Fox News projects Hillary Clinton the winner in Pennsylvania based on exit polling.

Fox News Pennsylvania Projection

Obama was projected to have received 89% of the black vote, and 61% of young voters. Who says that blacks are voting solely based on race?

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be bad for America. She is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite socialist millionaire. Barack Obama, however, is all those things and more. His relationships with left-wing radicals should be enough to scare anyone with any sense at all away from him. And his crooked real estate deal with Tony Rezko proves he is one of the dirtiest politicians of the modern era.

But we are talking about Democrats…so there isn’t much sense to be found. If Democrat voters had any sense they wouldn’t be Democrats.

Finally, Barack Obama says something honest and substantive.  Obama predicted that Hillary Clinton would defeat him in Pennsylvania tomorrow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24240609/

Obviously, Obama’s internal polls put the writing on the wall for him.

Barack Obama speaks big of ending the war in Iraq, but what about the war in his hometown of Chicago? Will he ever say anything about that?

This past weekend 32 people were shot, six fatally, in the city of Chicago. Wow!

Each and every single Democrat voting stronghold in the United States is a hellhole of crime and violence. The rise of crime and violence in these communities can be directly traced to the start of the War On Poverty and the generous giving of welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. If you absolve people of responsibility for their own existence, you absolve them of responsibility for many things.

Also worthy of note is that crime and violence rose in most of these communities about the same time that they had their last Republican mayors. If you look at Republican voting communities and compare them to Democrat ones, it is like night and day in terms of the levels of crime and violence.

Democrats destroy everything they get their hands on. What will Barack Obama do about the war zone in his own back yard?

CNN Story

According to a new Suffolk University poll, Hillary Clinton has widened her lead over Barack Obama in the critical state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Democrats will take to the polls tomorrow, April 22nd, 2008, to cast their votes for their preferred candidate.

Just last week it was reported that Clinton’s lead over Obama had dropped to between 5% and 6%. One must wonder if Obama’s dismal performance in last week’s ABC News debate has had any bearing on the latest poll numbers. Or, one must wonder if these polls are very accurate at all. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night.

There has been a lot of press in recent weeks about prominent Democrats urging Hillary to drop out of the race. But if she does indeed win Pennsylvania, and if by double digits as the latest poll suggests, then why would she even consider dropping out?

It is a beautiful sight to see the way that prominent Democrats have turned their backs on Mrs. Clinton, particularly those who have been close to the Clintons. Just last week former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, announced his endorsement of Obama in another sign of just how eager Democrats are to throw the Clintons out with the garbage. Reich, as you may know, is as about as communist of a person as one can get.

The Democratic Party isn’t just fractured along racial or gender lines, it is fractured along the top and the bottom. Party leaders are backing Obama while many rank and file working class Democrats are backing Clinton. One can only hope that this disconnect between the leadership and the individuals who comprise the party’s base will be exploited by Republicans.

If anyone doubts that Barack Obama is nothing more than an empty suit all doubt should be removed after reading this transcript of the April 16th, 2008, ABC News Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton debate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ABC News Debate Transcript

Just to show you one quick example of what an utter idiot Barack Obama is from the transcript on page three:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Barack Obama admits that he would do something detrimental to the United States and demand an increase in the capital gains tax rate which would reduce tax revenues because it fits his twisted liberal notion of “fairness”.

Democrats destroy everything. Every city, every industry, anything they can get their hands on they destroy. Logic goes out the window when Democrats are involved. Barack Obama is willing to do something harmful to the country because he thinks it is fair. Nevermind the reduced tax revenue or the 100 million stock-owning Americans negatively affected by Obama’s proposal. He does not care. As long as it fits his distorted liberal concept of fairness, it does not matter who gets hurt.

There is no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is a dangerous man given his desire to do harmful things regardless of the negative impact on government and people.

One thing this debate demonstrates is that unless Barack Obama is reciting a carefully practiced speech full of empty platitudes either written or stolen from someone else, he is as clueless as they get. This man is not suitable to be President of the United States. If Obama is willing to do one harmful thing to the country, and happily admitting his desire to do so, what other harmful things is he willing to do?

As for the Clinton capital gains tax rate, only the long-term tax rate was 20%. You had to hold the asset for at least a year to qualify for that special tax rate. Otherwise, you paid the full tax rate, which was significantly higher than 20%.

Barack Obama released his 2007 tax return today which showed $4.2 million in income for 2007.

Obama, as you may know, has been preaching about the horrors of economic inequality. It looks like he’s very unequal, doesn’t it? Obama is just another lying Democrat fraud who tells us how to live while enjoying his money.

If Obama truly cared about economic justice, he’d begin by relieving himself of his wealth by giving it all away. Giving your own money away…how’s that for justice, Obama?

You want to know what else is interesting? Obama’s wealth is the result of his political career. His career in politics turned him into a celebrity which enabled him to become rich. Without politics, he’d still be chugging away in an office somewhere as a lawyer.

I guess politics can be very rewarding financially if you can find a way to appeal to Democrat voting idiots.

AP Article

Multi-millionaire musician Bruce Springsteen has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Springsteen, who hasn’t had a real job or an economic concern for nearly 35 years now, thinks that Obama is the right person to tackle the “important” issues of economic injustice and the environment. Springsteen said about Obama on his official website:

He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where “…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.”

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man’s life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams From My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

Over here on E Street, we’re proud to support Obama for President.

Wow, how poetic…

Yes, another rich, pampered Democrat entertainer has endorsed his favorite candidate because he thinks that people are going to care what he thinks. As if being a rich songwriter makes him some kind of authority or something.

Springsteen is known for his songs about the struggles of working class Americans. Let’s take a quick look at what an outrageous hypocrite Springsteen is and just how out of touch he is with everyday working Americans.

Springsteen is currently on a world tour. Ticket prices range from $65 for crappy nosebleed seats to $95 for the main floor. Selling 15,000 seats at an average price of $80 would generate gross revenue of $1.2 million, with about 85% - 95% of that amount going to Springsteen. Then there are t-shirt sales at $25 a pop, posters, CDs, and whatever else the Springsteen machine sells, all intended to extract as much money from his fans as possible.

Does Springsteen ever consider that maybe his working class fans–the people he writes songs about–might find it difficult to afford $95 for a two-and-a-half hour concert? If Springsteen is concerned about economic justice, as his endorsement indicates, why does he charge so much money to attend his concerts? Furthermore, why doesn’t he give his millions away to reduce the economic inequality between him and his fans–or the rest of America?

Springsteen also seems concerned about the environment. Why then does an already extremely wealthy man need to go on tour and make even more money? Band members, roadies, managers, members of the entourage, and others have to be transported and housed. Jets, buses, limousines, electricity for the show–all will be used and all will create pollution that is completely unnecessary. And we are talking about massive amounts of pollution. It wouldn’t surprise me if the pollution generated as the result of one night’s performance exceeded the pollution generated by an average American family in an entire year.

The country would do just fine if Springsteen decided not to tour ever again. So if Springsteen is so concerned about economic justice and the environment, his rationale for endorsing Obama, then why is he guilty of being a big violator of the very issues he pretends to care so much about?

Bruce Springsteen is just another in a long line of self-important liberal frauds and hypocrites who thinks he knows what is best for the rest of us. Sorry, Bruce, you don’t know anything about the working class nor ordinary Americans. Your slovenly physical appearance doesn’t compensate for your actions and fools no one. Now go shave and put on some decent clothes more suited to a man of your extreme wealth.

Barack Obama is planning to propose new shareholders’ rights legislation that gives no rights to corporate shareholders at all.

Obama’s plan would require corporations to have a non-binding vote on executive compensation packages. Shareholders would not be allowed to limit nor deny executive compensation under Obama’s plan.

So what good would Obama’s plan do? Absolutely none. This is an insanely stupid plan which does nothing more than codify his empty rhetoric into a law which is as equally empty.

Shareholder rights are a good thing. Allowing shareholders to have a say in executive compensation is also a good thing. But Obama’s plan does neither of those things. In fact, it does nothing at all. It is as meaningless as everything he says.

Barack Obama has been the beneficiary of tens-of-millions of dollars in contributions from corporate bigwigs. In fact, Obama has been the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street executives. Is this proposal Obama’s way of appealing to his base which is incapable of distinguishing substance from fluff while at the same time staying on good terms with corporate bigwigs who have lavished him with cash? I think so.

Obama’s Shareholder Rights Plan

Some people will seize on the fact that Barack Obama leads John McCain in polls with people who have a post graduate education. But none of the polls ever indicate exactly what type of education the poll respondents have.

Is a master’s degree in Art History more impressive than a bachelor’s degree in Business? Is a PhD in Women’s Studies more impressive than a bachelor’s degree in Engineering? Does a bachelor’s degree in English or Jourmalism indicate that one has superior intelligence over someone who has a two year associate’s degree in Accounting? The answer to these questions is no.

When it comes to the education gap between Hillary Clinton and McCain, McCain leads her in every category except those with attainments of high school or less. I think this indicates just how disliked Hillary Clinton is.

Gallup Education Gap Poll

In the past, Hillary Clinton has demanded that troops start being withdrawn from Iraq in 90 days. Later, she refused to pledge that she would withdraw troops, said that the Democrats shouldn’t oversell the idea of withdrawals, and said that she would keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

Now Hillary is claiming that she is the only one who will end the war–the war that she helped start. Hillary was quoted as saying:

One candidate will continue the war and keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely. One candidate only says he will end the war. And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war and to rebuild our military while honoring our soldiers and our veterans.

Sen. Obama on the other hand says he will end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won’t necessarily follow the plan he has been talking about during this campaign, that his plan is just words. You can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly.

That one candidate being her, of course. Is she now finally making a firm pledge to withdraw troops, which she refused to do before? And for that one candidate who “only says he will end the war”, isn’t Hillary basically doing the same thing? Given her past record of flip-flops on Iraq, maybe she is the one who is who is full of empty rhetoric on the issue?

By the way, isn’t Hillary a wonder woman? Not only will she end the war, but she will also rebuild the military and honor soldiers. All that from just this one person? Simply amazing. I’ll guess I’ll have to consider voting for her…

Hillary must be getting really desperate to make unattainable promises like her latest to start withdrawing troops within 60 days should she be elected President. Next thing you know she’ll promise to travel back in time and withdraw the troops before they ever went in to Iraq.

Hillary is taking her last gasps. So sad. She had so many good opportunities for America…

I took a look at Hillary Clinton’s official website today… Wow, you could spend a lifetime pointing out the idiocy of this woman’s positions. Let’s look at some of them for a minute and reveal just what a fraud and idiot this woman is, OK?

http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/middleclass/

First up is this little bit:

Income inequality has risen to the highest levels since 1929…

Hillary Clinton has $50 million! She and her husband have earned $109 million in seven years! Who the hell is she to complain about income inequality when she represents that inequality herself? And if she doesn’t like money, why doesn’t she give her money away?

Lowering taxes for middle class families

Lowering taxes? The tax burden in the United States is already severely skewed toward the upper income bracket. Her goal isn’t to reduce taxes, it’s to redistribute wealth from the upper bracket to the lower brackets so she can buy votes.

Providing quality, affordable health care to every American

What a meaningless bit of drivel that is. This is a woman who has fought against tort reform, which would make it more difficult for trial lawyers, who are big financial backers of the Democratic Party, to file frivolous lawsuits against people. In many areas of the country, average malpractice insurance premiums for Obstetricians exceed $100,000 per year. Who pays the cost of that insurance? The patients and the health insurers, do. Would tort reform reduce frivolous lawsuits and thus reduce the cost of malpractice insurance? Absolutely it would.

Making college accessible and affordable

The fact is that the most liberal institutions of higher learning in this country have the highest tuition. More liberal, higher cost. And we are to believe that a liberal like Hillary Clinton is going to make college affordable?

Bolstering retirement security by promoting savings and investment

How stupid does this woman think we are? She promises to raise taxes! Taxes erode the return from savings and investment and actually discourage them. Why would anyone put their money at risk if the bulk of it is taxed away?

Returning to fiscal responsibility and moving towards balanced budgets

That’s hillarious! Hillary Clinton has proposed hundreds of billions in new spending. How is she going to pay for it? Raising taxes will reduce economic activity, which in turn reduces tax collections. Every time Hillary opens her mouth she proposes new spending. And we are to believe she is going to move toward a balanced budget?

Harnessing innovation to create the high-wage jobs of the 21st century

Again, high taxes reduce investment and thus reduce innovation. Even a Democrat voter should be able to make that connection.

Unbelievable. Every one of Hillary Clinton’s ideas will do more to harm the middle class than to help it.

Democrats in the House and Senate are working feverishly to harm those they claim to represent: lower income Americans.

In a desire to help alleviate the “foreclosure crisis”, Democrats are proposing ways to prop up the price of housing. The problem is that housing values in America have gotten ridiculously out of line with inflation and wage growth, meaning that housing eats up more household income than it should. In many areas of the country, housing values have appreciated at 8% to 10% per year for the past decade or so prior to the collapse of the housing bubble. In my area, a house that sold for $65,000 in 1995 would have sold for $180,000 to $200,000 in 2006–a near tripling in value. Wages in that time have certainly have not tripled.

Democrats are trying to spin the housing crisis by framing it in terms of average Americans losing their homes because this is what resonates with their voting base and because it helps make the economy look worse than it is. What they don’t tell you is that in many of the hardest hit communities, 70% or more of the homes in foreclosure are not owned by families, but by investors. Certainly, some families will lose their homes. Some because of greed and refinancing their mortgages to convert the equity to cash, others because they weren’t smart enough to research the price history of the house they purchased or because they bought into the myth that housing values never decline.

Anybody who bought their home before 2002 and is still living in it should emerge from the deflating housing market unscathed. The only thing they will lose is paper value, nothing out of pocket. People who bought homes more recently will surely be upside down in their mortgages, owing more than the house is worth. This presents a special problem.

Democrats want to federally insure $300 billion in mortgages so they can be restructured. They are ignoring the fact that many people who are upside down in their mortgages are voluntarily defaulting and stop making payments because it makes no sense to continue to pay on something on which they owe significantly more than it is worth. I’ve read several articles about this phenomenon recently. In fact, there is a website, youwalkaway.com, that helps people to abandon their homes so they can walk away without owing a penny.

The only thing the Democrats’ housing plan will do is push the United States further into debt since many people will continue defaulting on their mortgages because they owe more than their home is worth. They should stop meddling in the economy and let the housing market run its course. In the long run, housing values will decline. People will be able buy houses for less money, leaving them with more discretionary income every month to fuel further economic growth. Housing should not be prohibitively expensive. Let the market fall where it may, please!

Inexpensive housing is best for everyone–especially the people the DFL claims to represent. The Democrats’ plan will make housing more expensive than it otherwise would be if they let the bubble deflate naturally.

Walking Away From Mortgages Article

MSNBC Housing Plan Article

Hillary Clinton continues to sink in Pennsylvania while her opponent for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 presidential race continues to make inroads in a state where Clinton once held a comfortable lead.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll published on April 8th, 2008, Barack Obama has pulled to within six percentage points of Mrs. Clinton. Clinton has the support of 50% of likely primary voters, Obama has 44%. Obama has been outspending Clinton on advertising in the state, spending $3 million to her $1 million.

Clinton has been steadily losing her lead in the state. Just six days ago Clinton held a nine point lead. Less than a month ago Clinton had a twelve point lead.

Perhaps the fact that Hillary Clinton was caught in a lie recently about dodging sniper fire has contributed to her decline. But, she has rated poorly on trustworthiness for a long time now; everybody already knows she is a liar.

A few days ago the Clintons released their tax returns which showed an income of $109 million over the past seven years. Since one of the things that infuriates Democrat voters the most is wealth, the revelation of the Clinton’s astronomical income isn’t going to help her among the lower class voters that comprise a large portion of the DFL base.

If Obama wants to deal Clinton a knockout punch, he should harp on the fact that Hillary possesses extreme wealth. He should point out how she champions the issue of poverty while amassing a fortune which could be given away to alleviate some of the “suffering” endured by the poor in America.

You see, if someone really cares about the poor, they will use their own money to help the less fortunate. Even if the Clintons gave away every penny they had, they would still live a life of wealth from their pensions which will pay them a few hundred thousand dollars every year for as long as they live. It doesn’t take more than a few minutes of time to write a check to give your money away. The fact that the Clintons have amassed a $50 million fortune in just a few years demonstrates that they don’t truly believe in charity, unless it involves someone else’s money.

How stupid do these Democrats think the American people are?

Hillary Clinton has been promoting her job creation plan recently, which really isn’t much of a plan at all. In a nutshell, she has proposed a $7 billion plan to persuade companies to not ship jobs overseas. Five billion of that amount would be for tax credits supposedly to help companies compete globally. Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“Today I’m proposing one of the largest expansions of tax benefits for research and job growth in a generation,” she said. “We have to update our tools for rewarding innovation. The research-and-development tax credit, for example, has been a successful, cost-effective tool to increase investment in research jobs here in the United States. When I’m president, we will increase it by 50 percent.”

OK, great. Hillary has just proposed tax credits for big corporations, which she has been criticizing for years. But another question one must ask is this: why has Hillary not proposed such legislation while she has served in the Senate? If she thinks this is such a great idea, why didn’t she propose this years ago, or even more recently? And why didn’t she introduce the legislation to get the ball rolling?

The reason Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything about this earlier is because she doesn’t believe in this kind of thing. She is interested in getting votes and will pander to anyone who wants to listen. In one speech she will rail against corporations and tax credits much like the ones she has proposed. Then in another speech she will completely contradict herself and propose the very thing she has been critical of in the past.

What’s even worse is that these Democrat troglodytes aren’t bright enough to not only see Hillary Clinton for the fraud she is, but they aren’t capable of realizing the detrimental effect her other proposals will have on business and industry.

Hillary has proposed mandatory employer-provided health insurance for all employees, even part-time flunkies. She has also proposed mandatory paid maternity leave for employees who have babies, starting first with federal government employees.

Then we must consider Hillary’s position that taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals must be raised, both income and investment taxes. How does raising taxes on investment returns encourage the investment necessary to create jobs? How does raising income taxes on those who actually do the investing and purchasing create jobs given that they have less money to spend on either? It doesn’t.

Nobody invests money to have the majority of it taken away from them. Taxes diminish investment returns. When investment returns decline, less investment takes place! Why the hell don’t these Democrats realize this?

All of these policies that Hillary has proposed increase the burden on employers and raise the cost of doing business in America. A few billion in tax credits won’t come close to offsetting the tens-of-billions in additional taxes and mandates that Hillary champions.

I won’t even get into the DFL’s desire to put carbon taxes on energy, which would raise the cost of doing business even more.

It seems like a twisted joke for Hillary to propose a jobs plan when she is also proposing policies that will destroy jobs. I just wish the Democratic Party’s voting base was smart enough to see this nonsense for what it truly is.

We have heard and read about all the prominent Democrats who have abandoned Hillary Clinton requesting that she drop out of the race despite her continued leads over Barack Obama in some key states. Yesterday Hillary reiterated her intention to continue the race, and she lied yet again. Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying:

Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky (Balboa from the fictional boxing movie “Rocky”) and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.

Is that so? Then why has Mrs. Clinton been demanding that we give up in Iraq and surrender to terrorists for a long time now?

A transcript of a speech Hillary Clinton gave in July, 2007, from Hillary’s own website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366

It is long past time that the president ended American combat involvement Iraq’s multi-sided, sectarian civil war, fought for power, revenge, and personal advantage.

That is what I have been trying to do in the Senate, after calling for and consistently voting for phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. That is why I voted against a bill to fund the war without any plan for ending it. That is why I’ve introduced legislation to begin bringing our troops home within 90 days. And that is why I am joining other Democrats to add provisions to the defense authorization bill — which we are debating in the Senate this week — that would force the President to change course in Iraq. Among those provisions is legislation I am sponsoring with Senator Robert Byrd to de-authorize the war — legislation that would actually end the President’s authority to fight it.

If that isn’t quitting, then what is?

Let’s be fair to Hillary for a moment. She has served as her husband’s doormat throughout their entire marriage. She’s been cheated on and lied to again and again. She hasn’t quit her marriage, though. Since the only reason she endured the decades of lies, cheating, and public humiliation her husband subjected her to was so she could run for President, it would mean that she wasted her entire life if she abandoned her ambitions now. And that would be a tough pill for anyone to swallow.

In case you are interested, the Who’s Dated Who website has a list of women Bill Clinton has supposedly bedded while married to Hillary. If you look, you will see that some are recent. I don’t know how accurate this Who’s Dated Who is, but the truth is that Hillary and Bill Clinton have a phony marriage, spending very little time together and showing no genuine affection for each other.

Bill Clinton At Who’s Dated Who