There’s a great piece over at American Thinker by Ned Barnett contemplating the “what if” scenarios that might play out for Hillary.  What if Hillary has the proverbial October surprise in July?

Here’s a brief:

The “sitting and waiting” strategy is out of character for the politically-savvy Clintons. It’s possible they may be shell-shocked from the primary campaign’s insane roller coaster ride.  However, once they have caught their breath, they may decide that the prize is worth exercising Hillary’s “nuclear option” — in effect, using surrogates to nuke Senator Obama so thoroughly that they will create that Obama Can’t Win scandal out of what is already out there.

 

In this option, Clinton surrogates — those public figures who are obviously in the tank for the Clintons, such as Lanny Davis and Paul Begala, as well as those who are not so obviously affiliated with the Clinton campaign — will carry out the “nuke Obama” strategy on Senator Clinton’s behalf, leaving her hands clean and her reputation unsullied.

 

What constitutes the Nuclear Option?

 

Senator Obama has gotten such a near-universal pass on his background that there remain potentially troubling elements to his career and life-story.  Bringing these forward now and painting them in the worst possible light could have a “death by a thousand cuts” impact on the largely untried Senator from Illinois, who has already shown that he’s not at his best in responding to harsh and unexpected criticism.  Keeping Senator Obama dodging and ducking and bobbling defenses creates two opportunities:

 

• Senator Obama’s background will deliver that one “deal-killer” issue that will turn the superdelegates away from their popular favorite, or

• The weight of unanswered criticism will collectively convince the superdelegates that Senator Obama can’t win, and that the Party needs a win more than it needs Obama

Both options are long shots, to be sure, but there may be enough out there with which to criticize Senator Obama to make the nuclear option at least plausible.  Some might even say that the nuclear option campaign has already begun with Paul Begala’s public pronouncement that the Party Can’t Win by relying on white eggheads and African-Americans, a bombshell he dropped on CNN in a “debate” with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

Knox County Commissioners jumped from the ropes and put the atomic elbow to the toll road idea.  The vote?  18-1 against the blasted idea! But there’s always a but in there somewhere…

Check this out from the Knoxville News Sentinel:

“Ed Cole (of the Tennessee Department of Transportation) has gone on record saying if they don’t have local support, it won’t go forward,” said Fairstein, a member of Citizens Against the Orange Route.

Cole, TDOT’s assistant commissioner for environment and planning, said after the commission’s vote that the state indeed will pay close attention to local legislators and residents when considering toll roads.

“We are not going to pursue a tolling project where there is strong opposition, and the County Commission represents the people of Knox County,” Cole said. “The county would make a big impact on our thinking.”

But he said TDOT will pay the most attention to the Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization, a federally mandated group of officials from Knoxville, Knox County and surrounding cities and counties formed to provide coordinated planning.

Please, read that again.  BUT TDOT will pay the MOST ATTENTION to the Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization.

Ding!  Ding!!  Ding!!!

I had this exact conversation with State Representative Harry Brooks (R) from Knoxville.  Rep. Brooks voted in favor of the toll road expansion legislation.  He said he did so because people would have the final say.  I argued that the people wouldn’t, they would only be allowed INPUT.  Or gripe sessions, if you will.  The place for the people to have their say would be in the legislature in putting a stop to this idea.

And so now, from the TDOT horse’s mouth, we see the truth revealed.

As we saw earlier from this so-called planning board, the ratio of taxpayers showing up to voice their opinions was 2 for and 28 against the toll roads, but this board voted in favor of spending the dollars to move ahead anyway!

I was watching Justice Antonin Scalia being interviewed the other night on the television program Book Notes on C-Span.

Justice Scalia is an awesome and brilliant man.  If you missed the interview, you can check it out on at C-Span online. I thought I’d share something Scalia said about his wife that I thought was pretty neat about child rearing.  Here’s the transcript of Scalia’s comments about some of his wife’s child rearing theories:

As for – as far as child rearing, I’m probably a little tougher than she is, although I don’t now that for sure. I think she tries to, you know, rein me in, but on the side she herself may be tougher.

She’s a good – a very good mother. I mean, has all sorts of theories on child rearing. She ought to do a book. Her greatest theory is this. Since when a child reaches the teenage years the child is going to revolt, I mean that is a given. That’s what being a teenager is all about, asserting your own personality.

Since that’s true, the rules you’ve set have to be just short of what is reasonable. That is to say, just short of what would harm the child. You know, if you’re only, oh, do everything, so long as you don’t use drugs, you know, so long as you don’t hurt yourself. The kid’s going to use drugs if that’s the only way he can revolt. You have to have some irrational rules, like be home at 12:30, you know.

Kid gets to be a teenager, he comes home at 12:45, you throw a fit. The kid is pleased that he’s asserted himself. I think it’s a real insight that you have to set your rules a little short, a little short of what will harm the child.

I think that sounds like smart advice.

The Club for Growth released their Congressional scorecard for 2007 today.  From the Club for Growth, here are the rankings for our Tennessee members.  And note that Congressman Marsha Blackburn is one of the top ranking members in all of Congress.  She wins a coveted award from the organization. Congratulations, Congressman Blackburn!

Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its 2007 annual scorecard, awarding the Defender of Economic Freedom award to six senators and forty-nine representatives who scored a 90 or above on the Club’s scorecard (see here).

“These top-scoring members of Congress are staunch defenders of American taxpayers,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Their votes are critical to lowering taxes, cutting wasteful spending, and promoting economic growth for all Americans. The Club for Growth scorecard allows taxpayers to see how their senators and representatives are performing in Congress and find out who is truly fighting for pro-growth, limited-government policies. We hope that support for pro-growth principles will continue to grow, allowing more members to earn this award and more Americans to benefit.”

The ratings are based on a comprehensive examination of votes in the House and Senate pertaining to key economic issues, including taxes, wasteful spending, entitlement reform, free trade, and regulation. Each lawmaker is given an economic growth score ranging from 0 to 100, with a score of 100 indicating the highest support for pro-growth policies. The Club is also introducing a searchable database that allows you to search past and current scorecards by party, state, house, and member.

And Club for Growth President Pat Toomey had a wonderful opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today on RINO Hunting.  Here’s a brief, but I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire piece:

Republicans would be better off, the argument goes, if the Club PAC spent its money targeting Democrats instead of liberal Republicans. This is the argument of politicians who care more about maintaining power than using that power to implement conservative policies.

Amen, brother Toomey! And this:

In 2000, Rep. Tom Davis, then the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, denounced the Club for supporting Scott Garrett’s challenge to New Jersey Rep. Marge Roukema. Mr. Cole and the entire Oklahoma establishment backed Tom Coburn’s primary opponent in the 2004 Senate race, Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, viewing Mr. Coburn as too conservative to be electable. Led by President Bush, the GOP cavalry rallied behind liberal Arlen Specter in 2004, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Joe Schwarz of Michigan in 2006.

Mr. Chafee, you may recall, is the same senator who refused to vote for the president in 2004, and voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and Justice Sam Alito’s nomination.

This year, Mr. Gingrich and conservative favorite former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele stumped for liberal incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest against conservative state Sen. Andy Harris in a primary. Mr. Gilchrest was also defended by the Service Employees International Union. He lost by 10 points.

Let us take a moment to consider how these liberal Republicans are serving the GOP today. Mr. Specter, just in the past year, joined Democrats in voting for “card check” (which allows unions to organize without holding a secret ballot election), for increasing the minimum wage, for expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for the bloated farm bill.

Mr. Chafee, who was defeated, switched his party affiliation to Independent and has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Following his loss to conservative Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary, Rep. Schwarz of Michigan backed a state-level tax hike, and threatened to run against Mr. Walberg as a Democrat. Mr. Gilchrest has hinted recently that he will endorse the Democratic nominee for his seat. All four of these pols were heralded by the Republican establishment as genuine conservatives who would go to bat for the party when it mattered.

In language usually reserved for military engagements or tragedies like Virginia Tech, first lady Andrea Conte amps up the rhetoric for us Tennessee hayseeds who don’t believe spending millions on an underground party bunker is really a wise investment of Tennessee taxdollars.  

Today on the radio, we’ll interview Drew Johnson, President of Tennessee Center for Policy Research, about some of the emails he obtained through an open records request.  Here’s a shocker from the first lady, via the Nashville Scene:

In December, the libertarian Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) made a public information request for emails from Gov. Phil Bredesen’s administration on the proposed renovation of the governor’s mansion, including the construction of the so-called “Bredesen Bunker.”

and:

In December, Conte, who has been the public face of the project, sent a note to state architect Mike Fitts. Here Conte—who is referred to as “FL,” for first lady, in many administration emails—comes off as part Cruella de Vil, part Christian motivational speaker as she encourages Fitts to continue touting the project in the face of bitter criticism.

“You are doing a magnificent job of deflecting hits and correcting erroneous information regarding Conservation Hall,” the FL writes. “This is an innovative design and a long time coming—what a shame partisan political hacks have targeted the project out of meanness of spirit and selfishness.”

Conte concludes her note with a hearty dose of good cheer.

“Keep a song in your heart and a smile on your face” the FL assures Fitts. “We will prevail.”

We will prevail?  How about building a bunker for the child molesters currently sitting under house arrest because there is no room at the Gray-Bar-Hotel called our state prison?  I don’t know if a party bunker is an issue where we need to march on with such courage.  Revealing.

Also on the radio today: we’ll interview Dan Gainor about the new four letter word for libs: COAL.

There was an interesting piece of analysis found yesterday over at National Review:

Put Away Those Calculators   [James S. Robbins]

Why would anyone believe the the Democratic nomination race is over or soon to be? The analysts who are fascinated with mathematical models allocating delegates this way or that are missing the point. This is a political process. The Clinton campaign has netted about 48% of the delegates so far. That keeps her in the game.

All she has to do is post a reasonable number of victories in the remaining primaries and caucuses to show she is viable, and that Obama is beatable. And even if the superdelegates start moving his way, that will not be decisive. The superdelegates are only stating their intent; nothing is official until the actual votes are cast, and, as we have seen, superdelegates can change their minds. The real struggle will be in the leadup to the Democratic convention and in the committee rooms in Denver.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy went to the convention with around 36% of the delegates and still mounted a floor fight. Harold Ickes, now Clinton’s chief delegate hunter, was then in a similar role on the Kennedy campaign. Ickes had a much weaker hand in 1980 than he does today. So how can anyone believe this struggle is not going all the way to Denver? It will only end if Hillary Clinton loses the will to keep fighting. It all comes down to her inner strength, her belief in herself and her destiny. Right now the only person who can prevent Hillary from taking this all the way is Hillary.

Marc Sheppard has a good piece up at American Thinker.  As the Swiss debate plant dignity by the way, real people are suffering throughout the world, like those who can’t get help in Burma thanks to their own government…

And like Cindy Sheehan and other hyper-political activists did in Hurricane Katrina, Gore can’t wait to wave his global warming flag in the face of tragedy.

May 07, 2008

Gore’s Myanmar Words as Inopportune as they were Repulsive

Marc Sheppard

Thirty days after Steve McIntyre caught NASA cooking climate history again - this time in a feeble attempt to somehow conceal the alarmist-embarrassing  downward trend since 1998 — Al Gore shamelessly portrayed Saturday’s Myanmar cyclone catastrophe as a ‘consequence’ of global warming. 

 

A mere 16 days after NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation’s cool phase shift would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, Gore told NPR that the “trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures.”  This just 6 days after a German study also predicted cooler ocean temperatures due to the Meridional Overturning Circulation entering a weak cycle, and in spite of there being absolutely no empirical evidence of a global warming / storm strength link. 

You would think Gore might use his bully pulpit to address these facts, from IBD:

The Burmese government, which controls the media and was given 48 hours of notice by the Indian government that a natural disaster of biblical proportions was brewing, did not provide an adequate warning.

Even if they had been notified, the people were mortally vulnerable. Blame the socialist junta. More interested in keeping itself in power, the regime has never developed an economy that would improve living standards and protect humans from the elements. It is guilty of economic oppression and the sort of corruption that too often plagues socialist systems.

Because of its secretive and xenophobic nature, the regime has compounded the disaster through a reluctance to accept international aid.

Dear Lord.  How did we get here?

From the Weekly Standard, Wesley Smith looks in at the Swiss ethical dilemma of the day:

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the “dignity” of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called “plant rights” is being seriously debated.

and this:

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer’s herd–the report doesn’t say). But then, while walking home, he casually “decapitates” some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can’t agree why. The report states, opaquely:

At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves.

What is clear, however, is that Switzerland’s enshrining of “plant dignity” is a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. It also reflects the triumph of a radical anthropomorphism that views elements of the natural world as morally equivalent to people.

And we see the paradoxes at play even here in the states in stories like this one:

A man was just trying to go green with his new house construction project in Denver, until he was told by the city he would be penalized $9,000 for doing so.

The report comes from William Porter, a writer for the Denver Post, who outlined the situation confronting Kent Oakes.

“Oakes and his wife want to build a home on South Birch Street in University Hills. They plan to scrape the existing frame house and replace it with the one in which they’ll spend their retirement years,” the newspaper reported.

“We want to build it as green as possible, and that includes solar panels on the roof,” Oakes reported.

But when workers from the solar system company arrived, they brought with them some bad news: a large honeylocust tree that towers over the southwest corner would block the sunlight to the system.

“It is a good tree and I’d like to keep it, but it just won’t let the solar work,” Oakes told the newspaper. In getting approval from the city for his plans, he noted that the tree would have to go.

All right, responded Douglas Schoch, of the city’s forestry division. But that will be a penalty of $9,000, because that’s what the city has decided the tree is worth.

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago on Obama and the Teamsters.  I’ve pulled out a few highlights:

By BRODY MULLINS and KRIS MAHER

May 5, 2008; Page A1

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It’s an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

and this:

The consent decree required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed election officer. (Before, the president was elected by delegates.) It also set up a three-member independent review board to investigate corruption within the union. These elements of the decree are in effect today, while others, like oversight of union finances, have ended.

and this:

But the Teamsters still face skeptics. In 1999, Mr. Hoffa hired Edwin Stier, a lawyer with experience fighting union corruption, to create an internal program to root out mob ties and help end the consent decree. Mr. Stier quit in 2004, saying Mr. Hoffa wouldn’t fully support his efforts. “I haven’t seen anything that the union has done internally that comes close to self-policing,” Mr. Stier said in a recent interview.

A Teamsters spokesman says the union doesn’t want to duplicate efforts of the oversight board. But if the board were no longer in place, he says the union would handle such matters itself. 

Before:

And after:

So what do you think will happen with Hillary?  Will she continue to fight on?  Will she start the exit process?

Personally, I think Hillary has performed the most impressive makeover of modern times.  She used to be the lady of the left, the GOP voodoo doll symbolizing all things Marxist, Socialist, Counter-culture.  

She may not pull this one out.  But she’s savy.  While the Code-Pinko left and all the university marxists and anti-war crowd are all clamoring for their political Messiah to fill their spiritual voids, Hillary will probably receive little or no recognition for her efforts to keep the Democrat label mainstream.

Feather boas, screaming, Che Guevara posters, and sugared-up expensive coffee are all images that come to mind when I think of Crowd Obama.  But Hillary has kept Dems on the map.  She’s reached out to 2nd amendment voters.  She’s moderated.  She’s has talked about a gas tax moratorium. She says that if that crazy Iranian is foolish enough to attack Israel, she’ll obliterate him.

She made a decision to move center.  It might have paid off, or who knows, there are very remote possibilities that it still could.  But I don’t think going into this race anyone ever thought that identity politics would deliver a near unanimous vote from the black community for Barack.  You’d have thought with all the work Bill and Hill had done, they could garner at least 20%.

Should her exit be in the works, I don’t think she’s exiting stage left.  Barack, with Ortega and Carter and Tom Hanks and Michael Moore all cheering him on, has become the new enemy of conservatism.  Hillary doesn’t evoke the same emotion.

She laughs.  She has become human.  And if indeed she’s moving on, she’ll live to fight another day with a new and improved image.  Her decision to move center instead of battling it out for the moonbat fringe may help the Democrats in fly-over country. Is her conversion for real?  Doubtful. She’s a Clinton. But her makeover has been quite the success.  What she does with that capital, we’ll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Paul Begala puts it another way: 

BEGALA: We cannot win with egg heads.

Let me finish my point.

We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the
Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of
the first George Bush.

So are we going to be taxed on our digital downloads?  It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.  And with the discovery of new information in Tennessee, it doesn’t like she has sung.

My music download today is from the Eagles:

You can’t hide your lyin’ eyes 
And your smile is a thin disguise 
I thought by now you’d realize 
There ain’t no way to hide your lyin eyes 

In the dust-up over the new ringtone & iPod tax coming down the pike, Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr stepped onto the scene and flashed some Apple iPod receipts that showed that Tennesseans were already paying taxes on their music downloads.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I must tell Tom Humphrey and John Rodgers, two very fine Tennessee reporters, that they’ve been had.  And it looks like they’ve really, really been had by the confidence trick of the year.

This girl felt uneasy as Farr said folks were already being taxed, we really do just need a technical correction.  As I said in my last post, trust but verify.  If we’re already collecting, why the need to change the status of a digital product delivered electronically via the internet for example, to a tangible product?  As it turns out, Farr wants to change the legal status in order to legally collect the tax!

In the verification process, I’ve discovered a ruling that for some reason is not posted with all other rulings on the Tennesseee Department of Revenue’s website.  Why is it hidden?  Why does one have to wade through hell and high water to find the truth?

As revealed in Letter Ruling No. 08-25 issued March 12, 2008, a ruling that is being kept under wraps from the public eye, all song downloads or background music downloaded or accessed via the internet are not subject to the sales and use tax because they are delivered electronically.

If you go to Wally World and buy music on a CD, it’s taxed.  You can hold that tangible CD in your music-loving hands.  Buy a device, an ipod or MP3 player for example,  that may or may not have tunes already installed, then you must pay sales tax at the point of purchase.  You’re holding that tangible little device in your little fingers.

But download a ringtone or a song via the internet, you ARE NOT SUPPOSED to pay tax.  According to the ruling referenced above, such goods delivered electronically are not taxable by Tennessee statute according to Tennessee Code as sales of telecommunications services or sales of tangible personal property.

So why am I paying a tax on my iPOD for my iTunes?  Sometimes companies like Apple collect the tax when a question exists.  They’d rather err on the side of safe, so they collect the tax until they hear otherwise.

So does Commissioner Farr know he shouldn’t be collecting the tax?  Is he using Apple’s safe-bet of collecting taxes until a ruling comes down the pike as a way to actually institute tax policy within the Revenue Department?  

It’s looking that way.  I hate to say that.  Really, I do.  But I’m looking at the date of this ruling, March 12, 2008.  And then I look at the last words appearing on the ruling and they say “APPROVED: Reagan Farr.”  And then I look at the Tom Humphrey article dated April 25.  Nearly six weeks passed  between the ruling and the interview.  By the time of the interview, Farr has to know Tennesseans SHOULD NOT be paying the tax!

But he doesn’t say that.  In a post by A.C. Kleinheider over at Nashville Post, Reagan Farr makes the claim that according to TCA, “Downloads are considered tangible personal property by the State. According to Farr, under Tennessee code an ITunes song is considered “pre-written computer sofware” [T.C.A. §§ 67-1-102 (60)] that then “performs the task“[T.C.A. §§ 67-1-102 (17)] of playing on your iPod. It is thus taxable under Tennessee law.”

But I’m not seeing that in the ruling that Mr. Farr approved on March 12, 2008. The ruling specifically says: “However, the Additional Song Dowloads and [DATABASE III] services, in addition to any charges for [PACKAGES ONE],[PACKAGE TWO], [PACkAGES THREE], and Background Music service, that relate to additonal songs downloaded onto the hard drive or accessed via the Internet are not subject to the sales and use tax because the music is delivered electronically, which is not taxable as sales of telecommunications services under TCA 67-6-102(81)(B)(ix)(Supp.2007) or as sales of tangible personal property under Tenn. Code. Ann 67-6-102(80)(Supp. 2007).”

Attention legislators: You DO NOT need to approve this change as a technical correction.  Attention legislators: You will be instituting a NEW TAX if you approve the change!!

You also need to ask why the Revenue Department is keeping this information hidden from the public eye.  And why Tennesseans have been lied to. And why Apple has not been informed that they shouldn’t be collecting the tax.  

 And as it turns out, it looks like the law firm that first issued a memo was actually right.

In his day, Soapy Smith was king of what’s known as the short “con.”

Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr’s digital download tax:  Honest mistake?  Or Confidence Trick?

It’s not looking good.  But giving Farr the benefit of the doubt,  I’m willing to be open and hear his explanation.

From reading the ruling, it all looks pretty clear to me.

Here are the pages from the ruling:

UPDATE: BILL HOBBS HAS MORE.  Rick Forman has a great point in the comments section at Bill’s site. 

AC has more too at the link in the comments section.  AC is doing great work on the subject.  

Representative Stacey Campfield has some summary comments.

There’s a good editorial over at the Tennessean on the open records games being played in the legislature.  I’d rather see the update to the open records killed than see the intimidation tactics codified.  The amendments are all about re-election efforts, a heads-up if you will, on what may show up in a mail piece.

From the Tennessean:

Sometimes, it seems some state lawmakers believe they’ve been elected to a private club, where they can then operate by concealing all the private club’s private records.

That’s the only conclusion to draw from amendments thrown into a good open-government bill in the House this week. A Senate companion bill under discussion is therefore better.

The House State and Local Government Committee passed a bill that seriously hurts and complicates the original legislation. The committee approved the bill in a way that will require notification of public officials when any records requests concerning those officials are made. That is an intimidating element to put in the legislation. It will have the effect of dissuading citizens from seeking requests. It will also be a needlessly time-consuming process to find out if a records request involves officials whom would need to be notified — which ironically is an issue being raised by lawmakers concerned about the overall intent of improving open-records laws.

Further, as amended, the House measure extends the length of time a request for records can be complied with, from five days to seven business days.

The amendments are designed to make it more difficult — not less — for citizens to gain access to public records. One amendment also means out-of-state residents may not always have the same access as Tennessee citizens, and the measure requires an ID for records requests.

John Rodgers at the Nashville City Paper reports:

House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh said Thursday he doesn’t believe the Democratic Party’s image was damaged through killing a bill revoking health benefits for convicted lawmakers.

Earlier this week, the House Calendar and Rules Committee effectively killed legislation that would revoke state health insurance benefits for lawmakers convicted of felonies involving their office.

Said Naifeh in the article:

Naifeh said he did not believe the bill’s demise gave off a bad impression for the Democratic Party’s ethics.

On this rare occasion, I actually agree with the Speaker. He’s right. It doesn’t damage the ethics of the Democrats in Tennessee. How do you possibly go down from having none? With Naifeh and his Dembots in control, they’re actually running a deficit in the ethics department! Throw Rep. Ulysses Jones in the mix and they may never claw their way out of the hole!

What is this?  This picture of Democrat State Representative Jim Hackworth was sent out on one of his mailers during the last election.  In the mail piece, he’s sitting with several young photo-op children and he’s showing them this piece of paper.

I saved it because I thought it was hilarious.  He’s showing the kids a blank sheet of paper!!  Or maybe he’s just showing the kids everything he knows about good government.  Or immigration?  Or life? Or how much money he wants the kiddies’ parents to have left in their account?  Or maybe he’s showing them the number of times he has voted against Boss Naifeh?

Hilarious.  

Have fun kids!  This looks like a fun lesson with a fun teacher!

This should be the Tennessee Democrat Party’s 2008 Campaign Poster.

As we know from earlier this year, Speaker Naifeh and his Dembots killed several pro-2nd amendment bills. One bill sponsored by East Tennessee State Representative Frank Nicely basically said that your 2nd amendment rights don’t stop at the state park.  

Well, here’s the news on our federal parks from Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling.  

A Second Amendment Victory
Posted by: Rep. Jeb Hensarling (05-01-2008, 12:29 PM)

Yesterday, Secretary Dirk Kempthorne updated the Department of Interior’s national park and wildlife refuge regulations.  Under the new regulations, law-abiding citizens would be allowed to possess, carry, and transport concealed and operable firearms in national parks and refuge areas in the same way they would on similar state land.  Their decision reversed a 25 year old regulation that banned firearms in national parks – regardless of state and local laws.

Earlier this year my friend Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and I  introduced the “Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act of 2008,” to prohibit the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s inconsistent and unconstitutional regulations that ban law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms on land managed by these agencies.  The bill is a House companion to Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) Senate legislation. 

I was pleased to see that Secretary Kempthorne reviewed and updated the Department’s regulations to recognize the rights of law-abiding citizens who visit national parks.  This is a victory for personal freedoms, and those who hoose to exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America’s vast natural landscape.  We must never allow bureaucrat-birthed regulations to take precedence over state laws and the constitutional rights of the American people.

Hopefully Representative Nicely will try again on his legislation next year.  This new ruling lends support to his effort.

Many of our colleges today are really an embarrassment to themselves.  The image of the great thinkers of old debating, discussing, learning is thrown out the window when we see case after case of speakers, whether they are expressing any number of views that buck the grand coalition of liberal thought,  shouted down.  

It’s appalling.  

In the particular video linked here, a man by the name of Ryan Sorba has authored a book called the Born Gay Hoax.  He was invited by the Smith College Republicans to deliver a speech that was promptly interrupted by gay activists who climbed through the windows.  They eventually overtook the podium and college officials called off the speech.

So much for that great constitutional right called freedom of speech.  Unable and unwilling to debate ideas or defend their own position intellectually, these liberals resort to bully tactics with  silencing of opposing thought as the clear and only objective.

Are you not too worried about it?  You should be.  Because time and time again we see complicit behavior on behalf of the administrators who fail to protect the rights of all to speak freely. It doesn’t matter if it’s a military recruiter’s office, a speech on immigration, Islamo-facism, or just conservatism in general, the continuous stories of this behavior reveal the genuine ignorance rampant in our institutions of higher learning.  Emotion is king.

And what about the police?  Will they do anything about protecting the speaker?  Nah. 

Because it is emotion, not facts, that rule the day, discussions such as one centering on health risks are swept under the rug.  For example, we have a global war on cigarettes, but as Matt Barber notes in a recent column, gay sex among men is far more deadly than any pack of smokes.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” — more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

and:

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.

Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, “have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

and this:

Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about five to six times more prevalent among “gays,” and Hepatitis C is twice as common.

But perhaps most shocking are today’s syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Here’s a sneak peak at Reverend Wrong’s upcoming Sunday sermon on Governor Bredesen:

Listen in with me…rev-wrong

In the popular words of the day, Bredesen’s…chickens…are coming home…to roost!

Pastor always said that sin was fun for a season.  And the spending orgy that took place last year was indeed politically euphoric for so many who really don’t like to think about what happens down the road.  And so the taxpayer tree has not yielded the fruit Bredesen wished for.  And the tobacco juice didn’t bring in the dollars the way those who think you can tax your way to prosperity thought it would.  

The clouds have moved in.  Talk of $550 to $650 million less than projected.  And the bunker building continues.  Will it be finished in time for a going away party for laid off state employees?

From the Nashville City Paper:

“I think we can do it in a way that’s not terribly painful for a lot of people,” Bredesen said of the layoffs. “But I’m just going to have to step up to that issue and deal with it.”

Pay raises for state employees, originally proposed at 2 percent, are already off the table, Bredesen said, saying he wouldn’t “lay somebody off and give somebody else a pay raise in this environment.” 

Yes, we can’t give somebody else a pay raise in “this environment.”  But let’s walk down memory lane and look at the environment just a short while ago:

Nancy Amons of News Channel 4 WSMV in Nashville blows the lid off of Bredesen’s payroll.

A Channel 4 I-Team investigation has discovered that while TennCare was cutting 170,000 people’s health coverage, it has been giving raises and promotions to its top officials.

Our I-Team investigation found that as the number of people on TennCare was shrinking, TennCare’s payroll actually increased by $3.5 million. Also the number of administrators making more than $100,000 a year has doubled in the last three years.

And:

From Tom Humphrey:

NASHVILLE — Gov. Phil Bredesen announced salary increases of up to 63 percent for top state government officials Wednesday, saying the new rates make their compensation “a little more reasonable.”

and:

For Goetz, that means a $32,412 annual pay raise, or about 21 percent.

For Seivers and Kisber, the increase is $69,336 per year, or 62.63 percent. They would have been making $110,664, including a 3 percent pay raise for all state employees that took effect on July 1, without the increase.

And:

By JESSICA FENDER
Staff Writer

Top Tennessee officials’ paychecks now outstrip those of their peers in neighboring state governments by as much as $62,000 a year, according to data from a nonprofit study group.

And:

Oh yes, Tom Humphrey gets the best stuff:

NASHVILLE — Gov. Phil Bredesen defended the pay raises already granted top state executives Tuesday and said Deputy Gov. Stuart Brunson is an “obvious” candidate for one of the salary increases to come in the near future.

“I just need to put my head down and take the criticism, get it done and get it over with,” Bredesen said at a news conference where questions focused on pay increases already announced and those to come.

“Just because it’s politically difficult to do, these salaries have been depressed,” he said, contending that “a number of my commissioners” would have left their jobs before the end of his gubernatorial term without the increases.

And:

Bredesen Pork Proposals Raise Questions of Political Payoffs
Half billion dollar giveaway of tax dollars favor campaign contributors, cronies
NASHVILLE – Nearly every proposed private, nonprofit and non-governmental recipient of Gov. Phil Bredesen’s last minute half-billion dollar budget request have ties to the Bredesen administration, according to an examination by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

Governor Bredesen’s 2008 Budget.  Real Budget or Wish List?

Little Phil said he wants a bunker, a Pre-K expansion, some pork…

Heather MacDonald has an excellent piece on race and crime over at the City Journal, especially in light of some of the statements made by the Reverend Wright.  Please, read the entire piece.  

Here’s the kick-off:

HEATHER MAC DONALD

Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?

No: the high percentage of blacks behind bars reflects crime rates, not bigotry.

The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination. At a presidential primary debate this Martin Luther King Day, for instance, Senator Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . . . for the same crime.” Not to be outdone, Senator Hillary Clinton promptly denounced the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites.”

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

If a listener didn’t know anything about crime, such charges of disparate treatment might seem plausible. After all, in 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners, though they’re under 13 percent of the national population. About one in 33 black men was in prison in 2006, compared with one in 205 white men and one in 79 Hispanic men. Eleven percent of all black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are in prison or jail. The dramatic rise in the prison and jail population over the last three decades—to 2.3 million people at the end of 2007 (see box)—has only amplified the racial accusations against the criminal-justice system.

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

Emphasis is mine.

Bredesen staged an invitation only PR Pre-K appearance in Oak Ridge. He should have stopped by and visited me at work! Maybe next time.

The Sentinel has a write up by veteran journalist Bob Fowler. The link is here for the picture and article . I thought you might enjoy the picture from the event:

Here’s a list of possible bylines for the picture that were passed over:

No, sweetie, Andrea counts on 3 glasses of Champagne per guest when ordering from the caterers.

The story of the Three Little Pigs? Yes, I like that one, too. But my favorite is the Story of the Three Pork Projects.

Yes, sweetie, Representative Rob Briley did scream like a 3 year old when he was handcuffed!

No, Baby Doll, I’m growing government at least three times as fast as your Daddy’s income.

Yes, cutie, your three multiplied by my three equals the 9 months my staff has denied Tennessee Center for Policy Research the public records they have requested!

My bunker dance floor is three times bigger than the President’s!

Do you like the number 3? I like the number 63…that’s why I gave my cronies–er, commissioners, a 63% pay raise!

…4 calling birds, 3 no-bid contracts, 2 turtle doves…

Oh, sweetie, do you really think your Daddy needs to keep more than 3 pennies out of every dollar he earns?

You’re such a smart little girl! Speaker Naifeh does put three-Republicans-In-Name only on the Budget Sub!

And presto! Like 1-2-3 my staffer walked out of my administration into the arms of Philip Pinion and the toll road industry!

Well, forgive me for not buying into Obama’s denunciation of Reverend Wright’s comments.  Obama said enough is enough already with the Reverend.  But the problem is, nothing the Reverend said at the National Press Club was new!  The Rev. only backed up or reiterated comments that have been the subject of controversy.

The only difference is, this time his performance was at the National Press Club, not on talk radio or clips on Fox News.  

Oh, yes…the Entitlement Messiah is just another politician.  Given the amount of time it took Obama to realize the rantings of Reverend Wright were deplorable, one can only imagine the timeframe for response given a national threat.  Half of the U.S. could be smoldering embers before Obama would realize there’s a national threat. 

And when I watched the Reverend Wright at the press conference, I couldn’t help but think of this scene with Leslie Nielson as the show-boating umpire in the movie Naked Gun.  Obama’s at bat and the Reverend Wright thinks it’s about him.

Radio Programming Note:

Tomorrow at 5:05 Eastern we’ll be interviewing Wayne Jett about the dollar & general monetary policy. There are a lot of discussions going on right now about the dollar, the price of oil, etc.  Wayne will help us sort it all out. Here’s a brief bio on the gentleman:

Wayne Jett is an accomplished attorney with over 35 years experience specializing in labor and pension law, particularly federal appellate work, plus real estate lending and development. His cases include numerous published opinions in Federal Appellate Courts, including two appearances in the U.S. Supreme Court. Jett has published articles on pension compliance, employer liabilities, and job creation in professional and legal journals. In 1999, he discontinued full-time practice of law to pursue study, research and writing on the classical supply side model. Recently published commentaries are on U.S. monetary policy and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London construing the Takings Clause.

Wayne Jett received B.S. and J.D. degrees from the University of Oklahoma. He is an active member of the State Bar of California and the bars of the Supreme Court of the United States and the U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit).

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article on rising property taxes and guess what two Tennessee cities made the article?  Oak Ridge and Memphis, two cities that already have the distinguished honor of being two of the highest taxed cities in the state.

From the Journal:

A number of fast-growing suburbs around Washington, D.C., have raised rates, while Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton has proposed a 17% increase in the property-tax rate to close a budget gap.

“Everyone is feeling this pinch and we are not immune,” he told the Memphis City Council last week.

Increasing property taxes is especially sensitive when housing prices are falling, the labor market is weakening and household budgets are strained by the rising cost of food and gasoline.

and here’s the Oak Ridge mention:

Oak Ridge, Tenn., near Knoxville, is preparing to raise its rate 5%, in part to cover the rising cost of items, such as gasoline for police cars and asphalt to resurface streets. The city’s sales-tax revenue has stayed about flat, as the weak economy keeps a check on consumer spending, City Manager James O’Connor says.

Uh, I don’t think that’s the reason.  Oak Ridge is notorious for hiring expensive consultants in addition to  new high school construction and a current annual student cost of $11,150 for this year.  That will rise to $18,295 in 2019.  

And today from Stephen Moore, a little legislative warning on property tax increases:

Lawmakers mulling other revenue-raisers to close budget deficits need to know that these may also exacerbate the housing decline. Richard Vedder of Ohio University has found that, from 1980-90, the 10 states that increased their state and local tax burdens the most suffered a 12% decline in prices versus a 48% increase in housing values for states that reduced their tax burden the most. His study found that “while property tax changes have the biggest impact on housing price changes, other forms of taxation exhibit the same effect.” Income taxes, for example, chase people out of the state, which reduces home values for those left behind. Think Michigan, or Ohio.

State and city governments lived well – too well – during the housing boom. From 2000-07 property tax collections climbed by 62%, two-and-a-half times faster than per capita incomes, according to Census Bureau data. Homeowners tolerated the tax hikes as long as the equity in their homes was rising. But voters may not be so forgiving when values tumble and assessments lag behind this fall in prices. One early sign of voter discontent came last year in Indiana, where 21 incumbent mayors lost re-election bids due to anger over taxes. Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson lost to underfinanced GOP challenger Greg Ballard, thanks in part to a doubling in property taxes and a 65% increase in the local income tax.

There is hope:

South Carolina governors have typically stayed out of primary Statehouse races, but Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday again bucked that tradition and endorsed a Republican challenging an incumbent GOP state senator.

The Republican governor threw his support behind political newcomer Katrina Shealy in her bid against state Sen. Jake Knotts, a frequent Sanford critic.

It’s the second time in a month the Republican governor has endorsed a GOP challenger facing an incumbent Republican. Sanford earlier endorsed Tom Davis, a longtime friend and former chief of staff, in his bid against incumbent Sen. Catherine Ceips.

“I’m endorsing because she’s an engaged conservative,” Sanford said Shealy, noting her involvement in Lexington County GOP politics. “Too often what we see are so-called RINO’s, Republicans in name only, where somebody will carry the banner, but not walk the walk in pushing for that conservative philosophy.”

In case you missed it, Popular Mechanics has an interesting investigative piece on Hurricane Katrina.  Here’s an excerpt:

Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina: Special Report

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest–and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day–some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, “guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways,” says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs’ departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California’s Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA’s shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success–especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

NEXT TIME: Any fatalities are too many. Improvements hinge on building more robust communications networks and stepping up predisaster planning to better coordinate local and national resources.

The North Carolina GOP ad, you know, the one that McCain has NOT even seen but doesn’t want run, has apparently been blessed by Obama as a legitimate issue.  Now that Obama says it is an issue, McCain says “me, too!”

From Byron York at National Review:

John McCain, stung by criticism on the right that he seems unwilling to go after Barack Obama on the Jeremiah Wright issue, is changing course.  The McCain campaign, latching onto Obama’s comment this morning on “Fox News Sunday” that Wright’s comments are “a legitimate political issue,” is sending around a transcript of McCain’s comments at a press conference in Florida today:

Question: “Senator, the North Carolina GOP has continued to persist in this advertisement. I was wondering if you could talk about what steps, if any, you will continue to take?”

McCain: “I’ve stated my position very clearly that I don’t like the ad. I was interested that this morning Senator Obama said that it was a legitimate political issue. If he believes that, then it will probably be a political issue. I saw yesterday some additional comments that have been revealed by Pastor Wright, one of them comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our Savior. I mean being involved in that — it’s beyond belief. And then of course saying that Al Qaeda and the American Flag were the same flags.

“So I can understand — I can understand why the American people are upset about this. I can understand that Americans viewing these kinds of comments are angry and upset, just like they viewed Senator Obama’s statements about why people turn to their faith and their values. He believes that it’s out of economic concerns, when we all know that it’s out of fundamental belief, fundamental faith in this country and its values and its principles. Again, Senator Obama is out of touch. I can’t control and will not in the future control. I will voice my opinion and I will continue to think and to say that I think that ad should not be run. But I won’t continue to try to be the referee here.”

….

Question: “I just want to follow up on the Jeremiah Wright issue, you noted today that you saw that Obama said it’s a legitimate political issue, you’ve said previously it is not.”

McCain: “I have said that I will not have any comment on it and that because I thought and I believe that Senator Obama does not share those views. But Sen. Obama himself says it’s a legitimate political issue, so I would imagine that many other people will share that view, and it will be in the arena. But my position that Senator Obama doesn’t share those views remains the same.”

Did you see that?  Obama says it’s a legitimate issue so now McCain’s OK with it.  

McCain really looks foolish here.  Like I said on Steve Gill’s show Saturday, is McCain going to be in the business of issuing opinions on all third party ads?  He set a dangerous precedent by calling out the Tennessee GOP.  He and Lamar.  Now, it’s completely appropriate for every reporter to stick a microphone in McCain’s (and Lamar’s) face and ask “what do you think about this ad?”

On the positive side, at least he finally gets it that people are upset about the Reverend’s comments and how Obama could have sat in the pew listening to this kind of speech for 20 years.

And the Politico is reporting that the Reverend shows up in another ad.  From the Politico:

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright says that he’s been taken out of context.  Really?  And the Reverend says he and Obama haven’t talked politics.  Really?  It seems most of his sermons are nothing but politics.

Hugh Hewitt has a collection of clips.  I encourage you to head over and check them out.

Hewitt links to passages such as this Biblical lesson from the Reverend:

And they could not see the thing that make for peace. We keep forgetting, we keep forgetting, and we need ot remember, Jerome Ross wrote about it, I keep reminding you of it, write it down so you don’t forget, these people had, in Luke 19, an occupying army living in their country. Jesus, in Verse 43, calls them their enemies. Say enemies (crowd responds). Their enemies had all the political power. Remember, they had to send Jesus to a court presided over by the enemy, a provisional governor appointed by their enemies, ran the civic and the political affairs of their capitol. He had him backing him up an occupying army with superior soldiers. They were commandos trained in urban combat, and trained to kill on command. Remember, it was soldiers of the 3rd Marine Regiment of Rome who had fun with Jesus, who was mistreated as a prisoner of war, an enemy of the occupying army stationed in Jerusalem, to ensure the mopping up action of Operation Israeli Freedom.

 

Ben Cunningham and I will be filling in for Steve this morning on his statewide radio program.  Be sure to tune in and feel free to give us a call!

You can listen to Steve’s show by visiting his site for access to his online streaming.  If you don’t normally listen to Steve, I encourage you to do so.  He has a great show.  Hard hitting and a lot of fun, too!

Tom Humphrey reports this morning on the memo heard round the state.  In the “technical corrections” bill put forth by the Bredesen administration, a Nashville law firm wrote:

The Bill contains sweeping legislation that would subject downloaded sales of digital media, including music videos, motion pictures, news and entertainment programs, music, ringtones, electronic books, etc. to the retail sales tax. Under current law digitally delivered goods are not taxable unless delivered in a tangible form. 

But Reagan Farr pulled out some itunes receipts for the reporters and said that taxes are already paid on itunes.  From Humphrey:

NASHVILLE - Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr said Thursday that a draft proposal on taxing downloads of digital products is not a tax increase, despite contentions to the contrary by a Republican party spokesman and a Nashville law firm.

“In our opinion, this is a true technical correction,” said Farr. “It is a clarification and a simplification, but it gets you to the exact same tax outcome.”

So we see that a tax is already in place for itunes and music downloads.  But what about ringtones? Newscasts?  But what about changing the legal classification of digital goods to tangible goods?  Are there are numerous ramifications per tax code once you change such classification, e.g. tangible personal property taxes for small businesses, etc.  Will we have to classify such tangible digital goods as business assets?

I’ve fired off an e-mail this morning to the Nashville Law Firm who first issued the memo.  Nothing personal against Mr. Farr, but I know from the Cigarette Surveillance Program he initiated, that he’s a little too hungry for more of your hard earned dollar.  As my favorite Reagan said, that’s Ronald Reagan, trust but verify.

Forgive me for digging further on the guv’ment boys, but I’m not so sure that this “technical correction” doesn’t open up the taxable Pandora’s box for all things digital.  

If you wait long enough, you will see everything.  Like Hillary campaigning for a strong military. Who’d a thunk it?  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

From the Wall Street Journal:

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — Sen. Hillary Clinton is widely expected to lose North Carolina’s Democratic presidential primary on May 6, but that isn’t stopping her campaign from spending millions of dollars on advertising and holding rallies in dozens of communities throughout the state.

and this:

“This has to be an election when voters actually hear specific solutions,” Sen. Clinton said at a “Solutions for a Strong Military” event at Methodist University in Fayetteville, near the Fort Bragg Army base. “We cannot have a leap of faith or a lot of guesswork in this election.”

And check out the background in the picture:

MCT Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses a crowd at Methodist University in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Thursday, April 24, 2008. (Corey Lowenstein/Raleigh News & Observer/MCT)

Picture from the Charlotte Observer