A group of service members in uniform handcuffed themselves to the fence at the White House in protest of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in place in the Armed Forces.

Protesters at the White House are not an uncommon site and the media usually covers them. They even covered John Kerry throwing someone else’s medals over the White House fence. But today, under this regime, it was a different story.

The police closed the entire park and forced everyone, including the media, to back up about two blocks from the White House. What threat was there? What prompted them to close the park? If there was a legitimate threat either to Obama or to the people (like a bomb threat) then certainly closing the park was warranted but since we have heard nary a word about any such incident we can safely assume that none took place.

No, Obama did not want to be embarrassed by the gay service members protesting DADT. He did not want the world to see him protested by members of a group that strongly supports him. The most transparent regime in history closed an entire park to spare Obama potential embarrassment.

This is something one expects to see in countries led by a dictator. This is something one reads about with regard to Nazi Germany. Controlling the media and the news is what despots do.

This is unacceptable. One can only hope the media are finally catching on.

Though I doubt it.

Never surrender, never submit.

For the second time in a month people who were not invited to eat at the White House ended up doing so. The first brought national attention when a couple weaseled its way into the State Dinner. There is an uproar with people calling for them to be prosecuted. I say they were undocumented guests looking to make their lives better and should be left alone.

Now, a couple that arrived a day early for a White House tour (they mistakenly arrived on the wrong day) was ushered into a private breakfast there and offered the buffet.

The White House says that they were invited to eat after it was realized they came on the wrong day and that a security check was performed. The couple, on the other hand, says they did not know about the breakfast and thought they were starting the tour when they were led into the room and offered a meal.

What are the odds they were offered the meal because they arrived on the wrong day? I think their account might be a bit more accurate.

If this White House can’t be kept secure what does it say about our country being secure?

Source:
AP

The press has been easy on Obama since he decided to run for the White House. They treated him like royalty and protected him. They, in effect, became the media wing of his campaign and they remained his media after he was elected. Last week during his press conference he was grilled pretty good and he was on the defense. He was taken to task more than he had ever been. The thought at that time was that his numbers were dropping and the public is awakening to the fiasco that is his policies.

Today Press Secretary Gibbs was grilled over the Obama Town Hall meeting where the questions and the people are preselected or screened. Helen Thomas, of all people, was like a shark in the water. She stated:

“The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled…” veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas said Wednesday.

I am amazed that she would even say that the Obama White House is more controlling than the Bush White House. She said it when she said “…NEVER had that in the White House.”

It seems the media are beginning to go after him and are finally starting to do their jobs rather than be toadies who follow their master at the lectern. It is about time.

It was inevitable because the media eventually get around to being tough. They finally did it with Bill Clinton and they will do it with Obama. It seems that his failed policies and the lack of progress in the economy are beginning to take their toll.

It seems that maybe the media are also waking up to the idea that they helped elect a rookie who know not what he is doing.

Watch the video at Breitbart

A long time ago in this country there were truly disgusting practices that involved our society having whites only lunch counters, drinking fountains and seating on buses. The signs that read “Whites Only” reflect a particularly bad time in this country when people were judged on the color of their skin and nothing else.

It seems that this is taking place in reverse in Illinois. The seat that Barack Obama was elected to (he never really occupied it) has a sign on it that reads “Blacks Only.”

At least that is what Laura Washington of the Chicago Sun Times believes. To her, the mess with Governor Blago has created a situation where they might lose the black seat. You see, if there is an election then the people of Illinois might decide to elect a white person thereby taking the black seat away. You know how those racist whites are in Illinois are. They can’t be trusted to vote for blacks, except of course for Obama who they helped send to the White House.

The black community in Illinois is up in arms over this:

That possibility has provoked outrage among black community leaders and politicians. Not so fast, they are saying.

Last month, the Concerned Clergy of Illinois demanded that the governor appoint a “qualified” African American “who can fill this vacancy and who has the capacity to be re-elected when [Obama's] term ends in 2010.” The problem, as I wrote then, is that black leaders were at odds on who should get the nod.

Yes, it is a shame that this seat might not go to a black person even when the clergy demanded that a black fill it. I wonder how the same clergy would feel, hell how would all the liberals feel, if the Christian Conservatives went to DC and demanded that the seat in the Oval Office go to a white guy?

This issue would not be getting much attention if we kept the Constitution intact. Originally, Senators were selected by the legislatures of each state. They were not supposed to be voted into office but the Constitution was changed and now we have a mess. If the legislature still had the job there would be no scandal involving this seat and there would be no dog and pony show in New York.

Regardless of how the seat is filled, and I think an election (lacking the original method provided for in the Constitution) provides the fairest way for the people to have a say, the fact is the seat does not belong to a person based solely on color. To say this seat is a black seat is racist and it is contrary to the color blind society the liberals, and especially Obama, say they want. We already have an affirmative action president, do we need affirmative action to fill his vacated seat?

It is beyond me how people can get away with this kind of talk. The seat is a black seat and needs to be filled with a black guy.

Hmmm, using that logic, we do call it the White House…

Does Laura Washington really want to go there?

Big Dog Salute to Warner Todd Huston at STACLU

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Hillary Clinton mocked a statement by B. Hussein Obama concerning his experience. He indicated that because he lived in foreign countries as a child he gained a different perspective on foreign policy challenges. Hillary remarked:

‘‘I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home,’’ said Clinton, arguing that her background not only was superior as a potential president but also made her the most electable Democrat.

‘‘For 15 years I’ve been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here,’’ she said. Chicago Sun Times

Once again I must ask the question, what experience does she have? What does she have that makes her any more qualified than Obama? She is a one and a half term Senator and since she has been campaigning for President since just after the last election, she really only has one term. She spent all her time in the White House as the First Lady. Granted, she stuck her nose in the country’s business but she was not elected she held no position of leadership. The only reason she was even there is because she was married to the guy that was elected. This does not equate to experience.

I know she has this delusion that she has leadership experience because she was First Lady but deciding what desert to serve at White House meals is not experience and neither is deciding on the pattern for the White House China. Perhaps if she released her records from that time we could see if her work actually backs up her claim but since she has not released it, it is a good bet that there is nothing to substantiate her claim. John Kerry tried this with his military record but he refused to release his records so it was obvious that he was covering up (he still has not released them). Hillary could put an end to the experience once and for all by releasing records that show she has leadership experience but she needs to release ALL of them so we can get the entire picture.

As far as I am concerned the time she spent in the White House is a non issue and does not count. Her time in the Senate is the only experience she has and her record is unremarkable. As far as being attacked for 15 years and still being here, big deal. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate for 46 years and he has been attacked but he sticks around. That does not mean he is effective or can lead anything.

As far as being attacked by the VRWC, she is attacked by her own party as well. There are many who do not like her but will vote for Satan if it means putting a Democrat back in charge. She has a disapproval rating above 50% so there are plenty of Democrats who are not thrilled with her. Additionally, She has lost her lead in Iowa and now has to play catch up to the “less experienced” Obama.

Hillary, you have little experience and have never led anything. Continually saying you have does not change this indisputable fact.

I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:

“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,” she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.” FT.com

She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.

Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.

As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.

She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.

Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.

Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.

Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.

Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?

Oops, did I just pile on the girl?

During the last debate Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton if she was prepared to disclose her White House related documents before the election so that people could judge her qualifications. The correspondence in question is mostly between Hillary and Husband Bill. She has made claims that her time in the White House has given her experience and it is this experience which makes her the better candidate. Russert asked specifically about those communications:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave? Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012. [emphasis mine] National Review Online

Hillary stated that as far as she knew the health care papers had been released and that things were moving as quickly as the archives could go. When Russert told her that President Clinton had written a letter asking that communications between the two of them not be released she said that she did not believe it was in their control. This is a misleading answer and Bill Clinton’s response was just as misleading.

Bill was out trying to extinguish the flames after Hillary’s poor debate performance and Bill stated that Russert asked a “breathtakingly misleading” question:

Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was quizzed during this week’s Democratic presidential debate as to why correspondence between her and her husband from their White House years remained bottled up at the National Archives. Barack Obama said that was a problem for her as a candidate after “we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.”

One issue is whether Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the Archives asking that the communications not be released until 2012, and whether Hillary Clinton would lift any ban, a question raised by debate moderator Tim Russert.

“She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down,” the former president told reporters Friday. “And she didn’t even, didn’t know what he was talking about. And now that I’ve described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn’t know what he was talking about.”

Russert’s question “was breathtakingly misleading,” Bill Clinton said. [emphasis mine] Yahoo News

Let us see who was misleading in all this. First of all, Clinton wrote a letter on August 19, 1994 asking that all categories of his correspondence be kept from disclosure until twelve years after his term as President expires (which would actually be 2013). This is an admission by him in the 2002 memo. I do not think that is asking the National Archives to speed anything up, as Clinton claimed in the interview. It is likely that he was ensuring that the records would remain sealed for a future Hillary run. Remember, these two have been planning this campaign for a long time and not releasing them until 2013 would ensure she could run for a second term, assuming she won a first. Even releasing them in late 2012 would not hurt her by the time people were able to request and get them the election would be over.

Secondly, the letter Clinton wrote in 2002 where he asked that certain items be released earlier than 2013 and those two categories were appointments and submitting advice. However, in the body of the letter he explicitly excludes communication between Hillary and him; “… communications directly between the President and the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature…” This means that he DID NOT ask for this to be released early because he excluded it from the request. It also means that Russert was 100% correct in his questioning and that Bill Clinton was the one who was “breathtakingly misleading” because he said he wrote the letter to speed up the process, not to slow it down but since he excluded items between him and Hillary he did not speed up the process that Russert asked about. Russert specifically asked about items between her and her husband. This is typical Clinton double speak and their mind numbed, eye glazed, followers will listen to him and believe every word he said.

This is no different than I did not have sex with that woman or I was closer to getting bin Laden than anyone or any other statement he has made that has proved to be false. I wonder if he wagged his finger when he was talking about this? That is a tell tale Clinton is lying sign. In any event, he was breathtakingly misleading and the Clinton camp is trying to put the focus on Russert and indicate that he was unfair. He was 100% fair and he asked the follow up questions that too few are willing to ask her highness, Hillary. Hillary was finally taken to task and not allowed to steer off subject or to avoid answers. When she gave a non answer she was called on it and then instead of being honest she played around until she was able to take two contrasting positions in two minutes. The Clintons can blame Russert but it is they who are being dishonest with America. Unfortunately, those who support her and worship him will never be able to see this.

Clinton used the words “breathtakingly misleading” which was his way of saying Russert distorted the truth. In fact, the Clintons, as is their pattern, are the ones who do more than mislead. They outright lie and expect everyone to believe them. Included in this post are the news items relating to this as well as the document Clinton wrote in 2002 (in which he references the 1994 memo) and there is no doubt what he is asking of the National Archives.

What is in their communications that they do not want people to see? What is it that they are afraid of? We already know they will do anything to keep unfavorable information from seeing the light of day. The whole Sandy Burglar incident is testimony to that so it is no stretch to believe the Clintons are trying to keep information from getting out until it can have no effect.

Hillary has claimed a huge amount of experience based on her tenure as First Lady so it is reasonable to ask for documented proof of her claim. If she truly did wonderful things while in the White House it would be to her benefit to release the items and let us see. She has never run anything, never been a leader in government (such as a governor) and she has never been the head of a corporation or company. If she wants us to believe she has leadership experience, any communications she could disclose to shed light on that claim would be helpful.

One thing is certain, if the Clintons are not releasing the papers it is because they do not help, and probably hurt her. She will release anything that makes her look good but the Clintons will go to any length, including have a surrogate steal from the National Archives. Clinton hurt herself in the debate. The years of secrecy and lying are finally catching up and many will awaken and see what a shill she actually is. Those running against her for the Democratic nomination hope they awaken before the primaries.

If they don’t, I hope they awaken before next November.

Sources:
Clinton 2002 Memo [pdf]
Complete debate transcript [NYT]
Clinton on Russert and the question [My Way News]

As an aside, I wonder if Media Matters will pick this up and expose the lies.

Will Hillary have to defend her extreme makeover to a softer image now that it has been reported that she gave away Socks the cat when she left the White House? The report is that Hillary got Socks to soften her image and make her look like a good mom while she was in the White House. When she and Bill left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue it seems the only thing they did not take with them was Socks who they gave to Betty Currie. Is this another instance of Hillary using something for political gain and expedience and then discarding it when it no longer served a purpose? Probably not, but who knows.

Perhaps the Clintons decided that they could not care for a cat with their busy post White House lifestyle. Chelsea was off to college and work and there would not be staff members around to care for it. Given that Bill took Buddy with him one could make the argument that Socks the cat was just a convenient prop that was discarded when no longer needed. Given that Buddy ran in the street and was hit by a vehicle, it might be a blessing for Socks to have been given away.

I believe that Hillary Clinton is cold and calculating and that she does not do anything unless there is a political motive. Getting the cat was probably one of those calculated moves but giving it away might have been nothing more than giving it to someone who liked it and could care for it much better than the Clintons could. Betty Currie was an obvious choice because she had a history of cleaning up Clinton messes.

Socks is better off than Buddy and Hillary can always borrow the cat or get a new one should she feel the need to express her softer side.

Of course, if she wants to look soft she should get a porcupine. Even Hillary would look soft next to one of those.

Source:
Times On Line

Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, , Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, , third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Inside the Northwest Territory, , Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke’s, Allie Is Wired, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.