A Funny For the Day

A Japanese doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in six weeks."

A German doctor says, "That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four weeks."

A British doctor says, "In my country medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of them out looking for work in two weeks"

The American doctor, not to be outdone, interjected, "You guys are way behind. We are about to take a woman with no brains, send her to Washington where she will become President, and then half the country will be out looking for work.

Hillary's Ship Is On Fire

Someone once said that never before has a presidential aspirant been elected to the Presidency of The United States when their approval ratings are overshadowed by their disapproval ratings.

Now, we see that Hillary's approval ratings are at 50% nationwide and her disapproval ratings are at 50%. Gee. Why then, is she still going? Could it be that she has the gift of gab?

Also, now we have a video that the Lame Stream Media will not air. The link was sent to me from one of my readers and I thank Mike M for it. The video is quite long for a video...about 13 minutes...odd that, isn't it? 13? Curious.

We have Hillary exposing her surveillance hypocrisies and in the GOP Debate this evening, Huckabee said that Hillary, if she took her lips off of the backsides of Soros, she might be able to get some fresh air.

In the last DNC Debate, Hillary and all of the other sponges of Soros fundings, told their trolls and blind followers that the troops would be in Iraq until at least 2013 and just last week, Hillary the Fraud told some folks that when she is elected she will pull the troops out immediately. Do we really need a psychopath in the White House?

I think it would be just swell if the DNC Candidates kept on doing what they are doing. That drop into the Abyss of Obscurity will be all the more sweeter.

Catch The Wave

Hillary's Corruption Never Ends.

It has been said that atheists can lie like a rug because they have no moral compunction that requires them to tell the truth.

"The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President." MT from our private group

Along these lines, we find Hillary taking funds, once again, from questionable sources. One can be justified in questioning her ethics.

The Czarina has been recently exposed as an acceptor of fraudulent funds and has theoretically given the funds back. However, this does not absolve her or her campaign minions from the wrong doings. If it were to absolve them, one can extrapolate from that the following scenario: someone kills someone but didn't really know they did so, telling folks that you did kill someone, somehow absolves you from the consequences of your actions.

This is why we on the right often state the obvious: personal integrity and accepting responsibility for ones own actions is alien to the Leftinistra. When caught doing wrong, it is invariably someones else's fault or the blame is placed on something else.

As Sunlit Knight from a Newt One has often stated, as an example of the Leftinistra quagmire of self-induced idiocy:

"People don't make enough money so let's raise the minimum wage. That is like saying that all of the boats aren't the same height so let's add more water to the lake."

All raising the minimum wage does, as raising the water in the lake, is make the problems worse because there is no change. It is merely a feel-good action...someone can say that they did something and when that something does not have the affect imagined, it must be the fault of something or someone else.

Hillary has proclaimed her religiosity but her actions are quite opposite of that which she claims. Would a religious individual receive illegal contributions for the sake of political gain just to win an election? Isn't that hypocritical?

When questioned about such activities, the inquiring minds are accused of smearing and being mean-spirited or racially biased.

From the NY Post:

October 20, 2007 -- Hillary Clinton's campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can't be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

[...]

The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.

[...]

Dear Leftinistra...we don't but that kind of crap anymore. Even making that kind of lame claim will and does backfire on you in this day and age and it is high time that you try another tactic because this dog don't hunt no more.

It is high time that the self-alleged Higher Moral Authority within the Leftinistra to be held accountable to their lies.

However, like MT says:

"The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President." MT from our private group

How true that is, eh?

There is also an editorial at IBD and it is dead nuts on target:

[...]

An ambitious presidential front-runner. A hot scramble for campaign cash. A corner-cutting past. And now red lights are flashing that she could be in hock to foreign interests. This is going downhill fast.

[...]

Naturally, this will be spun as some lame smear campaign because Hillary is such a nice person, even though she has been shown to be a budding Leninist and a Soros pawn.

Continuing the Exposing of the Socialist Elitist Soros...UPDATE

UPDATE specifics are at the end of this post. It is along the lines of George Soros, via illegal campaign "secreted contributions" to stack the bloggers up and it is being referred to as Hillary's Bloggergate via Media Matters. Go figure.




Mike at Proprietor Nation has yet another well presented "argument" as we, together, continue the re-education of the American People the dangers this tiny man Soros is up to while he pretends to be on the side of the little guy.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.

Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.

Keep track of these posts and pay attention to that which is going on around you. Check the facts out as you see fit. Don't make us come back and say, "We told you so."

[UPDATE]: This is too "rich"!!
Newsmax:

Call it "Bloggergate" the subversion of the blogosphere by Democrat money.

To be more precise, Bloggergate is the subsidizing of left-wing bloggers with illegal Democrat campaign contributions, laundered through ostensibly "non-partisan" non-profit groups.

At a convention of left-wing bloggers last summer, Hillary Clinton announced, "We are . . . putting together a network in the blogosphere."

Her remarks became public only three weeks ago, on Oct. 2, when an anonymous person posted a shaky, hand-held videotape of her speech on YouTube. In it, Hillary bragged that she had helped create "institutions" which had produced a left-wing "network in the blogosphere" capable of "matching" the alleged "advantage of the other side."

Hillary's claim raises troubling questions. On a practical level, just how exactly does a U.S. senator go about exerting her power to stack the blogosphere in her favor?

One obvious method is to buy favorable coverage. Hillary's boast carries a strong implication that she has subsidized bloggers.

The first evidence of Bloggergate emerged in January 2005 when the two most prominent left-wing bloggers on the Internet "Jerome The Blogfather" Armstrong of MyDD and DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zu'iga both admitted to getting cash from Howard Dean's presidential campaign.

The scandal heated up in October 2006, when Republican blogger Michael B. Brodkorb of Minnesota, assailed by piranha-like swarms of leftist bloggers, revealed that his tormentors were on the take; that is, that they had been getting generous cash "fellowships" from an outfit called the Center for Independent Media (CIM). At that time, CIM was working from an office in Washington, DC owned by the Democrat front group Media Matters for America, Brodkorb discovered.

Curiously, it turns out that the co-founders of CIM, David S. Bennahum and Alexandra Savino, are both Media Matters alumni. Mr. Bennahum helped found Media Matters, serving as one of its original senior fellows. Miss Savino worked for Media Matters as a blogosphere analyst.

Clinton Claims

Now Bloggergate has spun into overdrive with Hillary Clinton's revelation, from her own lips, that she helped "start" and "support" Media Matters.

After all these years, can it be that we have finally identified the source of the Bloggergate money stream? Can it be that leaders of the leftwing blogosphere suck their nourishment directly from the swollen teat of Senator Clinton's pendulous fundraising apparatus?

Hillary made her admission at the Aug. 4, 2006 YearlyKos Convention in Chicago. Here is what she said on the now-infamous YouTube video: "I would wish that we had this active and fighting a blogosphere about 15 years ago, because we have certainly suffered over the last years from a real imbalance in the political world in our country, but we are righting that balance or lefting that balance. I'm not sure which, and certainly are better prepared and more focused on taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere."

"In a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side.

In plain English, Hillary is saying that she "helped start and support" certain institutions tasked with correcting an alleged "imbalance" between right-wing and left-wing media. These institutions form a part of what Hillary calls "a new progressive infrastructure." According to Hillary, the "infrastructure" she "helped" build has given rise to a left-wing "network in the blogosphere" capable of "matching" the "advantage of the other side."

In this regard, she names two institutions specifically; Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress.

My co-author David Horowitz and I described the peculiar relationship between these two groups in our book "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party."

We noted that the Center for American Progress was founded in July 2003 by billionaire Democratic donor George Soros, working closely with Morton Halperin, director of U.S. advocacy for Soros' Open Society Institute. The two men appointed former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta to be president and CEO of the Center, and brought in Harold Ickes "chief fundraiser and former deputy chief of staff for the Clinton White House" to help organize it.

Noting the heavy involvement of Clintonites with the Center for American Progress, leftist writer Robert Dreyfuss remarked in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "In looking at Podesta's center there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.

Eerily foreshadowing her later comments on YouTube, Hillary told The Nation's Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void."

In 2004, the Center for American Progress launched a new organization called Media Matters for America, headed by David Brock, a former conservative journalist who had turned to the left. The stated mission of Media Matters was to serve as a "watchdog" for conservative bias in media. The New York Times reported on May 3, 2004: "Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress . . . Podesta has loaned office space in the past to Mr. Brock and introduced him to potential donors.

"Mr. Brock . . . has also spoken with Senator Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota and former vice president Al Gore about his project . . ."

Push to Ban Rush

No sooner had Media Matters opened for business, than Brock began pressuring Congress to ban Rush Limbaugh from American Forces Radio and Television Service an effort which continues to this day.

Much like a yeast colony, in which each bud of yeast sprouts new buds, which in turn sprout buds of their own, the Center for American Progress spawned Media Matters, which has now begun spawning offshoots of its own. One of these offshoots is the Center for Independent Media (CIM). Launched in April 2006, it initially worked from an office owned by Media Matters at 1625 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington DC.

Through a system of media "fellowships," CIM recruits, trains, directs and finances a veritable army of leftwing bloggers, all subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer, thanks to the Center's 501(c)(3) tax-free status.

According to the Center's "New Journalist" fellowship application, CIM offers bloggers a three-month, renewable fellowship which includes such perks as "a stipend of $4,500 to be paid over three months," "editorial mentorship from experts in the field of blogging and/or journalism," access to expensive databases such as LexisNexis, as well as free legal advice, training, and technical support.

Because CIM fellowships expire after three months, CIM "fellows" are always on the hot seat. If CIM is satisfied with the blogger's performance, it will renew his fellowship. Otherwise, it will not. Plainly, CIM bloggers have much to gain if they toe the party line and much to lose if they fail to satisfy their benefactors.

CIM does not publish a full list of its bloggers. We can only speculate on their number. However, the CIM Web site does provide a "select" list of some of its more prominent "fellows."

Federal law prohibits national political candidates such as Hillary Clinton from using 501(c)3 tax-free, non-profit organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America and the Center for Independent Media as vehicles for campaign propaganda.

In this, as in so many other matters, Sen. Clinton has conducted herself as if she is above the law. And perhaps she is.

It remains to be seen whether the IRS and the Federal Election Commission will blow the whistle on Hillary's army of paid bloggers. Who knows? They just might. But I'm not holding my breath.

Interesting. Very interesting, eh?

Hillary and The Socialist Agenda

A few facts…to spread around.

Hillary Clinton will raise taxes if she is elected president… Sharply! As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.

As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush’s tax cuts for top earners expire.” Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.

It also means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.

She certainly would repeal Bush’s tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.

Robert Novak reports that Rangel’s staff is “hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system.” Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation “the mother of all tax reforms.”

Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.

Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.

In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:

“It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation.”

“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress.”

On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”

She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.’”

Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.

Also, I found this editorial at the National Center For Policy Analysis:
Norm
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35 percent to $161 billion, says the Wall Street Journal.

There’s more:

* Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history.
* The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2 percent or about half the average of the last 50 years.
* This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover:

* Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7 percent more than in 2006.
* This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. *See Note from Norm
* Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3 percent in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall.
* Last year’s increase in individual income payments was 11.3 percent, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP.

The overriding lesson here is that the best antidote for deficits is faster growth, not tax increases. The budget deficit has declined more rapidly this decade in the wake of the Bush tax cuts than it did in the 1990s in the wake of the Clinton tax increases. CBO is still forecasting a balanced budget in 2010, but if Congress gets its way on spending and taxes, all of this progress will be short-lived, says the Journal.

*Note from Norm: Simply put, are you paying attention to the facts or Hillary’s quacks

cross post from Stop Her Now

WHO SAID THAT?

You think you know history? Are you a quote scholar?

What was your score? Leave your score(s) and comments in the comment section.

Bet you don’t do well on this quiz!!!!!!

Veer-r-r-r-y interesting!

A little history lesson. If you don't know the answer, make your best guess.

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx

B. Adolph Hitler

C. Joseph Stalin

D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin

B. Mussolini

C. Idi Amin

D. None of the Above

3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushchev

B. Josef Goebbels

C. Boris Yeltsin

D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung

B. Hugo Chavez

C. Kim Jong IL

D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx

B. Lenin

C. Molotov

D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet

B. Milosevic

C. Saddam Hussein

D. None of the above

Scroll down for answers

Answers

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Tom Cole, GOP Strategist, Is Smiling

Good for him, but in all honesty, this far before the actual elections, I do not think strategists from either side of the aisle should be smiling.

If there is one thing politicians (Democratic and Republican) are GREAT at, it is sticking their feet in their mouth, pandering to the extremists of the party, the ones that scream and screech the loudest, and ignoring the moderates that make up the bulk of voters for either party.

From Broder:

It all adds up, Cole said, to a political environment reminiscent of 1992 -- a tough year for entrenched incumbents of both parties who suddenly saw their margins shrink or disappear. "The American people are rising up in disgust," Cole said, "and incumbents will pay. It's not anti-Republican anymore. It's anti-Washington."

Cole argues that the House Democratic leadership has made a strategic error by wielding its narrow majority to craft partisan bills that invite a Bush veto. That was the case with several resolutions to shorten the Iraq war, and it will be the case later this fall with a series of appropriations bills. Polarization is exactly what the voters hate, Cole said; they are looking for cooperation and agreement.

The screeching over this piece has already begun and yet with over a year to go before polls and opinion pieces even start to matter, we are left wondering, who will make the next fatal error.

He does make a point I have made here before though about Hillary Clinton.

She might just be the shoe in for the Democratic primary and that is the best news the GOP can have.



With her massive connections to crooks, (Hsu to name just one) corruption (NJ Mayor to name just one of her corrupt supporters), court cases where she will have to testify, her ability to pander to anyone and any time without regard to principle, her flip flopping and that fact that she already holds a 48% disapproval rating and most everyone already knows her name and has an "opinion" one way or another-- her supposed shoe in candidacy will probably be the most fatal error on the Democratic side before the 2008 elections.

Her disapproval ratings are higher than those of Sen. John Kerry in the days leading up to the 2004 election (45 percent) and Al Gore (42 percent) just prior to the 2000 presidential election.

"No one with her level of negativity has won the nomination, let alone let alone the White House," University of Texas political science professor Bruce Buchanan said.

Rove said on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday that Clinton will have a difficult time changing her public image, because so many people have already formed an opinion about her.

If the Republicans do not make an error of that size before then, Democrats will hand the election right to the GOP simply by making her the candidate of choice.

With that said, do not forget to stop by facebook and join "Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong against Hillary)" which as of right now has 452, 671 members from both sides of the aisle and independents. (When I joined on September 25, 2007, there was only 421,000+, so you can see how that movement is growing fast).

Note to Tom Cole: Quit smiling, it is too early, but at least we, the GOP supporters, are not calling for the ouster of our party leaders, like the Democratic blogs are..

If they keep eating their own like this, then the GOP sure will be smiling by November 2008 with you Mr. Cole.

Example of what I mean by "eating their own":

Back in August Matt Stoller first floated the idea of a "Bush Dog" campaign against Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments.

Now the campaign is in full flight. If you type "Bush Dog Democrat" you now get thousands of results. Profiles of all 38 House Bush Dogs have been completed. Among critics are the DLC, DSCC and insider news source National Jornal.

However it has been primarily focused on House Bush Dogs. However with a little research I found that Senate Bush Dogs are a much bigger problem.

They are right, a search for Bush Dog Democrats shows they are, indeed, eating their own and saving the GOP the trouble of having to do it for them....LOLOLOL

Ok, so I might be wrong, Tom Cole might just have a reason for a smirk at this time, but please, don't get cocky because we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Cross posted from Wake up America

.

Bill and Hill On...Fraud(s)

It seems as though the smartest Fraud Couple to be in American politics since God was born are up to their old tricks. Fortunately, there exists a growing Conservative Tsunami in the New Media...us...

[...]

Only this time, they are telegraphing that they will keep certain things altogether secret should they return to the White House as co-presidents. And you thought they couldn't be more brazen.

Both Clintons, for example, have refused to disclose the names of donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Bill says he will remain mum about all past donors, though he didn't say that in so many words. As usual, you have to closely parse his words. Speaking of Hillary, he said, "If she gets elected president, I will disclose the contributions that people make from there going forward."

Catch that? He will let the public know about any donations going forward — that is, after January 2009 — but not one donation before then. The $100 million-plus in donations raised for his library, "global initiatives" and other Clinton activities until that point will remain anonymous. In short, he really doesn't plan to disclose a thing.

[...]

Crooks and Liars has nothing on these two.

The Leftinistra and MoveOn Cowards

Last week, Hillary Clinton voted against a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its vicious personal attack on General David Petraeus, the highly-respected leader of our Armed Forces in Iraq. Now, Bill Clinton is joining in, but - typically - he's taking it even further, angrily attacking those who condemned the ad:

To see Clinton's comments, click here.

Why are the Clintons so invested in defending MoveOn.org? Well, remember what MoveOn.org's original purpose was? It was founded to attack any Republican who dared stand against the Clinton machine during the former President's impeachment and trial in the Senate for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Since then, MoveOn.org has branched out. They opposed military action in Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. After the 2004 elections, the group's director said "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." To do that, they have funded radical, far-left candidates in races across the country - even against moderate Democrats who understand the stakes in the War on Terror. And, of course, they have attacked the patriotism and loyalty of our men and women in uniform.

Not many people, even Democrats, dared to defend MoveOn.org in the wake of its attack on General Petraeus. But if Bill and Hillary Clinton understand anything, it's political payback. MoveOn.org attacks their enemies, so they're attacking MoveOn.org's enemies. If it teaches us anything, it's that the Clintons haven't changed one bit since the 1990s. Is that what we want back in the White House: Bill and Hillary once again using the power of the federal government to defend their friends and attack their enemies?

We cannot allow that to happen. Please, call your radio station or send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and tell them it's time for Bill Clinton to move on.

Hillary Rodham Soros Clinton? Oh My!

Czarina cannot run for very much longer from justice. Even though she is Queen of Campaign Fraud and she has managed to skirt the issues on the Outer Marker, her past is coming back to bite her on the rumpolla.

The Soros group ACT, was fined $775,000.00 for what?

Funded with millions of dollars from billionaire George Soros, America Coming Together (ACT) misused about $70 million in "soft money," uncapped donations that aren't supposed to be used to urge election or defeat of a candidate, the FEC determined, saying that some of the money was spent on direct-mail and telemarketing efforts aimed against President Bush and Republicans in key battleground states in 2004.

So much for integrity. If you can't win, cheat.

Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, documents show.

At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT) fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined $775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it.

Czarina...Queen of Cheat.

Over at Fishwrap, we find a plethora of links and interviews all exposing Hillary and Clan lying and cheating their way to the top.

[...]

Even the connection between Mrs. Clinton, Soros and MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad doesn't produce any serious outrage, except from Republicans like Mike Huckabee:

"If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general . . . guilty of treason," the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful said, "how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?"

Perhaps there is also a lesson here about the futility of campaign finance "reform" efforts. Writing about Jim McElhatton's front-page story, Prairie Pundit observes:

What this story demonstrates is that there is little to no consequence for Democrats who violate the campaign laws. Whether it is vote fraud or or illegal campaigning they just MoveOn to another organization and keep on campaigning. The defunct organization pays a fine, but the perps just move to another entity.

Mrs Clinton should bow out now before she winds up in "udder" defeat as Mondale found himself when he was severely trounced by Ronald Wilson Reagan.

With her recent admission that "they" cannot guarantee troop withdrawals from Iraq, even though she has stated that she would do so when she is sworn in as President, she, Hillary, has once again, lied her butt off to gain some votes.

I guess she knows as we all do, the loud-mouth Moonbats of the Fruit Loop Brigades do NOT represent the vast majority of Americans. This is painfully obvious to all but the Fruit Loops.

What Is Wrong With These Pictures?

I received these in my email from a friend of many years.

Interesting point from CharlieB.

This is how a US senator looks upon a crook.

And this is how a US senator looks upon an American hero.

Generals don't make enough money to offer a significant contribution.

Posted by DW

Czarina Unqualified to be CIC

What has Hillary Clinton accomplished in her political career? What are her qualifications that support her aspirations to be President of the United States and in a time of war and/or peace, to be the CIC?

Knowing what I know about The Rodham, I have exposed her, as have many others, of her communist ways and means as she wears the garb of a "progressive", read socialist. She is a budding Leninist.

Some of us have been wondering and waiting for the Czarina to come out in the publics' eye and in her own words, describe herself, thus exposing herself as a true Clear and Present Danger to this nation we call America.

Today, on the Communist Broadcast Services show Deface The Nation, she actually did it.

Congress should stop funding the Iraq war to force President Bush and the Iraqi government to "change course," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Sunday on Face The Nation. (transcript here)

Simply amazing. She is actually more brain dead than I have anticipated. The "change in course" the Leftinistra yammers on about is "Rather" obtuse, is it not? What exactly is the change they wish to affect?

Some months ago, the strategy which was in place in Iraq wasn't working. The strategy was changed and the Senate UNANIMOUSLY agreed to and APPROVED of the "New Strategy". This New Strategy has turned never known before POSITIVE results causing many former opponents to rethink their positions. The POSITIVE results of the New Strategy is this: the tide has turned and we are now REALLY winning this War In Iraq.

This past week, we saw three Leftinistra Defeatist amendments to the Defense Bill go down in flames. The CONgress Critters have listened, obviously, to the VAST majority of the American People and we, as does the military, want to WIN this War In Iraq. Tis is why the amendments were defeated.

The amendments were in effect, a RETURN to the strategy that was NOT working. Why in the world do the Leftinistra want to RETURN to a FAILED strategy? The answer is obvious. The Leftinistra want the United States to lose the war so they can gain political position. They do NOT care about our troops. If they did, they would condemn the MoveOnish groups such as Code Pinko Skanko which display banners advocating the murder of American Troops.

The Leftinistra are weak. They are spineless. They are cowards. Soon, they will be canon fodder.

Hillary's feigned "respect" for our troops is nothing more than political smoke and mirrors and our troops hate her and that which she stands for.

This Hillary Blitz on the Leftinistra Sunday Networks is merely a sad attempt of distraction utilized by losers. She is in the midst of multiple campaign fraud issues, lies and deceit, just like her hubby Billy Bob Cigar Boy is and STILL is.

We in The New Media will NOT give her a free pass.


Catch the wave

On Hillary The Rodham Clinton...Czarina

"I am not gay"...Why is this so important for her to express this. One would think that the Leftinistra would be all so pleased for one of the Rainbow Mutants aspiring to the White House. Odd, that, yes?

Hillary Clinton officially declared she's not a lesbian - not that there's anything wrong with that.

Then why the hoopla?

About her socialist medicine program, she states that there SHOULD be a MANDATE for every American to purchase health care. WTFO? I thought she was wanting to GIVE the program away. Now she wants everyone to buy into it!? What for? Folks get it for FREE now so why would they support her BS about having to buy into it. This woman is a class-act flake.

Richard Collins has a piece up at Townhall where the Czarina is being continually probed about her record and history of voter and campaign fraud practices that the Lame Stream Media seems to give her a free ride on. One should be asking why that is, don't you think?

This cretin Hsu has been donating a lot more cash to Czarina than anyone has been surmising up to this point.

While I was traveling with the Gathering of Eagles and Veterans For Freedom, on a slow news day last Sunday, Slate states the following tid-bit:

The front pages are nearly free of breaking news on this slow Sunday, but there are still some interesting morsels scattered throughout the papers. The Washington Post leads with a look at the eclectic group of donors that Norman Hsu tapped in his prolific fundraising efforts for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Some contributors say they never met Hsu, who now sits in a Colorado prison.

Where is the Lame Stream Media on this? Had this been, aghast, a Republican, Holy Shiite Goat Man!

StopHerNow has offered a reward for felons contributing to Leftinistra presidential aspirants. Fish Wrap has a "funny" video to view on the subject as well.


At least the Daily News picked the Wanted Poster up and has a feew things to say as well.

Czarina...a Clear and Present Danger.

Catch the wave...

Czarina's Scams, Woes and Campaign Frauds

Senator Hillary "The Rodham" Clinton is running on a platform of "reform". I wonder what she means by that. I wonder if she knows what she means by that. I wonder if anyone, anywhere knows what she means by that.

She is beset with the outing of Hsu as a campaign supporter via fraudulent ways, similar to but the same as a coward that sneaks around defacing war memorials. Why do those on the left feel the need for treachery, slight and debauchery to maintain their wanna-be statures in life?

Oh! Sure! She is giving back $850K of ill gotten monies but, is she going to pay the price thereof? Isn't accepting monies from crooks illegal? The laws of the land state that ignorance is not an excuse and surely, a self-vaunted important Senator such as she should know this. Isn't she a law maker? Is she above the law?

And, what did Hsu freak out about on that Amtrak unit as he was fleeing the scene(s) of the crime(s)? Could it be that the FBI is closing in? Could it be that Hsu knows all too well that folks that "know too much" about the ops of the Clintonista and have data that can harm them have a strange and peculiar way of suddenly dieing?

As for the would-be First Czarina's woes, methinks she is heading for the precipice of despair. Her numbers are looking pretty shaky right now and, perhaps she has fears of winding up like the wife of Ducacus when he lost so badly to RWR. She spent some time recovering from a nervous breakdown and I see Czarina heading for the same fate. She needs to drop out now while she can save face.

She isn't liked by nearly half. That doesn't describe or define a winner. Not by a long shot.

Many of the Leftinistra knew of Hsu and the Haunting has just begun. Another of Hillary's friends has been zapped in a sting during an investigation of fraud...sound familiar?

A day after Clinton super-donor Norman Hsu failed to show up for his date with a California judge comes word that another high profile Hillary backer is in deep trouble with the law.

Passaic Mayor Sammy Rivera, recently named to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national Hispanic outreach team was one of 11 Jersey politicians snared in a federal sting involving school contracts, according to press accounts. It’s not clear if Rivera was due to attend Clinton’s suddenly ill-timed speech to N.J. Dems in Atlantic City tomorrow.

And she wants to be President? And she dares find fault with President Bush? What campaign fraud is he being investigated for? Just curious an yet another question that will go unanswered.

With all this yammering about impeaching President Bush, just what has he done that calls for impeachment? I forget how many moonbats I asked this of and I have yet to hear chapter and verse. All I hear is emotional outbursts but no viable discernment.

Hillary faces a court case of campaign fraud pretty soon yet the Lame Stream Media is keeping a lid on it or painting poor Hillary as a victim. Too bad. So sad.

The movie Path to 911 will not come out on DVD because Hillary is running for President. I wonder why that "IS".

Amazing, that.

Simply amazing.

Catch the wave...

Hsu Captured In Colorful Colorado

OH MY!! What will Hillary the Budding Leninist do now?

Michelle has the breaking news!

SFGate.com

Fugitive political fundraiser Norman Hsu, who skipped out on San Mateo County authorities this week rather than face sentencing in a fraud scheme, was apprehended tonight by federal and local lawmen in Grand Junction, Colo.

Authorities said Hsu was taken into custody at St. Mary’s Hospital in Grand Junction at 7 p.m. local time. He had been on the lam for almost two days after failing to appear in a Redwood City courtroom Wednesday to surrender his passport.

Hsu’s attorney told state prosecutors that he had been on a charter flight that arrived at Oakland International Airport at about 5:30 a.m. Wednesday and then dropped out of sight, said Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the state Attorney General’s office.

Amazing, eh? This is equally amazing: screen shot

Flip Pidot notes that Norman Hsu is still listed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign site as an honored “HillRaiser” (as of 12:36am, his name is still listed):

Hillary has other problems as well...

Another Clinton campaign guy busted

A day after Clinton super-donor Norman Hsu failed to show up for his date with a California judge comes word that another high profile Hillary backer is in deep trouble with the law.

Passaic Mayor Sammy Rivera, recently named to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s national Hispanic outreach team was one of 11 Jersey politicians snared in a federal sting involving school contracts, according to press accounts. It’s not clear if Rivera was due to attend Clinton’s suddenly ill-timed speech to N.J. Dems in Atlantic City tomorrow.

Hillary just isn't having a good week here. Good. Spin that.

It seems that the thug got sick on a government subsidized waste of an entity called Amtrak.

Hot Air

Blue Crab Blvd

Gateway Pundit

Like Hillary Didn't Know

RODHAM WATCH
Is the other Hsu about to drop?
Hillary's donor linked to China missile trader

A shady Chinese megadonor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has close ties to an aerospace mogul accused of placing his business interests before national security by sharing missile secrets with Beijing during the Clinton administration.

Before his forced resignation last week, Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu sat on the board of trustees of the liberal New School university in New York with former Loral Corp. h