Senator Hillary Clinton's swan song

Well it's amazing but Senator Hillary Clinton finally realizes that Senator Obama has beaten her and is the Democratic nominee. It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes. She has come to realize that far too many people remember her promise to bring jobs to NY state - which she has not only failed to do but there has been a net loss of jobs since she was elected - and understand she would do the same to the nation.

Now I hope she learns that her strongarm tactics to wrangle the Vice Presidency will fail as well. The Democrats that voted for her are not mere pawns in a bid for her to gain more power. She is not going to blackmail Senator Obama with less than 18 million votes (her math is way off) to guarantee that Senator Obama cannot win with her on the ticket.

In all I expect that there is just one thing to say... one song to sing...

Hillary Clinton wanted to join the Marines, or was it the Army - 4.4.2008.1

So is it another lie coming out of the Hillary Clinton campaign, this one voiced by former-President Bill Clinton and virtually impossible to prove false. IF it is a lie, then it’s one of the better ones.

If you have not heard the comment it is

“I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.” – Bill Clinton in Columbus, Indiana

Opportunistic? Factual? Well let’s just check a few facts.

From what can be determined, Senator Clinton attempting to join the Armed Forces was mentioned once before, and only once before. That was back in 1994. And at that time she was purported to be trying to join the Marines. This was found dubious by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.

“The First Lady's cascading, contradictory images have been the subject of much commentary. This month's Mirabella magazine runs a dizzying array of different looking Hillary Rodham Clintons, to match her blur of different roles, with a story that frets: "We sense that we aren't seeing the 'real' Hillary, and this makes us very nervous.”

…

And it did not seem to fit in with the First Lady's own persona. After all, Hillary Rodham was an up-and-coming legal star involved with an up-and-coming political star. She had made a celebrated appearance in Life magazine as an anti-establishment commencement speaker at Wellesley College, where, as president of the student government, she had organized teach-ins on her opposition to the Vietnam War.

She was a Yale law school graduate who had worked on the anti-war Presidential campaigns of Eugene J. McCarthy and George McGovern.”

In addition this move to join some branch of the military took place just before October 1975, when she married Bill Clinton. How many brides-to-be do you know that jaunt off to the local recruiter asking to join up?

So we are left to wonder how true these statements, that were never uttered beyond these 2 times, are. One would expect that if they were true we might have heard about it during the 2 elections for Senate that Hillary went through. In the preparations and debates of 2007 it was never mentioned or alluded to. In the primaries and caucuses it has been unmentioned.

And we know this of the Clinton’s, things are not always as they state them.

From the famous re-definition of IS, to invisible snipers firing air bullets, to Hillary’s seldom used power to invoke peace during talks in Ireland – from a separate room from the discussion while having tea, to her ability to agree, disagree, and be indecisive all at once on the same question. The Clinton’s are remarkable in their power to reword and remake themselves in every situation they face.

But unlike her “misspoken” comments about Bosnia (polispeak for blatant lie that was caught publicly), this recollection and the prior comment in 1994 are basically impossible to disprove.

So it’s up to you. Do you think that this lawyer and wife to be, who had vehemently been against the war and military 3 years earlier, was willing to give up all those things to suddenly join a military that had few women and wanted fewer?

If so I have a bridge to sell you, if not what reason would you give to vote for a person willing to lie to the American public solely to gain the most powerful office of America?

Focus on the issues of the 2008 Presidential election - 3.27.2008.1

So I’ve been quite busy in the past week creating 40 blogs and a few search engines for a client of mine. It would seem the timing was perfect as there has really been nothing new in the political news. Every candidate seems to be stuck in the mire of the problems from a week or 2 ago.

There is the problem of Senator Obama with Rev. Wright. This is not going to go away, and you can bet on it being an issue in the general election. I’ve already said that this is really not something I think that should be such an issue. In reviewing some of the video that Rev. Wright had used against him, much of what he said was not untrue or offensive. It was just not nice to White Americans or the Government.

Now I know that there is now news that Rev. Wright has written pro-Hamas comments. I have yet to read this. But, sight unseen, I would guess that like the highly selective 10 second clips used to attack the reverend there is a high probability that these comments may be few in number, and contain a high percentage of truth. That is not to say I agree with all of what he says, just that the 30 seconds of coverage the news media is giving to Rev. Wright is highly biased. As many who have read my Black Entertainment USA blog know, I believe that a medium that purposefully minimized the existence and representation of all non-whites to roughly 2% of their population – mostly in a negative exposure – is biased.

But again I ask the real question that the news media seems to avoid as they inject race into this Presidential election. Does the voting record of Senator Obama reflect the negatives that the news media is focusing on? In my research the answer is no. In fact, Senator Obama’s voting record is nearly identical to Senator Clinton’s. So there seems to be no reason to be any more or less for Senator Obama than before this publicly reviewed relation to a former Marine, clergyman, and activist for the poor, lesbian/gay, and African Americans.

As for Senator Clinton, well she is still a liar. And she is still caught in the fact that her trip to Bosnia was a direct lie. A person can misspeak about a date or time, a name or place, even how well someone reacts in a situation. But saying you are being shot at and that you and your child were essentially racing for your life is a life-altering event that no one would forget. Like being in the Northridge earthquake.

Here is an example. I liked in California and was in the Northridge quake. My home was roughly 5 miles away from the epicenter. I may be misspeaking the distance to the center. But when I tell you that the quake started like a jackhammer going off at your feet, and then grew to feel and sound like a freight train inches away from your face – that is a description of a life-altering event. I may misspeak how long the initial quake lasted, which felt like 5 minutes at the time, but I and describing a life-altering event that every 3 minutes on the minute the quake had an aftershock. And the fact that I and 2 other friends were so afraid that slamming a door shut caused us to jump for about 2 days after the fact is confirmable by at least 6 people, and in no way is exclusive. That is a life-altering event. Senator Clinton lied.

But I am not surprised. And it is important. Unlike the separation of Senator Obama and Rev. Wright – as seen in his actual voting record – Senator Clinton lied to the nation repeatedly (at least 3 xs). She has sought sympathy and endearment. She is trying to create courage and importance. And it is all just a false façade to gain votes.

Just as her lie about affecting the Ireland Peace Talks was proven false, so has video about Bosnia proven her a liar. And Sinbad broke the story, not the news media that would have let the story stand if he did not publicly challenge her.

Now there are many reasons to vote for or against any candidate. I’ve detailed many over the past 2 years on all the candidates. But there are a few things that I think everyone can agree are not qualities wanted in a potential President.

We do not want a President that is a criminal nor aids and abets a criminal. So far as has been proven only one candidate has done this. Senator Clinton. The criminal was Norman Hsu, whom she took $1 million from to aid her campaign and struggled to avoid giving back to his victim (the money was stolen – which were separate new charges for Hsu).

We do not want a President that lies to the American public. Senator McCain may make momentary mistakes between the name of Iran and Iraq – which every person discussing the 2 has done in conversation, Senator Obama may not have been at every one of the sermons that Rev. Wright made (3x a week for 20 years). Maybe hearing a rant against the nation (like the ones made by Jerry Falwell after 9/11) or against a group of people (like the claims about AIDS made by Pat Robertson) is not something someone would want to admit – like being caught cheating on a wife. But to stand in front of the American people and to repeatedly and directly lie is wrong.

When President Bush stated America needed to remove the weapons of mass destruction he lied (to some degree) and that has created huge resentment in America and at least some of the Democrats. When former-President Bill Clinton stated under oath and on television broadcasts to the nation that he did not have sexual relations with Monika Lewinsky he lied. And when Senator Hillary Clinton made up events in Ireland and Bosnia she has lied about her ability, courage, and experience. If a Republican, Democrat or Independent was upset and livid about the first 2 events and wished they could take back their vote from those 2 Presidents – why would any voter elect a potential candidate that has proven a willingness to repeatedly and unabashedly lie to America??

We do not want a President that will take our money and/or waste it. No one likes to pay taxes. Nor does anyone I know enjoy watching their money go to individuals that do nothing deserving of those tax dollars being spent on them. Yet in an economy that is obviously troubled (at the least) Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have voted to increase taxes for those making $31,850 or more. This increase does not account for creating a universal socialized healthcare system (which will cost taxpayers and individuals more), the wars in Iraq or Iran, or the mortgage crisis. So imagine that as jobs become harder to get, in an economic slowdown where fewer new jobs will be created, more taxes will be imposed on taxpayers and small businesses.

Imagine what will happen if all the social programs that Democrats wish to put in place become fact, and wages go up, while there is less income available to pay bills and smaller businesses that cannot afford the taxes or employee wages go out of business – firing even more people.

These are the issues that face the next President. And there are more issues, like education for our kids, the number of illegal aliens in the nation, and security of our homes. That is where the focus should be for this election. Instead we are hearing about the comments of a non-elected official, momentary misquotes in a live conversation, and ignoring the breadth and depth of lies.

Well I have at least another 40 blogs to create. So I will be a bit slow on posts, by no means am I forgetting to write. Maybe by my birthday, in a week and a half, the news media will focus on the important facts.

Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

In the past day events have unfolded to fuel the fire for those that question the supposed ‘experience’ of Senator Hillary Clinton. With these events, the probable loss in Mississippi, and the growing complaints of the public against the Clinton campaigns plans to assume the votes in Michigan and Florida, not to mention the potential of Super Delegates voting against the popular leader Senator Obama the Democratic Party is approaching chaos.

It started with the comments of David Trimble. He may not be a name many in the U.S. know, but in Ireland there is no question of who he is. He was a key figure in creating peace in Ireland, ending the terrorist attacks of the I.R.A.

Senator Hillary Clinton made a claim on national television that she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”. It was seen around the world, and those involved in the process were quick to correct the record.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.

The 3 am call doesn’t seem as sure in the hands of Senator Clinton does it? Worse yet, she blatantly lied to the American public for your vote. She lied about what she did, and took credit for what her husband did. In writing that’s called plagarism.

If you think that was just an enthusiastic overstating of her actions accompanying the former-President Bill Clinton you may be thinking about her work in Bosnia. As was stated by Senator Clinton, it described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call.

That sounds impressive if you didn’t know that there were 2 other people with the Senator. And in the words of Sinbad, a comedian and one of those people with her in 1996,

“the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'”

In fact he goes on to mention a very logical thought about how dangerous any of the places then-First Lady Clinton went to were,

“What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'”

That tends to make sense. How pleased would the American people be if then-President Bill Clinton sent his wife into an active warzone and she died? How politically stupid would that be? At what point would the Secret Service be willing to allow her to be in that kind of danger?

So again it would seem that Senator Clinton has lied to the American public, and presented less reasons why we should believe that she has “35 years of experience” when she has never served more than 8 years (her current amount of time as NY Senator) in public office.

So I will ask this, do you want an inexperienced liar as the Democratic nominee and potentially President? Women, do you really want this woman to represent the best interests for you? African Americans, do you believe that she is looking out for our interests? Hispanic/Latinos, do you think she will live up to any of the claims she has made?

If you don’t believe me, just check the site and you will find the posts and links. Or search the net. These are all facts of what she has done, and my opinion. Remember, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And Senator Clinton seems to be pretty far from innocent or clean to start.

If that doesn’t matter then get out there and vote for her. If it does, then definitely go out and make your vote count. Because the alternative appears to be a woman that will say anything to get a vote and become the most powerful person in America and I believe the world.