Friday, August 31, 2007




Go to and check out Bill Clinton's syrupy, five- minute ad for Hillary. He introduces the
commercial by saying that he wants to share some things we may not know
about Hillary's background. His version of her biography is about as
reliable as if it appeared in Pravda!

So, I wanted to make a few corrections;

Bill says: Hillary never wanted to run for public office, but she did want
to work at public service.

The facts are: When Clinton was considering not running for another term as
Governor of Arkansas in 1990, Hillary said she would run if he didn't. She
and Bill even had me take two surveys to assess her chances of winning.
The conclusion was that she couldn't win because people would just see her
as a seat warmer for when Bill came back, licking his wounds after losing
for president. So she didn't run. Bill did and won. But there is no
question, she had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, long ago.

Bill says: In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.

The facts are: Hillary's main extra-curricular activity in law school was
helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and
killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law
student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and
develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children's
rights project for poor kids.

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the
California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers,
and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned
down all the lucrative job offers.

The facts are: She flunked the D.C. bar exam and only passed the Arkansas
bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, and only got hired by the
University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already
teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill
became Attorney General, and made partner only after he was elected

Bill says: President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board
of Directors, and she became its chairman.

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill's support for
Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became chairman in
a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter's choice to be chairman.

Bill says: She served on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital.

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by
Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors, for a substantial fee.
She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: Hillary didn't succeed at getting health care for all Americans
in 1994, but she kept working at it, and helped to create the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP), that provides five million children with
health insurance.

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was
included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader
Senator Trent Lott. I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half
from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals' tobacco
settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: Hillary was the face of America all over the world

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so
that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running
the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic,
and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them

Bill says: Hillary was an excellent Senator, who kept fighting for
children's and women's issues.

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation, like changing
the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four
substantive pieces of legislation: One set up a national park in Puerto
. A second provided respite care for family members helping their
relatives through Alzheimer's or other conditions. And two were routine
bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders, which were sponsored by the entire
NY delegation.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton: She
has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country when it
comes to the war on terror.

1. She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the U. S. A., where
they would have access to our legal system.

2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls
to/from the U. S. A..

3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on
the battlefield.

4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between
suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters In the U. S. A..

5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the
military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known
terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives.

I can't think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment
she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror.
But I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country &
makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us. She goes hand-in-hand
with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.

She is a disaster for all Americans.

Thursday, August 30, 2007


The Los Angeles Police Department decided that it is going to stop impounding cars ... of "unlicensed drivers." They say the practice may be unconstitutional because "many unlicensed drivers who have their cars towed are illegal immigrants who cannot get driver's licenses."

Just an FYI ... I did a little research. There are over 2 million illegal immigrants in California alone. At least one million of them drive without a license.

The department decided to change its rules after civil rights aaaactivists and LA politicians read a court ruling in Oregon. The case involved a man named Jorge Miranda. Good ole Jorge (pronounced whore-hey) was teaching his wife, an unlicensed driver, to drive his car. She was pulled over by a cop. He impounded the vehicle for thirty days because it was being driven by an unlicensed driver. The ruling said this is a no-no.

Now let's see here. If you drive a car and you don't have a license, somewhat of an indication you don't know how to drive, they can't take the car. But if they find a little Mary Jane stuffed between the cushions of the back seat, they can.

LAPD will no longer impound vehicles solely because the driver is driving without a license. Now how is this for government brilliance ... the driver will be cited for driving without a license but the car will only be impounded if it cannot be driven away by a licensed driver or parked legally and secured.

In other words, if none of your amigos actually have a legal driver's license and cannot come and pick up the car, you are still SOL.

But don't worry. Senator Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles has information on his website as to how unlicensed drivers can fight impounds. Now there's man of the people.

Monday, August 27, 2007



“Hillary is the first choice of Martian visitors,” or so said Gerard Baker in his August 17 Op Ed piece in The Times of London. Baker, who is the U.S. Editor of the Times, reports that wherever he went across Europe this summer everyone asked him the same question: “who’s going to win the election?” Baker attributes this to a unique confluence of interest between Europe and the States. ”However briefly,” he writes, “the rest of the world is thinking the same way as America.”

Baker admits that this is not a question he would normally feel comfortable answering, especially since the election is fully 15 months away. Who among us enduring this era of the eternal campaign cannot empathize? But what do Martians have to do with anything?

The humorous galactic gambit is Baker’s way of stating the bloody obvious. If a Martian were to come down and follow the Democrat Party’s US Presidential candidates for a few days, he would wonder why there was any question at all why Mrs. Clinton should not be the anointed. “It is evident that she is the most knowledgeable, experienced and disciplined. Most of the time, like a Queen Elizabeth I or a Margaret Thatcher, she easily dominates the inferior men shuffling around her,” states Baker. He then hastens to add that she is not his favorite person. “I continue to find the ease with which she has sacrificed her principles on everything of importance, the makeover from radical feminist to soft-focused mother and devoted wife, from V-sign-waving peacenik to hawkish warmonger, all a little chilling even for my slightly cynical tastes.” Baker laments the credulity of American voters who are likely to overlook Hillary’s faults.

“To be fair for a moment,” Baker concludes, “even I would have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton’s First Lady (though, assuredly not his last), on the evidence of the campaign so far at least, deserves her lead.”

He sees the lesser Democrat candidates as merely hanging around in a tedious collective audition for spots in Mrs. Clinton’s Administration.

Baker is dismissive of Barack Obama. “To be frank,” he says, “that same Martian would have to wonder what exactly all the fuss was about with the Illinois Senator.” He rejects the endless comparisons between Obama and JFK adding: “Mr. Obama remains an oddly unconvincing world saviour.” Nor does Baker spare candidate John Edwards. He characterizes the Edwards campaign as “larded with a hypocrisy and opportunism that make Mrs. Clinton look like St. Thomas More.”

In June, another London Times reporter, Sarah Baxter, penned a book review of political consultant, Bob Schrum’s, mid life memoir: "No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner." With the eye catching headline: “Clinton’s zipper problem returns to haunt Hillary,” Baxter chose to indicate the gossipy nature of Schrum’s tome by recounting the late Pamela Harriman’s fury at Bill Clinton. The story goes that he once brought a woman back to Harriman’s home to spend the night with him. Harriman, then the US Ambassador to France, had quite a reputation as what is called a “courtesan” in polite company, but even she was repulsed by Bill Clinton’s recklessness. Baxter’s slant on Hillary’s candidacy is that it will put the spotlight back on the Clinton’s clearly rocky marital history, something rhetorically echoed in the words of Michele Obama last weekend: “If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

In his August 19 commentary on Hillary, The Independent’s Foreign Editor, Leonard Doyle, asks: “Why Is She Hated By Progressives and Right Wingers Alike?” His subtitle gives the answer straightaway. “They say she is a scheming control-freak who will stop at nothing in her bid to become the first Mrs. President.” For the record, The Independent is the youngest (founded 1986) of the UK’s daily papers. It was begun by former Telegraph journalists as an alternative venue for those who did not subscribe to the worldview of the Murdoch publishing cartel. It is positioned to attract readers who are politically center left, which suggests it should be aligned with Mrs. Clinton. But Doyle chose to pack his Hillary piece with rather unflattering snippets. Not least of these is his focus on how Hillary has riled America’s left wing feminists. Doyle cites best selling author and filmmaker Nora Ephron as an exemplar of this crowd. Once a supporter who said someone would have to burn down the White House to get her to say anything against the former First Lady, now Ephron is an avowed Hillary resister. Why? Because, she says, (in so many words) you can’t trust Hillary as far as you can spit. This turn hinges almost entirely on the New York Senator’s position on the war in Iraq, frequently cited as the probable source of her downfall, should it come. And here’s a slam which Doyle saw fit to print, although it is unlikely to appear in the New York Times. He quotes Jane Fonda’s description of Hillary as “a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.” One could argue with the skirt comment as Hillary is always seen wearing pantsuits.

The Guardian newspaper, demographically positioned for center to left wing readers, warned its audience that whoever was elected President in 08, one regrettable fact would not change. A June 7 article remorsefully noted that, even when the evangelical Bush left office, there would be no escape from Christianity. That piece (with an embedded sigh) was entitled: “There’s one thing the US presidential contenders all have in common: God.” Two weeks later, a Guardian correspondent posted in Washington held out hope for British lefties by reporting: “Poll of Democrats reveals Gore could still steal the show.” This political resurrection, should it happen, was put down to “the greatest brand makeover in history.”

For pure comic relief, the Times ran a contribution from the witty Hugo Rifkind, who specializes in writing humorous send-ups of celebrities. In this instance, Rifkind conjured up an uncomplimentary image of Hillary (and Bill) by creating a week’s worth of imaginary entries from her personal diary.

Here are two excerpts from Monday -- with the really juicy bits edited out.

“I am dressing. My husband, Bill, is still in bed, watching a women’s beach volleyball match on TV.”

“I am not one of those apple-pie women who frets over her white slacks and gingham shirt each day. Hell no. I despise those women. Although I also respect them, as Americans. Today, though, I’m not sure. Should I be Soft Hillary, in pink and beige, with a glimpse of flesh? Or should I be Hard Hillary?”

It is this impression of Mrs. Clinton which led a Telegraph writer to nickname her “the power behind the drone.”

But for all the insults and parodies being aimed at Hillary and Obama et. al, the respected European journal, The Economist, reports that 40% of GOP supporters believe the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. That is no laughing matter.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007


The president signed a new electronic surveillance bill into law yesterday. This morning the New York Times carried the story, and I think that it is safe to say that the Times treatment of this story will become the standard.

First ... why was the law needed? Let's say you have an Islamic terrorist suspect in London, perhaps a doctor, making a phone call to a like-minded Muslim inside the United States. I think that most people would agree that our intelligence agencies might have a passing interest in what is being said during that conversation. The best way to intercept and monitor that conversation would be through the communications switching facilities in the United States. But there's a small problem there. The FISA intelligence court ruled earlier this year that the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls coming through American switching centers. So, the Bush Administration asked for a new surveillance law permitting just that type of monitoring, and the Democrat congress gave him just such a bill to sign.

There's a few interesting facets to the Times reporting of this story. First ... not once in the entire article do you find the words "Muslin", "Islamic", or "terrorist." Islamic terrorism is the reason this eavesdropping is needed. There are estimates of thousands of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist sympathizers already in this country. For some odd reason our intelligence people think that it might be a good idea if we could monitor their communications with their buddies overseas. You would think that somewhere in the Times story they might make some sort of a mention as to why this new law is so essential to the safety of the American people. But noooooo.

Secondly, maybe it's just me, but if I were writing the story I would have found a way to make it clear that the people inside the United States who would end up being monitored are not just Americans – not just citizens. I would suspect that most of the people in this country who end up on the U.S. side of a monitored conversation would not be "Americans." They would be foreign nationals living in this country.

At any rate, the left will have to shut up for a few days about the evils of "warrentless wiretapping." This has been such a big deal for the Bush-haters, now he has signed a bill presented to him by a Democrat congress! We'll just have to sit back and wait for a bit to see how long it takes for the left to forget their all-important role in this new law.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007


State Republican honchos from around the nation are going to meet this Thursday. There are 168 members of the Republican National Committee. Thus far 47 of them have signed a petition saying that they will oppose any immigration reform policy that will grant legal residency to illegal aliens.

Fine, as far as it goes. Will the petition also state support for spending as much money as is needed to close – tight – the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico? Will the petition support the denial of all federal crime-fighting grants to cities who adopt "sanctuary city" policies with respect with the illegals sucking off their taxpayers?

I'm not through yet. Here's some more ideas for the petition:

  1. A change in the law to deny legal residency and citizenship to babies born to mothers who are in this country illegally.
  2. Stricter penalties, widely enforced, against companies that hire illegal aliens.
  3. Only emergency medical care at taxpayer's expense for illegal aliens.
  4. No access to government schools for the children of illegal aliens.

But .. what the heck. I guess the denial of amnesty to illegal aliens is a start. Maybe they're getting the message.