No Dynasties, Except for the Clintons
Feb 19, 2007 Uncategorized
As if we needed another reason to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House, her supporters want husband and former president Bill Clinton to be appointed to her Senate seat should she win. There have been books written, talks shows have discussed the subject and Americans have spoken out and the word is they do not want dynasties. When there were rumors that Jeb Bush might run for the White House the rebuke was swift, no more Bushes. Word has it that Americans are weary of having the same last names in office year after year. George H W Bush then Clinton and then George W Bush and now the potential for another Clinton.
If that were not bad enough, there are people indicating that they want Bill Clinton appointed to Hillary’s Senate seat “when” she wins. The kool aid drinkers are swooning over the idea of Bill, the consummate politician, filling that seat and schmoozing around Washington. He is a wonderful politician, they say, and he understands the legislative process and the law so well. I guess he does since he figured every way in the book to circumvent the law.
I can not imagine how terrible this country will be with Hillary Clinton in the White House. It was bad enough with Bubba in there screwing things (and everything) up. If she gets in the White House and he goes into the Senate we will be on the path to destruction and the Book of Revelations will be upon us. There is some word that the Clinton’s might not be able to sustain a cut in income. Bill makes millions of dollars a year for speaking and consulting but would be limited as a Senator.
Has income ever stopped these two? Hillary is a stock market genius as evidenced by her success when she lived in Arkansas and Bill managed to secure millions of dollars for pardoning rich criminals. I am sure that if one of these criminals is in the Executive branch and one is in the Legislative they will figure a way to triple their current income. Bill will be on the take from every lobbyist in the country and Hillary will be on the take from ever country in the world.
The time has come for us to realize that we need a more diverse group of people running this country. The Congress always talks about diversity but then it remains a closed, elitist members only organization. Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Sarbanes, and God knows how many more family names are etched, or will be, in the generations of people who run this country. We need to break up this club and put real people in Congress to solve the real problems that face us. Two words:
Term Limits.
Source:
Examiner
Trackback:
America’s Victory 08
Tags: Commentary
Those Ethical Members of Congress
Feb 18, 2007 Uncategorized
I have often said that, contrary to what the Democrats would have you believe, the culture of corruption runs across both aisles in Congress and involves members of both parties. Nancy Pelosi did not want you to know that when she was running around the country talking about the Republican culture of corruption but the fact is, her party has its own demons. Murtha has a 30 year record of skirting ethics to get what he wants and recently William Jefferson was caught with cold cash, right out of his freezer. Of course, many of the followers of the Democratic Party ignore these things because they blindly believe that their leaders are elitists and need to do these things for the greater good of mankind.
Bella Pelosi vowed that there would be ethics reform. She vowed that there would be no special favors and that lobbyists would not spend money on members of Congress because it was improper. Then the ethical Ms. Pelosi exempted a company in her district from the minimum wage increase she pushed through. On top of that, the Democrats left a lot of loopholes in the ethics reform so that they could be exploited. Members of both parties are exploiting these loopholes but the responsibility for them falls directly on the Democrats because they did not include Republicans in any of their so called 100 hour agenda. What we have was given to us by the Democrats. If you moonbats out there can remove your tin foil hats long enough, keep this in mind when you are discussing corruption.
The ethical Democrats (an oxymoron) passed the new rules regarding ethical behavior of the members of Congress. These rules prohibited lobbyists from paying for meals, trips and other items for lawmakers. This has not stopped those lawmakers from receiving thousands of dollars for things like hunting and fishing trips, wine tasting tours, golf tournaments, rock concerts, ski trips, and other parties. How do they get away with this? Well, the ethics rules (the new ones) say that the lobbyists are not allowed to pay for these items directly. However, lobbyists may donate to a PAC set up by the member of Congress and that PAC may then pick up the tab.
Instead of a direct payment from the lobbyist, a middle man is now used. In effect, the Congress has set up its own money laundering scheme whereby dirty money from a lobbyist (remember, all Abramoff money was dirty) is given to a PAC where it is cleaned up and then spent on what the lobbyist wanted to spend it on in the first place. The ethical Democrats have done absolutely nothing to stop the buying of influence from members of Congress and members from both sides have taken advantage of this money laundering scheme to make it look like they are ethical when they are all as dirty as hell.
There will be a lot of moonbats who will ignore this or say that it is OK because it is the Democratic Party that brought it into being. Moonbats are at least consistent in how they view crime or corruption. Anything that a Republican does is a crime. Any time a Democrat does the exact same thing it is not a crime and is for the good of the people or, more importantly, for the children.
The Democratic Party talked a real good game during the time leading up to the last election. Unfortunately, they proved to be as corrupt as that culture they railed against and now they have another loophole to exploit on their way to payoffs and bribes.
Tags: Commentary
Clinton Swings from Hawk to Chicken
Feb 18, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton, who likes to take decisions based on poll results, has heard what her base is saying and has moved away from the war. Her transformation has taken several steps along the way. Originally she voted for the war and claimed to support the troops. She has voted for the spending bills for the war and made many statements indicating that she did not believe there should be a timetable for withdrawal. Of course, she has blamed the war, which she calls a mistake, on Bush but has avoided calling her vote a mistake. As I pointed out in an earlier post, she believes that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt and that Congress should not be directing the president’s actions. Except, of course, when the president is Bush.
Hillary has been avoiding calling her vote for the war a mistake so as to avoid being labeled a poll watcher, indecisive, or a flip-flopper. Her latest modification actually makes her look like all of the above. She is now indicating that the troops should begin coming home in 90 days and she is introducing legislation to limit the number of troops and to require Congressional approval for any increase. Then, she wants the troops to begin coming home within 90 days. This is nothing more than cut and run, regardless of what name they use to disguise it.
Hillary earlier stated that she believed a timetable for withdrawal would be a mistake. She has changed that position to espouse a 90 day timetable. This is a flip-flop, shows indecision and is definitely based on polls that show a lot of the Democratic base are upset with people who voted yes for the war, especially those who will not say they were wrong. It also shows that Hillary Clinton does not really care about the troops. In the past she thought a timetable would be dangerous to them and to Iraq, now she wants a timetable, danger be damned.
She indicated that her trip to Iraq only strengthened her opinion that the troops needed to come home. How many did she ask? How many places did she go? How many soldiers on this trip were forced to spend time with her against their will? Hillary is confident that she will be in the general election so she is not tilting too far tot he left, just yet. She is trying to appease the anti-war crowd so she will do well in the primaries. If she falters in any of those contests she will take a hard left turn like people have never seen. Her actions are all in accordance with those I have lain out all along. She is playing the game just as I said she would. I know her game plan.
Source:
al-Reuters
Tags: Commentary, Political
No Woman Should Be President
Feb 17, 2007 Uncategorized
Men have always been president and that should not change. There is no reason that a woman should be president regardless of what the Constitution says about the subject. The fact that a person is a woman automatically, despite any other qualifications, disqualifies her from becoming the president.
That sounds absolutely ridiculous because the sex of a person has no bearing whatsoever on ability to do the job. So why is a person’s religion such a problem? Except for the so called peaceful religion of Islam, the religion of a candidate should not matter. The fact that Islam requires people to convert or be killed eliminates that religion from consideration. No other religion requires conversion so why is it that people consider this when evaluating a candidate.
I have not made up my mind as to whom I would like to support in the next election. I have ruled out several candidates but it is way too early for me to get behind one person or another but I will say this, unless the person is a Muslim (a follower of the religion of peace), I do not care what religion that person practices. Mitt Romney is catching hell because he is a Mormon. Who really cares if he is a Mormon, Jew, Catholic, Protestant or any other religion (except, as stated, the followers of the child molester).
Perhaps folks can stop focusing on things like sex or religion and actually concentrate on things that matter.
Source:
Orlando Sentinel
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ The Virtuous Republic ♦ Right Truth ♦ Shadowscope ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Diva Dish – Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Rightlinx ♦ third world county ♦ The HILL Chronicles ♦ Woman Honor Thyself ♦ Wake Up America ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ The Uncooperative Blogger ® ♦ The Right Nation ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ Right Voices ♦ Right Pundits ♦ A Blog For All ♦ 123beta ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ basil’s blog ♦ Phastidio.net ♦ Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ Jo’s Cafe ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ Faultline USA ♦ The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker ♦ Gone Hollywood
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Commentary, Link Fest
Partisan Hack Hillary Suffers from BDS
Feb 17, 2007 Uncategorized
Hillary is a partisan hack and a typical Democrat. She believes that certain rules apply to Republicans (especially George Bush) and not to her, or other Democrats. Since she is running for president (a revelation I made over two years ago) it is fitting to see how Hillary is playing this game and how she affords herself luxuries that she will not give to President Bush. The NYT has an article that deals with Hillary’s strategy with regard to her vote to authorize the war. She has had a number of responses to her vote but none of them have been the words “I was wrong.” I do not think her vote was wrong but since many moonbats do it is worth looking at.
I have previously discussed her words of wisdom that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war. I will not belabor the point but suffice it to say that many people might feel that way about a number of things. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is easy to say that if you had this knowledge then you would not have done something. It is always easier to say what you WOULD have done because you have the benefit of knowing what the outcome is. Jeez, she could have said, if I could see into the future I would never have voted for the war, same thing.
I don’t care how Hillary answers the question. I would appreciate it if a politician just had the courage to say I voted this way or that because it was the right thing to do at the time. Hillary does not want to be labeled a flip-flopper and she wants to appear decisive. She also believes she has the nomination in the bag so she is pandering to the moderate conservatives and Independents. But three items from the article demonstrate how she operates:
Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,†she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.
~snip~
Foreign policy advisers say they have made similar arguments: look to the future, not the past, and stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time.
~snip~
Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief. [emphasis mine] NYT
Hillary believes the President deserves the benefit of the doubt, except if the president is George Bush. Have you ever heard Hillary say, well let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt? Has she, in her anti-war mode, said that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to the intelligence? She and her fellow Democrats will tell you that they were misled into war, that Bush lied, that he manipulated the intelligence (quite an achievement for a man they all believe to be stupid). Did she ever once say, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on the intelligence? No, and that is a problem for a person who claims to believe the president deserves the benefit of the doubt. The only benefit of the doubt she gave a president was the one she gave Bill when he said he did not have sex with that woman. That happened under her nose and she gave him the benefit.
Speaking on military intelligence. Her advisers think she should stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time. It is amazing that she was right for her vote based on accepted intelligence but Bush misled people when using THAT VERY SAME widely accepted intelligence. Was the intelligence Hillary got different from that of the president? How was it Hillary got widely accepted intelligence and Bush lied and manipulated intelligence in order to go to war. Does it not stand to reason that if hers was widely accepted and he was manipulating it then she would have noticed the difference between her widely accepted intelligence and his manipulated version? Since she voted for it we can only conclude he gave the same widely accepted intelligence that she had or she saw the difference, remained silent, and voted for it anyway. In any event, this does not wash and is more political double speak from Hillary.
She is careful in suggesting that Congress can overrule the president. Except, of course, if that president is George Bush and he wants to send more troops to Iraq. Then, Hillary and the rest of Congress can overrule that decision. They can all vote on non-binding resolutions and they can threaten to impose all kinds of unconstitutional rules on him. They can not overrule a president unless it is based on one of Bush’s nominations. Then they can oppose the nominee and filibuster, which in effect, overrules the president. He is saying I want this person and they are saying you can not have that person. Overruled! If President Bush wants to listen to terrorists on the phone or track their money then Congress can overrule these things and he does not get the so-called benefit of the doubt. Overruled! Executive authority and Congressional deference my rear. She is full of E. coli.
It is obvious that Hillary suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. No matter what he wants or is trying to do the Democrats (and Hillary) will oppose it and there will be no deference, benefit or any other item that will provide the man with the slightest bit of success. She also suffers from Liberalism, which should be classified in the DSM IV as a mental disorder. Only someone who is mentally challenged can express a belief in these things and but only if they do not apply to anyone else.
Hillary wants people to excuse or understand her vote on the war. In doing so she is asking for privileges as a presidential candidate that she is unwilling to extend to the person who actually is the president. The do as I say and not as I do mentality is prevalent among the Democrats and is particularly abundant in partisan hack Hillary.
Tags: Commentary