Bill Clinton is upset by proposed laws in Florida and New Hampshire. Those laws would not allow people from other states, who happen to be attending college in these two states, to register to vote in the states. The law would require them to vote in their home states.

Clinton likens this to Jim Crow laws. This is nothing more than rhetoric designed to inflame the issue, which really should be a non-issue.

The members of our military who are stationed in a state other than their state of residence are not allowed to register to vote in the states in which they are stationed. They use a little thing called an absentee ballot. They request one, fill it out, and send it in. Then Democrats work really hard to have them discounted.

College kids from all states should be required to do the same thing. This IS the reason we have an absentee ballot process.

What Clinton fails to understand (as do many Democrats) is that voting requires a bit of personal responsibility. Now I know Democrats are not big on personal responsibility (and one only needs to look at Clinton to see that) but it is required nonetheless.

If college students can’t request an absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it in then they do not need to vote. This is not an undue burden and it certainly does not rise to the level of Jim Crow.

What is it with Democrats and voting? Why do they claim ID requirements will disenfranchise people when the very people they claim will be disenfranchised need IDs to collect from the many government programs from which they benefit?

Why is it some kind of burden for people to fill out an absentee ballot if they will not be home on election day?

This all requires people to be responsible for their vote. If they can’t do that then they do not need to vote.

Hell, will we have to spoon feed them next to ensure they eat properly?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Robert Byrd of West Virginia died earlier this week and was eulogized on Friday. Byrd had a long career in the Senate and directed billions of taxpayer dollars to his state so he could get everything named after him. They might rename the state after him by the time it is all said and done.

One thing that happens when people have long public lives that are controversial is that their friends try to whitewash the history or rewrite it. Bill Clinton did this when he indicated that Byrd had a fleeting association with the KKK. Byrd had more than a fleeting association. He was also, contrary to what is NOW being reported, in the Klan long enough to break in his sheets.

Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while he was in his 20s and 30s. This is contrary to his claim of losing interest after a year and not paying his dues any longer. We also know that Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. This is not something he would have been put into immediately. It takes time to be appointed to these things so it is unlikely that he had only a fleeting association with the KKK.

This is how liberals like Bill Clinton rewrite history. They and their allies in the media, those who never held the racist views of Byrd against him because he is a liberal, whitewash the facts.

People like Clinton claim there was a fleeting association and we are supposed to believe that it was solely because Byrd wanted to get elected (as Clinton claims).

If he did this only to get elected (which is moronic to even suggest) then why would we want him in office? The implication from Clinton is that Byrd was not some foaming at the mouth racist and only joined the KKK in order to get the votes of all those people who were. If this is the case he is no better than they and anyone who would join a hate filled racist group just to get elected is not worth having in office (though one could argue that joining the Democrat party amounts to joining a hate filled racist group in order to get elected).

And if we are to believe that Byrd did not join because he is a racist but only to get elected then why did he say so many racist things? Why did he oppose Civil Rights Legislation? Why did he lament that we needed a resurgence of the KKK (well after that year he supposedly became disinterested)? [Wikipedia]

Supporters of Byrd (liberal apologists) will claim that Byrd apologized for this and was truly sorry. While it is true that Byrd has apologized there is no indication that he actually meant it. How do we know, as Bill Clinton might suggest, that the only reason he apologized was so he could get reelected? How do we know he actually repented?

Late in his life he advised young people wanting to get in politics not to get the albatross of the KKK around their necks. He never denounced the KKK in the advice, he only indicated that membership in it would harm a political career. Later in his life he used the word “white nigger” on television to refer to poor white people and nary a word was said by the same people who demanded Don Imus be fired for saying “nappy headed hos”. What would posses a person who repented for his racist past to use such a word? We know he got away with it because he is liberal but why would he even use it?

Perhaps Byrd was truly serious and he had changed his ways. I know people who were racist and who later in life realized they had been wrong all along. It happens and maybe this is true with Byrd.

However, it is not right to sugarcoat or whitewash his past in an effort to rewrite history or give legitimacy to what he did. Byrd was in the Klan longer than he led us to believe and longer than Clinton’s assertion of a “fleeting association” and Byrd was certainly a racist much longer than he was in the Klan. Regardless of what the KKK speculates or Bill Clinton says, the history is there and it suggests a different story.

And it suggests that saying Robert Byrd had a fleeting association with the KKK is like saying Bill Clinton had a fleeting association with sexual misconduct.

The thing that works out best is that Byrd is no longer in the Senate so his sorry butt will not have to be abused to get votes. I did not like him but it was pathetic to see him wheeled around in a snowstorm at midnight just to have enough votes to pass something.

Be kind of funny if that is what killed him…

Never surrender, never submit.

Wow, I hope the use of the word target in the title does not cause progressives to become apoplectic. I would not want them to get visions of violence and start having fits about how language might incite people to do bad things. Not to worry little libs, the only violent people are on your side and the radicals in Islam.

Feminism is a movement that started a long time ago when women burned bras and demanded to be treated the same as men. Then when they were in the workplace and subject to listening to men talk they filed suits for harassment. The radical part of that movement has been largely associated with liberal women and their love the one you’re with, I can do it better, don’t hold that door for me attitudes. I bet the founders of that movement wish they had kept those bras so that their navels would not be between their breasts.

Women demanded equality. A noble cause to be sure but anything can be carried to extreme. I hold the door for people behind me no matter who they are and I have never had another man tell me he did not need me to hold a door for him. I can’t say the same about a few women I have encountered along the way. The problem is that some of these very people who demand the equal treatment whine when they get it.

Sarah Palin is a person who unites a lot of people. She either unites conservatives who agree with her or she unites the liberal/progressives who oppose anything she says and are afraid of her because she gets attention and she can influence races involving their beloved candidates. They claim not to fear her but they go out of their way to lie about her, attack her and her family, and to attack anything involving her. They do this because she scares them.

So Palin has set her sights on several Democrats in the upcoming election. She is working on getting them defeated and they don’t like that too much. Yes, several of the ones she has picked to defeat are women and they are not too happy about it.

Now it makes sense to say they are not happy. No one would be happy about being targeted for defeat but these women are upset because she is attacking other women. They feel that women in Congress get along pretty well regardless of party and that Palin, a conservative feminist, is not doing the feminist movement any good by going after the sisterhood of women. You got that? They are upset because she is going after women who have worked so hard to make it in a man’s world and that is just terrible. Women should not treat each other this way, boo, hoo.

Perhaps these women would care to chime in on how well the women in Congress get along and demonstrate how well Michele Bachmann is treated by Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has made Bachmann the number 1 target of the Dems so I don’t see much love and cooperation there. Certainly there is not as much as the Fem-Dems claim.

Let me help them out. Listen up ladies, you all wanted equal treatment and this is what you are getting. Palin has a number of males on her list so you are treated the same as any other Democrat who needs to be removed from office regardless of sex. It is your equal treatment so quit your whining. If you don’t like it then work hard to stop it and work hard to get reelected. Work hard to dispute what Palin and her supporters will say about you and your record. Run on your abilities and your leadership. If what you have is good then you should be reelected.

Whining about another woman targeting you is not effective and does little for the feminist movement you claim to defend. It makes you look like the weaker sex. It makes it look as if you can’t handle the same heat as the men. It makes it look as if you want it both ways, equality but special treatment when it benefits you.

Buck up ladies because Sarahcuda has you in her cross-hairs.

Oops, there I go again with that talk that Bill Clinton thinks could incite violence. Funny Clinton’s name came up.

The feminist reaction to his antics helped them lose a lot of credibility.

Perhaps they secretly wanted treatment equal to Monica’s…

Never surrender, never submit.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not a fan of taxing the rich more to pay our bills. The wealthy in this country pay most of the bills and suffer the biggest burden for the spending of our government while 47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes and many of those get back money they never paid in (redistribution of wealth). Progressives are big on having the rich pay the bills and they work hard every day to raise taxes on the wealthy but only on the wealthy who are not politicians. The political class thinks the taxpayer should foot the bills for them as well.

Case in point, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2008 and she lost to Barack Obama. Clinton amassed a lot of debt during that time and has yet to pay all of it off. She still owes just over three-quarters of a million dollars. The Clintons have over 100 million dollars and Bill earns at least $250,000 each time he gives a speech but they have decided that they should not write the check for her debt even though it would not dent their personal fortune. Hillary’s campaign still has over 600 thousand dollars in the bank so she could settle a large part of this debt with money that was already donated (and pay the rest out of her personal fortune) but the Clintons do not want to do it that way.

By 2007, seven years after leaving the White House, the Clintons had earned a combined $109 million (£73 million) through speaking engagements and bestselling memoirs. Even so, apparently they would prefer American voters to settle Mrs Clinton’s remaining $771,000 debt rather than paying it themselves. Times Online UK

Instead, they want voters to pay off the debt for them. Bill Clinton is offering a day with him in New York to a person selected from those who donate to settle Hillary’s debt. People are urged to donate as little as $5 to get a chance to be picked to spend the day with Bill. This is reportedly the second time such an offer has been made (I guess he is not as hot a commodity as he thought) as Bill works to get others to pay his debt.

This is typical of progressives. They love to spend money but they do not like to pay the bills with their own money. They would rather get money from others to pay their bills.

When Bill was president and, later, Hillary a Senator, they loved taxes and making the rich pay. Bill Clinton said he did not feel he was taxed enough (though he has not sent more money to the government, which he could do) and he and his wife love the idea of taxing the rich to pay the bills. They just don’t want rich people to have to pay the bills if they are the rich people in question.

I have a suggestion for the Clintons that would erase their campaign debt.

Take the money the campaign has in the bank and add it to enough of your personal wealth to pay the bill. Then write a check to pay it off.

You get the responsibility of paying your own bills, your creditors get their money, and the people do not foot the bill for what you spent.

Progressives love to spend other people’s money.

Never surrender, never submit.

Former President Bill Clinton was taken to the hospital after suffering chest pain. Doctors discovered a blocked coronary artery and opened it via angioplasty and then placed a stent to keep it open. Clinton is reported to be up and walking and visiting with family.

The prayers of the Big Dog family go out to Mr. Clinton and his family. We pray he has a speedy recovery and is home soon.

Source: ABC News

In October 2003 Sandy Berger, former Clinton National Security Adviser, stole classified documents from the National Archive. There is no doubt he stole them because he stuffed them down his pants. He stole the documents to cover up any missteps taken by him and Clinton with regard to our security. Berger did not want the documents discovered during all the 9/11 investigations.

He was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, a misdameaner because it was determined he only took copies and that the documents were backed up on a hard drive.

Today it was announced that a hard drive containing a terabyte of information from the Clinton years is missing from the National Archives. The drive contains sensitive information as well as personally identifying information such as Social Security Numbers.

The Inspector General states the drive was stolen sometime between October 2008 and March 2009 after it was left unsecured in an area that is accessed by any number of people including visitors.

Did Sandy Berger visit the Archives during that time frame? Perhaps he was not satisfied with stealing copies and wanted the electronic version as well.

Can you imagine him meeting up with Bill Clinton after stuffing the hard drive down his pants?

CLINTON: Hey Sandy. Is that a hard drive in your pants or are you just happy to see me?

Bill Clinton was on ABC’s Good Morning America for an interview. He discussed John McCain suspending his campaign to address the financial crisis and that he believed McCain asked for the debate postponement in “good faith.” Clinton also took a swipe at Obama by stating that he knows McCain is not afraid of a debate because he has asked for more and indicated that he wanted ten or so earlier on. This was in reference to the invitation from McCain to Obama to participate in 10 Town Hall style debates throughout the Summer. Barack Obama, the candidate who claims he is ready to debate or “that is a debate I am ready to have” decided not to participate. In fact, it has been 113 days since McCain extended the invitation. It is amazing that the guy who has not accepted that offer is now very anxious to debate.

Anyway, Clinton was asked [with regard to the financial crisis] “A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats say this came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans, we had nothing to do with this, Nancy Pelosi saying that she signed the 99 Graham Bill, she knew what was going on with the SEC, these are all sophisticated people, is that playing politics in this situation?”

The question, in and of itself was amazing coming from a member of the media wing of the Democratic party but Clinton’s response was even more amazing:

Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit [plays politics]. I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… [emphasis mine] See the video here

He then goes on to talk about the uptick rule. I know that Clinton is using this forum to absolve himself by saying that he was trying to put standards in place but he clearly stated that the Democrats resisted efforts by Republicans to put tighter standards in place which is what I, and others, have been saying.

It looks like Bill Clinton is still not happy with the way his party treated him and his wife. It is evident that he is not happy with Obama or with the idea of campaigning for him as evidenced by his refusal to dump on McCain and Palin, his agreement with McCain of the debate issue (and the swipe at Obama for not participating in the Town Hall debates), and his decision to take off [from campaigning] for the Jewish holidays (Clinton is not Jewish).

The more people pay attention the clearer it will become that while everyone shares in the blame, the Democrats caused this mess by blocking tighter controls on their money machines.

I rarely agree with Bill Clinton and I think he was an average president but he is a smart man and has been good to his party. The fact that he even said this is an indication that he is not happy with the Democrats.

I think he and Hillary will vote for McCain.

Two items today in the news that serve only as a reminder of that which is already known by thinking people but denied by those who live with the disease of liberalism.

The first is a story that reports an Islamic group has claimed responsibility for the terror attacks in India:

An obscure Islamic group claimed responsibility for a series of synchronized explosions that killed at least 45 people in western India, warning of “the terror of Death” in an e-mail sent to several television stations minutes before the blasts. My Way News

Most terror attacks are by Islamic groups, obscure or otherwise. Sure, there have been acts of terror committed by individuals not associated with any group much less Islam. These people are the exception rather than the rule. When one hears of a terror attack Islam is the first thought because the majority of terror attacks have been committed by that cult. The fact that an Islamic group is taking credit for the India terror attacks should come as no surprise. CAIR might try to convince us that Islam is not a violent cult but CAIR supports terror and defends terrorism.

The second item is conformation of an item that everyone with a brain already knows but that Clinton supporters have been denying for years. Anytime someone mentions that Clinton’s inaction and cowardice led to 9/11 there is always an outcry that it is a tactic to just blame things on Clinton and that it was not true especially since it happened on Bush’s watch. Well, now bin Laden’s driver has confirmed that Clinton is to blame for 9/11:

The United States could have killed bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996, Hamdan told his interrogators. They could have killed him after al Qaida’s 1998 twin bombings at the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Or after the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, at the port of Aden in Yemen, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead.

Instead, ”Bin Laden was emboldened.” So he struck with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leaving nearly 3,000 dead. McClatchy

This information will only come as a surprise to those who still think Clinton handled things wonderfully and that he was a great president. People who saw nothing wrong with what Sandy Berger did will still defend the pervert in chief and will claim it is a lie and a distortion of the truth. The Clinton folks, including Bubba himself, had a cow over the movie The Path to 9/11. Clinton called it “lies” even though it was accurate and supported by the facts. ABC backed down and changed part of the movie. Now we have bin Laden’s driver confirming that it was all true.

Bill Clinton’s cowardice and refusal to get bin Laden caused 9/11. Remember this in November. We tried the Democrat’s plan for national security and it gave us an attack on our soil that killed 3000.

If you value your life, don’t vote Democrat.

I wrote yesterday about the public meeting between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Unity New Hampshire. I believe that Obama needs Clinton voters and Clinton needs Obama money and outside of that they have no use for each other. There are those who claim they are friends but I think that associates would be a more apt description and now that Hillary, who believes the presidency is her birthright, has been beaten by Obama, she has no use for him and anyone associated with him except to get her debt paid.

I also pointed out that Bill Clinton was not happy with the results and that he would not actively support Obama. If he did do anything for Obama it would not be with the enthusiasm he would have had if Hillary had won. He wants Obama to lose so Hilary can run in 2012.

There is a story out in the Telegraph UK that indicates Bill Clinton is still extremely bitter (does he cling to religion and guns) and that he continues to be condescending toward Obama and says Obama cannot win. There are reports that Clinton, who is upset that his reputation suffered, has shocked friends by his blatantly bitter attitude. Mr. Clinton reportedly said, to his friends, that Obama would have to “kiss my ass” if he wants his support. Clinton seems to have this thing about people’s lips being below his waistline.

We have heard that Bill Clinton holds a grudge (as does his wife) a long time and that they can be ruthless to those who are seen as disloyal to them. There were a lot of old Clinton people who jumped on the Obama bandwagon early on and I know that irritated them to no end. Bill Richardson was one who Bill found particularly upsetting. If Hillary ever makes it to the White House then there are a lot of people who will have absolute hell to pay.

It was amazing to see how so many people who thought the Clintons walked on water threw them overboard so quickly in order to latch on to the empty suit. The Clintons have a hit list of people who need political payback and they cannot wait to unleash their fury.

Given the number of former Clinton supporters who jumped ship early, I imagine Obama might have to get in line to give that kiss.

If there is anything in politics that rings hollow it is a politician telling people to tell the truth. It is particularly disturbing that lying to Congress carries a five year jail term yet Congress lies to us, their employers, all the time. Most disturbing of all discussions of the truth is when Bill Clinton admonishes people and demands that they tell the truth. Given Bill Clinton’s inability to tell the truth, one would wonder why he demands it of others.

At a speech Bill Clinton lashed out at pro life people in the crowd. One person in particular, seems to have riled the former president. Clinton is heard admonishing the person and then says “Tell the truth, tell the truth. You want to make criminals out of women and their doctors.” He then goes on to say that is what pro life people want but will not say because it is not politically tenable. Of course, he then goes on to tell how Hillary has done the most to limit abortions.

Any time Bill Clinton yells “tell the truth” I wonder where his head is. I assume it is in a body cavity that has the aroma of E. coli and that the fumes are clouding his ability to think. Clinton does not know what the truth is. He has been caught in one lie after another and he and his wife believe that they should lie, lie, lie and deny, deny, deny. If they get caught they will have watered down the charges sufficiently by then. There is no way to deny Clinton is a liar. He lied on national TV and he admitted to that lie. He was convicted of lying under oath so the public record is pretty clear on the issue.

In addition to his blatant hypocrisy, Clinton makes accusations that smack in the face of reality. No one wants to make women and doctors criminals. What people want is to outlaw abortion. This issue was decided by the SCOTUS and they got it wrong. Those who support abortions like to point the decision out but forget that somehow the Court was able to find the word abortion in the Constitution. It is not there and it never has been. The same people who claim that abortion is a Constitutional right are the ones who want to ban guns even though the “right to keep and bear arms” is contained in the Constitution (don’t let them fool you with their pro gun talk while campaigning, they oppose gun ownership).

Regardless, abortion is not an issue that should have ever risen to the federal level. This is a state issue and should have stayed at the state level. However, outlawing abortion is not a matter of trying to make any person a criminal. It is designed to make the act illegal. If a woman and her doctor decided to conduct an abortion they would be guilty of breaking the law just as doctors who disclose protected health information are guilty of violating the law. No one ever claimed that enacting HIPAA was an attempt to make doctors criminals. Laws are designed to place limits on the acts the people of a society may engage in. Speed limits are designed to keep people driving at a safe speed but no one suggests that enacting speed limits is an attempt to make all drivers criminals. Certainly, no woman is ILLEGAL because Hillary told us that while pandering for votes.

The debate over whether an unborn child is a blob of cells or a life is ongoing and it is a debate for another post. Suffice it to say that after conception, the “product of conception” has human DNA. The Bible tells us that the life is in the blood; blood begins to flow about 14 days after conception. Regardless of how science and theology debate this issue, one thing is certain; politicians have already weighed in and told us that an unborn child is a human being. They did this when they passed laws that allowed them to charge an assailant with two crimes when a mother and her unborn child are injured or killed. Scott Peterson was charged with two murders when he killed his pregnant wife.

Bill Clinton and his band of merry thieves are entitled to believe what they want and there are those who still worship the ground this cretin walks on. He will never lose credibility with a certain crowd no matter how much he lies and no matter how much he demands others tell the truth. He is a typical liberal who believes the rules do not apply to him but by God you had better follow them. The Clintons are certainly entitled to believe in abortion and they are free to believe that a product of conception is worthless. I know that they are both products of conception and I find them to have no value.

When I see Bill and Hillary Clinton I wish their mothers had believed in abortion and exercised that option. They are good examples of why some animals eat their young.