Filed under: Freedom, Media Bias, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Bill Clinton, Censor the Internet, Freedom of Speech
Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the rumors and misinformation that seem to be floating around on the internet. He thinks the United Nations or the U.S. Government should create an agency to police the loose talk.
The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”
Let’s say the U.S. did it, it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn’t think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out.That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors. And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.
There is some suggestion in the Politico article that Mr. Clinton may have had Wikileaks in mind, but still—for a former president, fully aware of the ability of government to violate the rights of citizens, to suggest such a thing is appalling. And as paragons of truth and virtue to offer up the very liberal NPR and the very far left BBC as judges of what is true on the internet is simply absurd.
Perhaps it does not seem so to the former president, for liberals see every conservative fact as a lie and only liberal claims as true. We once shared facts, at least, and differed on the policies the facts suggested. Now we no longer even share facts. All is politics and politics is all.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, News, Politics | Tags: Bill Clinton, Martha Coakley, Scott Brown
No one seems to have told Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, of the horrifying earth quake that has devastated that nation, because instead of helping Haitians, Bill Clinton was in Massachusetts yesterday, campaigning for Martha Coakley.
Or was he? Because as he stood before a crowd of hundreds of Democrat activists in the ornate Copley Square Hotel ballroom in Boston, he almost seemed to be endorsing Scott Brown, as he unwittingly reminded Bay Staters of the corruption that has plagued the Democrat party in Massachusetts and Washington. “Do you really want to put Massachusetts, which gave birth to accountable government in this country and stood up against the abuse of power, in the hands of power abusers?” he asked.
It already is, Bill. It already is.
That’s why they desperately need to elect Scott Brown and defeat Martha Coakley.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, News, Politics | Tags: Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat lies, Economy
Just another example of how completely full of “it” the Democrat party really is via David Freddoso:
Democrats on the Economy in 1996:
“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.”
~ Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)
Democrats on the Economy in 2008:
“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover.”
~ Senator Charles Schumer (Press Release, March 7, 2008)
The problem, as Freddoso points out, every single key labor market statistic is better now than they were prior to the 1996 election when Democrats were praising the economy as the best in 30 years:
Key Labor Market Statistics in 1996 and 2008
|March 1996||March 2008|
|1. U.S. Unemployment Rate||5.5%||5.1%|
|2. Number of Long-Term Unemployed||1.33 million||1.28 million|
|3. Average Weeks Unemployed||17.3 weeks||16.2 weeks|
|4. Median Weeks Unemployed||8.3 weeks||8.1 weeks|
|5. Not in Labor Force because discouraged over job prospects||451,000||401,000|
|6. Democrats calling for Extended Unemployment Benefits?||No||Yes|
|7. President’s Party Affiliation||Democrat||Republican|
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Bill Clinton, Crime/Law Enforcement, Culture War, Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Hillary Clinton, Judiciary
The treasonous Sandy Berger (Bill Clinton’s former National Security Adviser, and John Kerry’s former campaign adviser), who stole national security documents and destroyed them to prevent the American people from ever learning the truth about the Clinton administration’s negligence and incompetence in dealing with terrorism, is once again advising top Democrats:
WASHINGTON – Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers.
“It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.” [read more]
Without even getting into the non-stop orgy of corruption that marked the previous Clinton administration, this is the same Hillary Clinton who recently appointed the criminal Alcee Hastings as the co-chair of her national campaign.
Lest you forget, Alcee Hastings was a federal judge impeached by the House of Representatives in a nearly-unanimous 413-3 vote for soliciting bribes from the federal bench and for perjury. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on 8 counts — only the 6th federal judge in American history to be impeached.
Naturally Democrats did the only thing they could do with such a heinously corrupt man — they elected him to congress — where he is a member of the Democratic leadership to this day.
They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep. I couldn’t agree more. Republicans kick corrupt members out, Democrats elect them, re-elect them, promote them to leadership, hire them as advisers and elect them president.
Republicans lost power in 2006 for the corruption of a few members, all of whom they immediately kicked out. Democrats lost power in 1992 for widespread corruption and almost all the same Democrats are still in power today, only now they have titles like Chairman, Leader and Speaker.
Thats why Democrats are the masters of corruption, and why it has long been said that Americans get the leaders they deserve.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, News, Politics | Tags: Asia, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security, President Bush, Terrorism
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda — Bill Clinton was a popular president precisely because he did nothing serious to address the gathering threats of the world.
He thought regime change in Iraq so essential that he made it the official policy of the United States — and then did nothing. Al Qaeda attacked US interests, including the first attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, on average at least every two years throughout the Clinton presidency and Osama Bin Laden declared war on the United States.
Yet despite Sandy Berger’s best attempts to destroy the evidence, we now know the Clinton administration never took al Qaeda seriously and passed on several opportunities to kill or take custody of Osama bin Laden for fear of paying a political price (much like the one President Bush is paying now).
It’s easy to be popular when you don’t rock any boats.
As the historical record shows, some of the most unpopular presidents in our nation’s history — Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan for example — have also turned out to be among the greatest. No matter which direction you lead, you will always ruffle the feathers of those who want to go in the other direction.
But as the Clinton presidency has proven, ignoring the world’s dangers does not make them go away — it only allows them to gather strength and become more dangerous.
Unfortunately, Bill Clinton’s presidency also shows the danger of addressing the world’s dangers with feckless, toothless policy.
Clinton’s “Agreed Framework” with North Korea was just such a feckless, toothless policy. Under the bi-lateral agreement, North Korea would agree to stop enrichment of uranium, while the US would provide billions in oil and humanitarian aid and would convert NK’s weapons-capable graphite moderated reactors to light-water reactors (not capable of plutonium production.)
We now know the agreement was a complete farce, and that Pyongyang kept right on working on their nuclear weapons program under the Clinton administration’s nose.
Clinton made the agreement directly with Pyongyang, with no involvement or additional pressure from North Korea’s neighbors. His agreement also required no verification that North Korea was meeting its obligations.
Democrats have insisted ever since that President Bush follow in the footsteps of Clinton’s failed policy and negotiate with Kim Jong Il one on one.
But President Bush knew that the way forward was not to repeat Clinton’s failures. He has insisted from the beginning that North Korea’s neighbors, particularly China, participate in multi-nation talks and add their formidable influence to the mix. Bush knew that North Korea’s neighbors, particularly China (on which Pyongyang is most dependent), were essential to forcing an agreement that would stick and that could be verified.
Now President Bush has achieved just such an accord:
North Korean Nuclear Accord Reached
North Korea will disable key nuclear facilities by the end of the year and start disclosing details of its nuclear programs under a six-nation agreement released today in China. The deal appears to have been aided by a “side understanding” between Washington and Pyongyang that could accelerate the removal of North Korea from a U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
The United States also appeared willing to accept, initially, more limited action than it originally sought to disable three key nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, with the understanding that additional work to incapacitate the facilities would occur later. In exchange, North Korea is expected to disclose the extent of its weapons-grade plutonium, including how much was used in a nuclear test last year.
According to the text of the document, released by China’s official Xinhua news agency, North Korea agreed to disable the 5 megawatt experimental reactor at Yongbyon, a fuel reprocessing plant, and a nuclear fuel rod facility by Dec. 31. The work will be paid for and overseen by the U.S. [read more]
It doesn’t accomplish everything, but it’s a major step, its verifiable and it’s certainly more meaningful than all of Madeline Albright’s dancing with Korean children and champagne sipping with Kim Il Sung and Clinton’s empty self-congratulations put together.
Filed under: News, Politics | Tags: Bill Clinton, Crime/Law Enforcement, Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Europe, Hillary Clinton
Have their been any Sandy Berger sightings in Paris lately? I’m just sayin!
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: Bill Clinton, Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Economy
- Upcoming election? check!
- Republican administration? check!
- Clinton administration hacks overseas predicting doom and gloom? check!
I love this! Pay no attention to those positive economic indicators and housing market growth!:
“It would be far too premature to judge this crisis over,” Mr Summers said. “I would say the risks of recession are now greater than they’ve been any time since the period in the aftermath of 9/11.”[emphasis added]
Just like Iraq, pay no attention to the good news, everything’s going to hell!
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: Bill Clinton, Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Corruption, Democrat Demagogues, Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Murtha
It looks like Dianne Feinstein is guilty of corruption far worse than anything Republicans have been accused of, let alone done. I’m certainly not saying Republicans guilty of corruption should not pay the consequences—they absolutely should, and most importantly, they have—but where are the libtards calling for investigations into Dianne Feinstein’s alleged criminal misdeeds??
This is precisely how you tell which party is more corrupt. Corruption exists in both parties, but only Republicans do anything about it—they don’t tolerate it and force anyone guilty of it out of the party.
Democrats on the other hand cover it up, refuse to investigate, circle the wagons to defend their corrupt members, and then promote them.
William Jefferson was caught red-handed with $90,000 cash in his freezer—he is still in congress, he was re-elected for crying out loud.
Jack Murtha was video taped meeting to discuss taking a bribe. The FBI has identified him as an “unindicted co-conspiritor” in the ABSCAM scandal. He still sits in congress, also re-elected even after the video came out.
Jim McDermott was found guilty in civil court of violating the civil rights of Rep. John Boehner and ordered to pay $800,000 in fines—Democrats refuse to allow his case to come before the ethics committee, and of course he still sits in congress (re-elected).
Hillary Clinton’s campaign was found guilty in court of illegally hiding millions in donations. Having not disclosed these donations as they are required to do by federal law, Hillary was able to cheat in the election by flooding the airwaves with ads at the last minute, paid for by money the Republicans had no idea she had, and so had spent all their legally reported money. In other words, Hillary committed big time campaign-finance fraud to cheat in an election—and yet not only does she still sit in the Senate, she is the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination.
And in the interest of brevity, I wont go into the non-stop corruption that defined Bill and Hillary’s tenure in the White House (not to mention the Governors mansion in Arkansas.) I’m sure I will cover it all in detail in some future post.
And that is only the very tip of the tip of the iceberg of Democrat corruption. Lets stick with the latest revelation, that Dianne Feinstein is quite possibly the biggest war profiteer in congressional history—and other than the Hill, the mainstream media has been deafeningly silent on the matter, and the Democrat led congress won’t even mention it, let alone investigate it.
And thats precisely because, while Republicans may have a few corrupt members here and there that they have drummed out, the Democrat party is deeply corrupt to its core.
It makes perfect sense that Democrats are so thoroughly corrupt: What else do you expect from a party that never holds its corrupt members accountable, but instead keeps them, defends them, re-elects and promotes them?
If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.
The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.
In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.