Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts

Thursday, August 09, 2007

"DREAM" of open borders for smugglers and terrorists

 
ABC News features an ominous series of government photos from DHS and ICE. They illustrate forged visas and tunnel complexes that span the US borders with Canada and Mexico.

A DHS security assessment relates that "tunnels under U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico serve primarily as conduits for transporting illegal drugs in the United States... [and] are [also] used for alien smuggling, including special interest aliens." The term "special interest" designates persons suspected of ties to Jihadist terror groups.

In addition, the DHS says that tunnels along the U.S.-Mexico border will remain a threat to U.S. security. According to the DHS, "The densely populated residential areas and growing commercial development directly along the border in cities such as Calexico, Nogales, Otay Mesa, and Tijuana will provide [human and drug] smugglers increased opportunities to construct tunnels and exploit the short distances between structures straddling the border."


But not to worry, Hillary Clinton co-sponsors legislation like the DREAM Act. If you believe that drug and human smugglers need a reward for sneaking into the country and then evading the police for five years, then have I got a deal for you. How does amnesty and in-state tuition sound? Numbers USA has all of the outrageous details on Hillary's various open border efforts.

Hat tips: Atlas and Larwyn

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

I dare you

 
No, I double-dare you to listen to this tape for four hours straight. Then consider... four years.


Is it a health risk to fill my ear canals with peanut butter?

Monday, July 30, 2007

Peter Paul vs. Hillary Clinton: the Smoking Gun

 
Hillary Clinton was more than willing to embrace a controversial businessman named Peter Paul when she needed money for her Senate campaign in 2000. The result was a spectacular, private Hollywood fundraising gala that reportedly cost nearly $2 million. The problem for Hillary? The money was not fully disclosed to the Federal Election Commission and the portion that was reported ended up categorized as a "soft dollar contribution."

Last month, a a "smoking gun" video surfaced in the Paul vs. Clinton civil suit that appears to show Hillary and her agents helping to plan the fundraiser. Some election observers believe that this is evidence of Hillary's solicitation of a hard-money donation, which -- because it far surpasses the limit of $25,000 -- is a felony offense.

Fast forward to 2006: Hillary testifies in the Paul vs. Clinton civil case


In a sworn declaration taken on April 7, 2006, Hillary Clinton testified that she had "no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with [Peter Paul] whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate... I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred."

I wonder if she remembers the discussion now?

The Smoking-Gun Video



Hillary Clinton talking to Peter Paul on speaker-phone: "...What ever it is you're doing, is it okay that I thank you? ...I'm very appreciative... it sounds fabulous, I got a full report from Kelly... uh... today, when she got back, and told me everything that... uh... you're doing and it just sounds like it's gonna be a great event..."

Clinton's participation in the planning of the fundraising event "...would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit 'hard money' contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years."

Was there an attempted coverup by Clinton appointee Judge Howard Matz?


In 2005, Judge Howard Matz presided over the trial of Hillary's finance chairman David Rosen. Rosen was facing three counts of causing false statements to be filed with the Federal Election Commission in connection with the Paul fundraiser.

During the trial, the New York Times reported:

The government says Mr. Rosen reported that the event cost at most about $400,000. Prosecutors contend the real cost was $1.1 million... Judge Matz began the legal process by blasting Senator Hillary Clinton's key accuser, Peter Paul, whose allegations spurred the indictment of Rosen...

Judge Matz was more forgiving when it came to Mrs. Clinton, however, vowing not to allow the proceedings to become a referendum on Mrs. Clinton, her politics, or her personal life. "This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal." Though both Paul and another key witness, celebrity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken, both say they told the former first lady about the campaign cash Rosen allegedly hid from federal regulators, Judge Matz insisted, "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told. Mrs. Clinton will not be called to testify in the case."

The prosecutor, Peter R. Zeidenberg told the jury, "You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way, shape or form."

The video shows that the behavior of Matz and Zeidenberg was either biased, ignorant or perhaps even criminal. At best, they mistakenly fibbed. At worst, they should be investigated. The video record appears to demonstrate that they were completely and utterly wrong about Hillary Clinton's involvement.

Oh, one more thing: Matz was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by none other than Bill Clinton in March of 1998. Nah, that couldn't have had anything to do with his egregious behavior.

Truth-Boating Hillary: What you can do


Ready to help Truth-Boat Hillary? Here's how you can help get the word out and stop the mainstream media blockade of this news:

* Email your friends the link to this story and ask them to spread the word.

* Add Equal Justice Foundation and the Hillary Accountability Project to your blogroll.

* Contact your local newspaper, radio, and television personalities and spread the word of Hillary's Smoking Gun video. YouTube is always hot news and this video is smokin' hot.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Hillary's Slithering from Legal Jeopardy Nearing an End?

 
The ability of Hillary Clinton to slither away from legal scrutiny is uncanny. Consider Travelgate, Whitewater, and the Barrett Report, all examples of alleged crimes and coverups that would have toppled a Republican administration.


Now a civil case brought by Clinton fundraiser Peter Paul threatens to dismantle's Hillary's hard-won reputation for evading legal jeopardy. According to insiders, on Sept. 7, 2007 the appellate court will rule whether Hillary will be included as a defendant in the case. No matter the outcome, though, she will be forced to testify under oath regarding the fundraising for her 2000 Senate campaign.

Equal Justice Foundation launches new site and documentary film



And, on Friday, the Equal Justice Foundation of America named the Hillary Clinton Civil Fraud suit brought by Peter Paul "The Most Important Whistleblowing Case in the Nation for 2007:"

...The Equal Justice Foundation of America, the public interest foundation dedicated to "Aiding Whistleblowers who expose corruption and abuse of the Rule of Law in America" announced today that it is designating the Los Angeles court case of Paul v Hillary R. Clinton et al as the most significant Whistleblowing activity in the nation in 2007.

"The civil fraud suit Paul v Hillary Clinton et al represents the efforts of Hillary Clinton's largest 2000 campaign donor turned Whistleblower, Peter Paul, to use the civil courts to expose the multitude of frauds and obstructions of justice that Hillary Clinton engaged in, with the help of then President Bill Clinton and leaders of the DNC, to win her first election to the Senate and avoid any accountability to the Rule of Law," commented EJFA President and Founder James Nesfield. "Because of the significance of the allegations involved, the mountain of evidence that supports these allegations, capped by the recent release of a smoking gun video that captures Hillary Clinton in the act of violating the law, inexplicably withheld for six years by a government agency, Paul v Clinton has been selected by EJFA as the most important whistleblowing activity in the nation for 2007."


Hillary's memory appears at odds with the smoking gun video

...EJFA is sponsoring the first ever documentary to be produced on Senator Clinton, Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v Clinton, focusing exclusively on the circumstances surrounding the case, using more than five hours of exclusive home videos of the Clintons made by Peter Paul when he was a close personal friend and largest donor to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.

James Nesfield, Founder and President of EJFA, was the highly publicized whistleblower who assisted the state of New York in exposing and fining the Mutual Fund Industry in the 2004 Market Timing scandal that cost investors more than one triillion dollars. His experiences as one of the most important financial whistleblowers in American history led him to recognize the need for a support organization for private whistleblowers...

Whenever the name Peter Paul comes up in Democratic circles, the reaction is sharp and instantaneous. The man's a convicted felon. He's not believable. It's outrageous that anyone would pay him credence.

Of course, the Clintons were more than willing to embrace the convicted felon when they needed money for Hillary's Senate campaign in 2000. The result was a spectacular, private Hollywood fundraising gala, the likes of which has never been seen before or since.

Last month, a video surfaced that appears to show Hillary clearly collaborating in the planning of the event. According to some observers, it is amazing new "evidence of Hillary participating, coordinating, and facilitating a hard money in-kind donation... It was illegal from the outset." Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

Help break through the Mainstream Media blockade of this case


Be sure and listen to the Hugh Hewitt show from Friday, where you'll hear additional details about this groundbreaking case. And visit the EJFA website and start spreading the word. There's a storm brewing and the first peals of thunder are echoing in the distance.

Update: Doug from Upland has posted a complete timeline of the Clinton-Paul affair. And Thomas Lifson, writing at the invaluable American Thinker site, weighs in.

Update II: Nuke Gingrich: 'The Truth-boating Hillary Campaign'.

Update III: The Truth-Boating Hillary Campaign heats up: The Astute Bloggers: 'Will Hillary Be Indicted Before She's Nominated - or After?'... Against Hillary: 'Peter Paul and Hillary: A Timeline'... Cao's Blog: ''... this Free Republic master thread contains more info.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

CNN Technical Director on Double-Secret Probation

 
"Somebody at CNN is probably in huge trouble today because there were four or five instances where there was a camera placed right behind Mrs. Clinton's derriere. You forgot anything you were hearing at the time, believe me, when you watched that."   --Rush Limbaugh

Monday, July 23, 2007

Line o' the Day: Hillary Clinton and Industrial Policy

 
"Is Hillary Really Walter Mondale in Drag? On Economic Policy, Yes... Quick quiz: What does Hillary Clinton think is a "great organizing principle" for the American economy? Increasing our standard of living? Maximizing economic growth and economic freedom, maybe? Putting a chicken in every pot, perhaps? Nope, none of those. In a speech to the Chicago Economic Club last spring, she suggested that climate change would be a cool concept to organize an economy around..."
                  --James Pethokoukis

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Exclusive Trailer: Hillary Exposed

 
You gonna put some ice on that, Hill?


Be sure and watch the trailer for Hillary Exposed. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Clintons move to DEFCON 3 in the Peter Paul Case

 
Whenever the name Peter Paul comes up in Democratic circles, the reaction is sharp and instantaneous. The man's a convicted felon. He's not believable. It's outrageous that anyone would believe him.

Of course, the Clintons were more than willing to embrace the convicted felon when they needed money for Hillary's Senate campaign in 2000. The result was a private Hollywood gala, the likes of which has never been seen before or since.

Last month, a video surfaced that reportedly shows Hillary collaborating on the planning of the event. According to some observers, it is shocking "evidence of Hillary participating, coordinating, and facilitating a hard money in-kind donation from Peter Paul. It was illegal from the outset." Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

The videotape was submitted as evidence to a California appeals court in a civil fraud suit filed by Paul against Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Now attorneys on both sides are firing heavy salvos at each other, though the mainstream press has ignored the case completely. That won't be so easy if both Clintons are deposed along with several Hollywood celebs, as Paul is wont to do.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's legal team denies a "smoking gun video" captures the New York Democrat and her campaign in the act of committing a felony, calling the assertion "pure fantasy" and "much ado about nothing..."

...Kendall argues any contribution from Paul toward the Hollywood event should be credited to a joint fundraising committee, New York Senate 2000. The state account, not subject to the federal $2,000 individual limit... Paul's attorney... [counters that] Kendall's reply fails to address the main point – that Sen. Clinton directly solicited the funds and applied some control over them, in violation of section 441 of the Federal Election Commission code... the FEC regulation considers any donation specifically requested by a candidate to be the same as a direct contribution to the candidate.

...the videotape captures Clinton designating her then-White House aide, Kelly Craighead, as her agent in daily contact with Paul, who advised the senator as to when her personal involvement would be helpful. Clinton is recorded saying Craighead, a White House employee with no relationship with any joint fundraising committee, "talks all the time" with Paul about details concerning coordination of the event, "so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need."

[Paul's attorney stated] "...the law could not be more clear. If you have coordination, solicitation by the candidate of the contribution, and are exercising control, that makes it a contribution (to the candidate)."

Paul says that no matter the outcome of the preliminary ruling, the Clintons and several Hollywood celebrities will be deposed.

Perhaps this explains why the Clintons have raised their DEFCON level to 3, which could, if tradition holds, result in a hilarious series of coverups and payoffs directed by the Clintonos.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

The Barrett Report: an Open Letter to Congress

 
In 2005, Robert Novak described the importance of the Barrett Report, an investigation into widespread corruption and coverups:

The Barrett report's shocking allegations of high-level corruption in the [Clinton era] Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department are likely to be concealed from the public and from Congress....

A recently passed appropriations bill, intended to permit release of this report, was altered behind closed doors to ensure that its politically combustible elements never saw the light of day... That investigation would be a long walk into the unknown, with possibly far-reaching consequences. Prominent Democrats in Congress have spent much of the last decade in a campaign, successful so far, to suppress Barrett's report. Its disclosures could dig deeply into concealed scandals of the Clinton administration...

...an IRS whistle-blower told Barrett of an unprecedented cover-up. The informant said a regional IRS official had formulated a new rule enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department. Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of Justice's public integrity office, determined to protect President Bill Clinton...

In January of 2006, Novak described the successful efforts of Democrats to censor key portions of the Barrett Report.

...the question remains what [was] blacked out in 120 pages worth of redactions. Even after the report is released, Barrett and his lawyers would face judicial sanctions if they disclosed anything that was redacted.

However, [there is] an exception, or rather 535 exceptions, to the rule that nobody can see what has been redacted. Any member of Congress can read it merely by asking. Any such lawmaker, who believes American taxpayers should see the product of $23 million in expenditures, presumably could then publish the material without fear of legal sanction.

It is likely, according to Novak, that the disclosures contained in the full Barrett Report could expose many "concealed scandals of the Clinton administration."

Put simply, the corruption and coverups hinted at in the current version of the Barrett Report may be just the tip of the iceberg. And with Hillary Clinton poised to take the Democratic nomination, isn't it of paramount importance that Congress fully disclose how the Clinton Administration operated?

Is there not a single member of Congress brave enough to read and disclose the full Barrett Report to the American taxpayers who paid for it? Is there not one?

Thursday, July 12, 2007

The unwavering philosophies of Hillary Clinton

 
On October 11, 2002, Hillary Clinton cast her vote in support of the resolution to go to war. She said her vote was cast with the "conviction" that the war authorization "best serves the security of our nation."

On December 3, 2005, Hillary Clinton stated, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

Now Hillary's racing to leave Iraq for reasons that appear to be pure, political expediency -- and not the best interests of the country. I'm stunned.

Hillary's Doublespeak Video

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Someone's got a crush on Hillary

 
Barrack Obama's not the only Democratic candidate with a video camera-equipped fan!


Don Surber: "Somehow I don’t think she will appreciate the 'help.'"

Caution: it's rated PG-13.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Mass-murderers or Republicans: what's the difference?

 
"It doesn't matter whether they're Republicans or whether they're terrorists – she will stand up to defend this country..." -- Christie Vilsack, wife of ex-Gov. Tom, during her introduction of Hillary Clinton in Des Moines (hat tip: Charlie Foxtrot)

Saturday, July 07, 2007

The Barrett Report: What is Hillary Hiding?

 
The New Media Journal is featuring a seven part series entitled "The Fraudulent Senator." In it, journalists Joan Swirsky, Justin Darr, A.J. DiCintio, Noel Sheppard, and Frank Salvato painstakingly dissect "the single biggest incident of campaign finance fraud in US history and a coordinated cover-up that stretched from the halls of justice to Capitol Hill to the mainstream media."

Haven't heard about it? Put simply, the subject of their investigation is Hillary Clinton, which explains the coverage vacuum. The series scrutinizes Clinton's gala fundraising concert arranged by businessman Peter Paul, an event that the Federal Election Commission calls "Event 39" in its investigatory documents.

I'll cover the entire series in a later post. There's a bit of detail that I'd like to expand upon first. In Part I of the series, we read:

[Hillary] has acknowledged accepting contributions from the influence peddling, recently indicted, uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff... There is also... the Clinton campaign-finance scandal of the late 1990s, where millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democratic Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers. Worse, American missile-guidance technology was given to Beijing...


Clinton and fundraisers linked to the Chinese
 
That is not to omit the recently released 400-page Barrett Report. In 1995, while Independent Counsel David Barrett was investigating the president’s Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros for various crimes, he discovered that the president had used the Internal Revenue Service (headed by Hillary’s college friend, Margaret Milner Richardson), the Justice Department (headed by... Janet Reno), and the White House... to audit political enemies, particularly the women who had accused the president of sexual harassment and even rape.


Henry Cisneros
 
...Democrats have tried for 10 years to have the parts of the Barrett Report that dealt with these matters redacted, and they succeeded. But Republican Senators Charles Grassley, Chairman of the House Finance Committee, and James Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have both stated publicly that they are determined to get the entire report released.

The redacted portions must be pretty explosive because as columnist Tony Snow has noted, the “report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects.”

Even now, the Barrett Report remains redacted; in effect, significant portions have been removed. You and I -- the American taxpayers -- spent over $20 million on this investigation and are unable to see the complete results.

With Hillary Clinton positioned for the presidency, isn't it time we demanded the release of the full report?

"WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING"


The press release announcing the report read (PDF):

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the District for Columbia Circuit, Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels, approved the release of the Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: Henry G. Cisneros. The Report can be found on the Office’s website at http://barrett.oic.gov.

This has been a long and difficult investigation. It is my hope that people will read the entire Report and draw their own conclusions. An accurate title for the Report could be, “WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.”

After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded.

I recommend that people begin by reading the memorandum of Mr. John Filan, Chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division in the South Texas District (Appendix no. 16).

Has any Independent Counsel, ever, expressed such bitterness? The particulars of the investigation only make you shake your head.

APPENDIX 16


Appendix 16 of the report is titled Possible Improprieties by Assistant Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax):

After the prosecution case had been forwarded to District Counsel, several incidents occurred which have caused [investigators] to be highly concerned about possible improprieties... the case was pulled from the field with the apparent intent to "kill" it... and... improper disclosures have possibly taken place with... the Department of Justice in a further attempt to stop the case from being prosecuted... Our observations... are presented below:

1. Unprecedented Deviation from the Normal Review Process

...Sometime on or before January 15, 1997, District Counsel was informed by Chief Counsel's Office that the case was to be transferred to the National Office. District Counsel was told this was necessary due to the sensitive nature of the case, which required a "centralized review." District Counsel was directed to cease their review, box up the exhibits and mail it to Chief Counsel.

I am not aware of any other criminal tax cases that have been pulled from experienced District Counsel attorneys to be reviewed in Washington...

2. Apparent Failure to Consider Facts and Evidence

The decision to decline this case seems to have been made regardless of the evidence and facts... It is highly questionable and baffling as to why Chief Counsel's Office decided to extract a "sensitive" case from an experience District Counsel... and assign the... review to two attorneys... who do not review criminal tax cases on a regular basis...

...It was... apparent that they had received their direction to kill this case from... the outset.

Editor's note: 'The removal of a regional IRS investigation to Washington is "extremely unusual," according to a former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy... "In my 20-year experience I am unfamiliar with any similar behavior... The reason for field offices is to work the cases, not have Washington work the cases."'

...In summary, Chief Counsel's Office has consistently failed to rely upon the evidence showing Cisneros' guilt...

3. Chief Counsel's Relationship with Defense Counsel

...Throughout [the] process, Chief Counsel has wholeheartedly accepted and endorsed the defense version of events... the "story" which has been created, quickly fall apart when compared to the facts, testimony and evidence gathered during the investigation... Chief Counsel exaggerates and mistates events to bolster the position they have taken. Their discussion mirrors the position put forth by Cisneros' Defense attorneys... Examples of this conduct abound and include the complete discounting of the evidentiary value of the recorded conversations...

4. Chief Counsel's Disclosures to DOJ, Tax Division

...[There was a] meeting... to discuss the Office of Independent Counsel's request to Attorney General Janet Reno for expanded authority in its investigation of Henry Cisneros... OIC informed Special Agent Lange of Attorney General Reno's initial written response to OIC's expansion request. The language used in Reno's response mirrors the language [Chief Counsel] Finkelstein has given to CID for declining the case... it... appears that the possible disclosure by Chief Counsel, of their intentions to decline the case, has potentially influenced Reno's decision. [Reno's] decision should have been made independently and without knowledge of any tax investigation.


Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Janet Reno
 

In conclusion, we raise these issues for your consideration because we have serious concerns about the propriety of the actions that have taken place in the review of this case. We are not privy to nor do we wish to speculate about personal or political motivations for the conduct we have witnessed... we strongly feel that the conduct of Assistant Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax) which preceded this declination needs to be examined.

In effect, the Attorney General at the time -- Janet Reno -- "limited investigators to one year of Cisneros's returns, and Justice Department officials failed to cooperate with [the] probe."

THE PROTEST


The conclusion of the protest from the Criminal Investigation Division (PDF) states:

This is a simple case that the defense counsel and Assistant Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax) has convoluted and tried to make complex. All CISNEROS had to do was deposit all his income... Instead, CISNEROS lied to Hernandez, lied to Gonzalez, lied to the IRS, lied to the FBI, and lied to the Presidential transition team... the analysis of this case and the conclusions drawn by Assistant Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax) are just plain wrong.

The New York Daily News places the fix in the lap of the Clintons.

Then-IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, a close friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was involved in efforts to quash the probe, a source close to the case alleged.

But Richardson's role was cut from Barrett's report, which went through 26 drafts, because Democratic law firm Williams & Connolly successfully pressured Barrett to remove a section of the report naming her, a source said... [the] firm represents Cisneros, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

The New York Sun also succinctly places blame for the coverup with the Clintons:

...[The Barrett Report] outlines a coordinated effort by Clinton administration officials to first block and then limit the probe as a way of taking pressure off an administration that was already beset by scandals...

Why were so many pages redacted? What was the cover-up to which Barrett alluded? What are they hiding?

YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE CAN PUBLISH THE ENTIRE BARRETT REPORT


Robert Novak says that any member of Congress can read -- and publish -- the entire Barrett Report.

...the question remains what three judges -- David Sentelle (D.C.), Thomas Reavley (Texas) and Peter Fay (Florida) -- blacked out in 120 pages worth of redactions. Even after the report is released, Barrett and his lawyers would face judicial sanctions if they disclosed anything that was redacted.

However, the judges have established an exception, or rather 535 exceptions, to the rule that nobody can see what has been redacted. Any member of Congress can read it merely by asking. Any such lawmaker, who believes American taxpayers should see the product of $23 million in expenditures, presumably could then publish the material without fear of legal sanction.

But will any senator or House member do it? Nobody is interested in further prosecution of Henry Cisneros, an exceptional public figure who might well have become the first Hispanic-American governor of Texas and perhaps even president of the United States. Rather, an unredacted Barrett report is an opportunity to observe how the Internal Revenue Service decides when to prosecute, a place where Congress until now has feared to venture.

Is it time to ask our Congressional Representatives for the entire Barrett Report?

With Hillary Clinton poised to take the Democratic nomination for President, Americans must be privy to the full report for which they paid in full. We demand the full disclosure of the Barrett Report.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Hillary Clinton on Scooter Libby

 
Senator Hillary Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:

Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.

Interesting perspective. Consider:

* In the waning days of the Clinton administration, Hillary's brother Hugh Rodham collected "nearly $400,000 for helping secure a pardon and a prison commutation for two clients."

* Bill Clinton issued 396 pardons and 61 commutations during his administration.

* Clinton's National Security Advisor -- Sandy Berger -- destroyed classified documents related to terrorist attacks in the US. He had access to National Security Council (NSC) numbered documents, printed copies of e-mails, and staff member office files (SMOFs), which contained original documents.

* Time Magazine headline: Sources: Ex-Wife of Pardoned Fugitive Gave $400,000 to Clinton Library.

* Washington Post headline: Livingstone Resigns, Denying Ill Intent - "The Clinton White House's beleaguered director of personnel security, Craig Livingstone, announced his resignation yesterday, saying he took responsibility for the unjustified collection of FBI files on hundreds of Republicans."

* Quote: "The fact that she can make a statement like this on this particular subject with a straight face represents more proof that Mrs Clinton is a pure sociopath.... absolutely and utterly devoid of conscience."

* Quote: "Four complete sentences. Four complete lies."

Monday, July 02, 2007

Socialized Medicine Causes Terrorism

 
Five doctors are being held in connection with the recent attempted terror attacks in the United Kingdom.

We can put to rest the notion that poverty causes terrorism. It is clear that Britain's brand of HillaryCare causes terrorism. And, while it's an unpleasant task, someone needs to check Michael Moore to see whether he's wearing a suicide bomb-belt.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Fear This: Hillary Clinton on Immigration

 
While there's good news on the illegal immigration front today -- the shamnesty bill just went down in flames -- more battles remain. Consider if you will, Hillary Clinton's various attempts to sponsor amnesty and guest-worker programs (source: Numbers USA).

Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2075, the DREAM Act of 2005: Need a reward for sneaking into the country and then evading the police for five years? Well, how does amnesty and in-state tuition sound? If my kids sneak out of the country and then back in, can they get the in-state tuition deal?

S. 2075 would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who had been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.


Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 2109, the National Innovation Act of 2005: Need to import cheap high-tech workers? Then have I get a law for you! Unfortunately for American workers, it's a raw deal. Furthermore, it's easy to prove that this program (H-1B) is being abused. Law firms like Cohen and Grigsby are openly counseling employers how to game the legal system to avoid hiring "qualified and interested U.S. worker[s]."

S. 2109 would continue the H-1B program that every year imports additional high-tech workers as part of "comprehensive immigration reform." The H-1B program has been shown to harm American workers by depressing wages and displacing workers. As well, S. 2109 suggests that comprehensive reform must include provisions to "eliminate delays in processing immigration proceedings, including employment-based visa applications." This provision would do nothing but encourage the rubberstamping of applications, which is already happening because of the existing "backlog elimination" program and would promote and encourage fraud and corruption.


Sen. Clinton is a of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Running a farm and need, cheap -- but legal -- unskilled labor? Well, Hillary's got your back!

S. 340 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years. S. 340 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. The AgJOBS amnesty has also been introduced as S. 237. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.


Sen. Clinton is a cosponsor of S. 237, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007: Need cheap, legal indentured servants? Hillary can do!

S. 237 is an amnesty for agricultural workers. Of the 1.2 million illegal aliens currently working in agriculture, an estimated 860,000 plus their spouses and children could qualify for this amnesty, so the total could reach three million or more. The potential recipients of the amnesty will be required to prove at least 863 hours or 150 work days of agricultural employment in two preceeding years.S. 237 would, subsequently, allow these “blue card” illegal aliens to apply for legal residency (i.e., amnesty), provided they demonstrate that they have worked in agriculture here: (1) 100 work days per year each of the first five years following enactment; (2) 150 work days per year each of the first three years following enactment; or (3) over the course of the first four years after enactment, 150 work days per year for three of those years and 100 work days for the other. Read an analysis of the AgJOBS amnesty.


Sen. Clinton was a cosponsor of S. 2381, the Safe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement Act of 2004: or, more properly, the Unsafe, Disorderly, Illegal Unenforcement Act of 2004.

Introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), S. 2381 included an amnesty that would have granted Legal Permanent Resident status to certain illegal aliens (and their spouses and minor children) who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years and worked for an aggregate of 2 years. Virtually all of the 10.3 million illegal aliens estimated to have been living in the U.S. in March 2004 could have qualified for this amnesty, along with their spouses and children. As well, S. 2381 would have significantly increased overall immigration numbers by increasing the number of family visas and exempting from the family-based visa ceiling all immediate relatives. See analysis of S. 2381 provisions.


Sen. Clinton cosponsored S. 2444, the Kennedy INS restructuring bill: if you're looking for a way to add hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in short order, S. 2444 hits the mark!

This legislation contained both structural and policy problems that would encourage illegal immigration and potentially increase legal immigration. The most far reaching provision proposed in S. 2444 was the change in the definition of immigration law. S. 2444 would have redefined immigration law to include not only the Immigration and Nationality Act but also Executive Orders and international agreements. In so doing, the bill would have opened up massive possibilities for increased legal and illegal immigration. For example, the President could have agreed to amnesty all illegal aliens in a trade agreement or in an Executive Order. The President also could have created new categories of legal immigrants, increase refugee numbers, triple H-1B visas, etc. In addition, S. 2444 would have facilitated asylum fraud and add thousands of illegal aliens to the population each year by greatly reducing the detention of asylum applicants while their cases are pending, allowing them to disappear into the public. While the numeric impact of the Kennedy restructuring bill is almost impossible to determine, the policy changes outlined in S. 2444 would certainly have increased illegal immigration and very likely increased legal immigration, thus adding to the 8-9 million illegal migrants already residing in the U.S. as well as increasing legal immigration levels.

Hillary Clinton. Let the buyer beware.

AgJOBS:

AgJOBS: Legalizing Indentured Servitude: What Kind of America Will You Choose?

Indentured Servant: An indentured servant is an unfree laborer under contract to work for a specified amount of time for another person – often for low or no wages – in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials and/or free passage in a new country.

Indentured Servitude Banned with Slavery: Indentured servitude was abolished along with slavery when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1865.

AgJOBS indentures illegal alien agricultural workers:
• Section 101(a) of AgJOBS grants amnesty in the form of “temporary residence” (via a “blue card”) to illegal aliens who worked in agriculture between December 31, 2004, and December 31, 2006.
• Section 103(a) permits these formerly illegal “temporary residents” to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent residence only if they perform at least: 2,587 hours of agricultural work during the first three years after enactment; 2,875 hours of agricultural work during the first five years after enactment; or during the first four years after enactment, 862.5 hours of agricultural work per year for three of those years and 575 hours of work for the other.
• Section 103(c) says that, if temporary residents do not perform the requisite work and apply for permanent status within seven years of enactment, they are deportable.
• AgJOBS permits employers of formerly illegal temporary residents to pay these workers as little as minimum wage. It also freezes the “adverse effect wage rate” for H‐2A workers at its January 1, 2003, level for three years, after which the wage rate may be increased by no more than the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index from two years prior.

Required Labor + Specified Duration of Labor +
Substandard Wages + Free Passage in a New Country =
Indentured Servitude

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

 
Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event — a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

The significance of the "smoking gun" video


Peter Paul's "whistleblower" site explains the timeline and the significance of the "smoking gun" video.

After [Paul] began to blow the whistle in March, 2001, to four US prosecutors on Hillary’s role in the false FEC reports filed by her campaign that hid more than $1.2 million in his expenditures, the Attorney General['s office...] launched a four year investigation leading to the indictment and trial of Hillary’s finance director, David Rosen, in May 2005, for election law fraud.

...Rosen was solely indicted for providing information that only he knew was false, to Hillary’s treasurer for reporting to the FEC...

The Federal Judge, Howard Matz, (appointed by the Clintons in 1998) who officiated over the subsequent trial of Rosen in Los Angeles, made ethically questionable statements to the jury, prior to the commencement of the trial, stating unequivocally that Hillary Clinton was not involved in any direct way whatsoever in the illegal fundraiser...

On Fox News in 2005, Doug Schoen, a former Clinton adviser, said that, "The prosecutors and defense attorneys said she is not involved... Prosecutors made the decision that Mr. Rosen should be tried, it's a fact-based case. It has nothing to do with Senator Clinton."

The video appears to directly counter these assertions and instead links Hillary and her aide to the planning of the fundraiser.

"Hillary Clinton is not a part of this case"


A background video from the "United States Justice Foundation" explains that "...In a series of events to benefit Hillary Clinton's campaign... Peter Paul spent approximately $1.6 million... That money has never been declared by the Hillary for Senate campaign."


Gateway Pundit explains that "in this video, David Schippers, Chief [Counsel,] Clinton Impeachment, explains what Hillary's lawyers said (6:20 mark)":

...The prosecutor if you recall made the statement that Hillary Clinton is not a part of this case, she has no connection with it in any manner whatsoever, you will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any manner whatsoever [with the fundraiser]... that just wasn't true...

Indeed, the video appears to confirm that Hillary was intimately aware of all aspects of Paul's fundraising activities.

The Fundraiser


The "smoking gun" video was submitted June 21st, 2007 as evidence to a California appeals court in a civil fraud suit against Hillary and Bill Clinton. The USJF relates that "the tape indicates Clinton – despite denials throughout six years of investigation – was directly involved with business mogul Peter Franklin Paul in producing a lavish Hollywood fundraiser in August 2000 that eventually cost Paul nearly $2 million."

Earlier this week, CNS reported that:

The Federal Elections Commission already ruled that Clinton's 2000 campaign committee underreported cash it received at the fundraising event Paul sponsored. The FEC slapped the campaign committee with a $35,000 fine.

The fallout from Paul's Hollywood fundraising event also led to the federal indictment of David Rosen, the senator's campaign finance director, who was acquitted on charges of lying to the FEC... Paul alleges this tape proves Clinton and her campaign were not truthful to either the FEC or the grand jury investigation that led to Rosen's indictment.

In fact, if Clinton participated in the planning of the fundraising event, it:

...would make Paul's substantial contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than her joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years...

In the tape, Clinton is heard via speakerphone thanking Paul, business partner Stan Lee and other colleagues for their efforts in putting together the fundraiser... She also describes the role of longtime aide Kelly Craighead as assisting in day-to-day involvement in preparation for the event as her liaison with Paul and his producers... Craighead, Clinton says, "talks all the time" with Paul, "so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need."

The aide's hands-on role is significant, because the law also implicates a candidate if any of his or her agents are involved in coordinating expenditures with a donor... In another portion of the tape, Clinton is heard discussing her direct solicitation of a large contribution from the entertainer Cher. Paul's legal team, the U.S. Justice Foundation, argues the value of Cher's performance alone vastly exceeded the FEC limits...

The "Hillary Clinton Felony Video"


The video itself is fascinating. The preface to the tape states that it "shows Hillary Clinton in the process of committing at least four or five felonies under federal election law":


On YouTube, the video is captioned: "The first ever video of a Presidential candidate caught in the act of committing two felony violations of the Federal Election Law, (www.hillcap.org) and proving her felony obstruction of three federal investigations and a criminal trial of her finance director, was filed in Paul [vs.] Clinton [et. al.] for judicial review in a California Appellate Brief on June 21, 2007, by US Justice Foundation lawyers."

In the video Hillary (or someone who sounds exactly like her) is heard exclaiming:

"...What ever it is you're doing, is it okay that I thank you?"

"...I'm very appreciative... it sounds fabulous, I got a full report from Kelly... uh... today, when she got back, and told me everything that... uh... you're doing and it just sounds like it's gonna be a great event..."

So why has the video only recently come to light?


In Paul's Motion to admit documentary evidence in Paul vs. Clinton case, the recent release of the video is explained.

As described in detail in the accompanying declarations of Peter Paul and D. Colette Wilson, the five-minute videoclip contained on the July 17 DVD just came into Paul’s hands two months ago. Although Paul participated in and personally filmed the telephone conversation captured by this videoclip, Paul has not had possession of the original or any copy of the VHS tape containing it since December 2000. That VHS tape, along with 81 other original videotapes Paul filmed during and prior to 2000, has been in the possession of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a search warrant served on Stan Lee Media, Inc. After years of trying to obtain copies of these videotapes, Paul was finally able to get the necessary authorization on April 11, 2007. This motion is therefore the earliest Paul could have presented this evidence to any court...

And just why was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York sitting on evidence that could corroborate Hillary's involvement in Paul's fundraising? That's another interesting question. As the motion suggests:

[The video] evinces seven key facts, all showing conclusively that [Hillary Rodham Clinton or] HRC was directly and personally involved in soliciting Paul’s contributions and coordinating his expenditures for the concert portion of the Tribute, which was that portion of the event designed to generate federal (“hard”-money) contributions for her campaign.

* First, the July 17 DVD records a candidate (HRC) talking directly with a donor (Paul) on the subject of preparations being made for a large campaign fundraiser.
* Second, HRC includes herself as among those who are working on organizing the Tribute.
* Third, HRC admits to having intimate knowledge about what Paul and Tonken are doing for her, based on reports being made to her by Kelly Craighead, HRC’s senior staff official (4CT790:9).
* Fourth, HRC implies that because Kelly, her highest staff member, has been and will continue to be involved with the organization of this event, she herself will continuously be keeping tabs on the preparations.
* Fifth, HRC promises to make herself available to assist them.
* Sixth, HRC admits that she “closed the sale” in calling and convincing Cher to perform at the event, after Tonken had apparently paved the way. Obtaining a commitment from a big name like Cher had a direct bearing on potential guests’ willingness to pay $1,000 to attend HRC’s private concert, especially given the short notice for such a major event.
* Seventh, HRC effusively thanks all three -- Paul, Stan Lee and Tonken -- and encourages them to keep up their efforts. This constituted both an acceptance of Paul’s contributions thus far and a solicitation for Paul’s future expenditures.

A letter from Bill


The Peter Paul vs. the Clintons Blog describes this letter from Bill Clinton:

On August 18, 2000, the same day that Hillary sends a special thank you to Paul, Bill sends a handwritten letter thanking Paul for the "boost" the "wonderful event gave Hillary's campaign". This note was intended to induce Paul not to dispute the false statements made by Hillary's campaign to the Washington Post on August 14 and August 16 regarding Paul's role with Hillary's Senate campaign.

This new evidence is summarized concisely by Gateway Pundit:

"Hillary Clinton has denied that she worked on this fundraiser with Paul. She has acted like she barely knows Peter Paul. The video released yesterday clearly shows the truth. It does not look good for Hillary."

Others covering Hillarygate:
AHC, Blogmeister USA, Chicago Ray, Hillary Project, New Media Journal, Indian Pad, Peter Paul, POE.com, Power Line Forums, Wake Up America, Right Wing Champ, WNY Media, WND, Yid with Lid

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Hillary Clinton's Anti-Innovation Debacle

 
Did you know that Hillary Clinton has introduced her "Innovation Agenda"? In truth, she should call it her Tubby, Bloated Government Bureaucracy Agenda, because that's truly what it is. I encourage you to read her position paper because I'm not making this stuff up.

* Establish a $50 billion "strategic energy fund" to devise ways to make the United States energy independent and reduce the threat of global warming.

Well, you know, there really aren't enough free-market incentives for better and cheaper energy sources. So Hillary intends to create a governmental bureaucracy that will invent our way to energy indpendence since the free-market isn't suitably efficient. I'd call it a boondoggle and a scam, but that understates its potential for abuse. And don't even get me going on global warming. I'd just encourage you to read about the UN, the IPCC and the blatant conflicts-of-interest associated with "anthropogenic climate change".

* Increase the basic research budgets 50 percent over 10 years at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Defense Department, with more focus on the physical sciences and engineering, high-risk research, and E-science initiatives that link Internet-based tools, global collaboration, supercomputers, high-speed networks, and software for simulation and visualization.

That sounds inexpensive. And we're not just talking science, we're talking e-Science™! All we need to do is increase budgets by 50% (don't ask how that figure was arrived at) and we'll get Internet-based global collaboration supercomputers talking with each other over high-speed networks to simulate and visualize e-Science! Damn it, why didn't I think of that? And it might even be less than the $50 billion energy fund!

* Direct the federal agencies to award prizes in order to accomplish specific innovation goals.

Can I win a prize for my super-hybrid, fuel-efficient corn-mobile? It gets five miles to the cob, so I think I deserve a prize! I haven't found a company that's keen on the idea, but a federal agency would be a great choice to fund my innovative corn-car!

* Triple the number of NSF fellowships to 3,000 a year and increase the size of each award by 33 percent to $40,000 a year.

This sounds like a cheap option: it's only $20,000,000 of your money. Just don't ask how Hillary arrived at these numbers; suffice it to say that it's a lot less expensive than her first choice.

* Provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas.

Tax incentives for the phone companies? Now that sounds like a good idea! Of course, some sources assert that the telcos already gamed taxpayers and never built the high-speed networks they had promised in underserved areas. Of Bruce Kushnick's book, "The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal," attorney Harold Feld wrote:

...[it] meticulously documents how the incumbent telcos have used the promise of broadband to win subsidies and regulatory goodies. The pattern Bruce describes is a fairly straightforward one. Bell companies go to [name state] legislature and promise to provide fiber networks (which will bring high-speed internet access, video services, jobs, education etc. to [name state]. All the telco asks in exchange is deregulation of prices, deregulation of competitive obligations (such as opening the network to rivals), and subsidies or tax incentives to reach the areas where it is not profitable to deploy. Then take the goodies, make some high profile efforts to deploy, then quietly forget about it while enjoying deregulated monopoly and tax subsidies. Don't worry, state legislators and the public will forget about it as well, and will accept the current state of the universe as the best possible world that can be achieved.

While apparently lifted from today's headlines, Kushnick traces this kind of behavior back to the early 1990s. His book asserts that this behavior has cost the U.S. tax payers over $200 Billion, at a minimum over the last ten years. Lest one ask “how could the Bells ever get away with such a thing?!?!” I will observe that what Kushnick documents are no secrets. Rather, like the purlioned letter, each broken promise, terminated project, absorbed tax incentive, and regulatory bonus happened in plain sight...

Kushnick estimates that the Bell companies overcharged north of $200 billion from 1992-2004 for these networks, including various financial perks. On average, Kushnick believes that each American household has already paid $2000 apiece for various network buildouts.

Thanks, telco lobbyists!

* * * * * * * * *

And what will pay for all of these government programs? Taxes. You and I will, once again, feed the mouths of thousands more bureaucrats and lobbyists.

Hillary's solution is taxes and government. Big government with a capital B. More bureaucracies. More grift. More waste.

And are you one of those poor souls who believes Hillary can duplicate Bill's go-go economy? Unless Tim Berners-Lee invents another world-wide web and Mr. Peabody dials us back to Y2K on the time machine, you'd be wise to think again.

I have two words for Hillary's anti-innovation, mega-taxation agenda: Economic. Disaster.