John McCain’s global-warming speech on Monday made it clear that there will be no presidential candidate this year willing to question the assertion that global warming (a.k.a. “climate change”) is manmade, or the assertion that we can fix global warming by passing a few laws.
Along with Clinton and Obama, McCain’s proposal to attack global warming now gives voters three choices for a car color — as long as it is black. Like Clinton and Obama, McCain’s proposal involves a “cap and trade” mechanism to legislatively limit CO2 emissions in the coming years, with the free market minimizing the economic damage by allowing a trading of emission credits between companies. He also includes an allowance for carbon offsets, although everyone (except Al Gore) believes this to be more smoke-and-mirrors than a real-world strategy for reducing carbon emissions.
What worries me is the widespread misperception that we can do anything substantial about carbon emissions without seriously compromising economic growth. To be sure, forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions will help spur investment in new energy technologies. But so does a price tag of $126 for a barrel of oil. Finding a replacement for carbon-based energy will require a huge investment of wealth, and destroying wealth is not a very good first step toward that goal.
When the public finds out how much any legislation that punishes energy use is going to cost them, with no guarantee that anything we do will have a measurable impact on future climate, there will be a revolt just like the one now materializing in the U.K. and the EU. At some point, as they are faced with the stark reality that mankind’s requirement for an abundant source of energy cannot simply be legislated out of existence, the public will begin asking, “Just how sure are we that humans are causing global warming?”
And this is where the science establishment has, in my view, betrayed the public’s trust.
Even though there has never been a single scientific paper published that has ruled out natural variability for most of the warming we’ve seen since 1850, Big Science has managed to convince politicians and much of the public that the science is settled. Apparently, our addition of nine molecules of carbon dioxide to each 100,000 molecules of air over the last 150 years can now be blamed for anything and everything we choose. Hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, floods, glaciers flowing toward the sea…. all of these used to happen naturally, but no more.
The warming that allowed the Vikings to farm in Greenland 1,000 years ago was surely natural. But we are now told that warming in Greenland today is surely manmade. Glaciers retreating in western Canada have revealed evidence of previous forests, showing that warming and cooling cycles do indeed occur, even without SUVs. Yet the SUV is now the scapegoat for retreating glaciers.
McCain pointed to shrinking Arctic sea ice and collapsing Antarctic ice shelves as obvious evidence that humans are to blame, even though the sea ice did the same thing in the 1920s and 1930s, and those ice shelves must break off eventually, as new glacial ice flows toward the sea to take their place.
But McCain has made it clear that the science really does not matter anyway because, even if humans are not to blame for global warming, stopping carbon-dioxide emissions is the right thing to do. And if we had another choice for most of our energy needs, I might be willing to accept such a claim as harmless enough.
But carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, and I have a difficult time calling something so fundamentally important a “pollutant.” Maybe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands of years. So what? I am increasingly convinced that its influence on climate pales in comparison to the influence that natural climate events like El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have on regional climate. Indeed, most of the warming we’ve seen in the last century might well be due to these natural modes of climate variability alone.
The trouble is that no one has been funded by the government to investigate such a possibility, and the mandate for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to address manmade climate change — not natural climate change.
So, here we are with bad science ready to support bad policy decisions that will lead to bad economic times ahead, and no presidential candidate who is willing to ask the hard questions. While we hate to be pandered to by politicians, in this case I can only hope that they really are pandering — that this is hot air and not prospective policy.
Bill Clinton Flashback: “All These Economically Insecure White People…Are Scared To Death”
Monday, April 14th, 2008
Typical Democrats!
“The reason (George H. W. Bush’s tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death,” Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.
A couple months later, Joe Klein, writing for the Sunday Times, reported that Clinton made the following remarks:
“You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I’m from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they’re gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they’ve been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country’s coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, ‘What happened to everybody’s job? What happened to everybody’s income? What … have … you … done … to … our … country?’”
A common theme of Clinton’s back then
Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, trying to convince Alabama Democrats to support his presidential bid, accused Republicans of trying to woo white voters by preying on unfounded racial fears.
Clinton told a meeting of the Alabama Democratic Party black caucus that Republicans “find the most economically insecure white folks and go scare the living daylights out of them.” — AP, October 13, 1991
Why does the President refuse to let a civil rights bill pass? Because he knows that the people he is dependent on for his electoral majority — white working class men and women, mostly men, have had their incomes decline in the 1980s and they may return to their natural home, someone who offers them real economic opportunity. And so he is dredging up the same old tactic that the hard right has employed in my part of the country, in the South, since I was a child. When everything gets (hyped ?) and you think you’re going to lose those people, you find the most economically insecure white people and you scare the living daylights out of them. — Georgetown University, October 23, 1991
1,000 Illinois Democrats had gathered in Chicago for their annual fund-raising dinner. Clinton, 45, was determined to give them his best shot. And he did, vigorously attacking George Bush: ”You know, he wants to divide us over race. I’m from the South. I understand this,” Clinton croaked. ”This quota deal they’re gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they’ve been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country’s coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them.” — Sunday Times, November 3, 1991
“If you were in the do-nothing faction and you were about to get voted out, you just found the most economically insecure white people and scared the living hell out of them. We were raised on his. . . What did it do for us? Nothing. Kept us down. Kept us flat. All the progress we’ve made in the South, we’ve made since we started working together again.” — Houston Chronicle, June 7, 1992
The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having “misspoken.”) The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to “corkscrew” its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn’t like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton’s pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.
I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security “experience.” This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.
*****
Ya know unless Hillary is able to hire someone to assassinate Obama her chances of winning the presidency is pretty much zero.
Putting aside Rush’s “Operation Chaos” successfully fucking up the Democratic Party, after her sniper fire lie I have often thought about the mental acuity of people who still actually believe that Hillary Clinton should be president.
EVEN AFTER THIS MOTHER OF ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE LIES, how
could someone willingly show up at one of her campaign rallies and keep their integrity in check?
I have yet to find a blogger or columnist who is willing to bang out on a keyboard truthfully and honestly why Hillary, despite being a lying fuck should be president.
Only the fact that she is a woman and her name is Clinton. If she were a man named
Tom Richardson everyone including flaming lib tards would avoid her like the plague.
after reading this article, I’m just dumbfounded.
Observations of liar liar pants on fire fraud retard Democratic presidential candidates…
Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Obama’s Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine
By Penny Starr - CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him,” Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. “The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”
Wright continued, “From the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. …
GREENSBORO, N.C. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday sought to quell concerns over anti-American remarks by his former pastor, saying people are paying too much attention to a small number of “stupid” comments.
Obama gave a sweeping speech on race last week in which he condemned incendiary remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the words of the former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago continue to dog the candidate. Reflecting the campaign’s concern about the fallout, Obama used a question about religion at a town hall forum as an opportunity to address the issue.
“This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down … into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country,” Obama told an audience in this central North Carolina city.
“There are misunderstandings on both sides,” the Illinois senator said. “We cannot solve the problems of America if every time somebody somewhere does something stupid, that everybody gets up in arms and forgets about the war in Iraq and we forget about the economy.”
Obama is becoming Bill Clinton like. I mean in the “it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Remember:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
So now we have a “small number of “stupid” comments” I guess it depends on what you would define as “small.”
Mrs. Clinton said that she says “millions of words each day” so “we were under sniper fire” so five small words out of a million, is indeed small. “God damm Americkkka” is just a blip on the radar.
Ya know I get the fact that politicians on both sides have some serious issues with honesty. And neither side has a monopoly on what may be the correct path to dealing with some of America’s issues but anybody paying attention has to be struck by just how incredibly deceitful and conniving Democratic politicians are.
A simple story about a foreign policy trip or whether or not (your church and pastor of CHOICE) is a raving racist America hating lunatic can produce the most bullshit rhetoric is just beyond belief.
One of my commenter’s Allen posted this and it describes Democrats perfectly;
“I can’t quite imagine what a conversation in that family must be like. The best I can figure:”
Neighbor: Your damn dog tore up my garden.
Bill: We have no dog. Hillary: Our dog was inside when the incident occurred. Chelsea: We have a dog?
Neighbor: Of course it’s your dog everyone knows it.
Lanny Davis: I find this focus on the dog to be irrelevant.
The NAFTA - Obama story gets more interesting.I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign’s cries that it’s “inaccurate.” After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate.
Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama’s side of the story that the CTV story is “innacurate?” That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story:
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value. … ..
From Sister Toldjah - Barack Obama’s ties to lobbyists and special interests
“I think it is imperative that the whole truth and nothing but the truth gets out about the man who could be our next president. He’s not being completely upfront with the American people, and we all know his devotees in the press will faithfully continue to carry his water, so it’s up to “citizen journalists” to help spread the word.The Washington Post fact check article I linked to noted a few examples, but here are some more: On August 9, 2007, The Boston Globe reported on Barack Obama’s meteoric rise in politics, and just what types of groups helped make that possible: PACS and lobbyists (emphasis added by me):
A Globe review of Obama’s campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.In Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns — $296,000 of $461,000 — came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
One of Sen. Obama’s biggest donors is the energy giant Exelon:
Exelon is the sixth largest donor to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign and the fourth largest career donor to Obama’s federal campaigns. Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008. [opensecrets.org, 2008, 2004-2008]
Central to Obama’s message of change are claims that he is free of lobbyist influence. But in fact, he has been, and still is being funded by some of the same sort of interests and corporate interests as Clinton and other candidates through big corporate donors known as bundlers.
In fact, he’s received so much funding, an estimated $30 million per month, that his campaign appears to be backpedaling on a November pledge where he said if he was the Democratic nominee, he would aggressively pursue and agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
“The Washington Post” said in a February 16 editorial that “this kind of backtracking and parsing is’t what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for.”
More telling, a November 2006 Harpers article “The Making of a Washington Machine” by Ken Silverstein quoted an anonymous Washington lobbyist, “big donors would not be helping out OBama if they didn’t see him as a player.”
In a fundraising e-mail sent to supporters at the beginning of March, the candidate wrote that Washington’s special-interest industry is trying “to own our political process and dictate our policies in Washington.
“We’re not going to play that game. We’re not taking any contributions from Washington lobbyists or political action committees. We’re going to transform the political process by bringing together hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans to build a campaign.”
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Big Head DC - has discovered alarming similarities between a speech made by Sen. Barack Obama on February 16 while campaigning for president in Wisconsin and an October 2006 speech made by Deval Patrick, the current Democratic governor of Massachusetts. The coincidences would seem to indicate that Obama copied several lines and linguistic speech patterns from Patrick’s “Just Words” speech for Obama’s own “Words Matter” speech. Indeed, words do matter. And they matter even more when they are one’s own words.
The two speeches can be compared, in all their eerie detail, via YouTube:
Plagiarizing a speech during a presidential campaign was enough to end Sen. Joe Biden’s first bid for the presidency. From Wikipedia:
In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications.
In an ironic twist to the historic Democratic nominating contest between an African American and a woman, the balance of power may be held by a more familiar face: the white male.According to a Politico analysis, close to half of the 700-plus Democratic superdelegates who could end up determining the party nominee are white men.
One Obama superdelegate, a House member, had sharp criticism for the superdelegate racial and gender make-up, a reaction that reflects the sensitivities surrounding the issue.
“It’s still the old guard, the white men. They always want to control the outcome,” the superdelegate said. “But this time, they won’t be able to do it.”
That strong response could portend a messy intra-party fight in the event that superdelegates cast the decisive votes for the nominee.
Read the rest, but why bother, one way or another, race will find its way into every political or social conundrum.
Bill Clinton dozed off at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem just as his wife was receiving the endorsement (or, more properly, the blessing) of Calvin Butts at Abyssinian Baptist Church, eight or so blocks away. This church had been the pulpit of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. — “Mr. Jesus” to his congregation, member of Congress and husband to the politically fearless lefty (just one instance: as a witness before the House Un-American Activities Committees) and staggeringly sexual songstress of my youth, Hazel Scott, like Lena Horne. A randy fellow. I don’t think that black preachers have the sway they once had. Or white ministers, for that matter, except for those who are evangelicals and fundamentalists operating out of humongous mall churches.But back to the black ministers and their diminished sway. The decline of preacher power is a coming of age of the African-American population, much as it is among Irish and Italian Catholics or Jews or, for a demographically near-fatal shift, mainstream Protestants, who mostly and at best think their ministers are irrelevant. The black clerisy cannot any longer instruct its parishoners about their voting. It is an irony, of course, that the Harlem pastorate’s last swing at real political influence over their congregations is for a white woman and against a black man. Yet it also emphasizes their reactionary cast. No one since Martin Luther King has anyone so inspired and energized young whites as Barack Obama. This, then, is a real cross-racial alliance built on the cultural and educational achievements of African-Americans and on the true openness of whites and Asians to their black brothers and sisters. The bond between every Calvin Butts in America and Hillary is the old fix, pliant for the former, patronizing for the latter. And, as for the latter and her husband, it is also ugly. An article in this morning’s Financial Times by Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner makes clear how perilous this is for the Clintons — and for the Democrats, in general. The most significant trap is that Bill risks making himself the prime issue of his wife’s campaign, two nasty and unimaginably calculating folk baying at Barack Obama whom almost everyone finds gracious. Me too.
There is a calculus to the Clintons trying to make Obama run as the black candidate. It is to stir up fear in one part of Hillary’s constituency, white women and particularly older white women. The other goal for Hillary is to turn Obama into a taunt for Hispanic Americans. After all, there was not one significant black figure in the Clinton administration, except on what you’d have to call the black reservations like Housing. Yes, there was the supreme fixer outside the administration, probably because he couldn’t get confirmed for anything or no plausible appointment was high enough for him, Vernon Jordan. The Clintons did not offend Hispanic Americans, not at all. For instance, they made Bill Richardson U.N. ambassador.
One of the largely unexamined frontiers in American politics is the one between African-Americans and Hispanic Americans, and it is at best a frosty frontier. There are more voting Latinos than there are voting blacks in the electorate, and probably more in the larger states that are soon to have primaries. Like New York and California on Super Tuesday. Watch for malicious mischief.
The top donor to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking the agency to re-open an investigation into illegal contributions and to probe alleged continuing violations of the law by the Democratic presidential candidate.The complaint by business mogul Peter Franklin Paul also asserts the Clinton campaign’s 2005 conciliation agreement with the FEC – in which a finance aide was fined $35,000 – effectively let Clinton and other top aides off the hook.
Paul says that unless the FEC sets aside the agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, the agency itself will “have aided and abetted in the commission” of a felony.
As WND reported, Clinton is seeking dismissal from a $17 million fraud case filed by Paul in which her husband already is a defendant. Paul is appealing Sen. Clinton’s removal to the California Supreme Court, but whether or not she is a defendant, she will be required to testify as a material witness in a trial this year.
In May 2005, Sen. Clinton’s former finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in the conciliation agreement. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton’s campaign for a lavish Hollywood fundraiser in August 2000 and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.
Not all Democrats in Congress bother to be subtle about their hostility toward our culture, and their eagerness to pander to those who share that hostility.A few weeks ago Congress passed a resolution recognizing the brutal terrorist cult Islam as “one of the great religions of the world” and honoring Ramadan. It passed unanimously.
Then came a resolution with similar wording, honoring Christmas, and decrying violence against Christians around the world. Nine Congresskooks were bold enough in their depravity to vote against it:
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Robert Scott (D-VA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Ten others voted “present”; here’s a surprise: one of them (Mike Pence of Indiana) isn’t a Democrat.
Presumably all of these characters have more Christians in their districts than Muslims. Whoever they’re representing, it isn’t the misguided voters who put them in office.
Y’all know I’m very much a Republican and I have ranted often about how screwed up Democrats are and why all of us Republicans need to work hard at keeping as many of these Democrat jackasses out of office as possible.
I heard Tom Brokaw on a radio interview talking about how we need to abandon partisan politics and come together in peace and harmony put our political positions aside for the sake of the nation.
Is Tom on crack? Seriously, is there anyone out there reading this post that actually thinks that abandoning YOUR political ideology and core principals is a good thing? And substitute them for what?
Let me tell you, the notion that I could somehow, alter my political leaning to become more “tolerant” of Democrats and their views “for the sake of the nation” is just retarded.
The post above is one of many examples of why I find the majority of liberal Democrats repugnant.
Democrats routinely sacrifice the safety, security and core American values that make this nation great, simply for political gain. Democrats actually take pride in; bashing and maligning our military, attacking core Christian values, catering to elements that actively seek to destroy this nation i.e. wiping the collective asses of radical Islamic types.
Democrats are proficient in promoting race baiting politics, poverty pimping, loathing capitalism; they fight harder to protect American trees rather than the American people, they actually believe we are not taxed enough and they are successful at promoting the notion that they and only they are the champions of promoting civil rights and
Democrats have a perpetual hard on for increasing bureaucracy.
I don’t know about you, but I want Democrats to lose, I want them relegated to the back of the political ideological bus forever.
Tom Brokaw and anyone else preaching this political reconciliation bullshit needs to start paying attention to the stupid shit Democrats say and do every damm day.
“The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use,” said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama’s openness about his past drug use — which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire — with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was “young and irresponsible.”Shaheen said Obama’s candor on the subject would “open the door” to further questions. “It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” Shaheen said. “There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.”
Shaheen’s remarks were some of the most direct to date by Clinton campaign officials in addressing the issue of Obama’s past drug use as a potential problem in the general election. This week, the Clinton campaign has been focusing on the broader issue of Obama’s electability, arguing that Democrats would be better off nominating a tested candidate like Clinton.
This is such a bunch of bullshit, here you have this Hillary dickhead flunky calling out Obama on drug use when you know damm well anyone associated with the Clinton campaign past or present, or homies of the Clinton Klan I bet frequently fired up the weed.
You mean to tell me firing up the mean green is not a regular hobby in Democrat circles.
Oh don’t get wrong, high brow Republicans will give you that hypocritical smirk while they spout off about the ill legality of partaking in the ceremonial burning of some Mary Jane. The same people who drown their sorrows in daily Martini or Merlot binges.
Yes I’m sure the Republican drug czars may just try and attack Obama on the issue, certainly a cheap shot, but would not be shocking.
This crap coming from the Hillary camp tho just reeks of incredible desperation. This like everything else in her campaign will bite her in the ass.
Every damm day someone in her campaign come out with some bullshit. She needs to just tell her supporters and staff to “shut the fuck up.”
Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefitted 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.[. . .]
Clinton is not the biggest earmarker in Congress; senior congressional leaders and members of the appropriations committees can and do write many more such provisions into the huge spending bills they draft. But Clinton does significantly more earmarking than most others with her relatively low level of seniority.
Clinton’s Endorsement List Debatable By SEANNA ADCOX
2007-12-05COLUMBIA, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s support from South Carolina’s black religious leaders may not be quite as extensive as her campaign suggests.
Clinton got a boost last week when she shared a South Carolina stage with dozens of supporters, accepting what organizers said were endorsements from nearly 90 ministers in the state. But an Associated Press review of an endorsement list supplied by the New York senator’s campaign found that some of the backers were affiliated with religious ministries and outreach groups rather than churches, some were wives of ministers, two were church elders and at least two were not members of the churches listed beside their names.
All told, about 50 different groups were represented, rather than more than 80 congregations as initially implied, the review found.
Clinton spokesman Zac Wright said the campaign never claimed the endorsements represented separate congregations and knew all along that some came from the same organization.
“It shows diversity if you have both a senior pastor of a church and also a minister over the women’s ministry, for example,” he said Tuesday.
Clinton Campaign On Obama’s Kindergarten Essays: We Were Joking
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007
This found on Ace of Spades - Video Via Riehl World View Now I know y’all don’t think this was a joke do you? I think not. Hillary doesn’t JOKE!
Yesterday I blogged about a release from the Hillary! campaign charging that Obama had been planning his presidential campaign for many years. Among the quotes Clinton sited as evidence were excerpts from essays Obama wrote in grade school.Today, Hillary’s pollster Mark Penn says it’s all a joke thrown in as a joke at the end of a long release and everyone is so gullible for falling for the Obama spin. Riehl World has the video (below).
Today in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama said: “I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for.”
Oh really?
“Senator Obama’s comment today is fundamentally at odds with what his teachers, family, classmates and staff have said about his plans to run for President,” Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer said. “Senator Obama’s campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of his reality.”
Why did so many of the “undecided voters” who asked questions at last week’s Democrat debate turn out to be either anti-war, labor, race politics or Democrat party activists?
By Dr. Roy Spencer - From National Reviewdifficult time calling something so fundamentally important a “pollutant.” Maybe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than it has been in hundreds of thousands of years. So what? I am increasingly convinced that its influence on climate pales in comparison to the influence that natural climate events like El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation have on regional climate. Indeed, most of the warming we’ve seen in the last century might well be due to these natural modes of climate variability alone.
