Clinton Pulls Ad That was Full of Lies
Jan 24, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier that the Clinton mantra is that it isn’t illegal until they tell you it is and a variation of that can be used for the way they run their campaign. To the Clintons it is OK or non offensive until someone says it is. This is the case with a recent ad that the Clinton crime family was running in South Carolina. The ad was full of lies and half truths with regard to Barack Obama. A lot of people were very unhappy with the ad and the outright lies in it and these people were Democrats. The ad was pulled earlier today not long after it started running.
The Clintons will continue this approach and hope that something they do sticks. They will sling mud and if it causes backlash their way they will wipe off the mud and sling some from a different direction. Eventually they will find a handful that will stick to Obama and get people to question his candidacy. The first tactics involved Hillary crying and Bill attacking Obama the night before and election. The MSM is reporting that this tactic has gotten old with the Democratic faithful and some are beginning to look at Bubba in a new light. In Nevada it was claims of voter irregularities leveled by Bill Clinton even though the real intimidation was the actions of Clinton people.
Now that Bill has been warned by the elder party statesmen, they had to devise a new plan and that plan involved spreading lies about Obama. Fortunately, many in the party saw this for what it was and pitched a fit forcing the Clinton gang to remove the ad.
This is not the end. Obama leads in South Carolina by nearly 20 points even though Hillary had a double digit lead as late as last November. She is playing down SC but her campaign is actively trying to win it because they have invested quite a bit in the state. Obama led by double digits in New Hampshire and lost to the beast and it is quite possible he can lose again. It all depends upon how many illegitimate votes the Clintons can muster.
Regardless of the outcome, the Clintons will continue to throw mud all the while hoping some of it sticks. I guess they are not aware that if you throw enough mud you are left in a hole.
Related item(s):
Washington Post
Don’t Take Flight 93 to Mecca 1-23-2008
Jan 24, 2008 Flight 93
Nasser Rabbat, a Syrian professor of Islamic architecture at MIT, told the Park Service not to worry about the giant Mecca oriented crescent at the center of the Flight 93 Memorial. He said that since it does not point quite exactly to Mecca (it is off by 1.8°) it can’t be considered a proper mihrab (the central feature around which every mosque is built).
Liar. Many of the most famous mihrabs face as much as 20 or 30 degrees off of Mecca.
Here is another Rabbat deception:
Mosques are never in the shape of a crescent or a circle. This defeats the purpose of lining up the worshipers parallel to the Qibla wall (Mecca orientation), which usually translates into a rectangular shape, or sometimes a square. [From the White Paper released by the Memorial Project in August 2007.]
It is true that most mosques are rectangular, the more clearly to mark the direction to Mecca, but this is certainly not a requirement, given that the two most religiously significant sites in Islam are round mosques. Significant site #1 is the Sacred Mosque in Mecca:
Second most significant is the Mosque of Omar, also called the Dome of the Rock, on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, from which point Muhammad supposedly ascended into heaven:
Perhaps because of the prominence of these precedents, a small but significant number of mosques around the world follow the round model.
There is the Tun Abdul Aziz mosque built in Malaysia in 1975, referred to colloquially as the “Masjid Bulat,” or “round mosque.”
There is the new 5,000 person Arafat Mosque in Nigeria, which the architect claims is “the only round mosque in Africa,” but he is wrong. Another round mosque, Al Nileen, sits at the confluence of Blue and White Nile rivers in Khartoum:
[From Google Earth. Look up "alnileen mosque".]
Africa is also home to some older round mosques. Here is a round mosque from the Ivory coast. Similar mosques have also been found in Sierra Leone.
Here is a modern Russian mosque, laid out in shape of an eight point star.
There is even a famous round mosque right in the heart of the EU, at the northwest corner of the Parc du Cinquantenaire in Brussels.
There is a round mosque in Kuwait, a round mosque in Kadavu India, and probably many more.
At the Islamic architecture website Archnet, a Muslim architect (not a native English writer) explains the problem with round mosques:
… a circular mosque can not function well because a mousqe should have an oriantation to kibla and as we all know that a circle does not have an orientation, How can we know the kibla wall if it is a circle ?
This problem does not afflict Paul Murdoch’s mosque design for the Flight 93 memorial because Murdoch’s giant crescent does create an orientation. Face into the crescent to face Mecca, just as with a smaller size mihrab.
Geometrically, Murdoch’s Crescent of Embrace is just a gigantic Islamic prayer rug:
A Muslim prayer rug is a two dimensional mihrab, laid out to face Mecca, just as the Crescent of Embrace is.
Notice that to a person looking into the Flight 93 crescent, the irregularity of the outer arc of the crescent is not visible. The radial arbors are all behind the double row of red maples that line the walkway. The ends of the crescent are also well defined by the end of the walkway of red maples at the bottom and the end of the thousand foot long, fifty foot tall Entry Portal Wall on top. This is a perfectly comprehensible and recognizable Mecca direction indicator.
Rabbat’s comments to the Park Service do not even pretend to be objective. He lists “talking points” in defense of the crescent design without ever even pretending to weigh the merits of the case against the design.
Most obviously, Rabbat never considers the almost exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent as a grounds for concern, but limits his remarks to possible excuses for not worrying about this obviously worrisome fact. The same for all of his other talking points. He only even considers ways to absolve the crescent design.
In short, Rabbat is as overtly biased as he could possibly be, yet the Park Service has no qualms about this overt bias. Rabbat gives them the excuses for unconcern that they want and they eagerly embrace him. The Park Service investigation into warnings of an enemy plot was a total fraud.
Obama Needs to Go on the Offensive
Jan 23, 2008 Political
B. Hussein Obama has been on the defensive since former President bill Clinton came out attacking him. Obama has been forced to defend himself against half truths often conjured up at the last minute in order to sway primary elections. The Wall Street journal indicates that Obama is getting an education in Clinton. The WSJ relates:
One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton’s attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, “You gotta do what you gotta do.” WSJ
Obama is learning the hard way that the Clintons do what they “gotta” do regardless of what it is because to them, winning is everything. Right now Obama is facing a fierce Bill Clinton who is doing what he has to do in order to distort a record and smear a fellow Democrat. Those of us on the right like to see the fighting among Democrats but are also reminded of the terror reigned on this country during the eight years Clinton was president. For Democrats, it is indeed a sad day when John Edwards appears most presidential, or as he put it, the only adult present at the debate.
It is time for Obama to do what he has to do. He has indicated he will strike back at Bill Clinton but that might not be a good strategy. Clinton is well liked among the party faithful and attacking him will continue to take the focus off the weaknesses of Hillary. Obama can attack Bill through Hillary and take the lead in addressing issues that were neglected during the Bill Clinton presidency.
Obama can make a good case when he tells the people that the Clinton co-presidents had eight years and failed to accomplish those things she vows to take care of now. Obama can tell people that the Clintons had eight years to fix Social Security and they neglected it even though Bill stated that it was broken and needed to be fixed. I believe he even thought private accounts was a good idea.
Obama can make the case that the Clintons had eight years to get health care for everyone (an item Hillary failed miserably on), eight years to make sure Medicare was efficient and provided for the elderly, and eight years to develop and implement an energy plan that reduced our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. Eight years to do all these things and they failed to accomplish them.
When Bill Clinton was running the first time he told us all that you get two for the price of one and Hillary told us it was a co-presidency. During this campaign Hillary has taken credit for the good things that happened back then. If she takes credit for the successes it is reasonable to attribute the failures to her as well. Obama can go on the offensive and strike H. Rodham Clinton on the very issues that she says she will fix and at the same time take shots at her husband without directly confronting him. This will tell the voters that the Clintons had their eight years and failed to get it right and it is unlikely that giving them more time will change this.
Obama has had a campaign of change, a mantra adopted by Hillary as well as some of the Republicans running for office. If Obama is convinced he is the candidate of change he needs to point out the failures of the Clinton co-presidency and make sure the failures are attributed to Hillary. If this does nothing more than cause the Clintons to go on the defensive it will have been worth it. The more the Clintons are forced to defend their record the less time they have to manufacture half truths about Obama.
It is win-win for Obama because if Hillary fights the charges and says that she was not the president it will allow him to point out that she cannot take credit for anything that happened then and will negate her experience claim. If she defends the co-presidency she will be drawing more attention to those failures leaving less time for them to attack.
It is time for B. Hussein Obama to take off the gloves and start hitting hard. It is time for him to strike blows where it will hurt and that is the ever changing Clinton legacy. Blame her for the failures and make her defend why she did not get those things done back then. make her explain how she will do it now when she could not do it then. Make Bill defend their record rather than attacking his.
Obama can get dirty without attacking Bill directly and causing a rift among the Democratic base by attacking the record and attributing it to her. He will come out ahead if he takes this approach.
It is time for Obama to show he is a quick study and has gotten a quick education in Clinton politics of personal destruction. otherwise, he will have to repeat the class in four years.
Bill Clinton is Spinning Lies
Jan 8, 2008 Political
This video from ABC is Bill Clinton answering some questions on behalf of his wife. During this video he calls Obama’s campaign the biggest fairy tale out there and insinuates that Obama has gotten an easy ride from the press. Clinton also said that he [Bill] had been attacked as a crook. He then said that Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars to indict a bunch of innocent people and to find out I [Bill] would not take a nickel.
Now that whopper Bill just told was the biggest fairy tale out there. Ken Starr did not indict anyone who was innocent and no one ever determined that Bill and Hillary were honest people. There is a big difference between not having enough evidence or not getting indicted and being innocent. Bill Clinton is in no way innocent. He took a whole lot of nickels from the Chinese. He took lots of money from the folks at Tyson foods and he took lots of money from drug dealers bringing drugs in through the Mena airport in Arkansas.
Bill Clinton is certainly a criminal and the real problem he has is that he has told the same lies for so long that he believes them to be true. Anyone with any sense what so ever knows that Clinton and his wife have been neck deep in crime since they started out in public life. The country went through eight years of dishonesty from these people and now they want us to put them back in there as if nothing ever went wrong. Their White House was filled with scandal after scandal from the day they moved in until the day they moved out. Bill and Hillary can claim that they were found innocent but they are lying in an attempt to rewrite history.
Anyone who believes that these two are honest needs to have his head examined. They are criminals of the highest order and they will take money from anywhere, say anything, and change history in order to get more power.
We have to hope that Hillary gets beaten badly in New Hampshire and in all other states for as long as she stays in the race. If she keeps losing her money will dry up and we will finally be rid of the Clinton crime family.
Remember, when Hillary was crying and said she did not want us to go backwards the us she was talking about is she and Bill.
Maybe she cried because Bill screwed things up for her when he was taking his turn. Maybe he is fighting fiercely for her and telling those fairy tale lies because he knows that she would have been a shoo in had he acted like an adult when he was president.
Nah, they have been criminals all along and he is lying because it is what he does best…
Tags: Clinton, criminal, lies, rewriting history
Hillary Lies Again
Jan 4, 2008 Political
Hillary Clinton, fresh off a tail whipping at the expense of B. Hussein Obama and John Edwards, is not trying another make over that she hopes will resonate with the voters. Personally, I think she would have run if she never campaigned. People were in awe of her and she was the front runner when she entered. Then people got to meet her, listen to her and see her perform at the debates. That turned a lot of people off. Hillary is now retooling and it is a sure bet she will go real negative and that she will be in attack mode in the debate. Hillary is also out there lying again (still):
“Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated, and — my goodness — the most innocent, it turns out,†she told a cheering crowd in an airport hangar. The politico
Hillary Clinton is surely the most investigated of the people running for president. This is a new twist because she use to say the most investigated person and then it was shown to be untrue. That aside, the whopper comes when she says that she was the most innocent, as “it turns out”. First of all, since she was talking only about those running for president, how can she be the most innocent when none of them have been found guilty of anything? If this were true, she would be as innocent as the others.
However, Hillary has not been found the “most innocent.” There is a big difference between being innocent (which means you did not do it) and not being found guilty or not having charges pressed. Hillary has been caught in several lies during those many investigations but charges were never brought. She is guilty of campaign finance violations and there is video taped evidence of it. A judge appointed by her husband decided that the case could be dropped. She was guilty of holding secret meetings on health care reform and had to stop but no sanctions were ever imposed. Hillary deliberately hid documents to keep them out of the courts. They miraculously surfaced after the statute of limitations on her potential crimes had expired.
Not being sanctioned for wrong doing is a hell of a lot different than being completely free of sin, legal guilt or fault. She has done a great number of unethical and illegal things but they have either not been investigated or she was protected by the media and friends in high places. The book Whitewash has an in depth look at these issues and many more.
However, given Hillary’s position on this I must ask how she feels about one thing. President Bush has been investigated time and again and he has not been found guilty of anything. Is it fair, under Hillary’s definition, to assume he is INNOCENT? This will be tough for the moonbats who support her because if they answer yes then Bush is INNOCENT and it puts an end to their vicious attacks on him. If they answer no then they are saying Hillary is not innocent.
Being found not guilty or not being charged is not the same as being innocent. Perhaps if Hillary had actually used her law degree to practice the profession (instead of being employed as an over-billing, paper pushing lawyer as a favor to her hubby) she might know that.
Tags: credibility, dirty politics, Hillary, innocence, lies
Loading ...
Loading... 
