Hillary’s Birthday is Just Another Reason to Break the Law
Oct 15, 2007 Uncategorized
There will be a big gala next week to celebrate the 60th birthday of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the next Queen of America and ruler of all her subjects, you know, the little people. This will be a star studded event that might actually bring in between 1 and 2 million dollars for her campaign. Billy Crystal will be the emcee (who ever heard of this for a friggin Senator) and he will, no doubt, be funny with his dated humor. Elvis Costello will be singing but I am not sure who is responsible for bringing the weed and the bongs but my guess is Bill is handling the show girls (literally).
What I am wondering is if Hillary will violate any laws like she did when they threw a big fund raising bash to raise money for her Senate run while honoring her hubby. I do not know if any of you have heard this story but Hillary is on tape committing several felonies with regard to election law. Of course, she lied about having any knowledge of the events but she is on video and it is quite obvious that she was well aware of the events and that she solicited a performance by Cher, a violation of the law.
So has Hillary been involved in planning this event? Has she solicited any donations in violation of the law? I am quite sure she has just as she did the last time. The previous event is tied up in the courts but the prosecutors and judges were appointed by Bubba so they will likely not uphold the law. The video and her association with Hsu all add up to deliberate graft and criminal behavior.
Folks, she thinks she is above the law. Her crimes are documented with letters, video, and news stories. She is guilty as sin, though sin has a different meaning for the Clinton clan.
Rob Reiner, the left wing lunatic from Hollyweird will be throwing her a smaller party the next day where donors with deeper pockets will attend. Reiner played Mike on All in the Family and Archie always called him Meat Head. At least that part of the show was accurate.
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson’s Website, , Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, DragonLady’s World, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, Nanotechnology Today, 123beta, guerrilla radio, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Phastidio.net, , The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, and CORSARI D’ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: felonies, Hillary, Hsu, Link Fest, Peter Paul, Political Commentary, Stan Lee
Niki Tsongas Shows True Colors
Oct 14, 2007 Uncategorized
Immigration is the big issue in the race between Niki Tsongas and Jim Ogonowski in Massachusetts. The special election will take place Tuesday to fill a vacant seat. I wrote previously that a guy named Atkins who made some very low remarks and brought Jim’s deceased brother into the mix. Tsongas has tried to distance herself from Atkins’ remarks but when one considers that his ex-wife is working for the Tsongas campaign, the question must be asked; how sincere is she? One thing is for sure, she follows the John Kerry/Ted Kennedy and (fill in a number of names here) position on immigration. Tsongas believes that ILLEGALS should be allowed unfettered access to this country and she thinks people who oppose ILLEGAL immigration are racists, as trumpeted by her unofficial mouthpiece, Mr. Atkins. I received this from a friend and I thought I would post it here:
I don’t know how much talk radio you listen to however Niki finally showed her true colors without her Washington advisors [sic] at her side. Niki labeled illegal immigrants as “Undocumented workers” or “Family members….or whatever.” [Video] (“Nightside with Dan Rae,” WBZ-Radio, 10/11/07) One of the main issues Ogonowski has been running his campaign on is illegal immigration, and finally Tsongas has created a clear distinction between the two candidates for the voters – she’s just “whatever.” I doubt the voters in Massachusetts will appreciate a valley girl as their legislator. Massachusetts’ voters and the United States Congress does not deserve another candidate who will shy away from real issues like illegal immigration and attempt to redefine these people as “Undocumented workers,” they deserve Jim Ogonowski. She also believes these “Family members” deserve in-state tuition, as she alleges “They came here unintentionally.” [Video] (5th District Congressional Debate, NECN, 10/05/07) Perhaps Tsongas should be running on the same ticket as New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, as she “Supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and ‘path to citizenship’ for illegal immigrants.” (Laura Crimaldi, “5th District Candidates All Fired Up,” The Boston Herald, 10/14/07) Perhaps this is what Tsongas is really like without her suave Washington advisors [sic] – not a pretty image. Ogonowski is a real candidate who is worried about real issues. Merely calling these illegal immigrants “Family members” or “whatever” will not help solve one of this countries greatest domestic policy issues. A vote for Ogonowski is a vote for change and new ideas; whereas a vote for Tsongas is a vote for her calculating Washington DC advisors [sic] – take your pick.
If you are eligible to vote in this Massachusetts district it is up to you to vote for Jim Ogonowski and keep Niki Tsongas out of office. Massachusetts needs a political outsider like they can get by electing Jim. Neither that state nor the country needs people with the views of Niki Tsongas. Keep in mind, Massachusetts has all Democrats running it at the federal level. They have had a long time to get things right and yet they have failed. Jim Ogonowski is a breath of fresh air and will help right that once great state.
Tags: amnesty, election, ILLEGAL immigration, Massachusetts, Ogonowski, Political Commentary, Tsongas
Ghost Whispers; MA Dems Speak for the Dead
Oct 12, 2007 Uncategorized
There is an election next Tuesday to fill a vacant US Congressional seat in the state of Massachusetts and the Democrats have sunk to a new low, if you can believe they could get lower, by invoking the name of the Republican candidate’s dead brother. Here are the players in this story:
- Jim Ogonowski – Republican candidate for the vacant seat
- Niki Tsongas – Democratic candidate for the vacant seat
- John Ogonowski – Deceased brother of Republican candidate. John was a pilot of an airplane that was hijacked on 9/11 and he was killed when the terrorists who hijacked it, crashed it.
- Peg Ogonowski – Spouse of deceased pilot John
- Chester G. Atkins – Former Congressman who held the contended seat until he was defeated in 1992. Now has a public affairs firm
Jim is running for an open seat in Congress and he is very much against ILLEGAL immigration. He does not believe that ILLEGALS should receive amnesty and he believes that immigrants should have to learn English. His opponent, Niki, has a very opposite view on ILLEGAL immigration, much closer to the Ted Kennedy school which is why we have had two amnesties and now have millions of ILLEGALS here. Interestingly, immigration was the issue that cost Atkins the seat, oh so long ago. Atkins was an advocate for Cambodians coming here and settling in the Merrimack Valley district. John had no problem with the Cambodians because they came here LEGALLY. He allowed them to farm a portion of his property to grow specialty crops, stuff used in the Asian community. Atkins lost because of his support of the Cambodians.
Fast forward to today and Atkins, who supports Niki, is saying that Jim’s dead brother John would side with Tsongas on the immigration issue and that he had a better understanding than Jim does. Jim states that this is ridiculous because the Cambodians came here legally and the immigrants that Jim is against are all the ILLEGAL ones. Like many Americans, Jim does not like the way ILLEGALS come here, use services, get Social Security, take jobs, crowd emergency rooms and speak their native language and expect us to do the same. Jim does not agree with ILLEGAL immigration.
I cannot imagine that the people of this area of Massachusetts would vote for Tsongas and support allowing ILLEGALS free reign. These folks put Atkins out of office for supporting LEGAL immigrants so I find it very hard to imagine that they would support someone who is siding with the ILLEGAL ones. I know this is Massachusetts but even as liberal as they are, they have to be able to see the difference and which candidate supports our laws and which one does not. The problem is that the Liberals always neglect to discuss the ILLEGAL part. They always say that we are against immigrants (just before they call us racists) when none of us are against immigration, we are against ILLEGAL law breakers who sneak in like thieves.
Back to John and Atkins’ claim that John would have supported the ILLEGALS and was better than Jim, who Atkins calls a racist for his views. Just to clear it up, Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality. It is an old trick from the left’s play book to call the race card. No matter what the issue, they will find a way to call a Republican a racist regardless of the circumstances. Let me make this clear for Atkins and any other idiot who was educated in the public school system, Expecting people to obey the law, expecting the government to enforce the law, and refusing to reward those who break the law are not racist acts. If a black man robs a bank and his white neighbor saw it and calls the police and a white cop arrests him, the white guys are not racists. They simply respected the rule of law, something the left finds increasingly difficult. However, invoking the name of a dead man who cannot attest to the veracity of the claims made by Atkins is just wrong. It is also plain wrong to bring up his name and put the family through this.
To her credit, Peg called this politics at its worst and she was right. The Democrats in this situation chose to use a hero from 9/11 to score points with voters. If this is not bad enough, the dead hero is the Republican candidate’s brother. They are trying to convince voters that even Jim’s brother would be on their side. As Jim points out, it is ridiculous. He states that it is ridiculous for the Atkins to make like he would know John better than his family and, as Jim indicates, he would not likely support ILLEGALS especially since many of the 9/11 hijackers were here ILLEGALLY. Peg and Jim both question whether Atkins actually knew John. Neither remember him ever mentioning Atkins and since John is dead it would not be beyond a Democrat to do pretend he knew him just to score political points.
I hope the voters of Massachusetts will see through all of this and will elect Jim Ogonowski and his tough stance on ILLEGAL immigration. I hope that they will not only reject Tsongas for the support of ILLEGALS but also for the lowness to which the Democrats have sunk in this race.
One last thing. Ever notice how when President Bush mentions 9/11 the left goes nuts. They claim he is using scare tactics and is using 9/11 to stir emotions. They tell us that it happened 6 years ago and we need to move on, let it go, blah, blah. Interesting how they will invoke the memory of someone killed on 9/11 if they think it will further their quest for power.
I also think it is worth noting that it is possible that John would support the Democrats. It would not be the first time in history that dead people supported Democrats though usually they show their support by voting for them on election day…
If you live in the 5th District in Massachusetts and you want to honor the memory of John, vote for his brother Jim next Tuesday.
This story is from the AP.
Others:
Blogs for Bush
Tags: 9/11, Democrats, election, illegals, Immigration, Massachusetts, Political Commentary
Did Hillary Clinton Admit She is Incompetent?
Oct 11, 2007 Uncategorized
In an interview Hillary Clinton sat down to tell everyone how she would run the country differently than George W. Bush and how all her plans are the right ones. She wanted to make sure we knew she had the answers to our problems. Like all politicians, she does not recognize that government is the cause of most of our problems. Hillary made two troubling statements. The first was that there are two branches of government. There are three and her failure to recognize the Judicial indicates how much the left has used that branch to get done what it is unable to pass in the Legislative branch. It shows that activist judges have legislated from the bench so frequently that Hillary, an accomplished lawyer, does not recognize it as a different branch:
“It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people.” [emphasis mine]
If this is not troubling enough, the smartest woman in the world admitted that she did not know that security contractors in Iraq are immune from prosecution (actually they are not) and she dismissed her lack of information on the matter by stating:
Clinton was asked about a statement she made on Tuesday when criticizing the Bush administration’s conduct in Iraq. She said she hadn’t known that Blackwater USA, the military contractor accused of killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, had immunity from prosecution in Iraq because of an exemption approved soon after the US invasion.
“Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it,” she said yesterday. [emphasis mine] boston.com
It might not be troubling to many people but Hillary wants to be President and she sits on the Armed Services Committee. That committee has had several bills sent to it that specifically address the contractor issue. Coincidentally, a recent bill was introduced by he opponent, B. Hussein Obama.
There was also a recent memo from the Secretary of Defense reminding the services that contractors fall under the UCMJ, a change that was implemented in January of 2007. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) is referenced in the memo and has been on the books as Public Law 106-523 since November of 2000. Section 552 of PL 109-364 Expanded UCMJ jurisdiction to persons serving with or accompanying the armed forces in the field during contingency operations. This was passed by the Senate and Clinton voted for it.
It is obvious that all these items have been in the open for quite some time and that some of the legislation in question was presented to the Armed Services Committee, a committee that Clinton sits on. It is also obvious that Clinton voted on legislation that, in some part, addressed this. All of this begs the obvious question; Why does she not know about this? In addition to learning this from her official duties, the information has been on TV and radio for quite some time, more so in recent weeks. How can she possibly not know about this? Is she so focused on winning that she has neglected to do her job?
One also has to ask what she means by “Maybe she should have known” when it is obvious that there is no maybe about it. She sits on the committee that looks at this stuff and to which information was given. How can she claim that she knows nothing and dismiss it so casually? Is she ignoring the recently introduced item because Obama is the author? How can she expect to be President when she is unaware of these things?
Democrats like to believe that George Bush ignored the threat of radical Islam and that he misinforms Americans. It is amazing that they fail to hold their anointed to any kind of similar standard. If we accept that Bush is as incompetent as the left portrays him, we must also accept that Hillary is mush more incompetent because she cannot seem to even do her Senate job.
If she cannot handle one seat in the Senate, how will she ever run an entire country?
Tags: Blackwater, Hillary, Obama, Political Commentary
Democrats in, Congress Godless
Oct 10, 2007 Uncategorized
Nancy Pelosi defended the actions of the Capitol architect who took it upon himself to decide that the word God and any other religious phrases may not be placed on the certificates that accompany Flags ordered by constituents. Nancy Pelosi and the architect are denying people their right to free speech. People have a right to have whatever they want, within the limits of good taste, added to the certificates. In case these people do not know it, the Flag and its accompanying certificate are not free. People order them and PAY for them. Since they are paying for them, they should have a right to get just about whatever they want on them.
The case stems from an Eagle Scout who wanted, “In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family” written on his certificate. When he received it, the word God was not on it. He paid for the Flag and certificate and the PC police at the Capitol decided that the word was inappropriate. Who is this jackass and what power does he have to decide what people have written on certificates that they pay for? Additionally, if he was not going to put what the kid wanted on the certificate, he should have returned the money and the form with an explanation.
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi is so anti religion and liberal (but I repeat myself) that she lacks the courage to tell the guy to print what people pay for. How dare this woman decide that this is appropriate and to declare that she does not see the point of the Congressman who was upset about it? I am willing to bet this jackass architect accepts his pay in US dollars that have the words “In God We Trust” imprinted upon them. I am willing to bet Pelosi has no problem accepting the millions of dollars in graft she gets even though those dollars contain the very same words.
I believe that all Americans should stop ordering Flags from the Congress. Just stop completely and let them figure out something else to do with their time. I also think we should refuse to pay our taxes because we would not want to offend any of these jackasses who don’t like to see God’s name in print. These jackasses are only religious when they are running for office ala Hillary and B. Hussein.
Check that idea about not paying taxes. That could be risky given how the federal government sends jack booted marshals to arrest you and harass your friends if you refuse to surrender your money to those who extort it from you. You could fly planes into buildings and Democrats will praise you and demand that you not be tortured but fail to pay your taxes and they send SS storm troopers from the Federal Marshal’s office to beat the money our of you or take you into custody. When the Mafia did that it was called extortion. When the federal government does it, it is called the tax system.
Just ask the Browns and their friends.
Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Nuke’s, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Democrats, Flag, God, Link Fest, Pelosi, Political Commentary