Thursday, April 10, 2008

Clinton Obama Carter Kennedy Schumer

I don't want to mention any names but their initials are Clinton Obama Carter Kennedy Schumer...and that just pretty much sums it up for what they really are...TRAITORS !
Published: April 10, 2008

Benedict Arnold, Meet Jimmy Carter

Pam Meister

Have you heard? Jimmy Carter is planning a trip to Syria next week, and his agenda may include a cozy tête-à-tête with Khaled Meshal, the exiled leader of Hamas. In order to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, Meshal lives there as a guest of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. From there, he continues to guide Hamas’ murderous activities in Palestine.

Hamas, as you may recall, has the distinct honor of being considered one of the foremost terrorist organizations in the world by the U.S. government. All the more reason for Carter to pay a formal afternoon call, leaving his card on the silver salver with the correct corner folded.

Carter’s press secretary, Deanna Congileo, did not provide confirmation of such a visit, but she did not deny it either:

President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week. I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time

Maybe they’re just waiting to find out about the quality of the refreshments Meshal will serve before making the final decision. Meeting a formal enemy of the United States is difficult if one is forced to eat things you might find at a party given by junior high students: potato chips, pizza rolls and pigs in blankets, washed down with store brand cola.

It’s at times like this I wish we didn’t allow our former presidents to retain the title “President.” And even though he’s traveling as the head of the Carter Center and not in his capacity as a former president of the United States, do you think that will matter to our myriad enemies in the Middle East? A former president is a former president no matter how you slice it.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the UN, was forthright in his criticism of Carter:

It’s about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does. To go to Syria to visit Hamas at this point is just an ill-timed, ill-advised decision on his part.

And Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism points out that Carter “has been supporting Palestinian extremism for many years.” He also believes the visit “undermines the U.S. policy of isolating Hamas” and that it will encourage Europeans “to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.”

In other news, rain is wet. Film at 11.

If anyone doubts Carter’s support for Palestinian extremism toward Israel, they have only to look at his book entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Published in late 2006, it sparked the resignation of 14 members of the Carter Center’s advisory board because Carter “clearly abandoned [his] historic role of broker in favor of becoming an advocate for one side.” Add to that the factual errors, sketchy attributions and even sketchier memories of what really happened and you have, as Rick Richman calls it, “the product of someone who went to Israel in 1973 and didn't like it then, lectured and insulted its leaders, and who obviously doesn't like it now.”

It’s bad enough that Carter could, conceivably, be considered the worst president of the 20th Century. Does he have to be the worst ex-president as well? Richard Nixon earned the grudging respect of his critics in his post-presidential years. Carter would have done well to take a page out of his book.

But the die has been cast. Not only could Carter be considered an anti-Semite and coddler of terrorists, but his post-presidential years are chock full of slaps in the face to American foreign policy and America in general. Behold the wonder:

  • Last year he declared that the current Bush administration would go down as the “worst in history,” but tried to backtrack when called on it. (He insulted former British prime minister Tony Blair at the same time by calling him “abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient” for Blair’s support of Bush’s Iraq policy.)
  • In 2004, when exit polls clearly showed that Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez should have lost – but didn’t – Carter said that Chávez won “fair and square.” (When even the Europeans won’t participate in observations because of too many restrictions, that might be a clue as to how those elections will turn out.)
  • Speaking of elections, Carter also observed the 1990 elections in Nicaragua. Steven F. Hayward reminds us that “Carter consistently downplayed or excused reports of Sandinista pre-election thuggery and voter intimidation.” Why? “Carter, along with most of the liberal Democratic establishment in Washington, openly hungered for a Sandinista victory as a way of discrediting the Reagan-Bush support for the Contras.
  • In 1994, Carter was Bill Clinton’s principal negotiator with North Korea about that country’s worrisome nuclear proliferation. North Korea received two light water nuclear reactors and a huge amount of oil in exchange for not continuing their quest to build nuclear weapons. What happened? In 1998, North Korea lobbed a missile over Japan and began refusing U.S. inspectors access to a suspected underground reactor.

And to think: this is only a partial listing of Carter’s dubious activities. I wish he’d stick to building houses for Habitat for Humanity. The only damage he could do would be to smash his own thumb with a hammer.

Why is it that Carter seems determined to undermine America? As I said last year,

After a dismal four years, Carter lost his re-election bid to Ronald Reagan with 91% of the electoral vote, a difficult pill for anyone to swallow. As blogger ThirdWaveDave says, "Carter's a bitter ex-president who has never gotten over the boot print Reagan left on his ***." While this may be true, it does not excuse these and other of Carter’s petty, vindictive comments over the years. His bid to stay relevant at the expense of our national reputation and yes, national security, is reprehensible.

During the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold, a highly decorated general and war hero, ended up betraying his fledgling country with his West Point plot because he resented the fact that Congress wouldn’t pay his wartime expenses. His slide into debt and subsequent shady deals helped to put him up on corruption charges, and he was convicted of two misdemeanors during a court martial for malfeasance. He complained to General George Washington, “Having become a cripple in the service of my country, I little expected to meet [such] ungrateful returns.”

Carter has no such excuse, however lame. His wretched presidential record is his own fault. But his motivation is less important than the outcome of his actions. Carter’s bumbling has done more damage to America’s credibility worldwide than anything Bush’s critics can pin on Bush. In fact, he’s done more damage than even certain Hollywood celebrities could ever dream of.

People wonder why presidential candidate Barack Obama would consider meeting with tyrants like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with no preconditions. Perhaps we have only to look at one of the most egregious examples of such foolishness, shortsightedness, naïveté and – anti-Americanism? – Jimmy Carter.

# # Editorial Director Pamela Meister is a former radio broadcaster, a recovering liberal, a contributor to and a formidable blogger at
read full author bio here

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Other Articles by Pamela Meister...
Benedict Arnold, Meet Jimmy Carter
Newsflash: Hanoi Jane’s Voting for Obama
Book Review – ‘Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing and Suspect Musing of Billary’
What I Did on My Vacation: Nothing – by Nancy Pelosi
Bombing of Times Square: Military Target an Afterthought
Barack Obama: Looking Beyond Hope and Change
Review – ‘Project President: Bad Hair & Botox on the Road to the White House’
Liberal Senators Give Tacit Approval as Berkeley Bashes Marines
John McCain at CPAC: National Defense and Security a Top Priority
Say What? Military Near Top of the ‘Prestigious’ Career Heap

Obama plans to disarm America

Obama plans to disarm America...

Recent demonstrations in Great Britain, France, and here in the United States over the issues concerning China and whether or not to boycott the Olympics due to China's Tibet policies has prompted the outcry, "Free Tibet !" The video below raises the question, "Who will be crying, "Free the United States !" if Obama is elected president ?

Wake up America !

If the above video has been disabled go here:

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Hillary Clinton was fired !

Counsel confirms Hillary's 'fraudulent' Watergate brief
Clinton was fired for allegedly colluding with Kennedys to protect JFK legacy

Posted: April 07, 2008
2:25 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Hillary Clinton, with chief counsel John Doar (left), bringing impeachment charges against President Nixon before the House Judiciary Committee in 1974
Details of Hillary Clinton's firing from the House Judiciary Committee staff for unethical behavior as she helped prepare articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon have been confirmed by the panel's chief Republican counsel.

Franklin Polk backed up major claims by Jerry Zeifman, the general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee who supervised Clinton's work on the Watergate investigation in 1974, reported columnist Dan Calabrese in a column republished by WND.

Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, called Clinton a "liar" and "an unethical, dishonest lawyer."

He contends Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelation of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate "look like a day at the beach."

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

Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970.

Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed.

Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files.

Looking back on the case amid Clinton's fierce battle with Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, Calabrese sees a picture emerging "of a very ambitious young lawyer who was eager to please her political patrons, and was willing to mislead and undermine established committee staff and senior committee members in order to do so."

The columnist, editor in chief of the North Star Writers Group, noted Zeifman has been "trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him."

Zeifman said Clinton, then 27, was hired to work on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who also was Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick case.

When the Watergate probe concluded, Zeifman said, he fired Clinton from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. She was one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career, Calabrese pointed out.

Jerry Zeifman

Zeifman told the columnist he fired Clinton because she was a liar.

"She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer," Zeifman said. "She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Zeifman said Clinton collaborated with several individuals, including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who later became counsel in the Clinton White House. Their aim, he said, was the seemingly implausible scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

The Kennedy allies, Zeifman said, feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by the president's counsel. Hunt, according to Zeifman, had evidence of nefarious activities by President John F. Kennedy's administration, including purportedly using the mafia to attempt to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Polk regarded Clinton's memo as dishonest because it tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn't exist. But, unlike Zeifman, he considered it more stupid than sinister.

"Hillary should have mentioned [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 told Calabrese.

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

Polk recalls Zeifman told him at the time he believed Clinton's primary role was to alert Marshall if the investigation was taking a turn against the Kennedys' liking.

"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.

Polk remembered some Democrat committee members, as well as nearly all the Republicans, were upset at the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon.

Zeifman said top Democrats, including then-House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, believed Nixon clearly had the right to counsel.

"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."

Bill and Hillary Clinton on their wedding day in 1975

Polk said Zeifman rightfully "went nuts," as well, but "my reaction wasn't so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid."

Calabrese concludes: "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."

The columnist noted Polk recalled something else that started long 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."