Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

untitledTo believe that promoting Obamacare is doing God’s work,  you have to believe Government is God and Obama is his Messiah.   Unfortunately the Bible President Obama swore upon doesn’t guide him in Office.

Social Justice isn’t the same as collectivists redistribution of wealth.  You can’t rob Peter to buy Paul’s vote for your political ambitions and say you are doing God’s work.

Christ spoke of individual responsibility, you loving your neighbor, not expecting the Government to do all the loving for you.  Paying taxes doesn’t equate with freely giving of your time and money to aid those less fortunate.   The truth is, for all their talk wealthy Democrats give less to charity than Republicans yet  they claim they are the ones who truly care for their neighbor,  truth is most liberals don’t much care  for their neighbors, their siblings, their families,  the most important consideration is not doing something to show love for their fellow-man but instructing everyone else on how not supporting their bright utopian ideas on saving the world  proves their opponents are evil.

Secularism is basically self-love, “Here’s to thee and Here’s to me may we never disagree, if we do to Hell with You.  Here’s to Me” and justifies its existence by promoting loathing for those who still cling to their guns and Churches the heart of true freedom as put forth in our Declaration of Independence and reinforced with the Constitution.  No wonder President Obama is so contemptuous of both the Constitution and his opponents and thinks pushing Government Programs is doing GOD’s (aka Government of Democrats) work

Also explains why Eric Holder feels free to only enforce the laws he agrees with.  What a bunch of arrogant,  head up their butts, ignorant ideologues we have running this country.  However,  I don’t fear them as much as I do those in this Nation who support them because they run our Universities and Media and thus control what our youth know about America and their fellow citizens .   Unfortunately our students are taught more about Socialist Utopian aspirations then they are about what really made this country work.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Duty Honor Country on Parade

Duty Honor Country on Parade

The following article gives everyone good reason to question Hillary Clinton’s veracity and thus her fitness to be President. What difference does it make? To me integrity makes a big difference. .

 

By DAN CALABRESE – Bet you didn’t know this.

I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigatio

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Read Full Post »

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

Does President Obama prevaricate or  lie? Is he disingenuous, or actually  stupid?  Or is he just deliberately  ignorant of how his Administration works.? As Hillary would say “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE’!!!!!!

The affordable health care program has obviously been a fraud from its inception..  No one really read it because they didn’t need too.  The big secret is that the program was designed to fail from the beginning and the Democrats were in on the scam.  No one  wanted to read it and then have to say they were in on the joke played on the American People.

Why would I say this? I say this  because it is becoming more and more apparent that the whole point of shoving this program down America’s throats was to destroy the private insurance companies so that America would beg the Government to provide Universal Health Care for them.  You think I am making this up,  well then explain why supposedly otherwise brilliant people would take three years to develop a software program they knew would fail then insist on putting it up on the web anyway.   Why would they make regulations demanding the Insurance companies change their plans,  pretend they didn’t know millions would lose their plans because of their regulations,  then try and blame the Insurance companies for having changed their plans and insist they change them back – no insurance company can survive this kind of manipulations, and this Administration knew that from the beginning.

President Obama talks about phony scandals but there was nothing phony about Benghazi except for the President’s rationalizations about the attack, there was nothing phony about the IRS targeting members of the Taxed Enough Already Party except the Administrations excuses for having developed such a policy , there was nothing phony about the Justice Department going after a Fox reporter except the dodges that the Administration took to escape responsibility for criminally pursuing a reporter for doing his job.  And there was nothing phony about Republicans trying to repeal OBAMACARE,  it was OBMACARE itself that was PHONY!

This Administration’s Czars may not be brilliant but they are too clever by half and obviously will use any tactic to accomplish the fulfillment of their utopian wet dream. We have an administration that believes Government is God and you shall not put any other God’s before them. their ethics are those professed by  Communists,  namely situation ethics – which in essence states  “In any given situation what ever I do to advance my own interests is ethical” thus you can lie, cheat, steal from the people and call it social justice.

Robbing Peter to buy Paul’s votes is not social justice.  And what ever some teachers from Notre Dame might believe Jesus did not support BIG Government.  He did not believe Government was responsible for taking care of our Neighbor in need,  Jesus preached that  we individually thru personal sacrifice for our own salvation were expected to look to the needs of  our fellow-man.

I don’t know what it will take for ordinary people to realize that they only suffer greatly under all large central governments such as those of  Caesar, Napoleon, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and now   Obama —–Bloated,  centralized  Governments such as Obama is creating with his plan to dramatically change America  is not your friend,  never was your friend, never will be your friend.  Big centralized government is  all about Power for Control Freaks who could care less about anyone but themselves.

 

Read Full Post »

The wildest part of this fight over Obamacare is that it has nothing to do with anyone’s actual health care.

Obomacare doesn’t provide for one more nurse, one more doctor, one more clinic,  one more emergency room, one more ambulance, one more helicopter, one more pharmacy, one more hospital.  Instead it  demands that everyone have health insurance or pay a fine to the Government.  It of course does provide for an expansion of the IRS.

For this all Americans will now be able to have their 26-year-old kid on their insurance, they can not be refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  However since there are no more Doctors, supposedly 30 million more insured, and  low caps on what insurance Companies will pay,

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House Español: Barack Obama firmando la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Cuidado de Salud Asequible en la Casa Blanca (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

odds are people will not be able to get an appointment with a Dr. for months and thus in most cases those with health problems needing attention will end up in the emergency room,  and those with catastrophic health problems will come up short of means to pay the medical bills,  so here we are with more Government debt and right back where we started when Government under the Progressives in Congress and President Obama decided they and only they knew how to solve our health care problems.  Such Chutzpah ——and they call the Tea Party a bunch of crazy extremists.  And to protect this Program from being changed in any way by a Republicans Congress who has the authority to change bills,  they are willing to support Pres. Obama ( who has changed the bill without the right to do so) in shutting down the Government.   And Cruz is getting the blame for all this?  Where are the truth seekers – not in the Media obviously and not among so-called Progressives both Democrat and Republican.  Seems like the Tea Party is the only group who actually understands the Constitution – and for this they are called terrorists and worse.  God help us.

Read Full Post »

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral...

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Big Headlines,  Plan B available to females  of any age. Considered of course a sensible way of preventing children from being born to children. Generally it had been the parents responsiblity to see to it their children didn’t have an opportunity to reproduce. Of course children remain children in today’s world until they are 26 for insurance purposes only, supposedly.   In my day most of my friends had a job,and  were married with kids by the time they were twenty-one, they didn’t enjoy the luxury of lollygagging around a college campus for the better part of their young adulthood than rallying in protest for  having to pay off   the debt they ran up.

This nation is getting to a point where we will have more abortions than live births, and more single mothers than two parent heterosexual families. What happened. Well of course the drug sex rock and roll sixties, the feminist movement, and the gay rights agenda happened, but what made these movements so popular?

Is it that most of us simply wanted to escape from the restraints and restrictions of a society that respected contractual agreements, believed in meeting ones obligations without complaint or compromise, and trusted in the handshake and accepted a man’s word as truth. believed in God more than they did Government and would be chagrined  to have their personal lives exposed to all and sundry and also  accepted that  morals were not just for the simple-minded and that you should practice what you preached.

Now everyone is upset about the Government collecting information about their phone calls and e-mails, hey we have thrown our lives into the public arena of the internet – some to keep up with distant friends and family, some to have a launching pad for their self promotion, and others for many  different  reasons, and then we expected that a bloated bureaucracy often with little to do but find reasons for expanding their budget would jump on board  the phenomenon as a way to manipulate and intimidate the public?

President Obama promised to dramatically change this Nation  and he has fulfilled his goal to a degree that surprised some , but let’s face it  he couldn’t have been so successful if we the people hadn’t already laid the groundwork or negligently let others do it for us.

Read Full Post »

Hillary Clinton 1

Hillary Clinton 1 (Photo credit: Angela Radulescu)

Why are the Democrats so in love with heroes who are up to their eyeballs in prevarications, mismanagement, questionable judgement. We have one story after another exposing these miscreants but they simply grow more beloved each day in the elitist Circles of Beltway Democrat Insiders.

Everyone remembers Bill Clinton’s dalliances with an intern, but lets not forget his and his wife’s association with the Savings and Loan scandals, and that Bill is disbarred. Hillary had her own brushes with credibility in the Rose Law Firms operations, and straw men buyers. She was reviewed for disbarment in Arkansas, what happened to that case I do not know, but if she wasn’t disbarred the question is why?

Michelle Obama and President gave up their license to practice law, most say in lieu of disbarment. Certainly not because they were going to be honored for Integrity.

Now with the Benghazi debacle erupting even in the main stream media we once again have the Dem’s circling the Wagons around Hillary. What a charade. But Dem’s do love their feminist leaders – Hillary, Pelosi, Sarah Flucke, Jane Fonda. I am a woman hear me roar but please don’t equate all women with those freaks.

Read Full Post »

Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer

Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What difference does it make.? The whole point of Hillary Clinton, the Queen of misdirection and obfuscation, appearing before the Committee investigating Benghazi was to find out who knew what when so The Senate could make recommendations and perhaps enact legislation that would prevent any more deaths of Americans by terrorists while in foreign countries. That’s why it makes a difference as to what the Secretary of State and President Obama knew and when they knew it. What a difference it would make if we had people of integrity leading this country. The the most idolized leaders of the Democrats are all disbarred lawyers. President Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton. I guarantee they did not lose their license to practice law because of their integrity, Of course Democrats still fawn on them as does the Media. And Hillary gets rave reviews for once again dodging a bullet. It is not that she is so competent, it’s that Republican Senators lack her chutzpah

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: