Archive for January, 2006

Peter Paul vs Hillary Clinon - View the trailer!

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006

The first official “shot across the bow” has been fired. Only it wasn’t Hillary Clinton doing the shooting. No, this volley is being fired by Peter Paul, and it’s a doozy. We first brought this to your attention in our January 7th post. And now, we invite you to view the trailer for the documentary in production, Indicting Hillary, featuring famed prosecutor and House Impeachment Manager Dave Schippers supporting Peter Paul’s efforts to hold Hillary accountable for the campaign finance fraud that her campaign has now admitted to the FEC that it committed when it filed three false FEC reports to hide more than $720,000 of the $1.2 million plus contributions made by Paul to Hillary’s Senate campaign in 2000.

Witness what Schippers had to say, and see the difference in the allegations presented by Paul himself in 2006 compared with ABC 20/20′ Brian Ross’ portrayal of Paul and his allegations in 2001.

The trial of Hillary finance director David Rosen in May, 2005, and the December 13, 2005, negotiated settlement of Hillary’s campaign treasurer Andrew Grossman, admitting to the FEC his culpability for the actions criminally charged against his subordinate Rosen, have completely validated and vindicated the claims Paul has made in his landmark civil fraud suit, Paul v Clinton et al, and in his demand letter to Hillary Clinton in June, 2001.as expressed by Dick Morris on Sean Hannity’s show in January, 2006.

Hillary swings left, and misses badly.

Monday, January 30th, 2006

With the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito just days away, Hillary Clinton has temporarily abandoned her political shift to the middle. But it’s only temporary folks. Don’t be fooled by this hollow sham of a show she is putting on with Sens. Kerry and Kennedy. Hillary Clinton knows that there is absolutely NO chance of a successful filibuster. She also knows that Alito will be confirmed on Tuesday. So why is she doing this then? So she go to the far left liberal base and say “See, I really am on your side. I tried to filibuster the nomination of Judge Alito, but otheres wouldn’t support me.” or some other such drivel. She wasn’t even smart enough to think of this on her own. She had to let The French flip flop John Kerry announce it first in Switzerland. Then the fat drunk from the gay state of Massachusetts jumped on board. After all that, her genius handlers must have convinced her to get on board. Hillary could in fact be a bigger flip flop than Kerry. It’s still early. We’ve got another 2 years to watch her swing back and forth.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday backed a rebel band of Senate Dems seeking to filibuster a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.
Democratic leaders had warned that filibuster efforts were going nowhere and would let President Bush score easy political points, but Clinton said, “I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation.”

“I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear,” she said, adding she would vote against a move to cut off a filibuster should one occur.

Any senator can filibuster - or command the floor to block a vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture to end a filibuster.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made it clear earlier in the day that the party didn’t have the votes to defeat a cloture vote, so a filibuster was doomed to failure.

Full Story

Will Hillary turn left again?

Thursday, January 26th, 2006

It seems that all the efforts of Hillary Clinton to paint herself as moderate who is strong on National Security are failing. Not with moderates and independants, but with her base. And without her base, she can’t win. Anything. So is a shift back to the Left in her future? If polls like this keep coming out, don’t be surprised if some of her roots show through the moderate dye job she’s been trying to wear.

CNNGALLUP SHOCK POLL: ONLY 16% FIRM ON HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
Wed Jan 25 2006 10:50:26 ET

Most voters now say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 - while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won’t vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes - 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there’s no way they’d back her.

Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President - a step Rice has repeatedly said she won’t take.

Drudge Story

Hillary vs Condi redux

Tuesday, January 24th, 2006

Some say yes, and some say no. Dick Morris, in his book Condi vs. Hillary : The Next Great Presidential Race is a believer. The First Lady, as we have heard lately, is not. Here’s a piece, from the land down under of all places, that sides with the nay-sayers.

A presidential contest between the two famous women is just a dream.

EVERY couple of weeks, mostly on quiet news days, some cable news anchor rolls out a rumour that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, despite her protestations to the contrary, is planning to run for president in 2008.

A couple of populist political commentators known for their willingness to speculate on anything, no matter how far-fetched, are then rolled out to explain why Rice’s emphatic and repeated denials that she would ever run for any elected office should not be believed.

Then the dream presidential contest for 2008 is laid out pitting Rice against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for her party’s nomination, accompanied by a graphic with attractive photographs of the two women purporting to show that they are, respectively, their party’s best hopes for victory.

Last week, Laura Bush provoked a small frenzy of Rice fever by saying that she would love to see Rice run for president, adding that Rice, a close friend of the Bush family, was “terrific”.

Hours of television air time and acres of newsprint were then devoted to will-she-won’t-she nonsense about Rice and, of course, inevitably, the Rice versus Clinton graphic — updated to take account of hairstyle changes to which both women are partial — was duly rolled out.

Rice again said she was not interested in running for president or vice-president or anything else but this was ignored because for the popular media a Rice versus Clinton presidential race in 2008 would be a ratings bonanza. Imagine, a presidential catfight.

Full Story

The Barrett Report, The Clintons, and the IRS, Oh MY!

Friday, January 20th, 2006

The Barrett report was released today to very little fanfare because that murdering towel head had to release a stinkin audio tape. Not that it would have mattered anyway to the left wing major media. Take a look at Brent Baker’s Blog over at NewsBusters.

In his report released Thursday on Henry Cisneros, Clinton’s HUD Secretary for several years who had pled guilty in 1999 to some charges, Independent Counsel David Barrett asserted that his probe was hindered by Clinton administration officials, even after they left office. But the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, which had time for some hardly hot news stories, such as a popular restaurant in New Orleans, didn’t utter a word about Barrett’s complaint. ABC’s World News Tonight allocated 35 seconds to Barrett and Cisneros. Anchor Bob Woodruff pointed out how “Barrett accused Clinton officials of using their power to quote, ‘blunt any effort to bring about a full and independent examination.’” Woodruff added: “Critics called Barrett’s investigation ‘incompetent,’ ‘wasteful’ and ‘without merit.’”

If they had decided to cover the story in depth, they would have found great copy in what David Barrett had to say about the report.

David M. Barrett, the independent counsel charged with investigating wrongdoings of Bill Clinton Cabinet Secretary Henry Cisneros, released his final report today, saying the ex-president’s administration successfully prevented him from getting to the truth.

Said Barrett in a press release: “This has been a long and difficult investigation. It is my hope that people will read the entire report and draw their own conclusions. An accurate title for the report could be, ‘WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.’”

Continued the independent counsel: “After a thorough reading of the report it would not be unreasonable to conclude, as I have, that there was a cover-up at high levels of our government, and it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other cover ups, this one succeeded.”

Source

Hillary furious at plantation outsourcing!!!

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

Oh baby is Hillary on a roll this week. First she is comparing the House of Representatives to a plantation, and now she’s complaining about the White House outsourcing the Iranian negotiations.

In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.

“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.

Full Story

Isn’t this the same woman who’s been complaining that we haven’t been multilateral enough in our foreign policy? Take a look at this speech from 2003 in front of the Council on Foreign Relations:

It is smart to have more people involved. It is smart to move toward multilateralism and anyway from unilateralism. It is smart to look at how we can get more people to have an ownership and participation interest in what we do…

The consequences of unilateralism, isolationism and overtly expressed preemptive defense, I think, are severe. We will end up with fewer nations, fewer intelligence services and fewer law enforcement personnel internationally helping to protect us against attacks, fewer nations helping to counterattack when we are struck, and less leverage in advancing democracy, freedom, open markets and other values that we believe elevate the people of the world even as they protect our people here at home.

Full story

Maybe she’s just exercising her prerogative as a woman to change her mind?

The Barrett Report is finally out

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

There is an excelent piece by Robert D. Novak in The Conservative Voice on the content of The Barrett Report which gets released later today. We can’t wait to see Hillary Clinton’s team go into spin overdrive.

The long-awaited final report by Independent Counsel David Barrett, to be released today [Thursday], was severely censored by court order but not enough to sufficiently obscure its importance. As long forecast, it alleges serious corruption in the Clinton administration’s Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The question is what was contained in 120 pages removed by the judges.
These allegations explain why Barrett finally has closed down after 10 years the last prosecution under the lapsed independent counsel statute. Its target, Henry Cisneros, long ago resigned as secretary of Housing and Urban Development in a plea bargain after admitting he lied to FBI interrogators to gain Senate confirmation. What kept Barrett in business was what he and his prosecutors contend is a Clinton administration cover-up of income tax evasion charges against Cisneros.

Not only Barrett’s stubbornness but also a tip from an IRS whistle-blower in San Antonio, Texas, meant the case did not end with Cisneros’s personal disgrace. But for now, the cover-up has succeeded. No tax prosecution was brought against Cisneros, and IRS conduct has not been questioned. Friends describe Barrett, a Republican lawyer from Washington, as feeling at age 68 that he has failed fully to uncover the scandal and that it is now up to Congress to get out the truth.

Full Story

Now if a Republican had said that…

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

It’s amazing, isn’t it? Hillary blatantly plays the race card in an attempt to slander all Republicans and paint them as slave owners so she can pander to her African American base, and it’s okay. The media has tread so lightly on this issue, barely mentioning it at all. But, and this is a BIG but. if a Republican had said that. Why then the shit would have hit the fan. You can bet your ass that the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Chris Mathews, PBS, CNN, The New York Times, BET, and all the rest of the Republican hating media would have jumped all over this story. They would have been demanding that the person who made “such remarks” issue an apology and resign immediately. But have they done that with Hillary? Nope. Why you can hear the tumbleweeds they’ve been so quiet. And today they sent out their new poster boy, Barrak Obama, to defend Hillary.

Sen. Barack Obama and other black Democrats are defending Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s description of the House of Representatives as a “plantation.” …

Clinton, D-N.Y., a potential presidential candidate for 2008, did not retreat from the “plantation” remark, telling reporters the term accurately describes the “top-down” way the GOP runs Congress.

Obama said Wednesday he felt her choice of words referred to a “consolidation of power” in Washington that squeezes out the voters.

The Illinois senator told CNN’s “American Morning” he believed that Clinton was merely expressing concern that special interests play such a large role in writing legislation that “the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren’t in the majority party don’t have much input.”

“There’s been a consolidation of power by the Republican Congress and this White House in which, if you are the ordinary voter, you don’t have access,” Obama said. “That should be a source of concern for all of us.”

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks also defended Clinton.

“There was no race card played here. If any card was played here it was a joker, because that’s who seems to be running the House right now if you look at the leadership,” said Meeks, a black Democrat….

Full Story

Hillary Clinton plays the race card

Tuesday, January 17th, 2006

We’re not sure if this will get picked up outside of New York, but in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Hillary has decided to call the Bush administration slave owners. That’s right. Read it for yourselves from CBS TV in NY:

There were tough questions to politicians who feel they must attend the event as much to pay homage to Sharpton as to celebrate Dr. King’s legacy…

Clinton actually got an easy question. “I need you to tell us what distinguishes Democrats from Republicans right now,” she was asked.

Clinton’s answer was provocative.

Said Clinton, “When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I’m talking about…”

Full Story

The Barrett report finally to be seen

Monday, January 16th, 2006

We picked this tidbit up from The Drudge Report. Since his sources are pretty well known to be reliable, this could be BIG BIG BIG for Hillary watchers all over the place.

Last Independent Counsel Report Set For ‘Release’; Focus On Clinton Administration
Sun Jan 15 2006 19:35:32 2006

In Monday’s edition of the NEW YORK SUN, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., break the first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett, whose investigation lasted 10 year and cost taxpayers $23 million.

The SUN outlines the report’s details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involving former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.

The Sun reveals that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration hindered investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington, as well as the investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel’s evidence.

The full report, more than 400 pages line, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am.

Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day.

Developing…

Breaking Story