Big Dogs House » Link Fest

Hillary Panders to ILLEGALS

Big Dog — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:01:09 +0000

Hillary Clinton is in Nevada and she is pandering to the ILLEGAL population. While touring a poor area she met with Hispanics who are down and out and not making very much money. Some guy yelled that his wife was ILLEGAL and Hillary replied that “no woman is illegal.”

Hillary was asked if she would give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS in two debates. The first one she flopped all over and gave two different answers. The second time she flat out stated “No!” Does this mean she will give licenses to women who are here illegally because she does not view them as ILLEGAL?

Is Hillary playing up the first woman to run ploy by trying to make people believe she is interested in women’s rights or that she views women differently than men? Did she discriminate by excluding men when she said that no woman was ILLEGAL?

Hillary Clinton will say anything to anyone to get elected. She knows that many women supported her in New Hampshire and that Hispanics are upset with the Republican Party because its members believe in the rule of law, something the Clinton crime family has had trouble with in the past. She breaks the law and has no problem pandering to others who do the same. She also knows that saying what she did makes more Hispanic women likely to vote for her.

Of course, she could have been giving them a veiled message that they could vote in the elections because she says they are not ILLEGAL.

Hillary is Satan.

Source:
Review Journal

Mona Charen of NRO Skewers Ron Paul

Big Dog — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:21:07 +0000

I am not a Ron Paul supporter but to be clear, I have not gotten on the bandwagon of any candidate. I need to see more before I take a decision as to whom I will support. I understand there is a big net roots campaign for Ron Paul of Texas. I have written in the past that I like most of Paul’s views on domestic policy but I have some real issues with his foreign policy especially with regard to the war on terror in Iraq. I just can’t get my hands around this idea that we caused the attack on 9/11.

However, I have found that Paul appears to be an honest man with strong devotion to his ideals. While I might not agree with all of them, I can see his is true to them and does not flip flop around like many other candidates. Mona Charen of NRO wrote a piece about Paul and in it I think she went out of bounds. She makes some good points but then likens him to some of the groups who happen to support him. She also took a stab at him because he received money from a person (or people) who have bad beliefs.

I do not think a politician has to give back money just because the donor has ideas that others do not like. This is not to say that candidates like Hillary Clinton should be able to keep money that was donated under questionable circumstances which border the realm of illegality (if they are not down right illegal). This goes for all candidates but when donors just happen to be people with whom others disagree it is unreasonable for anyone to expect them to return the money. The politician in question does not have to agree with the donor to accept the money.

Imagine if Clinton were required to give back money from the gay and lesbian or ILLEGAL immigrant support groups because others found their positions detestable? Of course Hillary agrees with the groups so that makes it easier but I imagine that she would accept money from any conservative group that donated it legally regardless of their positions. If the person wanted Hillary to win she would take their money no matter what positions they personally held as should any politician, so long as the donations are legal. Charen makes the leap that Neo Con (a term that more people than Paul use) is shorthand for the Jews. How many times have Democrats used that term and why have Jews not found it offensive?

There is a little battle going on and the Paul campaign sent a letter to clear up some of Charen’s assertions. Whether or not that will do any good is hard to say.

However, it might be helpful if the Paul supporters stopped inundating email in boxes with their ardent support for Paul. Ticking off the people who have the power to write widely read columns does not seem to be a smart course of action.

Charen’s Column
Paul Response

As always, please feel free to comment.

Veteran’s Day 2007

Big Dog — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:41:22 +0000

Today we celebrate Veteran’s Day though tomorrow is the day it will be observed. The United States is a great country because it has a history of fighting for what is right and for joining others in fights for what is right. Leading the charge throughout history is the American Military and the great men and women who serve in the armed forces.

There is no draft today and yet men and women step up to the plate to fight the war on terror and to prosecute our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women are unsung heroes who are often forgotten until some crisis comes up requiring tough people to do violence on behalf of the protected.

We have the greatest military in the world and, unlike other nations we do not go around conquering countries and taking what they have for our selves. We help them out in their fight and we help them rebuild. Japan and Germany were conquered and yet they prosper today as allies of the US. Many others have us to thank that they still have a native language and that they have not become the property of another, stronger, nation.

Today we thank the men and women who give all for people they do not know in order to make this world a better place. We honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow countrymen. I read this definition of a Veteran at a site this morning: (Big Dog Salute to GM Roper)

â€œA veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’â€ (Author unknown) Right in a Left World

Thank you veterans. May God bless you and keep you safe.

A Tip for Hillary and Her People

Big Dog — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:21:45 +0000

There was a big deal made yesterday about Hillary Clinton not leaving a tip when she stopped for a meal and campaign appearance at some diner. The waitress mentioned it in response to a story about Hillary using that waitress and her life experience in her next stump speeches. According to the report the comment was not made as a knock but mentioned as part of the interview. I don’t know if Hillary or her people left a tip or not and I don’t care. It would seem to me that Hillary would not be the one to handle such things. That is, after all, why she has staff following her around. Besides, the news report stated that Hillary’s meal was free so any tip would be added to the bill of the people with her. I would be more interested in seeing if she claimed the meal as a donation in kind. I would not have even given this a second thought except that the Hillary camp is refuting this story and in so doing they have told conflicting stories.

In a new website the campaign claims that it left a $100 tip. The new site, designed to dispel the myths put out in the media, was mentioned in the news but I have not visited it. It is funny that they would put up a site to dispel myths, as if we can believe what they write. Just because they write it, it must be true, at least in their world. The problem is that The campaign said it left a $100 tip that was added to the charge card of the bill. The receipt shows that only the total of the bill was paid (even the receipt the campaign produced). So a staff member went to the diner and told the waitress that a $100 tip was added to the charge card and when that was shown to be incorrect he said that a $100 bill was left. This uncertainty would lend credence to the claim of the staff that no tip was left. Additionally, when the waitress said that no one there got a tip the staffer gave two waitresses $20.

This could all be a mix up. The tip could have been left and pocketed by another employee though the waitress says her co-workers would not do that. Maybe they left it on the counter and another customer took it. Given how careless these people are with our money it is no stretch to believe that they would be this careless with donated money. It would have been a great PR move if they had ensured they gave the money to someone and it had been seen. All of this uncertainty and the subsequent money given leads me to believe that no tip was left. They really do not care about the little guy except when they want his vote.

I do not know if they left a tip and I don’t care. I am more focused on this mini cover-up of the incident. If they did not give a tip why not just admit that they thought someone had and send the employees a check or a gift? Why not just say it was an oversight, which can happen. Continuous harping on the “we left a tip” mantra draws attention to a non-issue and the differing stories cannot bode well for a candidate with a history of cover-ups and lies. If the tip is not on the credit receipt they cannot prove they left one even if they did so why not play this better instead of trying to paint regular workers as liars or criminals? That might not be the intent but that is how it can be seen just as the $20 given by the staffer can be seen as an admission that they are either unsure or did not leave a tip.

If they did not leave a tip making it right would be easy. If they did and cannot prove it then saying there must have been an oversight and leaving another tip would have solved the problem and showed people that the campaign can admit mistakes and make things right. When Hillary is raising millions of dollars, a $100 tip should not demand this much effort to make right.

As I stated, I don’t know if a tip was left. I would not be surprised if they did not leave one because of the attitude toward working people and the carelessness with other people’s money. However, I would also not be surprised if they did leave a tip and it was somehow not accounted for.

While this should not be an issue the glimpse into the world of Clinton spin and damage control should bring back memories of an administration that carried the same name.

Sources:
NPR 1
NPR 2
NPR 3

The Chinese Already Fund the Clintons, Why not Europe?

Big Dog — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:04:16 +0000

Robert Rubin is set to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. To some this is seen as some great thing because of his experience in the financial world. Given that he supports Democrats it was just a matter of who and given that he had misgivings about her ability to be elected as well as their past run ins it is likely that his endorsement came as a result of some arm twisting by his former boss, Bill Clinton. Interestingly, the article states:

Her husband will continue his bustling fund-raising pace on her behalf, meanwhile: he will headline two major events for her in New York in the next few weeks, as well as one in New Jersey next month. He will also host fundraisers for her in Dublin and London next weekend â€” receptions that could be especially lucrative given his popularity in both countries, especially Ireland, where he played a major role in the Northern Ireland peace process. New York Times

Forgetting that Dublin and London are not countries, why are they raising money in other countries? Why is foreign money being used to influence an American election? Will they discuss any fund raisers in China?

After all, that is where the Clintons get their money (just ask Bill about the 8 million for AK 47s).

Hillary’s Best is Always the Worst

Big Dog — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:55:25 +0000

Hillary Clinton stated today that she was not at her best [examiner.com] in the last debate, ya think? Despite what some people might think, she herself has admitted that she did not do OK. She indicated that she has answered thousands of questions and she has made clear her positions on everything and how she would pay for her programs. This, of course, is a flat out lie. Clinton has not been clear. There are a number of news articles from the past year that show she has taken one position in one location and another position in a different geographic location. He suggestion that she has been open about things is just plain BS and anyone with a thinking brain knows it.

Bill Clinton has refused to authorize the release of documents that would support Hillary’s claim that she gained her experience as First Lady. Let me repeat that for the uninformed, the uneducated, or the plain ignorant; Bill Clinton has done absolutely nothing to speed up the release of documents that have any bearing on the race. He asked that certain documents that related to what he did be released but he specifically said that the communication between him and his wife is not to be released.

These are the cold hard facts and while some Hillary sycophant could claim that it is not she who is holding up the process one would have to dispense with reality by believing that Hillary cannot get the documents released if she wants them released. She has Bill’s testicles in a lock box and in all reality he wants to get back in the White House as badly as she does. He wants the life that comes with living there and she has a strong desire to have her ego stroked. Therefore, I can only conclude that the papers that they refuse to release would damage her candidacy. There are things there that they do not want out in the public prior to the election for one reason and one reason only, they are harmful to the Hildebeast. Rest assured, if those papers made it look like Hillary walked on water without getting her ankles wet Bill would release them yesterday with her in tow to ensure they got out. Since word is they will not be released until well after the election [ABC] we can only conclude that they are hiding something. I mean, they have had eight years to get them ready for issue so the only two things holding it up are Bill and Hillary.

No folks, Hillary has not been straight forward and she has not been honest. Bill has been less than honest as well though none of this should surprise anyone. Bill claims to be working to have papers released quickly when he is actually impeding the process. Hillary says that she has been clear when she has not.

Hillary said she did not have her best night the other night. If she wins in 2008 the country will not be having a good night but that night will not go away. It will morph into a 4 or 8 year nightmare with Satan at the helm.

Response to Wildfires by Military not Hampered by Deployments

Big Dog — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:32:08 +0000

It did not take long for people to blame George Bush for the wildfires in California because of his [past] opposition to global warming and because of a general hatred of the man. People compare the response to the wildfires with the response to Katrina and there are those who believe that the wealthier Californians made out better than the poor folk in New Orleans. The fact is, all response starts at the local level and then rapidly involves state resources. The local responders put their plans into effect quickly in California and the state rapidly became involved. The National Guard responded proactively by moving planes equipped to fight fires closer to the action by placing them on training missions until they were requested and the official request could be initiated.

The state asked for help early and it got that help. Unlike the leaders of New Orleans and Louisiana, the leaders of California acted responsibly and did not wait for the federal government to swoop in to help. Had Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco acted as quickly and decisively there might have been a better outcome in New Orleans. I heard someone state, on one of the news shows, that the response of the military (especially the National Guard) was hampered because of the deployments of our reserves to the war on terror. The truth is, a very small portion of California’s National Guard members are actually deployed and those deployments did not hamper the efforts in fighting the wildfires. In fact, the military was in place and had to wait to assist because the system had to play catch up with other entities necessary for the military to assist.

In fact, the Defense Department was so aggressive in responding to the dozens of wildfires that scorched nearly 500,000 acres this week that military pilots and crews were in place and set to fly a full day before they were finally allowed to do so, McHale explained.

~snip~

Some 2,500 National Guard soldiers were deployed to help fight the fires, McHale said, as were 350 active duty and civilian Defense Department employees. An additional 17,000 National Guard troops were on standby for activation to the fire lines should they be needed, he said.

â€œThe military response to the wildfires in California was not inhibited in any way, to any degree, by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan,â€ McHale said. â€œThe capabilities that we needed in Southern California were fully available from our domestic inventory of resources, and those capabilities were made available as fast as was humanly possible.â€ [DOD News]

Proper leadership is necessary in response to any disaster and the leaders in California demonstrated how it should be done. While I certainly realize that the disasters in New Orleans and California were two completely different entities, I also have heard and read the complaints by people who compared the two events. There is this feeling that California fared better because of its demographics and that is simply not true. There are many ILLEGAL immigrants in the Southern part of California (who hope to find jobs rebuilding the place) so the poverty vs well off does not completely wash, though there were many more rich people affected in California than New Orleans. Additionally, wildfires progress differently than floods and are a different beast to tame all together but since people brought it up…

The overarching theme is that proper leadership in the time of disaster is key to providing the best possible outcome and California outclassed Louisiana in that arena. California leaders gave firm evacuation orders and people obeyed. New Orleans gave half hearted orders and did not enforce them and certain parts of the population did not take them seriously. People died because the leadership of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana failed the people who they were elected to protect.

Let us hope that Bobby Jindal can change the culture of corruption and welfare entitlement that is pervasive in Louisiana, particularly in New Orleans, and get that once great state back on its feet.

BTW, contrary to what people think, arsonists and not global warming, were to blame for the wildfires.

Others discussing similar items: Lost Paradise, Perri Nelson’s Website, , AZAMATTEROFACT, Right Truth, The Populist, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Jo’s Cafe, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Republican National Convention Blog, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.