As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not a fan of taxing the rich more to pay our bills. The wealthy in this country pay most of the bills and suffer the biggest burden for the spending of our government while 47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes and many of those get back money they never paid in (redistribution of wealth). Progressives are big on having the rich pay the bills and they work hard every day to raise taxes on the wealthy but only on the wealthy who are not politicians. The political class thinks the taxpayer should foot the bills for them as well.

Case in point, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2008 and she lost to Barack Obama. Clinton amassed a lot of debt during that time and has yet to pay all of it off. She still owes just over three-quarters of a million dollars. The Clintons have over 100 million dollars and Bill earns at least $250,000 each time he gives a speech but they have decided that they should not write the check for her debt even though it would not dent their personal fortune. Hillary’s campaign still has over 600 thousand dollars in the bank so she could settle a large part of this debt with money that was already donated (and pay the rest out of her personal fortune) but the Clintons do not want to do it that way.

By 2007, seven years after leaving the White House, the Clintons had earned a combined $109 million (£73 million) through speaking engagements and bestselling memoirs. Even so, apparently they would prefer American voters to settle Mrs Clinton’s remaining $771,000 debt rather than paying it themselves. Times Online UK

Instead, they want voters to pay off the debt for them. Bill Clinton is offering a day with him in New York to a person selected from those who donate to settle Hillary’s debt. People are urged to donate as little as $5 to get a chance to be picked to spend the day with Bill. This is reportedly the second time such an offer has been made (I guess he is not as hot a commodity as he thought) as Bill works to get others to pay his debt.

This is typical of progressives. They love to spend money but they do not like to pay the bills with their own money. They would rather get money from others to pay their bills.

When Bill was president and, later, Hillary a Senator, they loved taxes and making the rich pay. Bill Clinton said he did not feel he was taxed enough (though he has not sent more money to the government, which he could do) and he and his wife love the idea of taxing the rich to pay the bills. They just don’t want rich people to have to pay the bills if they are the rich people in question.

I have a suggestion for the Clintons that would erase their campaign debt.

Take the money the campaign has in the bank and add it to enough of your personal wealth to pay the bill. Then write a check to pay it off.

You get the responsibility of paying your own bills, your creditors get their money, and the people do not foot the bill for what you spent.

Progressives love to spend other people’s money.

Never surrender, never submit.

I imagine that US Embassies around the world require the finest dishes so that when they entertain people from around the world they do not look like a bunch of slackers serving wine in paper glasses. So I can certainly understand the need for the embassies to have fine crystal glasses in which to serve beverages.

I can’t understand why we need to spend 5.4 MILLION dollars on such glasses. It would seem to me that we could get some kind of bulk discount for buying that much crystal.

Secretary of State Clinton’s State Department has ordered the glasses and the kicker is that the order will not benefit any American business. The small business through which they were ordered turned around and subcontracted to get them from an overseas company.

There is a company in the US, right in Clinton’s “native” New York that makes glasses to the specifications required but they will not receive the money.

Instead 5.4 MILLION US taxpayer dollars will go to a company in another country.

Though this is not part of the stimulus it would seem that contracting an American company to provide them would help shore up the business and provide workers with job security.

It is obvious that people in government do not think when they do things.

How else can anyone explain such a boneheaded move? I guess no thinking is required when you are spending money that is not yours…

And Democrats accuse Republicans of outsourcing jobs overseas…

Source:
New York Post

During the never ending Democratic primary Barack Obama and his toadies took every opportunity to disparage Hillary Clinton. They knocked her claim to foreign policy experience and they dismissed her time as First Lady in her claim to decades of experience. To be certain, I dismissed her claims as well but I still maintain that position. I will say that she has a hell of a lot more experience than Obama but nowhere near what she claimed.

The Obama folks though, want you to forget about what they said. They want you to ignore their claims that Hillary had no experience and they want you to ignore their near daily attacks on her with regard to her experience (though they also claimed she would be more of the same because she was a DC insider. How can you be and have no experience?). They want you to forget this now because The One has selected her to be Secretary of State.

They will now tell you how much experience she has and how great she will be for his administration. Obama and his people frequently mocked Hillary’s claim of foreign policy experience and now they want to put her in a position that requires more foreign policy experience than the president. The AP is reporting on this very issue which is amazing given that prior to the election no news organization (if you consider the AP such a thing) would consider such questions of the Messiah.

It wasn’t too long ago that Barack Obama and his advisers were tripping over one another to tear down Hillary Rodham Clinton’s foreign policy credentials. She was dismissed as a commander in chief wanna-be who did little more than sip tea and make small talk with foreign leaders during her days as first lady.

“What exactly is this foreign policy experience?” Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

That was in March, when Clinton was Obama’s sole remaining rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now, Clinton is on track to become Obama’s secretary of state.

And, unsurprisingly, the sniping at her foreign policy credentials is a thing of the past. My Way News

This should surprise no one but it will hit the left hard because their thought processes are not based in reality or logic. They base everything on emotion which is why they supported The One. They felt good about voting for a black man, they felt good about change though change was never defined and they felt good about hope even though that is not proper mission planning. The reality is, the left will ignore the past statements just as their Dear Leader wants them to do.

The left might ignore the change of position on Hillary’s qualifications because many of them liked her and would have voted for her had Obama not been the predetermined candidate courtesy of the MSM and the DNC. But the change is only one in what will be a long string of changes. Obama started the primary way left to appeal to the base, he moved center left during the general to appeal to moderates and Independents and now that he has won he will ignore most of what he promised.

He will bring change but only in the fact that he will change what he promised to do when he had to pander for votes. Now that he has them he will do what he needs to do to stay in office and to get reelected.

Some say that Obama’s first term will be Bush’s third. That will drive the left bonkers because Obama and the left claimed that would be the case if McCain were elected. Whether it is or not, he will not be delivering the change he promised.

I once heard someone say that Obama’s promises come with expiration dates. It would appear that his assessment of Hillary came with one as well.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

We remember the gestures that Obama had toward Hillary Clinton in the primaries. I heard a woman on a local talk radio station say that his actions were a black thing and we would not understand.

Here is a video of Obama “thanking” John McCain. I want your opinion. Did Barack Obama slip John McCain the middle finger?

Obama had already wiped his mouth with his forefinger so why the middle one? It looks to me like he is flipping McCain the bird but maybe I don’t understand.

Presidential, eh?

I am the Big Dog and I approve this blog post.

Hillary Clinton has claimed international experience and often cites her assistance in brokering a peace deal in Ireland during her husband’s administration.

“I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.”
~snip~
“I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other because they don’t go to school together, they don’t live together and it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.

“And I wasn’t sure it was going to be very successful and finally a Catholic woman on one side of the table said, ’You know, every time my husband leaves for work in the morning I worry he won’t come home at night.

“And then a Protestant woman on the other side said, ’Every time my son tries to go out at night I worry he won’t come home again’. And suddenly instead of seeing each other as caricatures and stereotypes they saw each other as human beings and the slow, hard work of peace-making could move forward.” Telegraph UK

According to a principle player, Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, Hillary’s claim is a “wee bit silly” and that; “I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around.”

The Telegraph also reports that there is no record of a meeting that Hillary “pulled together” but there was a meeting at the same time. The meeting was full of cameramen and secret service agents. Hillary admired a teapot which was given to her.

These first hand accounts support my contention that Hillary did nothing more than any First Lady and that her claim of experience because of that position is embellished. She did the same things that many First Ladies have done and, in the case of Ireland, it is a bit much to claim responsibility for the success. Hillary must believe that the people in Ireland who were an integral part of the process would remain silent with regard to her obvious inflated claims.

Hillary could clear a lot of this up by persuading her husband to release her records from the time. He has been the one holding them up regardless of what the Clintons have publicly expressed. If those records can back her claims then why have they not been released? Perhaps it is because while there are volumes of records, support for her claims is paper thin.

Others with interesting posts:
The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, CORSARI D’ITALIA, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Fresh off her third place finish in the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton is trying to reinvent herself once again. She enjoyed a small lead in New Hampshire but that seems to have eroded according to the latest Rasmussen poll. B. Hussein Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by ten points with the primary only three days away. A lot will ride on tonight’s debate and I expect Hillary to go very negative. She will be attacking Obama all night long.

The attacks have already begun as the Clinton campaign sent out a mailer criticizing Obama on his abortion rights record. Hillary’s mailer claims that Obama did not take any stance on abortion issues where as she has been the champion of women’s right to choose. She has been trying to reinvent herself starting with claims of being the most experienced candidate (which must have been news to Dodd and Biden who have now bowed out) and then she went to the Obama play book and became the candidate of change. She has been talking about change but is surrounded by relics from her husband’s administration and those who helped him get elected. Not that she shouldn’t use talent she thinks is the best but it is hard to claim you are for change when your campaign rhetoric keeps returning to the days of yesteryear. Going back to the Clinton administration is not the best way to present a forward looking campaign.

Rush Limbaugh had an interesting article in his most recent newsletter where he took a bunch of Hillary’s (among others) quotes and showed how she will force people into health coverage, force pharmaceutical companies to lower prices and force oil companies to spend their money of R&D for non fossil fuels. Rush points out that this is the opposite of freedom and that the government should not be making these mandates. Hillary sounds like a Nazi. Interestingly, this silhouette photo (I think it is from AP) makes it look like Hillary is giving a Nazi salute.

Hillary is losing New Hampshire though things might change after the debate but the question is, is she toast? She lost Iowa, and she is behind in New Hampshire. Obama has been running an even campaign and he appears to be picking up momentum. A win in New Hampshire might be the death of Hillary though she, like Giuliani, might be looking to Florida to make a run. The candidate from each party who wins Florida will likely win the nomination. Super Tuesday is right after that and none of them have the money or resources to run ads in all the states participating in that event and it is physically impossible for them to be in all of the states at once. Hillary will probably send Bill to one state with a huge number of delegates while she campaigns in another but she must win Florida in order to compete. She also has to convince voters that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is a good thing…

This is going to be fun. She is melting down and I would love to see her explode. A few more losses might just do that.

Of course, she might turn things around and win. Then the real fun will begin.

There are about 1.8 million people who received foreclosure notices this year on homes they had no business buying. The people were attracted to buy homes that were too much for their budgets by lenders who offered no down payment loans and adjustable rate mortgages. The promise of future wealth from escalating home values was too much for some who bought into the lower rates never taking the time to consider what would happen if the market went south. The sub prime market is now rearing its ugly head as many more Americans will face foreclosure in the coming years.

But wait, George Bush and Hillary Clinton are riding to the rescue. The President put forth a plan today which was in the works when Clinton touted the very same ideas. Despite her claim that her plan is better and helps people in ways that the Bush plan does not, the fact is they are nearly identical and they are potential disasters for the economy. The government has no business getting involved in the affairs of private companies and the people with whom they have entered contracts. This is a matter that can and should be worked out between the parties in the contracts.

Bush and Clinton claim that no taxpayer money is involved but the plan offers financial counseling to people so the money to pay for that has to come from somewhere. Also, some people will be able to move into loans secured by the FHA which means that if they default, the taxpayer will get socked. This is an ill advised plan that is designed to help people who made poor decisions and there are no guarantees that this will not hurt the taxpayer. For instance, once the loan rates are frozen, one option under the plan, what procedures are in place to ensure that homeowners do not borrow against the equity in the house? People with financial problems (and anyone who opts into this has financial problems) are easily influenced to take out home equity loans to pay the bills. Those loans are secured with the home which, in some cases, will be secured with taxpayer money.

Sometimes people make bad choices and the unfortunate fact of life is that they must suffer the consequences of those choices. When people spend more than they can afford buying a car or racking up credit card debt there is no expectation that the federal government will swoop in to bail them out. Why then, do people expect the federal government to bail out those who got in over their heads when they purchased a house? There are solutions that can involve the government.

First, they can make some kind of uniform rules governing the sale of homes. I have bought two homes in my lifetime and the amount of paper and the number of times that one has to sign is staggering. I have read every item that I was signing and asked for clarification for anything I did not understand. I also understand that, as the song says, what goes up must come down. People should have some understanding that the cost of homes go up and down and that great markets do not last forever. They should also understand that an adjustable rate can adjust in both directions. The government can help by forcing mortgage companies to make the language on forms clearer and easier to understand.

Additionally, there should be some disclosure about how adjustable rates work and how increases can affect payments. Since home sales that require no down payment cause havoc and gain little equity, people should not be allowed to purchase homes under these terms unless credit history and financial statements show that the purchaser is able to absorb increases in interest rates.

These items will help people with future home purchases but what about those who are already in trouble? Mortgage companies should work this out without government intervention. The most reasonable thing would be for the companies to offer a fixed rate refinance at a reasonable cost. The cost could be included in the new loan so those with little cash on hand could refinance and have a fixed monthly rate upon which to plan.

In some cases, people are going to have to shop around and try to get a fixed rate mortgage and it might cost them money. This is the cost of making a bad business deal. If all else fails they could negotiate with the mortgage company for relief until they can sell the home and get something that they can afford.

Regardless of which path people take it should not be one lined with assistance from the government. There are too many problems associated with government intervention and the unintended consequences could be worse for the economy, the homeowners, and the mortgage companies.

If all else fails and people lose their homes, I understand the government has a bunch of trailers in New Orleans that are not being used. Also, Hillary’s involvement gives her opponents more proof that she is not very different from George Bush after all.

Source:
WBAL

A man claiming to have a bomb strapped to him has taken control of Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters in New Hampshire. He has an unknown number of volunteers as hostages but has released a woman with a baby. The person is demanding to speak to Hillary Clinton who is in DC. She was scheduled to speak at the DNC Fall meeting but canceled her appearance.

I don’t know what this person hopes to accomplish but no matter how this ends it will not have a good outcome for him. We can only pray that the innocent people working there are not harmed.

There has been speculation that it is someone from the Free State Project but that is unlikely since those folks are usually pacifists. Perhaps it is a member of the media who is tired of the problems in accessing the candidate.

Maybe the guy is a Clinton plant in order to gin up sympathy and show she is a target because of her “experience.”

In any event, I pray the folks there are released unharmed and this guy gets the help he needs from behind jail cell bars.

Sources:
Fox
WMUR

UPDATE: The hostages have been released and the suspect is believed to be a local resident with mental health issues.

UPDATE 2: All of Clinton’s campaign offices in Iowa have been closed.

Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

A NYC Public Library has mugshots on display as part of its “art” exhibits. These mugshots are phony pictures of President Bush and members (past and present) of his administration. The doctored photos are the work of two “artists” who obviously have a political axe to grind. I have no problem with people making this kind of stuff but I am a bit disturbed that it is on display in a taxpayer funded building.

I wonder if this library would put up pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton in unfavorable displays, especially ones doctored by “artists”. I also wonder if an artist created a picture of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments or of Jesus in a manger would they be displayed and if they were would the ACLU demand they be removed?

This kind of “art” does not belong in a public library, it belongs in an art gallery. There appear to be no signs to indicate that they are fake, though most thinking people would have to know they are. However, there are children who use the library and these displays create a false image of our political leaders.

Libraries don’t like the idea that the feds can access computer logs to see what users have been doing and one library interfered when a credible threat was revealed but they don’t mind taking taxpayer money to stay open. Seems to me they could be a little more selective in what they display.

Source:
My Fox NY

The CNN/YouTube debate for the Republicans was held earlier this evening and I think it was a lively event. The problem with the event is that CNN allowed an activist who is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual steering committee two minutes of talk time. It is absolutely true that CNN allowed a person affiliated with the campaign of a Democrat running for President to ask questions of the Republicans at the Republican debate. Not only was this gay retired Army general’s question one of the YouTube submissions selected but he was allowed to be in the audience and ask follow up questions. Before the LGBT community or the Democrats get their panties in a wad I want to make it clear that this person had a right to ask his question and he had a right to be at the event. However, CNN should have disclosed that this man was on a Hillary Clinton steering committee so that the public would know that he was not a Republican and that he was not unbiased.

I thought it was strange early on when someone asked a question and Anderson Cooper disclosed that the guy was in the audience and asked him if his question was answered. He gave a short answer and sat down. The only other person allowed to do that was the gay general. Now, it might be because he was the only other person to ask a question who attended the event. But it sure appears as if CNN had the first guy there so the second would not seem unusual. It also seemed strange to me that this guy asked why the candidates felt gays should not serve openly in the military and they gave their answers but when Cooper asked if he had been answered he said no and then went on a rant about his gayness and time in the service. It almost seems like it was set up that way.

As I stated, I have no problem with the question or the guy being there. I just feel that his affiliation should have been disclosed. This event makes it look like instead of planting the questions the Clinton campaign is now planting the people who ask them as well because the campaign had to know he was going to be there. CNN had to know who this guy was and it is no secret that he is connected to the Clinton campaign. The Gay general, Keith Kerr, is listed on her website as part of the steering committee and that they support her for president:

Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY [Keith Kerr is listed] have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization. HillaryClinton.com

There were well over 4000 questions submitted for the debate so it is unlikely that this guy was selected at random. His question was selected and he was present to show Republicans as people who hate gay people. I thought all the answers were pretty good. They told why they were opposed to gay people in the military. They did not say anything hateful but just that they felt it was not a good thing. The only one who tripped up on it is Romney who flipped from a previous position where he said he could not wait for the day when gays could serve openly in the military. This part of the debate is sure to rile up the gay brigade and have them out in hater mode tomorrow discussing how terrible the Republicans are. Don’t buy it, the answers were fine. People do not have to agree with that lifestyle and that does not make them hateful people. It just means they do not agree.

I wonder why it is that no Republican was at the Democratic YouTube debate to be selected for follow up. Can you imagine how Hillary would be in full conspiracy mode with the VRWC and black helicopters if a person on a Republican steering committee who had endorsed a Republican candidate was there and asked a question in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad? They would go nuts and Hillary, in particular, would be carping about the Republican attack machine. After all those years of being someone’s bitch in private tonight, this guy was Hillary’s bitch in public.

It does seem amazing that the Democrats did not have this happen to them but the Republicans did. Not too amazing because CNN (and they have some explaining to do) is the Clinton News Network but the Republicans allowed a Democratic operative, and a gay one at that, to come to their debate and ask a follow up question.

Who says Republicans are not inclusive?

Want to bet Hillary denies, claims ignorance or blames it on someone else? How about she says it is a coincidence?

UPDATE: Anderson Cooper says they did not know. I guess that means the gay general is unethical. But then again we knew that because if he served for 43 years he answered the “have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior” question and he had to put NO.

Big Dog salute to Webloggin and Stop the ACLU.

Others:
Liberty Pundit
Right Voices
Sister Toldjah
Michelle Malkin
Right Angles
Assorted Babble
TownHall Blog