THE "BOYS" ARE TOUGH ON HIS WIFE?

Would someone please give us a big-time break here?

Bill Clinton had a few things to say yesterday in Charleston, S.C., about the treatment his "wife" has been getting from the other MoveOn Democrat candidates. He said "those boys have been getting tough on her lately."

Surely he can't be serious. He's actually complaining because these "boys," as he calls them, have been tough on Hillary? If I may be so intemperate as to ask a simple question, do you think that these "boys" have been tougher on Hillary than you have been?

You want to talk about being "rough" on your wife? Let's do a short review:

We'll start with a few names: Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Then there's Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones --- plus goodness knows how many more. These are just the names of some of the women Bill Clinton either assaulted or has had affairs with during his so-called "marriage" to Hillary.

So Bill calls it "getting rough" when Hillary's campaign opponents question her flip-flopping on the issue of driver's licenses for illegals, or make statements about Hillary's planted questions (see next item) during campaign stops. That is "getting rough" on the lady ... while having multiple affairs and being a serial sexual harasser – including at least one rape – is not? If putting your "wife" in charge of cleaning up after multiple affairs and assaults isn't "being rough on her," then what, pray tell, is?

The fact is that Hillary Clinton has been engaged in a fraud marriage for decades ... a marriage born out of a desire for political power rather than an endearing love and dedication. The problem here isn't that the "boys" are being rough on Hillary, or that Hillary and Bill are playing the gender card in this primary ... the problem is that we have a woman who has conspired with her husband to disgrace the institution of marriage trying to pass herself off as a loyal wife and dedicated mother in order to appeal to women to whom the institution of marriage actually means something.

The real question here is why various pundits and columnists don't step up and call the Clinton marriage what they and everybody else knows full well it is ... a fraud and a sham. When I give speeches I love to tell people that one of the greatest status symbols one can acquire in this country is a long-term marriage. You can't buy one, and you can't inherit one. You have to work for it ... day after day. There are times you'll want to quit; times you think things are looking grim. Stick to it, recommit yourself, and you'll get there. When I say this to an older group they invariably applaud. When I say it to a younger group (those students at the University of Georgia a week ago, for instance) they just sit there. That's fine. They'll learn.

It disgusts me that these two people continue to engage in this phony marriage of theirs while the media just plays along. The institution of marriage in this country is to be valued and defended, not made a mockery by two people engaged in a political alliance with a dedication to one, and only one thing ... power.

OBAMA AND THE 'FORTUNATE'

Barack Obama is also singing the tunes of many of his fellow MoveOn Democrats. It seems that to be a presidential candidate for 2008, you must support increased social security cap so that the evil rich pay their "fair share."

Obama says, "I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected." It's just a little bit more! And look at all the people we need to protect!

But it gets better. In reference to his buddy, Warren "tax me more" Buffet, Obama says, "I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need."

Those of you who have listened to me for any time at all will know that Obama just yanked one of my chains. Here he is promoting the leftist idea that anyone who succeeds in this country did so not because of hard work, but because they were "fortunate." They were lucky. It's not about sacrifice. It's not about work ethic. It's not about dedication. It's not about making smart choices. It's all about being lucky.

There's a reason for this language. If Democrats can convince you that the high achievers in our economy were merely "lucky," then it is so much easier to argue the cause of income redistribution. After all, they're just evening out the odds.

A TALE OF TWO COUPS

by Oliver North

It’s been a tough week for democracy and American diplomacy. In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf pulled a coup against himself and U.S. diplomats were apparently stunned. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez pulled a coup against his countrymen and U.S. diplomats were once again, well…stunned. The difference in political attention and media coverage accorded these two affairs has been -- for lack of a better word -- stunning.

Print and broadcast coverage of events nearly half the world away in Pakistan have been ubiquitous since Mr. Musharraf declared a “State of Emergency” and fired his self-appointed Supreme Court last Saturday. Photos and footage of protesting, out of work, Pakistani lawyers being dragged away in handcuffs by police in Islamabad have produced breathless coverage from correspondents who also freely reported that there is now no freedom of the press in Pakistan.

These images were apparently enough to give liberals in the U.S. Congress post traumatic stress disorder, causing a number of members to muse about cutting off economic, military and intelligence assistance -- and of course, blame George W. Bush. On Wednesday, while President Bush was giving French President Sarkozy a guided tour of Mount Vernon, Under Secretary of State John Negroponte was on Capitol Hill begging the solons not to pull the plug on Pakistan and abandon “an indispensable ally in the war on terror.”

Meanwhile, the potentates of the press and the powerful on the Potomac have all but ignored the coup in Caracas, just 1,400 miles south of Miami. Last week Venezuela’s rubber-stamp legislature approved 69 constitutional changes drafted by their party boss, Hugo Chavez. If affirmed by referendum on 2 December, the amendments would dramatically expand the powers of Venezuela’s chief executive, permit the government to seize private property without court approval, virtually eliminate civil liberties, and allow Mr. Chavez to serve -- like Kim Jung Il in North Korea -- as president for life. To make this “deal” attractive to the people, the Venezuelan work-day would be officially shortened to six hours.

On Wednesday this week, while Presidents Bush and Sarkozy toured George Washington’s gardens and Congress mulled the means of tightening the screws on Pakistan, more than 80,000 people took to the streets of Caracas to protest the Chavez coup. When students gathered on the campus of Central University and refused to disperse as ordered by police, the cops and National Guard troops pulled back allowing goons from Mr. Chavez’ United Socialist Party, many wearing ski masks, to open fire on the student gathering.

Despite numerous accounts of the Caracas clashes in the Latin American and European press -- even the BBC -- there has been scant coverage in the U.S. media -- and almost no mention of Chavez’ machinations by our diplomats. The protests in Pakistan -- including pitiful pictures of jailed lawyers -- have gotten almost as much ink and airtime in the U.S. as the Hollywood writer’s strike. President Bush even called Mr. Musharraf to tell him to “take off his uniform” and hold elections as promised. Yet, official Washington has been practically mute in criticizing Mr. Chavez. Why the difference?

Part of the answer is, of course, that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Venezuela doesn’t -- yet. Interestingly, in his prepared remarks before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Negroponte made only one elliptical mention of Islamabad’s nukes -- and focused instead on the need to keep Pakistan with us in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Notably, while everyone was busy bashing Mr. Musharraf, he was quietly moving a full division of Pakistan’s army from the border with India to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier – long a Taliban-Al Qaeda stronghold.

For skeptics -- and I confess to being one when it comes to the press and politicians -- there may be other explanations for the disparity in how the two coups have been covered and commented upon.

First, Mr. Musharraf has been an ally of the United States in our war against radical Islam since 1981. America’s allies are second only to the U.S. military as whipping boys for the American media. Conversely, Mr. Chavez has proclaimed himself to be America’s enemy since he came to power in 1998. His promise of spreading a “21st Century Socialist Revolution” resonates favorably with the U.S. left. Last May, when Mr. Chavez seized control of Venezuela’s most popular radio and TV stations, it created barely a blip in the U.S. press.

Second, Venezuela is the fourth-leading supplier of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States. With oil soon to be at $125 per barrel -- or higher -- is it too cynical to ask if the Chavez coup has been buried by our political and media elites because they are worried about finding fuel for their limos?

HILLARY SLIPPING

Hillary Clinton admitted that she flopped in last week's debate on MSNBC. She told "The Situation Room's" Candy Crowley, "I wasn't at my best the other night."

Now the latest Rasmussen polls show that Hillary's lead over Obama has slipped to its lowest level. Clinton now leads with 34%, that's only 10 points above Obama at 24%.

Meanwhile, Obama took a shot at the Clinton campaign saying that "they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60's and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

The recent publicity for Hillary's "hippie museum" in New York probably doesn't help either. Although the earmark for the museum has been removed ... is there still a way that Hillary could get her Woodstock museum? Oh hell yes, she will ... and she'll do it without ever having to take the responsibility.

So .. now that Hillary is screwing up ... watch it become even more difficult to get a straight answer out of her on anything!

HILLARY'S GENDER CARD

Hillary is really trying to boost her feminine side. That, my friends, is a challenge. In a speech in Iowa she went on and on and on about how she is going to have to clean up the White House ... oh, you mean she meant politically? Wouldn't you think all the residue is gone after eight years? But as she was telling this story about cleaning the White House, she remembered a heckler from a previous speech shouting out "that's what women are good at ... cleaning up the mess." Probably a Ron Paulista.

You know things are getting bad when the feminists start calling you out. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She says that Hillary is "disingenuously playing the victim card," and she is infusing her campaign with messages about gender. Ooooh. Now mind you, Kate Michelman isn't just saying this for the baby's health, she has allied herself with the Edwards campaign.

But it gets even worse. Even Nancy Pelosi is calling Hillary out for playing the women card. Nancy Pelosi ... the first woman Speaker ... a Democrat herself. But Nancy says that Hillary's campaign appears to have been trying to exploit the perception that she is being treated differently because she is a woman.

Is anyone out there starting to feel sorry for Ms. Rodham?

PELOSI DISAPPROVES

Nancy Pelosi is unhappy. She says that if a pollster asked her what she thought of Congress, she would be one of those people who said Congress is doing a lousy job. She’s upset because Congress hasn’t done anything … but what she really means is that she hasn’t ended the war in Iraq.

Of course, in typical Democrat fashion, she blames Congress’ lousy job on President Bush and the Republicans. While Pelosi’s Congress hasn’t done anything, she says that “there is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done." Got it? War in Iraq … President Bush … Republicans. Not one ounce of responsibility actually falls on her or her party. That’s government for you.

By the way … that “much of what we have done” line. Can she fill us in there?

It’s not only the public that is dissatisfied. President Bush also chastised Congress for its failure to do anything. He says that Democratic leaders are stalling important aspects of his fight against Islamic extremism … dragging out Mike Mukasey’s confirmation is the obvious. Congress has also failed to act on a bill on eavesdropping on terrorist suspects, and it has been slow to approve spending for the war against Islamic extremism, the Pentagon, and veterans programs.

Oh .. almost forgot. This congress has set an all-time record in failing to send even one budget bill to the president’s desk. Durned Republicans.

Bush says that the current debate over Iraq is similar to when Lenin first talked of launching a communist revolution, when Hitler began to establish an “Aryan superstate,” and when people wanted to appease the Soviet Union rather than compete with it during the Cold War. Appeasers in those days denied that we were at war also. We see how that worked out.