Kowabunga

Hillary Clinton, after being handed a series of softballs, tells Tyra Banks living in the White House is like living in a prison. How the heck did she come up with that comparison?

From the LA Times:

Not that it's going to diminish her ambition to live there again, but Hillary Clinton says she views the White House as something of a prison.

and

President Harry Truman once said that the White House was like the crown jewel of the American penal system because you can feel confined.

Based on my very limited knowledge of prison and the White House, I have hard time coming to that kind of conclusion. Maybe its only Democrats that feel that way as that is where so many of them, like former congressman Traficant, belong.

In the White House, there are security details there to prevent you from getting bumped off, and these security agents will take a bullet for you. In prison, there are also guards; they are there to keep the inmates from doing more harm to law-biding citizens.

In the White House, you get gourmet meals prepared by great chefs, served with wine or any other kind of booze (especially important if Ted Kennedy is coming to dinner) you would like. In prison, you are served whatever the cooks prepare in a large cafeteria setting with some guy named Bubba eyeing you AND your food. No alcohol is served.

In the White House you can come and go as you please, albeit escorted by an entourage of security agents. In prison, you get to go to an exercise yard and work out with some guy named Bubba who may think you are cute.

In the White House, you have luxurious living accommodations for both you and your family. In prison, you share a tiny cell and toilet with some guy named Bubba who may want to do "the nasty" with you.

How is this like prison? Unless Hillary considers Bill to be like Bubba in the prison examples, there are no similarities.

Hillary then suggests that if she is elected America will need a name for Bill as First lady won't work.

Banks also wanted to know what Clinton's husband would be called if she won. "He will always be Mr. President," Clinton said. "But now we need to do a nationwide contest for a name."

"Like a reality show," Banks suggested.

"Like a reality show," Clinton agreed. "This is good, because think about it; here are some of the things that have been suggested like First Mate. His Scottish friends say 'First Laddie,' but we need ideas. I'll just keep calling him Bill."

My recommendation is "First Philanderer", which is a little politer than "First Adulterer." The question is, where do I submit my entry?

Tags:

Hillary Philanderer White House

Posted by Sqotty at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The big headline over at MyFoxLA is that Hillary was heckled by a Code Pinko during a forum on global Warming (Edwards and Kucinich were also speaking there). The Code Pinko disturbance was not much more than a blip on the radar screen for the event. It is far more interesting to learn a bit about where the candidates stand on energy and global warming.

Okay, we know that all ready: they stand with Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore.

All three of the candidates want to CUT energy consumption, anywhere from 15% to 20% over the next decade or so. How they expect to do that without crippling the economy, lowering the American standard of living (at least for those of us who are working-class Americans - the rich elites, like Edwards, Clinton, and the Boracle will continue to live as they do while telling us how we should curtail our energy consumption), throwing millions of Americans out of work, raising taxes on us, or putting our lives at risk by forcing auto manufacturers to produce lighter, less safe vehicles is beyond me. Nuclear energy is not an acceptable option for any of them.

That's the real story from the Grist forum. The Code Pinko was nothing more than a distraction (could he be a Hillary Campaign plant? Naw!) from the big picture. These people are not ready for prime time; they want power to control Americans in a "do as I say, not as I do!" fashion, and therefore should not be trusted with this nation's highest office.

Tags:

Hillary Code Pink

Posted by Sqotty at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

My wife sent me an email quiz on a series of very Marxist sounding quotes, all of them attributable to Hillary Clinton. I poked around on snopes.com to see if it had any further enlightenment, and it confirmed that they are indeed accurate, but claims they are taken out of context.

Quote #1:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good."

Snopes states that this is out of context as it was made at a fundraiser of well-to-do (wealthy) Democrats about the Bush taxcuts being for the wealthy and not the middle-class. Snopes does not cite the origin of this quote.

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters - some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend - to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Okay, I agree that anyone who can pony up $10,000 to keep moonbats like Boxer in office probably don't need taxcuts. But the rest of us who have benefited to some greater or lesser degree sure do. Even though snopes claims the context was that the quote was targeted wealthy Democrats, it actually does apply to all working Americans as well.

What is also important to remember is that more money in the hands of the people who earn it use that money to further stimulate the economy by investing in companies, savings, and spending it to buy products. People don't squirrel money away between their mattresses these days, unless they are drugrunners.

Quote #2:

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few... and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

Snopes again claims it s out of context in order to produce a socialist nature that is "undercut" when you give the complete quote. From a speech Hillary made on May 27, 2007 (and posted on hillaryclinton.com)

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.

This really is, when you take the full context, Marxist drivel. America became a great nation because of a society that promotes individual responsibility and free markets where people can choose their path to success (or not!).

The Russian revolution was based on the concept of protecting the workers and implementing a society of "shared responsibility" and "shared prosperity." What the people of Russia (and China later on) got was a new form of government of/by/for the few, the Soviet party hierarchy, which merely replaced the old aristocracy, the elimination of free markets and, consequently, the elimination of prosperity.

The rest of the quotes all have to do with health care, energy and global warming, and again, snopes claims that they are out of context, yet even when taking into account the full context of the quote, they are quite Marxist in nature.

In one example Hillary talks about the 45 million people who have chosen not to buy health insurance as if it is some sort of national tragedy that needs to be resolved by government, rather than by individual choice. I have known people who have not had health insurance, the reason being that they were working jobs that did not provide insurance to them (they were contractors) and chose not to buy their own. The problem is one of attitude: We have come to expect that our employers will provide health insurance, rather than it being a benefit that is offered as a lure to hire people.

I could go on, but it is snowing (what happened to "global warming"?) and my daughter is excited about that and wants to go outside and play.

Tags:

Hillary Snopes Quotes Marxism

Posted by Sqotty at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Now that Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens in New York has fallen apart, Hillary has to change her tune in a Kerryesque Flip-Flop fashion. It was just a little over a week ago that Hillary came out in support of Sptizer's plan to license illegals in his state, and she did her best to make it clear that she was in favor of amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens without using the word amnesty. Now she is changing course with the winds of change.

From MyWayNews:

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

What this means, liberally speaking, is that illegal aliens only have to wait until after the 2008 election at which point, if Hillary is elected, there will be a hard push for amnesty (better known as "fixing our broken system"). Once amnesty is granted, they will no longer be considered "undocumented people" (liberal speak for "illegal alien") and so can get drivers licenses and other documents.

If our immigration system is broken it is because Congress has failed to enforce our laws, as failed to secure our borders despite the calls from across America to do exactly that, it has failed to put the breaks on "sanctuary" cities by cutting Federal funding to cities that enact such laws. We don't need immigration reform; we need our current laws enforced.

Hillary continues to show that she doesn't get the illegal alien and immigration issue. Immigrants are not living "in the shadows" as the hard left often claims. Illegal aliens are, and that is because they have broken many of our laws, not just the ones involving crossing our border.

Hillary's position is quite clear on her own campaign website:

…a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Setting aside that illegal aliens routine violate, not respect, our laws, what is the "high bar" Hillary speaks of? None is defined. If respecting our laws is a prerequisite to legal status (amnesty by any other name is still amnesty), then it would not be possible for illegal aliens to gain legal status: they've already failed to meet muster.

It is paramount that our current laws be enforced and sanctuary cities eliminated (starting with San Francisco), in addition to securing our borders BEFORE any form of immigration reform can be discussed. What the Leftists and other elites (there are some on the right as well) want to do is grant amnesty first and start the whole cycle of illegal aliens overrunning our borders again. Only 20 years from now it won't be 12-20 million illegals to contend with; it will be 50 million.

Enforcement first then we can discuss the rest of the issues around immigration reform.

Tags:

Hillary Amnesty Spitzer

Posted by Sqotty at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am not surprised to learn that the Hillary Political Juggernaut is planting questions at open forums. I am surprised that they are admitting to it.

FoxNews has a report on this admission by Clinton staffers that state that they planted questions in a townhall forum in Iowa. From the FoxNews report:

"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff '10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton's speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.

"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

"But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event 'they wanted a question from a college student,' Gallo-Chasanoff said."

It seems odd that with all of the brain-washed kids out there these days, Hillary still has to plant questions on the topic of global warming in order to push her energy agenda which includes the trading of carbon credits ala the Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore plan where the wealthy continue to live as they do in mansions that use far more carbon-based energy in per month than the average American uses in a year, while the middle class who can't afford to buy carbon credits get stuck footing the bill.

What I especially like is her plan that all Federal buildings be carbon emission free. That must mean they will shut down all Federal buildings and eliminate all Federal jobs.

Hillary also claims that her plan will create 5 million jobs. The only jobs government creates are government jobs, so she must intend on expanding government by that much, which is too much, especially since the average American will be forced to pay for all of that through increased taxes.

If Hillary has to stoop to planting shills in an audience in order to advance her cause, then that must mean there is something dreadfully wrong about her "cause."

And how will Iowa respond to the fact that Hillary has to have these shills in their midst?

Tags:

Hillary, Iowa, Townhall

Posted by Sqotty at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Sometimes I think the Clintons are not as smart as people want us to believe they are. From MyWay News:

In a presidential nomination fight growing more intense by the day, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also criticized the former first lady for having voted in the Senate against incentives for ethanol production and higher fuel efficiency standards. And 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards challenged her to spell out what she would do about Iraq.

The week after Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused her rivals of "piling on," those foes showed no sign of easing up. They even went so far as to criticize the former president, a strategy that comes with risks in a party filled with voters who admire him for resurrecting the party in the 1990s.

According to the Hillary camp, opponents who ask her point-blank as to what she intends to do in Iraq if elected president, or questioning her Senatorial record, is called "pilling on." I thought it was a matter of getting the public informed on the issues to better empower the People to make a good choice for president.

It gets better:

On Monday, in defense of his wife against political critics, Bill Clinton cited the "swift boat" television ads of the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned John Kerry's patriotism and the campaign commercials in 2002 that suggested Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was soft on terrorism.

The "swift boat" ads in question did not question John Kerry's patriotism, but rather questioned his ability to lead this country and serve as Commander in Chief of our Armed forces. Legitimate questions in a presidential campaign. As for Max Cleland being "soft on terrorism," well, so was Bill Clinton, who had Osama bin Laden offered up to him on a silver platter by the Sudan; Clinton also failed to act on operational intelligence that would have allowed our forces to eliminate bin Laden years before the attacks of 9/11. Now that's soft on terrorism. The fact of the matter is that most Democrats now serving in Congress are "soft on terror." That's why they want to abandon Iraq to the Islamo-Fascist extremists.

Clinton is also wrong in comparing the questioning of his wife's ambitions as being ‘swift boating." He is way of base and, surprisingly, I agree with Dodd on that (Obama pulls some other wackiness out of his, er, brain).

"I wasn't at my best the other night," Clinton said on CNN.

A president has to be at their best every single day and night, not just once in a while.

Dodd is right in that anyone who will cry foul anytime they are questioned by their rivals should not be president. Presidents, and people seeking that office, need to always be prepared to answer the tough questions, and that includes discussing plans for Iraq, securing our border and dealing with the millions of illegal aliens now residing in this country, and how best to enforce our current laws rather than changing them because they don't want to enforce them.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is solidly on the side of granting amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens, people who by their being here are in violation of U.S. laws. From CNN.com:

Asked by reporters Sunday why it's taken so long for clarification Clinton admitted she "wasn't as clear as [she] should have been" but added, "I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do."

And what is it governors like Spitzer are doing? Failing to uphold their oath of office by defending and protecting our constitution and enforcing our laws, including and specifically, our immigration laws. This is not limited to governors like Spitzer, but to mayors of cities like San Francisco and new York that set up sanctuary laws that frustrate immigration officials and allow illegal aliens to live in this country illegally.

Clinton said governors around the nation are left with the burden because she said the Bush administration and the federal government as a whole have failed to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.

Thus it is Bush's fault, despite the fact that Bush is in the same court Hillary is and wanted to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to illegal aliens. How about putting the blame where the blame is due? On congress for failing to supply our Federal law enforcement agencies with the manpower and the tools to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders? How about on governors like Spitzer who push to legitimize illegal aliens by issuing them drivers licenses? How about on the cities that pass sanctuary laws and then again on Congress for not cutting federal funding to cities that do so?

"But finally I do not believe we can resolve this problem unless we bring people out of the shadows," Clinton said, adding that undocumented immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship but they'd need to register, pay taxes, pay fines, learn English, and wait in line after those who've come to the United States legally. Those who have committed crimes, she said, should be deported.

It is more accurate to say that we can not resolve this problem by not penalizing cities that pass sanctuary laws, allowing illegal aliens to flourish. Granting illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship is not an acceptable answer, just as deporting the 12+ Million illegals already here may not be a viable solution.

Illegal aliens commit identity theft, frequently using the social security numbers of real Americans in order to fraudulently obtain jobs. They buy cars and drive without legitimate drivers licenses and without insurance. By the way, even in California, there is a serious problem with people WITH licenses not maintaining auto insurance. Just by giving illegal aliens drivers licenses does not mean the problem of them (or any other person) driving without insurance will go a way. (For those of you who are interested, in California you only have to provide insurance at the time you renew your vehicle registration. The tactic used is that people get insurance for that one month when they need to register their vehicle and get their tabs, then they cancel the policy.)

The only way to solve the illegal alien problem is by first securing our borders, and then enforcing our existing laws. We don't need immigration reform, nor should we be giving amnesty to illegal aliens nor passing laws that serve as a backdoor to amnesty, such as the DREAM Act that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. We should also terminate all Federal funding to cities that pass sanctuary laws.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Democrat Liberal Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Apparently Hillary Clinton and the hard-left have still not gotten over the fact that hey lost the 2000 election. Hillary had this to say in the latest rounds of debates (from MyWay news):

"I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress we were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since," Clinton said.

This ignores completely the fact that the Gore campaign attempted to steal the election by having the Florida courts change Florida's election laws after the election took place; it ignores that thousands of voters in Florida were disenfranchised by the liberal media siding with Gore, calling the election for Gore before the polls were closed. This is especially galling as the Florida panhandle is in a different time zone and voter turnout there was substantially lower than normal. And finally it ignores the facts that the Gore attempted to have the absentee ballots of military service members serving overseas thrown out on a technicality (through no fault of the service members) and have the votes of convicted felons counted.

The Supreme court of the U.S. only stepped in because someone had to straighten out the Constitutional mess that the gore Campaign and the Democrats created. They did not give the election to Bush in any way shape or form.

The article goes on to include statements by her competitors for the Democratic Nomination:

Chimed in Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, "Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her."

We'll set aside the fact that according to Democratic standards, Dodd should be considered AWOL during Vietnam. He misses a very important point: Bill Clinton never achieved 50% of the popular vote (unlike Bush who achieved over 50% of the popular vote in 2004). In 1992 he only achieved roughly 42%, a couple of hundred thousand votes (and a fraction of a percent) of the popular vote over then President George H. W. Bush. It does not take a majority of the popular vote to win the presidency; it takes a majority of votes in the Electoral College to win.

Despite what Dems claim, I still think she is their most likely choice, and also one of the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks like Hillary Clinton has changed her name in an attempt to associate herself with Richard Nixon. From the Washington Times:

As far as I can tell, its origins are nothing more than the campaign claims of the two candidates. Sen. Hillary Milhous Clinton has been lumbering around the political landscape talking about herself as commander in chief.

Or, perhaps, they are being tongue in cheek.

Despite their gaff, the piece is well worth reading as it focuses on the politcal clichés of Obama being able to bring change to Washington while Hillary has the experience to lead. It is right on the money when it comes to their experience and trustworthiness, which, in both cases, is not very high.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Nixon

Posted by Sqotty at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I ran across this pic recently and decided to add my own caption to it.

I think it takes the words right out of Bill's mouth.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton

Posted by Sqotty at 9:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's funny how the Dems and others keep accusing Romney of flip-flopping on some issues, yet something that is critical to national security, the entrusting of the ultimate weapon, and Hillary flip-flops, nobody notices.

From Washington Post:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Our nuclear arsenal is probably one of the most important factors, if not THE most important factor, in how we choose a president.

When a candidate states unilaterally that they would not use nukes under any circumstances, then they show a level of weakness to our enemies.

This is what got Eisenhower in trouble with the U.S.S.R. when he signed a treaty to stop testing nukes. We stopped, the bad guys didn't.

There is a balance that needs to be reached. You can't belligerently go around saying you are going to nuke countries or cities as Tancredo has been reported as doing in respect to nuking Mecca. You also can't say the use of nukes is off the table. Both extremes send the wrong message to the bad guys in Iran, North Korea, China, as well as the Islamic Terrorists.

When it comes to entrusting such weaponry, there is no way I would consider Hillary with nukes. I'd be afraid she would actually use it on one of our allies as a result of "actionable intelligence."

Obama on the other hand, continues to show naiveté by saying he wouldn't use nukes under any circumstances.

The middle ground is not to say whether or not you would use nukes. Reason: you pray to God that using them will never be necessary, but remain prepared to use them should the need arise.

While Hillary flip-flops on how she plans to deal with terrorism and other foreign policy issues, Obama continues to prove that he is a lightweight by trying to follow Hillary's lead and failing to keep up with her.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Obama Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator-who-would-be-Queen Hillary Clinton moonbats it out of the park in a response to VP Cheney's refusal to allow the disclosure of Iraq plans from the Pentagon.

From Myway News:

She used even tougher language in an appeal sent to supporters of her presidential bid: "I couldn't care less what Dick Cheney says about me. But when he plays politics with the lives of our troops, you had better be sure I'm going to respond. And I know that you want to respond too."

As the saying goes "kettle, black."

It amazes me how often the hard-left accuses Conservatives of playing politics with the lives of our men and women who serve, especially since they are the ones who are playing hardball politics with our troops by tying funding for continued operations in Iraq to timetables for withdrawal (that's Democrat for surrender). It was a Democrat named Kerry who proclaimed "I voted for the $86 billion before I voted against" in regards to funding that was destined to provide needed equipment, including body armor, for our boots on the ground in Iraq.

Every time a Democrat attempts to tie funding to timetables or other tactics to micromanage the war, they are playing politics with the lives of our troops.

The politically charged debate began in May when Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sought a briefing on how the Pentagon is planning to eventually remove troops and equipment from Iraq.

Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman wrote to the New York senator last month that such discussion boosts "enemy propaganda." Clinton called that answer "outrageous" and accused the Pentagon of ducking a serious issue.

Edelman s right in that talks of pulling out in Iraq sends a message that all the bad guys have to do is keep on doing what their doing and they will, like in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, win. They just have to wait out the American will to achieve victory and let the pro-terrorist activists and their proxies in Congress win the war for them.

I hate using comparing Iraq to Vietnam, however the Democrats have politicized the war in Iraq to the point where it is, in the political sense, like Vietnam. If we pull out of there now, a million Iraqis will either be forced to flee to other countries, or they will die. We will then lose Afghanistan as the Taliban will be reinforced by jihadis and the will for the U.S. to win there will also erode, turning Afghanistan into a 21st Century Cambodia. We will lose Pakistan as an ally as well, and probably other countries in the region.

Hillary Clinton is an expert at playing politics with the lives of our troops as well as the lives of those who want our help in securing their liberties.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Cheney

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Barack Obama, in a silly attempt to retaliate against Hillary Clinton and gain a few brownie points with the hard-left progressive/liberal Moonbats, used Hillary's own words. From BreitBart:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to turn rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's words back on her Wednesday, saying her vote to authorize the Iraq war was "irresponsible and naive."

Clinton had used the same language a day earlier to criticize Obama for saying he would be willing to meet with leaders of nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions within the first year of his presidency. Clinton said renegade leaders could use such a meeting for propaganda and that envoys below the presidential level should begin diplomatic work.

Actually, this is one of the few times where Hillary is right, and I hate to admit agreeing with her. When Obama came out publicly saying that he would meet with the murdering thugs running Cuba, North Korea and Iran, he was showing a serious lack of what is at stake and what kind of people they are.

For years the U.S. and Europe has attempted (and Europe is still attempting) to negotiate with Iran over concerns that Iran's nuclear program will soon make weapons material available to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah (an Iranian puppet) and al-Qaeda. Obama, by saying he is willing to talk with the ayatollahs and the dictator of Iran does not understand what is at stake here.

As for North Korea, the Clintons (with the aid of former president Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with the murdering thug there to provide them with nuclear technology on the condition it is not used to develop weapons. We all know how well that particular ruthless thug keeps his word.

Then there is the mass-murderer of Cuba, Fidel Castro. Ever stop to wonder why thousands of people flee that country every year? There isn't a mad rush to move there, either. We don't know how many people have died at the hands of Castro, nor how many political dissidents have been incarcerated.

Yet Obama wishes to meet with them without conditions.

Hillary at least initially got the war in Iraq right, even though now she has taken an pro-terrorist stand by calling for our withdrawal from Iraq. This is all politics to her, and has nothing to do with what is best (or right) for the U.S.; it's about her gaining and holding as much power as possible.

Obama would have done better if he had said that it is naïve for Americans to believe that either one of them understands the true responsibility involved with the office they currently have the privilege of serving in, let alone the greater responsibility carried by our Commander in Chief.

Tags:

Obama Clinton Cuba Iran Iraq North Korea

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The campaign for the Democratic nomination is heating up, so is the GOP nomination.

Hillary Clinton, stomping around in Iowa, made it clear that we can expect to see a return of HillaryCare. From BreitBart:

Clinton said she soon will meet with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and patients to get their input on her health care plan.

The disturbing thing about the Democratic Primary is not that Hillary intends to take away our healthcare rights and place it in the hands of government bureaucrats (and we know that then we will lose our medical privacy rights as well…look how they've been doing with social security number security lately), it's that all of the major front-runners want to do the same thing: Degrade our healthcare the responsibility of the government.

Why am I not surprised?

Tags:

Billary Hillary Clinton Health Care

Posted by Sqotty at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary Clinton, while stomping through Iowa, criticized President Bush for his planned veto of the Democrat’s legislation that set a date for U.S. and Iraqi defeat, also known as Terrorist Victory Day.

From Yahoo News:

"This is vetoing the will of the American people," Clinton said. "It is time for us to get them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war."

Actually, I think this is vetoing the will of the Party of Defeat and the left-wingnuts that control the Democratic Party. Not all of the People are in favor of cutting and running like the Dems. Many of us believe in supporting the rise of democracy in Iraq, and helping our fledgling ally achieve liberty.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Iraq War On Terror Hillary

Posted by Sqotty at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary on gays in the military - this is off of the Bloomberg News via National Journal:

"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

As I recall, "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented by the Clintons early in their administration. Prior to that, it was a matter for the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Regardless of whether you believe gays should be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces, the current state of the military system is such that gays are not allowed (at least openly gay people currently).

I have no doubt that there are a number of experts on both sides of the issue that have a lot to say. There are times when I am not even sure which side to take. Both sides have valid points; like why should people who want to serve their county be banned vs. it creates various issues in regards to sexuality (like communal showers) and morale.

It's just interesting to note that a policy implemented by the Clintons is now found to be wanting in the eyes of the woman who would be queen, I mean president, and would want to go back to the way things were when I wore the uniform.

Tags:

Hillary Military Gays

Posted by Sqotty at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary Clinton, contrary to her own belief, is no JFK. From New York Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the campaign of the nation's lone Catholic president, John Kennedy, last night as she talked about her challenge in becoming the first female commander-in-chief.

"He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, 'America will never elect a Catholic as president,' " the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats' 100 Club fund-raiser here.

"But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better," she said. "They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history."

A few subtle differences:

JFK cut taxes on the wealthy, significantly, which spurred economic growth in the first half of the ‘60s. Hillary has yet to meet a tax increase she didn’t like.

JFK was a virulent anti-communist, supported our allies in Southeast Asia who were struggling against totalitarianism. Hillary has never met a commie she didn’t like.

JFK was willing to nuke the U.S.S.R. over the Cuban missile crisis. Hillary would rather let the U.N. control our missile codes.

JFK was a bonefide war hero and recipient of the Medal of Honor. Hillary was an anti-war protestor during the Vietnam era, married a draft dodger, and has a history of displaying contempt for those who serve their country in the armed forces (check out Paterson’s book Dereliction Of Duty).

Bottom line is, Hillary ain’t no JFK.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton JFK Kennedy

Posted by Sqotty at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Looks like Senator Hillary Clinton is making the rounds again, this time want to seize profits from "Big Oil" in order to pay for some of her favorite projects. From Las Vegas Review Journal:

Today, Venezuela has a communist dictator. When Hugo Chavez doesn't like the way things are going with his country's oil, telecommunications and power industries -- or if he merely craves their wealth -- he simply seizes them, calling it "nationalization."

Is that the way many in the American press and public would like to see things done here, despite the wreck that such policies made of Eastern Europe?

… Has Sen. Clinton really changed her tune? Exxon Mobil last week announced that it earned $39.5 billion in 2006, for a profit of about 10 percent -- the most profitable year any company has ever had.

The bulk of that money goes to stockholders who invested in the firm, either directly or through a company 401(k) plan. That profitability offers assurance that the company will keep developing new oil fields and refineries -- where politicians allow them -- to keep us supplied with gasoline and heating oil at historically low rates (once adjusted for inflation.)

But speaking last Friday at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington, Sen. Clinton said: "I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."

According to Investor's Business Daily, she made the remarks "with wide, glowing eyes that suggested the mere thought of taking money that didn't belong to her gave her a thrill."

But, "Threatening to hijack private property in the energy industry is a serious matter," the business daily points out, in a mild understatement. "If (Sen.) Clinton were able to seize profits, shareholders would suffer harm and Americans who use energy -- that's all of us, except maybe Ted Kaczynski in his Unabomber days -- would be saddled with higher prices and lower supplies."

Will set aside Hillary's greed for the sake of big government aside for the moment, although the gleam in her eye when talking about seizing these profits makes for interesting imagery.

To Clinton, and others like her on the Liberal-Left, a 10% profit, much of which is paid out to shareholders (which means most Americans) is an outrage. Yet a 10% profit is not all that unreasonable when you get down to it, and it is a company's duty to return profits to their investors. This is the American way.

Oil is what moves Americans and America, not to mention the rest of the world. It fuels our trucks that move products from one place to another, our cars (although there are some alternatives, like all electric vehicles, however, they have a very limited range), and our aircraft, which allows rapid transit from one region to another, including movement overseas.

Sure, I'd like to see America less dependent on foreign oil imports, however, so called "green" alternatives, such as wind and solar, can't get the job done. And they can't run our transportation. Ethanol, which is also a darling of the Liberal-Left is very inefficient, and expensive. The only reason it is priced lower at the pump is due to all the subsidies that Americans are taxed in order to provide. Even at its lower price at the pump, its lower fuel efficiency makes it moderately more expensive to move your car than regular gasoline.

There are answers to the energy question: nuclear energy technology has vastly improved over the last several decades; there are also untapped oil reserves within our borders, such as ANWR, as well as within reach on the outer continental shelf.

Instead of allowing oil companies to explore these fields, or leveraging nuclear technology, Hillary and the Liberal-Left continue to hogtie America, forcing it to be dependent on foreign imports. Or pushing Americans to use less energy, thus reducing our standard of living and having a negative influence on our economy.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Exxon Big Oil

Posted by Sqotty at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is off of FoxNews:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has begun active consideration of a 2008 run for president and has personally asked some fellow top New York Democrats for their support in the event she goes ahead with such a campaign, a top adviser said Sunday.

Why are we SO unsurprised by this annoucement? Probably because it would be a surprise if she didn't say she planed on running for the presidency.

Yep, this means, if she is elected, whole new assaults on American Librety by the experts in curtailing the Constitution. Here comes Hillary Care (AKA Universal Healthcare, or, "How The American Health System Was Lost"), higher taxes, more unemployment, surrendering America's soveriengty to the United Nations, elimination of private ownership of guns (which will result in higher crime rates), and much, much more.

And so far, there isn't a clear choice for President on the Republican side. Better get it together soon, GOP, otherwise, we're all in a heap of trouble.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton

Posted by Sqotty at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Posted by Sqotty at 6:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The New York Post published an opt-ed piece entitled HILLARY LOSES HER WAY. The article starts off with:

So much for the new, moderate - dare we say, centrist - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yesterday she lined up with her party's moonbat "They-Stole-Ohio" caucus to headline the first formal congressional challenge to a presidential election since 1877 - only to see the effort, in equal measures baseless and slanderous, fail spectacularly.

Okay, I my be getting a little fuzzy on the details, but didn't Dubya win Ohio by a couple of hundred THOUSAND votes? And yet they wish to challenge it, in spite of the fact there was no evidence of fraud.

After the challenge was made, both houses adjourned to separate chambers to discuss the matter, and both houses overwhelmingly rejected the objection. This shows that at most of Congress is not asleep at the wheel. Just a few nuts, and Hillary, who voted TO certify the results, trying to stay in the limelight.

Let's face it, if Hillary had real evidence that there was fraud in the Ohio election, she would have brought it forth long before now, instead of coughing up some rhetoric about how there are problems in our electoral process.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall her saying after the 2000 election that we should do away with the popular vote. I'll have to do some digging on that score.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Newsmax has the following article on Hillary's plans for her 2006 re-election bid.

The fund-raising chairwoman of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2006 re-election campaign said Friday that Clinton shouldn't have to pledge to serve out a second full six-year term, leaving the door open for a White House run in 2008.

"I want to be very honest with you," campaign chairwoman Ann Lewis told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity. "Professionally, this is all about 2006. But if you ask me personally, I don't think Hillary Clinton should be held to a higher double standard, different from people like George Bush - who also ran for re-election in 1998, then went on to a national campaign."

Okay, Lewis has a point, Hillary should not be tied down to a Senate seat that she is elected to, when it is common for someone who is elected to an office to run for a different office while in the middle of their current term. Look at Kerry and Edwards, skipping out on their Senate commitment, to represent the People of their respective states in order to campaign for the Presidency. At least Dole, in his run back in 1996, stepped down from the Senate in order ot campaign.

Although President Bush did not step down as Governor of Texas when he ran for the Presidency in 2000, I don't believe he shirked his duties to the State of Texas.

In 2000, not only did Joe Lieberman not resign from the Senate, he campaigned for his re-election to the Senate, just in case Gore failed to be elected President. Now that's hedging your bets.

This is not to say that I advocate vacating an existing office before running for a higher office; I believe a good leader can balance the needs of both. However, if Hillary (or any candidate) makes a pledge not to run for a higher office as part of their campaign, they should keep that pledge. Such campaign pledges should be kept, as that is one of the things that people use to determine who they want to vote for.

It's like changing party affiliations after winning an election for a Partisan office (local offices are non-partisan, so there is no party affilitaion at those levels).

Senator Clinton will definitely need some watching in her 2006 re-election bid. If she makes a pledge to not run for the Presidency in 2008 as part of her campaign, then breaks it, she will prove to the world she lacks the integrity to lead this country.

Posted by Sqotty at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Just read a very negative article on SFGate.com. My first thought was "Where did the SFGate find this guy?" He's a bit wacky, like those folks in Florida who have been receiving counseling for losing the election two weeks back.

The theme of the article is use Hillary Clinton in a "bait and switch" maneuver for the presidency in 2008; you know, the Lautneberg Maneuver. where the Democrats took a losing candidate, Torricelli, and replaced him at the last minute, with the aid of the New Jersey Courts rewriting state election law, because they knew he had no chance of winning. So, this Sorensen character is trying to convince people that: A) Republicans/Conservatives are gullible; and B) that Hillary Clinton can't win. This guy has a lot of very nasty (and very wrong minded) things to say in regards to Republicans and Conservatives.

Here's an excerpt of what he has to say:

Conservative men and women alike think that God created women only on the condition that they stay home, bake cookies and home-school the kids until Daddy earns enough to send them to Christian School.

Egads! Hide your daughters in fear that they may actually be condemned to a life that a few decades ago was considered normal. That is, before the tax and spend Liberals have put so much pressure on families that the stay-at-home mother is all but extinct. And not all Conservatives believe home-schooling is great (all though I support home schooling). Has he considered the fact that the reason so many people are home-schooling is because of the decline of our public school system? And apparently being a full-time Mom is not a job, and shouldn't be a career choice.

Here's another:

So what I'm suggesting is the Democrats offer up Hillary as a target for conservative wrath over the next four years. Let the conservatives, the Republicans, the fascists -- all those people on the other side -- focus their venom on her. They already detest Hillary, so let them have at her.

Then, at the last moment, pull a switcheroo. Thank Mrs. Clinton for her role as stalking horse, and then nominate a real liberal for president.

Fascism is a leftist ideology, not a right-of-center ideology. It's one of the three major forms of Socialism, all of which are left of center.

As for making Hillary a target for right-wing diatribes, I'm willing to bet that Hillary is capable of fighting her own battles over the next four years, and fight them she will. She's got no choice.

Let's not forget that the odds of switching Hillary out of the running is not only less than zero, it is non-existent.

After they dump Hillary (good luck on that score), this is his suggestion:

And then the Democrats should pick as their nominee someone who appears to be as simple-minded as a game of Pong.

That's to get the crossover votes.

Tells you what he thinks of those Americans who are more in the center. He also refers to the American People who voted for Bush as a bunch of "second-grade dropouts."

So this Sorensen guy has suggested that the DNC pick him as Hillary's replacement in 2008. Sounds good to me. Go for it!

Posted by Sqotty at 8:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's already a given that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency in 2008. The Hill is a left of center, raving, liberal trying her best to be a hawk when it comes from the war on terrorism. By the way, since she has zero experience with the military, doesn't this make her a "chicken hawk," just as the leftists in the DNC have tired to paint V.P. Dick Cheney out to be? Or does it not count since she is a Democrat.

If you haven't read it yet, pick up a copy of Dereliction of Duty by Lt.Col. Patterson for a take on what the Wicked Witch of the East really thinks of our military men and women. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of the former First Lady.

Knowing she will be running in 2008, it is now a question of who will be her running mate. I think she knows there is no way in taking the South with a Southerner who is also a raving liberal, like Kerry attempted in 2004 when he chose Beatle wannbe John Edwards as his running mate. She also knows that she doesn't need a left leaning Northeasterner as a running mate; besides, they've all tried and lost.

She won't choose someone who has a secure seat in the Senate, as that will give the GOP yet another seat, especially if the would be candidate actually did the honorable thing and step down while campaigning for a higher office, like Bob Dole did in 1996, and the Governor of the State is a Republican. That would be too much of a gimme. So, scratch Boxer and Feinstein off of the list.

Hillary will seek out someone to rally the rabid lefties behind her, while she puts on the camouflage of a moderate, centrist, masking her true nature.

So, who will she choose?

It has to be someone on the far left, enjoys a leadership position in either the House or Senate, comes from a left leaning State and is frequently in the limelight, enjoying regular attention from the left-leaning print media juggernauts (dinosaurs?), newspapers.

There can be only one choice for her in 2008.

Hillary's running mate in her bid for the Presidency will be none other than...

(drum roll, please)

Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.

Pelosi will bring in the far-left extremists that have inundated a party that was once-upon-a-time a good party, giving their rabid leftie base someone to froth at the mouth for while Hillary attempts to appeal to a wider, more moderate crowd.

It could work, depending on who the GOP candidate is. Hopefully someone who won't prove to be an "also ran" like Dole was in '96. We need someone like Condoleezza Rice, or, if it is to be a Senator vs. Senator match, Rick Santorum.

Remember, you heard it here first.

And, in case I am wrong, the runner up is Barak Obama, the new junior Senator from Illinois. He is far left enough to satisfy the leftist members of the Democratic Party, and could help crack open the Mid-West for the DNC.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions