ve successfully completed obligatory “sensitivity” training.

Dr. Binh Diep, the researcher who led the study, told Reuters, “Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable ... ‘We think that it's spread through sexual activity.’”

And the fan was thusly and most directly hit.

Now began the backpedaling: “Move along, folks, nothing to see here,” seemed to bark The New York Times, Newsweek and other media outlets. “Ignore that homosexual pressure group behind the curtain.”

Following the lead of “gay” activists, the mainstream media desperately scrambled to change the subject, engaging in a classic “kill-the-messenger” strategy. The researchers who conducted the study were even attacked, and calls by groups like Concerned Women for America (CWA) to end political promotion of the “high-risk behaviors” associated with the outbreak were warped through a prism of obfuscation and misdirection.

Homosexual groups and the media set up a mean ol’ straw man and took to knocking the stuffing out of him. Conservative organizations were suggested to have claimed the outbreak was “the new AIDS,” a “new gay disease” and “the gay plague,” all things which nobody I know ever implied.

They mischaracterized a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statement on the controversy as a repudiation of the study (which, of course, it was not). “There is no evidence at this time to suggest that MRSA is a sexually-transmitted infection in the classical sense,” read the statement. Again, nobody said MRSA was “a sexually-transmitted infection in the classical sense.” (Emphasis added). The study merely found that, as it pertains to certain segments of the “gay” community, it was being transmitted through “high-risk” sexual behaviors.

The New York Times disingenuously reported that the researchers had “issued an apology” for releasing “their findings.” “We deplore negative targeting of specific populations in association with MRSA infections or other public health concerns,” said Dr. Henry Chambers in what hardly amounted to “an apology.”

But the coup de grâce came when Kevin Berger — some cat over at Salon Magazine — personally attacked me. He noted that a handful of professional football players with turf burns had also contracted MRSA.

So desperate was he to downplay this behaviorally related MRSA outbreak among “gays” that he wrote an entire article built around the premise that, “It is fair to reason that more American men play football than have sex with one another.”

That little bit of flapdoodle was so rich that I was tempted to respond in kind with an article but decided against it. This poor fellow’s tortured logic betrays his folly. I wouldn’t want to pile on. It’d be like pulling a little girl’s pigtails, and I hate to appear “mean-spirited.”

Nonetheless, Berger’s dodgy rationalization perfectly encapsulates the strategy employed by both the homosexual lobby and the rest of his media cohorts. They can’t possibly be this deep in denial, so the cover up must be intentional.

Still, the actual study left little room for rationalization. It determined that the spread of MRSA, “among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections.”

Ultimately, the study warned that, “Having male-male sex seems to be a risk factor for [MRSA] ... The infection frequently manifests as an abscess or cellulitis in the buttocks, genitals, or perineum, and male-male sex was a risk factor.”

The study found that this behaviorally related “[MRSA] epidemic probably started in San Francisco and has been disseminated by the frequent cross-coastal travel of men who have sex with men.”

It all boils down to this: The human body is quite callous in how it handles mistreatment and the perversion of its natural functions. When two men mimic the act of heterosexual intercourse with one another, they create an environment, a biological counterfeit, wherein disease can thrive. Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences.

The medical community has known for decades that homosexual conduct, especially among males, creates a breeding ground for often deadly disease. In recent years we’ve seen a profound resurgence in cases of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, rectal gonorrhea and many other STDs among those who call themselves “gay.”

But don’t take my word for it. Ask one of their own. Prolific author and homosexual activist, Jack Hart:

“Many sexually transmitted diseases occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [anal-oral intercourse] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient at transmitting disease.” (Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, Allyson Books, 1998, pp. 212-213).

Still, don’t just take Jack’s word for it:

“The same patterns of increased sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men ... have been driving resurgent epidemics of early syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere,” concluded the MRSA study.

So finally, I ask this question, and it’s a troubling one indeed: What can one say about the character of organized political activists and mainstream journalists who would intentionally place a deceptive political agenda above the health and well-being of Americans, including members of their own community? ... Who would choose to deliberately quash valuable medical information which might save lives simply because it creates a setback to narrow political ambitions?

I know what I’d say, and it sure ain’t nice.

Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
Comments
Townhall.com ~ Matt Barber ** MRSA Outbreak Among 'Gays'- Let the Whitewash Begin

1
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

Ugly Clinton Rising,

Everything ugly associated with the word Clintax is back

By Kevin McCullough 

As I sat in bed in the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Lovely Bride long having drifted off to sleep by my side and only the bloodshot inducing glow of my laptop staring back at me in the darkness - my stomach sank. On the screen in front of me was the latest reminder of what most of the nation had put behind us some seven years ago. I say latest because the signs have been many, and this week came fast and furious.

I remember the day George W. Bush was sworn in as President in his first term, I wondered allowed how he could stand to share the same car to and from the swearing in ceremony with the outgoing first "couple." I suppose that when the world came crashing down around us on September 11 one of the real benefits such tragedy left us with was that there was no need to be reminded any longer of the unseemly deceit, acts of marital infidelity, the brutal use of absolute power to bully the press, and worst of all having our leaders point their fingers at us and boldly tell us untrue things - merely to save their own hide.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president - get ready for everything we hated about our government to come springing back to life.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer's less than robustly honest form of debate engineering reminded us of the old idea that when it came to being bought and sold in favor of the Clinton's - CNN's brand was head and shoulders above the crowd.

The now thrice confessed to manipulation of questions by the Clinton camp as it related to campaign rallies, or even supposedly non-partisan debates took us back to the reports of the same type when the "charming Clinton" was the candidate.

Sure by the time Sandy Berger committed a felony offense of stealing national documents by stuffing them in his boxers, so many years had gone by that a number of younger adults were saying, "hey I sorta remember him." But the affable fumbling of "gosh I just don't know what I did with those things" answer seemed to satisfy as an explanation. Yet a more loyal task-taker for the steely-eyed Clintons was never found.

The reunification this week of Sydney Blumenthal to the Clinton camp was another sickening moment. In many ways Blumenthal's performance before the Ken Starr investigators made Bill Clinton look truly amateurish. The ease with which Blumenthal was able to sell falsehoods, ever changing recollections of things as they had happened, and his willingness to just bald-face lie sent shivers down the spines of those who watched it. Yet since less than one-third of the American people even understood what the true nature of the investigations were all about, America yawned and went on its way.

Even fellow liberals are decrying the underhanded, back-stage, off-the-record informal strategizing that James Carville is now bringing back to the primary election cycle.

So what was it on the screen at 3am that made me feel so sick?

A blurb if you will, just a tidbit really, in the newest Robert Novak column that simply detailed the discovery of a "file" that Hillary is keeping on Barack Obama. The "scandalous information" of which she is promising not to use (for now) for the sake of a unified party heading into the general election. Of course if Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire look for that same "scandalous information" to make it into the hands of CNN staffers, who just couldn't quite tell you how they came to be in possession of it.

The idea of secret files reminded us that when Hillary was only First Lady that she had already proven herself willing to play by rules that only she had to abide by. Thus she has never been held accountable or even been made to answer questions related to miraculously profitable land deals in Arkansas. Mysterious suicides of "friends" like Vince Foster whose suicide weapon as found in the hand opposite of the one he would've used evidently didn't seem to be important enough for her to need to respond to - nor did any of the other 50 plus "friends of Bill and Hillary." She was neck deep in the mail room, travel office, and security personnel scandals that hit the Clinton White House. These were scandals where long time staffers lost jobs and lives were ruined. Hillary even led the way in making it harder for the Secret Service to immediately be able to tell who had what level security clearance in the White House because the desire to not hurt feelings of people who shouldn't be in rooms they didn't have clearance to be in.

But none of the scandals were bolder and publicly vexing than the fact that whole cases of FBI files of Clinton opponents or antagonists were missing and mysteriously popped up in Hillary's possession.

The fact that many of the names found in such files were also under special audit from the IRS - many for several years in a row - under the Clinton regime troubled the few Americans who followed the news closely enough to understand it.

The willingness that such executive power would be focused to abuse their ideological enemies is revolting and repulsive.

In the years since Hillary has repackaged herself as the "moderate" Senator from New York thus further distancing herself from the trouble of the Arkansas days. But make no mistake - everything ugly associated with the word Clinton is back.

Rigged appearances, intimidation of the press, and the discovery that research hacks are even now sitting in some campaign office basement putting together strategy hits for the assassination of their current opponents - its all back.

On a side note we should be thankful on some level, because of the Clinton's we now have talk radio, The Drudge Report, Fox News Channel, and forums like TownHall.com.

We should not be surprised, but we must walk through this election cycle with our eyes open. And if we are not ready for the Hillary Police State (asbestos pantsuits required) then democratic primary voters best speak up and Iowa would be a great place to start.

Kevin McCullough's first hardback title "The MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking" is now available. Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on WMCA 570 at 2pm. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com.
Comments ---- Townhall.com ~ Kevin McCullough ** Ugly Clinton Rising

Well, she is a libtard, socialist, fascist... what do you expect?

The most recent debate in Las Vegas with an audience of supposedly independent or undecided voters chosen by the supposedly unbiased and hard-hitting cable network, CNN, featured (after further review) at least six softball questions from undecideds like:

1. A former political director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas - LaShannon Spencer.

2. An anti-war activist and George Soros fan - Suzanne Jackson.

3. A muslim activist and president of the Islamic Society of Nevada - Khalid Khan.

4. A UNLV student who is promised an internship for Harry Reid next summer - Maria Luisa Parra Sandoval.

5. A CWU Local 226 Las Vegas union mouthpiece - Judy Bagley.

6. A radical Chicano and Executive Director of the Si Se Puede Foundation - George Ambriz.

The only thing undecided about these people is ... how much they hate today's America in general, and conservatism in particular.

1
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Columns

Karl (still kicking libtard ass) Rove: A Failure to Lead...

THE OPPOSITE OF PROGRESS

A Failure to Lead

The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action.

BY KARL ROVE

This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren't in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.

The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It's been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.

Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a "relatively small" difference.

Let's also be clear about what it means to roll back the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as "tax reform" by the Democrats' chief tax writer last month.

Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.

Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership's proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party's leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.

After pledging a "Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism," Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close "critical gaps in our intelligence capability." Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It's obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.

Democrats promised "civility and bipartisanship." Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.

The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.

Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They've squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party's most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn't like what it sees.

The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

Mr. Rove is a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
Wall Street Journal ~ Opinion Journal - Karl Rove ** A Failure to Lead
I love the smell of burning liberal in the morning... it smells like victory.