Clintons: Make $109 Million; Vow To Stop Rich

That’s right since leaving the White House the Clintons have sure found a lot of GREEN. They couple’s recently released tax returns show that they have made $109,200,000.00 since 2007. That’s an average of $15.6 Million per year. Which makes you wonder if Hillary has her fingers crossed when gives campaign speeches about how she’s going to stop the evil rich or when she explains how she can empathize with the poor and downtrodden in this country.

Something I’ve always wondered: if the Big Wig Democrats actually believed the things told to the adoring masses, why don’t they donate their own money to the government? I mean it’s a widely held democratic belief that the rich are “bad” and can “afford” to give more of their wealth to the government… so where is the leading by example? I think this question could be asked of any multi-millionaire Democrat, (I’m looking at you Hollywood) but particularly a leader of said political movement. If the government is the best method to more justly/correctly/fairly distribute the money that the rich don’t need to help those that do need…. doesn’t it follow that wealthy politicians (that claim such beliefs) should just give the portion of wealth that they don’t need to the government. I mean sure raise taxes as soon as you can, but you don’t have to wait to help the masses with your money – right? Right?

Full Political Debate “UnAmerican”

On March 19th at the Campaign for America’s Future Take Back America Conference in Washington, Arianna Huffington (co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, and one of Time Magazine’s “100 most influential people”) made the following statement:

It’s time to actually have zero tolerance for certain ways of arguing. First of all, we can not allow John McCain to ever say again that Al-Qaeda is going to increase the levels of violence because it doesn’t want John McCain to be president. That should be outside the realm of political debate in this country. We need to say, it is completely un-American to politicize real threats to this country for the sake of getting elected. There is nothing we can do about Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of them. They are toxic curiosities. But there has to be a different standard to what happens in the United States Congress, and it is up to us to demand censure and to demand an absolute zero tolerance for statements like that starting with John McCain’s statement.” – Arianna Huffington (emphasis added)

Please realize that Arianna became president of the famed debating society, the Cambridge Union, at a mere 21 years old. Now consider for a moment that the best defense to Democratic ideology and positions she can formulate is to censor all opposing ideas. Well, their positions must be solid to allow that kind of scrutiny!

Robot Cops Threaten Liberty & Safety

Our good friend Patrick Bedard of Car & Driver has a excellent piece on the governmental sneaky tax: Robo-Cop.

This just in: A red-light camera on Broadway Street in Knoxville, Tennessee, has suffered fatal gunshot wounds. Three bullets struck the device, destroying the lens and rendering it inop. Clifford E. Clark III, 47, holed up in a nearby minivan, was arrested and charged with felony vandalism.

Not to put words in Clark’s mouth, but what I think he was trying to say with his .30-06 Ruger was that he had withdrawn his consent to be governed by robots. You may remember that our founding fathers had a very clear idea of the source of government legitimacy. The Declaration of Independence says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The political theory here is that there is no moral authority to use state power unless the people say there is.

One guy expressing disapproval of a red-light camera won’t curb government zeal for robot surveillance, but it’s a start…

Let’s be clear about the tyranny here. This is not about running red lights. Camera enforcement is a revenuing scheme that depends on an end run around the fundamental American principle of innocent until proven guilty. The glassy-eyed accuser is a robot, and it’s not subject to cross examination. Moreover, it’s a robot employed by a for-profit business that makes its profits from guilty verdicts. It makes nothing on innocent verdicts. Such an obvious conflict of interest should bring out all the rifles…

But there is growing frustration. Consider the case of Tim Alstrom of Aberdeen, Washington, as reported in theNewspaper.com. He opened an envelope last summer to find a demand for payment of $101. Nearby Seattle had convicted him of running a red light at 3:21 a.m. on June 29, citing camera evidence as proof. He was at home asleep at the time, and the car in the photo wasn’t his, but never mind. It gets worse. Seattle, like most camera jurisdictions, will dismiss a camera ticket under one condition only: The car owner has to rat out the actual driver, who must pay the $101.

Students: Test your knowledge. Red-light cameras are about (a) the money, (b) the money, (c) THE MONEY…

As good as it might be for safety, lengthening the yellow is bad for (a), (b), and (c) above. San Diego saw a $2 million increase in revenues in the first year after trimming its “grace period” to 0.1 second versus 0.3 to 0.5 before. In Dallas, 7 of the 10 highest revenue-raising cameras have yellows shorter than the minimum recommendation of the Texas Department of Transportation.

When the choice comes down to safety versus the money, safety doesn’t stand a chance.

Super Tuesday 2: The Divination

Well Super Tuesday II has come and gone with not quite the fan fare of the first. Most predictions held with Hillary pulling out two vital wins in Texas and Ohio, but the real story is slightly below the surface of the the win column.

#1 McCain is still struggling to convince Republican voters that he’s their man. Take a look at how Huckabee faired in the big states: 30% in Ohio and almost 40% in Texas. That does bode well for the candidate that “locked up” the nomination weeks ago. While McCain may be gaining the independents he seems to be losing the at least a third of his base. And without his base its unlikely that he will have enough votes to unseat either Dem. Think it’s just Huckabee’s charm? Look closer. Romni, Thompson and Giuliani all pulled statistically significant numbers (>1%), some as high as 4%. These candidates are not only out of the race but all have endorsed McCain. Which would mean that McCain’s negatives are high enough to only pale in comparison to Hillary’s.

#2 The Primary structure is messed up. The Dem side is worse but both sides are bad. Can someone explain to me the significance of Ohio? Don’t get me wrong it’s a great normal state, but WHY does everyone care about it? Or more accurately, why does it get a disproportional number of delegates? Let’s look at the numbers: Texas population: 22.8M delegates: 39 dems, 69 repubs. Ohio population: 11.4M delegates: 128 dems, 79 repubs. (Tennessee population: 6M delegates: 66 dems, 46 repubs.) Didn’t we outlaw the concept that some people’s votes only count 2/3 or 3/4 of others? -shrug-

Angry White Men: Key To Election

Gary Hubbell at the Aspen Times has an interesting piece on the angry white guy voting block. Give it a read and you’ll be surprised how much you like AWM. I liked his description so much that I have reprinted his article in its entirety here for posterity.

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Now while I love his descriptions, I disagree with his conclusion. AWM has a busy life and while he has no love for Hilary he certainly has higher aspirations than a Clinton landslide loss. In fact, that is why AWM is -well- angry: he doesn’t have a good surrogate for himself in Washington as well as more local venues. Politicians in general have been off the rails of his views for long enough that his patience is wearing thin. And don’t expect 08 to solve that as all three candidates are shadows of the leadership he would respect. But AWM could make 2012 quite interesting.