Hillary Clinton Involved in More Illegal Wiretapping
Hillary Clinton was involved in illegal wiretapping, and I don’t mean this. What I am referring to now is this story in which Hillary committed domestic spying, so to speak, on Republican rivals while they talked about bringing yet another of her husband’s mistresses forward.
The explosive accusation is that, back in 1992, staffers for the Clintons intercepted the frequency of a cell phone conversation in which political rivals were discussing the possibility of bringing forth another woman who had had “sexual relations” with Bill. Hillary is said to have listened to the conversation, which, by that time, was against the law.
We know that the Clinton’s are only married for political gain, and that Hillary knew about all these affairs and didn’t care. We can also see by that statement above that she was illegally wiretapping her rivals not to find out about an affair, but to try and stop it from going public for political reasons.
A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to our conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.”
We will see if the Republicans have the stones to go after her on this, even if they do we won’t hear much about this in the mainstream media. This is another reason why the liberals are trying to shut down talk radio. It is the last refuge for conservatives to find out about these stories, if it is shut down it will effectively end any chance of the people finding out about Democrat scandals such as this.
If the allegation of listening in on an enemy’s phone conversation was true, this would, indeed, make her something of a hypocrite. In fact, it would make her a criminal, just as Verizon may yet be found to have broken the law. So, the obvious question is, why hasn’t law enforcement looked into the matter?
I think that answer is obvious to everyone. Nothing will come of this, nothing ever does when it involves the Clinton’s, but I can still hope.
Maine School to Offer Birth Control to 11 Year Old Students
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a Maine School would offer free birth control to 11 year old students after this controversial field trip to planned parenthood sponsored by a New Hampshire group for middle school students. But I still find it disgraceful.
Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School’s health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.
The proposal would build on the King Student Health Center’s practice of providing condoms as part of its reproductive health program since it opened in 2000, said Lisa Belanger, a nurse practitioner who oversees the city’s student health centers.
If the committee approves the King proposal, it would be the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to some students in grades 6 to 8, said Nancy Birkhimer, director of teen health programs for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. Most middle schoolers are ages 11-13.
Of course, that is not the end of it.
Although students must have written parental permission to be treated at Portland’s school-based health centers, state law allows them to seek confidential health care and to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive, Belanger said.
Naturally the parents don’t have to be informed about what their daughters are up to. We wouldn’t want the parents to have any say over what activities their 11 year old daughters are able to participate in. Maybe we should teach them about oral sex while we are at it as a form of birth control. President Clinton taught us that oral sex wasn’t sex didn’t he?
“I’m personally fine with it, but I know some parents might not be,” said Jennifer Southard, wife of City Councilor Edward Suslovic, who has two daughters at King. “I think information and access are good things. I would hope my children would come to me, but some students might not have that option.”
Why wouldn’t they have that option? Is it because the parents wouldn’t approve? We can’t have that now can we? If you say no to a child you damage him or her emotionally for life, they will never recover, according to liberal mindthink.
This is really a sad commentary on where morals are heading in this country.
al-Qaeda In Iraq is Devastated, Democrats also are Devastated
With the recent news here that al-Qaeda in Iraq has possible suffered irreversible and devastating losses the Democrats must really be feeling the pressure to end this war before we win it. They have committed so much time and effort into defeating us and handing victory to Iraq that they must also be devastated to hear that we are making major gains in Iraq.
The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.
Did that statement actually say victory in it? I must be seeing things as Harry Reid said the surge failed and the war is lost about four months ago. How can it be that with all the attempts made by the Democrats to surrender in Iraq that some people want to declare victory? The truth is the surge has failed in the Democrats eyes. It has failed to fail and hand the Democrats the victory of defeat they had so hoped for.
The deployment of more U.S. and Iraqi forces into AQI strongholds in Anbar province and the Baghdad area, as well as the recruitment of Sunni tribal fighters to combat AQI operatives in those locations, has helped to deprive the militants of a secure base of operations, U.S. military officials said. “They are less and less coordinated, more and more fragmented,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently. Describing frayed support structures and supply lines, Odierno estimated that the group’s capabilities have been “degraded” by 60 to 70 percent since the beginning of the year.
Does this mean that the man that the senate called a mouthpiece of George W Bush, and a liar, General Petraeus, was actually telling the truth and the Democrats are the ones full of shit. Who would have thunk it? The Democrats had to try and discredit General Petraeus because they were afraid of this type of news, and now they are getting it. This is what happens when you make a deal with the devil and side with our enemies.
The media has been very quiet in their reporting on Iraq lately and now we know why. Things have vastly improved over there. al-Qaeda is on the run, military deaths are down, as are civilian deaths, and this does not fit the template the media has laid out so they ignore it, but we dont. We want to win over there. We have to win over there.
Democrat candidates ran on government reform and reducing earmarks in last November’s election. However once in power it must just be to tempting to resist earmarks, as can be seen by some of the spending by presidential candidates.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton(D-N.Y.), who has rejected Obama’s attacks that she is too close to lobbyists, arranged a $3 million earmark this spring for the development of hydrogen-fuel and hybrid technology by General Motors, whose lobbyists include one of her biggest fundraisers.
Three million dollars to a company whose lobbyists include a huge Hillary fundraiser, how typical. It’s just a coincidence I’m sure.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose presidential campaign frequently attacks excessive spending by Congress, requested more than five dozen earmarks this year worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley and helping his state’s shrimp industry.
Ron Paul, the conservative constitutionalist, out requested Hillary in earmarks? Say it isn’t so. At least that theater he asked for the funds to rebuild will be comfortable for him when he is unemployed next year.
And what about the outsider himself, Barack Obama?
Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least that is a worthwhile cause to request money for, even if he has been stabbing these same soldiers in the back for all these years. But then you read about a connection.
The beneficiary of the Aug. 2, 2006, earmark from him and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) was undeniably close to home: the University of Chicago, where his wife, Michelle, worked as the university hospital’s vice president for community and external affairs.
Yet another strange coincidence. So much for the new open and honest congress cutting down on wasteful spending.
Read the Washington Post article here.
Hillary Clinton Flip Flops on Iran, Obama Attacks
Remember this statement from Hillary after one of the debates in which Obama said he would meet with Iran without any preconditions?
“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton was quoted in an interview with the Quad-City Times that was posted on the Iowa newspaper’s Web site on Tuesday.
Well that was then and this is now:
“I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading,” she said at an apple orchard.
FLIP FLOP. Naturally Obama is now questioning her change of viewpoint over to his side on this issue.
“Barack Obama will restore our place in the world by basing foreign policy decisions on consistent principles and not political calculation. That’s a change we need and change we can believe in,” said Leslie Miller, Obama’s New Hampshire spokeswoman.
Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman issued a statement trying to clarify her position.
Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later sought to clarify her comments, saying that while she believes in diplomatic engagement with Iran, “she does not agree with Senator Obama … that the United States president should precommit to meeting directly with Mr. Ahmadinejad.”
So I guess she now believes we should talk with Iran, just not with Ahmadinejad. What? Do you notice how often a spokesman has to clarify what Hillary really means? She has so many sides on every issue that she can’t even remember where she stands on anything.
Read the whole Fox News article here. Yes, it comes from Fox News, liberals beware.
Leading Meteorologist Calls Global Warming Ridiculous
Well, this is not a news flash, but Al Gore is full of shit. We have heard many meteorologists come out and discount the effects of man-made global warming. Scientists have found at least nine errors or exaggerations in his film “A Convenient Lie”, or whatever it is called. Now this article quotes one of the world’s most famous meteorologists who basically shoots down the whole theory of global warming being man-made.
ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize “ridiculous” and the product of “people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works”.
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
“The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures,” Dr Gray said.
He goes on to say something that I have been saying for a while. And that is our children are being taught as fact that global warming exists and is man-made. They are being indoctrinated into this liberal mindthink that we are destroying the planet at such a young age that they will know no other truth.
“We’re brainwashing our children,” said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. “They’re going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.”
“We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was,” Dr Gray said.
Unfortunately it will be too late in 10 or 15 years. No, not too late to save the planet, but too late to stop the liberals from taxing us to death in the name of saving the planet. If you are a regular reader here you know that I believe global warming is a political issue being used by the left in order to raise taxes, and not a scientific issue. I have written various posts in which scientist question the global warming theory, and this is just another post with another prominent scientist questioning Al Gore.
As I have written in the past, please stop and ask yourself ” Why is it that a politician is the leading advocate against global warming?” Because, like it comes down to with all politicians, it’s all about money. Show me the money.
He raises the point that during a cooler period on the earth there were more hurricanes than during a warmer period. Hurricanes seem to be blamed lately on global warming, so how can this be?
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
So why don’t more scientists come out against global warming? Dr Gray has a theory:
“It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,” he said. “But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.”
It’s all about the money.
Latest New Hampshire Primary Poll, Hillary, Romney Lead (10/14)
Here are the latest numbers, Hillary is pulling away. Romney still leads, Fred Thompson might want to actually visit the state if he wants support.
Hillary Clinton has a 21-point lead over fellow Democrat Barack Obama in New Hampshire, one of the first states to vote in the nominating process for the 2008 U.S. presidential election, a poll showed on Sunday.
In a poll by Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, 41 percent of likely Democratic voters support Clinton followed by 20 percent for Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Former Sen. John Edwards was third with 11 percent.
Among likely Republican voters, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had a slight lead with 26 percent support, followed by 20 percent for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and 17 percent for Arizona Sen. John McCain. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, a Hollywood actor who officially entered the race last month, had 10 percent support
In an odd little twist, while Romney leads the Republican race, most people believe Rudy has the best chance of beating the Democrat nominee.
The strongest Republican in the general election is Giuliani, the poll found.
“While Mitt Romney is ahead in the horserace, many New Hampshire Republican presidential primary voters think the betting money should be on Rudy Giuliani as the Republican most likely to beat the Democrat next November,” Marist said.
Cross-posted at Grizzly Groundswell
Last Sunday the New Hampshire Union Leader started an on-line survey that ran all week. Today the results were released, and to my surprise they are extremely exciting. The survey was called “The Massification of New Hampshire, is New Hampshire Becoming too much like Massachusetts?”
Nearly nine of 10 readers who participated in an online survey believe that southern New Hampshire is becoming more like Massachusetts — and most are not happy about it.
Eighty-four percent of the nearly 900 people who took part in the informal UnionLeader.com survey are concerned that the “traditional culture” of New Hampshire is changing as people move here from other states — including 63 percent who are “very” concerned. Only 10 percent were “not very concerned,” while six percent were “not concerned at all.”
The spread of the Nanny State is what seems to have most people upset. Here are some of the responses:
Name redacted, 56, said he supports the libertarian Free State Movement and is “disgusted with all the Nanny Staters” moving here
“We are becoming a ‘nanny’ state — our individual rights are being trampled on by left-wing liberals who know what’s best for everyone,” wrote Name redacted of Londonderry, 60, who moved here from the Bay State more than 20 years ago.
Name redacted, 54, another transplant, said New Hampshire is starting to look like its southern neighbor, “with no smoking laws, higher cig taxes and attempts at the seat belt laws too.
Name Redacted, 45, was among those who said politics is the biggest change. “Live Free or Die, open spaces and independent thinking is being replaced with We Know What’s Best for You, Let’s Build as Much as We Can, and the Politically Correct Way of thinking,” she wrote.
I find this survey to be very encouraging heading forward, hopefully people are beginning to realize the mistake from last November and are ready to take back our state from the liberal, hand-holding, know whats best for you, politicians.
I expected this poll to show people fed up with what is happening here, but what I find exciting about this survey is how many people are fed up. Almost 9 out of 10 surveyed believes New Hampshire is headed in the wrong direction. This was a survey of 900 people, which I believe is a rather large sample as polls and surveys go.
Here is a graph of the survey breakdown:
This survey will mean nothing unless the voter’s unhappiness drives them to the polls and we elect a governor other than John Lynch, who has quickly changed the face of New Hampshire in the wrong direction. It is time for a change, and that change needs to start at the top.
I have stated in the past that I thought New Hampshire would go through one more liberal election cycle before voters would see the light and change course. This survey has me more optimistic than ever before that we could take back New Hampshire in the next election cycle. I have to curb my enthusiasm, and not read too much into this survey. But it is great news indeed.
This does lead me to something I talked about in this post. And that is my perceived notion that Ron Paul is gaining some momentum in New Hampshire. In that post I said:
I started questioning myself on this, asking myself if I was crazy. How could the state which overwhelmingly in last November’s election voted for liberal, hand-holding, we know what’s best for you, ban everything that’s bad for you, nanny state politicians all of a sudden vote for Ron Paul? Ron Paul, who is perceived as a strict constitutionalist, and in favor of individual rights and a decentralization of the federal government. This seems to be the kind of candidate New Hampshire would shy away from, at least judging from the last election. Then I started thinking about the dynamics of last November’s election. Disgruntled Republicans didn’t show up to vote, an overwhelming amount of Democrats did vote, and Independents broke for Democrats. Independents in New Hampshire equal 40% of the voters, the largest block of voters. Could it be that those disgruntled Republican voters are even more disgruntled now that they see how their short-sighted no-vote protest has hurt the state? Could it be that they are so aggravated at the way New Hampshire has become liberalized that they are now doing a 180 and looking at a candidate such as Ron Paul?
I think that just the fact that someone like Ron Paul may be gaining any type of momentum in New Hampshire may be an indicator of how fed up New Hampshire voters are our new left way of thinking. Of course if Ron Paul ever did somehow win the nomination it would insure a Hillary Clinton presidency, we could win back the state and lose the country. But I don’t want to think about that right now. Right now I just want to think about the possibility that New Hampshire voters are fed up with the leadership in New Hampshire and are ready for a change.
Let us TAKE BACK OUR STATE.
Read the whole Union Leader article here.
Fred Thompson Versus Ron Paul in New Hampshire
Cross-posted at Grizzly Groundswell
I have been following the primary process rather closely and I believe I am seeing a trend in the voters of New Hampshire, or two trends actually. I am seeing the decline of Fred Thompson, and the rise of Ron Paul. I know this seems illogical, but let me try to explain the trends I am beginning to notice. There is no science here, and no polling, just my observations so take them for what you will. Read more…
George Washington University Punishes Conservative Victims in “Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week” Smear Campaign by Liberal Students
Yesterday I wrote this post about a conservative group at George Washington University who were targeted by liberals on campus with phony fliers which basically called the group a bunch of racists. The conservative group was hosting an event called Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and liberals couldn’t deal with the idea that there are dome Muslims who want to kill us, so they perpetrated a smear campaign against the conservative group.
Today the George Washington University administration is taking action, against the conservative group that was smeared. The Young America’s Foundation (YAF) is the conservative group who is the victim here. Liberal conservo-phobes posted a flier all around campus that said “HATE MUSLIMS? SO DO WE!!!”, along with other anti-Muslim remarks, the YAF did not put up these filers, however the administration is treating them as if they did.
Administrators at a university in Washington, D.C., are “on a rampage” against a conservative student group on its campus over fake anti-Muslim posters even though seven other students have said they were responsible for the fliers, a national organization charged on Wednesday.
“It’s obvious to anyone with a moment’s reflection that such fliers were created to fake an incident of hate where none exists, rather than contribute to a robust discussion regarding the threat of radical Islam,” said the conservative Young America’s Foundation (YAF) in a statement on the group’s Web site.
It appears as though the administration believes what the fliers say, so they want to ensure that the conservative group keeps the event under wraps. The administration and the conservo-phobes believe in the same ideals so they can use this to further their agenda of painting the conservatives as racists.
“GWU officials have glossed over the fact that someone on campus misrepresented a school-sanctioned club,” the YAF continued. “Instead, the school is cuddling up with the local Islamic groups to denounce the drummed-up incident of hate and force the Young America’s Foundation chapter to sign a statement condemning hate speech.”
Behling wrote on Monday: “Due to the inflammatory nature of today’s events, as a good faith effort on behalf of YAF, it is important that YAF draft a statement which states that you will not allow hate speech to be a part of any of YAF’s events, literature, written or verbal communication,” including Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will be held Oct. 22-26.
“This statement should also include your plan for preventing these things from happening, as well as the consequences for these things happening,” she added. “It is important that we have this document should any further incidents occur as we move forward.”
So because a liberal group claimed that the YAF were a bunch of racists, and in fact these fliers they posted amount to hate speech in my book, it is now up to the YAF to denounce hate speech. This leads me to believe that the school administration saw the fliers and immediately thought yeah, these conservatives are racists, they are hateful, we need to ensure they wont spew hatred across the campus, instead of condemning an act of bigotry against conservatism.
“GWU’s ire is being directed in the wrong place,” the YAF stated. “The university should be protecting the reputation of its students who were wrongfully maligned, rather than rewarding campus radicals who are always looking to suppress or distort conservative activism.”
Isn’t that the truth? We are at a crossroads in America. We need to stand up and be heard. If we allow the educators of our youth continue down a path where they put political correctness above the rights of the conservative students to be heard, the rights of Islamo-fascists and their liberal sympathisers above the voice of dissent we are finished.
You can read the article this post was based on here.
