The Clintons: Power At Any Cost

From National Post

Father Raymond J. De Souza

Whatever else he might accomplish, Senator Barack Obama has prevented the restoration of the Clintons. That alone is cause for rejoicing.

How did he do it? It was partly about him, but mostly about her. Many have remarked that in the identity-politics world of the Democratic Party, the first credible black candidate trumped the first credible woman candidate.

That is largely true, but it is not a phenomenon of the Democratic Party alone. Americans as a whole are eager to give their support to blacks who manifest aspirations of racial harmony. Consider the last 25 years. The most popular comic: Bill Cosby. The most popular athletes: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods. The most popular talk-show host: Oprah Winfrey. The most popular general: Colin Powell. Obama demonstrated the same holds true in politics.

Yet a freshman senator with an ultraliberal voting record does not win the nomination without deep weakness in the competition. Obama became the chosen instrument for those who fervently wished to prevent the Clintons from coming back. In this race, being the not-Clinton was as important as being black.

When the Democratic Party rules committee decided last weekend to give Obama several dozen delegates from the disputed Michigan delegation, it marked the end of Clinton's slim chance to win the nomination. But it was back in Michigan on Jan. 15 when the formidable power of being the not-Clinton first became clear.

In Michigan, Clinton was the only name on the ballot, the others having withdrawn their names to conform with the rules against too-early primaries. Competing against no one in what was considered a meaningless primary, Clinton won 55% of the vote. But a staggering 40% of Democratic primary voters went out in the middle of winter to vote for "uncommitted," i. e., to vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton.

That was the key to this election year -- the determination of so many to stop the apparent Clinton juggernaut. It is the flip-side of the Obama phenomenon -- just as he makes Americans feel better about their country, the Clintons make Americans feel dirty.

It's not just that both of them are "extraordinarily gifted liars," in the words of former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, though Hillary's make-believe story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia confirmed that. It's not just their shady associations, though Bill's lucrative post-presidential life has been filled with those. It's not just their willingness to damage their party for their own good, though their explicit racial campaigning shocked even their progressive supporters.

It's not just the sexual harassment, the cash-for-pardons, the preening sense of entitlement, the perpetual claims of victim-hood, the general all-purpose tawdriness of it all. It is something deeper, a sense that this couple exists solely, exclusively, totally and utterly for the pursuit of power. It is what they have devoted their entire adult lives to. Power cannot corrupt them, as the perpetual search for power has long since rendered them free of any principles or honour to corrupt.

In one of the various personas Hillary adopted for the campaign, she would regularly boast that she had "35 years of experience" in making change. That's her entire life since leaving college. It was not a good line, for it reminded voters what is fundamentally creepy about the Clintons, that they have spent their entire adult lives running for the highest office open to them. And when Bill achieved the presidency at a young age, the only thing left was to start running Hillary, which she began to do before she even left the White House. The Clintons are morally repellent to many Americans not because of any particular abuse of power, but because they are the purest symbol of the pursuit of power at any cost. They degrade the office they seek because all they know how to do is to seek office.

Some years ago, when Anthony Hopkins played Richard Nixon in Oliver Stone's 1995 film about the former president, Nixon was shown brooding in the White House the night before his resignation. He comes upon the portrait of JFK, his archrival, and says: "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are."

Americans look at the Clintons and see what they do not want to become. And so Hillary and Bill have been rejected. Enjoy the four years -- at which point they will be back. It's all they know how to do.

Barr's Message Appeals To Youth Vote

By Shana Kluck

Congressman Barr appeared on The Colbert Report this evening, earning the coveted “Colbert Bump.” Robert Stacy McCain reports at the American Spectator that Colbert’s interview was “surprisingly respectful” and “allowed the candidate to answer at length”.

Some of Bob’s responses-

[Libertarians] are a big swing vote this time because Americans are finally realizing, at long last, that the current two-party system, the Democrats and the Republicans, have failed and failed miserably, and will simply give them more of the same.

A lot of people, particularly a lot of younger people, are completely fed up with the system, they’ve seen the corruption of the system that has given us bigger government no matter which party’s in charge, they see the future as fairly bleak under the current system, and they’re ready to vote Libertarian for the first time.

R.S. McCain also reports-

Barr’s mention of younger voters was tailor-made for Colbert’s cable-TV audience, which skews young — more than two-thirds of his half-million or so nightly viewers are under 35. And the Libertarian message has strong appeal to young voters, who are generally less influenced by the Republicans’ social-conservative and national-security messages that resonate with older voters.

Referring to the potential impact of his campaign, Barr was quoted, off-camera, as saying-

It’s our plan to do a lot more than to throw a monkey wrench. We aim to make it a three-way race between equals.

Read more- Laughing Last & ajc.com- Bob Barr takes on Comedy Central’s Colbert

The Biggest Pork Bill Ever!

In today's Wall Street Journal, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) reveals that the Senate is considering the biggest pork bill in the history of the nation.

We Don't Need a Climate Tax on the Poor

By JAMES INHOFE

With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.

The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR's New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill (America's Climate Security Act) represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods.

Various analyses show that Lieberman-Warner would result in higher prices at the gas pump, between 41 cents and $1 per gallon by 2030. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The federal Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5% drop in manufacturing output and higher energy costs.

Carbon caps will have an especially harmful impact on low-income Americans and those with fixed incomes. A recent CBO report found: "Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households."

The poor already face energy costs as a much higher percentage of their income than wealthier Americans. While most Americans spend about 4% of their monthly budget on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19%. A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless.

Lieberman-Warner will also hinder U.S. competitiveness, transferring American jobs overseas to places where environmental regulations are much more lenient. Instead of working to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy and lower emitting technologies, the bill imposes a "green," tariff-style tax on imported goods. This could provoke international retaliatory actions by our trade partners, threatening our own export markets and further driving up the costs of consumer goods.

My colleague, Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio), warned last week that Lieberman-Warner "could result in the most massive bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of Americans since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service." Mandating burdensome new layers of federal bureaucracy is not the solution to America's energy challenges.

This bill is ultimately about certainty. We are certain of the huge negative impact on the economy as detailed by numerous government and private analyses. We are certain of the massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy.

And we are certain the bill will not have a detectable impact on the climate. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis, by 2050 Lieberman-Warner would only lower global CO2 concentrations by less than 1.4% without additional international action. In fact, this bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, is instead all economic pain for no climate gain.

Why are many in Washington proposing a bill that will do so much economic harm? The answer is simple. The American people are being asked to pay significantly more for energy merely so some lawmakers in Washington can say they did something about global warming.

I have been battling global warming alarmism since 2003, when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It has been a lonely battle at times, but it now appears that many of my colleagues are waking up to the reality of cap-and-trade legislation.

The better way forward is an energy policy that emphasizes technology and includes developing nations such as China and India. Tomorrow's energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include oil, coal and nuclear power, which is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. Developing and expanding domestic energy sources will translate into energy security and ensure stable supplies and well-paying jobs for Americans.

Let me end with a challenge to my colleagues. Will you dare stand on the Senate floor in these uncertain economic times and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump, losing millions of American jobs, creating a huge new bureaucracy and raising taxes by record amounts? The American people deserve and expect a full debate on this legislation.

Mr. Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, is ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Christian Preachers Face Arrest in England

From The Telegraph
By David Harrison

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham (England).

Warned: Arthur Cunningham [left] and Joseph Abraham

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.

Mr Abraham said: "I couldn't believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel."

Last night, Christian campaigners described the officer's behaviour as "deeply alarming".

The preachers, both ministers in Birmingham, were handing out leaflets on Alum Rock Road in February when they started talking to four Asian youths.

A police community support officer (PCSO) interrupted the conversation and began questioning the ministers about their beliefs.

They said when the officer realised they were American, although both have lived in Britain for many years, he launched a tirade against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Cunningham said: "I told him that this had nothing to do with the gospel we were preaching but he became very aggressive.

"He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

The preacher refused to give the PCSO his address because he felt the officer's manner was "threatening and intimidating".

The ministers claim he also advised them not to return to the area. As he walked away, the PCSO said: "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned".

West Midlands Police, who refused to apologise, said the incident had been "fully investigated" and the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication.

Iraqi Bishop Begs Help for Christian Minority

From Catholic World News

"Do not leave us isolated and abandoned," an Iraqi bishop pleaded as he accepted an award for defending the faith.

Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk received the Defensor Fidei prize in Milan for his activities on behalf of Iraq's embattled Christian minority. In his acceptance speech he urged international pressure on Iraq to protect Christians in the face of Islamic pressure, the AsiaNews service reported. The Chaldean Catholic prelate said that the Church is Iraq is threatened by a "terminal exodus" of Christians, as the result of "ethnic-religious cleansing" by Muslim zealots. He begged Christians in the Western world to "take stock of the seriousness" of the situation, and "apply diplomatic and political pressure to the United States, the Iraqi government, and also to the countries that support the Islamization of Iraq."

Archbishop Sako spoke at length about the Christians who have fled from Iraq and now live, often under desperate conditions, in neighboring countries. After centuries of faithful witness in Iraq, he said, the Christian presence must be preserved.

[For a more detailed account see the AsiaNews web site.]