At a time when some of the largest banks in the U.S. were struggling to stay afloat, former President Bill Clinton was paid 2.1 million dollars by these failing banks to give 13 speeches.
According to CNS News Service, from 2004-2007 Bill Clinton received these huge speaker fees from banking institutions that we now know could ill-afford such lavish spending.
Do these names mean anything to you? Citigroup. Goldman-Sachs. Lehman Brothers. Merrill-Lynch.
Each of these banking corporations have been in the news in the last 2 months due to bankruptcies, government bailouts, and poor management.
Is it a stretch to assume that the lavish, uncontrolled spending habits of these institutions is one of the factors that led to their dire straits?
Plus, what on earth is Bill Clinton doing speaking to banking institutions anyway?
Clinton is not an economist, nor a banker, nor an investment broker. Yet these muddle-headed numbskulls in the large banks thought it wise to pay him mega-bucks to make speeches for them.
Apparently, Clinton's advice didn't turn out so well. He gave 13 speeches, and the banks failed.
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Obama's Next Mistake: Hillary as Sec of State
Reports are swirling around various media outlets this evening that Barack Obama has offered the job of Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton and that Clinton has accepted.
But, like Michelle Malkin, I am skeptical of this news.
The Obama team has yet to fully vet former President Bill Clinton's numerous ties to foreign governments, not to mention his Foundation, which has accepted extravagant gifts from foreign heads of state.
All of this adds up to pitfalls around every corner should Hillary become Secretary of State.
If the reports are true, the news would be very bad. Bill Clinton was a disaster for U.S. foreign policy. There is no reason to think Hillary would be any better.
Thus, Obama's next big mistake, and there are many, would be selecting a person whose views on foreign policy are similar to those of the man (her husband) whose many mistakes led to at least 4 terrorist attacks on the U.S., 2 of those being on our own soil.
But, like Michelle Malkin, I am skeptical of this news.
The Obama team has yet to fully vet former President Bill Clinton's numerous ties to foreign governments, not to mention his Foundation, which has accepted extravagant gifts from foreign heads of state.
All of this adds up to pitfalls around every corner should Hillary become Secretary of State.
If the reports are true, the news would be very bad. Bill Clinton was a disaster for U.S. foreign policy. There is no reason to think Hillary would be any better.
Thus, Obama's next big mistake, and there are many, would be selecting a person whose views on foreign policy are similar to those of the man (her husband) whose many mistakes led to at least 4 terrorist attacks on the U.S., 2 of those being on our own soil.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Bill's Duplicity--Did He Really Just Say That?
'Barack Obama is ready to be President.'
--Bill Clinton
Presently I am listening to Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC. I could hardly believe my ears when he stated the above quote.
Just last week when a reporter asked Clinton if he thought Barack was ready to be President, Clinton stated, 'Nobody is really ready to be President. I wasn't ready to be President...but you get ready in a hurry.'
My, 'in a hurry' for sure! In only a week Obama apparently got ready.
It was also Bill Clinton who repeatedly stated during the primaries that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to be President.
So, which is it? Is he ready or not? Bill just said he is ready, so I suppose that means he's ready. But it may be dependent on one's definition of 'is.'
--Bill Clinton
Presently I am listening to Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC. I could hardly believe my ears when he stated the above quote.
Just last week when a reporter asked Clinton if he thought Barack was ready to be President, Clinton stated, 'Nobody is really ready to be President. I wasn't ready to be President...but you get ready in a hurry.'
My, 'in a hurry' for sure! In only a week Obama apparently got ready.
It was also Bill Clinton who repeatedly stated during the primaries that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to be President.
So, which is it? Is he ready or not? Bill just said he is ready, so I suppose that means he's ready. But it may be dependent on one's definition of 'is.'
Saturday, June 07, 2008
No, She Didn't
At least not yet.
Hillary did not announce that she would be Barack's running mate today. If fact, there was no mention of the issue from either one.
This, of course, does not mean that she won't be. Barack may be waiting a bit to see how the Hillary and Bill factor plays out.
But as for now, she's not on the ticket.
Hillary did not announce that she would be Barack's running mate today. If fact, there was no mention of the issue from either one.
This, of course, does not mean that she won't be. Barack may be waiting a bit to see how the Hillary and Bill factor plays out.
But as for now, she's not on the ticket.
Is She or Isn't She?
Today Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will put on a display in Washington that is supposed to symbolize 'party unity' and the burying of the hatchets. Some speculate that she will be Barack's choice for running mate. I say no.
What do you think? Is she or isn't she?
I maintain that the so-called 'dream ticket' has far too much inherent baggage to work. Who in their right mind would want a former President hanging around, making a nuisance of himself, and more than likely embarrassing your administration with his penchant for popping off at the mouth?
And make no mistake about it, if Hillary is on the ticket, Bill will dominate the campaign, and if they are elected, he will dominate Barack's administration.
But the main reason I believe Barack will not make this decision is his wife. Michelle hates Hillary with a passion. And, at the end of the day, Michelle is the one Barack has to live with.
What do you think? Is she or isn't she?
I maintain that the so-called 'dream ticket' has far too much inherent baggage to work. Who in their right mind would want a former President hanging around, making a nuisance of himself, and more than likely embarrassing your administration with his penchant for popping off at the mouth?
And make no mistake about it, if Hillary is on the ticket, Bill will dominate the campaign, and if they are elected, he will dominate Barack's administration.
But the main reason I believe Barack will not make this decision is his wife. Michelle hates Hillary with a passion. And, at the end of the day, Michelle is the one Barack has to live with.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Bill Blows His Stack Again
He said that there is a 'cover-up' to keep people from knowing how popular Hillary really is, but he didn't say who was behind it.
He said there is a 'vast conspiracy' to deny Hillary the Democratic nomination, but he never specified who was part of it.
He said that Democratic super-delegates were being 'intimidated and brow-beaten' into supporting Barack Obama. One can only assume the former President was referring specifically to Obama himself, as well as his campaign staff. On this count Clinton is exactly right. Reports from those covering the campaign indicate that Obama and staff have, indeed, put the squeeze on the super-delegates.
Fresh from his last public appearance during which he launched into a tirade, Bill Clinton rambled on and on during a speech on Monday about how unfair the 2008 Presidential campaign has been to his wife.
While much of what Clinton says is way over the top, particularly when he brings up old, worn out Clintonian conspiracy theories and charges of 'cover-ups,' one thing we can grant him--the mainstream media has, indeed, been unfair to Hillary, not to mention their outright smear of Republicans.
It is well-known and documented that the mainstream media has been on the front row of Obama-worshippers. They can hardly contain their glee over the prospects of an Obama Presidency, although such a scenario would be one of the worst nightmares to ever hit the country.
And yes, he is much worse than even Hillary.
So Bill Clinton may well have a point. And maybe he has a right to be angry.
I'm just glad that finally a Democrat is on the receiving end of the mainstream media's disdain. Let the record show that a Democrat, a former President and a popular one at that, has admitted that the mainstream media is so blatantly biased as to deliberately portray his wife in a negative light.
Conservatives have been lamenting this bias since the 1950s.
He said there is a 'vast conspiracy' to deny Hillary the Democratic nomination, but he never specified who was part of it.
He said that Democratic super-delegates were being 'intimidated and brow-beaten' into supporting Barack Obama. One can only assume the former President was referring specifically to Obama himself, as well as his campaign staff. On this count Clinton is exactly right. Reports from those covering the campaign indicate that Obama and staff have, indeed, put the squeeze on the super-delegates.
Fresh from his last public appearance during which he launched into a tirade, Bill Clinton rambled on and on during a speech on Monday about how unfair the 2008 Presidential campaign has been to his wife.
While much of what Clinton says is way over the top, particularly when he brings up old, worn out Clintonian conspiracy theories and charges of 'cover-ups,' one thing we can grant him--the mainstream media has, indeed, been unfair to Hillary, not to mention their outright smear of Republicans.
It is well-known and documented that the mainstream media has been on the front row of Obama-worshippers. They can hardly contain their glee over the prospects of an Obama Presidency, although such a scenario would be one of the worst nightmares to ever hit the country.
And yes, he is much worse than even Hillary.
So Bill Clinton may well have a point. And maybe he has a right to be angry.
I'm just glad that finally a Democrat is on the receiving end of the mainstream media's disdain. Let the record show that a Democrat, a former President and a popular one at that, has admitted that the mainstream media is so blatantly biased as to deliberately portray his wife in a negative light.
Conservatives have been lamenting this bias since the 1950s.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Ponders Exit Plan
With Barack 'A New Gaffe Per Day' Obama having all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination for President, and with Bill Clinton touting daughter Chelsea as Presidential material for 2016, Hillary Clinton has begun pondering an exit plan.
Although she claims she is determined to take the fight for the nomination to the Convention floor, which is not the 'deep dark and ominous' scenario that the mainstream media and their darlings of the Democratic Party make it out to be, Hillary is under increasing pressure to drop out of the race in June.
It is clear that the big wigs of the Democratic Party have bet the farm on Obama, in spite of his lack of appeal to working class white voters, Hispanics, and Jews.
In addition, Obama has a penchant for uttering blatant untruths and gaffes that make Dan Quayle look like Winston Churchill.
Still, the Democrats have not only embraced a terribly flawed candidate simply because he has 'star quality' appeal, but they are obviously willing to take the chance that Americans are dumb enough to ignore his extremist views and fall down at his feet in Messiah-like worship like the rest of the sheeple who have orgasms each time he utters the word 'change.'
Thus, Hillary ponders her exit strategy, having been thrown under the bus by those within her own Party who have been longtime friends and allies.
The best-case scenario for a Hillary exit, short of pulling off an Obama-Clinton ticket, is for Obama to 'offer' her the position of running mate, which she will graciously decline. If she says 'yes' then Obama has big problems, not with the voters but with fact that Hillary will drag Bill back to the White House (assuming they win), and wifey-pooh Michelle Obama will be a terribly unhappy camper, having to contend with a Vice-President whom she hates with a passion.
In spite of the fact that many Democrats and those within the mainstream media believe an Obama-Clinton ticket will be the surefire ticket to the White House, the team will most assuredly hit some brick walls on the campaign trail.
Both of these candidates are seriously flawed and will provide ample fodder for the Republicans to remind voters of the corruption of the Clintons, not to mention the extremism of Obama.
Realistically speaking, I don't believe the 'dream ticket' will happen, though I could be wrong. Too many problems stand in the way of this scenario for it to work successfully, not the least of which is a former President of the United States lingering around who has a penchant for popping off at the mouth, much to the chagrin of most who have known him for years.
Apparently Hillary has caught 'Bill's Disease' as well, given her latest gaffe in which she brought up the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in June of the Presidential race in 1967.
How badly do Barack and Michelle want or need these two? We shall see.
Although she claims she is determined to take the fight for the nomination to the Convention floor, which is not the 'deep dark and ominous' scenario that the mainstream media and their darlings of the Democratic Party make it out to be, Hillary is under increasing pressure to drop out of the race in June.
It is clear that the big wigs of the Democratic Party have bet the farm on Obama, in spite of his lack of appeal to working class white voters, Hispanics, and Jews.
In addition, Obama has a penchant for uttering blatant untruths and gaffes that make Dan Quayle look like Winston Churchill.
Still, the Democrats have not only embraced a terribly flawed candidate simply because he has 'star quality' appeal, but they are obviously willing to take the chance that Americans are dumb enough to ignore his extremist views and fall down at his feet in Messiah-like worship like the rest of the sheeple who have orgasms each time he utters the word 'change.'
Thus, Hillary ponders her exit strategy, having been thrown under the bus by those within her own Party who have been longtime friends and allies.
The best-case scenario for a Hillary exit, short of pulling off an Obama-Clinton ticket, is for Obama to 'offer' her the position of running mate, which she will graciously decline. If she says 'yes' then Obama has big problems, not with the voters but with fact that Hillary will drag Bill back to the White House (assuming they win), and wifey-pooh Michelle Obama will be a terribly unhappy camper, having to contend with a Vice-President whom she hates with a passion.
In spite of the fact that many Democrats and those within the mainstream media believe an Obama-Clinton ticket will be the surefire ticket to the White House, the team will most assuredly hit some brick walls on the campaign trail.
Both of these candidates are seriously flawed and will provide ample fodder for the Republicans to remind voters of the corruption of the Clintons, not to mention the extremism of Obama.
Realistically speaking, I don't believe the 'dream ticket' will happen, though I could be wrong. Too many problems stand in the way of this scenario for it to work successfully, not the least of which is a former President of the United States lingering around who has a penchant for popping off at the mouth, much to the chagrin of most who have known him for years.
Apparently Hillary has caught 'Bill's Disease' as well, given her latest gaffe in which she brought up the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in June of the Presidential race in 1967.
How badly do Barack and Michelle want or need these two? We shall see.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Pay Attention to the Spouses
It's true that Michelle Obama, Cindy McCain, and Bill Clinton are not running for President. But it's a big mistake to assume that spouses of candidates do not wield significant influence over their husbands/wives.
In Michelle Obama's case, that influence may be more significant than any other political spouse outside of Bill Clinton.
Sources close to the Obama campaign insist that Michelle Obama has vetoed any talk of the possibility that Hillary Clinton could be her husband's running mate and potential Vice-President.
In fact, inside sources, according to 'Real Clear Politics,' state that Michelle's hostility toward Hillary goes far beyond a mere objection to her name being on the Democratic ticket. Michelle has been open sniping at Hillary for many months now, and those behind the scenes say that the hostility often erupts into outright rage.
The rage of Michelle Obama has already been the subject of numerous news reports, particularly with regard to her country. Apparently that rage is sometimes directed at individuals as well.
Pay close attention to the spouses of candidates.
One less-than-stellar pundit on CNN had the audacity to suggest over the weekend that voters should totally forget about political spouses, given that the candidates themselves are the ones being elected.
True enough, at least with regard to the latter part of that statement.
But one must also weigh and consider the views, temperament, and style of the political spouse. Such a consideration will often reveal significant facts about the candidates themselves.
For example, with Bill Clinton's love for politics and his daily tirades out on the campaign trail, does anyone actually believe that he will not be a major player in a Hillary Clinton administration? Similarly, with Michelle Obama's penchant for opening mouth and inserting foot, revealing her deep and abiding hatred for America, does anyone realistically expect Barack Obama to ignore the powerful manner in which she presents her desires and points of view?
It is quickly becoming clear that Michelle Obama is every bit as much the loose cannon as Teresa Hines Kerry.
And this is not a gender issue. On the campaign trail there are certain things that best remain unspoken. And this goes for the candidates, as well as their spouses.
In Michelle Obama's case, that influence may be more significant than any other political spouse outside of Bill Clinton.
Sources close to the Obama campaign insist that Michelle Obama has vetoed any talk of the possibility that Hillary Clinton could be her husband's running mate and potential Vice-President.
In fact, inside sources, according to 'Real Clear Politics,' state that Michelle's hostility toward Hillary goes far beyond a mere objection to her name being on the Democratic ticket. Michelle has been open sniping at Hillary for many months now, and those behind the scenes say that the hostility often erupts into outright rage.
The rage of Michelle Obama has already been the subject of numerous news reports, particularly with regard to her country. Apparently that rage is sometimes directed at individuals as well.
Pay close attention to the spouses of candidates.
One less-than-stellar pundit on CNN had the audacity to suggest over the weekend that voters should totally forget about political spouses, given that the candidates themselves are the ones being elected.
True enough, at least with regard to the latter part of that statement.
But one must also weigh and consider the views, temperament, and style of the political spouse. Such a consideration will often reveal significant facts about the candidates themselves.
For example, with Bill Clinton's love for politics and his daily tirades out on the campaign trail, does anyone actually believe that he will not be a major player in a Hillary Clinton administration? Similarly, with Michelle Obama's penchant for opening mouth and inserting foot, revealing her deep and abiding hatred for America, does anyone realistically expect Barack Obama to ignore the powerful manner in which she presents her desires and points of view?
It is quickly becoming clear that Michelle Obama is every bit as much the loose cannon as Teresa Hines Kerry.
And this is not a gender issue. On the campaign trail there are certain things that best remain unspoken. And this goes for the candidates, as well as their spouses.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
'Pump Head' Bill?
Physicians, nurses, chaplains and other hospital personnel who deal with cardiac patients on a regular basis are usually familiar with the term 'pump head.' The term is medical lingo for that minority of cardiac surgery patients who experience lingering mental ill effects from being on the heart-lung machine, or by-pass machine, during surgery.
These patients suffer with somewhat diminished brain function and may display mild confusion on a regular basis or experience a slowness in the ability to deduce or think logically. Sometimes the disorder is so mild that it appears the patient is merely agitated a great deal, leading those around them to conclude they underwent a mild personality change post-op.
Others may display a certain lack of judgment in decisions, including inappropriate behavior and speech.
The vast majority of cardiac surgery patients suffer no such lingering side effects. But a small percentage of these patients will exhibit at least some of the characteristics of 'pump head.'
Within the last few months as Bill Clinton has been out on the campaign trail, stumping for wife Hillary, many who know the former President describe a somewhat different Bill Clinton than what they knew prior to his heart surgery a couple of years back.
In fact, some Democrats openly describe some of Clinton's actions and statements as 'bizarre.'
Thus, the question is, are we dealing with 'Pump Head' Bill?
Is Bill Clinton one of the small minority of patients who emerge from heart surgery with pump head disorder?
Naturally, when it comes to Bill, one must be careful when using the terms 'pump' and 'head' in the same phrase. The aspiring comedians abound who are sure to claim that in Bill's case, 'pump head' refers to his penchant for sexual indiscretions.
Clearly, Bill's disorder involves the head with the brain.
For example, recently in a speech the former President stated that Barack Obama had 'used the race card on me.' The very next day on a radio program Clinton claimed he never said it. Yet the video and audio of the speech on the preceding day confirmed that he did, indeed, say it.
In addition, there are Mr. Clinton's numerous emotional outbursts at reporters, who traditionally have been viewed fondly by the former President.
And then there are his countless statements that have alienated Black voters, driving them to Obama, all in an attempt to appear more appealing to 'white folk,' when in the Democratic Party it is usually considered a MUST that a candidate win the Black vote to get the nomination.
These examples clearly indicate that Bill is not quite the same Bill post-op.
Surely the former President is more politically savvy than to do these things deliberately. Thus, perhaps we can chalk the whole thing up to the lingering effects of Bill's heart surgery.
Wonder if Hillary will begin to use this as the explanation for some of Bill's embarrassing moments which have actually hurt her in many ways.
But she had better tread softly here. Referring to a heart patient as a 'pump head' is usually not received positively. On the other hand, Hillary may use the term in the other sense if it is discovered that Bill has another woman on the side somewhere around.
These patients suffer with somewhat diminished brain function and may display mild confusion on a regular basis or experience a slowness in the ability to deduce or think logically. Sometimes the disorder is so mild that it appears the patient is merely agitated a great deal, leading those around them to conclude they underwent a mild personality change post-op.
Others may display a certain lack of judgment in decisions, including inappropriate behavior and speech.
The vast majority of cardiac surgery patients suffer no such lingering side effects. But a small percentage of these patients will exhibit at least some of the characteristics of 'pump head.'
Within the last few months as Bill Clinton has been out on the campaign trail, stumping for wife Hillary, many who know the former President describe a somewhat different Bill Clinton than what they knew prior to his heart surgery a couple of years back.
In fact, some Democrats openly describe some of Clinton's actions and statements as 'bizarre.'
Thus, the question is, are we dealing with 'Pump Head' Bill?
Is Bill Clinton one of the small minority of patients who emerge from heart surgery with pump head disorder?
Naturally, when it comes to Bill, one must be careful when using the terms 'pump' and 'head' in the same phrase. The aspiring comedians abound who are sure to claim that in Bill's case, 'pump head' refers to his penchant for sexual indiscretions.
Clearly, Bill's disorder involves the head with the brain.
For example, recently in a speech the former President stated that Barack Obama had 'used the race card on me.' The very next day on a radio program Clinton claimed he never said it. Yet the video and audio of the speech on the preceding day confirmed that he did, indeed, say it.
In addition, there are Mr. Clinton's numerous emotional outbursts at reporters, who traditionally have been viewed fondly by the former President.
And then there are his countless statements that have alienated Black voters, driving them to Obama, all in an attempt to appear more appealing to 'white folk,' when in the Democratic Party it is usually considered a MUST that a candidate win the Black vote to get the nomination.
These examples clearly indicate that Bill is not quite the same Bill post-op.
Surely the former President is more politically savvy than to do these things deliberately. Thus, perhaps we can chalk the whole thing up to the lingering effects of Bill's heart surgery.
Wonder if Hillary will begin to use this as the explanation for some of Bill's embarrassing moments which have actually hurt her in many ways.
But she had better tread softly here. Referring to a heart patient as a 'pump head' is usually not received positively. On the other hand, Hillary may use the term in the other sense if it is discovered that Bill has another woman on the side somewhere around.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Second Amendment News Roundup for 4/11/08
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Sebastian has the quote of the day from none other than Barack Messiah Obama:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/04/11/quote-of-the-day-40/
Further, Born Again Redneck says that the messiah has probably just lost any support he may have had from 'blue dog Democrats':
http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-just-lost-any-blue-dogs-democrats.html
Sebastian also reports that Philly has passed a hodge-podge of gun ordinances, and he has all of them here:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/04/11/the-passed-ordinances/
The hooded, jackbooted thugs of the ATF are at it again. This time they raided the wrong house in Florida. David Codrea has the story:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/04/innocent-mistake.html
Michelle Malkin has the scoop on Bill Clinton's latest faux pas--it seems each time he opens his mouth these days, people cringe:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/11/liar-liar-campaign-on-fire/
Here is Dr. Walter Williams' latest column, entitled, 'Political Loathsomeness':
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Political%20Loathsomeness.htm
Uncle says that government people are just like you and me, only better. Here is his example:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/04/11/like_you_and_me_only_better-27/
Robb Allen points out the real views of liberals, from the mouth of Michelle Obama. Liberals want the poor to have 'more of the pie' by forcing others to give up some of theirs. Normal people want to enlarge the pie so that ALL can have more:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2008/04/10/Hey-Michelle-Obama.aspx
Nicki has an excellent read today at The Liberty Zone. Read that one even if you read nothing else today:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/04/settlement-at-taxpayer-expense.html
Gun Law News has a great rundown of what's going on in the various states with regard to gun laws:
http://www.gunlawnews.org/State-Politics/snt041008-3.html
The Buckeye Firearms Association says that the Castle Doctrine bill in Ohio has been amended in its 5th Senate hearing:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5590
The Volokh Conspiracy reports that Barack Messiah Obama has lied about his church's honor to racist activist Louis Farrakhan:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_06-2008_04_12.shtml#1207874375
Mike McCarville says that an important hearing has been held in Oklahoma on illegal immigration:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/04/immigration-law-court-case-hearing-held.html
All American Blogger reports that once again the U.N. is showing its anti-Israel stripes:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/2568/un-appointed-israel-hater-commissions-911-truther-hearings/
Hillary, like Obama, is a gun-grabber. She has now called for a renewal of so-called 'assault weapons' bans:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=712
Blogonomicon points out that the environmentalist wackos are now saying that the Olympic Torch has doomed us all (what freakin' idiots):
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/04/olympic-torch-relay-has-doomed-us-all.html
Of Arms and the Law has good news from West Virginia:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/04/w_va_gets_castl.php
And now, prepare to love her even more or hate her with more fervor. There is no middle ground with Ann Coulter, but she always has an interesting read:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=244
Sebastian has the quote of the day from none other than Barack Messiah Obama:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/04/11/quote-of-the-day-40/
Further, Born Again Redneck says that the messiah has probably just lost any support he may have had from 'blue dog Democrats':
http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-just-lost-any-blue-dogs-democrats.html
Sebastian also reports that Philly has passed a hodge-podge of gun ordinances, and he has all of them here:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/04/11/the-passed-ordinances/
The hooded, jackbooted thugs of the ATF are at it again. This time they raided the wrong house in Florida. David Codrea has the story:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/04/innocent-mistake.html
Michelle Malkin has the scoop on Bill Clinton's latest faux pas--it seems each time he opens his mouth these days, people cringe:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/11/liar-liar-campaign-on-fire/
Here is Dr. Walter Williams' latest column, entitled, 'Political Loathsomeness':
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Political%20Loathsomeness.htm
Uncle says that government people are just like you and me, only better. Here is his example:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/04/11/like_you_and_me_only_better-27/
Robb Allen points out the real views of liberals, from the mouth of Michelle Obama. Liberals want the poor to have 'more of the pie' by forcing others to give up some of theirs. Normal people want to enlarge the pie so that ALL can have more:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2008/04/10/Hey-Michelle-Obama.aspx
Nicki has an excellent read today at The Liberty Zone. Read that one even if you read nothing else today:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2008/04/settlement-at-taxpayer-expense.html
Gun Law News has a great rundown of what's going on in the various states with regard to gun laws:
http://www.gunlawnews.org/State-Politics/snt041008-3.html
The Buckeye Firearms Association says that the Castle Doctrine bill in Ohio has been amended in its 5th Senate hearing:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5590
The Volokh Conspiracy reports that Barack Messiah Obama has lied about his church's honor to racist activist Louis Farrakhan:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_06-2008_04_12.shtml#1207874375
Mike McCarville says that an important hearing has been held in Oklahoma on illegal immigration:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/04/immigration-law-court-case-hearing-held.html
All American Blogger reports that once again the U.N. is showing its anti-Israel stripes:
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/2568/un-appointed-israel-hater-commissions-911-truther-hearings/
Hillary, like Obama, is a gun-grabber. She has now called for a renewal of so-called 'assault weapons' bans:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=712
Blogonomicon points out that the environmentalist wackos are now saying that the Olympic Torch has doomed us all (what freakin' idiots):
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2008/04/olympic-torch-relay-has-doomed-us-all.html
Of Arms and the Law has good news from West Virginia:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/04/w_va_gets_castl.php
And now, prepare to love her even more or hate her with more fervor. There is no middle ground with Ann Coulter, but she always has an interesting read:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=244
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Clinton Betrayers: 'Et Tu, Brute?'
Despite the fact that I am no fan of the Clintons, I will admit that they have been betrayed, unfortunately, by some longtime friends during this campaign.
Some of it is understandable. Politics is about winning, and many within the ranks of the Democrats simply feel that Hillary has shown herself to be unelectable. Prudence would therefore dictate that many would throw their support to Obama in spite of the fact that he may even be more of a liability than Hillary when it is all said and done.
However, many of the Clinton betrayers are longtime friends who have now proven themselves to be companions of the fair-weather variety. These would include Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others.
The most stinging and embarrassing defection in the Clintons' point of view, however, is that of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Administration official Bill Richardson.
While on a campaign swing through California to lobby Democratic super-delegates, Bill Clinton exploded into rage when asked about James Carville's reference to Richardson as 'Judas.'
News reporters and observers alike report that the former President's face immediately turned blood red as he seethed with anger in his response to the question. 'He (Richardson) promised me at least 5 times he would not do that,' Clinton claimed.
Richardson's staff immediately issued a complete denial, that the Governor never promised the Clintons that he would not endorse Obama.
Bill Clinton's reaction, however, tells another story.
True, Clinton is known to lie. We have all seen it many times on prime time TV. But when Clinton lies there is lacking the spontaneity and split-second emotional outburst that is characteristic of the former President's demeanor when he is truly upset and when he truly believes what he is saying is the truth.
One reporter noted that Clinton's outburst sounded and felt more like hurt than anger.
Perhaps the former President has every right to be hurt very deeply. Perhaps Richardson is the one who didn't have the guts to be upfront with the Clintons concerning his decision to go with Obama after he had affirmed his friendship with and support for Hillary Clinton.
Just as in Shakespeare's famous tragedy when Julius Caesar began to realize that even his best friend had participated in the fatal betrayal, and thus the words, 'Et tu, Brute?' (Even you, Brutus?), Bill and Hillary Clinton find themselves stunned that even Bill Richardson, of all people, would participate in the betrayal.
Two things are certain--Bill Clinton has lost his 'political sex appeal,' and Hillary is suddenly fighting for her very political survival.
Some of it is understandable. Politics is about winning, and many within the ranks of the Democrats simply feel that Hillary has shown herself to be unelectable. Prudence would therefore dictate that many would throw their support to Obama in spite of the fact that he may even be more of a liability than Hillary when it is all said and done.
However, many of the Clinton betrayers are longtime friends who have now proven themselves to be companions of the fair-weather variety. These would include Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, among others.
The most stinging and embarrassing defection in the Clintons' point of view, however, is that of New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Administration official Bill Richardson.
While on a campaign swing through California to lobby Democratic super-delegates, Bill Clinton exploded into rage when asked about James Carville's reference to Richardson as 'Judas.'
News reporters and observers alike report that the former President's face immediately turned blood red as he seethed with anger in his response to the question. 'He (Richardson) promised me at least 5 times he would not do that,' Clinton claimed.
Richardson's staff immediately issued a complete denial, that the Governor never promised the Clintons that he would not endorse Obama.
Bill Clinton's reaction, however, tells another story.
True, Clinton is known to lie. We have all seen it many times on prime time TV. But when Clinton lies there is lacking the spontaneity and split-second emotional outburst that is characteristic of the former President's demeanor when he is truly upset and when he truly believes what he is saying is the truth.
One reporter noted that Clinton's outburst sounded and felt more like hurt than anger.
Perhaps the former President has every right to be hurt very deeply. Perhaps Richardson is the one who didn't have the guts to be upfront with the Clintons concerning his decision to go with Obama after he had affirmed his friendship with and support for Hillary Clinton.
Just as in Shakespeare's famous tragedy when Julius Caesar began to realize that even his best friend had participated in the fatal betrayal, and thus the words, 'Et tu, Brute?' (Even you, Brutus?), Bill and Hillary Clinton find themselves stunned that even Bill Richardson, of all people, would participate in the betrayal.
Two things are certain--Bill Clinton has lost his 'political sex appeal,' and Hillary is suddenly fighting for her very political survival.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Hillary Counterpunch: Barack Obama Can't Win
ABC News is reporting that the latest punch thrown in the war between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is Hillary's contention that 'Barack Obama can't win.'
News reports from the campaign trail indicate that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been strongly lobbying the Democratic 'super-delegates' to encourage them to vote for Hillary.
Super-delegates are told by the Clintons that the main reason they should vote for Hillary is that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
Insiders say that when Bill and Hillary lobbied Governor Bill Richardson, who later endorsed Obama, Hillary pleaded, 'Barack Obama cannot win, Bill, he cannot win.'
In all likelihood Hillary is right, although it is not impossible for Barack to win. But the problem for Hillary is that in all likelihood she cannot win, either. Polls are showing McCain ahead of both Obama and Hillary in potential head-to-head matchups.
The ABC report also states that the latest jugular tactic employed by the Clintons against Obama has created a firestorm of new controversy in what's already been a tumultuous Democratic campaign.
The Obama campaign is crying foul, but Hillary is likely closer to the truth about Barack than most people realize.
As we reported earlier today on the Roundup, even some within the Obama campaign staff are beginning to 'lose faith' in the Obamessiah, stating that beneath the smooth rhetoric and Hollywood-style persona, there is no substance.
The question is, when your own staff begins to lose faith, how long will it take for the sheeple to follow suit?
News reports from the campaign trail indicate that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been strongly lobbying the Democratic 'super-delegates' to encourage them to vote for Hillary.
Super-delegates are told by the Clintons that the main reason they should vote for Hillary is that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
Insiders say that when Bill and Hillary lobbied Governor Bill Richardson, who later endorsed Obama, Hillary pleaded, 'Barack Obama cannot win, Bill, he cannot win.'
In all likelihood Hillary is right, although it is not impossible for Barack to win. But the problem for Hillary is that in all likelihood she cannot win, either. Polls are showing McCain ahead of both Obama and Hillary in potential head-to-head matchups.
The ABC report also states that the latest jugular tactic employed by the Clintons against Obama has created a firestorm of new controversy in what's already been a tumultuous Democratic campaign.
The Obama campaign is crying foul, but Hillary is likely closer to the truth about Barack than most people realize.
As we reported earlier today on the Roundup, even some within the Obama campaign staff are beginning to 'lose faith' in the Obamessiah, stating that beneath the smooth rhetoric and Hollywood-style persona, there is no substance.
The question is, when your own staff begins to lose faith, how long will it take for the sheeple to follow suit?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mounting Woes for Mrs. Clinton--Bill's Wife
Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--is losing her personal identity. She is sending husband Bill out to defend her debacle on healthcare in 1993, stating that it was 'my fault and not hers' for the failure, despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton has been going around the country bragging about her 'work on national healthcare.'
Not only that, but Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has been caught red-handed planting questioners during her supposed 'impromptu' question-and-answer sessions during her townhall meetings around the country.
One female college student in particular has described the trick in detail, stating that a Mrs. Clinton operative approached her about asking the candidate a question. When the student stated what she wanted to ask, the operative disapproved and presented her with a list of possible 'acceptable questions,' several specifically set up for college students to ask.
In short, Hillary is only getting questions she wants to answer, as we have seen with countless newspapers, radio programs, and now, with her threatening Wolf Blitzer and CNN over the upcoming Democratic debate on Thursday night.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has trouble answering the tough questions as she demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when Tim Russert pressed her on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens and several other issues on which the candidate has waffled.
This woman has at least a 50-50 chance of becoming the next President of the most powerful nation on earth, and she has trouble handling tough questions?
As President, would she, for example, present the ominous Vladmir Putin a list of only 'acceptable' topics for conversation? Would she send Bill out to run interference with Hugo Chavez? How would she deal with the Iranian President and his tough-guy and dangerous rhetoric?
And she thinks Tim Russert and the 'boys' (her Democratic rivals) are 'ganging up on her'?
A world leader she is not.
In addition, several new polls released in the past 24 hours, two of which are by Zogby and Rasmussen, show that only 25% of respondents say they believe Hillary has been 'ganged up on' and treated unfairly by her Democratic rivals and Tim Russert, despite the whines of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill.
These are only the least of her worries, however.
Since the last Democratic debate her lead over Barack Obama has been cut in half. She is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama in Iowa, and her lead over him in New Hampshire has been in a free fall.
And then there are the scandals that hang over her head like the Sword of Damocles.
Do these mounting woes indicate that Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--may be denied the Democratic nomination? Absolutely not. Her nomination is practically a foregone conclusion.
But she will most definitely be a scarred and greatly weakened candidate.
Not only that, but Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has been caught red-handed planting questioners during her supposed 'impromptu' question-and-answer sessions during her townhall meetings around the country.
One female college student in particular has described the trick in detail, stating that a Mrs. Clinton operative approached her about asking the candidate a question. When the student stated what she wanted to ask, the operative disapproved and presented her with a list of possible 'acceptable questions,' several specifically set up for college students to ask.
In short, Hillary is only getting questions she wants to answer, as we have seen with countless newspapers, radio programs, and now, with her threatening Wolf Blitzer and CNN over the upcoming Democratic debate on Thursday night.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has trouble answering the tough questions as she demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when Tim Russert pressed her on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens and several other issues on which the candidate has waffled.
This woman has at least a 50-50 chance of becoming the next President of the most powerful nation on earth, and she has trouble handling tough questions?
As President, would she, for example, present the ominous Vladmir Putin a list of only 'acceptable' topics for conversation? Would she send Bill out to run interference with Hugo Chavez? How would she deal with the Iranian President and his tough-guy and dangerous rhetoric?
And she thinks Tim Russert and the 'boys' (her Democratic rivals) are 'ganging up on her'?
A world leader she is not.
In addition, several new polls released in the past 24 hours, two of which are by Zogby and Rasmussen, show that only 25% of respondents say they believe Hillary has been 'ganged up on' and treated unfairly by her Democratic rivals and Tim Russert, despite the whines of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill.
These are only the least of her worries, however.
Since the last Democratic debate her lead over Barack Obama has been cut in half. She is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama in Iowa, and her lead over him in New Hampshire has been in a free fall.
And then there are the scandals that hang over her head like the Sword of Damocles.
Do these mounting woes indicate that Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--may be denied the Democratic nomination? Absolutely not. Her nomination is practically a foregone conclusion.
But she will most definitely be a scarred and greatly weakened candidate.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
A Few Key Quotes from the Candidates
Fred Thompson heads the list with the most poignant and true-to-the-Founders comment concerning Constitutional rights. Thompson said, 'Rights are not granted by government. Rights are God-given, which government then decides to protect and guarantee.'
Surely Fred should receive accolade upon accolade for advocating what NO ONE besides Ron Paul will dare say--politicians and the Supreme Court do not give rights. Rights are inherent. The Constitution only serves to affirm, protect, and guarantee those rights.
Meanwhile, B. Hussein Obama has been saying out on the stump that he 'deserves a tax increase.' Could it be, O HEAVEN FORBID, that he...(choking with emotion)...made too much money?
Oh, the shame of it, to think that in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, someone would actually be so brazen as to actually make too much money in their fulfilling of the American dream!
And of course, we all know that once you commit this unpardonable abomination you must allow government to take most of it away.
Excuse me while I get this out--WHERE THE HELL DID THIS CLOWN COME FROM?
Hillary has been making one excuse after another on the healthcare issue. And she has opened up her mouth and let fall out yet another flip-flop.
This woman is one big mass of contradictions. Today's contradiction from Hillary involves husband Bill. Hillary claims she has loads of experience on 'working on healthcare in America,' referring of course to her debacle in 1993.
She wants credit for a debacle--a failure?
Listen, Hildabeast, you can't take credit for something that was a fiasco. You can't expect people to give you accolades for something most view as a disaster.
So, it was husband Bill to the rescue. The quintessential American feminist has to have her husband bail her out of all of her jams. What a bitch.
Bill, thus, stated that the healthcare fiasco of 1993 was HIS fault and not Hillary's.
Methinks Bill has actually started inhaling. The record shows that the healthcare initiative in 1993 was Hillary's baby. Bill let her handle it...entirely. When are people going to start accepting responsibility for their actions? Well, we can never expect that from the Clintons.
And then Bill went on further to put not only both hands, but both feet, AND his hat in his mouth by claiming that 'when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 we will have plenty of money to enact a Hillary healthcare plan.'
Oh, so you mean that your wife is going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, thus creating the largest tax increase in American history, surpassing only the massive tax increase that BILL Clinton gave us?
What a legacy. Two Clintons who each gave us the largest tax increases in the history of the Republic at the time.
That should be enough to get B. Hussein Obama into the Clinton camp. Large tax increases seem to be an aphrodisiac these days for the Illinois Senator. If the lamebrain feels guilty for making too much money, then let HIM give it away himself rather than promoting government confiscation.
Surely Fred should receive accolade upon accolade for advocating what NO ONE besides Ron Paul will dare say--politicians and the Supreme Court do not give rights. Rights are inherent. The Constitution only serves to affirm, protect, and guarantee those rights.
Meanwhile, B. Hussein Obama has been saying out on the stump that he 'deserves a tax increase.' Could it be, O HEAVEN FORBID, that he...(choking with emotion)...made too much money?
Oh, the shame of it, to think that in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, someone would actually be so brazen as to actually make too much money in their fulfilling of the American dream!
And of course, we all know that once you commit this unpardonable abomination you must allow government to take most of it away.
Excuse me while I get this out--WHERE THE HELL DID THIS CLOWN COME FROM?
Hillary has been making one excuse after another on the healthcare issue. And she has opened up her mouth and let fall out yet another flip-flop.
This woman is one big mass of contradictions. Today's contradiction from Hillary involves husband Bill. Hillary claims she has loads of experience on 'working on healthcare in America,' referring of course to her debacle in 1993.
She wants credit for a debacle--a failure?
Listen, Hildabeast, you can't take credit for something that was a fiasco. You can't expect people to give you accolades for something most view as a disaster.
So, it was husband Bill to the rescue. The quintessential American feminist has to have her husband bail her out of all of her jams. What a bitch.
Bill, thus, stated that the healthcare fiasco of 1993 was HIS fault and not Hillary's.
Methinks Bill has actually started inhaling. The record shows that the healthcare initiative in 1993 was Hillary's baby. Bill let her handle it...entirely. When are people going to start accepting responsibility for their actions? Well, we can never expect that from the Clintons.
And then Bill went on further to put not only both hands, but both feet, AND his hat in his mouth by claiming that 'when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 we will have plenty of money to enact a Hillary healthcare plan.'
Oh, so you mean that your wife is going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, thus creating the largest tax increase in American history, surpassing only the massive tax increase that BILL Clinton gave us?
What a legacy. Two Clintons who each gave us the largest tax increases in the history of the Republic at the time.
That should be enough to get B. Hussein Obama into the Clinton camp. Large tax increases seem to be an aphrodisiac these days for the Illinois Senator. If the lamebrain feels guilty for making too much money, then let HIM give it away himself rather than promoting government confiscation.
Friday, September 21, 2007
'Hillary the Hutt' Dirty Money Scandal Deepens
We at The Liberty Sphere, missing no opportunity to keep sly and stealthy politicians on their toes, have designated Hillary Clinton as 'Hillary the Hutt,' the female version of the Star Wars character 'Jabba the Hutt.' Hillary's reference to Vice-President Dick Cheney as 'Darth Vader' prompted the designation.
Here is The Liberty Sphere's original article:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/09/darth-vader-cheney-vs-hillary-hutt.html
With each passing day the dirty money scandal revolving around Hillary the Hutt and Norman Hsu, the Democrats' equivalent to Jack Abramoff, grows deeper. But you would never know it by listening exclusively to mainstream media news sources, which to this day have given only scant attention to the scandal.
This is in stark contrast to the Jack Abramoff scandal involving a few Republican lawmakers, which dominated the mainstream media news outlets for weeks.
Thursday we learned that Norman Hsu, who illegally bankrolled dozens of major Clinton donors, is facing charges in New York in a $60 million dollar 'Ponzi scheme' and engaging in widespread campaign finance violations.
A 'Ponzi scheme' is the practice of setting up a phony business to serve as the engine from which to raise millions of dollars for political campaigns. In Hsu's case, it was a phony apparel business in New York.
Hsu pressured the investors in his business to donate funds to various candidates of his choice, and then asked them to pressure their families and friends to make similar donations.
Another such business set up by Hsu involved a Madison Avenue private equity fund. According to the Wall Street Journal, investors in the fund were asked to make donations to the Presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Sources close to the case told the Wall Street Journal that, in spite of the fact that the private equity fund was not named specifically in the case against Hsu in New York, the fund is in all likelihood 'Source Financing Investors' which is managed by Joel Rosenman, one of the organizers of the Woodstock Rock Music Festival in 1969.
The Journal also reports that Rosenman and Hsu have a long-term business relationship.
In short, these schemes were set up so that individual contributors could donate to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates without a penny coming out of their pockets. The donors would be reimbursed from Hsu's stash of illegal cash.
According to federal law, it is illegal to donate to a political campaign in someone else's name, which is exactly what Hsu is charged with doing.
It goes without saying that all of this is adding up to one big legal problem for Hillary the Hutt and husband Bill 'Cigars' Clinton.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Fred Suggests Hillary Slow on the Learning Curve
When the story broke last week of Norman Hsu, the Democrats' campaign funds con man and the Democratic equivalent to Jack Abramoff, Hillary Clinton pledged to give back to the donors roughly $25,000 or so in order to wash her hands of the dirty money.
Today, however, we find that Hillary plans to return over three quarters of a million in dirty campaign contributions from individuals who had been bankrolled by Hsu.
It took Hillary nearly a week to decide to return all of the dirty money--this despite the fact that the Hsu-initiated donations are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws. After all, nearly a million bucks is quite a sum to come out of her campaign war chest, illegal or not.
But according to Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson, Hillary may be a bit slow on the learning curve when it comes to dirty money. It would seem that Fred has first-hand knowledge of 'the Clinton clasp' when it comes to questionable campaign funds.
Thompson was the Chair of the Senate investigation into Clinton ties to illegal Asian-American contributions to Bill's 1996 re-election campaign, as well as the Clintons' legal defense fund in 1996.
According to The Examiner, 'In March 1996, Bill and Hillary Clinton's legal defense fund accepted money from straw donors recruited by Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. The Taiwan-born Democrat hand-delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of checks and money orders in two manila envelopes to the defense fund.'
It was this discovery by Thompson's committee in 1996 that led Thompson to exclaim today, in an obvious rhetorical question to Hillary, 'Didn't you learn anything from Charlie Trie?'
Indeed, Senator. Apparently both Clintons are a bit slow on the learning curve when it comes to dirty campaign money. Even in a very important election campaign for the Clintons, Bill and Hillary are still up to their eyeballs in scandal revolving around questionable fundraising practices (a court case in California opened just this week on this matter) and illegal campaign contribution schemes.
That 'Clinton clasp' must involve a terrible case of sticky fingers, for Bill and Hillary find it awfully difficult to let go of ill-gotten gain that has anything to do with filthy lucre. One would think that, under normal conditions, people as intelligent as the Clintons would have learned their lesson long ago.
But corruption is not always an effective teacher. More often than not, when one heads down the slippery slope of winning at all costs, power-grabs that know no limits or ethical boundaries, and making shady deals with shadowy figures whose hands have shaken hands with the devil, there comes a point where there is no turning back.
One dirty deal leads to another, yet another, and still another, until finally the person involved has lost all contact with moral and ethical reality.
Is Hillary at that point?
No one can know for sure. What we do know, however, is that she has a penchant for associating herself with shady characters in the murky world of corrupt politics. And no matter how many times she comes close to losing it all over those dangerous liaisons, she always manages to do the same thing yet again.
So here we are in 2007 wondering why we are reconsidering the sleaze of 1996. It is all rather simple. Some people never learn.
Today, however, we find that Hillary plans to return over three quarters of a million in dirty campaign contributions from individuals who had been bankrolled by Hsu.
It took Hillary nearly a week to decide to return all of the dirty money--this despite the fact that the Hsu-initiated donations are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws. After all, nearly a million bucks is quite a sum to come out of her campaign war chest, illegal or not.
But according to Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson, Hillary may be a bit slow on the learning curve when it comes to dirty money. It would seem that Fred has first-hand knowledge of 'the Clinton clasp' when it comes to questionable campaign funds.
Thompson was the Chair of the Senate investigation into Clinton ties to illegal Asian-American contributions to Bill's 1996 re-election campaign, as well as the Clintons' legal defense fund in 1996.
According to The Examiner, 'In March 1996, Bill and Hillary Clinton's legal defense fund accepted money from straw donors recruited by Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. The Taiwan-born Democrat hand-delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of checks and money orders in two manila envelopes to the defense fund.'
It was this discovery by Thompson's committee in 1996 that led Thompson to exclaim today, in an obvious rhetorical question to Hillary, 'Didn't you learn anything from Charlie Trie?'
Indeed, Senator. Apparently both Clintons are a bit slow on the learning curve when it comes to dirty campaign money. Even in a very important election campaign for the Clintons, Bill and Hillary are still up to their eyeballs in scandal revolving around questionable fundraising practices (a court case in California opened just this week on this matter) and illegal campaign contribution schemes.
That 'Clinton clasp' must involve a terrible case of sticky fingers, for Bill and Hillary find it awfully difficult to let go of ill-gotten gain that has anything to do with filthy lucre. One would think that, under normal conditions, people as intelligent as the Clintons would have learned their lesson long ago.
But corruption is not always an effective teacher. More often than not, when one heads down the slippery slope of winning at all costs, power-grabs that know no limits or ethical boundaries, and making shady deals with shadowy figures whose hands have shaken hands with the devil, there comes a point where there is no turning back.
One dirty deal leads to another, yet another, and still another, until finally the person involved has lost all contact with moral and ethical reality.
Is Hillary at that point?
No one can know for sure. What we do know, however, is that she has a penchant for associating herself with shady characters in the murky world of corrupt politics. And no matter how many times she comes close to losing it all over those dangerous liaisons, she always manages to do the same thing yet again.
So here we are in 2007 wondering why we are reconsidering the sleaze of 1996. It is all rather simple. Some people never learn.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Clinton Cats of Corruption--More Than Just 9 Lives
Had the cats of corruption--Bill and Hillary Clinton--been actual felines, they would have run out of lives years ago. But these are really big cats. They have more than just 9 lives. And they have decades of scandal to prove it.
Can any honest and sincere person think of a time, ever, when the name 'Clinton' was not synonymous with 'corruption'?
And yet not only have they survived it all but they have managed to flourish when under normal circumstances their political careers would have been long since dead and buried.
Despite the attempts of Democrats to paint the Clinton years as the most economically productive in the nation's history--in spite of the fact that the actual figures show that much of the so-called economic growth was based on fluff and doctored numbers, i.e., Healthsouth, Enron, Global Crossing, and many more--the two terms of Bill Clinton are much more synonymous with one scandal after another, a succession of sleaze that would embarrass the Harding Administration in the early 1920s.
Travelgate; the Vince Foster 'suicide;' Janet Reno's order to murder American citizens in Waco because they were members of a religious cult; Reno's use of jackbooted thugs to seize a little boy, whose mother had lost her life bringing him to freedom, in order to ship him back to a Communist dictatorship; China-gate (yet another campaign fundraising scandal involving Chinese Communists); Hillary's attempt to seize private healthcare in lieu of a nationalized system in which it would have been a felony to seek out a private-pay physician--all point to one big problem that spells graft.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Notice that we have not yet gotten to Monica and the President's lying under oath. There are far too many more damning scandals in which the Clintons were directly involved, such as the mysterious deaths of individuals who have had the goods on the Clintons dating all the way back to Arkansas.
It is no small occurrence that one of the Clinton's closest pals from Arkansas, Susan McDougal, spent years in prison because she refused to squeal on Bill and Hillary.
What, exactly, about the Clintons was so damning that a friend was willing to give years of her life in jail rather than talk?
Yet these and many other examples of the Clinton Cats of Corruption failed to bury the pair as a viable political force. None of it seemed to matter at all to the public, and the mainstream media, of course, successfully negotiated itself through these treacherous waters so as to promote Clinton without failing to report on the massive failures of his years in office.
Reagan was often called 'the Teflon President' because none of the scandal in his Administration seemed to stick to the President personally. There is good reason for that. None of it involved the President personally.
With the Clintons, however, it was all personal, yet somehow they got away with it and continue to do so today.
The growing scandal involving the illegal campaign scheme of a fugitive from justice who orchestrated millions of dollars going into Hillary's campaign coffers under the names of individuals who could not afford such lavish gifts is yet another example of the exceeding graft of the Clinton Cats.
Apparently Norman Hsu got away with breaking federal law on individual donation limits by spreading the loot around in the names of countless individuals, such as the Paws in California, who make a mere $49,000 per year and yet who are listed as having contributed $45,000 to Hillary's campaigns.
No doubt there is much more here than what meets the eye. A case that is presently tied up in court involves a video which shows Bill and Hillary engaging in violations of federal campaign finance laws.
The question is, how many more scandals, how many more broken laws and ruined lives, how much more corruption and sleaze will the Clintons foist upon the American public before the electorate says, 'ENOUGH!'?
Can any honest and sincere person think of a time, ever, when the name 'Clinton' was not synonymous with 'corruption'?
And yet not only have they survived it all but they have managed to flourish when under normal circumstances their political careers would have been long since dead and buried.
Despite the attempts of Democrats to paint the Clinton years as the most economically productive in the nation's history--in spite of the fact that the actual figures show that much of the so-called economic growth was based on fluff and doctored numbers, i.e., Healthsouth, Enron, Global Crossing, and many more--the two terms of Bill Clinton are much more synonymous with one scandal after another, a succession of sleaze that would embarrass the Harding Administration in the early 1920s.
Travelgate; the Vince Foster 'suicide;' Janet Reno's order to murder American citizens in Waco because they were members of a religious cult; Reno's use of jackbooted thugs to seize a little boy, whose mother had lost her life bringing him to freedom, in order to ship him back to a Communist dictatorship; China-gate (yet another campaign fundraising scandal involving Chinese Communists); Hillary's attempt to seize private healthcare in lieu of a nationalized system in which it would have been a felony to seek out a private-pay physician--all point to one big problem that spells graft.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Notice that we have not yet gotten to Monica and the President's lying under oath. There are far too many more damning scandals in which the Clintons were directly involved, such as the mysterious deaths of individuals who have had the goods on the Clintons dating all the way back to Arkansas.
It is no small occurrence that one of the Clinton's closest pals from Arkansas, Susan McDougal, spent years in prison because she refused to squeal on Bill and Hillary.
What, exactly, about the Clintons was so damning that a friend was willing to give years of her life in jail rather than talk?
Yet these and many other examples of the Clinton Cats of Corruption failed to bury the pair as a viable political force. None of it seemed to matter at all to the public, and the mainstream media, of course, successfully negotiated itself through these treacherous waters so as to promote Clinton without failing to report on the massive failures of his years in office.
Reagan was often called 'the Teflon President' because none of the scandal in his Administration seemed to stick to the President personally. There is good reason for that. None of it involved the President personally.
With the Clintons, however, it was all personal, yet somehow they got away with it and continue to do so today.
The growing scandal involving the illegal campaign scheme of a fugitive from justice who orchestrated millions of dollars going into Hillary's campaign coffers under the names of individuals who could not afford such lavish gifts is yet another example of the exceeding graft of the Clinton Cats.
Apparently Norman Hsu got away with breaking federal law on individual donation limits by spreading the loot around in the names of countless individuals, such as the Paws in California, who make a mere $49,000 per year and yet who are listed as having contributed $45,000 to Hillary's campaigns.
No doubt there is much more here than what meets the eye. A case that is presently tied up in court involves a video which shows Bill and Hillary engaging in violations of federal campaign finance laws.
The question is, how many more scandals, how many more broken laws and ruined lives, how much more corruption and sleaze will the Clintons foist upon the American public before the electorate says, 'ENOUGH!'?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
A Conversation Between John and Hillary
The following is a fictitious encounter. Any slight resemblance to the actual characters is purely intentional.
Setting: A back corridor on Capitol Hill
Characters: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman
McCain: Uh, Hill, you know, ever since that incident in Europe several years ago, you know, when you and I had that contest to see who could drink the most booze without either giving up or passing out?
Hillary: Yeah, John, I remember the first part of it, but the end of it is a bit fuzzy.
McCain: Well, I don't remember a thing about the end of it, ahem, but that is besides the point.
Hillary: (Laughing) Yeah, you little twerp, I beat the socks off ya!
McCain: (Not laughing) As I said, that is not the point, but maybe, in a way it IS the point.
Hillary: Just what IS your point, John?
McCain: Well, Hill, ever since that time, I have been quite concerned...you know, about your ability to consume a copious amount of alcohol and never miss a beat, until you've had enough to fill the Atlantic Ocean.
Hillary: So I can hold my liquor and you can't! You jealous?
McCain: Hillary, please. I'm trying to be serious here as your friend.
Hillary: Ok, Ok...you think I have a drinking problem, don't you.
McCain: Well, it did cross my mind.
Hillary: And you are just now bringing it up? This must have something to do with that deal I offered you the other day...ya know, you switch over to the Democrats, and I will offer you the opportunity to be my running mate?
McCain: Oh, no no. I'm not too keen on that offer, Hill, as much as I appreciate the thought. I want to be President. I have the experience and the maturity. I would not be interested in being Vice President. I'm just concerned about your health more than anything.
Hillary: (Rolls eyes) Ohhh, John, get over it. I have had a drinking problem on and off. I get help. But sometimes I relapse. You know Bill and me. We both have our problems. When HE relapses, though, he buries his head under the sheets...in a manner of speaking...with the nearest bimbo he can find.
Uncontrolled laughter breaks out among the two.
Hillary: When I relapse I only hide and hibernate for about three or four days, then everything is back to normal. Well, hell, it only happens three or four times a year, I swear.
McCain: Hmmmmm. Well, glad to hear it isn't so bad, after all, Hill. Hey, I have a meeting to attend. Talk to ya later.
McCain: (Walks down the corridor thinking to himself) 'Three or four times per year'...wow...at least four weeks out of the year I will be President, maybe even more! Hmmmm. Making mental note to reconsider that offer.....
Hillary: (Walks in other direction down the corridor thinking to herself) Ha! Now I've got him! Worked like a charm. Now, let's see what that vast freakin' rightwing conspiracy and the rest of the Republicans do with my dream ticket! (Snickers) I STOLE one of their own candidates! What complete clowns!
Hillary bumps into Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman: Oh hi, Hillary, glad I bumped into you. I wanted to tell you that I am seriously considering switching to the Republican Party. They are practically making me an offer I can't refuse.
Hillary: Joe, I trust your judgment. Just carefully think it through before deciding. Now, I gotta run...have one of those damn meetings, ya know.
Hillary mutters to herself as she walks away: Asshole.
Setting: A back corridor on Capitol Hill
Characters: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman
McCain: Uh, Hill, you know, ever since that incident in Europe several years ago, you know, when you and I had that contest to see who could drink the most booze without either giving up or passing out?
Hillary: Yeah, John, I remember the first part of it, but the end of it is a bit fuzzy.
McCain: Well, I don't remember a thing about the end of it, ahem, but that is besides the point.
Hillary: (Laughing) Yeah, you little twerp, I beat the socks off ya!
McCain: (Not laughing) As I said, that is not the point, but maybe, in a way it IS the point.
Hillary: Just what IS your point, John?
McCain: Well, Hill, ever since that time, I have been quite concerned...you know, about your ability to consume a copious amount of alcohol and never miss a beat, until you've had enough to fill the Atlantic Ocean.
Hillary: So I can hold my liquor and you can't! You jealous?
McCain: Hillary, please. I'm trying to be serious here as your friend.
Hillary: Ok, Ok...you think I have a drinking problem, don't you.
McCain: Well, it did cross my mind.
Hillary: And you are just now bringing it up? This must have something to do with that deal I offered you the other day...ya know, you switch over to the Democrats, and I will offer you the opportunity to be my running mate?
McCain: Oh, no no. I'm not too keen on that offer, Hill, as much as I appreciate the thought. I want to be President. I have the experience and the maturity. I would not be interested in being Vice President. I'm just concerned about your health more than anything.
Hillary: (Rolls eyes) Ohhh, John, get over it. I have had a drinking problem on and off. I get help. But sometimes I relapse. You know Bill and me. We both have our problems. When HE relapses, though, he buries his head under the sheets...in a manner of speaking...with the nearest bimbo he can find.
Uncontrolled laughter breaks out among the two.
Hillary: When I relapse I only hide and hibernate for about three or four days, then everything is back to normal. Well, hell, it only happens three or four times a year, I swear.
McCain: Hmmmmm. Well, glad to hear it isn't so bad, after all, Hill. Hey, I have a meeting to attend. Talk to ya later.
McCain: (Walks down the corridor thinking to himself) 'Three or four times per year'...wow...at least four weeks out of the year I will be President, maybe even more! Hmmmm. Making mental note to reconsider that offer.....
Hillary: (Walks in other direction down the corridor thinking to herself) Ha! Now I've got him! Worked like a charm. Now, let's see what that vast freakin' rightwing conspiracy and the rest of the Republicans do with my dream ticket! (Snickers) I STOLE one of their own candidates! What complete clowns!
Hillary bumps into Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman: Oh hi, Hillary, glad I bumped into you. I wanted to tell you that I am seriously considering switching to the Republican Party. They are practically making me an offer I can't refuse.
Hillary: Joe, I trust your judgment. Just carefully think it through before deciding. Now, I gotta run...have one of those damn meetings, ya know.
Hillary mutters to herself as she walks away: Asshole.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Cauldron Still Boils Under Chinese Surface
Very little has changed in China with regard to free speech and political dissent since the 1989 Tienanmen Square Massacre. Last week a political dissident by the name of Chen Shuqing was sentenced to four years in jail after being convicted in a Chinese court for 'inciting subversion.'
Chen had written extensively on many foreign websites about the need for freedom and constitutional rule in China.
China has a constitution that supposedly grants the freedom of expressing political opinion, though it rarely, if ever, upholds such liberty.
For example, in order for Google, Inc. to do business in the Communist nation, it had to agree to censor its search engine results within the country, deleting all references to the Tienanmen Square Massacre and to Taiwan's independence.
Google's highly unethical, un-American, and anti-Constitutional practices in China remains a thorn in the flesh to those of us who use the corporation's services. We happen to question whether such policies should be legal for an American corporation.
Although China had agreed to ease some of its restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics, human and media watch groups say that the country is cracking down on political dissent and the growing social unrest within its borders.
A Paris-based liberty watchdog group called 'Reporters Without Borders' says that 30 journalists and 50 Internet users have been arrested and detained in China, some remaining behind bars for nearly 20 years.
The group also ranks China a dismal 163rd out of 167 countries on its press freedom index.
Reporters Without Borders condemned the harsh sentence of Chen, referring to the actions of the Chinese government as 'appalling.' Even the lawyer representing Chen, Li Jianqiang, had his license to practice law suspended for a year due to his defense of cases involving freedom of the press.
The U.S. squandered a golden opportunity to use the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency to defend the student dissidents who were summarily slaughtered, imprisoned, and oppressed by their own government during the 1989 Tienanmen Square incident.
Chinese university students by the tens of thousands took to the streets in 1989 to demand liberty. One cannot forget the one male student facing down a Chinese military tank with its huge guns pointed at him.
The standoff did not last long.
After attempting in vain to silence the protesters with fear tactics, the Chinese government lowered the boom on its own citizens, most of whom were the brightest young intellects in the country. Using its mighty military arsenal against unarmed dissidents, China crushed the pro-liberty demonstrations with massive bloodshed.
President George H.W. Bush maintained a low profile in the wake of such a tragedy.
Many believe that Bush the First placed expediency above principle when he refused to come to the defense of the student dissidents. After all, Bush had established close friends within the Chinese government early in his career as a foreign diplomat.
One cannot even begin to fathom Ronald Reagan doing such a thing had he been President. In fact, it is a near certainty that had Reagan still been in office a very different scenario would have developed, possibly leading to a human rights showdown with the Communist country, much as he had done with the Soviet Union.
With Bush the First's capitulation to the Chinese government, the student dissidents were essentially left hanging out to dry all on their own.
Bill Clinton was no better than Bush the First. In fact, one of the driving forces of the Tienanmen Square uprising, Chai Ling, was appalled that President Bill Clinton went to China in 1999 and saluted some of the very same soldiers who killed many of her friends during the 1989 protest.
The thing that oppressive governments never learn is that the thirst for liberty never dissipates but only grows the more a society is oppressed. And since 1989 the student movement that burst forth demanding liberty has been publicly silenced but not destroyed.
In fact, the cauldron of unrest still boils just under the Chinese surface, and the Chinese government knows it.
This is the reason that despite their reassurances, the government still cracks down harshly on all political dissent.
And for this reason, American corporations such as Google are complicit in the Chinese oppression of its people. It almost goes without saying that Google and others like it deserve to be harshly condemned.
For a complete annotated pictorial of the Tienanmen Square Massacre, click here:
http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm
Chen had written extensively on many foreign websites about the need for freedom and constitutional rule in China.
China has a constitution that supposedly grants the freedom of expressing political opinion, though it rarely, if ever, upholds such liberty.
For example, in order for Google, Inc. to do business in the Communist nation, it had to agree to censor its search engine results within the country, deleting all references to the Tienanmen Square Massacre and to Taiwan's independence.
Google's highly unethical, un-American, and anti-Constitutional practices in China remains a thorn in the flesh to those of us who use the corporation's services. We happen to question whether such policies should be legal for an American corporation.
Although China had agreed to ease some of its restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics, human and media watch groups say that the country is cracking down on political dissent and the growing social unrest within its borders.
A Paris-based liberty watchdog group called 'Reporters Without Borders' says that 30 journalists and 50 Internet users have been arrested and detained in China, some remaining behind bars for nearly 20 years.
The group also ranks China a dismal 163rd out of 167 countries on its press freedom index.
Reporters Without Borders condemned the harsh sentence of Chen, referring to the actions of the Chinese government as 'appalling.' Even the lawyer representing Chen, Li Jianqiang, had his license to practice law suspended for a year due to his defense of cases involving freedom of the press.
The U.S. squandered a golden opportunity to use the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency to defend the student dissidents who were summarily slaughtered, imprisoned, and oppressed by their own government during the 1989 Tienanmen Square incident.
Chinese university students by the tens of thousands took to the streets in 1989 to demand liberty. One cannot forget the one male student facing down a Chinese military tank with its huge guns pointed at him.
The standoff did not last long.
After attempting in vain to silence the protesters with fear tactics, the Chinese government lowered the boom on its own citizens, most of whom were the brightest young intellects in the country. Using its mighty military arsenal against unarmed dissidents, China crushed the pro-liberty demonstrations with massive bloodshed.
President George H.W. Bush maintained a low profile in the wake of such a tragedy.
Many believe that Bush the First placed expediency above principle when he refused to come to the defense of the student dissidents. After all, Bush had established close friends within the Chinese government early in his career as a foreign diplomat.
One cannot even begin to fathom Ronald Reagan doing such a thing had he been President. In fact, it is a near certainty that had Reagan still been in office a very different scenario would have developed, possibly leading to a human rights showdown with the Communist country, much as he had done with the Soviet Union.
With Bush the First's capitulation to the Chinese government, the student dissidents were essentially left hanging out to dry all on their own.
Bill Clinton was no better than Bush the First. In fact, one of the driving forces of the Tienanmen Square uprising, Chai Ling, was appalled that President Bill Clinton went to China in 1999 and saluted some of the very same soldiers who killed many of her friends during the 1989 protest.
The thing that oppressive governments never learn is that the thirst for liberty never dissipates but only grows the more a society is oppressed. And since 1989 the student movement that burst forth demanding liberty has been publicly silenced but not destroyed.
In fact, the cauldron of unrest still boils just under the Chinese surface, and the Chinese government knows it.
This is the reason that despite their reassurances, the government still cracks down harshly on all political dissent.
And for this reason, American corporations such as Google are complicit in the Chinese oppression of its people. It almost goes without saying that Google and others like it deserve to be harshly condemned.
For a complete annotated pictorial of the Tienanmen Square Massacre, click here:
http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Democrats to Tax Cigar Industry Out of Business
Washington, DC (TLS). Fred Thompson likes them. So does Tom Tancredo. My grandfather loved them--he kept one in his mouth all day long and lived to be 80.
Bill Clinton smoked them. Sometimes he loved to smell them after they had been in a certain place.
This writer loves them too. But the Democrats in Congress are intent on running cigar companies out of business with a massive, unprecedented tax increase of draconian proportions.
Cigar aficionados and manufacturers were aghast upon hearing the news today that Democrats in Congress are planning on slapping a 10 DOLLAR PER CIGAR federal tax on premium stogies.
The Boston Tea Party was organized over much less of an affront to citizens that this.
For example, if a customer goes into his/her favorite cigar shop and buys three Fuentes at 3 bucks a piece, the total bill for that purchase will be at least $39.00. Nine dollars of that total will be for the cigars, and thirty dollars will be for the federal tax, and that does not even count state and local sales taxes.
Congress is justifying its robbery of the citizens by saying it will use the funds from these astronomical taxes to 'pay for child healthcare.'
To put it simply, BALDERDASH!
The proposals the Democrats have put on the table for child healthcare are simply a method for initiating socialized medicine in increments, starting with children.
And they are not just targeting the poor. They want ALL children covered by the government, regardless of need.
The Liberty Sphere has long advocated the consideration of methods to insure those who lack access to the nation's healthcare system. There are ways to accomplish this without the government taking over and dismantling American free enterprise.
We have no objection to implementing methods to cover the children of the poor. But we vehemently object to the government doing it and implementing a blanket socialized federal system that covers even those children whose parents have very good private insurance.
The Democrats hope they can pull this off by referring to the plan as a 'sin tax' to 'pay for children's healthcare.' After all, who can argue with that?
This is what they are counting on.
I don't buy it.
Their plan is a ruse to get a foot in the door of socialized medicine, using children as their first experiment. Every single one of them should be ashamed.
As for their 10-bucks-per-cigar federal tax, the outrageous, over-the-top, asinine nature of this proposal simply boggles the mind. The notion of such a thing is more evidence of the oppressive nature of Democrats with regard to taxation. They never saw a tax increase they didn't like.
And this time, apparently the bigger the increase the better.
And remember, these government thieves are planning on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will amount to the single largest tax increase in U.S. history.
Perhaps all of us cigar smokers should somehow pile up all the Democrats into a room so that we can light up and blow cigar smoke in their faces. Take that, Pelosi. Reid, here's something for your lungs!
No wonder these clowns have a national approval rating at a mere 16%.
To find out more about how the Democrats' cigar tax will effect American business, click here:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml
Bill Clinton smoked them. Sometimes he loved to smell them after they had been in a certain place.
This writer loves them too. But the Democrats in Congress are intent on running cigar companies out of business with a massive, unprecedented tax increase of draconian proportions.
Cigar aficionados and manufacturers were aghast upon hearing the news today that Democrats in Congress are planning on slapping a 10 DOLLAR PER CIGAR federal tax on premium stogies.
The Boston Tea Party was organized over much less of an affront to citizens that this.
For example, if a customer goes into his/her favorite cigar shop and buys three Fuentes at 3 bucks a piece, the total bill for that purchase will be at least $39.00. Nine dollars of that total will be for the cigars, and thirty dollars will be for the federal tax, and that does not even count state and local sales taxes.
Congress is justifying its robbery of the citizens by saying it will use the funds from these astronomical taxes to 'pay for child healthcare.'
To put it simply, BALDERDASH!
The proposals the Democrats have put on the table for child healthcare are simply a method for initiating socialized medicine in increments, starting with children.
And they are not just targeting the poor. They want ALL children covered by the government, regardless of need.
The Liberty Sphere has long advocated the consideration of methods to insure those who lack access to the nation's healthcare system. There are ways to accomplish this without the government taking over and dismantling American free enterprise.
We have no objection to implementing methods to cover the children of the poor. But we vehemently object to the government doing it and implementing a blanket socialized federal system that covers even those children whose parents have very good private insurance.
The Democrats hope they can pull this off by referring to the plan as a 'sin tax' to 'pay for children's healthcare.' After all, who can argue with that?
This is what they are counting on.
I don't buy it.
Their plan is a ruse to get a foot in the door of socialized medicine, using children as their first experiment. Every single one of them should be ashamed.
As for their 10-bucks-per-cigar federal tax, the outrageous, over-the-top, asinine nature of this proposal simply boggles the mind. The notion of such a thing is more evidence of the oppressive nature of Democrats with regard to taxation. They never saw a tax increase they didn't like.
And this time, apparently the bigger the increase the better.
And remember, these government thieves are planning on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will amount to the single largest tax increase in U.S. history.
Perhaps all of us cigar smokers should somehow pile up all the Democrats into a room so that we can light up and blow cigar smoke in their faces. Take that, Pelosi. Reid, here's something for your lungs!
No wonder these clowns have a national approval rating at a mere 16%.
To find out more about how the Democrats' cigar tax will effect American business, click here:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)