Archive for July, 2007

Blog Talk Radio

July 30, 2007

Greetings from the celebrity Snooper. There is going to be a series on Blog Talk Radio hosted by A Newt One called American Truth Warriors.

We had 2 shows the other night and the archive audio can be found here and here.

We will discuss issues surrounding the 2008 elections and how Hillary just might make the DNC nomination but doesn’t have a chance at obtaining her goal as the First American Czarina.

I will update the dates of the programs as we line up our guests.

Naturally

July 29, 2007

Hillary may get the nod from the DNC and this will be a good thing IF the GOP has a viable candidate.

I ran across 4 articles today that are well worth the read no matter your political trends.

MSLSD/Newsweek is always good for a laugh:

Does Barack Obama have have enough experience to be president? This is the question Hillary Clinton would like to spend the next seven months debating. Her slogan is that she’s “ready to lead”; she cites her extensive foreign travel and sessions with world leaders. For his part, Obama prefers to talk about living overseas and the good judgment he displayed in opposing the Iraq War from the start. For months, Clinton and Obama have taken subtle digs at each other’s résumés. But there’s nothing subtle about it now.

The article rambles on but it is interesting to “hear” what they leave out. Like Hillary’s “experience”. Sure she traveled a lot and met some folks but what is her claim to fame? Whitewater scandals? Campaign fraud scandals? Rose law Firm scandals? What exactly has she accomplished as a Senator other than being Queen of Pork?

I imagine, the Chicago Sun-Times inadvertantly exposes the racism involved withini the candidacy of the leading DNC contenders.

More than any other debate thus far, the National Urban League’s presidential forum illustrated how sharply the Democratic primary is dividing the African-American community’s political allegiances. Although the National Urban League doesn’t endorse political candidates, the presidential forum gave the front-runners — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and his closest rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) — their best chance yet to compete head-up for the urban black vote. There were a lot of signs that many of the Urban Leaguers — who tend to be solidly middle-class entrepreneurs and professionals — haven’t made up their minds about whom they will support in 2008.

Imagine that.

CNN/Time displayed how Barak seems to think he is Kennedy…John, Bobby or Ted?

When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn’t, he was dangerously close to ordinary. Spoke movingly — even/almost presidentially — about America’s troubled history with race, his favorite teacher and how hard he would fight for universal health care. (Obama even drew an approving nod from Elizabeth Edwards in the audience on that last one). Took occasional soft shots at Clinton on Iraq and her questionable ability to fight for change (his main theme), but never made a decisive impact. He began many more sentences with, “When I am president” (without the conditional) than he has in past debates, but his own video (all the candidates made them, and they were sprinkled throughout the telecast) hit more Kennedy chords than the live Obama did. Still, his best performance to date, positioning him to return in later forums to the change-change-change contrast he wants (and needs) to define his candidacy.

I often wonder why these people find it so hard to be themselves. Then again, honesty is not their best policy not is the term in their actual vocabulary.

Recently, the NY Post has it the closest in The Kow-Tow Club.

The Democratic presidential race has devolved into a no-holds-barred battle between the two front-runners on an utterly bizarre point: Should the next president personally sit down with the world’s worst despots?

Of course not. That would be absurd.

But Sen. Barack Obama last week displayed an astonishing lack of depth – giving Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a chance to show again that she’s capable of taking five positions on just about every issue.

Too bad for Clinton that she missed a perfectly good opportunity to show her relative experience and intelligence – given that she was correct in her reaction to Obama’s verbal miscue.

It all happened during Monday night’s debate, when the candidates were asked whether, as president, they’d be willing to meet personally – and without preconditions – with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.

Obama’s response: Absolutely.

Indeed, he added, “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.”

Clinton, ever the instinctive pol, recognized a gopher ball when she saw one – and proceeded to lift it out of the park.

Obama’s response, she maintained, was “irresponsible and, frankly, naive.”

“I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” said Clinton. “We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”

She’s right, of course: Such impulsive acts can wind up backfiring – emboldening enemies and embarrassing America (as they have in the past).

Indeed, Obama’s apparent willingness to rush into sitdowns with America-bashing tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Chavez makes us wonder if he knows just what it is a president does for a living.

For his part, Obama quickly backtracked: “I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said.

And then he hurled what for Democrats is the ultimate insult: Clinton’s position, he said, is just like President Bush’s.

Which is nonsense, of course.

But here’s where it gets complicated.

Even while ridiculing Obama’s position, Clinton repeatedly has ripped the president for saying “he will not talk with bad people.” Indeed, she complained, “you don’t make peace with your friends – you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don’t agree with.”

She’s even admonished Bush for refusing to deal directly with the leaders of Iran.

Even though, as president, her own husband never spoke directly with the leaders of any of those five countries either – and for good reason.

Clearly, both candidates need to do a little more homework if they have any hope of being taken seriously on the foreign-policy front.

Seeing that NEITHER on has ANY experience in this regard, how can they EVER be taken seriously?

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt weighs in…

Hillary Must Be Proud

July 29, 2007

This day in history:

Bill Must Be Proud

This Day In History

1998 Monica Lewinsky was given blanket immunity from prosecution in exchange for grand jury testimony in the investigation of her relationship with President Bill Clinton.

An American Communist: Hillary Clinton & The Democrats

July 28, 2007

Call them liberals, progressives or Democrats, it is all the same thing. I once penned a piece, listed under my “featured posts” in the sidebar, called “Liberal Communist Manifesto“, where I showed my readers the comparisons, if fact, some of the exact wording from the Communist Manifesto stated today by our “progressive, liberal democrats”.

The NYT has a piece today showing us the exact time in Hillary Clinton’s life where she made the transition from being a conservative to a communist. (Via memeorandum)

Before I continue, go read the Communist Manifesto, in its entirety, make the comparisons yourself to what you read from the document, written in 1848, to what the Democrats/liberals/progressives have to say today.

Specifically when they refer to “common good“, “taking from the rich to give to the poor“, and what they call “progressive or graduated taxation“, definitely keep those terms in mind when reading the Communist Manifesto. (You will learn where the “progressives” of today GOT those talking points, and how they are simply the Communists of yesterday, using another name)

Now the definition of Communism, defined from the dictionary, I am using Dictionary.com, but most all dictionaries use the same definition is:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Now that we have shown you just three simple examples of how the Democratic party, call them liberals or progressives if you prefer, the “label” doesn’t matter as much as the philosophy does, how the democratic party is trying to bring Communism into America.

It is said in the Principles of Communism that all the measures to ensure communism cannot be brought about at once and it must be introduced into a country gradually, as we can see the progressive liberal democrats trying to do today.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

Please keep that definition in mind also as you read this post.

Our country has fought against Communism for decades and the history of Russia should have taught us what Communism can and will do to a country.

One of the first measures of War Communism was the nationalisation of land. Banks and shipping were also nationalised and foreign trade was declared a state monopoly. This was the response when Lenin realised that the Bolsheviks were simply unprepared to take over the whole economic system of Russia. Lenin stressed the importance of the workers showing discipline and a will to work hard if the revolution was to survive. There were those in the Bolshevik hierarchy who wanted factory managers removed and the workers to take over the factories for themselves but on behalf of the people. It was felt that the workers would work better if they believed they were working for a cause as opposed to a system that made some rich but many poor. The civil war had made many in the Bolsheviks even more class antagonistic, as there were many of the old guard who were fighting to destroy the Bolsheviks.

On June 28th, 1918, a decree was passed that ended all forms of private capitalism. Many large factories were taken over by the state and on November 29th, 1920, any factory/industry that employed over 10 workers was nationalised.

War Communism also took control of the distribution of food. The Food Commissariat was set up to carry out this task. All co-operatives were fused together under this Commissariat.

War Communism had six principles:

1) Production should be run by the state. Private ownership should be kept to the minimum. Private houses were to be confiscated by the state.

2) State control was to be granted over the labour of every citizen. Once a military army had served its purpose, it would become a labour army.

3) The state should produce everything in its own undertakings. The state tried to control the activities of millions of peasants.

4) Extreme centralisation was introduced. The economic life of the area controlled by the Bolsheviks was put into the hands of just a few organisations. The most important one was the Supreme Economic Council. This had the right to confiscate and requisition. The speciality of the SEC was the management of industry. Over 40 head departments (known as glavki) were set up to accomplish this. One glavki could be responsible for thousands of factories. This frequently resulted in chronic inefficiency. The Commissariat of Transport controlled the railways. The Commissariat of Agriculture controlled what the peasants did.

5) The state attempted to become the soul distributor as well as the sole producer. The Commissariats took what they needed to meet demands. The people were divided into four categories – manual workers in harmful trades, workers who performed hard physical labour, workers in light tasks/housewives and professional people. Food was distributed on a 4:3:2:1 ratio. Though the manual class was the favoured class, it still received little food. Many in the professional class simply starved. It is believed that about 0% of all food consumed came from an illegal source. On July 20th 1918, the Bolsheviks decided that all surplus food had to be surrendered to the state. This led to an increase in the supply of grain to the state. From 1917 to 1928, about ¾ million ton was collected by the state. In 1920 to 1921, this had risen to about 6 million tons. However, the policy of having to hand over surplus food caused huge resentment in the countryside, especially as Lenin had promised “all land to the people” pre-November 1917. While the peasants had the land, they had not been made aware that they would have to hand over any extra food they produced from their land. Even the extra could not meet demand. In 1933, 25 million tons of grain was collected and this only just met demand.

6) War Communism attempted to abolish money as a means of exchange. The Bolsheviks wanted to go over to a system of a natural economy in which all transactions were carried out in kind. Effectively, bartering would be introduced. By 1921, the value of the rouble had dropped massively and inflation had markedly increased. The government’s revenue raising ability was chronically poor, as it had abolished most taxes. The only tax allowed was the ‘Extraordinary Revolutionary Tax’, which was targeted at the rich and not the workers.

War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state. Therefore, the industrial cities were starved of food despite the introduction of the 4:3:2:1 ratio. A bad harvest could be disastrous for the countryside – and even worse for cities. Malnutrition was common, as was disease. Those in the cities believed that their only hope was to move out to the countryside and grow food for themselves. Between 1916 and 1920, the cities of northern and central Russia lost 33% of their population to the countryside. Under War Communism, the number of those working in the factories and mines dropped by 50%.

In the cities, private trade was illegal, but more people were engaged in this than at any other time in Russia’s history. Large factories became paralysed through lack of fuel and skilled labour.

Small factories were in 1920 producing just 43% of their 1913 total. Large factories were producing 18% of their 1913 figure. Coal production was at 27% of its 1913 figure in 1920. With little food to nourish them, it could not be expected that the workers could work effectively. By 1920, the average worker had a productivity rate that was 44% less than the 1913 figure.

Even if anything of value could be produced, the ability to move it around Russia was limited. By the end of 1918, Russia’s rail system was in chaos.

In the countryside, most land was used for the growth of food. Crops such as flax and cotton simply were not grown. Between 1913 and 1920, there was an 87% drop in the number of acres given over to cotton production. Therefore, those factories producing cotton related products were starved of the most basic commodity they needed.

Read the rest and remember, this is just one example of what Communism does to a country.

I once read a quote from Hillary Clinton and it infuriated me because it proved what I had thought for a very long time, she wishes to bring communism to America and makes no bones about it.

At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the “common good.”

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign.

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Link to the story here.

I said on that post linked above:

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to “punish” people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her…. the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.

The term is “common good,” and it’s catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what “compassionate conservative” did for the Republicans.

“It’s a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives,” said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community — sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty.”

So, the basic concept here is that “materialism” is bad, people earning the wealth to enjoy some of the finer things in life is “bad“, they object to “greed”, but in their self righteous world, greed is defined as those that work their asses off to EARN MONEY, wow, wanting to earn more money is a BAD thing again…ok so I am bad!!!! “Shared sacrifice”, what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that if I am capable of earning a good living, because I am good at what I do for a living, the “Democratic Government” should be able to take more from me? How the hell do they justify THAT?????? For the Common Good be damned and so should the Democrats.

To be fair, the people that originally created that phrase many decades ago, did so with good intentions, but the way the phrase has been corrupted by the Democratic party is disgusting.

To use the catchphrase, “common good” to justify atrocities, is beyond comprehension. To think the American people will sit still for it, bend over and take it, is sheer stupidity.

The Democratic party and their definition of “Common good” can go to hell.

Pure and simple, Hillary Clinton is a communist.

I am a capitalist and damned proud of it, Capitalism is a good thing.

Capitalism as defined in the dictionary:

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Capitalists produce, manufacture, employ millions, provide healthcare to millions, they expand and hire more employees, the money those employees make gets spent and helps economic growth throughout our country.

There is one thing that Democrats/progressives/liberals do not account for.

What if the Capitalists of this world do not wish to be punished for producing, manufacturing, employing millions and providing healthcare for those millions and helping the economy?

What if they stood as one and said, “SCREW YOU”?

What if these capitalists got tired of being punished for their ability?

What if they drained their bank accounts, moved their money overseas where the vultures/Democrats could not touch it and just went to live on some island somewhere, where they could live quite comfortably on the billions or even millions they already have?

Millions of Americans would be out of a job and on welfare, millions of Americans would be on medicaid or other government programs where the rest of us would be paying for their insurance. Unemployment would jump to increasingly unacceptable and unmanageable rates.

The snowballing effect of such a “strike” , for lack of a better word, would take America from being one of the healthiest economic countries to one of the weakest, poorest countries in a matter of decades if not before.

What incentive would our millionaires and billionaires have to keep their businesses thriving should the Democrats/liberals/progressives force their communistic agenda upon us?

Name one.

We have fought communism for decades in other countries and it is time we looked at ourselves and started fighting against communism in our own country.

To be continued….

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Debate Fatigue?

July 26, 2007

Madamme Czarina

July 26, 2007

Judicial Watch has her goat.

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit to Obtain Records from Clinton Presidential Library for Hillary Clinton

DocumentsWashington, DC – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption announced today that it filed a lawsuit on July 16, 2007 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration to obtain access to the following records from the Clinton Presidential Library: “First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s calendar, to include but not limited to her daily office diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book, and chronological file.” The Archives, which operates and maintains Clinton Presidential Library records, failed to respond to Judicial Watch’s April 5, 2006 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

“Judicial Watch has a clear statutory right to have the Library search for and produce all non-exempt records responsive to its April 5, 2206 FOIA request within the time frame required by the [law]. The Library also is required to produce an index of any responsive records it seeks to withhold from Judicial Watch under the claim of exemption,” Judicial Watch wrote in its court filing. “Although more than 15 months have passed since Judicial Watch served its request, the Library has failed to do either.”

Judicial Watch is seeking Mrs. Clinton’s records from January 1, 1993 to January 20, 2001, the approximate time period during which she served as First Lady.

On January 20, 2006, more than 80 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mails from the Clinton administration were supposed to be made available to the public, yet only a portion have been released. Judicial Watch believes these documents potentially contain a treasure trove of previously undisclosed information. (Judicial Watch has made a number of requests to the Clinton Presidential Library concerning various Clinton administration scandals.)

“Given Mrs. Clinton’s current status as a presidential candidate, if not the front-runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination, the public interest in her tenure as First Lady is undeniable,” Judicial Watch stated in its lawsuit. “Because Mrs. Clinton seeks our nation’s highest office and may well be the next President of the United States, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of enjoining the Library from continuing to withhold the records at issue.”

“This lawsuit is a first step in obtaining access to new documents about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Clinton White House. With Hillary Clinton aggressively pursuing the presidency, uncovering the truth about her activities in the White House is just as relevant today as it was during the Clinton era,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The law requires the timely release of these and other Clinton White House documents. The court should compel the Archives to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and quickly release these records.”

Click here to read Judicial Watch’s complaint.

Click here to read Clinton Presidential Library documents already uncovered by Judicial Watch

All The More Reason To Expose Hillary As The Leninist She Is

July 25, 2007

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, the presidency is not in the bag. Even winning the Democratic presidential nomination is considerably less than a sure thing. But of the 18 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Clinton is the most likely to be the next president. And she did nothing last night in the bizarre presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, to alter that.

Obama Jabs Czarina

July 25, 2007

The New York Sun

Senator Obama is escalating his criticism of Senator Clinton‘s record on the Iraq war, using a Democratic presidential debate last night to belittle her attempt to force the Pentagon to release plans for withdrawing American troops.

“I think it’s terrific that she’s asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous,” the Illinois senator said in a response unprompted by a specific question about Mrs. Clinton, before targeting her initial support for the Iraq invasion: “But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.”

It seems to me that the Democrats have “forgotten” (for political reasons) THE WHY this nation is at war.

The Time’s Take On The Debacle…er…Debate

July 25, 2007

The Democratic Candidates

 

Barack 

 

Grade: A-

When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn’t, he was dangerously close to ordinary. Spoke movingly – even/almost presidentially – about America’s troubled history with race, his favorite teacher and how hard he would fight for universal health care. (Obama even drew an approving nod from Elizabeth Edwards in the audience on that last one). Took occasional soft shots at Clinton on Iraq and her questionable ability to fight for change (his main theme), but never made a decisive impact. He began many more sentences with, “When I am president” (without the conditional) than he has in past debates, but his own video (all the candidates made them, and they were sprinkled throughout the telecast) hit more Kennedy chords than the live Obama did. Still, his best performance to date, positioning him to return in later forums to the change-change-change contrast he wants (and needs) to define his candidacy.

The Rodham
Grade: B+

She had some strong answers, but seemed to be sitting on her lead and didn’t emerge as the clear winner like she has in recent debate outings. Clinton took the incorporation of the YouTube questioners’ names to an extreme – at times she seemed engaged in monologue-as-dialogue with them, as if they were actually on the stage. Still, she topped main rival Obama at a key moment with a decisive analysis of diplomacy and neatly sidestepped questions about how to define “liberal” (as if she had practiced it!), her gender (smilingly turned the question to her bread and butter-experience and leadership), Elizabeth Edwards’ recent challenge to her feminist cred (gracefully turning the other cheek) and the potential Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastic turnoff (with an audience pleasing anti-Bush 43 shot and chaser).

Edwards

Grade: B-

Started out blazing, with passionate answers railing against banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and special interests of all stripes. But CNN seemed to validate the CW that Edwards has dropped from the first tier by forcing him to go long stretches without talking, leaving the candidate looking aggravated and with nothing to do but tap his fingers in the cutaways. His submitted video took on the infamous $400 haircut with cutting humor — but in a fashion that might have been too slick for some. Fumbled the story of a female American pilot and Iraq vet who was sitting with Elizabeth Edwards in the audience, and inexplicably told Hillary Clinton he didn’t like her jacket in an effort to offer an amusing response to a wacky question which had candidates saying something they liked and disliked about the person to their left. Passionate anecdote from his recent poverty tour showed him at his best near the end, but the slump in the middle (and the odd sartorial insult) cost him big.

 

The rest don’t count.  Just ask Edwards and The Rodham.  And look who “won”.

Cal Worthington Brings Us the CNN YouTube DNC Deadbeats

July 24, 2007

Well, sadly, I watched the entire Democratic Party Contenders For President Debate, hosted by CNN and they had a froggy YouTube thing. I wonder if Cal Worthington had anything to do with this. Debate. “IS” that what it was?

 

I can sum up the entire “debate” (for lack of a better word) in five (5 for those of you in CONgress) words. Bash Bush and Praise Reagan. We all know they HATED Reagan so the insidious referrals to one of America’s Heroes was disingenuous at best.

 

The topics of discussion, rant or “debate” are as follows: Bash Bush, Global (not) Warming, Bash Bush, No Children Left Behind, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, Bash Bush, Individual Rights, Bash Bush, Living Wage, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, Who’s Your Friend, Who Do You Like, Bash Bush, Who Don’t You Like, Bash Bush, There Is Non One To My Left, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, Bash Bush, Run Away From Iraq, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, Bash Bush, Fight The Real Terrorists, Bash Bush, Bring The Troops Home, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, Bash Bush, Bash Bush, Gun Owners Are Insane, Bash Bush, Bash Tennesseans, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, All Undocumented Illegal Aliens Are Americans So They Get Everything Free While TRUE Americans Have To Pay The Bill, Bash Bush, Trash Talk Radio Because We Are Losers, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, No Nuclear Power, Yes To Nuclear Power, Bash Bush, Grow Our Own Fuel, Bash Bush, Too Dependent On Foreign Oil Because We Stopped ANYONE From Getting Us Free From Foreign Oil, Bash Bush, I Am Not A Liberal But A Modern Progressive (GD Communist), Bash Bush, Yon Who?, Bash Bush, Praise Reagan, Run Away From Iraq, What Does Victory In Iraq Mean, Bash Bush, Fairness Doctrine Only If You Think As I Do, bash Bush.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

The MOST dishonest would-be Presidential Aspirant this evening was Hillary. Go to CNN, as I will be in the morning, and download the transcript for tonight. Zero in on Hillary’s answers and compare them to the videos in our VODPOD in the sidebar on the main page on this blog. Find the video in regards to “we are in this together”, “I am going to take from those that have and give it to those that don’t”, find out just what in the hell a “modern progressive ‘IS'” and compare it to her rhetoric of this evening and on the videos. Like Club For Growth was saying;

“Pigs were flying in South Carolina tonight during the Democratic presidential debate as Hillary Clinton announced that she is not a big-government liberal but a “modern progressive” that “believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms.”

If she isn’t for Big Brother Rule, she sure has quite a few people hood-winked. She really should pay more attention to her press releases and “remember” that WE ARE WATCHING and we have neat toys like camcorders and video cameras and B-L-O-G-S.

 

Modern Progressive? Is that like an old time communist? Click the link and check out the VERIFIABLE data therein. I thought I had a post on this blog the other day with this data. It vanished. Perhaps it went a little too far. Ho hum. I will place the post on my blog Take Our Country Back. If this link takes you to the main page, scroll around. If not, I have returned to place the exact link here.

 

Hillary is the epitome of communism with a little flare and condescension. Her detractors will deny this and so will she. Everything this Clear and Present Danger does is dishonest and entirely contrary to the United States. She wants to remake America in the vision of her mentors, Carl Oglesby, Saul Alinsky, Duncan Kennedy, Mickey Kantor, Thomas Emerson to name a few.

 

“Hillary was,” as Barbara Olson observed in Hell to Pay, “a budding Leninist.”[4] Ibid., pp. 56, 62.

 

I take from conducting extensive research on The Rodham that a Modern Progressive “IS” an Old Time Leninist.

 

Do we want this in America?

 

Think about it.

“I am hard-pressed to imagine something more absurd than Hillary Clinton defending individual rights and eschewing the big-government label on national television,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Kudos to CNN host Anderson Cooper for keeping a straight face.”