“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.”

-Maureen Dowd, columnist
The New York Times

Bill Clinton, one of the sleaziest politicians to ever inhabit the White House, has successfully re-invented himself as the “better than Bush” former president and future first male First Lady. This is all part of the Clinton political machine’s campaign of inevitability-it is inevitable, they tell us, that Hillary Clinton will be elected America’s 44th president, and Bill Clinton will be returning to the White House as her special “ambassador.” In his refurbished role, Bill Clinton is now aggressively speaking to the national media, playing his part in greasing Hillary’s road to the presidency with celebrity power.

In Bill Clinton’s national television appearances, the media only meekly raises the issue of dynasty. For those Americans who forget their history, the American Revolution was all about throwing off dynastic hereditary rule, and replacing it with a system of political succession based on meritocracy.

When the “D” word is raised, Bill Clinton, well briefed by his handlers, turns reality on its head. He claims that Hillary’s front-runner status is based purely on merit, and that the accident of her being the wife of a former president should not be a barrier to selecting the “most qualified” candidate for the presidency. This surreal juxtapositioning of logic is vintage Clintonian semantics. However, one journalist did get it right. In her Sunday column, New York Times writer Maureen Dowd wrote that, “Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” I couldn’t agree with her more.

After George W. Bush, is the best answer to America’s ills the continuity of nepotism as the principle factor in selecting the nation’s chief executive and commander-in-chief? For those who are uncertain, I suggest they look at another country that has also applied nepotism in determining who its ruler is. That nation is North Korea.

Source: Hillary Clinton Nude

The Associated Press has published a timely story, headlined “Bush, Clinton, Bush … Clinton?” The story echoes the concerns raised in my book, “Hillary Clinton Nude,” that the election of a second Clinton presidency in the USA raises serious doubts about the viability of American democracy. The AP article quotes Princeton University political historian Julian Zelizer, who said, “We now have a younger generation and middle-age generation who are going to think about national politics through the Bush-Clinton prism.”

The AP writer, Nancy Benac, offered the following observations in her article:

“Already, for 116 million Americans, there has never been a time when there wasn’t a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice president. Does a nation of 303 million people really have only two families qualified to run the show?”

The answer is clearly an emphatic “No!” Furthermore, as I argue in my book, the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are far from being the most qualified in the nation to serve as president. The real question then is how come this sad state of affairs has evolved to our current surreal reality? Ms. Benac points towards the answer by her reference to “branding” of these two political families. I go much further in “Hillary Clinton Nude.” In my view, celebrity politics has destroyed meritocracy as the means of political succession in the republic. Hillary Clinton’s status as front-runner in the 2008 presidential campaign is based on her skill at exploiting her celebrity status, and not from “accomplishments,” such as Hillary’s vote in favor of the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

What both my book and the AP story reveal is that America’s Two Party political system has degenerated into a Two Family system. Surely, this is not what America’s founding fathers had in mind when they conceived of the world’s first constitutional republic.

Source: Hillary Clinton Nude

Abu Usama al-Tunisi killed by US led forces. He is believed to be responsible for the kidnapping and killing of US soldiers last summer, according to Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.

The Washington Times reports today that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up a few key players from the George Soros-funded America Coming Together, which the FEC just fined for misusing $70 million dollars in the 2004 election.

At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT) fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined $775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it.

In addition, the group’s former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for travel-related costs.

For Clinton, this is just business as usual. It will be interesting to see how far this story goes before the Clintonistas threaten a lawsuit against the Washington Times or try to bully them into pulling the story. My question for campaign finance proponents and the media is, “Where is the outrage over the illegal behavior of America Coming Together and Hillary’s fundraising team?”

Source: Freedom Works

Fresh off of pushing for an expansion of S-CHIP into the middle class and adding tens of billions of dollars on insurance subsidies, Hillary Clinton decided to create another entitlement program for her cradle-to-grave nanny state vision. In her address to the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary said she’d like to spend $20 billion each year on checks to newborn infants:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party’s front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

The US has had over 4 million births per year since 2000. The calculation is easy. In 2004, with 4,121,000 births, that would mean $20,605,000,000 dollars … for just one year.

Where does Hillary plan to get that money? It’s easy to talk about writing checks, but the federal budget already runs in the red, especially on entitlements. If we talk about spending even more money that we don’t have, why stop at $5,000? John McCain wondered aloud in his blogger conference call whether $100,000 wouldn’t sound more compassionate, as long as we didn’t talk about how we plan to pay for the program.

Read the rest of this entry »

Say what you will about Meet the Press host Tim Russert, but he proved to be an effective moderator for Wednesday’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire. He wasn’t afraid to challenge the candidates on the issues and force them to defend their policies and statements.

And by using a creative hypothetical he caught Hillary Clinton in a bind. Not surprisingly she said what she thought the audience wanted to hear. She even managed a nice comeback line. The only problem was her answer didn’t mesh with her previous statements. This will not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with her history. The truth is that Hillary has a long record of instinctive responses that sound good but turn out to be untrue or contradictory after further investigation.

Shocking, I know. But read on . . .

In discussing the issue of torture as a tactic in the war on terror, Russert raised an interesting hypothetical that had been offered by a guest on his program. We have captured the number three man in Al Qaeda; a bomb is set to go off somewhere in the country; and we know he knows where it is. Wouldn’t we, the guest argued, have an obligation to “beat it out of him?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s where things get interesting.

1) Kerrey has secured DOD contracts for the famously progressive and anti-war New School, where he now serves as president.

2) The New School also has deep ties to Bernard Schwartz, former head of Loral. Schwartz was reportedly involved with donations by the Chinese military to the Democratic National Committee in exchange for the right to access sensitive missile technologies. This technology may have been one of the main reasons that China was able to destroy a satellite in space this year, touching off fears of an arms race in space.

 3) The New School reserved a prestigious post for Norman Hsu, Hillary Clinton’s fundraiser extraordinaire-cum-fugitive (also a Chinese national), possibly at Schwartz’s request.

4) The New School has other close connections to China through its ICI arm (the India-China Institute).

5) The New School has at least eight large donation bundlers (Hillraisers) in various board-level or trusteeship positions; these are folks who have each funneled $100,000 or more to Hillary

6) Hillary has sent her own pork-barrel contracts to the New School (e.g., a $1 million federal grant).

What is it with the Clintons, China, and satellites?

Read it all here - GREAT INFO at Doug Ross Journal

While the Democrats hammer Rush Limbaugh in their retaliatory strike against the offensive that Republicans launched over a MoveOn.org newspaper ad criticizing Gen. David Petraeus, it’s clear that the Republicans are not ready to move on.

The Republican National Committee is circulating an email rallying call to fellow Republicans to call radio stations and write letters to editors about a video clip of former President Bill Clinton dismissing the GOP’s objections to the MoveOn.org ad.

“I think that there was something completely disingenuous about the feigned outrage of the Repbulicans in the White House and in the Congress about this,’’ Clinton said slowly and seriously in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on 360. "This was classic bait and switch.”

The short clip of Clinton voicing those words ncluded in the GOP emailing, courtesy of YouTube, is fodder for a new Republican salvo against Democrats for not denoucing MoveOn.org’s ad calling the commander of U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq “General Betray Us.’’

“Last week, Hillary Clinton voted against a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its vicious personal attack on General David Petraeus, the highly-respected leader of our Armed Forces in Iraq,’’ Mike Duncan, RNC chairman, writes in the email to party members. “Now, Bill Clinton is joining in, but - typically - he’s taking it even further, angrily attacking those who condemned the ad.

But the Republicans aren’t playing the whole clip here. There is a longer take of what Clinton had to say on YouTube that’s pretty rough on the Republicans:

"Come on, these Republicans that are all upset about Petraeus, this is one newspaper ad,” Clinton said. "These are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia, with Max Cleland, who lost half his body in Vietnam, in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That’s what the Republicans did, and the person that rode to the Senate on that ad was there voting to condemn the Democrats over the Petraeus ad.

Read the rest of this entry »