The Nobel Peace Prize and Mocking Derision

Stewart Dimmock, David that stood up to the Global warming Goliath

I like Jonathan Martins’ opening sentence, “Conservatives reacted to the long-awaited news this morning that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with mocking derision.”

Martin blogs for the Politico about Conservatives (obviously from a Liberal prospective!) his remarks sound as foreign as Osama bin Laden calling the West to Islam. I don’t think he gets the subject that he’s reporting on.

First of all who was long-awaiting the Nobel Committee to bestow the Peace prize on Al Gore for Global warming? Does it make any sense to anyone who is not a Liberal that the “PEACE” prize would be hijacked to make a political statement about an unproven theory? (According to Britain’s High Court Anthropogenic Global warming is unproved and not held in scientific consensus.)

Liberal are always attempting to self authenticate their views by making their views law or by giving their views some undeserved and unmerited distinction.

And as for mocking derision that is not what Conservatives did. No, mocking derision is what the Nobel Committee did when they turned their collective noses up on the real peace efforts throughout the world for a poke-in-the-eye at everyone who doesn’t follow blindly the Piped Piper of CO2 emissions himself Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

Through twisted logic the Oslo Committee attempted to justify their choice of Gore and the United Nations, International Panel on Climate Change, but their explain rung hollow in light of the many people who actually risked life and limb for the cause of peace in the world.

As the Opinion Journal points out what about the: Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.

Or Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.

Or Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.
Or Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.

Or Colombian President Àlvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.

Or Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.

Or the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Or Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.

Or Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.

Or thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.

Or scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.

Or, posthumously, lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.

Or the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.(Source The Opinion Journal)

Or what about Cindy Sheehan, Cindy is more about peace in her little toe than Al Gore ever was! You may not agree with Ms. Sheehan but her decision to run against Nancy Pelosi alone is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize!

No Jonathan, the only mocking derision concerning the Nobel Peace Prize is the derision the committee made by disregarding the real peacemakers when the committee overlooked peacemakers’ often dangerous, bitter and noble struggles for peace in order to hand the award to a movement that was not even in the peace category.

If the Nobel Prize Committee wishes to award environmental concerns they should open up a category for that purpose that would be appropriate.

But to take recognition from those who were rightly deserving of that recognition just to heap it upon those who are not, is the ultimate act of derisive mockery.

And Jonathan to report it as you did is devoid of all rational prospective my friend an act which itself is worthy of Conservatives’ mocking derision.

The Clinton’s Wrote The Book!

Hillary and Bill Clinton

"For 15 years, I've stood up against the right-wing machine," she said, as many in the crowd cheered.

"If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."—Senator Hillary Clinton

You can learn a lot from those bright yellow books, Etiquette For Dummies, Suse Linux 9.3 for Dummies, Business Plans Kit For Dummies, Home Decorating for Dummies, DOS For Dummies Quick Reference, MCSE SQL Server 2000 Administration for Dummies or Guitar For Dummies.

However the book that we are all reading from collectively right now is Politics for Dummies by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s a political playbook on how to lie, laugh, deceive and equivocate yourself right into the White house while using the Media, Liberals and the Democrat party to get what you want.

It’s a work of diabolical brilliance. A must read for every Liberal politician that values winning above all else. If you don’t read the Clinton’s playbook then you are truly a dummy!

I can’t recall seeing such a cold, calculating unrelenting work of political campaigning that is so patently fake.

The L.A. Times wrote, “She runs a textbook front-runner's presidential campaign: methodical and focused.” They continue, “Clinton campaigning is a study in focus and Swiss-watch precision.” What they are trying to say is Clinton’s campaign is a slick well oiled con game.

Hillary’s campaign is so obviously staged that’s its hard to believe that anyone is taking her seriously yet she leads her closet Liberal Democrat competitor by 25.6%. I guess Liberals don’t mind lying politicians just as long as they are Democrat lying politicians. The whole Clinton campaign is based on deception and Democrats accept it. And I must say that speaks volumes about the Democratic Party.

But it’s all in the book! It’s everything you need to know about deceptive politicking in the 21st century. It’s Politics for Dummies. Its chapters include:

o The Politics of personal destruction (how to destroy all Republicans starting with Bush)

o Controlling the conversation (announce it and media will cover it, if you are Hillary)

o How to make appearances on Fox news when all other Liberals are afraid to.

o Never answer a question, say a lot, redefine and respond to your own created redefined questions (The media never says, “But you didn’t answer my question!”)

o If you can’t avoid answering a question say, “I’ll have to leave that others to decide or “I’m not going to talk about that right now”

o Every week release a proposal for things like health care, minimum wage increase, subsidizing retirement , or a $5,000 bond for every baby. That will steer the national conversation in areas that you want people talking about.

o Always cover both sides say something like, “If George Bush doesn’t end the war in Iraq , I will.” then later say, “We can’t guarantee what we’ll do (pull out troops) because we don’t know what we’ll find when we get there.”

In Politics for dummies by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hillary rolls out political sound bites like the energizer bunny beats his drum, “Hillary’s Health Care Plan,” “Hillary will stop the genocide in Darfur,” “Hillary will give every Child $5,000 bond,” “Hillary will Stop the War, but maybe not because Hillary doesn’t know what she’ll find after Bush is gone” “Hillary will subsidized retirement accounts” “Hillary your girl to fight the nasty Republicans” “Hillary’s your girl to unite with the nasty Republicans”

"The time to begin bringing the troops home is now. If George W. Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office, I will," Senator Hillary Clinton

In Politicals for Dummies, everyday it’s a new headline touting the Junior Senator’s plans for the country virtually projecting what she would do if she were to assume the role of first female President of the United States of America. (Is anyone else doing this?)

Remember when Senator Clinton announced her candidacy she said, “Let the conversation begin.”

What you didn’t know was that she intended to control all asspects of that conversation through her political manipulations and quite frankly its working brillantly.

Truly a woman for all seasons Hillary Clinton has emerged as the ultimate Bionic woman of politics, super strong, super slick and super impervious to criticisms. To learn how she did it you’ve got to read the book!

What the America people are witnessing is a remarkable politic machine at work in overdrive the Clintons may very well be the best politicians that the world has ever seen. (And I don’t mean that in a good way.)

Politics for dummies by Bill and Hillary Clinton buy yours today Liberal putzes already have! Hillary is looking for more Independents and Conservatives to buy her stuff! Are you buying any of it?

Remember if you need someone to fight the Conservatives she’s your girl, but she can also unite the country like no one else can. (Yeah, right!)

GORE: HOW YOU LIKE ME NOW?

Albert Gore, Jr., Nobel Peace Prize Winner

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control. -- The Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 12 October 2007

It’s purely political! It's High School politics, if we like you and if we like your cause we'll make you Prom King, (In this case Nobel Prize Winner) Its like that old saw, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!” Adding the Nobel Peace Prize to his Oscar doesn’t dress up Al Gore or lend him any more credibility on the contrary what the Norwegian Nobel Committee has done is forever discredited itself as a legitimate source of authenticating good and noble pursuits.

The Controversial topic of Global warming was just days ago deal a legal blow in Britain for being little more than political propaganda forced on unsuspecting school children. So what does this tribute mean coming from a body that has of late shown itself to be more concerned with validating politically correct views rather than recognizing real accomplishment.

What it means is that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has devalued the Nobel Prize not legitimized Al Gore or the controversy of Global warming.

The committee’s own statement, “By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind.

Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control,” why it bestowed its prize on Albert Gore, Jr. is itself an admission of its part of colluding in the propaganda war which Global warming has become.

This award is the Norwegian Nobel committee’s way of lending a hand in pushing the world economies into a global taxation scheme where billions of dollars will be made from buying and selling carbon credits which will not end any real or perceived threat of Global warming at all.

We have always known that Europe and the Union Nations are co-conspirators in the Global warming controversy now Oslo Norway has joined the ranks of the elite who wishes to push the ideological concept of man-made Global warming on the masses.

In the face of 500 reputable scientists who say that there is no consensus on the theories which Al Gore promoted to enrich himself and his fellow investors the Norwegian body has politicized itself in a way that can not be repaired.

From now on and forever more the Noble Peace Prize will be synonymous with bad science, propaganda and controversy. Maybe that’s how Alfred Nobel would have liked it.

An Inconvenient Ruling

Britain’s High Court

British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled on Wednesday that Al Gore's Global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

Judge Burton said the film should be accompanied by government guidance notes and to distribute it without them would breach education laws prohibiting the promotion of unbalanced political viewpoints.

Stewart Dimmock lorry truck driver and father of two brought the suit last month and wanted to block the government's pledge to send more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales a DVD of the documentary to demonstrate the need to fight global warming.

Though the court did not ban the film as Mr. Dimmock originally petitioned the court to do still Mr. Dimmock see his efforts as a victory for education and science Dimmock said, "If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

In other news Al Gore’s theories are being disputed by scientists who wish to debate him on the issue. However Gore’s camp has issued a statement saying that the debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one. Meaning that Gore has already gotten the United Nations, Europe and now the Bush administration to sign on to a project which amounts to a Global fix which will cost citizens billions of dollars therefore the debate is over.

"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."

In other words the propaganda of Global warming has already been accepted by world leaders no one involved in this movement is going to stop to question whether they are right about the theories of Global warming.

With the power of the U.N., the European Union and the Bush administration behind him it does indeed appear that the conversation is all but over.

Mr. Dimmock’s valet efforts saved British children from the indoctrination of Global warming only to be rewarded by the unpleasant reality that the rest of the world are not smarter than a fifth grader!

Sovereignty Lost!

The International Court of Justice in The Hague , the new U. S. Supreme Court

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.

So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.

Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities. – President George Washington, Farewell Address 1776

How do you feel today? Cosmopolitan? International maybe? Do you feel any different than yesterday? Well you could be different depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a certain case today. The Court’s ruling could conceivably make you a citizen of the world while making itself a lower court answerable to a greater power.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case Medellin v. Texas today, Wednesday, a case which will set the precedence that there is a higher law, a Court higher than the United States Supreme Court. And if that is true that would also mean that the U.S. constitution is no longer the Supreme law of the United States of America.

When I say that there is a higher law, I’m not referring to God although many in this nation might feel that the entity which I’m referring to is akin to God. What I am speaking about is the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Bush administration will be siding with Mexico and Internationalist against the state of Texas today in a test of American National Sovereignty against International One World government.

The case The People vs. Jose Medellin convicted Medellian and sentenced him with the death penalty. Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.

Medellian is an Illegal alien and because he was not informed that he could seek help from the Mexican Consulate at the time of his arrest and subsequent sentencing the Mexican Government through the International Court is attempting to thwart U.S. law because they do not believe in the death penalty.

They will make this attempt today in the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas. This is a case which the Bush administration intervened in to attempt to block state law at the request of the Mexican government after Mexico made its case before the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ) and the ICJ found that Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

That, according to The Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

Also Medellin v. Texas not only could determine the fate of Jose Medellin but 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.

[I]n 2004 the Mexican government obtained a ruling from the International Court of Justice on Mr. Medellin's behalf that state police had violated his right to access to consular officials from Mexico. Mr. Medellin, who was born in Mexico, has lived in the US since he was nine years old, although he was never a legal resident.

The judgment found that the Texas authorities failed to tell Mr. Medellin and 50 other death row inmates from Mexico of their rights under the Vienna Convention to seek advice from the Mexican consulate, or to inform consular officials about their cases.

President Bush issued a memorandum two months later that the US courts would implement the ICJ ruling. The Bush administration is expected to argue that the president's executive power over treaty provisions outranks state laws.

However, Texas argues that Mr. Bush's memo on the death penalty case would set a dangerous precedent for presidential power. The state argues that President Bush's action disregards earlier verdicts by an appeals court and the Supreme Court that Mr. Medellin was not entitled to invoke his rights as a Mexican citizen because he had not raised the issue at his original trial.

One other amazing fact need to be considered here as well, Houston, Texas where Jose Medellian was arrested and convicted of the wanton and brazen acts of sodomizing, gang raping and murdering two teenaged girls is a sanctuary city. (see list of sanctuary cities yours could be one!

That means that because Mexico and Illegal alien activists and Illegal alien supporters in this country influenced local law in the city of Houston, Houston officials by law and policy are required not to ask for country or place of origin of any person.

While this makes it easier for Mexican nationals to live freely and gain access to our American society it also makes it impossible to comply with 1963 Vienna treaty or any law that requires that Illegal Mexican nationals in this country be informed of their International Rights to be represented by the Mexican Consulate when they violate American law.

As sanctuary laws are presently followed they force officials to treat everyone the same, to treat everyone as Americans. To now demand that Mexican nationals get special treatment, because they are governed not by our laws but international laws further supports the reason why the American people rejected the President’s Comprehensive Immigrant Reform earlier this year and want the 20 to 60 million illegal aliens out of the country.

Finally, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Medellin today Illegal Aliens will virtually have diplomatic impunity status in the United States of America giving another special interest group special privileges that the rest of us don’t have and at the same time it would make a mockery of our constitution, as well as itself as a court.

A ruling in favor of Medellin would hand over final authority in such matters to an international body and make that court superior to our own. I doubt that President George Washington (or any of the founding fathers) would approve!
(credit: worldnetdaily and the guardian)

HUBRIS

Senator Hillary Clinton (Photo by Kiichiro Sato/AP)


You were first lady in an administration in which your husband was dubbed the nickname Slick Willie because of the way he parsed meaning and manipulated language like a cheating husband caught in the act of infidelity (no reference to actuality intended.)

You sat by him when he pointed his bony finger in the faces of American viewers and bold faced lied that he did not have sex (in the oval office) with that woman… Ms. Lewensky, which he later recanted and pled guilty to lying to a grand jury. His law license was pulled and he disgraced this Nation as well as your marriage.

Yet you have the Hubris to drag him out and flaunt the former President in the faces of half of America (that will not vote for you) that is still doing damage control on little boys and little girls who believed that that they can imitate and do what the President did with that woman, Ms. Lewensky and still maintain plausible deniability like Slick Willie did.

[Sandy]Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington , according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

“Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,” said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. “Berger lied.”
Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.”

Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

Now you bring back Sandy Berger as an advisor to your campaign. Berger who stole, lied and destroyed federally protected records from the National Archives all to protect you and your husband’s political image so that the American people would remain ignorant about your culpability regarding 9/11 and your subsequent mishandling of the terrorist threat to America.

Mrs. Clinton, need I point out again that Sandy Berger is a convicted theft, liar and a possible traitor to this Country.

The fact that anyone would have to tell you this speaks to either a profound and deep ignorance regarding right and wrong and/or an out of touch sense of pride that is unnatural in its blatant display of political HUBRIS!

At the very least the fact that you would even allow this to happen demonstrates that you don’t think to highly of the intelligence of the American people or you think that you can do anything that you want and you will not be held accountable for your actions.

One word describes this behavior Mrs. Clinton HUBRIS. But I must say that bringing Sandy Berger back into your campaign is indicative of the corruption that typified the co-Presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

ILLEGAL

Illegal Aliens Expressing Contempt

The Federal government showed last week that they do know the meaning of the word.

ILLEGAL!

However you may find it interesting that even though they know the meaning of the word your government is confused with regards to its application. Your federal government using a federal jury on behalf of corporations; Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc found a single mother of two guilty of illegal downloading and ordered her to pay $222,000.00 for sharing 1,072 songs on the internet. Jammie Thomas’, 30 attorney claims attorney fees are automatically awarded in such judgments under copyright law, meaning Thomas could actually owe as much as a half-million dollars.

So our government gets it when it comes to illegal downloading, but not so much when it comes to illegal aliens.

As a matter of fact this whole Nation, America, is confused about its priorities. So much so that unknowingly we are in the last throes of our national freedoms and national sovereignty.

What? You must be saying, you’re crazy Al, you’ve been drinking too much of the Dick Cheney Kool-Aid.

No not really, but it has become all too apparent to the enemies of America that we are a confused nation. And now all of the enemies of America are working under the expectation that we have become a nation of confusion. In fact America’s enemies have begun to take advantage of a people who no longer know their history and their purpose in the world. Allow me to show you how.

Today’s Americans misguidedly and ignorantly believe that constitutional rights extend to everything from sexual preference to illegal behavior just as long as that illegal behavior is breaking this nations immigration laws. And this is a total misunderstanding of what the founding fathers intended or wanted for this nation.

For example there are federal judges, unscrupulous lawyers and tax payer funded non-profit organizations that are under the extremely ignorant belief that foreign nationals who knowingly and illegally enter into this country to comment identity theft, take advantage of our economy, abuse our social services and disrespect our social customs have the constitutional guaranteed right to do so and these just mentioned groups are teaching these foreign invaders that they have these rights.

In Massachusetts so-called advocacy groups work mighty along with attorneys and often time Federal courts to undermine U.S. sovereignty in the name of constitutional rights for Illegal Aliens.

Maria Elena Letona, executive director of Centro Presente, a Cambridge-based nonprofit aids illegal aliens, Joel Rodriguez, a trainer for the Alliance to Develop Power, aids illegals from Mexico and Honduras, Lee Siu Hin, national coordinator of the National Immigrant Solidarity Network aids illegals, Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, or MIRA have been training illegals for years.

The Chelsea Collaborative, Agencia Alpha, all interfere with the governments efforts to identify and deport illegal aliens and Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, says that “training sessions” designed to help illegals stay in this country are a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

Jorge, 26, a construction worker from Honduras, said he would like to help police, but doubted that he would open the door for them today because he has too much to lose.
Eight years ago, he clung to the sides of trains to get to the Mexican border, paid $1,500 for a boat ride across the Rio Grande, and then walked four nights to Houston. Eventually he made his way to Massachusetts and later paid $6,000 to smuggle his mother here.
Now he has a wife, two children, and one on the way. He earns $2,000 a month, 10 times what he made in Honduras.
"It's not that I don't trust [the police]," said Jorge. "If we didn't have the police here, this country would be like our countries.

In New Haven, Connecticut a well meaning but ignorant Yale law student helps:

Ten Hispanic immigrants filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against a Connecticut city, its mayor and police chief, and federal agents who led a crackdown on illegal immigration last year.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, claims the arrests violated the civil rights of nine workers and a 10th man who was stopped at a traffic light, including their right to due legal process, free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs, represented by Yale University law students, claim the U.S. Constitution protects the civil rights of all people in the United States. The attorneys would not discuss their clients' immigration status or their countries of origin.

Finally Federal Judge Charles Breyer blocks the enforcement of this nations immigration laws:

A U.S. federal court judge on Monday extended an order preventing the Department of Homeland Security from launching a new program to root out illegal immigrants in the nation's workforce.

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for Northern California, after a two-hour hearing, extended a temporary restraining order for 10 days while he prepares a decision on the legality of the department's efforts.
Breyer's order also blocked the Social Security Administration from sending out 140,000 letters to employers with employees whose names don't match their Social Security numbers.
An earlier order by the court blocking the government program was to expire on Monday.
Breyer raised a number of issues in the hearing, including the language and legality of the "no-match" letters, possible discrimination in firing illegal Hispanic workers and not other illegal employees, staffing and cost burdens for companies to comply with regulations, and responsibilities and liabilities for employers.

The AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Association and other labor and business groups, however, challenged the government in a lawsuit claiming that the rules could discriminate against immigrant employees and place an unfair burden on employers.

What does illegal file sharing and illegal aliens have in common you ask? In both cases your government sided with special interest and/or corporate interest against us the citizens of this country. In the case of file sharing a single mother is ordered to pay $222,000.00 to half a million dollars to record corporations.

In the case of illegal aliens taxpayers incur millions of dollars of court cost (along with all other related illegal alien costs) as special interest groups and attorneys use our courts and laws against us to help foreign nationals download millions of dollars of American benefits that they are not entitled to.

If Jammie Thomas is judged to owe record corporations half a million dollars for illegal downloading songs then why doesn’t it make sense to sue illegal aliens and/or Mexico, for encouraging illegal entry and illegally entering this country?

There are 12 to 20 million illegal aliens here (a conservative estimate) that number times $222,000.00 each would help begin to pay for the damage to our economic infrastructure that illegal foreign nationals have cause this country.

Illegal aliens should be arrested at every opportunity and each one sued like Jammie Thomas. Each one should have a half million dollar debt hanging over their heads for illegally downloading benefits out of our society. As well every non-profit including the ACLU should be sued and have a half a million dollar judgement against them and/or be disbanded for operating organizations that encourages breaking of American laws.

Our government protected corporate interest against a single American mother of two and found her guilty of illegal file sharing of music on the internet, so it ought to be able to protect the citizens of this country against illegal foreign nationals who come here to pillage and plunder our economy and social services.

Both acts, unauthorized downloading music and unauthorized entering this country, are ILLEGAL!

Now that we know that the government knows the meaning of the word illegal, would it be asking too much to have the government protect the America people instead of exploiting us on behalf of special interest and corporations.

And would it be asking too much to ask the government to protect American’s borders and enforce our immigration laws?

Senator Clinton brags:She Started The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

Hillary schmoozing with her Netroots vast left-wing cospirators

I couldn’t make this up even if I tried! As reported by Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters, Standing before the political hate group the YearlyKos (minions of the DailyKos hate conservatives blog) convention in Chicago , Senator Clinton claims that she is responsible for creating the left wing pseudo news organization Media Matters.

Media Matters was recently in the news themselves for attempting to smear Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.

Move over Al Gore, (Inventor of the Internet) Clinton stated that she helped start Media Matters. As well she claims to have helped start, Center for American Progress.

‘[O]n August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York boasted of "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress." ‘

Ever wanting to be the a part of the National conversation Clinton ’s contribution to that conversation actually poisons the truth and blocks any real conversation that the American people might have.

Why would I say that? The former first lady accuses those who held her husband accountable for lying to the American people (President Clinton later admitted that he lied) “a vast right-wing conspiracy” and then she goes out and creates a vast left-wing conspiracy(fund by George Soros) to do the conspiring that she accused the right of doing? That’s Liberal Projectionism at its fineness.

First demonize the right and accuse them of conspirering against the left and then organize a conspiracy against the right the very thing that you falsely accused the right of doing you do.

This is straight Clintonseque, bold in-your-face deceit which Hillary knows she can get away with because she is aided and abetted by the same media that cut Moveon.org a break to preemptively smear General David Petraeus before they heard his report on Iraq just weeks ago.

Clinton thinks so little of your intelligence that she stands before her co-conspirtators in broad daylight and brags that it was she who helped start the conspiracy or the “assault on reason” if you will. (to borrow from one of her co-conspirators Al Gore’s projectionisms) (see video below)

Gore's Inconvenient Bias

Al Gore and Hurricane Katrina

Mr. Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

Al Gore’s international campaign to spread his message of Anthropomorphic Climate change was dealt a blow in Britain and Mr. Gore’s views on Global warming are not going to be forced any more on unsuspecting 11 year-olds thanks to parent and lorry driver Stewart Dimmock.

Mr. Dimmock from Dover with children aged 11 and 14, said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush' and Mr. Dimmock took his complaint all the way to Britain’s Highest Court.

Dimmock attempted to get the video banned from the British school system after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February instead the High Court will have teachers warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

Justice Burton said that with that amended guidance he will not completely ban the film.

In February British Education Secretary Alan Johnson decided that DVDs of the film would be sent to all secondary schools in England, along with a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.

David Miliband, who was Britain’s Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'

[D]uring the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

For the closed minded and partisan in the United States as well as abroad the debate may be “well and truly over” but for the rest of us who believe in science over biased inaccurate and exaggerated political propaganda that is meant to brainwash the little children and child like Liberals, the debate, no the conversation has just begun.

More Democratic Deception!

Look at the news............the Democrats, with the
help of the MSM, are trying their damndest to
make President Bush's veto of the "child health-
care bill", look like the act of a heartless politician.

On the contrary........... Bush's move is exactly what
was needed in this case. The liberals won't be happy
until this country has socialized medicine, and will be
in the same sorry situation as the British and the
Canadians. I personally know people living under both
plans, and their horror stories are the type that inspire
hit movies.

This Democratic "plan" (with the help of some misguided
Republicans), is nothing more than a take-off
on "Hillary-care"............ the failed SOCIALIZED
medicine plan of the presidential 'wanna-be'.

If this ever becomes law, expect ALL medical expenses
to rise dramatically............ to cover the costs of all
those who will switch from private insurers to the
newly available "government" coverage. And of
course, all government expenses will skyrocket to
heights never before achieved under the tax and spend
Democrats.

Oh, they will justify the tax increases as "necessary"
to cover the rising cost of their bureaurocracy, which
would't be necessary in the first place, if they had
left the government out of the health-care industry.

Only Democrats believe that the government can do
everything better than the private sector. That is
why, every time Republicans gain control of the
the White House and Congress, it takes them years
to clean up the mess created by the liberal element.

If Democrats were really serious, they would allow
tax deductions for medical insurance premiums, and
for ALL medical expenses not covered by insurance.....
instead of starting a whole new government industry.
And they would save the billions needed to fund this
ridiculous "pie-in-the-sky solution".

brooklyn

Global Screwing: Who’s reality behind the Anthropomorphic Climate Change Scare?

President Bush:Comprehensive Global Warming?

Here’s what we know; there is no scientific consensus regarding anthropomorphic Climate change also known as global warming.

However there is consensus among world leaders and politicians on the subject, why?

What we also know is that if world leaders and politicians agree on anything (in this case global warming) you and I enviably will be forced by draconian laws to pay a price for that agreement even if it hasn’t been proven that man can significantly do anything that will effect climate change.

Let me state emphatically that there is no scientific consensus that man is the cause for the changes we see in the weather. What scientist are saying is that weather has always changed as long as the earth has existed (we all know that!) therefore what we are experiencing to date and what is being projected for the future may very well be out of human control! (Many of you need to know that!)

We all know what Al Gore’s interest in Global warming is. For Gore its Climate change for dollars but now George W. Bush is supporting Climate change and that portends of something hidden and sinister. It is likely that the unseen forces behind the Climate change scare are similar to the forces that are behind the illegal alien invasion of the United States of America. Who are these forces? Big Money Interest that’s who.

Just follow the money, oh you didn’t know? Regulating C02 has became a 30 billion dollar industry which is projected to produce even larger usuriously high profits. This is a scheme cooked up by lawyers and executives who are using your fears concerning man-made global warming to herd you toward a new world market that you know nothing about and that they control.

Yes this is One World government stuff and it is true and it is apart of an all too real threat to take control of Governments and industry making them subject to world marketeers they are already doing this to China and India. In order to make this plan work nation sovereignty must be striped away and it all started with the Kyoto Agreement.

Millions of unsuspecting people who are honestly concerned for the earth are being duped. They would be surprised to know that there is no philanthropic world movement lead by the European Union and the United Nations to save the planet from nasty carbon emitters.

The EU, lawyers and the United Nations have created a 30 billion dollar world carbon credits Ponzi scheme (much like the UN’s oil-for-food scam) that hasn’t reduced one iota of carbon emissions. What they plan to do is profits from the created market on which carbon registries keep track of businesses globally that give off greenhouse gases. Companies and Country will be assigned certain emissions allowances and if those allowances are surpasses the allotted allowances fees would be levied against the overages.

In addition to that Companies and Countries would be able to buy and sell carbon credits to one another to cover themselves in cases of exceeding their allotted carbon allowances.

The perpetrators of this fraud have launched Billions of dollars of trade and speculation on a carbon trading market and not one iota of reduction of carbon output affecting global warming will result from it but you must be made to accept and comply with the idea that all of this is happening to save the planet or you wouldn’t let them rip you off, or rip your country off of billions of dollars by fees and fines that will not go to stop greenhouse gases or C02 emissions.

Trading for carbon credits is big business in Europe, and could be the next lucrative energy venture particularly for lawyers, but Europe is not alone at least nine bills contemplating a domestic cap-and-trade market in CO2 and other greenhouse gases are now before Congress, and the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources already has held a roundtable with European officials and executives to discuss how the United States could adapt Europe's system deregulate U.S. utilities; because deregulation is the first step toward a wholesale trading market, A potential structural precursor to a market was in place, because the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -- the international agreement that sparked the whole idea of a carbon-trading market.

In January 2005, just one month before the Kyoto Protocol went into force, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme was born.

Operating under the theory that who emits CO2 is less important than the total amount emitted, the EU's plan caps emissions by allocating a set number of free allowances -- each equaling the right to produce one metric ton of CO2 per year -- to each participating member state. The member states then may apportion those allowances among companies in select, heavily polluting industries, including the power, oil refining, steel, cement, pulp and paper sectors.

complex technology needed to set up such a market -- creating carbon registries, launching computer systems for each country and the EU that would interconnect and facilitate trading. There were also political issues related to how many emissions allowances each country would get.

the first phase of the ETS, as the emissions trading scheme is known, began in 2005 and ends this year. In the second phase, which runs from 2008 to 2012, the number of allowances will be ratcheted down, greenhouse gases in addition to CO2 will be capped and other industries, such as the petrochemical sector, will be subject to those caps. Also, while most allowances still will be distributed gratis, up to 10 percent may be sold to member states at auction.
Industries that exceed their caps are fined €40 ($54) in the first phase and €100 ($136) in the second -- per excess metric ton emitted. If companies have extra allowances to sell or need to buy more, they may trade via brokers, on exchanges such as Powernext in Paris or on a company-to-company basis.

INTERNATIONAL BIG MONEY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

This all fits the patterns of corporate behavior; first attempt to persuade the masses to do what you want them to do by campaigning using scare tactics that there is a threat of global warming.

Second if that does or even if it doesn’t work big money then uses the politicians that they’ve corrupted to mandate by law the changes that they want. The masses will never go against the law after all “we are a nation of laws.”

So this push by the United Nations a body that never gets anything right, the European Union, George Soros influenced scientist and special interest groups and now President Bush has all the markings of International big money behind the scenes positioning themselves to profit from the stampeding herds when we all are forced to comply with laws to take our money.

I’m not exaggerating Canada has already started exacting Global warming taxation on its industry and you know the cost will be passed on to the consumer, could the United States be next? Anything to stop Global warming right? Only this scam is set up to make a few people very wealth off of your concern for Climate change not to stop Global warming. And you should know that when you are forced to pay your global warming taxes!

Make no mistake what we are seeing is Climate change for dollars, usurious taxation to fund big money’s new ventures and created huge profits for big money interest.

Why you didn’t think that they were going to pay for it did you? You are going to pay for it stupid!

Lies, Deceptions and Laughs

Democrats First Liars Club Minus One

"Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease it's troubling," – David Geffen, Hollywood mogul and former Clinton backer(in reference to the Clintons)

One would think that after almost eight solid years of, “Bush lied and people died” Democrats would run not walk away from the legacy of lies which has became Democrat politics. In 2000 America rejected the lies of Al Gore, in 2004 America said no to the nuanced deceptions of John Kerry.

Hillary, Also Member of Democrat First Liars Club

So for the Democrats to even be considering offering the name that stands for admitted and convicted liar, “Clinton” again is as offensive to non-Democrats as Hillary Clinton’s finger nails on the chalkboard laugh that she displayed on Fox News with Chris Wallace.

It has occurred to me that Democrats and Muslims have something in common. And just what do they have in common?

The disturbing but god awful answer is they are both compelled to lie. Muslims are compelled by their religious text the Quran and the Hadith to lie to non-Muslims and Democrats are compelled by their hugely unpopular social agendas and political ambitions to lie to political opponents as well as to lie about their political opponents. (They also lie about non-Democrats or anyone who is in the way of whatever political agenda or the political candidate Democrats are hawking at the time.)

In Islam there are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. One of those circumstances is to gain the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

Democrats also have two reasons for lying one to gain power and the second to keep power. Both of these reasons are used to justify Democrat’s lying, the method of choice which Democrats rely on heavily to defeat their political opponents.


After a Democrat President who admitted that he lied under oath, and as a result of Democrats lost the White house, one would think that Democrats would have learned from the errors of William Jefferson Clinton’s ways.

But no instead of changing to the contrary Democrats embraced lying as an ever evolving campaign strategy one which became more nuanced with the telling of each new lie, a political ploy for Democrat Presidential hopefuls and Congressional leaders.

Al Gore’s frivolous claim in a March 9, 1999, CNN interview, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” The truth was the Internet is an outgrowth of a Pentagon program established in 1969. In the 1980s, Gore supported legislation considered favorable to the Internet’s development. Gore’s 1980 support can hardly be described as initiative is was more like jumping on a moving train but this is but one example of a very long list of Gore lies.

Senator John Kerry lied that he couldn’t release his Military journal due to an agreement with Brinkley, which Brinkley refuted. The media did not press Kerry to release his journal.

Kerry has refused to open his military records to the public, as promised by him, only releasing them – and there’s doubt whether they’re complete – to the Boston Globe, L.A. Times and AP, the first two of which the inside his campaign Newsweek reporters observed were acting as a conduit for the Kerry campaign during its August 2004 efforts to counter the opposition of Vietnam Veterans. As the leading investigative reporter into Kerry’s claims, Thomas Lipscomb, wrote:

‘The strange case of the John Kerry military records, which he had promised to release publicly, is that three great news organizations conspired to withhold them from the public. Not only did Kerry not make his military records public as promised, but three of the largest news organizations in the world gave him protective coloration by withholding them. All the public received were summaries in the opinions of the three news organizations, which had already shown an appalling inability to analyze the Kerry military records.’


But now it has come full circle and for Democrats to attempt to reinstate the Clintons in the White house is like the criminal behavior that always returns to the scene of the crime.

Amazingly, Democrats do this straight faced as they speak of needing a change in Washington. Like exchanging dirty socks for the unwashed ones you wore yesterday (yes technically it is change and it can even be argued successfully as change in a court of law) everyone who is in smelling distance knows that wearing the unwashed socks from yesterday is not idea change.

Democrat’s current offering of their first choice for President of the United States Senator Hillary Clinton is hardly a change neither. But as usual Democrats are hoping that you are fooled and won’t notice that they are offering unwashed socks from yesterday, the unrepentant admitted and convicted liars former President Clinton and his former first lady Hillary.

The Clintons have pickup up where they’ve left off lying about who is funding their political campaign and receiving campaign financing from foreign interest, interests what wish to influence American politics which is felonious. (See below)



This is an on going phenomenon with the Clintons yet the partisans who support them apparently have no problem supporting the illegality and subsequent lying that is involved in keeping the Clintons well funded. (See below)



Finally, when asked by Chris Wallace why Senator Clinton and her husband were so “ultra-partisan” Senator Clinton laughed as if the answer was so obvious that even the vast right-wing conspiracy as represented by Fox News should know the answer.

Its lies, deceptions and laughs Chris the same old Democrat socks just a different day!

MANIPULATION

George Soros
You ever heard of the term short selling? As I understand it, short selling is a way of manipulating money markets or a way of profitting from the decline in price of a security.

To profit from the stock price going down, short sellers can borrow a security and sell it, expecting that it will decrease in value so that they can buy it back at a lower price and keep the difference. The short seller owes his broker, who usually in turn has borrowed the shares from some other investor who is holding his shares long; the broker itself seldom actually purchases the shares to lend to the short seller.[1]

The lender of the shares does not lose the right to sell the shares. While the shares are lent, two investors have a right to sell the same shares. This has happened in 2007 in the UK with dramatic results, when shares in a Bank, Northern Rock, were £12 in February 2007 and £2 in September. Short sellers made over £1 billion in about seven months. –Wikipedia

You ever heard of Black Wednesday?

On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), George Soros became immediately famous when he sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds, profiting from the Bank of England's reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency.

Finally, the Bank of England was forced to withdraw the currency out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and to devalue the pound sterling, and Soros earned an estimated US$ 1.1 billion in the process. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England."

The Times October 26, 1992, Monday quoted Soros as saying: "Our total position by Black Wednesday had to be worth almost $10 billion. We planned to sell more than that. In fact, when Norman Lamont said just before the devaluation that he would borrow nearly $15 billion to defend sterling, we were amused because that was about how much we wanted to sell." –Wikipedia

Apparently money markets are manipulated by “investors” all the time for profit. One simply has to put money in the right place or one would use an elaborate trading mechanism to influence certain outcomes one could profit enormously.

So what if these practices were applied to politics. Could governments, people and politics be manipulated? And what if someone thought to use money to manipulate political outcomes, an idea that the founding fathers had in mind?

I don’t think so! Finally, Have you ever considered that everything that you believe politically is the result of someone manipulating public opinion with millions of dollars to influence your thinking? For instance what if “Global Warming” was a roost meant to manipulate, or what if opposition against Guantanamo Bay terrorist jails was orchestrated. What if one man is behind the opposition to the White house would that mean anything to you?

Who would do such a thing? György Schwartz would. György or George Soros as you know him (family name changed to prevent persecution for being Jewish) is behind much of the political manipulation which is causing the political upheaval we are now experiencing in the United States.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

Remember the Illegal Alien rallies that have filled the streets of America on May 1 for the last two years? George Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

Open Society Institute cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings.

Last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project

OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy."

OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

Also George Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.


Whatever you think of Republicans or President G. W. Bush one thing is for certain the founding fathers never meant for our government to be controlled by secret agendas and well funded political action groups.


The most dangerous man in America is named George but not Bush. George Soros is the anathema of what America is supposed to be. And if you are a Democrat your party has by taken over by George Soros, you have been manipulated and used in Soros’ plan to change America’s government into his own image of what a government should be.

George Soros is a master of Manipulation. That is why Democrats must be defeated! Original Source information

Secret Internal Poll and Memo Leaked: Democrats won’t Win?

Senators Clinton and Obama


Did you see the poll? No you didn’t. Google it you won’t find it. It was leaked to the Washington Post along with an internal memo did you see any of it printed in the Post?

Nope? You know why? Because it’s about Democrats stupid!

The survey by the Democratic pollsters Lake Research indicated that both Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, second in the Democratic race, trailed Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front runner, in 31 swing congressional districts.

You can bet your last money that if this story had George Bush on it anywhere Katie Couric would be standing on the desk of the CBS nightly news with megaphone in hand exclaiming, “Hey Dan we finally get that killer story on Bush!”

The story did make print in the United Kingdom. It printed in the UK’s paper the Telegraph that’s where I found it.

"We're not commenting on this poll," said Daniel Gotoff, co-author of the memo accompanying the Lake Research poll. "It was leaked and obviously not by us."

The poll suggests that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama can win in a general election and that has Democrats worried.

The secret Democrat poll also indicates that generically Democrats have higher popularity than Republicans, (The media and Democrats have worked for 8 years to make that happen) however when the names Clinton or Obama are add to the question that changes significantly in critical swing states and among Independents Senator Clinton has "high negatives" among voters but the assessment of Senator Obama that his "image is soft, and one-fifth of voters do not gave a firm impression of him" was a surprise.

This story is really a twofer, yes this is a reality check for many Liberals. Liberals have that tendency of waking up the morning after an election to ask the question, “What happened I thought we were winning.” This story is as much about Liberal self deceit as it is about Liberal media not reporting any negatives about Democrats.

The reality of it is, Hillary Clinton can’t win in the General election(She can’t even raise as much money as Obama now) Democrats have been whispering about it all along but were willing to see if the Clinton spin Machine could defeat the Republicans (Democrats are willing to compromise anything to win.) Apparently Democrats thought that the negatives that they’ve created about the Republicans would be enough to cover even Senator Clinton they are now reassessing those views.

Frank Luntz, a leading Republican pollster, said: "This poll reveals what grassroots Democrats have been concerned about. Hillary is their choice ideologically but not necessarily politically and they're afraid she could lose.
"Democrats want to win more than anything else and they will compromise on policy to achieve electability." Mrs Clinton, he said, prompted a series of perceptions that could damage her.

The big problem with Liberals is that their campaigns are based on deceit so much so that they often are victims of their own deception. I’m thinking 2000 and 2004 when liberal were in this euphoric state thinking that no one would vote for George Bush.
How ironic that the actual reality in 2008 is that no one will vote for Hillary or Obama, no one except maybe the hard left and George Soro’s Moveon.org minions.

Supreme Court could put 2008 Democrat Elections in Jeopardy

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would rule on whether U.S. voters must show a government-issued photo identification at the polls, a divisive issue ahead of next year's national elections. – James Vicini

What could possibly keep Democrats from voting in the all important 2008 Presidential elections? Photo I.D.s that’s what! That’s not me talking that’s what Democrats believe.

Democrats have challenged, all the way to the United States Supreme Court, a state of Indiana requirement which requires all voters to show photo I.D.

Apparently Democrats walk around and/or drive without any photo identification and asking a Democrat for photo I.D. would cause an undue hardship on voters in the upcoming 2008 Presidential elections.

Preposterous you think! You think that I’ve gone over the deep end? No but that is exactly what lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Indiana Democratic Party will be arguing before the Supreme Court as they attempt to make a case that such a requirement on voters in American elections would cause an unfair burden on the right to vote, especially on the elderly, poor, disabled or homeless.

It’s just like the ACLU and Democrats to think about all those unprotected voting groups out there who are without identification. I’m just wondering why their most important unprotected voting group, people who are in this country illegally, are not named! (Wink, wink)

The ACLU had better discuss this with my HMO, one of the largest in my state; because they now require that I show a photo I.D. before they will administer treatment or medicine and if I have to be seen by a doctor I am now required to show I.D.

That requirement began within the last 5 years or so and being the curious sort that I am when I first noticed that my medical card was no longer enough for identification, a card which they issued, I enquired as to the reason why? A very busy clerk answered that the hospital wanted to ensure that it was me who was receiving medical care. Hmmm?!?

Now I don’t know the living arrangement of people who share my HMO but I do see and have seen quite a few elderly, disabled and people who appeared to be around the same income level as myself and in the 5 years that this requirement has been enforced I haven’t heard anyone claim that showing photo I.D. has placed an undue burden on anyone seeking medical treatment.

What’s interesting is that a party that believes that Government can reform the health care system in this country a huge undertaking no doubt and one which would require identifying the elderly, poor and homeless in this country is opposed to making sure the citizens of this country are ensured of their rights to vote and those rights are protected by showing a photo I.D. when participating in the electoral process.

Hillary Clinton Confuses a Dumbed Down America

Senator Hillary Clinton

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.--Abraham Lincoln

It’s a game of political punked. Ashton Kutcher would be so proud of Hillary Clinton’s use of political deception and manipulation to pull off the biggest punking ever . Kutcher only attempts to punk one victim at a time Senator Clinton in her own indomitable cold and calculating way is trying to punk a Nation.

And after the American people realize that they’ve fumigated the Whitehouse only to let the rats back in they wouldn’t be smiling into the camera laughing at the fact that they’ve been had. No I think the American people will actually be mad.

Oh yeah you’re being punked you gotta know that. When Hillary Clinton was in the Whitehouse she was to Bill Clinton what Dick Cheney is to George Bush. Hillary was the Darth Vadar of the Clinton administration. She was behind the destroyed Rose law billings, she was behind the travelgate firings, and she was behind filegate. All political scandals yet her role in them was always unclear. Ergo she was the Dick Cheney of the Clinton administration.

And the reason that you are so willing to let her back into the Whitehouse is that you’ve been duped, tricked, played, or punked by an elaborate roost which is only meant to confuse language and meaning so that the Clintons and the Democrats can get what they want. It’s really a work of diabolical beauty here’s how it works.

A STRATEGIC APPEARANCE ON FOX NEWS

Hillary’s strategic appearance on the Fox News network sends a message to her Democrat constituents that she and the former President Clinton are not afraid of the Fox News network like her fellow Democrats. She also wanted to show that she could go toe to toe with Chris Wallace or any conservative just like her husband did with Wallace almost exactly a year ago. (Transcript)

What made Clinton’s appearance interesting is that she shares the same penchant for using words and ideas to change what is real and actual into what she would like real and actual to be. The Clintons live in a world of “that depends on what is, is.” Meaning that everything is relative and can be redefine to her liking just like her husband’s, “I don’t have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.” which he later recanted and admitted he lied to the American people. Senator Clinton’s appearance on Fox News was nothing more than a political calculation that was meant to score symbolic political psychological points which she seem to have accomplished due to the hapless Chris Wallace’s interview.(See Senators Appearance on Fox)

In fact this whole Democrat campaign of Bush Bashing for the last six years has come right out of the Clinton playbook of the politics of personal destruction of which there are six principle components; Malign, Redefine, Redirect, Answer no Question, Admit nothing unless absolutely force to and stay on Talking Points.

For the truly partisan it doesn’t matter what Hillary does or says. These are the confused. They have been confused by their own political relativism these individuals can no longer distinguish from the manipulated reality of the Clinton formula of political of personal destruction and what is actual.

For these reality challenged individuals allow me to interpret what Hillary actually said.

WALLACE: Senator, talk about conservative hit jobs, right-wing conspiracies — why do you and the president have such a hyper-partisan view of politics?

Here is how Senator Clinton responded:

H. CLINTON: [busted out in laughter] Well, Chris, if you had walked even a day in our shoes over the last 15 years, I'm sure you'd understand.

But you know, the real goal for our country right now is to get beyond partisanship, and I'm sure trying to do my part, because we've got a lot of serious problems that we're trying to deal with.

This week I rolled out my American health choices plan. I'm going to work very hard to travel around the country, talk about why we need to tackle quality, affordable health care for every American.

We've got to deal with the economy and some of the problems that people are facing in the mortgage market and the fact that a lot of people are not getting ahead.
In the last six years, the average family income has dropped $1,000. That's not good news for our economy or for real hard-working people.

So what I'm focused on is coming forth with ideas that I believe are in the best interests of our country. And clearly, around the world, we've got to restore America's leadership. That starts with ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home, but there's a lot more to do.

And I think it would be great if we had a debate on the substance, that we really talked about what each of us will bring to the White House, because I'm excited by what I hear as I travel around America.

I think people are ready to start acting like Americans again. They want to roll up their sleeves. They want to tackle these tough problems, and I believe we can.

And I'm confident and optimistic that we can make progress together again starting January 20th, 2009.

Because Senator Clinton is a trained attorney like her husband the Senator’s “is” may not be what your “is” is. I’m betting too that it doesn’t even closely resemble your “is.” So what exactly did the Senator say when Mr. Wallace asked her why she and her husband had a hyper-partisan view of politics?

This first question apparently caught the Senator off guard because she all but admits that she and her husband do in fact harbor hyper-partisan views of politics by her, “if you where only in our shoes…I’m sure you’d understand,” concession.

But not to be forced to admit outright that she and Bill Clinton are Hyper-partisans Hillary launched into the six points of the Politics of Personal Destruction; Malign, Redefine, Redirect, Answer no Question, Admit nothing unless absolutely force to and stay on Talking Points. Let’s take a look:

But you know, the real goal for our country right now is to get beyond partisanship—Hillary Clinton

Here the Senator redirects the question from her and Bill Clinton’s hyper-partisan view of politics without answering the charge and she artfully redefines the question to, in her opinion, the real goal for our country. The level of this manipulation of language is simply stupefying and those who practice it are void of any objective view of reality certainly a bad trait for the President of the United States to have wouldn’t you say?

If Senator Clinton had a true and honest view of herself she would not have offered her next statement, “and I'm sure trying to do my part.” Senator Clinton is trying to do her part to end partisanship? I guess the Senator’s refusal to vote to condemn the Moveon.org ad against General Petraeus instead her opting to vote on a Democrat bill designed to give Democrats cover who would not condemn Moveon.org was not partisan in her eyes, but to fair minded Americans it stunk of partisanship Senator Clinton!

The Question was, why do you and the president have such a hyper-partisan view of politics? At least answer the question Senator Clinton you owe the American people that much. You could at least be honest like Democrat National Chairmen Howard Dean and say that you hate Republicans and everything that they stand for.

But please don’t insult our intelligence with any more of your, redefines, redirects, talking points or none answers. If you and former President Clinton don’t have a hyper-partisan view of politics you should simply say that you don’t. Therefore an answer would have been, “Chris, the President and I don’t have a hyper-partisan view of politics at all.”

Unless of course you do, and if anyone thinks that America is going to go back to a White house full of Clinton lies, deceit and manipulations you probably also think that Sandy Berger, Clinton’s former National Security Advisor, was in the National Archives just to do research. You believe any of the above or anything that Senator Clinton says you’re as stupid as Senator Clinton and her husband think you are!

Just how stupid do the Clinton’s take Americans for? Why you’re so stupid that you’ve forgotten who Hillary Clinton really is.

HILLARYGATE

Three major scandals in the Clinton Whitehouse have a direct link to Hillary Clinton, Travelgate, Filegate and the destruction of the Rose law firm’s billing records. What all of these instances have in common is manipulation of evidence.

Travelgate
In May 1993 seven longtime employees of the White House Travel Office were fired, after a brief investigated by the FBI. The White House said the action was due to financial improprieties in the office operation. It was believed and alleged that travelgate was orchestrated to allow friends of the Clintons to take over the travel business and that the involvement of the FBI was unwarranted. Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role.

Investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department, the White House itself, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel all took place over the subsequent years. Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement but found not guilty at trial in 1995. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it.--Wikiedia

Filegate
Filegate, arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports without asking permission of the subject individuals. Estimates range from 400 to 700 to 900 unauthorized file disclosures.

The incident caused a firestorm of criticism because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top figures such as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Marlin Fitzwater. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the under qualified Livingstone.--Wikipedia

Record Destruction
In 1988, Mrs. Clinton ordered the Rose Law Firm to destroy records relating to her representation of Madison.(1214) This was not a routine destruction of records. At the time, federal regulators were investigating the operations and solvency of Madison, in anticipation of taking over the institution. These Rose Law Firm records, which, after Madison's failure would belong to the RTC,(1215) would have been directly relevant to that investigation.

By ordering their destruction, Mrs. Clinton eliminated pertinent records and also exposed her firm to potential liability with respect to her representation. If such representation was proper, as Mrs. Clinton has claimed, her document destruction deprived the law firm of the records necessary to defend itself in a suit by federal investigators.

The Clinton penchant for destroying evidence even extends beyond their Whitehouse days in effort to keep the American people deceived about what really happened in the Clinton Whitehouse.

According to Wikipedia, On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unlawfully stealing classified documents in October 2003, by removing them from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots.

When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed that the removal of the top-secret documents in his attaché-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors. Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing. One witness saw Berger stuffing into his socks papers from the archives. [13] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.

Berger eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005.
It is believed that Berger destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record.

Apparently this is a pattern with Hillary Clinton and her husband who are attorneys, if there is no evidence a matter can not be proven so they chose to manipulate, censor or destroy the evidence.

Yes censor, Hillary Clinton has even censored the media’s coverage of anything negative about her. The Clinton ability to control their political environment is uncanny and borders on fascism.

Senator Clinton’s entire political career has been a staged event meant to manipulate political opinion to get what she wants. She wants back into the Whitehouse and whether that means appearing on Fox News or rolling out a retread Government Mandated Health Care Plan, Senator Clinton’s campaign is about punking a Nation, that’s what she’s always done.

Didn’t you know, Hillary campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America is about imposing her views on America.

Still don’t get it? With the Clintons, Hillary in particular…

It’s about punking America Stupid!

At Columbia Free Speech Only For Some

A small group of protesters gather outside Columbia University on Sunday, Sept. 23, 2007 to protest plans for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus (AP Photo/John Smock)

Columbia President Lee Bollinger said it was a question of free speech and academic freedom, he was speaking of the invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the University of Columbia.

But how soon we forget in the fall of 1998 then Columbia University President George Rupp wasn’t so interested in free speech and the chance to hear the other side. And who was the voice that Columbia University was attempting to silence, the Conservative voice that's whose. The voice of Conservativism in America!

No Place at the Table In November of 1998, Columbia University President George Rupp dispatched a team of security guards to keep students interested in a conservative conference from meeting on campus. Participants in Accuracy in Academia's "A Place at the Table: Conservative Ideas in Higher Education" learned that only liberals have a place at Columbia's table when their meeting was kicked off-campus and forced to reconvene in a park.

This, despite the fact that a contract had been signed, the meeting space had been paid for, and the event had been planned three months in advance. A mob of activists protested the event, which featured Ward Connerly, and shouted down author Dinesh D'Souza as he attempted to speak in an alcove overlooking Morningside Park.

Chanting "Ha! Ha! You're Outside, We Don't Want Your Racist Lies," demonstrators held up signs bragging of their accomplishment, which read ACCESS DENIED and WE WIN: RACISTS NOT ALLOWED AT COLUMBIA. "This is an alcove where homeless people sleep and piss," student Franklin Amoo stated. "I'll do whatever needs to be done [to stop the conference] in order to make sure they know their sentiments are not shared."

Salmon Rushdie, Khalid Muhammed, and Angela Davis have all spoken on the New York campus without "security" concerns trumping free speech rights. Yet the only instance of a conservative event on the campus in recent memory elicits a ban handed down by the school's president, who happens to be an outspoken advocate of racial preferences.

Conservatives were banned from Columbia University and forced to speech at a near by park. As you liberals gather to hear Ahmadinejab’s lies remember it was you who once bragged;

ACCESS DENIED and WE WIN: RACISTS NOT ALLOWED AT COLUMBIA

Regarding Conservatives who are Americans, yet you let the President of Iran who supports the killing of U.S. soldiers, his country’s weapons have been recently found in Iraq. His country has been discovered recently as training terrorist to kill American Soldiers in Iraq and he has personally called for the destruction of Jews.

Yes I guess Columbia President Lee Bollinger was right you would invite Hitler to speak if you could even he deserves free speech the only group that is not deserving of free speech on the campus of Columbia University are Conservatives.

More Liberal hate and now I understand why Columbia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They’ve got something in common just like him Columbia hates America too!

Iraq is bin Laden’s War according to a Muslim Cleric

Osama bin Laden in Camoflage

“Brother Osama. How many wars and how much bloodshed have occurred in the name of Al-Qaeda? How many innocents, old men, children are killed in the name of Al-Qaeda? Are you happy to meet God carrying this heavy burden on your shoulders?-- Sheikh Salman ibn Fahad Al-Oudah, Islamic scholar

Can you believe it? A Muslim criticizing Osama bin Laden? No wait a Muslim scholar actually blaming Osama bin Laden for the war. What?!? I thought that the war was Bush’s fault. That’s what Democrats, Liberals and anti-war agitators would have you and me to believe.

According to Harry Reid and all the rest of the hate America first Democratic Party the President was walking around in the oval office one morning in 2003 and said, “You know I really feel like invading the Middle East, I know let’s put thousands of American and Iraqi lives at risk and start a war!”

As nonsensical as that sounds that is the perspective that we’ve gotten from Democrats every day for the last 4 years that the war against terrorism as been waged. Liberals, Democrats and their allies in the American media have spent as much time and resources to undermine the Bush administration’s fight to protect America against the attacks of bin Laden as it costs to fight a war.

By the way just how much money do you suppose has been spent to undermine the Bush administration, millions? Anti-Bush Billionaire George Soros and Moveon.org has spent over 15 million alone (that’s a low estimate) and that doesn’t account for the millions spent in the media, reporting negative and biased stories against the President and against the effort to keep America safe. So I must say that when an Islamic cleric declares that it is actually Osama bin Laden who is responsible for the whole thing that is certainly different from what we’ve been hearing wouldn’t you say?

Right now a Democrat Controlled Congress is attempting to appease its Moveon.org base of constituents by pushing through legislation that would help al Qaeda and injure America’s ability to protect itself. Democrats call their attempts ending the war but Osama bin Laden claims that there are only two ways to end this war. One, every American is killed by a Muslim or two, America converts to Islam.

It light of bin Laden’s threat nothing that the Democrats propose is going to end the war unless of course their legislation calls for America’s all out surrender to al Qaeda and/or their legislation would have to declare that the National religion of America is now Islam. Only those two things would end the war against America.

There might be one other thing that might end the war. I admit that it is such an obscure possibility it is hardly worth mentioning but here goes. what if Liberals and Democrats alike take from the example of Sheikh Salman ibn Fahad Al-Oudah and rightly place blame for this war on Islamic extremists, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

That act alone would dishearten the Islamic extremists who look to the American media and the Liberal Democrats for solace and support. By blaming America for a war that in reality is the fault of Osama bin Laden Democrats and their allies have actually prolonged the war.

Al Qudah wrote in this open letter to bin Laden:

“The image of Islam is not the one it used to be. The world is talking of Muslims killing non-Muslims. Even the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not kill hypocrites who were mentioned in the Qur’an for fear of people describing the Prophet as a man who kills his companions,”

Only more talk like this from Muslims and Democrats alike will end the war not blaming an American President that has attempted to protect us from this threat!