|
|
Hillary Clinton is Vicious
There is absolutely nothing that she won't do to gain the political power she has been coveting for most of her life. She is a cold-blooded politician who will take no prisoners in her quest for the presidency.
Hillary Clinton heads the list of those who think that America is great because of its government.
Hillary Clinton believes that Americans get their rights from government. If you don't know why this is a dangerous attitude, you probably attended government schools.
Speaking of government schools, with Hillary Rodham you can forget the idea of school choice. The teacher's unions will continue to run the show.
Hillary holds our military is complete disdain. Remember, this is the woman who had U.S. Marines in their dress blue uniforms serving cheese and crackers to guests at White House functions. When her husband was president there were repeated stories that Hillary's White House staff showed deliberate rudeness to military personnel. In one story you've probably forgotten a Hillary aid in the White House once told a uniformed military office that "We don't talk to people in military uniforms in this office."
Hillary tried to implement a health care plan that would have made it a crime for you to use your own dollars to hire your own doctor. Now think about that for a moment. How much else do you need to know? She actually wanted to make it a crime for you to arrange for your own medical care outside of her great Hillarycare system using your own dollars. Picture this. You're sitting in a jail cell. Your cellmate is in there for bank robbery. He looks at you and says "So, what did you do?" You tell him "Oh ... I tried to hire a doctor with my own money to take care of a medical problem." That, my friends, is Hillary's America.
Hillary Rodham is a disgrace to the institution of marriage. That relationship she has with Bill Clinton is no marriage at all. It is a political partnership entered into for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining political power. Nothing more.
Hillary has not only tolerated her "husband's" many trysts with other women, she has been actively engaged in, and sometimes led, the effort to destroy any of these women who dared to step forward to complain.
She is fundamentally dishonest ... almost pathologically dishonest. Perhaps the greatest example of her innate dishonesty would be the saga of the Rose Law Firm billing records. The congress served a subpoena on Hillary for those records. She said that she did not have them. For two years she denied that those records were in her possession, and in fact suggested that they may not exist at all. Then, two years after the subpoena was served, those very records were found in her private living quarters at the White House. Not only were they found, but they had her fingerprints and handwriting all over them. In other words .. she lied.
Hillary Clinton is anti-individual. When discussing her socialized medicine plan with a group of Republican congressmen in 1993 Hillary said "We have to stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." No .. she's wrong. We have to start thinking about what it would be like to have a president who put the common good above individual rights. Hillary Rodham is part and parcel of the war on individualism.
A bit more about Hillary Rodham and your health care:
Now that Hillary Clinton is officially in the race, she is choosing health care as her signature issue. What a great idea...it worked so well before. By the way, anybody notice how it was warm and sunny out her office window in her videotaped announcement that she was running? Seems like that little piece of tape was recorded in advance. Many people have noticed, by the way. There's late word that the announcement was indeed taped in Washington last week. Maybe it's a fake tree in the window behind her. Who knows. But back to health care.
So what is Hillary's health care proposal going to be this time? Things didn't work out so well 13 years ago when she proposed a government takeover of the medical industry. Says The Hildabeast: "I will be introducing legislation to make quality, affordable health care available to every child in America." What does that mean? just covering children? It would seem so. Well, according to Hillary...anyone would be able to buy into her program. And just how much is all of this going to cost? Naturally, no mention of the price tag. But suffice it to say that if Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, your earnings will be confiscated to pay for other people's health care. Just get used to the idea.
And don't buy for a minute this routine that Hillary Clinton only jumped in because Barack Obama forced her to. She has been planning this move for decades...and everything unfolding right now is part of that plan. It all goes back to when she was running things and wearing the pants in her husband's administration. Except now it's her turn.
Know this. If Hillary Clinton becomes President Rodham, and if the Democrats increase their hold on power in the congress, this will be the last presidential election in which talk radio will play any significant part at all. Though I've been telling you this for years, it has become clear in the last few weeks that Democrats plan to destroy talk radio with the resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
What women are saying regarding Senator Barbara Boxer's comments...........
One Great Leap (Backwards) for Womankind Apparently, in the Democratic party, education, hard work,
experience, and accomplishment in a long career of diplomacy do not qualify a woman to make
diplomatic decisions--but having children does. "Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold
from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go
- attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman. Rice appeared before
the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.
"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and
my grandchild is too young." Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I
understand it, with an immediate family."
I myself am a woman with no children, and I'm gosh
darn lucky that I work for a company that overlooks that in order to let me help make critical
marketing decisions. Thank goodness I don't work for the Democratic party-- they might make me
reproduce before I get to pitch in at meetings!
pzepeda@gmail.com
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats
approved this week. "I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief
deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we
find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy
and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats." On Wednesday, the House voted to
raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. The bill also extends for the first time the
federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts
American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not
subject to federal minimum-wage laws. One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in
Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than
5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte
Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant
belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea. "There's something fishy going on here," said Rep.
Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican. During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell
research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered
that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage
bill." A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off
Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be." "So, the chair is saying I may not offer an
amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed. "The gentleman is making a speech and will
sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum. Some
Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn
yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa. "I was
troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention
was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions
that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through
without full debate." A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been
lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to make reform of congressional earmarks a priority
of his tenure, arguing that members need to be more transparent when they load pet projects for
their districts into federal spending bills.
But last year's huge $286-billion federal transportation bill included a little-noticed slice of
pork pushed by Reid that provided benefits not only for the casino town of Laughlin, Nev., but also,
possibly, for the senator himself.
Reid called funding for construction of a bridge over the Colorado River, among other projects,
"incredibly good news for Nevada" in a news release after passage of the 2005 transportation bill.
He didn't mention, though, that just across the river in Arizona, he owns 160 acres of land several
miles from proposed bridge sites and that the bridge could add value to his real estate investment.
Reid denies any personal financial interest in his efforts to secure $18 million for a new span
connecting Laughlin with Bullhead City, Ariz.
"Sen. Reid's support for the bridge had absolutely nothing to do with property he owns," said
Rebecca Kirszner, Reid's communications director. "Sen. Reid supported this project as part of his
continuing efforts to move Nevada forward."
But some Bullhead City property owners and local officials say a new bridge will undoubtedly hike
land values in an already-booming commuter town, where speculators are snapping up undeveloped land
for housing developments and other projects. Experts on congressional spending say Reid's earmark
provides yet another sign of the need for reform.
"It's a really bad idea for lawmakers to earmark projects when they have a financial interest that
could in any way be affected by it," said Norman Ornstein, coauthor of "The Broken Branch" a recent
book that examines earmarking and other practices.
Nancy Pelosi's much touted "Culture of Corruption" was originally conceived as a lily-white, Republicans only club that Democrats could point to with self-righteous indignation while claiming moral and ethical superiority.
I guess Pelosi's San Fransicko Morals are a lot different from the avg American
She Surrounds herself with John P. Murtha... Should a congressman under investigation by the FBI have control over the bureau's budget? Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it? Especially when there is Video evidence!
Democrat Rep. Alan Mollohan is now in line to become chairman of the powerful Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the FBI's budget. Funny thing is that He's Under Investigation By The Very same Agency, FBI, for illegally enhancing his income by steering $250 million in federal earmarks to five nonprofit organizations staffed by his former aides and business partner.
Rep. Alcee Hastings as the new chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Not such an intelligent choice for someone promising to clean up the Hill. Hastings is one of just six federal judges to be impeached by Congress and removed from the bench.
And why was he impeached? It would seem that Hastings was wrapped up in a 1983 scandal involving the solicitation of a $150,000 bribe in return for “favorable treatment for defendants in a racketeering case before him.” Hastings was an unindicted co-conspirator, but apparently the evidence was strong enough for Congress to kick him off the bench. (Even Nancy Pelosi voted to impeach Hastings in 1988!)
Pelosi picked Silvestre Reyes, an anti-Iraq-war Democratic congressman representing Texas, to chair the House intelligence committee when Congress reconvenes in January.
He was unable to answer "fundamental questions" related to the Middle East, including which sects terror groups adhere to. So Now we have the Blind Leading the Blind within the Liberal Party!
"Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East!"
"The dialogue went like this:
Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?
"Al Qaeda, they have both," Reyes said. "You’re talking about predominately?"
"Sure," I said, not knowing what else to say.
"Predominantly — probably Shiite," he ventured.
He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball."
Pelosi is busy in her usual attempts to spread her San Fransicko Morals!!!!!!!!
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received a $25,000 award of attorney's fees and costs from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in final settlement of Judicial Watch's "Pardongate" lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Judicial Watch received the award on Nov. 21 to compensate the nonprofit educational organization for its attorney time and expense in challenging DOJ's improper withholding of records regarding former President Clinton's controversial, last-minute pardons.
In the last days of his presidency, former President Clinton granted 140 pardons and commuted 36 sentences. The pardons were for individuals who had paid large fees to Clinton associates. Denise Rich donated more than $1 million to Democratic Party causes and the Clinton Library before her former husband, Marc Rich, received a presidential pardon. Hugh Rodham, brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, accepted $400,000 after successfully lobbying his brother-in-law for clemency for two felons. (Anthony Rodham, Hillary's other brother, has also been accused of illicitly brokering another pardon deal. Judicial Watch recently filed a formal complaint with the Justice Department in the matter.)
Kerry surely must be one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around. Some afterthoughts about his latest gaffe, which is one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology:
(1) How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.
(2) How could Kerry possibly claim that he was thinking of the uneducated in the context of George Bush, who, after all, went to Harvard and Yale?
(3) Some of the brightest and most educated Americans are not only in the military, but veterans of Iraq. Two of the best educated minds I have met-Col. Bill Hix and Lt. Col. Chris Gibson, both Hoover Security Fellows-were both Iraqi veterans. What is striking about visiting Iraq is the wealth of talent there, from privates to generals. Without being gratuitously cruel, the problem of mediocrity is not in the ranks of the military, but on our university campuses, where half-educated professors and non-serious students killing time are ubiquitous. Personally, I'd wager the intelligence of a Marine Corps private any day over the average D.C. journalist. Every naval officer I met at the USNA, without exception, seemed brighter than John Kerry, whose "brilliance", after all, has managed to offend millions of voters on the eve of a pivotal election. If the Democrats lose, it will be almost painful to watch the recriminations against Kerry fly.
(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.
(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists.
(6) The problem is that Kerry is not just a senator, but the most recent presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, and thus in some sense, especially given the diminution of Howard Dean, the megaphone of the entire party.
(7) His pathetic clarification, as he blamed everyone from Tony Snow to Rush Limbaugh, displayed the same Al Gore derangement syndrome, and thus raises a larger question: what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting?
(8) And why is the supposedly lame Bush so careful in speech, and the self-acclaimed geniuses like a Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Howard Dean serially spouting ever more stupidities? For all the Democrats' criticism of George Bush, I can't think of a modern President who has so infrequently put his foot in his public mouth, and, by the same token, can't think of any opposition that on the eve of elections seems to have an almost pathological death wish.
The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.
I just checked on the CIA World Fact Book, and I was surprised to see that Iraq's death rate (5.37 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) is actually substantially lower than our own in the United States (8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) I am curious why they have a lower death rate than us, but that's for another day.
What these numbers tell us is that, given Iraq's population of 26,783,383, an average of 394 die a day. Why didn't the media just go all out and run headlines that read: "394 Iraqis Killed Daily"? Hell, by the standards of the UN, Yahoo, Reuters, The NY Times, and the rest of the media I guess we should prepare to splash tomorrow's papers with the headline: "6,754 Civilians Killed In the United States Daily". It would be just as accurate as all of what we've just seen regarding the Iraq civilians.
Anyway, I better get out of the way before I get trampled, as the rest of the media races to get this "story" out there.
All Muslims are not Terrorist
But
All Terrorist are MUSLIM !!!
1936 the ineffective league of nations
Today we have the ineffective, corrupt UNITED NATIONS
1936 democracies appeased the totalitarians
Today the Liberals appease the Muslims
1936 Hitler on the March
Today Muslims on the March
Churchill called it correctly, A Gathering Storm!
An All Out War is inevitable!!!
A mother asked President Bush,
"Why did my son have to die in Iraq?"
Another mother asked President Kennedy,
"Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?"
Another mother asked President Truman,
"Why did my son have to die in Korea?
Another mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt,
"Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"
Another mother asked President W. Wilson,
"Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France?"
Yet another mother asked President Lincoln,
"Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"
And yet another mother asked President G. Washington,
"Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?"
Then long, long ago, a mother asked...
"Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die
on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"
The answers to all these are similar --
"So that others may have life and dwell in peace,
happiness and freedom."
Abramoff Lobbying & Political Contributions to Democrats,
per FEC Records
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700
Democratic National Cmte $65,720
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000
Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500
Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250
Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000
Democratic Party of Montana $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500
Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000
Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000
George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500
Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000
Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000
Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Democratic Party of Washington $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500
Grand Total $1,541,673
Jack Abramoff bought 40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:
1. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
2. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
3. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
4. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
5. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
6. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
7. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
8. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
9. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
10. Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
11. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
12. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
13. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
14. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
15. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
16. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
17. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
18. Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
19. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
20. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
21. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
22. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
23. Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
24. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
25. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
26. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
27. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
28. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
29. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
30. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
31. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
32. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
33. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
34. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
35. Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
36. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
37. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
38. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
39. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
40. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250
Tribal Clients And Associates Of Jack Abramoff Have Contributed Over $3.1 Million
To Democrat Party Interests Between 1997 And 2004. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 2005)
National Democrat Party Affiliated Committees Received Over $1.2 Million From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)
The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Received Over – $430,000
The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Received Over – $629,000
The Democrat National Committee (DNC) Received Over – $177,000
Incumbent Senate Democrat-Affiliated Campaign And Leadership Committees Received Over $729,000 From Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff*. (Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed December 7, 2005; Internal Revenue Service Website, www.irs.gov, Accessed April 21, 2005)
During the past six years, more than $4.2 million in congressional campaign contributions came from tribes and casinos that — at least at some point during that time period — were clients of Abramoff. About $2.6 million of that money went to Democrats, the Center for Responsive Politics says.
Tribes that contracted with Abramoff also contributed $2,000 or less to Adam Smith, D-Tacoma; Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, and Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island.
Contributions included more than $34,000 to Sen. Patty Murray (Dem), and smaller donations to Sen. Maria Cantwell (Dem) and three other Washington Democratic congressmen, records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics show. The center is a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.
Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.
Findings:
Campaign Contributions
In the 1996 election cycle Indian gaming interests gave $1.6 million in PAC, soft money, and individual contributions combined to federal campaigns.
82% went to the Democrats while 18% went to the Republican party.
Democrats at all levels have attacked Republicans
for ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his Indian tribal clients. They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients, along with National Democratic National Committees who have received millions.
Democratic Committees and Individuals Received Significant Indian Tribes Donations
- 1. Since 1999, the top recipient of donations from Indian tribes was the Democratic National Committee, which collected $2,015,250 for its non-federal corporate account, according to records publicly available from Political Money Line.
- 2. The second-largest recipient of tribal donations has been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at $1,614,950.
- 3. The third-largest recipient of dollars from Indian tribes is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with $1,288,650.
- 4. The fifth-largest recipient is the Democratic Governors Association, which collected $965,000.
In addition, public records show that leading individual Democratic officials have raised substantial sums from Indian tribes:
- Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) - $505,400
- Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - $266,800
- Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) - $237,030
- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) - $129,500
- Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) - $76,500
- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) $104,500
Anyone who wonders whether the Democratic Party
in general and Sen. Hillary Clinton in particular are really tough on terror — or are just posing for the cameras — needs to look at the vote by the entire Democratic Senate delegation (excepting only Nebraska's Ben Nelson and South Dakota's Tim Johnson) to prevent closure of their filibuster against the Patriot Act extension.
While the legislation President Bush proposed extends the entire act, certain key provisions are set to expire at year's end. (The rest of the act is good until September 2007.) By voting to allow these provisions to lapse, the Democrats have shown a total disregard for national security.
It is particularly galling that Sens. Clinton and Chuck Schumer — whose New York constituents are in the terrorists' bull's eye — voted to let these vital protections expire.
How galling? One of the key provisions due to expire in two weeks is one that President Bill Clinton presented as the cornerstone of his response to the escalation of terrorism in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The measure allows "roving wiretaps" — so that the FBI can tap all phones a suspect uses, rather than just one specific number. Hillary's vote to let this provision expire is incredible.
After 9/11, the measure became law in the Patriot Act; it it remains a centerpiece of the War on Terror. Yet now Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic Party in the Senate are voting to kill it, by preventing a vote on the measure to extend it.
As a further Christmas anti-present to New Yorkers, Clinton, Schumer & Co. are also killing the Patriot Act provision that demolishes the infamous wall — erected by Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick — between those who investigate terrorism and those who prosecute suspects.
The goal was to avoid tainting criminal prosecutions, by avoiding the collection of evidence without a full search warrant. But the result was to keep the left hand from knowing what the right hand was doing when it came to preventing acts of terrorism.
Like the 9/11 attacks.
As a result of the wall, the FBI was unable to access the personal computer of Zacarias Moussaoui when it had him in custody before 9/11; that laptop reportedly contained the names of other hijackers.
The feds seized Moussaoui a full month before 9/11 — but could not follow up on the leads his laptop would have highlighted because of the pernicious wall that Senate Democrats are now fighting to restore.
Equally irresponsible is the criticism Democrats are leveling at President Bush for his use of National Security Agency wiretaps to catch terrorists. Before Clinton and Schumer criticize this policy, they'd do well to reflect on the fact that the Brooklyn Bridge might well be rubble, with thousands dead, if Bush did not use these wiretaps.
In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which apparently didn't translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were "too hot" on the bridge to pull off an operation. Later, an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber. (His plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me.)
Why didn't Bush get a warrant? On who? For what? The NSA wasn't looking for a man who might blow up the bridge. It had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside — and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off.
In criminal investigations, one can target a suspect and get a warrant to investigate him. But this deductive approach is a limited instrument in fighting terror. An inductive approach, in which one gathers a mass of evidence and looks for patterns, is far more useful.
But, if the Democrats are to be heeded, it will no longer be possible.
Bye-bye, bridge.
Why are Liberal Activist Upset at President Bush for Taking Saddam out of Power?
One of Saddam Hussein's official hangmen is speaking to the media for the first time - offering a firsthand account of some of the torture techniques he used on Saddam's orders.
Recalling his time working at Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, Abu Hussein [last name withheld] recalled that a new batch of political prisoners was brought in - without being charged with a crime - every week.
Deserters from Iraq's war with Iran faced the firing squad, the hangman told Reuters, while prisoners who had insulted Saddam were hanged because it was more cruel.
"A firing squad is more compassionate because people usually died immediately. But hanging is cruel because it can take time to die. If they don't die, we started over again," he said.
Death always came after weeks of torture, Abu Hussein said.
"Sometimes we would hang them upside down and beat their feet with clubs. Or we would electrocute them," he said.
"One of the worst things was putting 10 people in a one-square-meter room for weeks. They had a brief break every day and were allowed the toilet every three days," he said.
Three executions were carried out each Monday and Thursday. One day Saddam's feared son Uday showed up and asked about eight political prisoners standing nearby. He ordered their immediate execution, the ex-executioner told Reuters.
He recalled watching men writhe in agony as they died, which even he found upsetting. But nobody could afford to defy orders in Saddam's Iraq.
"We would have been killed on the spot," Abu Hussein said. "One time this executioner was one hour late in hanging someone and he was himself hanged."
Hillary Clinton Mum on Pre-war Intel Report
2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won't say whether she read a key intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before she voted in Oct. 2002 to authorize the Iraq war.
Asked directly by the Boston Herald whether she did her homework by reading the report on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMDs, the paper reports that the Democratic frontrunner "declined to say."
Though billed in the press as a supporter of the war, the former first lady has been highly critical of the Bush administration's so-called rush to judgment of Iraq's pre-war threat.
But in Oct. 2002, while explaining why she intended to vote for the war, Clinton clearly left the impression that she had read all the intel on Saddam's WMDs that she could get her hands on
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program," she told the Senate before voting to authorize the war.
Asked last month whether she regretted her vote, Mrs. Clinton told NPR: "You know, I really can't talk about this on the fly. It's too important."
The United States is closing a legal loophole
which has allowed tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to slip into the country and join the estimated 11 million undocumented foreigners already here.
Under long-standing procedure along the U.S. border with Mexico, illegal crossers of nationalities other than Mexican -- dubbed OTMs by the Border Patrol -- have been entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge before they could be deported.
Because of a severe shortage of space to hold them until the hearing, they were released after being fingerprinted and given a "notice to appear," a document stating they had agreed to show up at court at a certain date.
The notice serves as a travel document allowing its holder past Border Patrol checkpoints on the roads leading from the border to the interior. Most OTMs do not show up for their hearing and meld into the population.
Known as "catch and release", the practice has become part of an increasingly acrimonious debate over immigration policy and border security, an issue likely to loom large in Congress, next year's mid-term elections and the 2008 presidential poll.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said last month his department's aim was to "return every single entrant -- no exceptions" but gave no deadline. Mexicans are usually returned immediately -- and most of them try again, some within hours.
Along the border, agents say ending the practice will take time and depends on how quickly the government can build additional detention space told hold OTMs before they are sent to their home countries.
OTMs were a relatively minor problem until 2003, when word of the loophole spread and triggered a growing flood -- including thousands of Brazilians inspired by a popular soap opera, "America," whose sultry star plays an illegal immigrant who swam the Rio Grande and made good in the United States.
New Mexico & Arizona Governors Declare
States of Emergency on Southern Border
Sign petition to President Bush to
Secure Our Borders Immediately
The cold truth about the southern border.
It seems the Dallas Morning News (search) is now going to issue some kind of correction after one of its columnists accused me in this broadcast of fostering hatred toward Mexican migrant workers. That is absolutely false. And we have the tapes to prove it.
What "Talking Points" does firmly believe is that both the U.S. and Mexican governments have been grossly derelict in their duty to enforce immigration laws. And that has put all of us in danger, especially the defense of migrants, who are exploited by all kinds of evil people.
When you have 10 million illegal aliens entering any society, you're going to have a rash of unintended consequences that will cause great suffering. The border states are chaos, crimes committed by illegals are a huge problem, neighborhoods and property values are impacted, culture differences can lead to violence, schools are overwhelmed trying to teach children who do not speak English. The list is endless.
And we haven't even mentioned the terrorists who can easily enter the USA through Mexico. That's because the Mexican government remains impotent. It cannot control corruption and is essentially a chaotic mess.
Even though Mexico (search) is blessed with oil and other fossil fuels, and beautiful coastlines that stimulate a lucrative tourist industry, the country cannot support its population. Therefore, Mexico's main industry right now is receiving dollars sent home by illegals working in America. How pathetic is that?
Mexico is not going to change anytime soon. President Fox knows his country's economy would collapse without the money generated by illegals. So he's not going to stop the migration.
Fox can't even stop the drug traffickers from controlling the border. The cities of Nuevo Laredo (search), Juarez, and Tijuana are run by the narco trafficantes. So far this year alone, there have been 137 murders in Nuevo Laredo, a city of 150,000. And those include cops, politicians, journalists. The dope dealers will kill anyone. They have no fear.
In Cuidad Juarez (search), an astounding 360 young women have been found murdered since 1993. Most of those killings remain unsolved.
Again, the Mexican government can't control crime. And it will not control immigration.
Now you would think our leaders in Washington would understand the grave danger the border situation poses for all Americans. But like Nero, Congress and the president fiddle while the border burns.
"Talking Points" has said it before. It will take another 9-11 before our elected leaders do what they're supposed to do — enforce the law on the southern border. There's simply no excuse for tons of narcotics and millions of illegals to continue flowing into the USA. No excuse.
That is the cold hard truth of the southern border. And all the bleeding hearts in the world can't change it. And that's “The Memo.”
LAW OF THE LAND
100,000 back bill to curb ACLU
Petition urges Congress to act on legislation
A grass-roots group is mobilizing more than 100,000 Americans to urge Congress to pass a bill that would curb the ACLU by denying plaintiff attorneys the right to collect attorneys fees in lawsuits targeting religion in the public square.
The petition by the Center for Reclaiming America calls for "a stand against the ACLU's radical agenda, which undermines our nation's moral and religious heritage."
The group says it already has 100,000 signatures and hopes to garner another 30,000.
The petition reads:
As a concerned citizen, I am taking a stand against the ACLU's radical agenda, which undermines our nation's moral and religious heritage. I join with citizens across the nation in protest of ACLU policies and actions to strip faith in God from the public square while promoting anti-family and pro-homosexual initiatives. I am calling on leaders in government and media to tell the truth about the ACLU's radical agenda. Furthermore, I demand lawmakers take the necessary steps to eliminate the monetary motives behind the ACLU's campaign to remove all mention of God from the public square. The ACLU does not represent me nor the vast majority of American citizens.
The legislation by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976 to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases but not in other civil rights filings.
Hostettler introduced a bill with identical language in 2003 to permit only injunctive relief in cases filed under the religious-establishment clause of the Constitution and to deny attorneys fees.
Although that bill failed in subcommittee, supporters are optimistic that the current offering will pass this session because of the more conservative makeup of the current Congress and escalating calls to curb an activist judiciary, particularly on religious matters.
In August, another advocacy group asked Congress to probe the ACLU for "widespread use of frivolous lawsuits following its legal action against New York City for allegedly violating citizens' rights by random searches on subways.
The Soros Noise Machine
Tom DeLay’s most dangerous and persistent foe is the network of "public interest" non-profit groups and corrupt media hacks which together constitute the Soros Noise Machine. Ronnie Earle and John McCain may or may not succeed in making their charges against DeLay stick. But, as long as Soros and his donor network keep pouring money into the Soros Noise Machine, it will continue pounding DeLay, year after year, with a ceaseless drumbeat of accusations, in the form of books, films, press releases, push polls and TV ad campaigns.
DeLay's most vocal accusers include a cluster of self-styled "ethics watchdog" groups, among which Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Public Campaign and The Campaign Legal Center have special prominence.(9)
All of the above-named groups have received large contributions from Soros' Open Society Institute. Common Cause has received $650,000; Democracy 21, $300,000; Public Citizen, $275,000; and Public Campaign, $1.3 million.(10) The Campaign Legal Center acknowledges on its Web site that it too has received "generous financial support" from the Open Society Institute as well as from other leftwing foundations.
In March of this year, the activist group Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) joined forces with the Public Campaign Action Fund to launch a $75,000 TV ad campaign in targeted Congressional districts, portraying Tom DeLay as corrupt.
Both partners in the anti-DeLay ad campaign have received heavy funding from Soros. CAF — a subsidiary of the Institute for America's Future (IAF) — has received more than $300,000 from Soros’ Open Society Institute. The other partner, the Public Campaign Action Fund, is an affiliate of the afore-mentioned Public Campaign, which has received $1.3 million from Soros.(11)
The propaganda din from Soros-sponsored "watchdog" groups helps feed the ever-hungry media with anti-Delay stories.
The Soros Book Machine
The Soros Noise Machine also struck through an investigative book called The Hammer: God, Money and the Rise of the Republican Congress, written by two Texas journalists named Lou Dubose and Jan Reid.
Co-author Dubose appears as a commentator in the still-unfinished documentary film The Big Buy, in which leftwing filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck chronicle Ronnie Earle’s pursuit of Tom DeLay.(12)
Dubose's and Reid's book The Hammer was published in October 2004 by Public Affairs Books of New York, an imprint of The Perseus Books Group, which in turn is owned by Perseus LLC, a merchant bank and fund management company, with offices in New York and Washington, DC.
The chairman and CEO of Perseus LLC, Frank H. Pearl, also happens to be the founder and chairman of Perseus Books. More to the point, Mr. Pearl and Mr. Soros are business partners, whose collaborations include such ventures as Perseus-Soros Management LLC, Perseus-Soros Partners LLC and Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund.
Given the close partnership between these two men, we should hardly be surprised to learn that Mr. Pearl's Public Affairs book imprint — the same imprint which published the anti-DeLay title The Hammer — also happens to have published many books by George Soros, including The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Underwriting Democracy, George Soros on Globalization, The Bubble of American Supremacy and the forthcoming George Soros on Freedom.
Transparency
The money trail strongly suggests that George Soros is implicated in the plot to frame Tom DeLay.
Before we allow a crooked county prosecutor to unseat one of America's valued leaders, it behooves us to investigate further. We must demand of Mr. Soros what he and his hired retainers have long demanded of Tom DeLay — transparency and accountability.
No longer can we allow wealthy puppeteers to manipulate our government from the shadows. It is time to flood those shadows with light.
NOTES
1. Marc Morano, "Soros Conviction for Insider Trading Upheld in French Court," Cybercast News Service (CNSnews.com), March 24, 2005
2. Lou Dubose, "Senatorial Courtesy: Will John McCain Let Republican Perps Walk?", The Texas Observer, August 26, 2005
3. Sharon Kehnemul Liss, "DeLay Blasts `Leftwing Syndicate'", FoxNews.com, April 20, 2005; Richard Poe, "The Soros Noise Machine," MoonbatCentral.com, March 20, 2005
4. Andrew C. McCarthy, "Ronnie Earle Should Not be a Prosecutor", National Review Online, October 6, 2005; Byron York, "Dollars for Dismissals," National Review Online, June 20, 2005; Peter Flaherty, "Texas Smear Machine Targets DeLay", Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), September 23, 2004
5. "Hammer Time: Ronnie Earle Finally Gets His Man," The Wall Street Journal Online (OpinionJournal.com), September 29, 2005
6. S.C. Gwynne,"The Daughter Also Rises",Texas Monthly, August 2004, p 112; David Horowitz and Richard Poe, "The Shadow Party" (Parts I-III), FrontPageMagazine.com, October 6, 7, 11, 2004
7. Cliff Kincaid, "George Soros and the Press", Accuracy in Media (AIM.org), April 13, 2005; Ed Morrisey, "Inside McCain's Reform Institute", Captain's Quarters, March 9, 2005; Richard Poe, "John McCain Gets Soros Cash," MoonbatCentral.com, March 10, 2005
8. Richard Poe, "Pewgate: Battle of the Blogosphere," FrontPageMagazine.com, March 25, 2005
9. Alexander Bolton, "Watchdogs in Soros's Pocket: GOP," The Hill (CNSnews.com), March 23, 2005; Michelle Malkin, "Wobbly Watchdogs," michellemalkin.com, June 22, 2004
10. "The Soros Agenda: Free Speech for Billionaires Only," The Wall Street Journal Online (OpinionJournal.com), January 3, 2004
11. Anne E. Kornblut, "DeLay's Critics are Numerous, So He Sees a Conspiracy," San Francisco Chronicle, October 2, 2005
12. Byron York, "Coming Soon, the Ronnie Earle Movie," National Review Online, September 29, 2005; Byron York, "The Movie: Ronnie Earle on a Mission from God," National Review Online, September 30, 2005
Louis Freeh Speaks for the First Time About his Terrible Relationship with the President
 Former FBI Director Louis Freeh says publicly for the first time that his relationship with President Bill Clinton – the man who appointed him – was a terrible one because Clinton’s scandals made him a constant target of FBI investigations. Freeh discloses this and many other details of his dealings with the Clinton White House in a new bombshell book: 'My FBI : Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror' -- set for release next week.
Freeh has taped an interview with Mike Wallace.
In the book, “My FBI,” he writes, “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”
The director sought to distance himself from Clinton because of Whitewater, refusing a White House pass that would have enabled him to enter the building without signing in. This irked Clinton. “I wanted all my visits to be official,” says Freeh. “When I sent the pass back with a note, I had no idea it would antagonize the president,” he tells Wallace.
Returning the pass was only the start of the rift. Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that Fu*^ing Freeh.” Says Freeh, “I don’t know how they referred to me and I really didn’t care,” he says. “My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations. He, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for him, happened to be the subject of that investigation,” Freeh says.
In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”
The most unsavory of those investigations was the one concerning Clinton and Lewinsky. The White House intern had kept a semen-stained dress as proof of her relationship and a Clinton blood sample was needed to match the DNA on the dress. “Well, it was like a bad movie and it was ridiculous that…Ken Starr and myself, the director of the FBI, find ourselves in that ridiculous position,” he tells Wallace. “But we did it…very carefully, very confidentially,” recalls Freeh. As he explains the plan in the book, Clinton was at a scheduled dinner and excused himself to go to the bathroom. Instead of the restroom, he entered another room where FBI medical technicians were waiting to take a blood sample.
Freeh says he was determined to stay on as FBI director until President Clinton left office so that Clinton could not appoint his successor. “I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director,” he tells Wallace. “[So] I was going to stay there and make sure he couldn’t replace me,” Freeh tells Wallace.
As for the ACLU, you can bet that not one of them are flying an American flag. As U.S. citizens defend the border against an invasion, as is their right, the ACLU is trying to turn the whole thing on it's head. Instead of protecting the right of Americans to defend the sovereignty of our nation, they are attempting to infer the rights of U.S. citizens onto foreigners entering this country illegally.
But non-U.S. citizens who make their way into the United States illegally don't have the same rights as U.S. citizens do, right? Not if the ACLU has anything to say about it - and they never shut up about it. The ACLU has long been dedicated to the annihilation of America as it exists today. They are largely a pseudo-intellectual group who view themselves as the elite of society. As they preach tolerance, they practise extreme intolerance of anyone who doesn't adhere to their very narrow views.
They favor a Marxist society in which they, of course, will take the leadership role. So anyone who takes religion seriously, as so many Christians do, will have to go. We see this almost daily as the ACLU agressively promotes the anti-religion agenda in the courts. And the list of what is acceptable and what is not in the eyes of the ACLU goes on and on.
As they rely on the courts to promote an agenda that is anathema to the vast majority of Americans, more and more Americans are standing up to their bullying ways and rejecting their thinly diguised hatred of America.
Phil Donahue vs Bill O'Reilly
Click Above to see the Showdown
Click Above to Watch the Video
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is telling his followers that the levees in New Orleans may have been deliberately "blown up" to kill the city's black population.
The influential preacher was in Charlotte, North Carolina where he detailed his Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theory.
"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach," Farrakhan explained. "It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry."
Farrakhan didn't say who he thought was behind the plot to blow up New Orleans' levees.
The Muslim minister also blasted both FEMA and the Red Cross, saying their response to Katrina victims after the levees were blown up was inadequate.
I know that expecting anything rational from Farrakhan equates to anticipating coherence from Ted Kennedy, but this just beggars belief. In the middle of a category 4 hurricane, Farrakhan believes that the government snuck out to the levees, planted bombs, and blew up a levee with enough force to leave a 25-foot crater ... and that the water would somehow find all of the African-Americans?
The sad fact that Farrakhan has any following at all should embarrass anyone remotely connected to his supporters.
How Has the Democratic Party come to this?
Statistically Speaking
Doctors:
The number of doctors in the US is 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician is 17.14%
Statistics courtesy of the US Dept. of Health & Human Services
Guns:
The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes that's 80 million)
The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.001875%
Statistics courtesy of the FBI
So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, guns don't kill people, doctors do!!!
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!
In winning re-election, President Bush
became the first president in 16 years to receive a clear majority. This time, there will be no talk of a minority president. Our democracy doesn't parse out the victory proportionately: He won and has the right to claim that he earned a popular referendum on his leadership.
The Red Sox were the Only winner in Boston! Did you know when the Patriots loose on the week of the Election the Liberal Candidate also does! Along with if the Green Bay Packers win the Republican Candidate will Win! Funny how sports plays a role.
More than 59 million Americans voted for President Bush! That's Over 3 million more VOTES than Kerry received, aver 8 million more VOTES than Al Gore got four years ago, 11 million more VOTES than Bill Clinton received in 1996 & over 14 Million more VOTES than Bill Clinton received in 1992.
Just think, George Bush received over 14 Million more VOTES than the Liberals number one man, Bill Clinton!!!!
Did you know Clinton's best was 49% of the Vote! Clinton only had 43% of the Vote in 1992! This is the largest Percentage of votes since Bush Sr in 1988, 53.4%!
More Americans Voted for President Bush than Clinton, Gore & Kerry! President Bush won the Popular vote, States and of Course The Electoral Vote!
COMMON SENSE, FAMILY VALUES AND MORALS WON the 2004 Election!
1988 Results
George Bush Sr. 48,886,097 53.4%
Michael Dukakis 41,809,074 45.6%
1992 Results
Bill Clinton 44,909,326 43.0%
George Bush Sr. 39,103,882 37.4%
1996 Results
Bill Clinton 47,402,357 49%
Robert Dole 39,198,755 41%
2000 Results
Al Gore 50,996,116 48%
George Bush 50,456,169 48%
2004 Results
George Bush 59,291,992 51%
John Kerry 55,756,400 48%
Only President Bush's father has a Higher Percentage of votes!
|
