Read Bill O’Reilly’s evaluation as to why Barack HUSSEIN Obama snatched the Democratic Party nomination from one time favorite Hillary Clinton.
O’Reilly also speculates on a strategy McCain will use to squash Obama like a red-headed step-moonbat.
JRH 6/7/08
]]>
A lot of people think the Democratic Party is on the fast track to winning the White House in 2008. Of the many people, the prediction is Barack Hussein Obama will be that Democrat.
With that in mind, the primary theme of Obama is the word “change.” The only defining allusion to the word “change” at this moment is something different from the status quo of Washington politics. Anyone with any sense is aware that a fringe Leftist like Obama is not going to change the status quo of politics in Washington. He will be just as polarizing receiving enmity from the Right as GW received enmity from the Left.
The first item of “change” will be for a Democratic Party President to bring the troops home from Iraq preventing victory which is now just a hands grasp away and probably throwing the oil rich Iraq into a chaos with an Iranian predator next door.
Thus leaving Iraq would probably lead numerable bad things, of which the Saudis and Europe will clamor for the return of the American military to clean up.
A chaotic Iraq will lead to an invasion from the north from Turkey to make sure oil endowed Kurds do not form an independent nation. A chaotic Iraq will lead to a civil war between Sunnis and Shias that has nearly been solved by the current Troop Surge. Then Iran will make its play to either create a Shia Islamist Iraq or simply annex the Shia dominated part of Iraq next door to Iran.
The in between time of the Democrats removing troops from Iraq and an impending chaos in Iraq, an international proclamation that transnational terrorism (of which al Qaeda appears to be the most notorious to Americans) has defeated the most powerful nation in the world – the United States of America – will be shouted from the Islamist roof tops.
This will place some swagger on some goals of transnational Islamist terrorism to spread Islam by further terrorism and embolden Western Islamists to require more concessions in the rule of law to practice Sharia Law as opposed to the Rights and Liberty oriented values of Western Culture.
Since Europeans tend to be appeasement minded lefties supporting many of the issues of why Islamism exists, the rule of law debate between Islam and Western values is already an issue.
In America where Islamist dominated organizations in private yet publicly deluding the American public and Left that they are of a moderate nature, will begin to emulate their Islamist brothers in Europe. The demand for Sharia exclusivity apart from Constitutional Law will begin. This kind of demand will undermine the current Leftist stand on Separation of Church and State as the Islamic religion is given government privileges and perks to practice Islam under government protection and involvement all in the name of the delusion of multiculturalism.
Thus all those years of work by the Left to rid the local, State and Federal government of Christian heritage will become a hypocrisy as Islam is protected by the Government. For example it will be a hate crime for Christians to condemn Islam according to Biblical Scriptures but it will be Freedom of Speech for Islam to proclaim its superiority over all other religions and those religions that criticize Islamic superiority will be a hate crime. Can anyone say self-imposed dhimmitude?
The Islamist deception is already spreading in America’s public domain via the so-called moderate non-profit Islamic organizations and non-profit Islamic civil rights organizations. Islamists are highly involved in American Mosques and American Public and Private Schools.
Steven Emerson recently has wrote a blog post which I found at Political Mavens criticizing the Mainstream Media (specifically the New York Times in this instance) for proclaiming moderate bona fides to obvious Islamists who wish to bring down the American way of life by hook or by crook.
In this case the Islamists are members and speakers the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), which was directly founded by the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood’s roots reach all the way back to the cooperation of Hassan al Banna and Amin el-Husseini that supported and received support from Adolf Hitler due to a mutual hatred of Jews.
Steven Emerson demonstrates there is ABSOLUTELY nothing moderate about the MSA which is highly involved on American University campuses nationally.
Is this the scenario you as an American wish to get rolling by supporting the Democratic Party? God Almighty I pray not! Vote Republican!
]]>
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) and terminating transnational terrorists such as al-Qaeda should be the primary focus of the next President of the United States.
Obama and Clinton either offer sweet slogans to woo the youth or highly socialized programs that are utopian and sound good yet essentially will cost the taxpayers a bundle. The fringe Democrats as a whole wish to continue a transformation of America into Secular Humanism in which America’s Christian heritage is proclaimed archaic and alternative lifestyles are validated as morally relative. Thus the homosexuals will call Christians hate mongers (the ones that are Scripture oriented anyway), the abortion mills will prosper, all mottos of God related to government will be erased (e.g. In God We Trust), the southern borders WILL be opened to Hispanics to make America a two culture nation and probably more I have missed.
Obama and Clinton’s biggest card to get elected is to prove that American lives are being wasted in a war that is lost. The Mainstream Media (MSM) being left oriented runs propaganda to brainwash the American public that the GWOT on terror being fought in Iraq is lost. The facts are very much to the opposite of the propaganda.
In fact Iraqi politicians are saying the same thing that Conservatives that want to WIN the GWOT are saying; viz. that an American pull-out would cause a regional instability that would lead to a genocidal blood bath in which transnational terrorists such as al-Qaeda would proclaim themselves the little spark that defeated the most powerful nation in the world – the Great Satan America.
This would lead to a rallying cry for more terrorist activities in the West because Islamist terrorists are not merely in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, the Palestinian side of Israel or wherever to merely give America a black-eye. NO! The rallying cry would resound to the past of Mohammedanism founder Mohammed: it is a vision to take the Theo-political cult globally and force world submission to Allah and its harsh Sharia Law.
This is a vision to ultimately terminate Western variations of Democracy and civil rights and replace them with Mohammedan supremacist thinking.
I found a blog post at Truth in Conviction by J. Grant Swank, Jr. I do not agree with everything Swank writes, particularly in this article. However Swank places the GWOT in perspective and what would happen if Obama or Hillary won the White House AND why McCain should be the man in the White House. Swank seems to insinuate a belief that Obama will win the White House to America’s detriment. Swank also insinuates that McCain is the best man to be in the White House to win the GWOT; however because of his age and lack of charismatic connection to younger voters, McCain will ultimately lose to Obama.
Read Swank’s post entitled “OBAMA / CLINTON INVITE AL QAEDA US-TAKE OVER.” For me the post is an example as to why Conservatives need to get over the negative issues McCain presents and unite behind him to keep the fringe Dems out of the White House.
]]>
The Clinton political machine is running scared! There has been a campaign staff shake-up.
JRH 2/10/08
]]>
This is interesting stuff about Hillary involvement of Clinton scandals over the years. The stuff you won’t see or read in the Mainstream Media (MSM) and is already being relegated to the realm of conspiracy theory by the Left and the Clinton spin machine even though (unlike Michael Moore) “Hillary, The Movie” is backed cited resources.
JRH 1/16/08
]]>
Evidently Hillary has been receiving donations from illegal aliens of the China-Town kind. She has sent back the high profile (i.e. big) donations if there a connection can be made to Asian barely speaking English political donors.
Apparently the media has been exposing the potential illegal donations to Hillary’s campaign. Hence Asian minority rights groups are beginning to clamor that to much attention has been focused by the media on minority Asian donors.
It is incredible! The racial card is being played to get scrutiny off of Hillary’s dubious campaign fund raising.
]]>
Here is some poop on the Democratic Party front runner Hillary Clinton. As you know Leftist Democrats including Hillary Clinton wish to protect the privacy of terrorists and terrorist supporters and terrorist sympathizers. The Democrats and Hillary have painted a picture of President Bush as evil with privacy issues in which the Administration practices of Security have prevented another 9/11 style attack from occurring on American soil.
We can couple this loser attitude with hypocrisy. Hillary listened to audio recordings of illegally intercepted mobile phone conversations of Clinton political opponents.
The image projected by Hillary is that the government cannot on spy on suspected Americans treasonously doing something for America’s enemies in a time of War yet it is perfectly fine to listen to political opponents private conversations to get poop to smear the opponent’s reputation or plan an agenda to disable a political opponents strategy.
Is this “do as I say, not as I do” Leftist the kind of person America wishes to have as its President?
]]>
Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Here is a question that should be considered by the whole (honest) political spectrum swinging from Left to Right in America: Does America want a President whose family (husband & wife, err Bonnie and Clyde) has a long history of evading felonious charges and civil suits? It is true there has never been a conviction, however Jesse James was never convicted either. Was the old Southern sympathizer of a lost civil war who robbed banks for a living an innocent man?
Okay I know I am stretching the comparison, Jesse never was caught to stand trial; nonetheless America’s political spectrum needs to consider the huge amount of times the Clintons have been looked at for criminal crimes and civil lawsuits. The Clinton past makes Tricky Dick Nixon look like an amateur. One can also observe a dubious reputation to a string of Conspiracy Theory accusations based on attempting to connect the dots yet a glaring absence of physical evidence.
JRH 8/16/07
************************************
Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Chastises media for ignoring fraud suit, felony allegations
By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Posted: August 16, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Evoking the Vietnam Navy veterans who helped sink Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004, a newly formed foundation has launched a campaign to "Truth Boat" Sen. Hillary Clinton, claiming the mainstream media have protected her from incontrovertible evidence of illegal conduct.
Wall Street whistleblower Jim Nesfield's Equal Justice Foundation features Peter Franklin Paul's fraud suit against the Clintons and the accompanying allegations against the New York senator.
"It's the No. 1 civil case in the country exposing an unprecedented array of frauds and obstruction of justice by the Clintons that the media refuses to report," Nesfield told WND.
In a year-long effort coinciding with the presidential campaign, Nesfield will try to mobilize a consortium of bloggers to "crash through" what he calls "the information blockade" created by U.S. media. His aim, he says, is to "help educate the public about the facts of Hillary Clinton's misconduct as presented in Paul v. Clinton."
As WND reported, a California appeals court has set oral arguments for an appeal of Sen. Clinton's dismissal from a $17 million fraud case in which her husband already is a defendant.
Along with ruling whether the New York Democrat should also be a defendant in the case, the court will be asked to decide whether she committed a felony by soliciting campaign contributions of more than $1.2 million.
As WND has reported, Paul claims the former president destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which Clinton promised to promote the firm in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.
Nesfield, a former Wall Street trader, drew wide attention when he assisted then-New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in an investigation of a mutual fund scandal in 2004 that cost investors more than $1 trillion.
Nesfield developed an interest in Paul's case after becoming an investor in Stan Lee Media in 2000. He recently brought together a group of former investors in the company to reconstitute it for the purpose of exposing actions that led to the company's downfall. The company, under Nesfield's leadership, has filed a $5 billion suit on behalf of the investors against Marvel Entertainment, claiming Stan Lee Media co-owns Marvel's superhero characters, including Spider-Man, X-Men and the Incredible Hulk. He also alleges fraud by company officials who, he believes, made Paul a scapegoat.
Paul is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing his control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held Stan Lee Media stocks. He also was cited for certain transactions in mid-November 2000 to keep the stock from losing value. Nesfield asserts after his examination of the case that federal prosecutors never should have proffered charges against Paul. He contends Paul's actions were done only to save the company from collapse.
Self-financed
Nesfield says his new foundation is self-financed, with no support from outside sources, including the Republican Party.
The father of seven children, he describes himself as a traditional Catholic from a family of left-leaning union organizers. He says he has voted only once, choosing President Bush in the 2004 campaign.
His foundation also is sponsoring the first-ever documentary on Sen. Clinton, "Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v Clinton," which uses more than five hours of exclusive home videos of the Clintons made by Paul.
The foundation website features a trailer for the upcoming film.
Nesfield says the filing of a third fraudulent Federal Election Commission report related to the Hollywood gala is the most damning evidence against Clinton, followed by her use of California's anti-SLAPP law to remove herself from Paul's case.
As WND reported, the FEC fined a committee that helped fund Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign for filing reports that failed to account for Paul's massive donations.
Clinton was dismissed from Paul's fraud suit April 7, 2006, by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz on the basis of the state's anti-SLAPP law, which, under the First Amendment, protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns. Paul's legal team argues Sen. Clinton violated the federal code and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.
Nesfield contends that as a presidential candidate, Clinton should subject herself to the rule of law and publicly declare she doesn't fear the case, rather than invoking the anti-SLAPP statute and leaving an air of doubt.
"Why avail yourself of that if you were not guilty," Nesfield asked. "If you're not guilty, let him bring all the charges; if there's no merit, you don't need any escape provisions."
_______________________
Group to 'Truth Boat' Hillary
Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.
Copyright 1997-2007 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.
]]>
Here is something to think about. Democratic Presidential candidates are coming to Republican dominated States and raising funds for their national campaigns.
Here is the thought you supposed to contemplate: Candidates like Hillary Clinton are coming to States (in my case Oklahoma) that there is no chance of winning that State’s Electoral Votes.
JRH
***************************
The Hillary Factor
Gary Jones
Chairman, OK GOP
June 18, 2007 Email
OK GOP Website
It's June 18th, and this is my first post on Hillary Clinton. Something tells me it won't be my last.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in Oklahoma City last week for a fundraising reception where she took in over $282,000. That is a lot of money for a candidate with little to no shot of turning Oklahoma into a blue state in 2008.
That said, Republicans should be on notice. The Clintons have a well-oiled political machine that will stop at nothing in their pursuit of wealth and power.
It's hard to trust a candidate who said, "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security …" and then just a few years later votes against additional funds for our troops in Iraq. Even Democrats have questioned her vote. Sen. Biden said recently that Senator Clinton’s "no" vote "absolutely, positively, unquestionably" could have put U.S. troops at additional risk.
This is just one of many political votes Hillary has made in the Senate. She trusts polls, not the pulse of the American people. She's certainly out of touch with conservative Oklahoma voters on a number of issues, from abortion to socialized healthcare.
While Hillary Clinton may come to Oklahoma to fill her pockets with campaign contributions from the likes of Mike Turpin, she stands little chance of getting what really matters: the votes of the majority of Oklahomans come November 2008.
The Oklahoma Republican Party
4031 North Lincoln Blvd. | Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate Committee
© 2007 Oklahoma Republican Party
]]>
Here is something from the Patriot Post written by Mark Alexander about Hillary Clinton. This is something every Conservative Republican should read. For that matter if there are truly any moderate Democrats out there, they should be aware of fringe Left Hillary’s plan for America.
Below is just an excerpt of the Hillary exposé on the June first Patriot Post. There are many more nuggets of Conservative tidbits you would be interested in.
JRH
*********************************
Hilrya Rodhamovich Clintonov’s economic plan
Mark Alexander
The Patriot Post
Patriot Post Vol. 07 No. 22 | 1 June 2007
Demo-gogue presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton gave a little-noticed stump speech this week that should’ve sent up countless red flags.
By now, all of us know about Clinton’s re-warmed plans for socializing medicine, regulating healthcare services and providers and centralizing government control of about ten percent of the U.S. economy.
This week, however, Clinton went national with her classist “it takes a village” model, claiming that free-enterprise Capitalism is the root of all evil.
In a speech on “shared prosperity,” she proclaimed that it’s time to replace the conservative notion of an “ownership society” and economy with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity, alleging that the current system is really an “on your own” society that increases the income gap between “poor” and “rich” Americans.
Now, if Clinton is implying that individual initiative, self-reliance, responsibility and ingenuity—the very foundation of free enterprise—are the keys to creating wealth, then she is right. If she is implying that dependence upon the state and redistribution of income creates poverty, then she is right here, too—but that was not her message.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she went on. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
In a quintessential example of Clintonista doublespeak, Hillary outlined her economic fairness doctrine: “There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”
So, according to Ms. Clinton, free markets work best when they’re constrained by the right government policies. In other words, free markets work best when they’re not free.
Apparently Hillary has also been smoking Fidel’s hand-rolled cigars. How else are we to account for her failure to recall that centralized economies, like that of the former Soviet Union, are doomed to fail and have cost millions of lives along the way?
Of course, Clinton’s allusion to “rules” is Demo-code for taxation, which, as we know, is often the forcible transfer of wealth from one group to another. This taxation, in turn, creates reliable political constituencies for Democrats. As George Bernard Shaw once noted, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.”
Clinton’s economic plan is nothing more than a contemporary remake of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s class-warfare proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”
In fact, Roosevelt’s “principle” was no more American than Clinton’s. It was a paraphrase of Karl Marx’s Communist maxim, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” paradigm shift, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”
Echoing that sentiment was perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas): “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
No irony was spared in another interview this week, when Hillary Clinton was asked about the enormous wealth that she and Bill have amassed since their co-presidency. Clinton replied, “My husband and I never had any money. Now suddenly we’re rich. I have nothing against rich people.”
“Never had any money”? Spare me. She and Bill were long ago cashing in on commodity futures and real-estate deals. Still, the wealth they have accumulated in recent years must make those good ol’ days seem Spartan by comparison.
Hillary claims that if elected, she will “hit the restart button on the 21st century and redo it the right way.” I checked, and the Clintons were in the White House the first year of the 21st Century. Did they push the wrong button then?
Only when the Clintons voluntarily surrender for redistribution all their assets to the U.S. Treasury will I then consider her economic views with at least the sincerity afforded one who is not a complete hypocrite. In the eternal interim, her Socialist “we’re all in it together” claptrap should be considered a perilous hazard to prosperity for all.
ABOUT: America's most widely read Internet-based publication, The Patriot Post, is a
highly acclaimed journal advocating individual liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.
The Patriot Post is crafted by a
national editorial team headed by Mark Alexander and serves as a hard-hitting rebuttal to contemporary political, social and mainstream media protagonists on the Left. It is written for those who seek a brief, informative and entertaining analysis of the week's most significant news, policy and opinion. This comprehensive synopsis of reliable information is drawn from reputable media, research and advocacy organizations and published in three parts each week: Monday's Patriot Brief, Wednesday's Patriot Chronicle and Friday's Patriot Digest.
The Patriot Post's readers include high-level policymakers in the executive and legislative branches, leaders in state and local government, key thinkers in the community of conservative research and academic policy organizations, and, most important, ...MORE
The Patriot is a publication of Publius Press, Inc. Copyright
© 1981-2007 Publius Press, Inc.
]]>