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 ?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
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 ?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Hillary Clinton was fired !
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 |
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."
Thursday, April 3, 2008
What did I tell ya...
Tuesday , April 01, 2008 By John R. Lott, Jr.
During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.
But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.
Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession.
A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.
Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.
A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.
The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush’s father.
Gas prices are indeed up 33 percent over the last year, but to get an average of 4 percent means that lots of other prices must have stayed the same or gone down. On other fronts, seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.
Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed “As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.” Hillary Clinton made similar staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven’t even had one single quarter of negative growth reported. The economy slowed down significantly during the end of last year, but that was after a sizzling annual GDP growth rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter.
Housing has obviously been a big drag on the economy, but many other sectors of the economy, such as exports, have been doing well, some extremely well. For example, aerospace exports increased by over 13 percent last year.
The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.”
Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985 through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods.
Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were. Democratic presidents got about 15 percent more positive headlines than Republicans for the same economic news.
Yet, the hysteria created by this coverage can have another cost. It creates pressure for government to “do something,” even if that rush to do something actually ends up hurting the economy. For example, Obama’s promises last week “to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren’t forced to stick to the terms of a home loan” will only further drive down the value of mortgage-backed securities, making any unstable financial institutions that hold them even more likely to fail. In the long term, who is going to want to loan money when the contract can be rewritten at a later date?
The news media have generated a lot of fear. Ben Stein has a point when he says “The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie at the media’s feet.” Hopefully a little perspective will enter the picture before even more harm is done.
The joke is that the media does this every four years.
They talk the economy up when the Democrats rule the roost. Then they invent a Dust Bowl depression every time the evil Republicans are holding sway.
And ever mind the pesky facts, such as how we are now at never before achieved lows in unemployment.
Their masters in the DNC must be served.
Related Articles:
Reuters Poll Proves US Is Already In Recession
Shocker: Economists Say No US Recession
Obama Still Demanding We Have A Recession
Hillary's (Very Latest) Communist Manifesto
Chelsea's 'Distressed Debt' Hedge Fund Co.
Bill Clinton: We Have To Slow Down Economy
NYT Sobs: Illegals Only Sending $300B Home
Hillary Blamed Tax Cuts For 2001 Recession
NYT: Good Times Economy Was Only Mirage
Shocker: Soros Talks Down The US Economy
War News Good? Let's Create A Recession
NYT Continues To Undermine The Economy
Hillary Tries To Talk Economy Into Recession
Time Mag Pronounces "The End of Easy Money"
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Watch your P's & Q's...and abc's too!
Talk about being killed in action...when your weapon is only your pen...
Clerics Back Death Fatwa For Writers
Riyadh: A group of Saudi clerics has come out in support of a colleague who issued a fatwa saying two writers deserve to die if they did not retract views that he said made them apostates.
Shaikh Abdul Rahman Al Barrak, one of the kingdom's most revered clerics, said in a rare fatwa last week the columnists should be tried for apostasy for "heretical articles" published in Al Riyadh newspaper and put to death if they do not repent.
They questioned the Sunni view in Saudi Arabia that adherents of other faiths should be considered unbelievers, which Al Barrak said implied Muslims were free to follow other religions and their faith was on a par with other religions.
A group of 20 clerics, all associated with Al Barrak, issued a statement asking God to support him in the face of a "wicked attack" by liberals with "polluted beliefs".
"We know the Shaikh's knowledge in religion and status in the Islamic nation and trust Muslims place in his opinions ... The fatwa is based on the book of God [Quran] and the path of the Prophet [PBUH]," they said in the statement posted on websites.
"The Shaikh's words were clear in placing the issue in the hands of the temporal authorities when he said that there must be a trial. We affirm there should be a trial."
Liberal reformers are engaged in a battle with religious hardliners over the direction of the country.
"This is in my view the largest show of force in the Wahhabi movement in a long time," said Ali Al Ahmad, a Saudi opposition figure based in Washington.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
And they still don't know anything! WAKE UP AMERICA
As IAP Offshoot, CAIR Followed Pro-Hamas Agenda from the Start
Steven Emerson
From the Hamas ties of its founders in 1994 to its solicitous stance toward accused terrorists today, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has demonstrated that its actual mission is far removed from the civil rights advocacy it claims to pursue.
Still standing as perhaps the clearest evidence of CAIR's insidious role, two key leaders of the group attended a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia called by Hamas members and supporters to devise a strategy for torpedoing the Oslo Accords aimed at Middle East peace.
An analysis of secret recordings of the meeting led the FBI to conclude that the gathering was held "to determine… [the participants'] course of action in support of Hamas' opposition to the [Oslo] peace plan and to decide how to conceal their activities from the scrutiny of the United States government."
Coupled with their support for the Jihad in the Middle East, the attendees recognized the critical importance of domestic lobbying in the United States. One discussed encouraging the Islamic community "to be involved in the political life of this country," adding, "We should assist them in this task. This will be an entrance for us to put, through the Islamic community, pressure on the Congress and the decision makers in America."
That's where CAIR came in. Participants in that 1993 meeting discussed tailoring their message to an American audience, speaking of outright deception at times and of softening their rhetoric at others, as the following exchange between CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad shows:
Awad: What is important is that the language of the address is there evenfor the American. But, the issue is how to use it...
Omar Ahmad: There is a difference between you saying "I want to restore the '48land" and when you say "I want to destroy Israel". ....
Awad: Yes, there are different but parallel types of address. Thereshouldn't be contradiction. Address people according to their minds.When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn't know anything. As for the Palestinian who has a martyr brother or something, I know how to address him, you see?
This context helps explain why federal authorities have tied the CAIR to Hamas in three separate court filings in the past year. Prosecutors place CAIR on the Muslim Brotherhood's "Palestine Committee." An internal Palestine Committee document in 1994 lists CAIR as one of its "working organizations" along with IAP. Other records show that committee was created to advance the Hamas agenda within the United States.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism has assembled a thorough dossier on CAIR's origins and activities which we present in installments during the next two weeks. You can read today's segment here.
Among the highlights in today's report:
- CAIR was incorporated less than a year after the Philadelphia meeting by three officials of the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), long a central player in Hamas' U.S. support network and a group that the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service deemed in a 2001 memo to be "part of Hamas' propaganda apparatus."
- As recently as the summer of 2007, the Dallas trial charging the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) with providing material support for Hamas produced extensive evidence that IAP -- CAIR's parent -- played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. Much of that evidence relates to Mousa Abu Marzook, now deputy political chief of Hamas, who served on the board of directors of IAP in 1989.
The trial exhibits included a memo taken from the home of Ismail Elbarrasse, a former assistant to Marzook, which defines in chilling fashion the role the Muslim Brothers play in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack…
- CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. While the group contested that designation in court papers, it may have to live with it through a second trial scheduled for August. A mistrial was declared October 22nd after jurors could not reach unanimous verdicts on HLF and four individual defendants. A fifth defendant was acquitted on all but one count against him, that of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.
- IAP clearly subscribed to a Jihadist view of what was needed in the Middle East. The December 1988 edition of Ila Filastin , the group's Arabic-language publication, carried this statement: "The call for Jihad in the name of Allah is the only path for liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim lands … We (Hamas) promise Allah, in continuing the Jihad way and with the martyrdom's way."
Meanwhile, IAP's English-language Muslim World Monitor and Arabic periodical Al-Zaitounah, frequently praised Hamas terror attacks. An October 1994 Al-Zaitounah headline, for example, blared, "In Its Greatest Operation, Hamas Takes Credit for the Bombing of an Israeli Bus in the Center of Tel Aviv."
- IAP promoted the Hamas agenda at its annual conferences, with members of the terrorist group making frequent appearances. It raised substantial funds at these conferences for HLF, then Hamas' primary fundraising arm in the United States. All proceeds from IAP's convention in 1996, for example, went to HLF. Rafeeq Jaber, one of CAIR's founders, had become IAP president earlier that year. In a 2003 civil deposition, Jaber acknowledged IAP's contract with HLF required them "to promote [HLF] in every way we can."
- Declining an opportunity to distance CAIR from IAP in September 2003 Senate testimony, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad opted instead to defend the group as "a grassroots organization which continues to function legally and has only been ‘linked' through allusion and no charge of criminality has been brought against the organization."
- It was Awad and CAIR founding chairman Omar Ahmad who had attended the Hamas-organized Philadelphia session in 1993 – though proof of their participation was not revealed publicly until years later. Both men insisted, as late as 2003, that they could not recall having attended.
# # FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and the author of five books on these subjects, most recently "Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US." Steve also writes for the Counterterrorism Blog. read full author bio here