Feb 02 2007
Hillary The Communist
Hillary wants “to take oil profits” and give them to other companies …. I mean invest in alternative energy sources. Goodbye Hillary (and the dems). One thing America does not believe in is state confiscation of private property. When would it stop? Would Hillary and her Communist friends take profits from McDonalds to fight obesity? Will they take profits Marlboro to invest in medical companies? What am I saying – they already did that! And they are planning on a fat tax on foods they decide our not healthy. Democrats are going to squander their opportunity because we are not going to cough up our industrial base to the government to control and dictate (and strangulate).
Hill needs to get in tough with Hugo! And she said that if she had been President she would not have sent troops to Iraq. Does she forget that she had a vote and she voted to send troops. Bush only asked, she actually sent troops. My, my it is going to be a long two years!
One more thing, remember when she told a group that she would take away some of the money that Bush gave in tax cuts, she said “some of you won’t get that money, it will go for the common good”. She sure is middle of the road, middle of the road communist.
First of all, Exxon didn’t come into my house and rummage through my wallet when I was asleep. Nobody put a gun to my head and forced me to buy Exxon products and they didn’t steal from me. Every day on my way to work I pass a Shell, a 76 and a Valero (Exxon) station. Every day the Valero station has gas for about 5 cents a gallon less than the Shell station across the street and much cheaper than the 76 which is right at the freeway. I actually inconveniace myself a little to go to the Valero on the other side of the road (I have to go past it and turn around to get to it) because their gas is cheaper.
As far as I am concerned Exxon made the money the old fashioned way … by providing a decent product at a fair price. If they made a “record profit” that’s fine. I don’t see Hillary complaining that Bill Gates or Donald Trump make too much money.
Bet you that if Hillary tried to do what she said those companies would be moving their business HQ outside of the US. Exxon is a global company and only about 10% of their total business operations are in the US according to an executive I heard being interviewed on the radio within the past year.
I guess this means a tax hike unless of course she plans on doing what Chavez did and just taking over the companies. But then again that is not legal here.
Amen, AJ!
and who can forget the footnotes in her “secret health care proposal”–doctors who ministered to the sick outside the program could face jail time! stalin’s little mini me………
Hillary’s health and energy take-overs are not legal yet…but what if she would get elected with a Democrat congress?
And she just came out very strong against the war against Iraq. She said that if she were a US President back in 2002, she would never have gone after Iraq and if she was elected in 08, she will pull all troops out immediately.
Will that help her get the votes?
Hillary’s statement about the Iraq War is nonsensical dissembling. She was a Senator in 2002, and she voted for the Iraq War resolution. So she’s trying to claim she would have been against the war, when in fact she was for it.
So she’s trying to claim she would have been against the war, when in fact she was for it.
Actually, Dennisa, what she said was if she had known back then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war.
Well, as my 12-year-old granddaughter is so fond of saying — DUH! If I had known in the fall of 1994 that the DJIA was going to go from 3800 to over 11,000 in less than 6 years, I’d be a whole lot richer than I am today. As AJ said a while back, anyone who relies on hindsight is just reverse engineering tea leaves. It’s not exactly a leadership trait.
This article from the Communist Part of America says that the Communist Party of America can count on over 30 members of Congress (many of them now committee chairpersons) to move their agenda forward. It seems to me, that as persistent as the Communists have been in taking over various countries, that Americans need to pay more attention to the relationship between the Democrats and the Communists in America.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/769/1/135/
I don’t believe for a minute that America’s Communist Party is going away, they are just getting better at moving their agenda in to the
positions the Democrats claim as theirs. I urge you to read the article and see what is currently being put forward in Congress as supposedly Democrat ideas, ideas that the Communist claim they can use to defeat America.
AJ,
I don’t think the American public will do anything to stop this train wreck we are on. They screech constitutionality at the top of their lungs then go out and screech taking profits from an American company and giving them to the government and the crowd roars. We are heading towards socialism and I don’t think there is a damn thing we can do to stop it.
On the other hand? These are gifts.
Since the “institution” of Affirmative Action began. (And, by bad luck Ronald Reagan closed all the mental institutions; preferring, instead, that families just cope) …
What we have here are CAMPS. Not quite armed. Because journalists can’t shoot straight. They’ve been using ink. And, when things fail? They roll up small pieces of paper. Chew on them. And, spew trajectories. Again, please don’t go hiding under your beds over this. Thanks.
It’s been about 60 years. But we’re lucky. First off, not only did the hippies eschew violence with anti-war rhetoric. They didn’t mind having guns confiscated. Because they lean more towards PETA. Very large signs. And, parades.
In class? Well, first off, affirmative action changed the whole credentialling system.
And, we’re still at war. Sorry to tell ya.
It means? Well, the donks found out that at the bottom are a lot of “little people,” that if you give them freedom on the one hand; OR revenge movies on the other. They’ll bring rope to their movie theaters.
But, the people were dis-served none-the-less. Because? Well, if you look at just one “leg” of our great edifice, you’d see the “pillar of da’ law.” But it’s full of graffiti now. And? Where we once trusted 12 white men as jurors. So that Broadway could do a play about a jury, sitting inside a hot room. Trying to get out. Where it was “easy to convict,” you had one juror (Henry Fonda), not letting anyone exit quite that fast. Three Acts. The witness couldn’t see the murder because the train was passing. And, he lived across the street from the “L.” Ah. Once upon a time, this was true. 3rd Avenue didn’t host great addresses, because the trains were positioned OVERHEAD.
In that over-heated jury room, though, Broadway made a successful play showing “we could trust ordinary white men, doing their jury duty.” And, this faded after OJ’s trial.
Now? It seems that lots of elites have hooked into the idea they can ruin just about anybody, in newsprint. If they get their headlines “just right.”
Dan Rather blew a hole in this fabric, though. He couldn’t quite convince Americans to vote for Kerry. Wink. Wink.
And, that’s the HOSTILE SIDE OF THINGS. Up at Lucianne, read only by conservatives, I suppose? Is a headlined article that Hillary, when the crowd heckles (and these are democrats, heckling! You hardly hear of any of those!) Starts SCREAMING. (Just like CAPS. Shrill.)
And, she wants to be president.
And, she’s waiting for 2008. While ya’all, are supposed to be under your beds, cowering.
Funny thing is? There’s no proof that the news media shines bright enough, that it can encourage anyone to even by an American car. Let alone a candidate attached to a hat in the ring.
But we are at war.
And, that’s the enemy.
GOOD. I don’t feel defeated. I think it’s about the best “war news” you can get, outside of the fact that wrestling matches are still fixed.
And, college debt runs way too high. But? Perhaps, those Lacrosse players, instead of an education? They got themselves a lottery ticket. If they just hold on tight.
I trust sports figures get a better deal with juries than what’s ahead for Libby. On the other hand? If you’re a lawyer? Go notice. Martha Stewart just picked her wallet up off from the table. And, walked away! Empty cabs, even with their meters running, don’t make money.
In a word: YES
since about 70% of American now feel we never should have invaded; 58% just wish Bush’s term was over – right now – and things will only get worse over the next two years for war supporters.
When the American people fully understand the costs of this war – including tangential costs – there will not be a hole deep enough for George & Dick to hide in. Bush visited a diner in downstate Illinois the other day – and no one would even talk to him.
When the American people fully understand the costs of this war
The American people will NEVER fully understand the costs of this war unless we lose it. Then the current costs will look like chump change.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened”
Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket
Spook:
We won the war. But the “peace” was lost before we went in. Name me a war against an insurgency that a colonial occupying power has won.
As Molly Ivins (RIP) said:
soothsayer:
Only about 15% of the people want to pull out the troops right now and the truth is 67% hope the surge is successful. My guess is most of the remaining 33% are people like you who want to see America fail because you think it will help your party when the next election. And of course that is all you care about. Death and mayhem is just a bonus.
But if we are going to go down the “if I knew then what I know now road”, my guess is Saddam would have been gone in 1991 or a lot sooner.
And you know something? I hate the questions they ask like “was it worth it”…I had an uncle who went MIA in northern Africa in WW2. Talk about a disaster, that was a mess. For weeks the family did not know if he was dead or alive. If anyone had ask my Granmother if it was worth it, what do you think she would have said? It is an obnoxious question. Are the cash receipts in a liquor store worth the life of a young police officer if he is killed trying to stop an armed robbery? If we say no, does that mean we just shut down the police?
So I think that a lot of Americans are just tired of the war, but anti war people assume that if there had not been a war then all would have been sweetness and light. I doubt it, in fact I think Saddam would have pushed it until there was a confrontation, it was his nature.
Imagine Saddam free of the sanctions having bested the US and the UN, his weapons programs rebuilt. The no fly zones are not being patrolled because the US had to shut down its base in SA. So he is free to go after the Kurds, the Shia the Marsh Arabs, anyone he wants. There are no cameras, no free media, no one to tell the tale.
Saddam thinks he has shown everyone that he can defy the world, he starts up his programs again, invades Kuwait again and sets about finishing the job he started on the Kurds. Who is going to stop him as he sets about holding the ME hostage? Why is it people think that Saddam would have changed?
Meanwhile Kaddafi has the bomb, because there was no invasion and so he did not end the program. AJ Kahn is working closely with both Iran and NK to help them get the bomb as well.
Saddam who was within a year of having the bomb in 1991 is also starting up his nuclear program..what will you do? Burn an American flag?
Looking back and thinking if I had known then what I know now is useless. If not for the war the US would never have know the extent of our own intel failures or the scope of UN corruption or the existence of the Kahn nuclear network. It is impossible to know what all that might have lead to.
And as for that story about the diner, I doubt if it is even true. So what? I know places that Bill Clinton could walk into today and people would throw food at him. So what? According to Rasmussens Bush’s approval rating as stayed between 35 and 45 for more than a year. A couple of days ago it was 42. This is not great, but then again saying week after week that it is going down is not accurate. If that were true it would be in the negative range by now as much as you people spread that manure around. Bush would have no problem getting an enthusiastic crowd together, this is a big country. He won that last election after the war had started and he got more votes than any president in history, do not assume that all 62 million of them have abandoned him.
BTW, if anyone will be held responsible it will also be the Democrats who were every bit as much as responsible for the war as the Republicans. The difference is Bush is man enough to own up to his mistakes, people like you just lie, point your fingers and blame others.
Go look up Clinton’s speeches about Saddam and his weapons and our duty to see him removed from power and then compare them to speeches made by Bush in 2002, you will be amazed at how similar they are.
So maybe the American people will wonder someday why it is if Saddam was so harmless didn’t Clinton end the no fly zones, the sanctions regime and just resolve the festering conflict instead of bombing Iraq and calling for Saddam to be deposed. If he had there might not have been a war at all.
This is a small part of a speech made by Bill Clinton in 1998 when he explained his call for the use of military force against Iraq:
want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we’ve had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations — Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman — warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
“In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
This is a part of Hillary’s speech in 2002:
n the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.