Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

Hillary…Just Another Spelling For Corruption

October 20, 2007

Hillary’s Corruption Never Ends.

t 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.


Go Publius!!

August 3, 2007

Czarinas’ Thesis Is Now Made Available

Go Publius posted a link at the Hot Rodham Blog that presents a copy of the long suppressed Alinsky Thesis.

Freedom Underground has the PDF as well.

Go download the PDF file and read it. Or, got to Go Publius and read one page at a time.

Future posts on this WILL BE forthcoming.

Thank You, Hillary! Thank You! I Can Crap Better Now!

July 9, 2007

This woman is the very definition of MORON!  Who or what in the hell does she think she is?  Czarina? Queen Pork Spending Whore?  Woman’s gift to Harlotry?  Listen to this jerk.  She has some serious head shrinking voodoo dance doctor requirements.

Times Watch: (in its entirety…this one cannot be piece-meal delivered)

Hillary Forgives Republicans of Their Sins

“Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
7/9/2007 3:21:34 PM

Reporter Michael Luo’s front-page Saturday story on Hillary Clinton’s religious faith, “For Clinton, Faith Intersects With Political Life,” was a pretty transparent attempt to moderate Hillary Clinton’s secular reputation by emphasizing her religiosity.


Meanwhile, Luo naively cast candidate Clinton as a passive spouse betrayed by her husband during the Monica Lewinsky scandal — as if Bill Clinton’s White House philandering came as a total shock after all the years in Arkansas.


“Long before her beliefs would be tested in the most wrenching of ways as firs lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton taught an adult Sunday school class on the importance of forgiveness. It is a lesson, she says, that she has harked back to often.”


Through the long piece, Luo portrayed her as a victim: “Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.”


Unless the neighbor happens to work for the White House Travel Office, in which case all bets are off?


“Mrs. Clinton, the New York senator who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has been alluding to her spiritual life with increasing regularity in recent years, language that has dovetailed with efforts by her party to reach out to churchgoers who have been voting overwhelmingly Republican.


“Mrs. Clinton’s references to faith, though, have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity (one writer recently lumped her with the type of Christians who ‘believe in everything but God’) and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics. And her motivations have been cast as political calculation by detractors, who suggest she is only trying to moderate her liberal image.”


Luo was swept up with the symbols of Clinton’s religiosity, symbols the Times would no doubt see as suspicious or bothersome if openly displayed by a Christian conservative: “In the interview and a subsequent telephone conversation, she described her spiritual habits — she carries a Bible on her campaign travels, reads commentaries on Scripture and on other people’s ‘faith journeys’ and spoke of experiencing ‘the presence of the Holy Spirit’ on many occasions.


Luo has still more on Saint Hillary, who graciously forgives Republicans for their sins: “And she talked of forgiveness. Mrs. Clinton volunteered that she was moved by apologies in recent years from David Kuo, a Republican speechwriter and evangelical Christian who later worked in the Bush administration, and Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, both of whom have confessed to harboring hateful thoughts of her. She spoke of her own shortcomings — ‘it’s a challenge every single day’ — in leading a moral life and of turning to Christian writers for solace after her husband’s infidelity.”


After some brief criticism from the left and right, Luo returned to his credulous portrayal of Clinton’s religious beliefs: “Mrs. Clinton’s religious roots run deep….As for how literally to interpret the Bible, she takes a characteristically centrist view….Shortly before her father’s death in 1993, Mrs. Clinton sought to meld her faith and political ideology into an overarching philosophy of public service. In delivering a passionate speech on health care, she said Americans suffered from a ‘sleeping sickness of the soul’ and called for a ‘new politics of meaning.”


“Liberal and conservative pundits alike jumped on what they called her religious moralisms wrapped in New Age language. But Melanne Verveer, her former chief of staff, said the speech was merely an extension of how Mrs. Clinton’s religious values infused her sense of public service.”


Luo was not nearly so respectful of the views of Republican Mitt Romney in a May 10 story. Ostensibly covering the controversy over Al Sharpton’s suggestion that Mormons weren’t real Christians, Luo instead devoted most of his story to allowing Sharpton yet more attacks on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith as racist and backward.

And just what did this wasted efforts of human tissue do just recently?  Did she not vehemently attack GWB for doing far less than her Zipper Loose Cigar Muppet husband did?

Please.  Enough is enough.  Those jerks at HillaryRub are worse than she is.

HIllary’s Money Man

July 9, 2007

This would-be, wanna-be, Queen Hillary, President of the United States, charlatanisms never cease.

Hillary’s money man

Christopher Alleva
Reading the Washington Post Sunday Style section piece on super Hillary fundraiser Bal G. Das yesterday almost sent me reaching for my Vatican Saint Recommendation Form.
Pictured in his impossibly modest midtown Manhattan office with a view of Park Avenue, where rents are north of $100 per square foot, Das is quoted, “What motivates me is leaving this world better than when I found it”

A real profile in altruism, the Post tells us:

“… Das has maxed out the amount he can personally donate while helping to raise what he calculates is more than $300,000 for the cause. Shunning big events, he’s hosted a series of small get-togethers at his Upper East Side home. Most recently, he attended a 1,200-person event of Indian American supporters (including Deepak Chopra) and a much smaller gathering where Clinton and Warren Buffett did a Steve-and-Eydie routine for wealthy supporters such as Vernon Jordan and Steven Rattner. Both events raised approximately $1 million each, according to the campaign.”

I believe this is what you call a gathering of “fat cats.”

Just as I was poised to grab my form and dash it off to the Pope I decided to do a little checking up on Mr. Das. At first I was taken in by Post’s glowing description of Mr. Das,

“A man with a cherubic face and rimless glasses, he sports brown wingtips and a tan summer suit a little short in the arms. He projects a kind of formal sincerity. While nearly everyone involved with the former first lady’s presidential quest calls the candidate Hillary, Das will refer to her only as ‘Senator Clinton.'”

My interest was further piqued by the Post saying he’s at the forefront of fundraisers with a capacity to bring 40 to 50 supremely affluent people together in an intimate setting for Mrs. Clinton’s benefit. Helpfully, the Post reminds us of a recent dust up with the Obama campaign, Senator Obama had to apologize for a staff memo that labeled Clinton as “D-Punjab

“The flap brought to light the tussle within the Democratic Party for the hearts, minds and wallets of this constituency”

So just who is Bal G. Das, super fundraiser? Mr. Das is General Counsel of InsCap Capital Management LLC formerly known as LILAC. A look at the firm’s website says Mr. Das is responsible for coordinating the firm’s legal, compliance and regulatory affairs. No, this can’t be. I thought Mr. Das was a simply a civic minded contributor just trying to make world a better place by supporting Hillary Clinton.

InsCap Capital Management is a firm involved in a highly controversial tax avoidance scheme called “leveraged life insurance.”

There are several variations to this scheme but one version has wealthy tax payers borrow money to pay life insurance premiums and deduct the interest from their current income, reducing their taxes, while receiving preferential tax treatment upon death or distribution of the policy.

I think this could be characterized as a “tax break for the rich”, Mrs. Clinton.

There you have it: Mr. Das’ occupation and personal wealth are derived directly from legislation passed in Washington. I’m so disillusioned. I thought this guy was selfless and now it turns out he’s nothing more than another rent seeker. I’m not sure contributing to Hillary Clinton campaign is going to make the world a better place, I do know it will probably fatten his wallet.

The Washington Post has swarms of reporters. Perhaps they can assign a few people to look into all these generous donors instead of wasting their readers’ time writing misleading puff pieces on them.

On Hillary and Scooter Libby

July 3, 2007


By now, even the jerks on the left know that the “issue” with Scooter Libby was a manufactured BDS driven witch hunt. Fitzgerald KNEW from the beginning that Armitage was the leaker of the non-covert bitch Valerie Plame and her retarded and wussified dweeb of a coward husband knew as well.

Is my angst showing?

This is what makes Czarina’s statement about the commutation of Libby’s sentence the real joke of the day. This woman, and I use that term loosely, is no better than Fitzgerald and Armitage. Knowing the truth and doing nothing of it equates to needing to be euthanized. They should all check in immediately to wherever Kavorkian is hanging out so he can assist them with the relieving themselves of all this BDS hatred. It would the best they could do for this country. They just plain suck.

Here is what the idiot that would be King (she has to have a bigger unit than Bill does):

Liberals Cry about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby


Liberals are all upset about President Bush pardoning Scooter Libby.


Senator Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:

“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

That criminal Hillary DARES claim someone is above the law? PLEASE! Spare us the bullshit! Hillary is a QUACK!

Please visit the site above to see the list of PARDONS Bill The Cigar Boy Sex Fiend and Addict issued. WHERE WAS HILLARY’S ANGST THEN? Oh. Wait. Her brother-in-law was pardoned by Billy Bob Can’t Keep His Pants Zipped Moron. I see. And Scooter Libby was the attorney! GO FIGURE!

What a schmuck this Hillary creep is. DAMN!

Bay Buchanan: Hillary Clinton is Dangerous to Civil Liberties

June 19, 2007

Yes. You read that correctly.

Hillary Clinton’s claim that she thought she was voting for more diplomacy when she voted to authorize use of force in Iraq is part of a pattern that suggests to Bay Buchanan that we are all fools for having let her advance to the point where she is running for president.

HA! I had her pegged a very long time ago! She is a fraud and a power-hungry whore.”

It’s inconceivable that somebody would vote for a resolution that’s called ‘Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,’ and yet you would be thinking you might be voting for something that didn’t put armed forces in Iraq,” Buchanan tells me with her trademark staccato delivery.

In the months leading up to the vote, there was a national debate about whether President Bush should go to Congress to obtain authority to go to war.

“Barack Obama made it very clear as a state senator that he understood what the vote was about, and he didn’t approve of it,” Buchanan says. “So he understood it. He wasn’t even in Washington when the national debate was taking place.”

If Hillary really thought she was not voting to go to war, “Why would she have supported the war for the next two-and-a-half years?” Buchanan asks.

Indeed, on April 21, 2004, she told Larry King on CNN that she does not regret her vote to authorize use of force because “at the time, it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”

“Hillary has a keen sense of entitlement,” Buchanan says. “She doesn’t admit mistakes or learn from them. She believes in her own mind that she doesn’t have to take responsibility for things she’s done in the past. She can say whatever it is she wants to say today, and it’s as if the slate is clean and nothing has occurred before this.”

Read her haunting words:

October 10, 2002October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

“Thank you for visiting my website. Below is the statement I made on the Senate floor on October 10th to explain my decision and vote on the joint Congressional resolution on Iraq. I hope you will take the time to read it with as much care as I have given to making this difficult decision. I am deeply grateful to the thousands of New Yorkers who shared their views on this important issue, and will continue to do my very best in serving the interests of our state and nation.”

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002

Playing the Vicitm

The fact that Hillary could write in her own autobiography that mean-spirited conservatives who were trying to keep her husband from accomplishing his agenda were behind all the scandals of the Clinton administration is another example of Hillary’s refusal to take responsibility.

“It’s always somebody else,” Buchanan says. “The Clintons are the victims. Someone else has caused this, and their attitude is they have to endure.”

Of all of Hillary’s prevarications, Buchanan says, none is so clear-cut or shocking as the fact that on national TV, Hillary claimed that when two airplanes hit the World Trade Center, her daughter Chelsea was at Battery Park near the towers, where Chelsea heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.

Hillary’s arrogance was so profound that she did not coordinate the story  with Chelsea, who wrote an article for Talk in which she described what she had been doing that day. According to Chelsea, she wasn’t jogging at the World Trade Center. Rather, she was miles away in a friend’s apartment on Park Avenue South. She watched the events unfold on TV.

Given such prevarications, “We are fools when you consider that we allow her to move forward as a serious candidate for the presidency,” Buchanan says. “Especially when she refuses to take responsibility for an issue as important as war � to send young people into harm’s way, and now she acts as if she never did that, and that it was wrong.”

Hillary is a liar. Plain and simple. Read the rest of the article but I will post the last paragraph. Consider its merit:

“They’re so worried about the Patriot Act, and yet they’re about to put somebody like Hillary Clinton in the White House,” Buchanan says. “We don’t need any Patriot Act if she’s there.”

Peas and Pods…Reid and Hillary

June 19, 2007

Harry Reid’s Pie Hole

Harry Reid, the Dingo from Nevada. The more this character opens his yapper the more convinced I am the DNC hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell to be victorious in ‘08, anywhere, save, say, in some “stan”country – certainly not here.

Case in point: WSJ:

“Harry Reid hopes to help unions deprive workers of their right to vote.”

That is the sub-title of the piece.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to hold a vote this Wednesday on perhaps the most unpopular element of the Democratic agenda. The Employee Free Choice Act has already passed the House, but now it faces real hurdles in the Senate because, contrary to the name, it undermines workplace democracy.

Under the so-called card-check bill, a company would no longer have the right to demand a secret-ballot election to certify a union, thus stripping 140 million American workers of the right to decide in private whether to organize.

Republican senators, except possibly Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, are uniformly opposed to the idea. “We went to the secret ballot in the early 1800s in this country for a darn good reason: If somebody’s looking over your shoulder, your ballot doesn’t mean much,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, noting fears of intimidation by unions should the bill pass.

But conservatives aren’t the only ones concerned. A February survey of 1,000 likely voters by McLaughlin Associates found that 79% of respondents oppose the bill, with only 14% in favor. Even Democrats opposed the idea, 78% to 16%.

OK.  Who is paying whom off here?  Once again, the MAJORITY of Americans do NOT want this.  Yet,  in Reids’ finite and miniscule intelligence (equating to his infinite ignorance), he plans to move ahead ANYWAY?

I agree with Dennis Miller.  You?

Just in case you are wondering, our pandering Czarina supports this measure and is one of the originating co-sponsors of it.  Again, I ask…who is paying off whom?

The Employee Free Choice Act

I am an original co-sponsor and strong supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a measure that would create a fair and level playing field between workers and employers and promote the economic growth of the American middle class. EFCA would create an atmosphere where workers would be able to choose a union free from employer coercion by strengthening penalties for employer coercion when employees are attempting to organize; encouraging mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes and allowing employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation. I am committed to ensuring that workers are able to organize a union without coercion or intimidation, and also that federal contractors that benefit from taxpayer dollars demonstrate fairness towards their employees. The card check process, which requires majority sign-up, is the most effective way to protect employees’ freedom to choose to form a union.

And then, from the WaPo article originally cited, we have this:

Indeed, many of the congressional supporters of a card-check law sang an entirely different tune a few years ago about the importance of a secret ballot. In 2001, Rep. George Miller of California, the chief House sponsor of the card check bill, joined Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and 14 other Democratic colleagues in writing Mexican labor authorities that “we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.” Apparently, a secret ballot is imperative to protect Mexican workers, but on the U.S. side of the border it’s an impediment to Mr. Miller’s domestic political agenda.

What does this smell like to you?

What Hillary The Hun “omits” is this. The “voting” is no longer secret. It is open. And we ALL know that union “delegates” are the nice, quiet, elegant and harmless types, right? And they wouldn’t resort to dubious tactics to “force” folks to vote a way they normally wouldn’t, right?