Advice For Obama

A quote worth remembering. “Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign–a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate.” Does that sound like good advice for President Barack Obama? Actually, it’s a quote from Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, which was published when he was the junior Senator from Illinois. He was talking, of course, about George W. Bush’s re-election victory.

Is it racist to want the truth? Many members of Congress are still trying to find out why we were given so much false information about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. They want to know why Susan Rice, our ambassador to the United Nations, helped disseminate a false explanation for the assault. In his first post-election press conference, President Barack Obama angrily defended Rice. And this week, a dozen female Democrats in the House came to Rice’s support, saying such criticism is “clear sexism and racism.” It doesn’t look like this controversy will go away anytime soon. Nor should it.

Time to stock up on Twinkies? The news that Hostess, the manufacturer famous for Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, was closing its bakeries and firing all of its workers caused a mad scramble at grocery stores and other outlets. People were even auctioning Twinkies on eBay. The company and its labor union attempted mediation to see if closure could be avoided. Reportedly, the effort failed; but I’m sure that someone else will pick up the iconic brands. It’s hard to imagine a world without Twinkies, isn’t it?

Stop trying to kick it, Charlie Brown. Believe it or not, it’s been 60 years since Charlie Brown first tried to kick a football — and Lucy jerked it away at the last moment. Yes, the legendary comic strip “Lucy’s Great Deception” first appeared on Nov. 16, 1952. You would think that after all this time Charlie Brown would finally learn not to trust her, wouldn’t you?

–Chip Wood

Market Reacts To Obama Win

Obama wins, stock market falls. The day after Barack Obama’s re-election victory, the Dow Jones industrial average, a popular gauge of the U.S. stock market, suffered its biggest loss in nearly a year, dropping 312.95 points. Even so, the fall wasn’t as bad as the day after Obama first won the White House. On Nov. 5, 2008, the Dow plummeted 486 points. Maybe we should be glad the drop wasn’t worse this time.

Will the U.S. become energy independent? A new report from the International Energy Agency says that the United States will become the world’s top producer of oil within the next five years and a net exporter of the fuel by 2030 or so.  According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, this country could be almost energy self-sufficient by 2035, thanks to dramatic increases in the production of oil, shale gas, natural gas and “clean” energies including solar, wind and hydropower.

Another Chicago politician faces jail time. Federal investigators have been looking into whether Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., son of the famous civil-rights crusader, spent campaign funds on personal items, including decorating his home in Washington, D.C. Jackson was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1995. Despite not campaigning this time around (he’s been treated for various health problems for most of the year), the Congressman won re-election handily last week.

What have they done to James Bond? “Skyfall,” the 23rd movie in the James Bond saga, is setting box-office records around the world. It looks as though it will be the most popular Bond film ever. But what’s this I hear about our favorite spy changing drinks? Instead of a vodka martini, he’s now asking for a Heineken. Even worse, he gets caressed by a former agent with a “sexually ambiguous” past. That never would have happened with Sean Connery as Bond.

–Chip Wood     


The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn

The fiscal cliff draweth nigh. A lame-duck Congress and a triumphant President have six weeks to effect a deal that will keep the country from plunging over it. And right now, while both sides pay lip service to the idea of compromise, it looks like they’ll play chicken right up to the edge.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama met with a bunch of left-wing labor leaders and social activists — all of whom were happy to take credit for his election victory. Afterward, the President doubled his demands for higher taxes. Instead of the $800 billion in additional tax increases that were on the table before the election, Obama now says he wants $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade.

Anyone who hoped we’d see a milder, more moderate occupant of the White House this time around just got a very loud wake-up message: It’s going to be war on the haves on behalf of the have-nots — and the bureaucrats who get to distribute the spoils, of course.

In case you’re just waking up from a Rip Van Winkle-type nap, the fiscal cliff is what will happen when the George W. Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year (they’ve been extended once already) and automatic spending cuts kick in. The spending cuts, known as “sequestration,” were part of the last agreement to raise the Federal debt ceiling. If they aren’t undone, the military budget will face $500 billion in cuts, starting in January.

It should come as no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office says that the combination could be devastating to our economy. The supposedly nonpartisan CBO says that economic growth in this country, which is already dreadfully anemic, will drop 0.5 percent. At same time, unemployment will climb from 7.9 percent to some 9.1 percent, the CBO predicts. Of course, the “official” unemployment figures are a cruel distortion of what has actually taken place; when the underemployed and long-term unemployed are counted, the actual number is more than 20 percent.

So, yes, we’re facing some pretty serious problems. Meanwhile, although Obama likes to say that he’s willing to compromise and that “all ideas are on the table,” there are a couple that he says absolutely won’t be considered. One is making significant cuts in spending on his favorite programs. The other is giving any sort of tax break to “millionaires and billionaires.”

Meanwhile, a majority of members of the House of Representatives have made a promise to their constituents not to vote for any tax increase. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which created the no-tax pledge, reminds us that it has been signed by 271 members of the current Congress and 258 members of the one that will take office in January. The pledge promises that signers will “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses.”

And don’t look at closing deductions as a way to raise revenue, either. Signers have also pledged to “oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

House Speaker John Boehner hinted at the possibility of compromise when he said: “For the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.”

Boehner didn’t explain what those “right conditions” might be. But so far I haven’t heard any proposal that will satisfy the tax-and-spenders on the left and the no-tax crowd on the right. From what I’ve heard, compromise looks a long way off.

Oh, and did I mention that we are also approaching the ceiling for the Federal debt? The Treasury can do a little check kiting for a while. But sooner or later, we will reach a point where we won’t be able to add to the national debt. That’s going to be a heck of a problem, since that borrowing provides the funds for about 30 percent of Federal spending.

So what should our fearless leaders do? Let’s look at a few hard facts.

First, the Obama tax increases on the super-rich won’t solve our deficit problems. In fact, they won’t come anywhere close. The most generous estimates are that they will raise an additional $60 billion to $80 billion a year in revenue.

But the deficit has topped $1 trillion a year for every year that Obama has been in office. Washington will need to raise 15 to 20 times that much revenue if our leaders are serious about balancing the budget.

Here’s another example that should help bring some perspective to this discussion. It’s been estimated that repairing all the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy will come to something like $50 billion. That’s a staggering amount of money, isn’t it?  The devastation we’ve seen on our TV screens (and many people have witnessed in person) has been incredible.

But consider this: Obama’s deficits have amounted to 20 such hurricanes every year for the past four years.

That brings me to the second fact that the politicos in Washington — on both sides of the aisle — will have to face. This country doesn’t have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. When you add together taxes collected by all levels of government, the combined bite from Federal, State and local taxes comes to more than half of the money the more successful people among us earn. What sort of incentives will successful people have to try even harder and do even better if the government grab goes even higher?

The answer can be found somewhere between “very little” and “none.”

But there’s even more bad news waiting for us around the corner. What happens when the badly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, becomes fully operational over the next two years?

Well, for one, an awful lot of us will be paying more in taxes, thanks to various fees and add-ons the bill includes. That’s bad enough. But even worse, a lot of full-time jobs in this country will vanish, as more and more companies replace them with part-time workers. Employers will not be required to provide health insurance for anyone working 30 hours a week or less. A lot of companies will prefer to hire four part-time workers to three full-time ones. Can you blame them?

A lot of these problems could be solved by a vibrant, growing economy that saw millions of new jobs being created — which also would mean billions more tax dollars being collected. It’s happened several times in the past, under both Republicans (see Ronald Reagan) and Democrats (see Bill Clinton’s second term).

What are the chances that an even more liberal Senate and a President who no longer has to worry about being re-elected will do the things necessary to get the economy growing again? I fear they are very, very small.

If I were a conservative legislator in Washington today, what would I do? I’d stick to the promises I made that got me there. I’d insist that our government needs to spend less and tax less, and I’d vote only for legislation that helps move the country in that direction.

More freedom, not more government, will produce the prosperity we once enjoyed — and can enjoy again. But that’s not what we’re going to get from Washington anytime soon.

Better batten down the hatches, folks. I’m afraid we’re in for a very rough ride.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Why We Lost And What It Will Take To Win

Well, so much for the seers, sages, pundits and prognosticators who predicted an easy victory for Republicans on Election Day. It turned out to be anything but.

For a lot of us, our worst fears are coming true: four more years of Barack Obama in the White House and at least two more years with Harry Reid and the Democrats controlling the Senate.


The one bright spot is that Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives. Since the Constitution requires that all spending bills originate in the House, that provides hope there will be at least some slight restraint as Big Government marches forward.

But then I remembered that Obamacare, one of the biggest spending bills in history, didn’t originate in the House — and that this was perfectly OK with the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts said this incredible usurpation of Federal power was legal because the mandate was a tax. His redefinition of the facts made it all hunky-dory, or so we were told.

The chance that Obamacare will be overturned or even substantially revised is now pretty close to zero. We won a few important victories in the Senate (I’m thinking particularly of Ted Cruz in Texas, Debbie Fisher in Nebraska, and Jeff Flake in Arizona). But Republicans lost all of the other races where victories were essential to give them control of the Senate.

Yes, I’m afraid we’ll be saddled with Harry Reid as Majority Leader for at least two more years. That means even if a decent bill is passed in the House, its chances of getting through the Senate are virtually nil. Not to mention what would happen if such a bill — to cut spending significantly, let’s say, or reform the tax code, or audit the Fed — did by some miracle make it to Obama’s desk. How many milliseconds would it take, do you think, before a veto sent it flying back to Capitol Hill?

So the chances of seeing some decent legislation get through the new Congress are about nil, I’m sad to say. About the best we can hope for is to delay some of the worst legislation and work and pray for more victories in 2014.

In the meantime, I shudder to think what sort of nominations Obama will make for our courts, since he needs approval only in the Senate, not the House. Or what sort of treaties he may submit for the Senate’s approval. How much of our sovereignty (and our money) will the internationalists in this Administration want to turn over to the United Nations? I don’t want to think about it.

We’re going to hear a lot of criticism of the sort of campaign that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan conducted. They didn’t “take it to the President” hard enough, tough enough or often enough, some will say. I think there’s a lot of truth to such accusations.

Romney scored a dramatic victory in the first Presidential debate. Finally, millions of Americans got to see that he was not the mean-spirited vulture capitalist that the Obama campaign had portrayed him as. Hey, he was actually human — and pretty impressive.

But the gains from that night weren’t enough. For some strange reason, both Romney and Ryan began to run a very cautious campaign. Oh, they made some decent speeches. But they spoke only in broad generalities; neither ever got the electorate inspired with the specifics of what they would do for this country.

I would have liked to see them tackle head-on some of the big issues that were being used against them. Where was the Romney-Ryan appeal to Latinos, who will work so hard to earn a piece of the American pie? Where was their outreach to women, who surely have bigger concerns than getting Uncle Sam to pay for their birth-control pills? We waited in vain to hear anything along these lines.

And while there’s no question but that the economy and other domestic issues were far more important to voters than foreign policy, I’ve got to wonder how much of a difference it might have made if Republicans had really hammered the White House over what happened in Benghazi, Libya.

We can debate these questions forever — or at least until the next election. But in the meantime, there are three other issues that I’m afraid will spell the doom of this Constitutional republic, if we can’t find some way to overcome them.

The first is the incredible bias of the mainstream media. I could fill a dozen columns with examples of how the media raked Romney or Ryan over the coals for the most trivial of misstatements, while giving Obama and Joe Biden a free pass on some of the most outrageous comments ever uttered during a political campaign.

You and I may wish that Romney had phrased his concerns a little different, when he spoke about “the 47 percent who don’t pay taxes” at a private fundraiser. But they paled in comparison to Obama’s statement that “you didn’t build that” or his dismissive remark that “the private sector is doing fine,” when everyone and his brother knew it wasn’t.

The mainstream media tried to turn Romney’s remarks into a national scandal. “Good Morning America” said it was a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign.” Diane Sawyer called it “a political earthquake.” There was no such phony outrage over anything the President or his Vice President said during the campaign.

And don’t get me started on many of the so-called “fact checkers” on TV and in the press. Time after time, they allowed Obama and Biden to get away with some whoppers that would have had Pinocchio’s nose growing out the door, while they pounded the Republican candidates for every minor misstatement they could find or distort.

My second concern is how Republicans can counter the hundreds of millions of dollars the Democrats spent on an incredible barrage of attack ads. They were among the most dishonest and despicable commercials ever put on the air. They were targeted to very specific audiences: union workers in Cleveland, young women in metropolitan areas, blacks and Latinos wherever they were a large enough minority.

Sadly, the ads worked. Those of us on the right have to recognize that our opponents on the left did an incredibly effective job of targeting their message to very narrow and specific segments of their audience. They got a majority of the viewers to believe their propaganda. And then they got them to the polls.

How can the next Republican candidate for President overcome such a well-financed, brilliantly planned, expertly produced smear campaign? I confess I don’t know. I hope someone will come up with a solution. If you’ve got one, let me hear about it.

That brings me to my final and largest concern. In State after State and district after district, Democrats won by promising that government would do something for the people hearing their message. Subsidize their healthcare, pay for their prescriptions, finance their schooling, guarantee their retirement… the list goes on and on. It’s the 21st century version of promising a chicken in every pot.

And, folks, let’s face it. It worked. What happens when a majority of voters are told they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, if they’ll only put the “right people” in charge?

We saw the answer Tuesday. They’ll stand in line for hours to vote to keep the goodies coming.

It’s going to be awfully hard to outwork, outspend and outvote them. The silent majority is being replaced by a “gimme” society. What’s going to prevent them from dragging this country over a fiscal cliff — and us along with them?

I don’t know. Do you?

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I’m stunned and saddened over the results of Tuesday’s elections. I thought it was one of the clearest choices between two different directions for this country I’ve ever seen. And I’m scared to death of the decision a majority of voters just made.

Ah, well, there is one positive thing I can say about the outcome. It will give this humble scribe — and the other writers here at Personal Liberty Digest™ — plenty to talk about for the next few years.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Obama’s Revenge

Are you ready for a little revenge? At a campaign rally the day before the election, Barak Obama told the crowd that “voting is the best revenge.” Really? What a strange thing to say. Now he’s got me worried about who he wants to take revenge on. Oh, I know: It’s all those “millionaires and billionaires” who aren’t paying their fair share. I guess we’d better get ready for the tax bite to cut a lot deeper.

A really expensive miss. Nobody has spent more money with less success to win a seat in the Senate than Linda McMahon, co-owner of WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.). According to reports, the wrestling magnate dumped close to $100 million of her own money into her two campaigns for a Senate seat in Connecticut. This past Tuesday, Christopher S. Murphy handily defeated McMahon in the race for the seat being vacated by the retiring officeholder, Joe Lieberman.

So much for the Redskins Rule. No, I’m not talking about victories on the field by the NFL football team, but an interesting series of coincidences. If the Redskins won a home game before a national election, the Democrats won the Presidency. While if the team lost, so did the Democrats. According to the theory, the Redskins’ loss to the Carolina Panthers on Sunday meant that Barack Obama would lose, too. To the dismay of some 60 million Republicans, that turned out not to be true. Another theory goes down the drain.

A little political propaganda here. On Monday, the day before the election, CNNMoney’s article “Election 2012: What about the poor?” left no doubt what it meant: “One wants to strengthen the nation’s existing safety net. The other wants to overhaul it. President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney have vastly different views on how to help the 46.2 million Americans in poverty.” What the story doesn’t say, of course, is that Romney does his charity privately and personally, while Obama wants to force all taxpayers to “do the right thing.” What about the likelihood that the poor’s fate rests more with themselves than with any politician? Of course, that possibility is not mentioned at all.

–Chip Wood

These Senate Contests Are Crucial, Too

With all of the focus on the race for the White House, let’s not forget about some other crucial elections on Tuesday. It looks like the Republicans are a lock to retain control of the House. That’s encouraging, since the Constitution requires that all spending bills originate there. If the House won’t approve it, the President can’t spend it (not that this has had much impact on the big spenders in Washington in the past).

One of the blessings we got after the midterm elections in 2010 was that Nancy Pelosi was no longer the Speaker of the House of Representatives. One of the biggest disappointments was that Harry Reid retained his incredibly powerful post as Majority Leader of the Senate. He has used that position to keep every piece of reform legislation approved in the House from coming to a vote.

All of that could change on Tuesday — assuming the Republicans can win four more seats in the Senate than they hold now. Remember, unless there is a conservative majority in the Senate, there is not a chance that Obamacare will be repealed, that the bailouts will end, that any entitlements will be reformed, that the budget will be balanced or that the deficit will be reduced — even if Mitt Romney occupies the White House.

As Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out in an advertisement, “A president can campaign on good policies, but he doesn’t write the bills. As long as liberals are in charge of writing legislation, it will be difficult for a Republican president to sign the right bills into law.”

If Romney does enjoy the landslide victory that my colleague Wayne Allen Root has been predicting for months, the tide should be strong enough to carry a bunch of Republican Senatorial candidates to victory. That is far from a sure thing, however, so I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

I did uncross them long enough to send some support to several candidates I thought deserved it and a couple of organizations that have been doing good work in some key elections. Two of my favorites in this category are Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund.

Here’s a look at some of the most important Senate races I’ll be watching the closest next week:

One victory we’re sure to be celebrating is Ted Cruz as the new junior Senator from Texas. The polls there are predicting that the Tea Party favorite will defeat his liberal opponent, Paul Sadler, by a huge margin. Texas has become one of the reddest of the red States in recent years — something that must have Lyndon B. Johnson spinning in his grave. The key to victory for Cruz was winning the Republican primary, where he enjoyed a come-from-behind victory over an establishment Republican.

Nebraska is another State that’s looking pretty good for conservatives. This where a political upstart, Deb Fischer, shot to the front of the pack in the Republican primary after she received a powerful endorsement from Sarah Palin. So much for all of the mudslinging that the 2008 Vice Presidential nominee and former Alaskan Governor doesn’t have any influence anymore in the Lower 48. Fischer’s opponent is Bob Kerry, a former Senator who moved to New York City after losing his seat in 2001. Kerry has a well-financed campaign and is running some nasty attack ads against Fisher. But so far, the polls say she has a comfortable lead over the liberal carpetbagger.

Things also look good in Arizona, where the latest Rasmussen poll says conservative Congressman Jeff Flake enjoys a six-point lead over his liberal opponent, Richard Carmona. The Democratic Senatorial Committee and Majority PAC, a political action committee linked to Reid, are pouring millions of dollars into this race and are running some incredibly dishonest ads. One doozy shows Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl appearing to endorse Carmona — without mentioning that the comments are from when he was up for appointment as surgeon general. Both men have endorsed Flake in the current election and have complained loudly about the misuse of their remarks. Here’s hoping that the deceitful strategy fails as badly as the Barack Obama campaign’s efforts to demonize Romney and Paul Ryan.

Things are neck and neck in Indiana between the Republican nominee, Richard Mourdock, and his Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly. Mourdock is the guy who knocked off a RINO icon, Dick Lugar, in the primary there. Hopefully, Romney will win the State’s 11 electoral votes by a wide margin and his success will help carry Mourdock to victory.

A lot of political prognosticators say that Ohio is the most important battleground State of all. “Whoever wins Ohio wins the Presidency” is the popular sentiment. I disagree. With enough Republican victories in other States, it’s mathematically possible for Romney to lose the popular vote and still win the White House. Still, a Republican victory in the Buckeye State will make things much, much easier. And it would also help conservative challenger Josh Mandel defeat the liberal incumbent, Sherrod Brown, in the Senate race there. If the Republicans are going to gain a majority in the Senate, it’s crucial to win this one.

Virginia is another key battleground State, both for the Presidency and for the Senate. As I write this, the Rasmussen poll indicates conservative challenger George Allen is trailing his liberal opponent, Tim Kaine, by just one point. That’s well within the margin of error and makes the State too close to call, the pollsters say. I’ll go out on a limb and predict that Romney and Allen will both emerge as winners here.

A few months ago, I would not have included Pennsylvania in a “conservatives can win this” column. But even the Democrats acknowledge that there has been a huge surge for Romney in recent weeks. The rising Republican tide has also lifted the prospects of conservative challenger Tom Smith, who is running against liberal incumbent Bob Casey for the Senate seat there. Both sides and the super PACS are spending a fortune in the State. A Republican victory is pretty important, if not crucial, to win the White House and gain a majority in the Senate.

So there are seven Senate races I’ll be watching very closely next week. Conservatives have a very good chance to chalk up victories in all of them. If they do, I will be proud to have played some small part in making it happen.

I’m not nearly as optimistic about the outcome in Florida, where I currently live, or in Massachusetts, where I lived many years ago. It will be a cinch for Obama to carry the Bay State by a wide margin. And the Democratic victory there will probably be enough to enable that faux Indian, Elizabeth Warren, to take the Senate seat away from Scott Brown. Ah well, it was nice to see Ted Kennedy’s seat in Republican hands for a while.

I’m pretty sure the Romney/Ryan ticket will carry the day in Florida. There won’t even be enough hanging chads to fight over. But that doesn’t mean that Connie Mack will be able to move up from the House to the Senate. Right now, it appears that Bill Nelson, the Democrat incumbent, will win re-election by a narrow margin.

When all the results are known, I suspect we will be celebrating a wonderful early Christmas present when it’s confirmed that Reid will no longer be the Majority Leader of the Senate. That means he will no longer be able to prevent votes being taken on all of the good legislation (and even some of the not-so-good stuff) I expect to see passed in the House of Representatives.

That’s my take on some of the other crucial elections coming up Tuesday. If I’ve missed one that you think is important, please take a moment to click on the “comment” key below and tell us about it.

Next week, we’ll talk about what happened on Tuesday and what it means for our country. Until then, keep your hopes up — and some powder dry.

–Chip Wood       

Dictators For Obama

With friends like these… What do Russia’s near dictator Vladimir Putin, Cuba’s actual dictator Raul Castro and Venezuela’s almost dictator Hugo Chavez have in common? All of them have indicated that they want to see Barack Obama win his re-election bid. Somehow, I don’t think we’ll be seeing any of these endorsements in an Obama campaign ad this year, do you?

Wait, is that a political ad? I’m still scratching my head over a very suggestive television ad the Barack Obama campaign has been using. This one features a young woman comparing voting for Obama to having sex. I’m not kidding. “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” she says. “You want to do it with a great guy.” The star of the ad is Lena Dunham, creator of the HBO series “Girls,” who boasts in the commercial, “I voted for Barack Obama.” And this is supposed to help the President gain more female votes?

USA Today gets it backward. The Oct. 24 headline had it exactly wrong: “Chick-fil-A thrives despite gay rights controversy.” No, fellows, it isn’t despite the outcry against the chain by the gay-rights brigade that business for the chicken-sandwich purveyor has increased sharply. It was because of it and because thousands of new customers liked what Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy said in defense of traditional marriage.

Happy birthday, Tarzan. One hundred years ago, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ most famous character, Tarzan, first appeared in print. But it was not until 1932, when Johnny Weissmuller starred in “Tarzan the Ape Man,” that we got to hear Tarzan’s legendary yell. Tarzan has delighted generations of armchair adventurers who followed his exploits in scores of books, dozens of movies, a series of comic books and even a Broadway play.

–Chip Wood   

More For Less

This puts it in a nutshell. From a recent column by Ann Coulter: “Since Obama has been president, everything you own — your home, pension, savings accounts, weekly paychecks — are all worth less. Meanwhile, everything you need — gas, food and anything else that requires fuel to be transported to you — costs more.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Gee, just like the government. There’s a report out of Washington that the Barack Obama campaign has taken out a $15 million loan from Bank of America to finance some last-minute advertising against Mitt Romney. According to the story, the loan comes due on Nov. 14 — eight days after the election. Wonder who will pay it if he loses?

One less thing to worry about. Have you heard the rumor that Harry Reid will try to jam the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty through the Senate during a lame duck session in November? Apparently, it’s not going to happen. Two of my favorite Senators, Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), have gotten 35 other Senators to sign a letter promising to oppose any such efforts. Since a treaty requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate, this should be enough opposition to block ratification this year. But don’t relax; as you know, the left never gives up.

How much would George’s house fetch? The Wall Street Journal asked an appraiser to estimate the value of some historic properties. Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, and its land were valued at $106.4 million. Mount Vernon, where George Washington lived, was appraised at $150.2 million. And hold onto your hats: The appraiser said the White House and its 18.8 acres are worth a staggering $1,457,736,190. By the way, none of these estimates include anything for the “historical significance” of the properties, since the appraiser said those numbers would be impossible to determine.

–Chip Wood 


What Foreign Policy Debate?

Phew! Aren’t you glad that the Presidential debates are finally over? Don’t you wish that all the political ads, phone calls and emails were as well? Is it just me or has the political season seemed extra-long this year — and extra-nasty, too?

The final debate last Monday turned out to be far different from what I expected. I was surprised that it was Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, who was cool, calm and collected. While it was Barack Obama, the Democratic incumbent, who came across as the feisty street fighter, throwing all sorts of punches (a few of them below the belt).

Remember, Obama was supposed to have a huge advantage in this go-round, just because he is a sitting President and Commander in Chief. Instead, he came across as a snarling and snarky underdog — albeit one who was certainly well-prepared.

More on that in a bit. But first, I want to comment on the biggest surprise of the evening: how lightly Romney let Obama off the hook. I thought there would be a huge outcry over the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the fact that the Administration tried to disguise what really happened there. Indeed, Bob Schieffer, the moderator that night, must have expected the same thing, since this was the very first question that he asked.

Two days before the debate, I told a group of friends that I hoped when the subject came up, Romney would look directly into the camera and say something like: “When I am President, I promise the American people that I will never allow my press secretary, my ambassador to the U.N. or anyone in my Administration to mislead the public as happened after the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”

That sure would have gotten the fur flying. Apparently, Romney decided that it was more important for him to “act Presidential” during the debate than to go for the jugular. Aside from one remark about an “apology” tour, I thought he was surprisingly gentle and restrained in his criticisms of Obama.

But all of that is really just an introduction to my main point today: It’s hard to have a meaningful debate about foreign policy when the two candidates agree with each other about 99 percent of the time. Let’s face it, folks: Both Romney and Obama are members in good standing of the establishment’s foreign-relations club. They both believe in an interventionist policy; their only disagreements are in relatively minor details.

Both supported sending our troops to Afghanistan. Both endorsed a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Both insisted that the Afghans had to take responsibility for defending their own country.

But how about subjecting Germany to the same standard? Or Japan? Or Great Britain? Or any of the hundred-plus other countries around the globe where U.S. troops are stationed? How about insisting that some of these countries begin providing for their own self-defense? (Or maybe argue about Donald Trump’s suggestion that we at least bill them for our services.)

Foreign aid? They’re both in favor of it, with just minor disagreements between them. Our membership in the United Nations and its various regional subsidiaries? Nothing to argue about there, folks.

The whole “there’s nothing to debate here” attitude made me wish that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, had been on the stage Monday night. Or even better, that Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, would have meant a real foreign policy debate.

Remember when George Wallace used to argue there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties? Well, when it comes to an internationalist foreign policy, you can knock eight pennies off the total. Today, there isn’t 2 cents’ worth.

So does it really make any difference who gets elected on Nov. 6? Yes, I believe it does. Let me tell you why.

I believe that the biggest issue of this election — in fact, the single biggest issue of my lifetime — is the growing power and cost of government. Here in the United States, we’ve allowed the Federal government to become dangerously large and inefficient. (Thank goodness we don’t get all the government we pay for.)

Now, I don’t expect Romney and Paul Ryan to lead a crusade to bring back Constitutional government. In fact, I think it is likely that the Federal government will be bigger and more expensive when they leave office than it will be at the beginning of their term. That’s what happened during Ronald Reagan’s two terms, and Romney is no Reagan.

So, no, I don’t expect miracles if Romney wins. But I know what will happen if he loses. Obama has already made it clear that his big-government redistributionist schemes will go into overdrive. The Barack Obama who campaigned as a moderate will not be the same person who takes the oath of office in January (an oath to “preserve and protect” the Constitution that he has no intention of keeping).

If Obama wins, it will be Katy-bar-the-door time, folks.

Yes, it will definitely slow him down if he has to contend with a Republican majority in the House. It will be even better if Republicans win control of the Senate. But, frankly, the President won’t even need new legislation from Congress for much of what he wants to do. A lot of the increases are built into existing law.

And where he can’t get Congress to go along, he’s shown that he’s perfectly willing to appoint unConstitutional czars (he has 23 of them so far) and issue new executive decrees to achieve his aims.

So, yes, this election matters — maybe more than any other contest in my lifetime. Not because Romney is the greatest champion we could have; I hope I’ve made it pretty clear that I don’t think he is.

But he’s sure a lot better than the alternative. If you can’t vote for Romney with enthusiasm, then do what a neighbor of mine says he’s going to do: Hold your nose when you cast your ballot.

In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, a group of likely voters was asked, “How much difference [will] the election make to you?” In 1996, only 21 percent said “a great deal.” By 2004, that number had increased to 45 percent. But this year, a clear majority of 55 percent answered “a great deal.”

I think they’re right. And that’s why this year, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Romney. I hope you will, too.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Watch This Before The Election

Powerful movie now available on DVD. Did you get to see “2016 Obama’s America” while it was playing in local movie theaters? In case you missed it or if you would like a copy so you can show it to friends, I’m happy to report that it’s now available on DVD. The list price is $19.99, but it’s available on for half that amount.

Another green boondoggle. One of Mitt Romney’s better lines in the first Presidential debate was about the Barack Obama Administration’s green energy subsidies: “I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?” Add another one to the sad tally. When A123 Systems was awarded a $249 million grant in 2009 (it received $132 million of it), the battery maker expected to build two plants in Michigan and create 3,000 jobs. It didn’t quite work out that way. On Tuesday, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

How dare they! Mia Love is a black woman running for Congress in Utah. Since she’s a conservative Republican and not a liberal Democrat, she’s being deluged with hate mail and vicious emails. Stacey Dash, a black actress in Hollywood, dared to send out a tweet endorsing Mitt Romney for President. Suddenly she’s being denounced as “an indoor slave” and “jigaboo” who is “slutting [herself] to the white man.” Isn’t it amazing how intolerant the preachers of tolerance can be?

Another trillion-dollar deficit. The Treasury Department just confirmed what we all knew was going to happen: Barack Obama ran up a more than $1 trillion deficit for the fourth consecutive year. The deficit for fiscal year 2012 is down $207 billion from last year, but still hit a staggering $1.1 trillion. In February 2009, Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half. According to USA Today, he failed to do that. “The federal deficit has fallen slightly on Obama’s watch, but he fell far short of cutting it in half,” the newspaper reported.

–Chip Wood

Our Posturing, Prevaricating President

That sure was a different Barack Obama we saw in Tuesday night’s debate, wasn’t it? We were promised aggressive, and we sure got that. Many commentators are calling it the most confrontational Presidential debate ever. The lead story in The New York Times the next morning carried the headline “Rivals Bring Bare Fists to Rematch.”

While no one actually struck a blow that night, neither Mitt Romney nor Obama hesitated to challenge each other verbally — and sometimes physically. This was the most “in your face” Presidential debate I’ve ever seen.

Unlike the first debate, Obama had clearly done his homework this time. He was primed and prepared, rattling off one assertion after another. But while what we did get from him was aggressiveness, what we didn’t get was candor. The Obama who took the stage Tuesday night bore no resemblance to the big-spending liberal we’ve known (and opposed) for the past four years. In fact, anyone who didn’t know better could be forgiven for thinking he was the more conservative candidate up there.

Do you think I’m crazy? Consider some of the things Obama actually said that night:

  • He declared himself a fervent admirer of the free enterprise system.
  • On a question about gun control, he voiced his strong support for the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees our right to keep and bear arms.
  • He claimed to have done more to encourage drilling for oil and gas on government land than George Bush, whom he described as “an oil man.”

Where was the President who has increased government spending so much that we’ve run trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year that he’s been in office? Where was the man who caused the national debt to explode from $10 trillion to more than $16 trillion? Where was the leader who’s presided over massive unemployment, soaring numbers of food-stamp recipients and billions of dollars in new entitlement spending? That guy was nowhere to be seen.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. The real Obama sure wasn’t on stage at Hofstra University Tuesday night. If the recent debate had been my first exposure to the Obama record, I might have concluded the guy is a conservative — or at least a whole lot less liberal than his record proves him to be.

Ah, well, we’ve just got to hope that enough voters will remember what his Administration has actually done over the past four years, rather than how his handlers are positioning him now, when they vote on Nov. 6.

The talking heads on TV will be parsing what each candidate said (or didn’t say) virtually nonstop until they have something new to quibble about. And that is sure to happen four nights from now, when Obama and Romney meet in the third and final Presidential debate. That one will be devoted to foreign policy. And here is where I think our President is in really deep doodoo.

The Obama Administration has been deliberately deceptive with the American people about what happened at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. The official “line” — repeated ad nauseam by White House spokesman Jim Carney; our ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice; and even the President himself, in his address to the U.N. General Assembly — was that the assault on our consulate and the subsequent murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans grew out of a “spontaneous demonstration” against an anti-Muslim video on YouTube.

In Enough Lies About The Attack In Libya!, I wrote how ridiculous the assertions were. But for nearly two weeks, the Obama Administration stuck to that fairy tale and bitterly attacked anyone who dared to challenge it. The main target for the vituperation, of course, was the Republican challenger.

Now we know the truth. There was no demonstration and not a single protester. The attack on our consulate was a planned terrorist assault by a group with links to al-Qaida, armed with hand-held rockets and grenade launchers. The president of Libya confirmed what happened days before our own government finally began telling the truth about what really happened.

All of that is enough to give Obama’s campaign team a severe migraine. But now the campaign has something else to deal with: the president’s incredibly deceptive comments in Tuesday’s debate about his own remarks.

Obama claimed that the day after the murders in Libya, he called the assault a terrorist attack. And the debate moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, supported his assertion.

But it isn’t true. If you listen to Obama’s complete statement in the Rose Garden that afternoon, you will realize that he never called the attack in Benghazi a terrorist attack. He refers to it as an “outrage” and an “assault.” But he doesn’t use the word “terrorism” until the very end of his remarks, when he says that “no acts of terrorism” will lessen our resolve.

The truth is: Obama didn’t say what he claimed he said. Moreover, none of his spokesmen or spokeswomen did either for almost two weeks after the murders. As more and more Americans realize just how duplicitous our government has been, it’s going to be very hard for the Obama team to bluff and bluster its way past this one. Look for it to be one of the hottest topics Monday night.

I can’t end this column without saying a few words about the Vice Presidential debate, where Joe Biden set a record for ill-mannered and boorish behavior. Yes, his smirks and grins and constant interruptions were incredibly annoying.

But even worse than how he acted was what he said. Time after time, he’d lay a whopper on us while pointing his finger and angrily declaring, “This is a fact.”  And time after time, the moderator let him get away with it.

Biden claimed that the reason for the Administration’s misstatements about events in Libya was that the information it received from the intelligence community was wrong. That may have been true for a few hours. But we now know that less than 24 hours after Stevens’ death, Washington had been notified that there had been no demonstration outside our consulate in Benghazi and that his murder was the result of a planned attack.

Yet for another week, various White House spokesmen and spokeswomen and the President himself continued to blame angry crowds and an inflammatory video for what happened.

That isn’t true. We know it isn’t true. And we deserve to know why our government tried so hard to foist this falsehood off on us.

So far, all we’ve gotten is deception and obfuscation. I don’t believe this will still be the case after Monday’s debate. So stay tuned; there’s a lot more to come. And the result could go a long way to determining who sits in the White House in January.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

The Enthusiasm Gap

How many of these voters will stay home? Here’s a worrisome fact for Barack Obama supporters: There’s a tremendous decline in voters who express “high interest” in the election. The drops are the greatest in Hispanics and young voters (ages 18 to 34) — two groups that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. Meanwhile, one group whose “high interest” numbers have risen is Christian evangelicals — a segment that is expected to vote heavily for the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket.

Wall Street switches sides. A new study from the Center for Responsive Politics shows an amazing shift in support by employees of major banks in this year’s Presidential election. Contributions to Barack Obama from people at Goldman Sachs are down 85 percent compared to 2008. Gifts from staff at Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase are way down, too. Meanwhile, a lot of questions are being raised about donations from foreign sources, one area where Obama contributions have soared. Some critics charge the donations are very suspicious (and unverifiable).

Yet another Biden gaffe. I had to finish this column before last night’s Vice Presidential debate, so I don’t know if Joe Biden committed another of the gaffes for which he has become notorious. But he sure pulled a beauty last week, when he said “yes, we do,” in response to Republican charges that he and Obama want to raise taxes by $1 trillion (but only on the “super-rich,” of course). Biden insisted: “That’s not a tax raise. That’s called fairness where I come from.”

–Chip Wood

Could Big Bird Decide This Year’s Election?

Is it remotely possible that the 2012 Presidential election will be decided by an 8-foot tall, bright-yellow bird?

I know it sounds ridiculous. But the liberal cognoscenti in this country are going absolutely gaga over Mitt Romney’s promise during last week’s Presidential debate that he would end government funding of the Public Broadcasting System. Oh, the horror of it! Imagine: no more “Sesame Street” to entertain the little tykes.

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien said, “… my son was devastated when he heard that Big Bird might be killed.” And where did he get such an absurd idea? By any chance, was it from his momma?

The Barack Obama campaign was quick to seize on what it perceived as a major Republican gaffe. Within hours, it had a new commercial on the air with a narrator using his most menacing voice to warn, “Big, yellow, a menace to our economy. Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s ‘Sesame Street.’”

Romney’s remarks followed one of the most powerful points he made in the debate. He said that when he is President, he will use a very simple test to determine which government programs should be allowed to continue: “Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”

And then he said, in what appeared to be a spontaneous ad-lib but was probably carefully rehearsed: “I’m sorry, Jim [Lehrer], I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS.”

He added, almost regretfully: “I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

I thought it was a masterful moment. But liberals think Romney gave them a big club they can use to smack him upside the head. Actually, I suspect that the vast majority of wage-earning, taxpaying Americans who were watching the debate loved what Romney had to say.

By the way, don’t spend a second worrying about the future of Big Bird — or any other Sesame Street character, for that matter. The nonprofit organization that produces the show and owns the licensing rights to all of the characters in it is rolling in the dough. Sesame Workshop raked in a staggering $46.9 million last year for licensing rights.

In fiscal year 2011 financial statements, Sesame Workshop reported that it owned assets totaling $289 million, including some $29 million in cash and “cash equivalents” and $121 million in “investments.” Oh, and the total operating revenue last year of Sesame Workshop and its nonprofit and for-profit subsidiaries was $134 million.

Yet Obama thinks these folks need to be subsidized with some of your tax dollars. Give me a break. If one of Bain Capital’s businesses were doing this well and got this much government support, you know the Democrats would be screaming in outrage.

Tell your children and grandchildren not to worry about Big Bird or any of the other “Sesame Street” characters. They’re going to be just fine; I promise.

It doesn’t look as though Sesamegate is going to hurt the Romney campaign, either. The most recent post-debate polls show him to be doing better than his most ardent supporters hoped.

An Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll found that Americans believe Romney won the first debate by a margin of 72 percent to 20 percent. That is the largest margin in Gallup history. The previous record was set in 1992, when Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush by 42 percentage points.

Prior to the debate, Gallop showed Obama leading Romney nationally by 5 percentage points. Now, Gallop reports the race is tied at 47 percent to 47 percent.

The Pew Research Center reported an even bigger swing. In mid-September, Pew reported that among likely voters Obama was ahead of Romney by 8 percentage points. Pew says Romney now leads by 4 percentage points, 49 percent to 45 percent, among likely voters.

I’d love to see a left-right debate about subsidizing Big Bird. Wouldn’t you? It’s pretty obvious to me that “Sesame Street” is proof of what we’ve said all along: The free market works. It’s made Big Bird’s company worth tens of millions of dollars.

At the heart of this debate is one simple truism: The liberal elites demand we all fund public broadcasting because they are convinced that they know better than we do what is good for us.

Isn’t that really what it’s all about? They are afraid that if we’re allowed to keep more of our own money and spend it the way we want, government won’t have enough money to fund all of their pet programs.

Heck, Uncle Sam is already borrowing 30 cents of every dollar he spends, which is how we’ve racked up a national debt of more than $16 trillion.

Meanwhile, the free market pours tens of millions of dollars into Sesame Workshop every year. Talk about a dramatic difference!

So by all means, let the debate continue. I don’t have any doubt which side will win this one.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Enough Lies About The Attack In Libya!

In the past three weeks, there have been riots and demonstrations against the United States in many Muslim countries. In Egypt, our embassy grounds were stormed, the U.S. flag was torn down and burned, and an Islamic flag was erected in its place. The worst assault was in Benghazi, Libya, where terrorists rampaged through our consulate and murdered our ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.

We’ve been told over and over again by our leaders that it all happened because of Islamic outrage over a 14-minute video clip that appeared on YouTube.

What a bunch of hogwash! The riots occurred because a bunch of murderous jihadists have been taught to hate the United States. They call us “the Great Satan” and blame us for virtually everything that’s gone wrong in the world for the past 100 years. They’re willing to wage war by any means, including turning women and infants into suicide bombers, to kill us.

Used to be, our government could be counted on to defend our people and our policies — with force, if necessary. Sadly, this is not the case anymore. Ever since he took office, Barack Obama’s policy has been one of apology and accommodation. No wonder these murderous extremists believe they can attack us with impunity.

Shortly after the world learned about the events that transpired this past Sept. 11 (does anyone anywhere think the date was just a coincidence?), the Obama Administration went into overdrive to blame what had happened on a video clip that (a) had been around for weeks and (b) almost no one had ever seen.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, quickly emerged as the Administration’s chief spokesman on network TV. Her message was the same everywhere she went: “It began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.”

Of course, we know now that the attack in Benghazi was anything but spontaneous. But that’s the spin the Administration kept trying to put on that horrendous affair.

White House Press Secretary Jim Carney was another one who played a major role in the “deflect the blame” game. He told assembled reporters, “I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet.”

Nearly two weeks after the deadly attacks, Obama traveled to New York City to address the U.N. General Assembly. During his speech, he denounced the “crude and disgusting” video clip six times. But he didn’t mention “terrorism” or al-Qaida once.

But then, ever so slowly, the truth began to seep out. Not thanks to any of our leaders, heaven knows. No, one of the first people to use the word “terrorism” was Mohammed Magarief, the new leader of Libya. He called the assault “a pre-planned act of terrorism against American citizens.”

Magarief pointed out that the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades and mortars against our consulate — weapons that spontaneous mobs are very unlikely to possess. And he said the date of the attack — 11 years to the day since 9/11 — was not a coincidence, but a premeditated choice.

In an interview with NBC News, Magarief also pointed out that the trailer for the alleged movie had been online for months without leading to a single demonstration in the Mideast — or anywhere else, for that matter. The video had “nothing to do with this attack,” he declared.

Now we learn that Stevens had been worried for months about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi. In a notebook that was found in the ransacked consulate, he even wrote that he was on an al-Qaida hit list. Yet no special security measures were put in place to protect him or our consulate.

Finally, on Sept. 27, more than two weeks after Stevens’ murder, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged what had now become clear to anyone who was following the story: This was no spontaneous demonstration but a deliberate terrorist attack.

“I think, on the terrorist attack, I mean, as we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack,” Panetta said.

Carney also changed his tune: “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” But even then, Carney still tried to insist the attack “was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”

But if the fact this was a terrorist attack is now “obvious” and “self-evident,” let me ask you: Why did top officials in the Obama Administration, including Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, deliberately mislead the American people for the first two weeks after it happened?

Even now, our President tries to downplay the significance of what took place, saying merely that our foreign policy has suffered some “bumps in the road.” The foreign media have not been nearly as kind to the Administration as our own press has been. A headline in the German newspaper Der Spiegel put it bluntly: “Obama’s Middle East Policy Is In Ruins.”

That may be the view from Germany. But it’s certainly not how the press sees things — or explains things — here in the United States.

Can you imagine how the mainstream media in this country would have reacted if something like this had occurred while George Bush was in office? And if word had gotten out that the President was skipping most of his daily intelligence briefings so he could campaign for reelection in Las Vegas and Hollywood?

Actually, you don’t have to imagine. Just check how the media reacted to Mitt Romney’s comments about the mealy mouthed statement that was originally issued by our embassy in Egypt. Even the State Department was forced to disown that one.

We already knew that the Obama Administration was a miserable failure at defending U.S. interests abroad. Now it turns out that it won’t even tell us the truth when we’re attacked.

History teaches us over and over again that weakness only invites more aggression. There’s no way Obama and his team will learn this lesson. Hopefully, in another month, the voters will decide to replace them — and a whole bunch of Senators and Representatives, too.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Feds Faked Out

HUD pays a fortune in false claims. The government’s Preforeclosure Sale Program was meant to help struggling homeowners facing foreclosure. But an audit by the Department of Housing and Urban Development says that the government may have paid as much as $1.06 billion in bogus claims. Of 80 randomly selected claims, six homeowners who received government assistance faced “no unavoidable financial hardship,” the audit found. Many had enough savings to make several months of mortgage payments. Investigators have called for HUD to strengthen its controls over the program. Right; let’s put a good lock on that barn door, fellows.

A lot more paper than gold. Here’s a statistic that gave me pause. The Federal Reserve creates about 55 million more dollars every hour, 24 hours a day. But all of the gold mines in the world extract only $15 million of gold from the earth in an hour. U.S. production is a fraction of that, amounting to only $2 million worth of gold per hour. In other words, Ben Bernanke creates what passes as “money” 27 times faster than all of the gold mines in this country. Gee, which do you think will be worth more down the road?

Those models are too tan. In Sweden, fashion retailer H&M has been fined because the models it used in advertising some of its bikinis were too tan. “It is commonly known that an excessive exposure of the skin to the sun’s harmful radiation is dangerous and could lead to skin cancer,” the complaint said. H&M promptly apologized and said in an email: “We have taken note of the views and will continue to discuss this internally ahead of future campaigns.”

–Chip Wood     

Helicopter Ben Strikes Again

I did a double take when I saw the story on For a moment, I thought I had clicked on the Personal Liberty website instead — something I do with great frequency. Here’s what the subhead read:

“Central banks are printing money like crazy. And inflation is gold’s best friend.”

Not much to disagree with, is there? Knowing about CNN’s liberal bias, you won’t be surprised to learn that the actual headline wasn’t nearly as kind to those of us who skew slightly to the right. It read: “Not just for lunatics.”

So while you and I (and our fellow gold bugs) might be crazy as loons, our ranks are growing every day. Welcome, former middle-of-the-roaders!

If you’re not concerned about what the money masters in Washington are doing to the U.S. dollar, you should be. It has been losing value virtually every day since the Federal Reserve was founded nearly 100 years ago. The reason why is as simple as Economics 101: When you produce more of something, the price, or value, of each individual unit goes down.

The Fed has been producing an awful lot of dollars in recent years. And Ben Bernanke, its chairman, just announced that the flood of fiat currency is about to get a whole lot worse.

At the conclusion of the Federal Open Market Committee meeting two weeks ago, the group issued an announcement that included the following:

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.”

In that Sept. 13 announcement, the committee made it clear what it meant by “highly accommodative.” It would launch a third round of quantitative easing, purchasing $40 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities every month for an indefinite period. This will be in addition to the $45 billion in Treasury bonds it is already committed to buying through Operation Twist.

How long will it last? Until “Helicopter Ben” and his buddies on the committee decide it’s no longer necessary. That could be a very long time, my friends. No wonder some pundits are referring to this third round of “quantitative easing” (Fed speak for “massive money creation”) not as QE3, but as QE Infinity.

Basically, the Fed has guaranteed that the money spigot will pour out half a trillion dollars more a year. In addition, the Fed also said that it would keep interest rates at “exceptionally low levels” by maintaining a target range for bank borrowing (the federal funds rate) of 0 to .25 percent. And it would do so, the statement said, “at least through mid-2015.”

Since Wall Street loves every short-term stimulus it sees, no matter the long-term effects on the economy, it came as no surprise the Dow Jones industrial average and Standard & Poor’s 500 index soared to their highest levels in five years after the Fed announcement. Gold and silver also rose, along with other traditional inflation hedges, such as real estate and other commodities. Not surprisingly, the U.S. dollar dropped in value.

The Rest Of The World Jumps On The Bandwagon

But it isn’t just our own central bank that has promised more stimulus. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, announced that the ECB would buy “unlimited” amounts of European sovereign debt, in an effort to keep stimulate the economies of Europe.

This follows a ruling by the German high court that the European Stability Mechanism does not violate the country’s constitution. The court did declare, however, that the German parliament must approve any further increases to the ESM. Currently, German is liable for about 27 percent of the 700 billion euro total, or 190 billion euros.

Last week, Japan joined the party. The Bank of Japan announced on Sept. 19 that it would expand its own stimulus program. It plans to increase the amount of debt it purchases from 70 trillion yen to about 80 trillion yen, a difference of $126 billion. It will continue its purchases throughout 2013. So Japan is also in the trillion-dollar stimulus club.

At the same time it announced its new stimulus program, the Bank of Japan also did away with its previous minimum bids for Japanese government bonds. Previously, the floor had been set at 0.1%. Under the new rules, the yield on Japanese bonds can go below zero. In other words, buyers at the end of the loan period could receive less money than they invested, making a negative return on their investment.

What’s an investor to do?

Porter Stansberry, one of my favorite analysts, warned that “the Bernanke Asset Bubble is now in full force.” Indeed, it is. In fact, there seems to be a globally coordinated plan among the world’s central bankers to “stimulate” their respective economies.

You and I may believe that the best way to do this is for government to get the heck out of the way. Let the free enterprise system do what it does so well: create new jobs and even whole new industries. Turn millions of people from tax recipients to taxpayers. And then see how a steadily improving economy can mean more prosperity for almost everyone. And, yes, even more income (taxes) for Uncle Sam.

Of course, a free and unfettered economy is the last thing the bureaucrats and money manipulators in Washington want us to have. No, their solution will continue to be the creation of a massive amount of new money and credit.

The inevitable effect will be a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar — and the euro and the yen, too. There will also be an increase in the prices of all sorts of assets, including stocks, housing and commodities.

But the biggest winner of all is likely to be gold — just as it has been for the past decade (for the past two millennia, in fact). Oh, and don’t forget its less-expensive sister, silver.

Both precious metals have come off of their all-time highs. And it’s possible they could even correct a bit further in the next few weeks.

But long term, there has never been a better way to protect the purchasing power of your savings than to exchange paper currencies for things of real and enduring value. And nothing does that job better than gold and silver.

Buy some today and some more tomorrow. When the tide of new money begins hitting, you’ll be very glad you did.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

Blaming Romney

Accuse them of what our side is doing. Guess what? The New York Times agrees that one of the candidates for President is trying to pit one class against another in this country. And it’s decided that the culprit is Mitt Romney. “There is class warfare being waged in the 2012 campaign,” the newspaper said in an editorial. “It is Mr. Romney who is waging it, not President Obama.” I guess that’s what can happen when an editorial writer reads only what appears in his own paper.

Facebook founder loses a fortune. According to the latest list of the Forbes 400, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was the biggest financial loser in the group in the past year. The magazine says his estimated net worth plunged $8.1 billion, thanks to the sharp decline in the value of his stock. He fell from No. 14 on the list to No. 36. But Zuckerberg shouldn’t run out of money anytime soon; according to Forbes, he’s still worth a rather hefty $9.4 billion.

The top spots stay the same. No surprise who occupies the top spot on the Forbes 400 list. For the 19th year in a row, it was Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates, with an estimated net worth of $66 billion. Warren Buffett again took second place, with $46 billion. And Oracle Corp. co-founder Larry Ellison remained third, with $41 billion. Twenty newcomers joined the list this year, including Shahid Khan, the flamboyant new owner of the NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars.

Pledging allegiance to whom? The Barack Obama campaign is urging supporters to write on the back of their hands why they support the President — and then take a photograph of themselves with their hand held over their heart and share it online. Talk about a cult of personality!

–Chip Wood

The Movie That Could Defeat Obama

We were running a little late when my wife and I headed to the movie theater last month to see the documentary “2016: Obama’s America.” But I told her not to worry, since there would be 10 to 15 minutes of commercials and previews before the show started.

“And besides, we’ll probably have our choice of seats,” I added. “No way will this one be full.”

Boy! Was I ever wrong! Even though it was a lovely Saturday afternoon, the theater was packed. And the sentiment of the crowd was more like a Tea Party rally than any movie audience I’d ever seen.

If you haven’t seen this explosive documentary, please make plans to do so.  Encourage all of your concerned family and friends to join you. Even better, take a few undecided voters with you — or even some liberals whose minds haven’t been sealed shut. The impact on them could be phenomenal.

“2016: Obama’s America” opened in mid-July in one movie theater in Houston. By August, it was playing on more than 1,200 screens across the country. This month it is showing in more than 2,000 theaters in all 50 States. And by this time next month, it should be available on DVD, so you’ll be able to see it at home and lend it to others.

The movie is based the bestselling book The Roots of Obama’s Rage by Dinesh D’Souza, who served as narrator and co-director of the film. I’ve had the pleasure of introducing Dinesh at several conferences, and I arranged an exclusive interview with him for Personal Liberty Digest™.

During our conversation, D’Souza told me that both liberals and conservatives make a big mistake when they think Barack Obama has failed to achieve his goals. High unemployment, crippling debt, a weak foreign policy and fading military power are not accidents, according to D’Souza. They are actually the results of the bigger objectives that Obama seeks: the decline of American prosperity and power in the world.

Of course, no politician in America could ever admit that those are his real goals. D’Souza said that as a result: “Obama has to camouflage what he wants to do. Now that he’s in campaign mode, he presents himself as a budget cutter, as a friend of Israel, and so on. He’s depending on the ignorance of the American people not to see through what he says.”

All that will change if Obama gets re-elected.

“In the second term, if he gets one, the real Obama will emerge. It will not be a pretty sight,” Dinesh told me.

I asked him to explain a warning he included near the end of his new book Obama’s America: Unmaking the American DreamObama's America: Unmaking the American Dream: “The most dangerous man in America currently lives in the White House.”

Dinesh said: “Obama is dangerous because he subscribes to an ideology that is very dangerous for America. He wants to knock this country off its pedestal so we are no longer #1. He wants to transfer wealth away from America to the rest of the world. And he wants to weaken our position in the world.”

Dinesh believes Obama’s liberal supporters would be shocked if they understood what is really driving our President. At the core of his worldview is a virulent anti-colonialism, with the United States as the chief culprit.

“America has more because America has stolen this wealth from others,” Dinesh said Obama believes. “And America must now pay it back.” In Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream, D’Souza explains what this means:

Many of Obama’s supporters rail against the top 1 percent, fancying themselves in the lowly 99 percent, and this may be true as far as they are concerned. But it is not true as far as Obama is concerned. When he talks about the 1 percent and the 99 percent, he is using a global basis of comparison. So by Obama’s measure, the vast majority of Americans are counted as rich.

Obama wants to take their wealth from them and give it to those who he believes deserve it.

“He’s doing this in the name of global justice,” D’Souza said. Obama will not consider his job finished until “the American standard of living is comparable to that of the rest of the world.” In other words, Obama thinks of this country as a plunderer and of himself as the messianic leader whose job is to “restore fairness.”

Interestingly enough, while they are polar opposites politically, D’Souza and Obama share many things in common. A native of Mumbai, India, Dinesh grew up in a different part of the world, just as Obama did. They both were born in the same year, attended Ivy League colleges, graduated in the same year and married in the same year.

But as D’Souza explains: “Here is the paradox: I am a Third World guy who has embraced America, and Obama is an American who has embraced a Third World ideology.”

D’Souza told me that he doesn’t consider the film a “don’t vote for this guy message,” rather it’s a “find out who he really is” message. Or, as the tagline to the movie puts it, “Love him or hate him, you don’t know him.”

Ultimately, D’Souza believes, “2016: Obama’s America” isn’t just about Obama. “It’s about the American dream itself,” he said. “The truth is that Obama has a different dream from most of us. It’s emblazoned across his book. As he says in the title, it’s the dream from his father.

“He’s entitled to have such a dream, if he wishes. But he is not entitled to impose that dream on the American people without their knowledge and consent.”

That’s really what the coming election is all about, isn’t it — our different visions for the future of our country. As D’Souza reveals, Obama believes he is destined to be “the architect of American decline.” He not only wants to see this country lose its superpower status, but he wants to “fundamentally transform” America so that the “shining city on the hill” becomes just another shantytown in the global village.

If you need one more reason to see “2016: Obama’s America,” consider this response from an Obama campaign official: “This movie is complete fiction and rooted in lies, distortions and conspiracy theories about the President, rather than facts.”

Considering how much is at stake, I hope you’ll make plans now to see “2016: Obama’s America” and take some friends with you.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

The Parties Should Foot The Bill

Those costly conventions. How big was the tab for U.S. taxpayers for the two political conventions that recently concluded? At least $136 million. That includes $18.2 million to help cover the costs of both the Republican and Democratic national conventions, plus another $50 million spent on security at each gathering. While this is a tiny fraction of overall Federal expenditures (and deficits), does anyone want to suggest that it should be the political parties themselves — not the taxpayers — who foot the bills for these lavish affairs?

A whistle-blower gets a big payoff. Bradley Birkenfeld, a former employee of Swiss banker UBS AG, has been awarded $104 million by the Internal Revenue Service — the largest payout the agency has ever made to an individual whistle-blower. Birkenfeld previously pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and received a 40-month sentence. As a result of the case, UBS agreed to reveal the names of some 4,000 U.S. taxpayers with secret Swiss bank accounts and to pay $780 million to resolve a related criminal case.

A more accurate measure of inflation. Years ago, the British magazine The Economist created something it called the Big Mac index as an easy way to compare prices of a common product in various countries. It’s also a pretty good way to measure rising prices in the United States. In the past three years, the Federal government says the official rate of inflation has been 6.2 percent. But in the same period, the price of a Big Mac has gone up, on average, by some 17 percent — or almost three times what Uncle Sam’s statistics say. Is anyone surprised?

Jay Leno takes a pay cut. Comes word out of Hollywood that NBC slashed the budget for the “The Tonight Show” in an effort to keep the long-running program profitable. As part of the cuts, host Jay Leno agreed to take a 50 percent pay cut, enabling the network to cut the show’s $100 million budget by 20 percent. Don’t feel too sorry for the veteran star, however. He’ll still be raking in about $15 million a year.

–Chip Wood

Will Democrats Booing God Cost Obama The Election?

What a weird Democratic National Convention! The two most popular speakers by far — Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton — aren’t running for office. And the man who is supposed to be the Master Orator of the 21st Century, Barack Obama, gave one of the flattest, most disappointing talks of his career.

More on that in a moment. First, I’ll discuss what had to be the strangest moment of a very strange convention: The bungled effort to change the Democratic Party platform after it had been approved.

It all began when the people framing the party platform decided to delete all references to God. If allowed to stand, it would have marked the first time the Creator was not acknowledged in the platform of either major political party.

When the omission sparked a ton of media comments and Republican criticism, word came down from high — no, not heaven, but the Obama White House — that the platform had to be amended — immediately.



Antonio Villaraigosa, the Mayor of Los Angeles, was serving as chairman of the convention when the effort was made to put God back in the platform. He read the new language, then called for a voice vote to approve it. He told the assembled delegates that the change had to be approved by a two-thirds majority.

When he called for the “ayes” and “nays,” he and the assembled multitude got quite a shock. The “ayes” didn’t get anywhere near the two-thirds approval necessary. Many commentators who were there in person thought that the “nays” actually got more votes.

Then Villaraigosa did something that was really stupid. He called for a second voice vote. The same thing happened again. If anything, the “nays” were even louder. Then the poor guy called for a third vote. The shouting got even more boisterous, but the results were the same. If the “nays” weren’t a majority, they sure kept the “ayes” from a two-thirds approval.

At that point, Villaraigosa looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Not knowing what else to do, he declared that the measure had passed, thanked the delegates and banged his gavel.

Officially, God is now in the Democratic platform. But, in fact, His presence there was roundly booed by a heck of a lot of Democrats at their national convention. If the Republicans don’t remind potential voters about this a few hundred times between now and the elections, they’re making a huge mistake.

Political conventions are supposed to be more carefully scripted than a big-budget movie. Every speech is vetted several times (unless you’re Clinton or Clint Eastwood). Every moment is carefully planned — especially those in the prime-time hours on national TV.

So what the heck happened in Charlotte, N.C.? It’s hard to tell who screwed up, but somebody did — big time.

By the way, this wasn’t the only misstep at the Democrats’ gathering. There was another lulu on opening night, when a Hollywood-style video greeted delegates with the news that “government is the only thing we all belong to.” Republicans immediately countered by pointing out that we don’t belong to government; government belongs to us (in theory, at least).

Clinton and Michelle Obama helped the Democrats recover a lot of ground. Although I’m not sure Clinton did the President a favor when he reminded delegates that nobody could have kept all of the promises Obama made four years ago. But no matter; the party faithful love the guy. I’m sure many of them regret he couldn’t duplicate Franklin D. Roosevelt’s record and run for third and fourth terms.

Finally, we got to Thursday night, when it was time for Barack Obama to take center stage. Many people expected him to be as impassioned and inspiring as he was four years ago. By all accounts, he failed decisively. Former Ronald Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan described his speech as “stale and empty.” FOX News commentator Charles Krauthammer agreed, saying it was “one of the emptiest speeches I have ever heard on a national stage.”

But the criticism didn’t come only from the right. Liberal columnist Michael Tomasky, writing in the left-wing Daily Beast, called the President’s speech “dull and pedestrian… with nary an interesting thematic device, policy detail, or even one turn of phrase.” Many of the Democratic commentators on television agreed afterward that the President’s speech left a gigantic “enthusiasm deficit.” Some even admitted that Joe Biden gave a better speech.

So what happens now? If the Republicans are smart, videos of all those angry faces booing God will become as commonplace as Obama’s insulting comment to entrepreneurs that “you didn’t build that.”

Sure, the economy will remain the No. 1 issue in voters’ minds (as it should be). But a heck of a lot of voters cares about values, too. A substantial majority does not like the idea of putting no limits on abortions, demanding that voters pay for them and not notifying parents when a daughter who is a minor wants one.

And in virtually every State where it’s been put on the ballot, including the People’s Republic of California, a majority of voters has declared that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Make the election about these issues and the Republicans should not only win the White House, they should also keep control of the House and regain a majority in the Senate.

I’m not foolish enough to believe that such electoral victories will lead easily or automatically to fiscal sanity in Washington or end the influence of the empire-builders who think the United States should be the police of the world. The Republicans in the past had a lot of gusto for both guns and butter. They can ladle out the pork just as eagerly as any Democrat.

But let’s never forget that our Founding Fathers wisely put the power of the purse in the House of Representatives. The Constitution insists that every spending bill originate there. If the House won’t approve it, the President can’t spend it. Period.

Yes, there will be some tumultuous times before we finally get government back under control. But come this November, we have an opportunity to take some significant steps in the right direction. Let’s make sure we do so.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood

No Way To Get A Recovery

August’s dismal employment numbers. Many economists predicted that the August numbers would show 125,000 to 150,000 new jobs being created, but the official number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics came in at 96,000 new jobs. Plus, the numbers for June and July were revised downward by 41,000 jobs. Even worse, some 370,000 people left the workforce during the month. So for every person who got a job in August, four others stopped looking. That’s no way to get a recovery.

Clint Eastwood’s empty chair. Folks are still talking about Clint Eastwood’s remarkable talk at the Republican National Convention. Since then, the Hollywood megastar has expanded on his remarks, calling Barack Obama “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” In an interview with The Carmel Pine Cone, the former Carmel Mayor said: “I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for the people in the middle.” He concluded: “A lot of people are realizing they had the wool pulled over their eyes by Obama.”

Larry Flynt offers $1 million for Romney records. Pornography mogul Larry Flynt took out full-page ads in The Washington Post and USA Today offering to pay an “up to $1 million” bounty to anyone who could bring him the “unreleased tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts and business partnerships” of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Last year, Flynt offered $1 million for proof of infidelity by then-Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry. He didn’t get any takers then, either.

Conservatives donate more than liberals. Many thanks to columnist Thomas Sowell for reminding us of how generous conservatives are. They donate more money, on average, than liberals (even though their incomes tend to be smaller). They also donate far more time to philanthropic activities, and they even donate more blood. The only time liberals are more generous is with other people’s money — that is, your taxes.

–Chip Wood

IDs For Convention, But Not To Vote

A double standard for Democrats. While the President Barack Obama Administration wants to outlaw voter ID laws in State and national elections, they were perfectly OK with requiring them to vote at their own convention. In fact, they required two forms of identification before a delegate could even enter the hall in Charlotte. Anyone detect a little bit of hypocrisy here?

Another debt downgrade in Illinois. Despite recent tax increases on businesses and individuals, the red ink continues to flow in Illinois. The State’s budget deficit just hit a staggering $43 billion. Even worse is $83 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. As a result, Standard and Poor’s just downgraded its rating on Illinois’ bonds, giving them the worst credit rating of any State besides California. Looks like the boys back home have been inspired to copy the example their most illustrious politician has been setting in Washington.

How about a holiday honoring job creators? The most meaningless holiday in America has now ended. Do we really need a national holiday honoring “labor” anymore? Lawrence Reed, the president of the Foundation for Economic Education, points out that “Labor without capital looks like Haiti or North Korea: plenty of people working but doing it with sticks instead of bulldozers.” Maybe it’s time we started honoring the people who create jobs by starting or expanding a business.

Dems do an about face. Well, that didn’t last long. When controversy raged over the Democrats leaving God out of this year’s platform, they voted to put Him back in. Or did they? After taking three voice votes, it sure didn’t seem to most observers that the measure — allegedly ordered by the President himself — got the necessary two-thirds vote. No matter; it was declared approved.

–Chip Wood

The Obama Campaign’s Litany of Lies

Man, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Flacks for President Barack Obama are going absolutely ballistic at Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, denouncing them as liars and implying they are thieves, felons and even murderers.

And then they have the nerve to accuse Romney and Ryan of running a dirty campaign!

What’s even more disgusting is how their lapdogs in the mainstream media faithfully repeat every new accusation — while never coming within a country mile of holding Obama or Vice President Joe Biden to the same standard. It’s almost enough to make you think you’ve stumbled into a Will McAvoy rant on “The Newsroom.”

I’ll get to all the fuss and fury about Ryan’s auto-plant remarks in a moment. But first let me ask you, what do you think has been Obama’s biggest lie since he took office nearly four years ago?

There sure has been a bunch to choose from. Some were ridiculous, or at least extremely unlikely, when he made them. I’ll put his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo in this category. Or to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some were just plain impossible, such as his pledge that if Congress gave him $863 billion in stimulus spending, he would slash the Nation’s unemployment rate to 5.6 percent. He got every penny he asked for, and some extra goodies besides. Yet unemployment remains stuck above 8 percent. (If you add in the underemployed and people who are no longer counted because they’ve quit looking for work, the actual number is well over 15 percent.)

Or how about his promise, just after his election, to end the political rancor in this country? Remember when he said he would “heal the divides that have held back our progress”? That promise sure got tossed out the window when it came time for his re-election campaign, didn’t it? This one is shaping up to be one of the nastiest in memory.

Or how about the President’s promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term? Remember when he called George Bush’s deficits “obscene”? Barack Obama has run trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year since he took office, with no end in sight. He’s helped saddle our children, and our children’s children, with obligations they will never be able to repay.

I could go on and on, from his tax-the-rich schemes to his class warfare rhetoric. But of all the promises that Obama has broken, I think the biggest was the one he made when he was sworn in as President. I’m referring to his oath of office, in which he promised to “preserve, protect and defend” our Constitution.

I submit that had he kept that promise, none of the others would have mattered. In fact, most of them wouldn’t have been possible.

But of course the mainstream media never reminds you of any of Obama’s misstatements. And they all but ignore Biden’s numerous gaffes. Can you imagine what they’d do if any Republican said anything close to Biden’s “put you back in chains” comment? Well, actually, you don’t have to imagine; just check out what they did to Todd Akin for his “legitimate rape” comment.

Now, Ryan is catching a lot of flack for his speech last week at the Republican National Convention, especially his comments about a shuttered GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wis. Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for the Obama team, set the tone for much of the mainstream media when she leveled this accusation: “There’s no delicate way to put this, but he lied. He blatantly lied – and brazenly.”

No, he didn’t. Here is what Paul Ryan said:

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.’

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

Chris Matthews and the gang over at MSNBC attacked the VP nominee like rabid dogs for these remarks. You could almost see the foam dripping from their mouths. Anderson Cooper on CNN tried to be a little more subtle, but the slick-sounding sleezeball was just as nasty in his comments about this part of Ryan’s speech.

But despite all of the weeping and wailing from the sanctimonious liberals, and below-the-belt accusations by the likes of David Axelrod, what Ryan said that night was 100 percent accurate.

Please note: He did not say that Barack Obama caused the plant to close. Or even that he should have kept the plant open. No, what Ryan said — and what is completely and absolutely true — is that candidate Obama told a Janesville audience back in February 2008 that if they would help elect him, “this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

Well, maybe the plant will be — as a darkened, shuttered hulk. But there won’t be any jobs there.

By the way, when candidate Obama returned to Janesville in October 2008, he repeated his pledge. Here’s what he said then:

As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.

Of course that’s not what we got. Instead, the President “saved” GM and Chrysler. He did it by costing taxpayers $25 billion, screwing the bondholders out of every penny they were due and giving the autoworkers union a huge chunk of the company’s stock.

None of which produced a single job in Janesville, Wis.

I can’t wait to see if Biden says anything about all of this when he and Ryan meet in their televised debate. I hope we get a little more substance than we’ve seen so far, which has been the equivalent of a bunch of school kids chanting, “Liar, liar, pants on fire.”

It would actually be amusing — if the fate of our Republic weren’t at stake.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood