Hillary Panders to ILLEGALS
Jan 11, 2008 Link Fest, Political
Hillary Clinton is in Nevada and she is pandering to the ILLEGAL population. While touring a poor area she met with Hispanics who are down and out and not making very much money. Some guy yelled that his wife was ILLEGAL and Hillary replied that “no woman is illegal.”
Hillary was asked if she would give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS in two debates. The first one she flopped all over and gave two different answers. The second time she flat out stated “No!” Does this mean she will give licenses to women who are here illegally because she does not view them as ILLEGAL?
Is Hillary playing up the first woman to run ploy by trying to make people believe she is interested in women’s rights or that she views women differently than men? Did she discriminate by excluding men when she said that no woman was ILLEGAL?
Hillary Clinton will say anything to anyone to get elected. She knows that many women supported her in New Hampshire and that Hispanics are upset with the Republican Party because its members believe in the rule of law, something the Clinton crime family has had trouble with in the past. She breaks the law and has no problem pandering to others who do the same. She also knows that saying what she did makes more Hispanic women likely to vote for her.
Of course, she could have been giving them a veiled message that they could vote in the elections because she says they are not ILLEGAL.
Hillary is Satan.
Source:
Review Journal
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Mona Charen of NRO Skewers Ron Paul
Nov 23, 2007 Link Fest, Political
I am not a Ron Paul supporter but to be clear, I have not gotten on the bandwagon of any candidate. I need to see more before I take a decision as to whom I will support. I understand there is a big net roots campaign for Ron Paul of Texas. I have written in the past that I like most of Paul’s views on domestic policy but I have some real issues with his foreign policy especially with regard to the war on terror in Iraq. I just can’t get my hands around this idea that we caused the attack on 9/11.
However, I have found that Paul appears to be an honest man with strong devotion to his ideals. While I might not agree with all of them, I can see his is true to them and does not flip flop around like many other candidates. Mona Charen of NRO wrote a piece about Paul and in it I think she went out of bounds. She makes some good points but then likens him to some of the groups who happen to support him. She also took a stab at him because he received money from a person (or people) who have bad beliefs.
I do not think a politician has to give back money just because the donor has ideas that others do not like. This is not to say that candidates like Hillary Clinton should be able to keep money that was donated under questionable circumstances which border the realm of illegality (if they are not down right illegal). This goes for all candidates but when donors just happen to be people with whom others disagree it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to return the money. The politician in question does not have to agree with the donor to accept the money.
Imagine if Clinton were required to give back money from the gay and lesbian or ILLEGAL immigrant support groups because others found their positions detestable? Of course Hillary agrees with the groups so that makes it easier but I imagine that she would accept money from any conservative group that donated it legally regardless of their positions. If the person wanted Hillary to win she would take their money no matter what positions they personally held as should any politician, so long as the donations are legal. Charen makes the leap that Neo Con (a term that more people than Paul use) is shorthand for the Jews. How many times have Democrats used that term and why have Jews not found it offensive?
There is a little battle going on and the Paul campaign sent a letter to clear up some of Charen’s assertions. Whether or not that will do any good is hard to say.
However, it might be helpful if the Paul supporters stopped inundating email in boxes with their ardent support for Paul. Ticking off the people who have the power to write widely read columns does not seem to be a smart course of action.
As always, please feel free to comment.
Others with similar items:
Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Woman Honor Thyself, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Chuck Adkins, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Democrats, domestic policy, Hillary Clinton, honest man, illegal immigrant, mona charen, neo con, nro, ron paul, war on terror
Veteran’s Day 2007
Nov 11, 2007 Link Fest, Military
Today we celebrate Veteran’s Day though tomorrow is the day it will be observed. The United States is a great country because it has a history of fighting for what is right and for joining others in fights for what is right. Leading the charge throughout history is the American Military and the great men and women who serve in the armed forces.
There is no draft today and yet men and women step up to the plate to fight the war on terror and to prosecute our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women are unsung heroes who are often forgotten until some crisis comes up requiring tough people to do violence on behalf of the protected.
We have the greatest military in the world and, unlike other nations we do not go around conquering countries and taking what they have for our selves. We help them out in their fight and we help them rebuild. Japan and Germany were conquered and yet they prosper today as allies of the US. Many others have us to thank that they still have a native language and that they have not become the property of another, stronger, nation.
Today we thank the men and women who give all for people they do not know in order to make this world a better place. We honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow countrymen. I read this definition of a Veteran at a site this morning: (Big Dog Salute to GM Roper)
“A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’†(Author unknown) Right in a Left World
Thank you veterans. May God bless you and keep you safe.
Others with similar posts:
Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Grizzly Groundswell, Stuck On Stupid, , Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: american military, blank check, fight the war, great country, great men, national guard, ultimate sacrifice, unsung heroes, veteran, war on terror
A Tip for Hillary and Her People
Nov 9, 2007 Link Fest, Political
There was a big deal made yesterday about Hillary Clinton not leaving a tip when she stopped for a meal and campaign appearance at some diner. The waitress mentioned it in response to a story about Hillary using that waitress and her life experience in her next stump speeches. According to the report the comment was not made as a knock but mentioned as part of the interview. I don’t know if Hillary or her people left a tip or not and I don’t care. It would seem to me that Hillary would not be the one to handle such things. That is, after all, why she has staff following her around. Besides, the news report stated that Hillary’s meal was free so any tip would be added to the bill of the people with her. I would be more interested in seeing if she claimed the meal as a donation in kind. I would not have even given this a second thought except that the Hillary camp is refuting this story and in so doing they have told conflicting stories.
In a new website the campaign claims that it left a $100 tip. The new site, designed to dispel the myths put out in the media, was mentioned in the news but I have not visited it. It is funny that they would put up a site to dispel myths, as if we can believe what they write. Just because they write it, it must be true, at least in their world. The problem is that The campaign said it left a $100 tip that was added to the charge card of the bill. The receipt shows that only the total of the bill was paid (even the receipt the campaign produced). So a staff member went to the diner and told the waitress that a $100 tip was added to the charge card and when that was shown to be incorrect he said that a $100 bill was left. This uncertainty would lend credence to the claim of the staff that no tip was left. Additionally, when the waitress said that no one there got a tip the staffer gave two waitresses $20.
This could all be a mix up. The tip could have been left and pocketed by another employee though the waitress says her co-workers would not do that. Maybe they left it on the counter and another customer took it. Given how careless these people are with our money it is no stretch to believe that they would be this careless with donated money. It would have been a great PR move if they had ensured they gave the money to someone and it had been seen. All of this uncertainty and the subsequent money given leads me to believe that no tip was left. They really do not care about the little guy except when they want his vote.
I do not know if they left a tip and I don’t care. I am more focused on this mini cover-up of the incident. If they did not give a tip why not just admit that they thought someone had and send the employees a check or a gift? Why not just say it was an oversight, which can happen. Continuous harping on the “we left a tip” mantra draws attention to a non-issue and the differing stories cannot bode well for a candidate with a history of cover-ups and lies. If the tip is not on the credit receipt they cannot prove they left one even if they did so why not play this better instead of trying to paint regular workers as liars or criminals? That might not be the intent but that is how it can be seen just as the $20 given by the staffer can be seen as an admission that they are either unsure or did not leave a tip.
If they did not leave a tip making it right would be easy. If they did and cannot prove it then saying there must have been an oversight and leaving another tip would have solved the problem and showed people that the campaign can admit mistakes and make things right. When Hillary is raising millions of dollars, a $100 tip should not demand this much effort to make right.
As I stated, I don’t know if a tip was left. I would not be surprised if they did not leave one because of the attitude toward working people and the carelessness with other people’s money. However, I would also not be surprised if they did leave a tip and it was somehow not accounted for.
While this should not be an issue the glimpse into the world of Clinton spin and damage control should bring back memories of an administration that carried the same name.
Others with similar stories:
Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, The Populist, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke’s, third world county, Allie Is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: campaign appearance, donation in kind, Hillary Clinton, stump speeches, waitress
The Chinese Already Fund the Clintons, Why not Europe?
Nov 7, 2007 Link Fest, Political
Robert Rubin is set to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. To some this is seen as some great thing because of his experience in the financial world. Given that he supports Democrats it was just a matter of who and given that he had misgivings about her ability to be elected as well as their past run ins it is likely that his endorsement came as a result of some arm twisting by his former boss, Bill Clinton. Interestingly, the article states:
Her husband will continue his bustling fund-raising pace on her behalf, meanwhile: he will headline two major events for her in New York in the next few weeks, as well as one in New Jersey next month. He will also host fundraisers for her in Dublin and London next weekend — receptions that could be especially lucrative given his popularity in both countries, especially Ireland, where he played a major role in the Northern Ireland peace process. New York Times
Forgetting that Dublin and London are not countries, why are they raising money in other countries? Why is foreign money being used to influence an American election? Will they discuss any fund raisers in China?
After all, that is where the Clintons get their money (just ask Bill about the 8 million for AK 47s).
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Allie Is Wired, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: clintons, dublin, financial world, foreign money, hillary clinton for president, new york times, raising money