Liberals and dishonesty

According to an excellent article by Peter Schweizer in the Examiner, there appears to be a strong correlation between liberals and dishonesty. According to numerous surveys and studies:

“57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said it was OK to cheat on your taxes, “compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.”

86% of conservatives said it was “morally wrong’ to cheat Uncle Sam compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

“Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn’t deserve.”

Those on the left were “much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen.”

“Those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it”

“Political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.”

Conservative students take “the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students.”

Liberals who “reject the idea of absolute truth’ were more accepting of cheating at school”

“…stronger beliefs toward ‘conservatism’ translated into ‘higher levels of ethical values.’
There is a “link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,”

“Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,”

Finally, “Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

I would argue that the same thing is true of morality. Conservatives are generally more inclined to affirm or defend Judeo-Christian views of morality while liberals are much more inclined to flush those valuse down the hopper.

Of course this doesn’t mean that all conservatives are honest and moral or that all liberals are dishonest and immoral (as St. Paul says, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God")—but it does make me wonder why it seems like more and more Evangelical Christians are supporting liberal politicians.

That's just not fair!

The lead article in the Spring 2008 issue of the Cato’s Letter—a libertarian newsletter—is by R. J. O’rourke, a political satirist. Below are a few quotes from his article:

“Under the Democrats, the government will negotiate with drug companies for Medicare drug prices. If the government shows the same hard-headed, tight-fisted bargaining savvy negotiating drug prices that it shows negotiating defense contracts, Preparation H will cost $400.”

It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.

And of course there is a cheaper way to make health care less expensive…Just make it worse. And I think Hillary can do that. Because government controlled health care is going to drive the best people out of business. Who wants to spend years studying to be a doctor, just to become a government bureaucratic hack?

If we’re not careful, we’re going to wind up with a health care system like they’ve got in Canada, a nation that is broke from health care spending, even though Canada is a sparsely populated country with a shortage of gunshot wounds, crack addicts, and huge tort judgments.

It is the avowed purpose of politics to bring the policies of our nation down to a level where they are good for everybody. No matter how foolish, irresponsible, selfish, grasping, or vile everyone may be, politics seeks fairness for them all. I do not. I am here to speak in favor of unfairness. I have a 10 year old at home, and she is always saying, “That’s not fair.” When she says that, I say, “Honey, you’re cute; that’s not fair. You’re family is pretty well off; that’s not fair. You were born in America; that’s not fair. Honey, you had better pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.”

If we all got what was fair--what we really deserve--we’d be begging God for mercy.

Obliterate Iran

The quiz for today is, who said:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran...In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

"We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup" (WND).

If you said, John McCain you would be wrong. The answer is Hillary Clinton. Wow! Whodathunk Hillary would out-hawk the Republicans?! Code Pink is not going to be pleased.

Pregnant Pizza Hut worker

For five weeks Hillary Clinton has been telling a tragic story of a poor Pizza Hut worker, making minimum wage, who encounterd complications with her pregnancy. The woman went to the hospital but because she was uninsured and didn't have $100, she was turned away.

Ms. Clinton told this story over and over again saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor” (New York Times).

It would hurt me too. The only problem is, the story is not true! The woman was not turned away and in fact, she even had insurance! So I wonder how many people Hillary convinced to buy into her socialist health care scheme all based on an emotional story which is just not true.

Hillary and the truth

Yesterday, Recliner Commentaries wrote about Hillary's shaky relationship with the truth. An article in Time Magazine documents this point in detail.

Hillary's experience

As an example of her extensive foreign policy experience, Hillary Clinton talked about how she came under sniper fire when she visited Bosnia. The press then pulled up old video of the trip and demonstrated that it just wasn't so. Today Hillary admitted her "mistake" and said it just showed she was human.

A caller to a talk radio show begged to differ with Ms. Clinton today. He said he was in the military and had been under fire. He said that if Ms. Clinton had really been shot at, there is no way in the world that she would have forgotten about it. He said there was no question in his mind that she was lying and that her lie brought discredit the the men and women of the Secret Service who protected her.

A politician lying? Please, tell me it isn't so! Aside from the possible lying issue, the real problem seems to be that the more Hillary's extensive foreign policy experience is examined, like chasing a rainbow, the more elusive it becomes.

Obama and the passport files

The passport files of McCain, Clinton and Obama were all breached by State Department contract employees. Of the three candidates, Obama protested most loudly and angrily.

There is now word, however, that one of the contract workers works for a company headed by an advisor to Barack Obama! (LGF).

That might mean nothing. It might mean everything. It certainly warrants further investigation.

Breaking: Clinton's passport file

According to breaking news from CBS this morning: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton her passport file was breached in 2007. This comes after similar news about Sen. Barack Obama's file."

The only thing that gives me any consolation at all is that in both cases, it was the government that discovered and reported the incidents (as opposed to having the incidents covered up by the government but discovered by the news media or whistleblowers).

Nevertheless, we simply cannot have government using private files against our presidential candidates (or other citizens). This really must be investigated to find out who did it, who (if anyone) authorized it, what were their intentions and has the information been disseminated and used.

Clinton and Obama: Experience?

At a recent press conference, Hillary Clinton reportedly said:

“I think I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I think Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White. And Senator Obama has a speech that he gave in 2002” (Hillary Clinton).

I hate to agree with Hillary but when she’s right, she’s right. Well, at least she’s right about McCain and Obama, but she has drastically overstated her own experience.

During the Clinton administration, Greg Craig was the assistant to the president and a senior foreign policy adviser to President Clinton. In an interview for National Journal he said about Hillary,

The point that I am making is that her claims of the nature of that experience are overstated. The fact is she did not sit in on national security meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the situation room. She conducted no negotiations. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy. She did not have her own national security staff. That's the fact.

Craig, who is an Obama supporter, went on to say “Now the experience that she did have -- watching and sometimes sitting in the room where discussions were going on and also meeting heads of state and foreign ministers -- that is good experience….”

Yeah, I suppose it is. I once watched and sat in on a meeting of Congress from the visitors’ gallery and that was a valuable experience too, but it hardly qualifies me to be president!

As it turns out, Hillary didn’t even have the security clearance to be involved in high level discussions so if her involvement was really as extensive as she says it was, perhaps we need a criminal investigation into just how much classified information Bill shared with his wife.

Wins for Hillary and McCain

Last night was a big night politically. Hillary won the primaries in Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas and is still in the race. John McCain clinched the Republican nomination for President and Mike Huckabee has bowed out, giving his support to McCain.

Rush Limbaugh and Hillary

I heard that Rush Limbaugh is encouraging his supporters in Texas to support Hillary Clinton in order to keep her in the race and contine the fight between her and Obama. I guess the idea is that the more Hillary and Obama destroy each other, the more it benefits the Republicans.

Frankly, I like watching Hillary and Obama lessening their changers of being elected as much as the next guy, but I think what Rush is doing is dirty politics and undermines the democratic process. Play fair!

Guess I'd never make it in politics.

Questions for Clinton and Obama

On Townhall, Larry Elder has some outstanding questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. For example,

Sen. Obama, the church you attend, according to its Web site, pursues an
Afrocentric agenda. Your church rejects, as part of their "Black Value System,"
"middleclassness" as "classic methodology" of white "captors" to "control
subjugated" black "captives." Your pastor, Jeremiah Wright, recently called the
Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan -- a man many consider anti-Semitic
-- a person of "integrity and honesty." What would happen to a Republican
candidate who attended a Caucasian-centric church, and who praised David Duke as
a man of "integrity and honesty"?

Please read the rest on Townhall.

Hillary health care

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans" (AP).

In other words, if you have to choose between feeding your family, buying gas to get to work, heating your home--or buying health insurance, Hillary's government won't let you make that choice. You'll either buy her health insurance or the government will take even more of your money from you! How you pay for food, heat or gas is your problem.

This kind of nanny govbenment sounds more and more like the former Soviet Union to me. Is this really the kind of government you want?

Obama, Clinton and the State of the Union

President Bush will give his State of the Union speech tonight, but even before he gives the speech, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are already bashing it and him.

That's because it really doesn't matter to them what he has to say. They are only concerned with how to spin it into political victory for themselves.

Hillary Clinton's Saudi ties

The following comes from FoxNews by way of Jihad Watch:

...Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity
position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when
the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and
Foundation?

Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when
Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year
from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest
component state in the UAE?

The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points of entry in that nation’s control. But the infusion of capital and the acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison.

Neither Dubai nor Saudi Arabia would be permitted to contribute
to Hillary’s campaign. Foreigners are not allowed to do so, precisely to avoid
having potential office holders compromised by gratitude for their financial
support. But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family to
acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to her
campaign, but to her personal bank account — either through Bill or through the
Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control. The extent of the
influence their millions must buy with a family only recently, according to
Hillary, in the “middle class” must be huge.

And it is for exactly this kind of situation that the Clintons should be required to divulge the extent of their involvement with foreign interests and exactly how much money their personal bank accounts and their Library/Foundation have received. (The Saudi donation to the Library and Foundation was only discovered by the New York Times when the information was inadvertently posted on the Library’s Web site. Soon after the story appeared, it was taken down. The Clintons refuse to reveal the donors to the Library or the related Foundation.) Hillary and Bill have also refused to release their income tax returns, despite the fact that Bill willingly released his when he was running for president....

Some Democrat responded to the Jihad Watch post saying, "Hillary isn't alone. What about George W. Bush? How much has he been influenced by his family's relationship with the Saudis..."

Good point. But Bush isn't running for President and Hillary is. Even Democrats should ask themselves, "Do we really want another President so tied to Saudi interests?"

CORRECTION: The Saudi donation was discovered by the New York Sun, not the New York Times. Thanks to Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun for pointing this out to me.

No woman is illegal

In the midst of Hillary Clinton's campaigning, "A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal." "No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers (Review Journal).

I guess we can open the gate of the women's correctional facilities and let all the inmates out.

Hillary Clinton and terrorism

Jihadist terrorism is one of the most important issues (if not the most important issue) in the 2008 election. Robert Spencer is beginning a series evaluating the candidates on this one issue alone. He begins his series with Hillary.

Hillary's tears

Yesterday Hillary Clinton was giving an interview when her eyes became teary and her voice cracked. She said this race is not political or a game but is “very personal” for her because she cares so deeply about our country.

Bloggers and TV pundits have been debating about whether Hillary’s emotion was real or just raw calculated politics. Many of those who think it was calculated think she was trying to counter the perception that she is cold and impersonal.

I don’t know whether the emotion was genuine or not. It looked genuine to me. I think Hillary truly cares about our country—but people can genuinely care and be genuinely wrong at the same time.

Democrats, including Hillary, think the problems in this country need to be solved by bigger and more powerful government—what conservatives call “the nanny state”—and I think they are genuinely wrong.

There are certainly problems that government needs to solve, but in general, our problems are not going to be solved by making government bigger and more powerful. I can’t understand why there should be any controversy over this.

Take health care for example. Heaven knows that our health care system needs serious attention, but Hillary wants government to step in and take over. Has Hillary not seen what government did with public housing or welfare? Does she not know how seriously broke our government social security and Medicare systems are? Hasn’t she ever heard about how our government has sometimes spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on things like toilet seats for the military? Isn’t it Hillary who complains about how the government so massively botched Hurricane Katrina and Iraq? Yet Democrats seem to have this naive view that if we just give government even more control everything will be better!

Let’s suspend all reality for a moment and imagine that Hillary becomes the miracle president who, by expanding the power and control of government, could fix all our problems. Hillary can only be President for eight years. After that there is always the (big) chance that we get an incompetent, power-hungry President who then inherits and abuses the much more powerful nanny-state that Hillary wants to create (if you Democrats think this is far-fetched just ask yourselves: Would you really want to see someone like George Bush with even more government power, and do you really think that Bush will be the last Republican president in U.S. history)?

What government runs, government controls. The more government controls, the less personal freedom you have. Once government takes something over, it is nearly impossible to get government back out of your life.

Edwards, Obama, Hillary and Bhutto

I really hate to side with Hillary twice in one day, and I don't ever remember agreeing with Edwards, but when he's right, he's right:

In a wide-ranging, free-wheeling interview with Democratic presidential
hopeful John Edwards with ABC News Friday afternoon, the former North Carolina
senator labeled "ridiculous" comments made by the Obama campaign that seemed to link former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination to Sen.
Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq... (ABC News).

Obama's naiveté on foreign policy makes him a very scary candidate. America simply cannot afford to have someone so clueless running our country.

UPDATE: Even liberal General Wesley Clark has attacked Obama on his Bhutto position!

Obama, Hillary and Bhutto

Someone in the Obama campaign recently indirectly held Hillary responsible for the murder of Benazir Bhutto because of Hillary's support for the war in Iraq and her toleration of Pakistani president Musharraf. Since Obama has not distanced himself from the remark, I can only assume it is his position.

The idea that Hillary can be connected in any way, however remotely, to the death of Bhutto is outlandishly ludicrous, but it illustrates how dangerously naive Barack Obama is when it comes to foreign policy. This point is very well argued by Brayn on Hot Air. Please take time to read his article.