Hillary Pimp Slaps MSNBC For Saying She's A Pimp

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck ...

Yahoo:

A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party "superdelegates" on her mother's behalf.

Wolfson called Shuster's comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.

Now Shuster did apologize, but has still been suspended. What about freedom of speech, and freedom of the press? Frankly I don't know why MSNBC is so upset at Shuster's comments. They've been in the tank for Obama for some time now.

While the comments about Chelsea may not be entirely fair (one must question why she is involved in mommy's campaign all of a sudden) ... clearly Hillary is the pimp of the Democrat party. I've never seen so many people get pimp slapped for falling out of line.

Hillary Says Buy Health Insurance Or I'll Garnish Your Wages

It's so nice to hear her admit it though, but remember she claims she doesn't support socialized health care. That's only a "right wing attack" on her. When she was confronted about how her socialized health care plan, and how it would harm minorities, she flat out denied this would be the case. However, with her most recent statements on garnishing your wages ... one can't help but imagine a poor black family that chooses to pay their rent over buying insurance having their pay suddenly taken away from them by Hillary. What's more important Hillary, a roof over your head or health care?

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Remember, Hillary said she doesn't support socialized medicine. So why did she attack Obama for not requiring everyone to get health insurance?

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Hmmm, require everyone to get coverage, if they don't ... punish them by garnishing wages. Yeah, that's not socialized medicine.

Clearly Hillary is going after Edwards supporters, and Johnny's official endorsement. Remember Edwards wanted to garnish wages also, and there was a little scandal involving Hillary and Edwards teaming up a while back.

Remember Kids, Hillary Loves Black People

So I was stumbling the other day, and I came across a "race card." Yes, I literally ran across a race card. I told myself that I could use this repeatedly on my blog for the race baiting that is constantly going on in the world, or at least every time Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson open their mouths. It took two days before I had the opportunity to use it, and that's without me looking for anything. So without further ado ...



Why am I pulling the race card out? Good question. The race card is now in play because of a thoroughly disgusting and contrived piece in the NYT. What else is new right.

Here's the pic that the NYT leads off with:


Nice huh?

Growing up in the palest of Chicago suburbs, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had some of her earliest exposures to African-Americans through field trips. She sat in the back of her father’s Cadillac as he detoured through the inner city, cautioning her about the fate of people who, in his conservative Republican view, lacked the self-discipline to succeed.

Nice! Not only do we get some race card playage, but we get an attack on heartless Republicans as well. It must be my birthday!

She took a sociology course at Wellesley College that included a trip through Boston’s poor areas. On Tuesdays, she went to a housing project in Cambridge to mentor “underprivileged Negroes,” as she wrote to Don Jones, her minister back home, who had taken her to hear the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak in Chicago four years earlier.

Wait, wait, wait. Did the NYT say that Hillary called black people "Negroes?" This hasn't been a campaign issue yet? None of my black friends would respond well to me calling them Negroes ... would yours? Mitt Romney has been attacked for being a racist simply because he's Morman. I don't recall anyone attacking Romney for actually making a racist statement. So Romney gets attacked, but Hillary gets a pass on this one incident? I'm surprised Obama supporters haven't gobbled this up yet.

Before I forget ... Hillary supporters can not use the argument that it was politically correct to say Negro back then. Why? Because you wouldn't accept anyone using the other n-word when they were young and living in a time when that was the societal norm. Remember, George Allen was accused of using the n-word (amongst other things) in the early 70's. Allen was attacked non stop in the press and by Democrats for these unfounded allegations that were denied by several black people who went to school with him. No double standards you kids!

The Times continues to glorify Hillary's contribution to black folks everywhere in the piece, but I won't bore you with it. If you really are into self torture you can go to the link and read it yourself.

After finishing the piece I got a very different view than that of which the NYT was trying to paint. Hillary would only go into black neighborhoods because she was forced to on field trips, or her dad. Then when she did go their on her own she called them all "underprivileged Negroes." You can paint a picture with poo and garbage you know. It may not be a masterpiece, but it is still considered "art." That's what the NYT has done here ... given you a piece of art that clearly isn't news, but is only usable as a decorative piece.

I'm more "picky" about my art ...

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Let's Face It, Hillary Will Struggle As President Because She Is A Woman

Before I start getting the obligatory hate mail stating that I am a misogynist, I must clarify that I am ok with a woman as president. While there are numerous reasons to not support Hillary, we should not kid ourselves that her gender will inhibit her ability to lead as president.

Last week on my show, my co-host and I were railing Hillary for playing the gender card, and then denying doing so. I have no problem with the gender card being played, but I would like her to admit that she's doing it.

We began to give reasons why Hillary's sex is important to her ability to lead should she win. My co-host, a woman, stated that she wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman ... even if she did like her politics. Simply because of the global situation the US is in right now. Whether you like it or not ... Middle Eastern nations will not respect a woman, even if she is president of the United States.

A young woman called to say that she didn't care what other countries thought of Hillary. She would not allow another country's opinion of Hillary to sway her vote.

On the surface this sounds like the proper attitude in selecting a leader. I immediately reminded her that the Democrats have made it a part of their official platform to attack President Bush because of what other nations think of him ... especially Hillary.

The notion that we should elect a president based on whether they are popular in other nations is laughable. That is what Bush supporters have been saying for years now. However, the Democrats have said the exact opposite. They believe that we should elect a president that is popular in other countries because they feel that will ease relations. The problems is that Hillary is not popular in the most important, and volatile, part of the world that she will deal with as president ... the Middle East.

It is one thing to have the Middle East not like a US president because they are tough. There is at least the possibility of respect if our leader is a man. A woman is not afforded that courtesy. Not only will Hillary be unpopular in the Middle East, but she will have no respect ... simply because she is a woman. Which means she may not be an effective leader for our country when it comes to that part of the world. That could be dangerous.

I cited Condaleeza Rice as an example. Condi is infinitely more intelligent, articulate, experienced, and likable compared to Hillary. Yet she struggles in the Middle East, and you'd be foolish to think her sex has nothing to do with it.

Now this doesn't mean that no woman can be effective in the Middle East as president, but you owe it to yourself, the country, and the world to find out if Hillary is that woman. So far, no one has asked the questions that will allow the voters to determine if Hillary can be effective with her Middle East policy.

So far, all we know about Hillary's Middle East policy is that she would talk to Iran without conditions. She also said she would leave US troops in Iraq, but allow ethnic cleansing without US interference.

What else do we really know about Hillary's Middle East policy? How will she deal with those countries we are not at war with? Can she warm relations with those countries, and how will she do it? How will she stick up for human rights in those countries ... especially women's rights?

While none of those questions have been answered, or asked for that matter, the last one about women's rights could easily have been addressed by Hillary during the last debate here in Las Vegas.

The current situation in Saudi Arabia provided Hillary the opportunity to shine, and show the American people that she will stick up for women's rights ... even if it meant going against an ally.

A woman in Saudi Arabia was kidnapped, and gang raped by seven men. She was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes from a whip because the man she was with before they were kidnapped was not her husband. Apparently, her family attempted to bring the media into the case. As a result of this effort, the court increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Though people have survived 200 lashes in the past ... they have also died from it. The family said they will appeal the ruling, but have been told by the Saudi court that if she loses the appeal, the sentence will increase yet again.

Now why didn't anyone at the debate ask Hillary (or the other candidates) how they would handle the incident? Oh yeah, I forgot everyone who asked a question was a plant.

Let's not forget that Hillary labels herself a champion of women's rights. What's wrong with asking her to address the current situation in Saudi Arabia? It has everything she would need to prove that she can be a strong leader in dealing with that part of the world. She can prove that she will stick up for women's rights against an ally, and that she has that extra toughness required of a woman to have influence in that region.

She also had the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration for its weak stance on the matter. Yet she is silent ... why?

It is possible she doesn't even know it is happening. She wouldn't be the first candidate to forget about reading the news while campaigning. She may not really care about the woman, and the situation surrounding her. Perhaps she doesn't want to anger a critical US ally in the Middle East ... which warrants criticism. Then there is the possibility that she doesn't want to expose the Middle East's lack of reception to her leadership. All are plausible, and all are very concerning to prospective voters.

We can no longer ignore the fact that Hillary is different from the other candidates, and her gender will provide unique challenges never before encountered by a US president. The American voter needs to assess whether or not Hillary has what it takes to address the challenges we face in the Middle East today. Yet we continue to refuse to ask those all important questions of the defacto next president.

Of The 41 Dems Demanding Rush To Apologize ... 39 Of Them Refused To Condemn Personal Attacks On The Honor & Integrity Of Our Troops Last Month

I've spent the last two days pointing out this hypocrisy on my show, and blogged about my call to Sen. Reid's office here in Vegas.

Last month the Senate voted on the Cornyn Amendment which not only condemned the "Betray Us" ad, but it also condemned any personal attack on the honor and integrity of our troops.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Several Senate Democrats refused to strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of our troops. They were:

1. Akaka (D-HI)
2. Bingaman (D-NM)
3. Boxer (D-CA)
4. Brown (D-OH)
5. Byrd (D-WV)
6. Clinton (D-NY)
7. Dodd (D-CT)
8. Durbin (D-IL)
9. Feingold (D-WI)
10. Harkin (D-IA)
11. Inouye (D-HI)
12. Kennedy (D-MA)
13. Kerry (D-MA)
14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
15. Levin (D-MI)
16. Menendez (D-NJ)
17. Murray (D-WA)
18. Reed (D-RI)
19. Reid (D-NV)
20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
21. Sanders (I-VT)
22. Schumer (D-NY)
23. Stabenow (D-MI)
24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
25. Wyden (D-OR)

Of the 25 above who refused to condemn personal attacks on our troops (because many of them engage in personal attacks themselves) ... only Bingaman and Feingold refused to sign Harry Reid's letter demanding that Clear Channel repudiate Rush Limbaugh for his words which Harry Reid called attacks on:

"The courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us."

Perhaps Reid should apologize for all the times he insulted the military.

So what exactly is the difference between honor and integrity, and courage and character? Why is it that these Dems are willing to condemn attacks on courage and character, but not honor and integrity? Of course we all know the answer to that ... politics. You'd have to be a fool to not think this is a strategy to build support for the fairness doctrine. For crying out loud, Levin admitted he only read the part of the transcript that Media Matters gave him.

Let's not forget that Media Matters was started by Center for American Progress who was founded by John Podesta, former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton. You should also know that Hillary had a part in creating both organizations.

Clear Channel told Reid and his minions to go jump in a lake in this letter.

Far more important to the political wrangling going on for the fairness doctrine is the fact that Reid is demanding that Rush apologize to Jesse MacBeth. Whom Rush was specifically talking about on his show at the time. Why would the Democrats support such a character as MacBeth?

He is a proven phony (hence phony soldier), who is now an admitted and convicted phony. He also completely discredited Iraq Veterans Against the War. MacBeth was allowed to speak at IVAW rallies, and was a poster boy for their organization for a time. Yet this group that proclaims to be veterans didn't catch the falsehoods in MacBeth's statements, and image?

How can you trust them to be an honest organization again? The picture below is from their website, and is their featured soldier profile right now. This guy is claiming to be still on active duty?


Notice some things missing?

Harry Reid's political career is coming to an end. You now all know what we in Nevada have known for a long time about this guy. The only reason he was reelected last time was that Nevadans were hoping he could stop Yucca Mountain (which he helped bring here in the first place), but he's done nothing to make that a reality. Reid is nearly done with politics, but we will have to deal with his son, Rory. Don't you guys worry about that ... we'll take care of business on our end this time.

If the Dems are going to constantly act like spoiled children, and get caught lying, there may be hope in 2008. Problem is that too many people do not pay attention to all of this, and will not be prepared to cast their vote for the right candidate. In the meantime, we must keep up the good fight and fight for our troops against this slander so they can continue to make the great progress they've been making overseas.

Remember When Hillary Said Her Socialized Health Plan Wasn't Socialized? Well, It Is.

Take the poll at the top right of this page ...


UPDATE:

Will you be punished if you refuse to enroll in Hillary's new socialist health plan?


Many of you will remember when Hillary was asked by black journalists about the negative effects of her socialized health plan on the black community ... she responded by saying:

"I have never advocated socialized medicine. That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Yesterday, Hillary rolled out her new "American Health Choices Plan." Well, it turns out that her 'non-socialized' health plan is very much ... socialized.

To refresh everyone on what socialized and socialized medicine means, I have included the following definitions:

Socialized Medicine:

Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government.

Socialize:

1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.

There, now we are all up to speed on what we are actually talking about here.

On Hillary's own website, you can read the summary of the plan in her own words.

Before we get started I'd like to point out that the idea you can increase the number of people insured, and increase the benefits while reducing the cost is absurd at best. Especially when you are talking about a minimum of 47 million new people.

This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes. For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality. Specifically, the American Health Choices Plan will:

The language makes it sound good, but again you can't increase the number of the insured, and provide more benefits for less cost. This is grade school math people.

The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive:
Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

A Guarantee of Quality Coverage:
The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

Notice that they will have a 'public plan' to choose from. That's socialized medicine.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

Again ... not possible.

Reducing Costs:
By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

Strengthening Security:
The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination:
By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

This is the part that people will roll with their emotions on. Certainly, no one wants to be denied insurance, and I'd support that provision by itself. However, to not allow an insurance company to set their premium based on the health of the insured is blatant socialism. Many small companies will go under because of this provision. I don't believe people should not be able to get insurance, but I also believe that a company has the right to charge an appropriate premium based on the financial risk of the insured.

Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.

This is damn risky! This allows the consumer influence over how a company operates. A company in a free market economy has the right to operate as it sees fit. Sometimes it works ... sometimes not. That's what the market is for. You do not let the customer tell the company how to do business.

Insurance and Drug Companies:
insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

Individuals:
will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

Providers:
will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

Employers:
will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

Government:
will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

It doesn't get more socialize than to REQUIRE that all people get health insurance. What if I don't want health insurance? Maybe I have a medical savings account, or maybe I have enough money to pay cash for any medical issue that arises. Oh wait ... I get it now. I am going to be required to pay into the system so that my money will help cover the cost of those that are unhealthy who now get a discount on their premiums. I'M BEING TAXED!

Go to Hillary's site to read the last provisions of the plan.

At the very least, most Americans will now pay more money for their health care than they were before so we can provide lower cost insurance to people who have health problems. The plan is categorically unfair to those Americans that don't want health insurance for whatever reason.

To top it all off ... a very prudent question was asked about the plan that 'requires' all people to enroll. Will it cover illegals, or just American citizens?

Now Hillary has been working on this plan for over a decade now. You'd think she would have thought about this all important issue. Especially since illegals are such a massive burden on our medical industry. In fact, this could be the most important aspect of the plan's success or failure. So what was her response?

Senior [Clinton] policy adviser Laurie Rubiner–-while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a “huge issue” in this country–-said, “That’s one we’re going to have to think through a little bit.”

“We have not dealt with every single detail with this plan,” Rubiner continued.

They haven't even bothered to address the issue yet?

There is a couple of things to look at here. One of those being that illegals cost the medical industry about $35 billion a year. Which raises health care costs and premiums.

1. If illegals are not required to enroll ... will they still receive the same medical care as everyone else?
2. If so, won't premiums and costs continue to increase as the financial burden grows ... as it does now?
3. If they are required to enroll ... will we then deport them as they come forward?
4. If not, how can we confirm their income, and will their employers be punished?

If illegals are not required to enroll, but still receive the same benefits as Americans do you will see a backlash of which the likes have never been seen before.

I'm also wondering if abortion will be covered, but I think we all know the answer to that question.

Hillary Lies To Black Journalists

We all know what Hillary Care is ... it's socialized health care. There can be no denying it ... unless, of course, you're Hillary.

Last week, here in Vegas, we had the National Association of Black Journalists in town, and Hillary spoke at the convention. She was asked a very solid question by a journalist about the negative impacts her socialized health care plan would have on the black community.

Here's her response ...

LVRJ:

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning for president, faced a rare skeptical question at a gathering of the National Association of Black Journalists in Las Vegas last week. Why does the Democrat insist on pushing socialized medicine, "particularly when it will hurt African-American communities more than anybody else?" she was asked.

"I have never advocated socialized medicine," the former first lady replied. "That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Uh ... yeah ... that whole "vast right wing conspiracy" thing again.

Before we continue, allow me to define socialized medicine for you.

Socialized Medicine:

Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government.

Socialize:

1. To place under government or group ownership or control.
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable.
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society.

Ok, does everyone have it? If health care is placed under government control, and is funded by taxes ... it is socialized health care. It is not a conspiratorial attack on Hillary.

Unfortunately, some of us still have copies of the 1,300-page proposed "Health Security Act" crafted by Mrs. Clinton's secret committee in 1993. Under it, a patient who "stepped out of line" and offered to pay cash for a doctor's services would have been subject to criminal penalties.

But such heavy reading is hardly required. What is the rationale of the nanny-staters for all their new seat belt laws, helmet laws, child restraint laws? That "everyone" will have to pay our medical costs if we're injured, of course.

That's socialized medicine. Or does Sen. Clinton regularly vote against ongoing allocations for Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP?

Why is Hillary trying so hard to hide from her own plan? It is what it is, and you can't spin it become something else.

Hillary, you just got pwned!

To read what the exchange entailed, and Hillary's lies on the socialized health care of other nations go HERE.

Pentagon Tells Hillary To Shut Up

This has happened a few times now that the military has told prominent Democrats to keep their mouths shut.

Yahoo News:

The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda. In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

That's right! Hillary is pissed that she got pwned by the Pentagon, and she is going to tell mommy!

Are Hillary & Edwards Teaming Up?

Check out this little chit chat that Hillary and Edwards engaged in after the debate.

They discussed limiting the number of candidates to be allowed at the debates, and Hillary even called some other candidates "not serious." Hillary also fessed up to an official campaign policy of limiting the debates.

Bonus:

Kucinich is uber pissed!

What Does Hillary And Che Have In Common?

More than just this shirt. Click the pic for the link.

John Edwards Says War On Terror Is A Political Slogan, A Bumper Sticker. Hillary Says We Are Safer Because Of Bush?

Edwards is the most annoying kind of idiot there is. We all know this isn't the first time he's said that he doesn't believe the War on Terror is real, but this is the first time he's been stupid enough to say it one day after a terrorist plot was foiled right here in the United States.

It happened today at a Democratic debate hosted by Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

Not only did Hillary disagree with Edwards, but she said we ARE safer because of Bush's policies. Everyone grab your coats, and snowboards, cause hell has just frozen over.

Here's how it went down ...

AP:

Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush's global war on terrorism a "political slogan, a bumper sticker, that's all it is" in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists."

Meanwhile, the non-existant war on terror hit home this weekend.

As fun as it was to see Hillary and Edwards go at it ... there is nothing in the world sweeter to hear than this:

Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD! She actually admitted that we are safer, and Bush's policies have been working ... at least to a degree.

Kucinich had some interesting things to say as well:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the war on Iraq should not just be blamed on Bush, but on the Congress that authorized it.

U.S. troops "never should have been sent there in the first place," he said. Rather than debate timetables and benchmarks, the Democratic-controlled Congress should "just say no money, the war's over," he said.

What a novel idea ... actually blame those responsible for sending the troops in the first place.

Iraq wasn't the only topic that yielded noteworthy responses.

To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.

But Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."

No Obama, if you take an elementary look at history you will see that a single national language unites a nation ... it never divides it.

Hillary Endorses Socialism ... Lies About Household Income

We all knew she was at best a Socialist, and at worst a full blown Commie ... it's just nice to hear her actually say it.

AP:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

Come on now ... be honest with yourself ... you know where this is going.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

DING! First she endorsed ethnic cleansing in Iraq, and now she is endorsing Communism! You can't ask for a better gift when you return from vacation than this.

"Special privileges for NONE." That means she wants to take away money from those who work hard, and give it to those who don't. A nice car, house, boat, clothes, vacations, etc. are all special privileges. She's just told you point blank that she wants to take that away.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.

Not only that, but we've sent a message that if you hold degrees from two of the most prominent universities in the world ... you're a dunce. Hence the attacks on President Bush.

Clinton said she would open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Now this is funny. Is she going to allow people who are not invested in a company have a say over how much the CEO makes. There are already plenty of ways for a CEO's pay to be scrutinized ... by the shareholders, and that should never change.

Now here is a nasty spin/lie depending on how you see it.

In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.

Now I get to beat her over the head with this one. You see, pay in the US has increased at a faster rate than productivity. That means we are getting paid more for doing less ... period. That is a unanimous fact in the economics world people.

Martin Crutsinger (AP) wrote about this not too long ago in a piece titled "Productivity Growth Skids to Standstill" , and it refutes what Hillary is saying in her latest Communism is great speech.

Growth in productivity — the key ingredient for rising living standards — skidded to a standstill in the late summer while workers' wages and benefits shot up at the fastest clip in more than two decades.

The combination of slowing productivity and rising wages was seen as a formula for inflation troubles down the road.

So our wages rose more than at any other time in the past 20 years while productivity remained stagnant. That's not what Hillary was saying ... was it?

Productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, showed no growth at all from July through September. Growth was just 1.3 percent over the past 12 months, the weakest showing in nine years.

The cost of wages and benefits measured by each unit of output grew at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter.

Employee compensation climbed by 5.3 percent over the past year. That gain was the fastest since a 5.8 percent rise in the 12 months ending in the fourth quarter of 1982.

Technically, Hillary was right about productivity increasing, but she was way off on family income going down.

Higher wages and benefits are good news for workers. But such increases can trigger inflation if companies pass on the higher wage costs by making products more expensive.

Forget about the price of our goods going up for a minute. Let's simply look at the companies. We all know for a fact that small business drives the US economy, or we all should. It's not big business that drives it, but the little guy who is now paying his workers more money for doing less than they were doing (per dollar) a few years ago. Hardly seems fair. Companies are faced with two choices:

1. Pay the higher wages by having their workers produce more ... thus created higher profit margins.
2. Pay the higher wages out of the profits from price increases without increasing productivity, and face scorn from shareholders.
   

Option 2 may ultimately lead to the company going overseas to get cheap labor, or folding altogether. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe you don't believe me. Fine. Hardly pro-big business Labor Radio says that the average income rose 8.6% from 2001-2006 (the same 6 years Hillary is talking about), but the average family income did decline from 2001-2004 by 3.6%.

You'll notice that family income study is missing two years on it. That's because household income has been growing the past two years as we recover from 9/11. The drop in household income is still easily explained without using 9/11 as an excuse.

You can't have an 8% increase in individual pay, and still have a decline in family income unless you factor in another growing trend ... women choosing to stay home with their kids is on the rise. While workers are earning more ... the loss of a second income altogether would cause a decline. That's the family's choice, and is not a problem for government to rectify. Remember how I told you that household income has been on the rise the past two years? The US Census Bureau is the one saying the median household income is on the rise. Hillary didn't mention that either.

Hillary also spoke of increases in education, universal health care, and more social programs in this same speech. All of this requires one thing ... higher taxes. Something she neglected to mention as a cause of income problems. Not only has our personal income suffered due to increases in taxes the past 20 years, but she is proposing more tax hikes. Which will what? Take more money out of our paycheck. Meaning we will make less ... not more.

We owe it to ourselves to be the type of society Hillary speaks of. We shouldn't be selfish people. On that I agree with her, but what she is proposing is the ultimate in selfish. If we truly didn't want to be a selfish society then we wouldn't want those who make more money to give us handouts. To take from the haves and give to the have nots is selfish in its purest form.

Nor can we believe the words of someone who says they will raise taxes, and increase your pay. The bottom line is if Hillary gets the programs she desires ... our taxes will go up, and more of our money will go directly to the government without us ever gazing upon it. It's not the salary that counts ... it's the pay we take home that allows us to live our lives.

Hillary Flip-Flops On Iraq Again At Debate

Hillary said she would get us out of Iraq last night at the debate, but that isn't what she said last month.

There are several different versions of Hillary out there, but two prominent one are TV Hillary and newspaper Hillary. During the Democrat debate yesterday Hillary said:

"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will."

Oh really?

Perhaps she would like to explain (yeah right) what she means by that, and why her statement yesterday was so different than the one she made last month.

In March Hillary made this statement in the NY Times:

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

So does she want to get out of Iraq, or stay in Iraq and allow ethnic cleansing to happen on her watch?

Hillary Adds Former Head Of 'La Raza' To Campaign Staff

Reconquista ...

AP:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Thursday that Raul Yzaguirre, a prominent Hispanic activist and former president of the National Council of La Raza, would co-chair her presidential campaign and lead its outreach to Hispanic voters.

Don't know what La Raza is ... go here.

Hillary: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Is Back!

YES! Finally I can dust off my old membership card ... it's just been gathering dust the past six years or so. The empire strikes back! You cannot resist the power of the dark side!

Hillary Compares Herself To JFK

Something that is often reserved for Obama. Neither is accurate, but I'll play along. Given the alleged similarities to JFK that both Hillary and Obama are claiming, and the similarities between Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole ... we should investigate both Hillary and Obama in the Anna Nichol's death. That way everyone will resemble everyone.