Will MSM Give Hillary Same Treatment as Bush?
Jan 25, 2008 Political
Drudge is displaying a picture that has surfaced of Tony Rezko with the smiling Clintons, one on each side. This is important because Hillary Clinton mentioned Rezko in the last Democratic debate when she said to Senator Obama; “I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.” The photograph looks like one of the many that presidents and their wives have taken, photos that are often with people they do not know and have never met. Often though, these pictures are taken with people who have donated money to the president’s campaign. So the question now becomes, how did Tony Rezko get invited to whatever event this was and how did he get his picture taken with the Clintons? Another question would have to be did this “slumlord” donate money to them?
On the surface this might not seem like a big deal and many Hillary supporters will say that she has taken many photos with people that she does not know. Hillary was making that very case this morning on the Today show. In the glory days of the Clintons the media would be tucking this under the bed and if she were running against a Republican they would certainly make no big deal out of it. The media are not treating the Clintons unfairly as Bill claims, they are just giving Hillary the same scrutiny as other candidates. In other words, the playing field has been leveled and the Clintons are not used to that. Remember, it was Drudge who expose the Lewinsky affair when the media was keeping it under wraps.
As I stated though, the photo looks like one of many except the person in the middle is different so why is this important and why should Hillary be taken to task for this photo? There was a guy named Jack Abramoff who was a lobbyist. He ended up in jail and several Republicans ended up in legal trouble because of illegal dealings with Abramoff (Democrats ignored their dealings with Abramoff as did their partners in the MSM). After the Abramoff scandal broke there was word that the disgraced lobbyist had been tot he White House and that there were photos of him with President and Mrs. Bush. The Democrats and the media went nuts over this and said it proved that Bush was doing illegal things. The Chicago Tribune said that Mr. Bush had some explaining to do even as the President was saying that he took thousands of photos with people he did not know and that he did not know Abramoff (sound familiar?). Here is the Tribune take on it:
“However, now we know there are at least two visits by admitted felon Jack Abramoff that the White House must explain,’’ Fitton said. “What was Jack Abramoff doing at the White House? With whom did he meet? The public deserves to know answers to these questions.†Chicago Tribune
Since Rezko is from Chicago, let’s wait and see how long the Tribune waits to tell us that the public deserves to know about Rezko’s visit with the Clintons.
There is no doubt that Abramoff raised money for President Bush as he did for many politicians from both parties. Many of those politicians, including the President, have donated that money to charity. The point being, if Abramoff was able to get his picture with the President because of fund raising, what did Rezko do to get his picture taken with the Clintons?
This photo, which has to be an embarrassment to Hillary, is probably nothing more than a photo with someone they really do not know, as are the Abramoff/Bush photos. However, the media and the Democratic Party went absolutely nuts over the Bush photos and the words corruption and scandal were thrown around quite often. Therefore, the Clinton photo with Rezko demands the same attention and scrutiny as the Bush/Abramoff photos and that attention needs to be now, not six months after she is elected to the Presidency.
The media cannot drag its feet on this and they must start digging to see if Rezko gave the Clintons money or if there is another relationship between the parties. The media must start using words like scandal and corruption and the Clintons must allow access to all their records so a federal probe can begin.
While the investigators and the media are at it, they can look into Hillary’s ties to Abramoff as well. If she wants to be President then she should be held to the same standard that the Democrats hold President Bush to.
Of course, this could be photoshopped…
Others items of interest:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Pet’s Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: abramoff, Clinton, investigation, photo, rezko, scandal
Clinton Pulls Ad That was Full of Lies
Jan 24, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier that the Clinton mantra is that it isn’t illegal until they tell you it is and a variation of that can be used for the way they run their campaign. To the Clintons it is OK or non offensive until someone says it is. This is the case with a recent ad that the Clinton crime family was running in South Carolina. The ad was full of lies and half truths with regard to Barack Obama. A lot of people were very unhappy with the ad and the outright lies in it and these people were Democrats. The ad was pulled earlier today not long after it started running.
The Clintons will continue this approach and hope that something they do sticks. They will sling mud and if it causes backlash their way they will wipe off the mud and sling some from a different direction. Eventually they will find a handful that will stick to Obama and get people to question his candidacy. The first tactics involved Hillary crying and Bill attacking Obama the night before and election. The MSM is reporting that this tactic has gotten old with the Democratic faithful and some are beginning to look at Bubba in a new light. In Nevada it was claims of voter irregularities leveled by Bill Clinton even though the real intimidation was the actions of Clinton people.
Now that Bill has been warned by the elder party statesmen, they had to devise a new plan and that plan involved spreading lies about Obama. Fortunately, many in the party saw this for what it was and pitched a fit forcing the Clinton gang to remove the ad.
This is not the end. Obama leads in South Carolina by nearly 20 points even though Hillary had a double digit lead as late as last November. She is playing down SC but her campaign is actively trying to win it because they have invested quite a bit in the state. Obama led by double digits in New Hampshire and lost to the beast and it is quite possible he can lose again. It all depends upon how many illegitimate votes the Clintons can muster.
Regardless of the outcome, the Clintons will continue to throw mud all the while hoping some of it sticks. I guess they are not aware that if you throw enough mud you are left in a hole.
Related item(s):
Washington Post
Clinton Crime Family Leaves Evidence
Jan 24, 2008 Political
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been in public life for decades and there have been allegations that they have broken the law. Unfortunately, the MSM never fully investigated any of the claims and the top bosses of the crime family were able to escape justice. I have made claims about Democratic voter fraud in the past (most recently in response to a few of the Kos kids) and I am challenged by those on the left to show the fraud. Despite the fraud being before their eyes they refuse to see it. Let a Republican sneeze at a polling place and Michael Moore is there with a camera to shoot another documentary.
It appears that the Clintons have turned their election stealing ways inward and are now using them in the Democratic primaries in order to ensure Hillary beats Barack Obama. Obama led by double digits in New Hampshire and then Hillary pulled out a 3 point win. There have been allegations that a large number of cars from neighboring states were at the polling places and in new Hampshire if one shows up and states he plans to move there, he may vote.
In Nevada the Clintons claimed that strong handed tactics were being used by the Obama campaign but in reality it was the Clintons who were intimidating voters and breaking the law. Whenever the Clintons accuse the other side of something it is a pretty good indication that they are the ones actually doing it. The Obama campaign has asked Nevada officials to look into more than 1600 complaints of voter intimidation by the Clinton crime family. Obama’s people are not challenging the results, they just want the allegations investigated.
Particularly interesting is an instruction sheet for the Clinton workers detailing how to get people to caucus for Hillary. The particularly telling line is one that reads:
“It’s not illegal unless they tell you so.”
This should come as no surprise since this is how the Clintons have always lived their lives. Bill’s sexcapades were not illegal unless he got caught, the land deals, Hillary’s law firm work, none of it was illegal unless they were told so. In reality though, to the Clintons personally, it is not illegal even when they are told that it is. She broke FEC rules regarding campaign donations and it was caught on film and yet she has not been taken to task.
The Clintons will say and do anything to get elected. They seek power and will do whatever it takes in order to attain it and they feel that whatever they do is legal so long as no one tells them otherwise.
Perhaps Michael Moore can start showing up at Democratic polling places and film the irregularities. There were plenty of them in Nevada and that was told by a member of Kos who was caucusing for Obama. I imagine I would have been arrested if I had been there…
It is important for people to see the Clintons as they really are and now that she is in a tight race with another Democrat the methods will be more widely scrutinized by the people on the left. They will finally see what we on the right have known all along.
You cannot trust the Clintons because they will do anything, legal or otherwise, in order to win.
As an aside, anyone want to bet Chelsea runs for office in the next few years? I know she makes good money but mommy and daddy got rich and never held a real job.
Source:
Breitbart
Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 1-23-2008
Jan 24, 2008 Flight 93
Nasser Rabbat, a Syrian professor of Islamic architecture at MIT, told the Park Service not to worry about the giant Mecca oriented crescent at the center of the Flight 93 Memorial. He said that since it does not point quite exactly to Mecca (it is off by 1.8°) it can’t be considered a proper mihrab (the central feature around which every mosque is built).
Liar. Many of the most famous mihrabs face as much as 20 or 30 degrees off of Mecca.
Here is another Rabbat deception:
Mosques are never in the shape of a crescent or a circle. This defeats the purpose of lining up the worshipers parallel to the Qibla wall (Mecca orientation), which usually translates into a rectangular shape, or sometimes a square. [From the White Paper released by the Memorial Project in August 2007.]
It is true that most mosques are rectangular, the more clearly to mark the direction to Mecca, but this is certainly not a requirement, given that the two most religiously significant sites in Islam are round mosques. Significant site #1 is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca:
Second most significant is the Mosque of Omar, also called the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, from which point Muhammad supposedly ascended into heaven:
Perhaps because of the prominence of these precedents, a small but significant number of mosques around the world follow the round model.
There is the Tun Abdul Aziz mosque built in Malaysia in 1975, referred to colloquially as the “Masjid Bulat,” or “round mosque.”
There is the new 5,000 person Arafat Mosque in Nigeria, which the architect claims is “the only round mosque in Africa,” but he is wrong. Another round mosque, Al Nileen, sits at the confluence of Blue and White Nile rivers in Khartoum:
[From Google Earth. Look up “alnileen mosque”.]
Africa is also home to some older round mosques. Here is a round mosque from the Ivory coast. Similar mosques have also been found in Sierra Leone.
Here is a modern Russian mosque, laid out in shape of an eight point star.
There is even a famous round mosque right in the heart of the EU, at the northwest corner of the Parc du Cinquantenaire in Brussels.
There is a round mosque in Kuwait, a round mosque in Kadavu India, and probably many more.
At the Islamic architecture website Archnet, a Muslim architect (not a native English writer) explains the problem with round mosques:
… a circular mosque can not function well because a mousqe should have an oriantation to kibla and as we all know that a circle does not have an orientation, How can we know the kibla wall if it is a circle ?
This problem does not afflict Paul Murdoch’s mosque design for the Flight 93 memorial because Murdoch’s giant crescent does create an orientation. Face into the crescent to face Mecca, just as with a smaller size mihrab.
Geometrically, Murdoch’s Crescent of Embrace is just a gigantic Islamic prayer rug:
A Muslim prayer rug is a two dimensional mihrab, laid out to face Mecca, just as the Crescent of Embrace is.
Notice that to a person looking into the Flight 93 crescent, the irregularity of the outer arc of the crescent is not visible. The radial arbors are all behind the double row of red maples that line the walkway. The ends of the crescent are also well defined by the end of the walkway of red maples at the bottom and the end of the thousand foot long, fifty foot tall Entry Portal Wall on top. This is a perfectly comprehensible and recognizable Mecca direction indicator.
Rabbat’s comments to the Park Service do not even pretend to be objective. He lists “talking points” in defense of the crescent design without ever even pretending to weigh the merits of the case against the design.
Most obviously, Rabbat never considers the almost exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent as a grounds for concern, but limits his remarks to possible excuses for not worrying about this obviously worrisome fact. The same for all of his other talking points. He only even considers ways to absolve the crescent design.
In short, Rabbat is as overtly biased as he could possibly be, yet the Park Service has no qualms about this overt bias. Rabbat gives them the excuses for unconcern that they want and they eagerly embrace him. The Park Service investigation into warnings of an enemy plot was a total fraud.
Obama Needs to Go on the Offensive
Jan 23, 2008 Political
B. Hussein Obama has been on the defensive since former President bill Clinton came out attacking him. Obama has been forced to defend himself against half truths often conjured up at the last minute in order to sway primary elections. The Wall Street journal indicates that Obama is getting an education in Clinton. The WSJ relates:
One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton’s attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, “You gotta do what you gotta do.” WSJ
Obama is learning the hard way that the Clintons do what they “gotta” do regardless of what it is because to them, winning is everything. Right now Obama is facing a fierce Bill Clinton who is doing what he has to do in order to distort a record and smear a fellow Democrat. Those of us on the right like to see the fighting among Democrats but are also reminded of the terror reigned on this country during the eight years Clinton was president. For Democrats, it is indeed a sad day when John Edwards appears most presidential, or as he put it, the only adult present at the debate.
It is time for Obama to do what he has to do. He has indicated he will strike back at Bill Clinton but that might not be a good strategy. Clinton is well liked among the party faithful and attacking him will continue to take the focus off the weaknesses of Hillary. Obama can attack Bill through Hillary and take the lead in addressing issues that were neglected during the Bill Clinton presidency.
Obama can make a good case when he tells the people that the Clinton co-presidents had eight years and failed to accomplish those things she vows to take care of now. Obama can tell people that the Clintons had eight years to fix Social Security and they neglected it even though Bill stated that it was broken and needed to be fixed. I believe he even thought private accounts was a good idea.
Obama can make the case that the Clintons had eight years to get health care for everyone (an item Hillary failed miserably on), eight years to make sure Medicare was efficient and provided for the elderly, and eight years to develop and implement an energy plan that reduced our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. Eight years to do all these things and they failed to accomplish them.
When Bill Clinton was running the first time he told us all that you get two for the price of one and Hillary told us it was a co-presidency. During this campaign Hillary has taken credit for the good things that happened back then. If she takes credit for the successes it is reasonable to attribute the failures to her as well. Obama can go on the offensive and strike H. Rodham Clinton on the very issues that she says she will fix and at the same time take shots at her husband without directly confronting him. This will tell the voters that the Clintons had their eight years and failed to get it right and it is unlikely that giving them more time will change this.
Obama has had a campaign of change, a mantra adopted by Hillary as well as some of the Republicans running for office. If Obama is convinced he is the candidate of change he needs to point out the failures of the Clinton co-presidency and make sure the failures are attributed to Hillary. If this does nothing more than cause the Clintons to go on the defensive it will have been worth it. The more the Clintons are forced to defend their record the less time they have to manufacture half truths about Obama.
It is win-win for Obama because if Hillary fights the charges and says that she was not the president it will allow him to point out that she cannot take credit for anything that happened then and will negate her experience claim. If she defends the co-presidency she will be drawing more attention to those failures leaving less time for them to attack.
It is time for B. Hussein Obama to take off the gloves and start hitting hard. It is time for him to strike blows where it will hurt and that is the ever changing Clinton legacy. Blame her for the failures and make her defend why she did not get those things done back then. make her explain how she will do it now when she could not do it then. Make Bill defend their record rather than attacking his.
Obama can get dirty without attacking Bill directly and causing a rift among the Democratic base by attacking the record and attributing it to her. He will come out ahead if he takes this approach.
It is time for Obama to show he is a quick study and has gotten a quick education in Clinton politics of personal destruction. otherwise, he will have to repeat the class in four years.