HILLARY CLINTON IS NO SNOW WHITE

After last nights Democrat debate in Las Vegas.Charlie Hurst of the New York Post referred to Senator Clinton as "Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs".

If ever there was a misnomer, this is a "la la palooza". Comparing the angelic Snow White to Hillary is like comparing a mule to a race horse.

I don't think anyone who lived through the eight years of the Clinton's Presidency could possibly forget the multitude of Scandals that involved both Clinton's or those that were provoked by Hillary Clinton's actions. This story leads to a trail of corrupt campaign funding scandals unlike any in previous political history.

One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
That total ranks the house with residences in Greenwich, Conn., and Manhattan’s Upper East Side among the top addresses to donate to the Democratic presidential front-runner over the past two years, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of donations listed with the Federal Election Commission.

If that were not enough, consider this fact:Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.
"It’s not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it’s inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback.
"One can only hope that she wasn’t yet aware of who made the donations," said Sloan.
One of the pardonees who has become a donor to Sen. Clinton is David Herdlinger, a former prosecutor in Springdale, Ark., who, according to press accounts at the time of his pardon pleaded guilty in 1986 to mail fraud after taking bribes to reduce or drop charges against defendants charged with drunken driving offenses.
Now a life and business coach in Georgia, Herdlinger was pardoned by President Clinton in January 2001; he donated $1,000 to Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign in August.
Insurance agent Alfredo Regalado, who gave Hillary Clinton $2,000, was pardoned by her husband for failing to "report the transportation of currency in excess of $10,000 into the United States," according to the Department of Justice.
Then there are the allegations of malfeasance and corruption that occurred while Hillary was First Lady:

Hillary Clinton is the first first lady to testify before a grand jury when she was subpoenaed by the Whitewater grand jury.
Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc.
Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.
Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial.

Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster's documents in the Rose Law Firm.
Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.
Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster's office and told aides to lie about their removal of documents.
Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.
Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing records.
Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle Grande land flip con.
Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office employees.
Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of Travel Office Employees.
A Federal judge orders a trial on July 25, 1994 to determine if Hillary Clinton's heath care task force illegally operated in secret.
The White House finally releases more than 2,000 documents on June 25, 1996, relating to the travel office firings, originally requested two years ago by congressional investigators.

If the preceding is not enough to make a mockery out of referring to her as Snow White. Perhaps this item might lead you to believe that Hillary qualifies as the Wicked witch of the North( she was born in Illinois)of the Wizard of Oz.

Former sixties radical David Horowitz says that both Hillary Rodham and Bill Lann Lee, who later became President Clinton’s head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, helped organize the pro-Panther demonstrations at Yale. Others sympathetic to Hillary contend that she was merely among a group of law students who monitored the trial on behalf of the ACLU, which was concerned that law enforcement was violating the civil liberties of members of the party. But Hillary says nothing in her book about even this role.
What is not in dispute is that she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, a “progressive” alternative to the school’s traditional review, and that its fall 1970 issue was devoted to the trial and glorifying the Panthers.

So, enough of the comparison of Hillary Clinton with the "fairest in the land."

THE BACKLASH MAY HIT LEFTISTS IN CONGRESS

The Associated Press is reporting the following story, and I believe this may be a warning to the RINO and Democrat members of Congress that were elected from districts with large military bases. If they don't believe Secretary Gates they may see a situation develop similar to the one that occurred when President Reagan locked out the striking air traffic controllers.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the Iraq war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year. Gates, who met with members of Congress on Wednesday, said that he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funding around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. As a result, he said that he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-February, and lay off about 100,000 defense department employees and an equal number of civilian contractors. A month later, he said, similar moves would have to be made by the Marines. Some members of Congress believe the Pentagon can switch enough money to cover the war accounts, Gates said. But he added that he only has the flexibility to transfer about $3.7 billion - which is just one week's worth of war expenses. Lawmakers, he said, may not understand how complicated and restrictive the situation is.

Despite the dangling preposition that ended Secretary Gates statement. I believe the 218 who voted to force the Commander in Chief to withdraw His troops by December 2008 should be concerned. I believe it is right and just to cut off funds to the civilians before you take the weapons and ammunition out of the hands of the brave men and women who are on the fighting line.


The House on Wednesday passed, 218-203, a $50 billion bill that would pay for the wars, but require that troops start to leave Iraq in 30 days. It sets a goal of ending combat by December 2008, as well as establishing interrogations standards that would make waterboarding - or simulated drowning - illegal. The Senate planned to vote as early as Friday on the measure. The bill was expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance."


If Congress doesn't approve $196 billion for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gates says, bases may partly shut down and civilians may lose jobs.
Thursday he said that he will have to lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military bases unless Congress acts quickly to approve additional funding for the Iraq war.


But the Congressional "Queen" from San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi, in her "power happy" way says: "House Democrats would refuse to send the president a funding bill free of conditions if Senate Republicans block the House measure. "We're not going to be taking it up anymore over here," she told reporters.


I believe Speaker of the House Pelosi has a short memory. Just five years ago the majority of the House and Senate authorized the Use of force against Iraq in the passage of H.J. Res 114 and S.J.Res. 45, and then followed this in June 2003 with appropriation Bills to fund the military action. My how they have change their minds for political reasons and because of pressure from anti-war Leftist back home!



On October 10,2002 Senator Clinton stood in the "Well" of the Senate and spoke these words: "Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."....... "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President."


Now she is bowing to the anti-war supporters as she campaigns for the seat in the Oval Office that she covets. We cannot let this happen. Please write, email and call your Congressional and Senate representatives and tell them to fund our brave men and women as long as it takes. We have had to give up very little for this war compared to that which our parents and grandparents gave up to defeat Nazi Germany, and the troops will just have to go back again, if we bring them home before the job is done!















The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:
GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
The courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice Presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war.

THE CREEPING SOCIALISM IN AMERICA

The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability. The study concluded, “When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans — 44 percent of the U.S. population — who are outside of the federal income tax system." These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?

It all began during the Great Depression when approximately 15 million Americans were out of work ,and with no money for the basic necessities of life. In 1935, President Roosevelt started what is now the Welfare State of America, only if he could come back he would be shocked to to how far Left we have gone.

During the first few years of Social Security, eligible Americans received, on average, $58.06.
Before Franklin Roosevelt's administration, it was unusual for the government to give people money, and some Americans were against Social Security. My how things have slid to to the Left. More than 50% of US Americans depend on the Government for their "daily bread".

Prior to the New Deal, Congress, the Supreme Court, and leading constitutional lawyers had generally interpreted the Constitution in such a way that the principal responsibility for social welfare matters was left to the States. However, State governments proved to be extremely reluctant to undertake costly social welfare measures on anything less than a nationwide basis, for fear of imposing economic burdens on locally based industries that would put them at a competitive disadvantage in the national market, and get them thrown out of office. The result was a major political paradox--a built-in block against social welfare legislation by the States. The Federal Government was the only agency by which broad social welfare programs could be achieved.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's original Social Security plan included provisions that would have allowed people to make personal investments — not much different from the private accounts that President Bush is currently proposing. In fact, this was one of three 'necessary principles' in FDR's legislative package presented to Congress on January 17, 1935:

FDR proposed that along with the funds each employee was required to contribute from his/her paycheck, workers could make periodic investments that would give them certificates redeemable for monthly payments upon their retirement. These certificates were referred to as 'annuity bonds,' and, much like Bush's private accounts, could be redeemed by the annuitant's spouse or beneficiaries upon his/her demise.
Unfortunately, this provision —— initially referred to as 'Title V' —— was deleted from the final bill that came out of Congress due to pressures exerted by the insurance industry.

Insurance lobbyists felt that this plan might cut into their industry's ability to sell such policies, as the government would suddenly become a direct competitor.

The initial monthly cap of the proposed annuity distribution was fixed at $100, this was intended to represent a very significant percentage of one's future benefits. The first monthly check distributed by Social Security was $22.54, or less than a quarter of what one could have received from an annuity bond.

President Roosevelt, a Democrat, promised:
1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary.
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1 percent of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. (During the Depression years most wage earners made around $10 to $20 a week.)
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
4) That the money would be put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program.
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month – and then finding that we are getting taxed 85 percent of the money we paid to the Federal Government to “put away” – you may be interested in the following:
Which political party took Social Security from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? It was Democrat President Lyndon and the Democrat controlled Congress House and Senate.
The Democrat party also eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding.
The Democrat party also started taxing Social Security annuities, with Vice President Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote.
The Democrat party led by President Jimmy Carter also decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants. Immigrants moved into America and, at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments.
Now the Democrat politicians running for public office are lying to Americans by saying the “Republicans want to take away your Social Security!”
For the record, the New Deal “entitlements” were all in violation of our nation’s Constitution.
Finally, after all of the Democrat maneuvering over the past 70 years, the Social Security Trust Fund is broke. There is no money in the Trust Fund. Instead, there is an IOU from the federal government in the amount of $1.7 trillion. This amount increases by over a Billion dollars each month!

The current SS tax rates are 10.4 percent for the wage owner and 6.14 for his/her employer. In 2007 the SS tax base was $97,500, with no maximum for the 1.45% tax for Medicare. Government officials and even AARP, have recommended increasing the taxable income base for Social Security to $140,00.

Presidential candidate Obama has the Chutzpah to tell the American people that if elected he will raise the taxes on Our income for Social Security!
Vote the tax and spend Princes and Princesses in Congress out of office in 2008!

TAX PAYERS MONEY WASTED BY FEMA

The Media has printed hundreds of articles about the Bush failure to respond properly and promptly to National disasters, particularly Hurricane Katrina.

My complaint about FEMA is not directed at the Bush administration, but to the continual waste of taxpayers money in their response to national disasters.

The News was replete with cries from State and Local officials that President Bush wasn't taking their disaster seriously. Blame came from all quarters, and was repeated night after night by the Leftist leaning Media.

It later was revealed that the former Democratic Governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the Mayor of New Orleans, were partially responsible for the delayed evacuation. Hundreds of school buses were sitting idle, and were not made available to the evacuees.

The latest example of Government waste involves FEMA officials and the Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans.

Katrina destroyed the aquarium and the majority of its tropical fish. To replace the fish, a dozen aquarium staff members went fishing in the coastal waters off Mexico, Florida and the Bahamas to capture tropical fish. They worked 12 hour days ,but put in invoices for only 8 hour days for reimbursement from FEMA. The captured 1,661 fish for which they paid $99,766.

The problem, that has resulted in a delay in FEMA reimbursement for over 17 months, is the strict interpretation of the Stafford Act. This law, passed by Congress, requires that facilities damaged by disaster can only be restored to their pre-disaster condition, not improved.

FEMA requires that all purchases should be made from approved commercial sellers of tropical fish, and they must be of the approximate age and size of the lost 'specimens"!

How do they determine the fish's age?

The shame of this bureaucratic debacle is that had the aquarium taken the easy way out, and bought the fish from commercial vendors, the cost has been estimated at over $500,000.

New Orleans is just one example of the Government waste of taxpayers money by the nit-picking bureaucrats of FEMA.

FEMA said that as of Aug. 8, it had a total work force of 20,287, up from 8,388 on Sept. 22, 2001.There are 2400 full time administrators located in Washington,DC . R David Paulison is the Chief Administrator.
Most of the increase – 9,346 – came from disaster medical assistance teams transferred from the Health and Human Services Department. FEMA's full time staff rose to 2,400 from 2,132.

Congress has approved more than $62 billion in supplemental spending for the recovery and rebuilding of Gulf Coast areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. More such spending is certain to help people recover from Katrina and the follow-up punch of Hurricane Rita.
The Katrina response alone amounted to more than 11 times FEMA's 2005 budget of $5.5 billion. That budget was higher than usual because of cleanup costs due to four major hurricanes that hit Florida last year.
FEMA has borne the brunt of criticism about the Bush administration's lagging response to Katrina. The agency's director, Michael Brown, was removed from on-site command and resigned.

Another example of "turf" protection was related by an attorney from Jefferson Parrish, La. He relates that a group of approximately 1,000 citizens pulling 500 boats left the Acadiana Mall in Lafayette the morning of 9/17,2005 (Weds.), and headed to New Orleans with a police escort from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Department. The “flotilla” of trucks pulling boats stretched over five miles. This citizen rescue group was organized by La. State Senator, Gautreaux from Vermilion Parish. . . .
The State Police waved the flotilla of trucks/boats through the barricades in LaPlace and they sped into New Orleans via I-10 until past the airport and near the Clearview exit. At that time they were stopped by agents of the La. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries. A DWF agent looked at the boats and told approximately half of the citizens that their boats were “too large” because the water had “dropped during the night” and that they should turn around and go home. . . .many people drowned because of this type of bureaucratic snafu!

My intent is not to join sides with Leftists sites like MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos in piling on FEMA for their response to Katrina. My intent is to point out the problems spun out of control. Large and small Government agencies have bureaucratic rules, policies and regulations that make them much more difficult to administer than business in the private sector.

Despite this fact we have most of the Democrats running for the nomination of their party for the Presidency, advocating an increase in the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Socialized Medicine, expanded college aid, welfare expansion, Amnesty for illegals, universal free kindergarten for every single four-year-old, to name but a few.

Do we really want this?

Senator Clinton is advocating even more spending of taxpayer hard earned dollars. Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion, while failing to sponsor or co-sponsor a single bill to reduce spending.

DEMOCRATS TELL YOU ONLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW

In the spirit of an over protective parent, the Democrats once again only tell you something they want you to hear. They hope the "news" will further damage the image of President Bush. They also hope to bring more voters and protesters to the anti-war front.

Today's MSN News highlights a report leaked to the Washington Post that was compiled by the Democrat's staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee.

A 21-page draft obtained by the newspaper estimates that the wars have cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000, the Post said.
The study concludes that the cost to the average family could more than double, to $46,300, over the next decade, with estimated economic costs to the United States reaching $3.5 trillion if the conflicts continue at their current pace, the Post said.

The study concludes that the cost to the average family could more than double, to $46,300, over the next decade, with estimated economic costs to the United States reaching $3.5 trillion if the conflicts continue at their current pace, the Post said.

What the Democrats are not telling you is that their welfare State and profligate spending over the last couple of decades is costing the American family.

To date, all $3.6 trillion of surpluses of various trust funds have been siphoned-off (of which 76% was siphoned from the social security, federal employee pension and medical trusts) - - all spent on non-pension things and not counted in deficit calculations - an illegal act if done by private sector pension funds. (Some political leaders bragged to the general public "we ran more than $100 billion budget surplus in calendar year 1998 and 1999."

They also said they wanted to 'save social security'. Listening to such rhetoric citizens might be misled-led to believe the federal government cut general spending to produce general government surpluses so as to save social security and reduce total debt. In fact, they ran an operational deficit (not a surplus) AND, 2000, 01 and 02 and 03 each ended with another increase in debt, to a record high. There omitting these facts in their report is not only political bias but defrauding Americans by saying they are paying down debt, whereas there are $44 trillion in unfunded liabilities. NOTE: The accuracy of above was confirmed on July 19, 2001, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told AP that trust funds hold NO real assets.

Further research reveals that $4.4 trillion. 44% of the economy controlled by federal, state & local government spending, compared to 12% before - - now costing $14,549 per man, woman & child. America has moved away from the principle of Thomas Jefferson: "The government that governs least governs best."

Federal spending has increased to$2.8 trillion, or $9,223 per person - or 26% of the economy, compared to 3% before 1982. When you compare spending trends by category. The culprit of debt and spending has been social spending, which increased 14 times faster than the economy, as trust in government and voter turn-out rates have plummeted. Democrats and RINO Republicans don't put these facts in headlines.

Another travesty of the profligate spender in Congress, who intend to buy the re-election via spending for the voters back home, is the SIN of the Social Security mess!

The present Social Security tax rates taken from Americans workers is 5 times higher than seniors, now on Social Security, paid and fewer benefits are expected.

While government consumed all $1.6 trillion trust fund surpluses to date, including $139 billion last year (17% more than prior year), spending every penny for non-pension purposes. Politicians 'claim they are trying to save social security, but in fact are siphoning-off all surpluses for non-pension spending! There are presently $44 trillion in un-funded contingent liabilities and an empty trust fund..

Most people know that today, each working person supports more seniors than prior generations, but few know each must also support more State & Local Government employees than ever before. Each year the number of these employees increase faster than the national population, creating today's indicated excess of 12 million employees.

When you go to the polls next time please don't let the Media and Leftist propaganda about the cost of war cloud your judgement. Remember, a bankrupt Country with no monetary security becomes a Country filled with angry people and anarchy follows. Vote for a person who believes in physical responsibility and one you can believe. There are not to ,any politicians out there that are believable, but voting records tell the true feelings and Philosophy of Government that is in their heart.

THE SEMANTICS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ZEALOTS

"Lord, what fools these mortals be" - Shakespeare is reputed to have said.
With each passing day, Americans are increasingly behaving as though Al Gore's mantra "the debate (over man-made global warming) is over",as if what he says is true. Warming folklore is deserving of incredulity as the extreme Lefts latest armament in its ongoing battle against capitalism and globalization. But instead it has found insinuation into virtually every corner of our culture.

Communism didn't die it found a new home in the Ecology Movement, and carried to its fulfillment, it will destroy Our Republic and the Capitalistic system that runs our way of life.

Even though nearly 20,000 scientists have signed a petition disputing AGW( global warming) and denouncing Kyoto. This must be loudly shouted at those sluggishly slipping into the green stupor to reinvigorate debate and assure that reasoned voices are heard over the irrational drone of this ultimately political machine.

The pomposity of Mr.Gore knows no bounds, as illustrated by his statement at the 2007 Oscars, Gore smugly told the audience -- and an estimated 1 billion television viewers:
"that resolving the threat posed by a warming climate is ‘not a political issue, it's a moral issue."

Thus Mr. Gore has assumed the position of not only the "Real Elected "President in 2000, the inventor of the Internet and the arbitrator of Good and Evil. Only God has that right!

The pompous pseudo-scientific community that has deliberately ignored for their own purposes the effects of the Sun on Our Worlds climate. This despite the fact that most Climate Scientists have postulated the affect that Sun bursts have on Our Climate. The varying intensity of the atomic explosions on the surface of the Sun 82 million miles away from Earth do have a determinate affect on the weather,and this can be sen in recorded history of droughts and "ice-ages through out Our history.

It is not only pompous, but fool hardy for the American public to assume that man can have a lasting affect on the weather patterns due to our activities. Even more outrageous is the argument that what we are doing now will have a lasting effect on our children and grandchildren.

This argument works when we talk about the burden that profligate spending by a Democrat controlled Congress has produced for generations to come. It also has a direct import if we continue to follow the Lefts path "from cradle to grave" welfare state. These are things that we can quantify, and are the truth. The Global Warming scam is fear mongering at its worst and direct lies at best. Many people try to legitimize Mr. Gores arguments by referring to his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize award. A prize that should go to a person who has advanced the Peace process in Our World, not an Environmental zealot.

I would remind you that the august body of Leftists that selects the recipients of the Nobel award also chose in 1973, Le Duc Tho who was born in Nam Ha province, Vietnam on 14th October, 1911. As a young man he became involved in radical politics and in 1930 helped establish the Indochinese Communist Party. He campaigned against French rule in Vietnam and was twice imprisoned for his political activities (1930-36 and 1939-44)! They also gave an award to what I believe was Americas worst President, and anti-Israel nutcase,

Jimmy Carter!