How Big Government Really Works, Clinton Style

If you have been following the Hsu story lately you can really get a glimpse into how the government functions, and particularly how the Democratic Party is a master at using your paycheck to fund their elections. Oh you thought those were voluntary contributions to people with big hearts? Perhaps you think John Edwards really does care about poor people? Hillary is just a dedicated public servant?

This is just one small tale of corruption, and certainly typical associated to the name Clinton.

The story goes like this:

Joel Rosenman, one of the original promoters of the original Woodstock concert, and a major fat cat Democratic contributor, loans a guy named Norman Hsu, $40 million. Yeah, that $40,000,000.

Now, Norma Hsu, besides being a fugitive from justice and a major Democratic fund raiser, is really focused on fund raising for one former First Lady's run for the White House, Hillary Clinton. I know that some well informed Katie Couric follower's are going to find this hard to believe but there is a deep suspicion out there that Norman Hsu actively worked to get some of the $40,000,000 into the Hillary for President campaign. Hillary has already agreed to give back $850,000. And, of course, the amount he has laundered into her campaign is so enormous that he has to "bundle it" through other donors in a highly illegal operation.

Imagine how shocked Bill Clinton was when he learned of this? Oh, and by the way, Norman Hsu last year gave $75,000 to the University of Arkansas's Clinton School of Public Service. I guess I'm just hangin' with the wrong people. These are real friends.

Anyway, here's the real kicker.

Currently the Congress is putting together the Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Bill. This bill has 1,016 earmarks totaling nearly $392 million. Yeah, that $392,000,000. A lot of money to anyone that has to to earn it. You can download the entire list here. I warn you though in advance, this is not for the faint of heart when you see the government boondoggling borrowed money with such reckless abandon. Just as an aside, if you go through this list you will notice that the University of Arkansas's Clinton School of Public Service has an earmark of $1,000,000. Yee Haw.

Anyway, in this earmark list, you guessed it, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer have put in a request (one among many) for $1,000,000 for....something important?

A Woodstock museum. Kinda anti climatic huh? I mean you would think that the party that is doing away with corruption, cleaning up earmarks, and deeply offended by the national debt would probably resist borrowing money for something as ridiculous as a Woodstock Museum.

But, and here is where the circle closes, it makes Joel Rosenman happy. You know, the guy that loaned Norman Hsu the $40,000,000 of which a substantial part of ended up in the Clinton's pockets. And, one of the original promoters of the Woodstock Music Festival.

Recap:

1. Democrat crony Rosenman loans Democrat crony Hsu $40,000,000.
2. Fugitive Hsu distributes money to Democrats to give to Democratic campaigns.
3. Criminally inclined Hillary Clinton receives large amounts of money from the $40,000,000.
4. Master lawbreaker Hillary Clinton spends taxpayer money on Rosenman cause as payback.

In effect, taxpayer money has been laundered into the Clinton campaign.

Now you know how big government really works.

Democrats Fix Vote

You know the party that's always accusing the Republicans of cheating on votes, well until they start actually winning the votes? They actually "fixed" a vote the other night right on the floor of the House of Representatives.







From The Wall Street Journal:

Monday, August 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The House of Representatives almost turned into the Fight Club Thursday night, when Democrats ruled that a GOP motion had failed even though, when the gavel fell, the electronic score board showed it winning 215-213 along with the word FINAL. The presiding officer, Rep. Mike McNulty (D., N.Y.), actually spoke over the clerk who was trying to announce the result.

In the ensuing confusion several members changed their votes and the GOP measure to deny illegal aliens benefits such as food stamps then trailed 212-216. Boiling-mad Republicans stormed off the floor. The next day, their fury increased when they learned electronic records of the vote had disappeared from the House's voting system.

Read the fully story here.

Ain't it great constantly hearing about how corrupt the Bush administration is? I mean they are spying, without warrants, on our enemy that Congress has declared war on. Thank god for the honesty and integrity of the Democratic Party.

By the way, Cindy Sheehan (in the picture above) has nothing to do with this story. I needed a picture of Nancy P for this blog and I find it quite amusing that she has this picture on her web site. Kind of odd since Sheehan has now vowed to run against her because she feels Nancy is not doing her job.

Democrat Priorities??

This week I was home from work sick with a migraine. I turned on C-span and Bill Clinton was giving a speech. It's really incredible the world view of the Democratic Party. And, you must admit this guy probably represents his party fairly well. He's not a Michael Moore loud mouth. Though Michael Moore is becoming more and more mainstream in this party, but that is another topic.

Anyway, Bill recommends that we make incandescent light bulbs illegal.

Let me see if I have this right. In their continual denial of a war on Islamic terrorists, and massive attempts to downplay this as anything more then a George Bush invention, they believe we have gone too far in our fight. They maintain the following ideas:

The Democratic Party believes Saddam Hussein should still be in power, despite the fact that Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore all claimed he was a madman with nuclear weapons.

The Democratic Party believes that Guantanamo should be shut down as a prison for the some of the most violent terrorists on the planet. And we should bring those prisoners onto American soil and give them full access to our legal system!!!

The Democratic Party believes that the war on terrorism is a merely a bumper sticker slogan.

The Democratic Party believes that secret prisons in Europe used to house terrorists is an outrageous practice.

The Democratic Party believes that if a war time president listens in on phone calls of the enemy he is destroying the constitution. And yes, of course, they have properly outed this program to eliminate is as an effective tool against terrorism.

The Democratic Party believes that outing a secret program tracing international monetary transactions that are funding terrorism is a good idea.

But yet an important idea for them is making incandescent light bulbs illegal in America. Wow. If the world were so simple everybody could be a Democrat. Of course we would all now either be growing beards or wearing a face veil here in the real world. And more importantly, the liberals in America would be explaining to their new Islamic leaders the value of abortion and homosexual rights.

Needless to say, watching Bill Clinton did not help my headache.

Rudy Giuliani.....Unacceptable

I've already made up my mind. No way will I ever vote for this guy. Not now, not ever.

Rudy Giuliani is currently leading in the polls, among Republicans, in what appears to be the biggest bunch of misfits ever assembled in history trying to be President of the United States.

This guy is not a Republican. If he is, I'm not a Republican. He's a liberal that was mayor of New York City on 9/11 and somehow this makes him uniquely qualified to be President of the United States. By the way, don't even bother with his website. If you are looking for his position on issues he has a few lines on each that sound so non-committed they could have been written by Bill Clinton. All right lets get down to a few specifics.

1. Gun Control - Rudy was a firm gun control liberal as mayor of New York. He jumped on the band wagon with the Brady Campaign to sue gun makers out of existence. Rudy claimed he supports hunters rights though. That's always the clue to a John Kerry position on gun control which is ban as many as you can and then go duck hunting when you run for office. I have never mistaken the Second Amendment for a declaration of hunters rights and any candidate that does just doesn't get it.

2. Abortion - Rudy is a pro choice Republican. And he's quite confusing on the issue. Again, he borrows a page from the Bill Clinton "speak out of both sides of your mouth" book. From the 2007 debate at the Reagan library:

Q: You became very well known for standing up against the use of public funds for what many people considered indecent exhibits at the Brooklyn museum and places like that. Why do you support the use of public funds for abortion?

A: I don't. I support the Hyde amendment. I hate abortion. I wish people didn't have abortions.

I supported it in New York, but I think, in other places, people can come to a different decision.

If you hate it, why support it?

3. Illegal Immigration - Believe it or not Rudy doesn't even address this critical issue on his website. That alone is quite telling. He doesn't want to tell you where he stands. That means he stands with, you guessed it, the Democrats.

In April 2006, Giuliani went on the record as favoring the US Senate's comprehensive immigration plan which includes a path to citizenship and a guest worker plan. So if you are in favor of an open southern border, any person passing back and forth at any time, the American taxpayer paying their medical, education, and welfare bills while they are here Rudy is your guy.

And here you thought the main reason to vote for him was defense of the United States.

If you can hold your nose enough to look past these positions for long enough to pull the Rudy lever you are a better person then me. What's going to get me enthused about voting is a difference in the candidates, besides their party title.

Levin, Giving Away the USA

Reuters is reporting today that President Bush and the Democratic Congress are very close to an agreement on free trade pacts with Peru, Colombia and Panama. What's striking is the language used by our government to persuade us to abandon our sovereignty.

Senator Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from Michigan, states:

"A foreign government could only challenge a labor practice that it believes gives the United States an unfair trade advantage."

He is talking about a US labor practice codified in US law.

What he is saying is that he agrees with the concept that a foreign government can challenge the laws of the United States. And of course, these free trade agreements always create international bodies that allow this to happen.

This is not a new concept for our government to be throwing us over a cliff in this fashion. Bill Clinton really got the ball rolling on this with NAFTA and GATT. An international body called the WTO (World Trade Organization) was created out of the GATT agreement. This is an organization that meets in secret and determines the validity of countries making claims on the unfairness of American laws.

Many blame Ronald Reagan for this WTO fiasco but the WTO was not part of the original intentions of his free trade administration. The WTO was created at the end of the GATT rounds. Its purpose is to provide a global executive branch that would judge a country's compliance with the rules, enforce the rules with sanctions, and provide the legislative capacity to expand the rules in the future.

That's the kind of guidance our legislators think we need over our Democracy in order to have "free trade" with other countries. Sounds like anything but free to me.

Carl Levin thinks it would be " hypocritical to include a safe harbor provision ensuring U.S. laws could not be challenged at all".

"A safe harbor sends the wrong message to what we're about," Levin said.

You know, I like the idea that the US is a "safe harbor" in this world. Carl Levin disagrees and unfortunately he has the power to change that.

Funny too, when you go to Carl Levin's web site, and look at his lengthy list of issues, he doesn't mention this one. I wonder why?

Harry Traitor Reid

Harry Reid, in what seems to be a diplomatic outreach to Osama Bin Laden, declared yesterday that "This war is lost".

Isn't it just remarkable that this Congress can't find anything constructive to do? No problems that fall within their domain to work on?

At the very least could they get through the day without being a traitor to their country? No way this is not aid and comfort to the enemy.

The American dollar is being wrecked with government debt. No one is working on this problem. Could we at least get "The dollar is lost" and Reid could let us officially know he is giving up on that? Is it really unreasonable to ask Chuck Schumer to do the work of the people rather then spend every bit of his energy and time investigating legitimately fired attorneys? I got to think, this has to be way down on the list of priorities.

Social Security, a government program created by Congress, is the largest scam and upcoming train wreck in the history of socialism. Reid doesn't have time for this. Well, that's not completely true. He did take the time out over the last few years when Bush was working on this to make sure nothing was accomplished on this massive problem. And his goal wasn't to stop some wild plan of Bush's. His massive effort was to insure that nothing happened. I guess not working on Social Security frees up his time to advise the president on surrender.

Medicare, another government program, is a total disaster. Reid didn't mention that. Nancy Pelosi has spent more time meeting with terrorists, and accomplishing nothing positive, then working on this problem. Do they all think they are the president?

Most of the Congressional Democrats claim they believe the world is going to end because of Global Warming. Frankly, I think it's nothing but a Gore scam, but if you thought the world was coming to an end would you really be working on raising the minimum wage.

I think the Congress is lost. The voters that put this bunch in power are surely lost. The war lost? Reid may be right only because he is fighting against us and his words are powerful weapons.

Global Warming Theory is Suspicious

All right, here we go. Take a deep breath and step back from the fray for a minute and let's look at some of the evidence being thrown our way from the Global Warming crowd.

There certainly is rudimentary evidence out there that the weather has changed over the last few years and maybe even gotten warmer. But the correlation between a seemingly warmer trend and man made catastrophe is certainly not established.

A main point to consider though is the suspicious nature of the debate itself. This discussion reeks of corrupt politics. Consider the following points:

1. Al Gore as the Global Warming Messiah

This is a very ambitious guy that has been crusading against industry for a long time. His book Earth in the Balance (1992) suggested that we phase out the internal combustion engine. From the book:

"We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy are ever again likely to confront. ... I support new laws to mandate improvement in automobile fleet mileage, but much more is needed. ... it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five-year period...." (page 325-326)

Yikes, the internal combustion engine is more "deadly then that of any military enemy". Honestly, I have no problem with with a replacement, environmentally friendly engine. But blaming a piece of hardware that has been the centerpiece of prosperity helping build the greatest standard of living the planet has ever seen seems to indicate another agenda to me. But then I am suspicious by nature.

Without completely rehashing the recent reports of Al Gores personal power usage he has certainly defined the Global Warming crisis as a problem that does not affect him personally. If I thought that civilization, as we know it, were ending, I believe I would be able to make a few sacrifices. Al is not willing to do this. I think that is very suspicious.

He has also help form a company called Generation Investment Management LLP. If the Global Warming crusade of his is a success he stands to make money. A lot of money. Huge amounts of money. Suspicious?

2. The UN involvement in Global Warming

Wow. The UN wants to be at the center of the Global Warming debate. The largest gang of global criminals and terrorist supporters ever assembled is spearheading the scientific interpretation of the planet's changing weather. The latest report out of the UN calls for a 4% global tax on all energy consuming sources. Now you know. The reason the weather is changing is because the UN does not yet have the global tax system they have been trying to implement for a very long time.

Let me see if I have the logic correctly.

• The planet's weather may be changing.
• The solution to "fix" the changing weather is to pay the UN enormous sums of tax money.
• The UN is a legitimate source of information concerning the changing weather.

Again, maybe I am just an overly suspicious individual. The money will probably only be used for good?

3. The Lies

The polar bears stranded on ice bergs has been exposed as a lie as to its conclusions. The famous photo was taken 2 1/2 years prior to its use showing some polar bears playing on an iceberg within swimming distance of the shoreline. It was later released, the day after the UN put out another dire Global Warming prediction, and then used as propaganda by Al Gore. If Global Warming is real why do we have to be told lies to get us to accept it?

Mark Albright, Washington’s assistant state meteorologist, was fired from his job for telling the truth. When Seattle's mayor wrote a factually incorrect column about the snow levels on the northern Cascade Mountains, he was corrected by this now unemployed meteorologist. Read a great recap of the story here. Hey, why listen to a meteorologist when you can get a scientific view from the mayor.

This is just a small list of lies to get you started, and hopefully arouse suspicion. Here's a nice paper on some more false information being spread on global warming.

4. Scientific Consensus

You have heard this over and over again. There is scientific consensus about man made Global Warming. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

A great example of this exaggeration is Naomi Oreskes's (professor of history) paper in the journal Science. She claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change and 75% of them purport to acknowledge that Global Warming is a man made event. An analysis of her work by Benny Peiser (Faculty of Science at Liverpool's John Moores University) "discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming".

Just over a dozen? Out of 928? Consensus?

Benny Peiser continues "An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change."

Read the link from Wikipedia for more suspicious behavior on this scientific consensus.

There is much more suspicious activity out there. The media's one sided behavior, suppression of information by scientists that disagree, the quick switch in the 70's from Global Cooling to Global Warming, and much more. I say examine the messenger carefully. They seem to be suspicious to me.

We need the UN to inform us that Global Warming will hit the poor the hardest?

Of course, the latest and greatest head line in the continuing Global Warming crusade is the conclusion by the UN that the poor will be the hardest hit by rising temperatures. On the surface that certainly sounds reasonable to me. The poor are always the hardest hit by bad events.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said in launching the latest report: " The poorest of the poor in the world - and this includes poor people in prosperous societies - are going to be the worst hit. People who are poor are least able to adapt to climate change."

We need the UN for this? Was money really spent to draw this conclusion?

A few weeks ago we were well on the way to this conclusion thanks to the leading advocate of the man made Global Warming theory, Al Gore.

You see, we know that Al Gore is a guy that believes that catastrophic, life altering events, are in the near future of this planet. And yet, in his own personal life he is doing nothing to help stop this. At his home in Tennessee we have learned that Al uses 20 times the electricity that most Americans use. If you are a Global Warming alarmist you might easily conclude that he is the problem.

But, it has never occurred to him that a wealthy elitist, like himself, would have to share in the solution to what he believes is the largest problem faced by mankind.

He stated to Congress recently that “Our world faces a true planetary emergency."

Emergency?

Does anyone really think that Al is acting like there is an emergency?

Of course the Al for president supporters will tell you that Al is working on reducing his giant footprint. He works in his house. He buys offsets. He does more good then harm.

If you don't draw the conclusion that Al is so much of a wealthy elitist that he won't swallow his own medicine, then you have to conclude he doesn't believe the theory at all.

So why is the media going hysterical over the lesson Al Gore has already demonstrated?