Serious Allegations Against The Clinton Campaign in Nevada

Cross posted from Wake up America

Statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.

We will investigate all of these thoroughly and would encourage anyone who had concern about actions at the caucus sites to call (866) 675-2008.

Normally, when one campaign makes statements like this, they must be taken with a grain of salt; when they are followed up with firsthand eyewitness accounts backing those statements up, whether the incidents would have changed the final results or not becomes secondary to the question of accountability for using underhanded--and possibly illegal--tactics to begin with.

Let's start with the first allegation of caucus doors being closed thirty minutes early and people being turned away.

From a Daily Kos diary, thereisnospoon:

Here's my story:

I got to the location at 10:30am and set up. The Hillary people were already there. In charge of them was a 60-ish woman with a slight Brooklyn accent. Here were the irregularities in my precinct alone:

* The Hillary operative tried to force the doors to close at 11:30am. KK was outside greeting people, and she overheard the Hillary campaign mention that the doors would be closing at 11:30am, and she went to talk to the precinct chair. So we intervened and said that that was absolutely not legal by the rules. She then started screaming at the chair to close the doors. When he read the rules that they were open until 12noon, she said that "that's not what I was told, other campaigns were spreading misinformation." We stood our ground, and the doors remained open.


* A man in a wheelchair came in with his daughter, and said he was an Edwards supporter. When his daughter began to wheel him to the middle of the room, the Hillary operative tapped her on the shoulder, took the wheelchair and took him to the Clinton corner. I rushed over from talking to an undecided voter and objected loudly, but his daughter was a Hillary person. The Clinton operative said, "I don't control what he does; she does." At that point I said to the man, "Nobody controls you. If you want to vote for Edwards, you have every right to go to the center of the room. Do you need help?" He looked at me plaintively, but said nothing as his daughter dragged him farther back into the corner and just shook his head.


* The Clinton operative herself had a Brooklyn accent and I overheard her mention having been from New York. When she stood to be counted in the middle of the room, I objected and asked her if she was actually from Nevada. She said yes. I talked to the chair and asked him to ask her name and find her on the list. He asked her her name and checked the list, and she was not on it. At this point the chair said, "well, I can't ask for ID." I said, "She can't participate if no one will vouch for her." At this point a Hispanic man wearing a Hillary shirt said she was his wife. While that's not impossible, it was also improbable--but I had no way to verify or object further.


* One voter who hadn't even finished registering said that she was undecided, and the Hillary operative physically escorted her to the Hillary side. I went to talk to the woman, but she was immediately surrounded by 3 Hillary supporters who would not let me in, and I had to attend to others registering at that point (our operatives were outnumbered by hers 2-1).


* Hillary supporters were doing check-in, and a Hillary sign was behind them. I forced the sign off the table, and I went to the front desk to verify that everything went according to the rules at checkin--but if nothing else, the necessity of doing so prevented me from doing other needed work.

Read the whole thing; they also relay stories of what others are telling them and are saying they have video to support some of these claims.

This diarist also ends with something that should be very disturbing for Democrats in general:

After being a part of this campaign, doing this work, and seeing this level of viciousness from a supposedly Democratic candidate, it will be a cold day in hell before I do any work for anyone in any way associated with Hillary Clinton. At this point, even my general election vote is in question. I am furious almost to the point of nausea. There are so many young, idealistic activists here who are absolutely crushed--not because we lost here, but because of the way we "lost." Disillusionment is running extremely high--and I doubt very much of many of them will be back in 2008, or ever again. Illegal and immoral campaign tactics like this aren't just reprehensible: they also come at a cost to the party in the long run.

Another firsthand account comes from LV Pol Girl:

As many of you know I am an Obama supporter and a first time caucus goer. Here is my experience...


We showed up at 10 AM and the Hillary camp was all set with signs and volunteers. It didn't take long for the Obama volunteers to neutralize Hillary's head start. For starters, we noticed that Hillary's supporters were breaking the rules by placing Hillary signs where they were not allowed and we asked them to take them down, which they did. We then noticed, that a car sporting Hillary signage, was double-parked, blocking people who needed access to handicapped parking. We told a woman who just had a hip replacement to park her car right beside the car.


The next controversial issue involved the voter cards disappearing into the Hillary camp, so that the Edwards and Obama people were left with no cards. When we asked them to give us back some cards, we then noticed that they had all been pre-marked for Hillary.


Another controversy arose, when a Hillary supporter became hostile with the Precinct Chair because she felt that things were not moving as fast as she would have liked -- the time was only 11:00 a.m. This, along with the voter card stunt, ended up hurting the Hillary camp because the precinct chair, a known Hillary supporter, was turned off by these tactics and decided to join the Obama camp.

Once again, there is much more to that diary--those are just the highlights.

The next account is from RunnerAAA, who lists multiple problems at the caucus as well as from some Hillary supporters, from trying to close the doors early [again] to people trying to vote in more than one precinct, people being sent to the wrong precinct deliberately as well as precinct captains being interrupted--in violation of caucus rules--when they had their five minutes to speak to the group about their candidate.

That diary ends like this:

We'll see how the results come out, but for now I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth about the Clinton campaign. I won't forget these dirty tactics today will never be forgotten. I hope that everyone realizes how much this reflects on Hillary's character. Anything to win, even if it means cheating. I am as strong a supporter for Obama as ever. We can't let the machine win.

It should be noted that complaints are coming in about both the Obama campaign AND the Clinton campaign as reported at The Hill.

Rick Moran puts together a list of some of the newsworthy dirty tactics the Clinton campaign has recently utilized since before--and during--the Nevada caucus, over at the PoliGazette.

There is quite a bit of buzz about this on the left side of the blogosphere and Ed Morrisey wonders why we even have caucuses instead of primaries being the standard.

He has a point. Precinct chairs who favor one candidate over another leads to decisions being made, not in fairness to the process but with bias for the campaign that the chair supports... there is nothing fair in that process and leaves us wondering if any legal action can be taken against such tactics as those having been reported.

Secondly, many were so disturbed about the process and what they saw from their own "side" they have been turned off of the whole political process altogether.

Third, because of the chaos at some of the precincts, first time caucus goers may never participate in the process again.

I would bet good money on the fact that nasty tactics, dirty tricks, voter suppression and fraud have just begun in this race, but the fun part about it is the Democrats are using these tactics against each other.

It is like finally ripping the roof off of hell and letting the world see what the Democrats really are all about.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama Strikes Back

Cross posted from Wake up America

Yesterday we discussed how the Clinton's continue to dig holes for themselves, (this one by trying to be subtle and using Obama's race, which offended many in the black community) then when trying to do damage control, end up digging it a little deeper.

Now we see, via Huffington Post, a memo that Amaya Smith, SC press secretary for Obama has sent out, listing items of the Clinton's and/or Clinton "surrogates" have, indeed, used the race issue in the same breath as they deny that they would ever use such tactics:

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

SHUCK AND JIVE

Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said "You Can't Shuck And Jive At A Press Conference. All Those Moves You Can Make With The Press Don't Work When You're In Someone's Living Room." Clinton-supporting New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thing that's great about New Hampshire is that you have to go out and meet people rather than "shuck and jive" through press conferences there. Cuomo said of New Hampshire on an
Albany radio station: "It's not a TV-crazed race. Frankly, you can't buy your way into it. You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room." [Newsday, 1/11/08]

MARTIN LUTHER KING / LYNDON JOHNSON COMPARISON

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising "False Hope" Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: "It Took A President To Get It Done." Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama's rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like John F. Kennedy and King. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done." [Politico, 1/7/08; Video]

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: "If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures." [HRC, Dover, NH,
1/7/08] AUDIO ATTACHED

NELSON MANDELA

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. "I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would pick Hillary.'" [ABC News, 1/7/08; Audio]

DRUG USE

Clinton's NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would "Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter." Clinton's Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen's Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He "Deeply Regret[s] The Comments." The Democratic presidential race took on a decidedly nasty and personal turn, with the New Hampshire co-chair for Clinton, raising the
youthful drug use of Obama. Shaheen said Obama's having been so open -- as opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use during his 2000 presidential campaign -- will "open the door to further queries on the matter. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." By the end of the day, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer had issued a statement asserting that "these comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way." And Shaheen himself issued a statement: "I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the
campaign in any way." [ABC News, 12/12/07]

Mark Penn, In Trying To Defend His Campaign Over Bill Shaheen's Obama Drug Use Comments, Used The Word "Cocaine," Drawing A Rebuke From Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi. Mark Penn, defending the Clinton campaign in light of Bill Shaheen's comments about Obama's drug use, repeatedly referenced Obama's cocaine use. Edwards adviser Joe Trippi accused Penn of dropping the word "cocaine" deliberately. Mark Penn said "Well, I think we have made clear
that the -- the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator." Joe Trippie responded and said "I think he just did it again. He just did it again. ...
This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again."
[Politico, 12/13/07; Video]

FAIRY TALE

Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale" And Said "It's An Insult... As An African-American" And That His Tone And Words Are "Very Depressing." Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton over his insulting comments of Obama, where he called him a "fairy tale" and said "I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't
take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you,
as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing. ... I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator." [Politico, 1/8/08]

Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America

John Edwards has even jumped into the mix, coming down on Obama's side, yet again:

In a sign of how the issue was churning the waters, Mr. Edwards, also speaking at a church in South Carolina, expressed pride in Mr. Obama while criticizing Mrs. Clinton for what some have seen as her suggesting that President Lyndon B. Johnson deserved more credit than Dr. King for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign,” said Mr. Edwards, who grew up in North Carolina. He added: “I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that.”

The Clinton's have a long history of attacking, sometimes in a subtle manner and other times not so subtle, then crying that they are victims... people used to fall for it, they aren't anymore because that game gets old after a while.

Spokeswoman for Barack Obama, Candice Tolliver, had this to say "A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements. There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months. Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?"

If this were just Obama and his campaign saying this, it would be chalked up to politics as usual, but many in the black community have come out and publicly taken offense.

Jesse Jackson has taken issue with their remarks and this tactic and said in a statement "Following Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire. the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change."

Jim Clyburnone, of the leading Democrats in South Carolina and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus,that expressed "disappointment" in the Clinton campaign.

Representative Bakari Sellers a 23-year-old legislator says he is angry about Clinton's remarks "I think those comments were insensitive. I think they showed a lack of concern about the struggles of African-Americans. I thought those comments were inappropriate."

South Carolina's largest newspaper, The State:

Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.

The gloves are off, the fight has just begun and this issue isn't going anywhere fast, it is going to stay front and center and it appears that it is going to get much nastier before all is said and done.

The days where the Clinton's get a free pass, are over, and rightly so.

.

Sphere: Related Content

Ain't It The truth--Joke from Bonnie

The old priest lay dying in the hospital. For years he had faithfully served the people of the nation's capital. He motioned for his nurse to come near.

'Yes, Father?' said the nurse.

'I would really like to see Senator's Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton before I die.' whispered the priest.

'I'll see what I can do, Father' replied the nurse. The nurse sent the request to the Senate and waited for a response. Soon the word arrived.

As they went to the hospital, Hillary commented to Teddy, 'I don't know why the old priest wants to see us, but it will certainly help our images and might even get me elected President. After all, I'm IN IT TO WIN IT.' Kennedy agreed it was a good thing.

When they arrived at the priest's room, the priest took Ted's hand in his right hand and Hillary's hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priest's face.

Finally Senator Kennedy spoke. 'Father, of all the people you could have chosen, why did you choose us to be with you as you near the end?'

The old priest slowly replied, 'I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.'

'Amen' said Teddy.

'Amen' said Hillary.

The old priest continued, 'Jesus died between two lying thieves. I would like to do the same.'

Sphere: Related Content

Tom Cole, GOP Strategist, Is Smiling

Good for him, but in all honesty, this far before the actual elections, I do not think strategists from either side of the aisle should be smiling.

If there is one thing politicians (Democratic and Republican) are GREAT at, it is sticking their feet in their mouth, pandering to the extremists of the party, the ones that scream and screech the loudest, and ignoring the moderates that make up the bulk of voters for either party.

From Broder:

It all adds up, Cole said, to a political environment reminiscent of 1992 -- a tough year for entrenched incumbents of both parties who suddenly saw their margins shrink or disappear. "The American people are rising up in disgust," Cole said, "and incumbents will pay. It's not anti-Republican anymore. It's anti-Washington."

Cole argues that the House Democratic leadership has made a strategic error by wielding its narrow majority to craft partisan bills that invite a Bush veto. That was the case with several resolutions to shorten the Iraq war, and it will be the case later this fall with a series of appropriations bills. Polarization is exactly what the voters hate, Cole said; they are looking for cooperation and agreement.

The screeching over this piece has already begun and yet with over a year to go before polls and opinion pieces even start to matter, we are left wondering, who will make the next fatal error.

He does make a point I have made here before though about Hillary Clinton.

She might just be the shoe in for the Democratic primary and that is the best news the GOP can have.


With her massive connections to crooks, (Hsu to name just one) corruption (NJ Mayor to name just one of her corrupt supporters), court cases where she will have to testify, her ability to pander to anyone and any time without regard to principle, her flip flopping and that fact that she already holds a 48% disapproval rating and most everyone already knows her name and has an "opinion" one way or another-- her supposed shoe in candidacy will probably be the most fatal error on the Democratic side before the 2008 elections.

Her disapproval ratings are higher than those of Sen. John Kerry in the days leading up to the 2004 election (45 percent) and Al Gore (42 percent) just prior to the 2000 presidential election.

"No one with her level of negativity has won the nomination, let alone let alone the White House," University of Texas political science professor Bruce Buchanan said.

Rove said on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday that Clinton will have a difficult time changing her public image, because so many people have already formed an opinion about her.

If the Republicans do not make an error of that size before then, Democrats will hand the election right to the GOP simply by making her the candidate of choice.

With that said, do not forget to stop by facebook and join "Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong against Hillary)" which as of right now has 452, 671 members from both sides of the aisle and independents. (When I joined on September 25, 2007, there was only 421,000+, so you can see how that movement is growing fast).

Note to Tom Cole: Quit smiling, it is too early, but at least we, the GOP supporters, are not calling for the ouster of our party leaders, like the Democratic blogs are..

If they keep eating their own like this, then the GOP sure will be smiling by November 2008 with you Mr. Cole.

Example of what I mean by "eating their own":

Back in August Matt Stoller first floated the idea of a "Bush Dog" campaign against Democratic members of Congress who enable the right-wing through their support of Bush's policies on core progressive values at key moments.

Now the campaign is in full flight. If you type "Bush Dog Democrat" you now get thousands of results. Profiles of all 38 House Bush Dogs have been completed. Among critics are the DLC, DSCC and insider news source National Journal.

However it has been primarily focused on House Bush Dogs. However with a little research I found that Senate Bush Dogs are a much bigger problem.

They are right, a search for Bush Dog Democrats shows they are, indeed, eating their own and saving the GOP the trouble of having to do it for them....LOLOLOL

Ok, so I might be wrong, Tom Cole might just have a reason for a smirk at this time, but please, don't get cocky because we have a lot of work ahead of us.

Cross posted from Wake up America

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq War Veteran Takes Clinton and Schumer to the Woodshed

Cross posted from Wake up America

There are a few articles dealing with Iraq I will be pointing you to in this post, but the first one is by far the most concise and shows the frustration the majority of Iraq veterans have with Democratic politicians.

His comments echo the frustration shown in the emails and letters I receive as well as what Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets For Freedom told me in our exclusive interview. Vets For Freedom is a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who will be on the hill on September 17th and 18th to have their voices heard in the debate regarding Iraq.

Written by Jeff Nuding, who served in 2005 in Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Military Intelligence Battalion, 42nd Infantry Division of the N.Y. Army National Guard.

Found in the Daily News:

Dear Senators and Representatives:

You shared in starting this war, now you want to end it, without regard for our progress, or the consequence of defeat?

I served in Iraq two years ago, at your request. We have a saying in the noncommissioned officer corps, "I get my power from Congress." That's you.

As a first sergeant, I led 160 soldiers from a New York Army National Guard military intelligence battalion. When politicos and pundits talk about a surge, men and women like us serve as the vital fluids that form the waves.

We deployed about two-and-a-half years after the initial invasion, which toppled Saddam Hussein and destroyed and scattered his military. My job was to continue that mission. Prepare convoys. Keep my troops focused. Make sure they ate, drank water, got necessary rest. Keep them safe, get them home.

We ran over a hundred convoys. We withstood mortar attacks, a rocket sailed right over our billets, a nearby vehicle-borne improvised explosive device rained car parts and shrapnel down around us. A rocket hit the dining facility, and mortars hit its parking lot. One sailor attached to us, having a late night smoke, lost his legs when a mortar landed at his feet.

We aggressively identified terrorist cells and local area anti-coalition forces for targeting. Our ground surveillance radar guys ran missions with Army scouts in remote areas, survived IEDs and a complex ambush. We came back home knowing there was more job to be done, but we knew we'd done well.

We did our job. Why are you resigned to failure?

Back in 2003, you — including both of my senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton — voted to authorize the President to take military action. You voted, and by virtue of your authority, that means the U.S. government went to war.

You approved the appointment of Gen. David Petraeus, who last week sat in front of your committees and explained the progress of the war and the difficulties of the way ahead. It was an honest and forthright assessment from a soldier who thinks the military can achieve our objectives and that the military can create the environment for real change in Iraq.

Critics seemed to tune him out even before he began. They seem to believe that this war has already been too long and too painful to continue. Sen. Clinton, you rejected Gen. Petraeus' testimony as a "positive view of a grim situation," stating that accepting his testimony at face value required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

I wonder if being a politician means knowing how to call your opponent an opportunist and a liar to his face, without ever stating it plain.

I voted for you in 2000. Could I take that vote back, the way you seem to want to take back your vote to authorize force?

My soldiers know about the long and painful costs of war. All of us left our civilian jobs for a year and a half, and left our families and loved ones behind. Some lost their families or their marriages, and some lost their grip on home or health.

Yet none of us in the military serve under any illusion. We know what we signed up for. That's why so many of us reenlist.

Wars take time. They require steady will and determination. They compel commitment.

If fighting Saddam Hussein, and later Al Qaeda, in Iraq was important when earlier in this mission, they should still be important today. Al Qaeda is badly wounded there and elsewhere, but they aren't dead yet. Iraq is making gains as a democratic nation, but they still need help. They still need time.

Dear Senators and Representatives, you criticize President Bush relentlessly — picking apart the speech he gave last week with withering words, looking for any and every chance to bring him down.

But at least he maintains steady attention to this war. At least he seems to grasp the stakes of losing and the danger of giving up. Not so Congress.

Leaders influence the morale of their people, for good or bad. I wish you wanted to lead your constituents toward victory rather than defeat.

These sentiments, especially about the callous disregard for General Petraeus and his outstanding service to this country and disrespect shown to him by MoveOn.org and Hillary Clinton herself, have been stated by The American Legion.

By Marty Conatser - The American Legion National Commander

When the term “betray” is used to describe any American general not named Benedict Arnold, it gets most people’s attention. When it is used in a New York Times advertisement to describe a brilliant wartime commander with the credentials of David A. Petraeus, it gets the 2.7 million member American Legion’s attention.

I met Gen. Petraeus when I visited Iraq earlier this summer. That I was impressed with this visionary officer is unsurprising and relatively unimportant. What is important is that the men and women serving under Gen. Petraeus believe in him. Their faith in the uniformed Princeton Ph.D. is not misplaced. Petraeus earned a reputation as a counterinsurgency genius early in the Iraq war when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division and basically rebuilt the government infrastructures in Mosul and Ninevah Provinces. As he mentioned in his congressional testimony, sectarian violence in Iraq is down - especially in the once wild Anbar Province. Local tribes are turning on al Qaeda and in many cases cooperating with the coalition. When one senator said Gen. Petraeus's firsthand report required "a willing suspension of disbelief," it seemed to this Midwesterner that it was Washington's way of calling him a liar.

Even so, the libelous attack on a general is not The American Legion’s primary concern about the anti-war movement. Our concern is for the private, the sergeant, the lieutenant and the major. If a distinguished general could be attacked in such a manner, what can the rank-and-file soldier expect when he or she returns home?

At our national convention last month in Reno, nearly 3,000 delegates unanimously passed Resolution 169, codifying The American Legion’s support for the global war on terror. The resolution recalls that Congress authorized the military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan and reminds Americans that you cannot separate the wars from the warriors. With nearly a million Vietnam veterans in our organization, the symbolism of such a resolution is striking. Never again should Americans be tarred as baby-killers, terrorists or criminals for risking their lives so others could be free.

With almost 170,000 American forces in Iraq, there will be some criminal acts from time-to-time. Find me a town anywhere in America with the same population and I promise you will find a higher crime rate than what is seen among our military. Where is the perspective when the headlines repeatedly remind us of those crimes, yet little is written about Army Reserve Capt. Joel Arends, who led a team in Baghdad through fire to rescue Iraqi civilians? And why are the convicted soldiers from Abu Ghraib more famous than Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, who sacrificed his life smothering a grenade so that others would live?

As Americans, we all have a duty to speak up when our uniformed heroes are slandered. When a major media outlet accepts advertising revenue to mass produce such slander, we should be outraged. MoveOn.org can write anything it wants to, but the New York Times is not required to publish such libel.

Earlier this year, a presidential candidate called the Global War on terrorism a “bumper sticker.” I can think of 3,000 dead Americans who probably would disagree. “Support the troops,” however, really is a mere bumper sticker if we allow our fellow Americans, the media and our elected leaders to slander their heroism.

Marty Conatser is national commander of the 2.7-million member American Legion, the nation’s largest veterans organization.

The American Legion supports our troops and the war on terror as well as supports the surge and the progress that is being seen.

RENO, NV, August 31, 2007 - Nearly 6,000 delegates unanimously re-affirmed The American Legion’s support for the war on terrorism during the organization’s 89th National Convention in Reno, Nevada.

“We must continue to stand by the president and advocate for adequate funding for our troops that is not contingent on a set date for troop withdrawal,” said National Commander Paul A. Morin. “Our support of Resolution 169 is unwavering.”

Resolution 169 was first passed at The American Legion’s 87th National Convention in Honolulu and re-affirmed last year in Salt Lake City. It resolves that The American Legion urges all Americans and freedom-loving people stand united in their support of the global war on terrorism and united in their support of the troops. It further resolves that national commander of The American Legion disseminate accurate information to ensure the united support of the American people.

These groups are joined by countless others such as Vets4Victory, Appeal for Courage which is made up of Active Military members, Families United for The Troops and Their Mission who is a grassroots coalition of Gold Star and Blue Star families including some with loved ones in harm's way, Veterans, and Americans who share a deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform and support them in their efforts to make America safer by allowing them to complete their mission, Gathering of Eagles which just stood up to be heard yesterday in massive rallies in support of our troops and their mission along with Move America Forward. These are just a small sample of what our veterans, families of our military and their supporters are telling us.

General Petraeus came and told us of the conditions on the ground, the difficulties and challenges facing us, the progress and success being seen and the President has accepted his recommendations and in his speech made it clear they will be implemented, he reiterated that position in his radio address yesterday morning.

Those "in the know", specifically, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker and our military that are in Iraq or have been Iraq, are telling us that the battle is winnable, progress is being seen, the new strategies are working and there is still much work to be done.

U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert said it perfectly which we showed you yesterday

Congressman Reichert:

"My faith and trust is in General Petraeus, not in General Pelosi or the 435 members of Congress, The public doesn't have faith in the president or Congress, but do express trust in the generals. When you think about it, we have trusted our generals in the past ... Grant, Eisenhower, George Washington. It has always been hard and the American people had to be patient."

Exactly, the expert is General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker and our military that are there.

Not the media, not the congress and not the senate and most of all, not us, the American people.

We see what the media tells us, we see what the politicians tell us, but we do not see what they experts that live and fight in Iraq are seeing.

If you needed surgery, any type of surgery from minor to major, would you ask your congressman or senator or would you ask a specialist?

If you need your car worked on, would you approach your congressman or senator or would you take it to a garage or mechanic.

If you needed your plumbing worked on, who would you go to?

Even those with military experience that are in the senate or congress have not fought in Iraq so they are not able to give an informed opinion on what is happening in Iraq, they are too worried about politics and their next elections to concern themselves with what is best for the country and our national security.

What on earth makes them think that their knowledge about the conditions on the ground in Iraq can even compare to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's?

For that matter, what makes any American citizen that has not fought in Iraq think that THEIR knowledge of the conditions in Iraq even compare to those two men?

That is the height of arrogance.

I have to agree with Rep. Reichert, I have much more trust in General Petraeus than I do in General Pelosi or any of the other arm chair generals that think their knowledge and expertise even begin to compare with General Petraeus'.

We will be in Iraq for a long time, maybe not in the numbers we are now and with continued progress and success, even the mission will change and we will simply be a supportive, stabilizing force and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already stated clearly that if Congress and the Senate manage to cobble enough votes together to try to force defeat while we are seeing progress, he would recommend to the President a presidential veto, and considering how hard the senate already is finding it to get their 60 votes, getting 67 to override a veto will be impossible.

General Petraus and our troops are fighting to win a war, one has to wonder why our politicians are doing everything in their power to lose it?

Sphere: Related Content

The All So Ugly Truth

cross-post by Snooper

Media Matters will make the false assumption that folks cannot hear for themselves and that they are the only ones suitable to explain that which we do hear.

Facts are facts and the video is plain to see and hear.

What has the Hillary Apologist’s panties all in a wad is this article.

So be it.

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

The true 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 true 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 true 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 true facts are: She flunked the DC 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 alreadyteaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected Governor.

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

The true 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 true facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart 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 true facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Bill 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 true 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.

(Note from Norm: I am well aware of Hillary’s visits to the Middle East during this era. Her main goal at that time was to take up sides with Yassar Arafat. Bet ya’all don’t remember that! Norm will never forget that fiasco!)

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

The true 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 Rico. 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 USA where they would have access to our legal system.

2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA .

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

4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells & supporters in the USA .

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 and 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.

Editors note: How could regular mid-west Democrats who work for a living and have children who wish to grow up in a free America , like their parents did, vote for this woman? The “AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE IS AT STAKE”.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton: The Best the Democrats Have to Offer which is the Best News For the GOP

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Quite often I have made a point of saying that Hillary will be the shoe in for the Democratic Presidential candidate which, in my mind, is the best news the GOP could get.

Politico has an article out today echoing those statements from members of the GOP. I will show you their article first, then below it show you why I believe that if she is the one chosen to run for the Democrats, that will almost guarantee another Republican in the White House in 2008.

INDIANAPOLIS — He may be on his way out the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in coming days. But the party Karl Rove has labored to build over the past eight years seems to have picked up his talking points on next year’s presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and that could be the GOP’s saving grace in an otherwise uphill battle.

Conversations with Republicans gathered here for the biennial Midwest Republican Leadership Conference reflect a party unenthused or just plain uncertain about their potential White House nominee. But GOP faithful also seem quite confident and even upbeat about the prospect that the senator from New York is, as Rove put it, the “prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.”

That likelihood, they say, is good news for any hopes of keeping the White House and getting other Republicans on the ballot elected.

Asked if Clinton being the nominee would improve his party’s chances both nationally and in Indiana, Howard County (Ind.) GOP Chair Craig Dunn got excited. “Absolutely, absolutely!” he exclaimed animatedly, grinning widely. “We’ve never elected a president of the United States who started off with 45 percent unfavorable ratings!”

[...]

In a multimedia presentation to the most diehard of GOP heartland activists, RNC Chair Mike Duncan played and replayed a video of Clinton talking about the economy in a manner he claimed smacked of “socialism.”

Socialism he says and we have shown you examples of that ourselves as far back as October of 2006, with a post called "Agenda for the Common Good: Be Damned" where I stated:

The Common Good.... That burns me to no end. The Democratic party is using it as their mantra now.

At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Link to the story here.

The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to "punish" people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her.... the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.

The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans.

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community — sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

So, the basic concept here is that "materialism" is bad, people earning the wealth to enjoy some of the finer things in life is "bad", they object to "greed", but in their self righteous world, greed is defined as those that work their asses off to EARN MONEY, wow, wanting to earn more money is a BAD thing again...ok so I am bad!!!! "Shared sacrifice", what the hell does that mean? Does that mean that if I am capable of earning a good living, because I am good at what I do for a living, the "Democratic Government" should be able to take more from me? How the hell do they justify THAT?????? For the Common Good be damned and so should the Democrats.

Lets remember what Thomas Jefferson once said here:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Now, lets put her socialistic tendencies aside for a second because her and her husbands baggage and dirty laundry far outweigh just her socialist values.

(Keeping in mind that Hillary – in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement – told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.)

Crime Stats:

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

Forgetful Clinton "friends":

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Hillary Clinton 250.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton
348 Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

More recently quite a few bloggers got together and we all published another example of Hillary Clinton's corruption in a piece we called " Truth Boating Hillary" which follows a time line that is put together to make it easy for everyone to see her for what she is. A crooked politician.

So, to end this piece I have to say, I truly, really hope that the Democratic supporters DO make it Hillary Clinton that any GOP candidate has to run against for President.

They will be handing us the White House in 2008 on a silver platter.

(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]

Wife who has lost her husband:

Sphere: Related Content

Truth Boating Hillary

I asked Spree at Wake Up America to cross post this for me:

Via an email from John Stephenson from Stop the ACLU. (Copied from Stuck on Stupid)

In the following timeline, we will see apparent evidence of Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign understating over $750,000 in contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign, from one Peter Paul.

Evidently, Hillary’s campaign initially denied even knowing Peter Paul, and then later, admitted meeting him but never had a conversation regarding his contribution to her campaign.

Hillary Clinton will finally be under oath in the historic civil suit, Paul v Clinton in Los Angeles Superior Court. Voters are going to see the details of the greatest campaign finance fraud in history and the Clinton role in the collapse of Stan Lee Media.

It is going to take an army armada of bloggers to break the media blockade that has protected Hillary. It is time for TRUTH BOATING HILLARY.

Here is the TIMELINE that even the mainstream media can understand:

TIMELINE:

Feb. 2000 - Peter Paul is induced to support Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign with the promise of access to Bill Clinton to be able to make a proposal to come aboard Stan Lee Media as a rainmaker when he left the WH

June 9, 2000 - Paul pays for two Hillary Clinton fundraisers at Spago and the home of Cynthia Gershman … the costs are never declared by the campaign (note: a previous fundraiser through Rendell for Al Gore, paid for by Paul, was also never declared; Rendell also never declared a 150K stock pledge) … at the Spago lunch, Paul spent considerable time with Hillary and discussed his plan for her husband’s employment… see the 20/20 report from 2001…Amazingly, in her declaration of 4-7-06, Hillary acts as if she barely knew Peter Paul and claimed she couldn’t remember anything they might have said. Besides the email comments, Paul has video of her going on and on about how Stan Lee was a genius for hiring Paul. She is really excited about Paul’s idea of a cartoon character of Al Gore, and she wants to talk to Tony Coehlo and Terry McAuliffe about it. Her failure to remember is simply a lie.

June 23, 2000 - Kelly Craighead (a White House employee, not part of any joint funraising committee), Jim Levin, David Rosen (all agents of Hillary and Bill) meet with Aaron Tonken (agent of Paul and fundraiser for Ed Rendell) to originate the idea for a major fundraising event for Hillary as part of the Aug. 14-20 DNC Convention in L.A.

July 11, 2000 - conference call between Peter Paul, Tonken, Craighead, Wolfson, Levin, and Rosen in which Paul is solicited to pay for the Hollywood Gala….he is asked to pay $525K, and it is expected that Cynthia Gershman will pay a like amount….it was acknowledged by all that the fundraiser would cost over a million dollars

July 17, 2000 - Paul films the SMOKING GUN VIDEO. This video was withheld by an assistant US ATTY while investigations were proceeding. Hillary is shown soliciting and coordination the $1.6 mil in-kind, hard money donation. Kelly Craighead kept her completely briefed and she offered any help she could. David Kendall’s claim that this was a joint fundraiser, and thus hard money, won’t fly. Craighead was a White House employee who solicited the money on July 11. Hillary was part of closing the deal on July 17.

Aug. 12, 2000 - Hollywood Gala… it raises a million dollars for Hillary, but it cost over a million dollars…Paul spent several hours with Bill Clinton… here they are putting the final touches on the deal at the after concert dinner… Look at all the photos of the gala… Hillary actually said in her declaration of 4-7-06, “I remember Mr. Paul attending the event…” How insulting was that? Actually, she spent hours near him and publicly thanked him from the stage for all he did.

Aug 13 - Paul and his wife Andrea are at the home of Barbra Streisand for Clinton Library donors…when Hillary sees Andrea, she runs over to her, brings her over to Streisand, and introduces her as “the wife of the man who funded last night’s event…my new best friend”… Streisand’s testimony should be interesting… Chelsea came up to the table with Paul, Andrea, Tendo Oto, Oto’s interpreter Jonathon Rogers, Jim Levin, and Haim Saban. Chelsea discussed for at least a half an hour how excited she and her parents were about her dad coming to work for the creator of Spider Man… Hillary sets up her daughter for perjury

Aug. 13 - Tendo Oto and SLM make their deal for Asian partnership - Oto gives $5 mil and promises another $5-7 mil in November for the American joint venture…On Aug. 12 he had paid $27K to attend the federal fundraiser gala. Giving money was illegal. Attending was illegal. Since Oto had no social security number to check out when he showed up at the event with his camera crew, the Secret Service said no way. Clinton had the Secret Service stand down, and Oto sat directly behind the president and first lady.

Aug 14 - Ed Rendell calls Peter Paul in a panic. Lloyd Grove is preparing a story for the WASHPOST about Paul’s felony record for “The Cuban Coffee Caper” two decades previous when he was an international attorney in Miami. Rendell tells Paul to deny he gave any money and just play along. Shortly after the warning call, Grove called. Here is the callsheet from SLM, certified by the government as evidence.

Aug 15 - Lloyd Grove writes the story in the WASHPOST about Paul’s felony past from two decades previous involving the Cuban Coffee Caper and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million … Howard Wolfson vows that they would never take any money from Peter Paul

Aug 17 - Grove writes a second story about $2,000 given by Paul at Spago … Wolfson says they will return the money, and a check is immediately cut and sent to Paul … Wolfson actually admits that the gala cost a million dollars but says it was in-kind and not a check. (Ummm, in-kind is hard money, Howard)

Aug 18 - behind the scenes, while disavowing him in public, the Clintons write personal notes to Paul, dated Aug 18, espressing their gratitude … Hillary: “We will remember it always”… Bill’s note… Even Chelsea got into the act.

Aug 24 - Campaign Finance Chairman David Rosen is directed to send a fax to Paul asking for another $100,000 (actually, one of several faxes) … Hillary had promised the money for the Working Families Party in New York … Paul will send no more money until he hears it face to face from Bill Clinton that they still have a deal (second document shows Gordon’s acknowledgement that it was “done”)

Sept. 22, 2000 - Clinton steps off AF-1 in Los Angeles (we have photo) and assures Paul that the deal is still a go … Paul has Steven Gordon send a stock transfer of $55K to the Working Families Party for Hillary… we can find no evidence that they ever declared that donation. If the Clintons were disavowing Paul in public, claimed he gave no money, and had no business arrangement with the President as claimed by Hillary, why would the President of the United States be meeting Paul in public as he stepped off AF-1? For what possible purpose? That’s not hard to figure out, is it?

Nov 7 - Hillary is elected

Nov 13 - just six days after Hillary’s election, an agreement for Venture Soft USA Inc is recorded in Illinois between Jim Levin, Clinton’s business adviser, and Tendo Oto … Levin was Clinton’s “eyes and ears” in dealing with Paul, got proprietary business information, and stole the Japanese partner for their own deal

Dec 2000 - Stan Lee Media collapses … the additional $5-7 million promised in November from partner Tendo Oto was not received due to the Clinton/Levin interference In Paul v Clinton, it will be proven that Oto’s money would have kept the company solvent until Clinton came aboard as he had promised Peter Paul.

Early 2001 - Paul discovers that the campaign has filed two fraudulent FEC reports, only reporting 366K for the cost of Event 39 … he spent over a million dollars on it

June 18, 2001 - Paul files initial lawsuit against the Clintons and several others for business fraud

July 3 - Treasurer Andrew Grossman is served with the lawsuit that includes documentation for $1.6 million spent by Paul

July 11 - David Kendall accepts service for Hillary along with the $1.6 million documented expenses

July 18 - press conference at National Press Club . Paul has messenger hand deliver a demand letter to Hillary’s senate office

July 30 - despite Paul’s demand and all of the documentation, a third false FEC report is filed … this time they declare $401K for Event 39 … still no mention of Paul as the real donor

Jan 2005 - criminal indictment of David Rosen is unsealed

May 2005 - Rosen acquitted in criminal trial in Los Angeles…the perjury in this trial was astounding…the judge and prosecutor went out of their way to condemn Paul and claim that Hillary had nothing to do with it is also astounding… FBI affidavit during the trial documenting $1.2 mil from Paul that was not declared. The prosecution does not call Paul, Aaron Tonken, or key witness Kelly Craighead (Craighead was also never called by the FEC - she will be a key witness in Paul v Clinton)…. The prosecution does not use damaging evidence against Rosen obtained while Ray Reggie (brother in law of Ted Kennedy) was wearing a wire. In Tonken’s book, KING OF CONS, he tells how he sat in a van with Hillary detailing all of the money that was being spent on her.

Dec 2005 - FEC determines that the campaign deliberately underreported $721,000, fines the campaign a mere $35,000, and orders a new filing…treasurer Andrew Grossman signs conciliation agreement with the FEC, the equivalent of a nolo contendre plea

Jan 2006 - the fourth fraudulent FEC report is filed … among the problems are Stan Lee (whom we have on tape in a deposition swearing that he gave no money) is credited with a 225K donation and Paul is still never named personally as the donor as he has demanded

April 7, 2006 - Hillary removed as defendant but judge made clear to Kendall that she would be testifying … the declaration turned into the court by Kendall for Hillary can only be described as a work of fiction … no reporters attended the hearing and not one mainstream media source wrote that a trial date had been set for defendant Bill Clinton (trial date postponed until appeal is heard to bring Hillary back in as a defendant) … Chelsea will be one of the witnesses called … although her mom claims no knowledge of the business deal, if Chelsea testifies honestly, she will tell how the family stayed up late after the gala playing scrabble and discussing the excitement of daddy going to work for the creator of Spiderman … from a private fundraiser at Zev Braun’s house in early 2000, Paul has home video of Hillary laughing and discussing with him how he had arranged in 1993 for Fabio to chase her around the room and pick her up in a romance pose…the president referenced that event the next year at the Italian-American Foundation Dinner…. her declaration claiming that she met Paul in early 2000 is simply a lie

June 2006 - Senate Ethics Committee announces it will not investigate Hillary and simply relies on the flawed FEC procedure … subsequently, they refuse Paul’s offer to appear and testity

Oct. 18, 2006 - new demand letter for return of over a million dollars is delivered to Hillary’s DC office with copy delivered to Sen. Voinovich, chair of the Senate Ethics Committee

Jan. 10, 2007 - Paul counsel files Appellate Brief to bring Hillary back into the case as a defendant (that delays the trial date for Bill, set for March 27, 2007…it also delays depositions)….no mainstream media source had reported that defendant Bill Clinton had a trial date in a case involving the collapse of Spiderman Stan Lee’s company)

April 2007 - after a two-year battle for the return of evidence, including home videos, an assistant US atty provides Paul with a list of items they will return to him…..included was the “smoking gun video”: July 17, 5-minute conference call, Hillary Clinton….. when the numerous pieces of evidence were finally sent, the shipment did not include that video…..Paul’s counsel argues vehemently for that to be sent….Paul believes that a low-level functionary screwed up by putting that piece of evidence on the manifest — Hillary never thought it would see the light of day…that video was finally sent because they could not deny its possession

June 20, 2007 - look at this page under “Latest Filings” for June 20 briefs and declarations

July 27, 2007 - court notification that oral arguments are set for Sept. 7 before the California Court of Appeals…. a decision on whether Hillary is brought back in as a defendant is expected within 10 days thereafter…. then, it is time for depositions…. if David Kendall loses, he may appeal to the California Supreme Court…..that court had earlier refused to hear the argument about removal of Bill Clinton from the case…. Kendall may be able to delay it for a short time, but depositions are expected to begin this year.

ADDITIONAL INFO: THE FRAUDULENT SENATOR SERIES

REPORTED ON : HANNITY BLOG

REPORTED ON: AMERICAN THINKER

REPORTED ON: POWERLINE

NUKES NEWS AND VIEWS

REPORTED ON: NO HILLARY CLINTON

REPORTED ON: DOUG ROSS BLOG

AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON

ASTUTE BLOGGER

REPORTED ON: CAO’S BLOG

ZENNIE’S BLOG

REPORTED HERE

CANADA FREE PRESS

WAKE UP AMERICA

[Update] From the comments section, here is a link with much more information about Hillary Clinton.

Sphere: Related Content