Keepin’ It Real

December 27, 2007

Hillary! says oil prices will drop when she is inaugurated

Filed under: Hillary! — mary @ 1:23 am

Here is an interesting campaign promise made by Hillary! as reported by Michael McAuliff
in the New York Daily News:

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Hillary Clinton predicted Saturday that just electing her President will cut the price of oil.

When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America’s incentive to develop alternative energy.

“I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil,” Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. “They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/23/2007-12-23_elect_me_and_oil_prices_instantly_drop_s-1.html

What in the world does she mean by “Americans and our political process will recede? It is an utterly nonsensical statement.

And, does she think by making some feel-good inaugural address, she will scare the oil producers into lowering prices? Does she think that outlining her plan for energy independence will immediately lower demand and increase supply? If this were the case, wouldn’t Congress’ passage of higher CAFE standards for US automakers this week have automatically lowered oil prices? It didn’t happen:

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Crude oil traded near a one-month high in New York on speculation U.S. inventories declined for a fifth week and after Turkish planes bombed suspected Kurdish bases in northern Iraq.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a_nvB8Z6j2RQ&refer=energy

Merely announcing some grand plan does not affect the market, unless Hillary! will be announcing immediate mandated curbs on Americans’ oil usage (perhaps this is how Americans will recede – back to horses an buggies and fireplaces for warmth).

Making such ridiculous promises as to what the market will do when she is elected shows that Hillary! is not ready for Prime Time. Just telling America that you are ready to be President does not make it a reality.

Advertisements

October 19, 2007

Hillary Clinton renames same old “crisis”

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics — mary @ 12:36 pm

Do you fondly remember the gloom and doom days when most of us were “one paycheck away from homelessness” because of the policies of the evil Republicans? Hillary has taken that same old tired retread and revamped it calling the economy a “trapdoor” thanks to the evil George Bush:

In a new ad to run in Iowa, Hillary Clinton states:

“The Bush economy is like a trapdoor. Too many families are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment one medical diagnosis away from falling through and losing everything,”

The ad continues:

“If you’re ready for change, she’s ready to lead,”

It doesn’t seem that Mrs. Clinton can lead a movement for change when she can’t even find a fresh and new crisis to exploit.

And P.S. Mrs. Clinton, a chicken in every pot has already been done too. Have your aides google Herbert Hoover.

May 29, 2007

Queen Hillary’s Theme Song

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics — mary @ 5:23 pm

Since it is all the rage on the internet these days to pick Hillary’s! Theme Song, I have, after much thought, chosen my selection, which is perfect for this woman and her First Husband candidate:

Another revelation today in the saga of the Clinton’s endless money hustle via NewsMax.com:

The New York Times is offering new details regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton’s links to a businessman facing allegations that his public company not only aids scam artists who target the elderly, but has showered money on the Clintons with little to show for it.

(snip)

This weekend the New York Times reported in a page one story that the company and its chairman, Vinod Gupta, have been hit with a lawsuit from shareholders who maintain that Gupta wasted the firm’s money trying “to ingratiate himself” with high-profile persons.

The paper stated these persons included Bill and Hillary Clinton

Among the expenses cited in the lawsuit – filed in Delaware late last year – is a family vacation the Clintons took in January 2002 in Acapulco, Mexico, with infoUSA paying $146,866 to fly the Clintons, Gupta and others to Mexico and back on a private jet.

Over the next four years, Nebraska-based infoUSA spent nearly $900,000 to fly Bill Clinton around the world for his presidential foundation work and to fly Hillary to campaign events, according to the lawsuit reported by the Times.

(snip)

After Bill Clinton left the White House, he agreed to enter into consulting arrangements with billionaire investor Ronald Burkle and with Gupta.

The lawsuit asserts that Clinton signed the consulting agreement with Gupta’s company in April 2002 “to provide confidential advice and counsel to the chairman and C.E.O. of the company for the purpose of strategic growth and business development.”

InfoUSA paid Clinton $2.1 from July 2003 to April 2005, and in October reached a new 3-year agreement to pay him $1.2 million.

The new deal also gave him an option to buy 100,000 shares of infoUSA stock, with no expiration date.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/29/123355.shtml?s=lh

Such an interesting article to read today as Mrs. Clinton announced her new socialist agenda at a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

(AP) Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/ap/politics/main2864062.shtml

One does love being lectured by the queen of special privilege. She and her husband make money hand over fist, millions of dollars, by virtue of the fact that they are or have been public officials: special privileges for a special class. She then has the nerve to talk about the gap between rich and poor. It’s not the gap between herself and the poor she bemoans and wants to abolish. No, she just wants to tax the rest of us hard working losers. We don’t deserve the fruits of our labors, honestly earned. Tax it. We have a “shared responsibility” to support the government as it takes over preschools and health care.

I, frankly, am FED UP with the hypocrisy of the ruling elites. Once you, queen of special privilege, drive yourself places, filling your own tank with $60 of your hard-earned cash, 25% of the price constituting TAXES, pay for your own airfare, which is also TAXED, and your own vacations (which my family cannot take because we have to pay our TAXES), pay for your own groceries, which continue to cost more because of silly politician-mandated biofuels increasing corn prices (which effects the price of everything), find your husband jobs based upon his abilities, not upon your status, then I’ll listen to your talk about bridging gaps. Enough already, you hypocrite.

May 14, 2007

Hillary’s taste in “fiction”

Filed under: Hillary! — mary @ 11:04 am

In an AP article by Ann Sanner entitled “Presidential Candidates’ Fictional Taste” the presidential candidates were asked the following question: “What is the last work of fiction you have read?”

Hillary Clinton answered: “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-personal-side-books,1,7228929.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Pretty laughable since this book is a historical work highlighting Abraham Lincoln’s ability to develop a strong wartime cabinet out of the ideological factions of the newly-formed Republican party. (It’s a really good book – I just finished it a couple of days ago).

Fiction, Hillary? It is complimentary of our first Republican president and his political genius. It also discusses his refusal to be pressured by the “peace at any cost” political party during his prosecution of the Civil War. (The northern Democrats advocated letting the South continue with slavery as long as the war could end immediately. Some things never change) . Perhaps that’s why she labels it fiction.

The best answer of the round goes to Colorado’s own Tom Tancredo who names the last work of fiction he read as Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. I’m surprised the AP wasn’t outraged!

May 3, 2007

Hillary Chavez Speak

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics — mary @ 4:27 pm

It seems that Hillary Clinton and Hugo Chavez speak the same language.

According to the AP, on Thursday Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez made the following statement:

“Private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost,” Chavez said. “If banks don’t agree with this, it’s better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me, that we nationalize them and get all the banks to work for the development of the country and not to speculate and produce huge profits.”

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/03/international/i123053D76.DTL

Doesn’t this sound exactly like a speech given by Hillary Clinton to the DNC Winter Conference in February?

“The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

At last week’s Democratic debate, Mrs. Clinton was asked about what she thought about hedge funds. The exchange was described by Jonathan Hoenig in an article in Smartmoney.com:

When asked about hedge funds, whose goal is making money, Clinton also passes on the chance to offer a full-throated endorsement of capitalism. Indeed, as the case with most politicians, every mention of business is coupled with an altruistic call to “give back,” reign in the financiers, or, in the case of Clinton, “set the rules.”

“I also represent a big state where there are a lot of poor people and people who have no access to health care,” she says. “They don’t have access to affordable college. They’re worried about their futures. So what we’ve got to do here is get back to having a Democratic president who will set the rules.”

http://www.smartmoney.com/tradecraft/index.cfm?story=20070430&pgnum=2

This sounds eerily familiar to backers of Hugo Chavez and his authorization to “rule by decree” earlier this year. In an article in the Guardian (UK), the measure was justified by a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly:

Cilia Flores, president of the National Assembly, said the powers “will benefit the people, those who were excluded their whole lives. They are laws for inclusion and social justice.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2003263,00.html

This sounds like the same language coming out of Mrs. Clinton’s speech to the California Democrats in San Diego last weekend:

Sympathizing with the poor and middle class, Clinton said many Americans simply “have become invisible” to Bush.

“They’re working as hard as they can and they’ve not made progress,” she said. “Wages have stayed stagnant, while CEO pay has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, the stock market sure has gone up.

“Health care costs, energy costs, tuition costs, all have gone up. It’s as though their president just looks right through them, these hard-working, middle-class families.”

The working poor, “soldiers at Walter Reed … the 90,000 victims of Katrina still living in trailers are all invisible,” she nearly shouted.

“Well … you’re not invisible to us. You’re not invisible to the Democratic Party and you will not be invisible to the next president of the United States.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070428-1254-bn28clinton.html

Words have meaning and these words by Mrs. Clinton sound to me like she really wants to be a socialist dictator. Are we ready to become the next Venezuela?

April 27, 2007

Hillary: America is ready for a multilingual president (huh?)

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics — mary @ 1:03 pm

Didn’t someone once claim Hillary! was the “smartest woman in America”?

Since when did a fake Southern accent become multilingual?

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) – Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.
“I think America is ready for a multilingual president,” Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.
The New York senator—who said she’s been thinking about critics who’ve suggested that she tried to put on a fake Southern accent in Selma, Ala.—noted that she’s split her life between Arkansas, Illinois and the East Coast.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OP3PA00&show_article=1

I truly am speechless.

April 26, 2007

Hillary: Hawkish on Iran, but Why Believe Her?

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics,War in Iraq — mary @ 9:38 am

According to today’s Jerualem Post:

Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that it might be necessary for America to confront Iran militarily, addressing that possibility more directly than any of the other presidential candidates who spoke this week to the National Jewish Democratic Council.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177514487245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

One has to wonder whether Mrs. Clinton is simply pandering to her audience.

Or, does she really think that as President she will possibly invade Iran? And, if she does send troops into Iran, will she immediately pull out if the going gets rough (and Code Pink screams loud enough), leaving a further destabilized region?

After all, isn’t that exactly what she has done in Iraq? In her Senate speech explaining her vote to authorize force in Iraq, Mrs. Clinton was resolute:

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

But, of course, in Mrs. Clinton’s mind, standing resolutely behind the troops will only last until some woman in a pink t-shirt starts complaining. Once the old gals with the bullhorns start appearing at her public appearances, it’s time to turn tail and run.

After all, in the case of Iraq, Mrs. Clinton changed from a position of resolution to defeatism once the criticism started.

In a Saturday, February 17, 2007 Reuters article:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year’s election.

Now it’s time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war,” the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-18T033144Z_01_N17363761_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-CLINTON.xml

What will a Clinton presidency mean to the armed forces? Would you be willing to risk your life for your country knowing full well that at some point your Commander in Chief will thrust you into a war but will not support you once the political winds start to shift?

April 25, 2007

Clinton Taps Mikulski (Irony Alert)

Filed under: Hillary! — mary @ 8:40 am

When reading this little blurb, I couldn’t help but chuckle at the subtle (and most likely unintentional) comparison:

Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday that Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., will be co-chair of Clinton’s presidential bid. Mikulski, who joins former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack on Clinton’s campaign, is the first woman Democrat in the Senate to be elected in her own right, not as a relative of a male politician.

http://www.examiner.com/a-691866~Clinton_taps_Mikulski_to_help_lead_presidential_campaign.html

Unfortunately, we can’t say the same thing about the woman running for president!

April 24, 2007

Hillary Likens Herself to Harriet Tubman!

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics — mary @ 11:21 am

According to the New York Daily News. Hillary Clinton had a fundraiser in New York last night, where she compared her fight for the White House with Harriet Tubman’s courageous and dangerous travels on the Underground Railroad to bring escaped slaves to freedom:

Hillary Clinton invoked Harriet Tubman at a mega-fund-raiser last night, telling young supporters she’d fight to “take back the White House” just as the escaped slave fought to free others.

The Democratic presidential hopeful brought out the whole family for the “low-dollar” event at the West Side’s Pier 94. But Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, left the limelight to the candidate, who found herself struggling with a faulty microphone.

“This reminds me of one of my favorite American heroines, Harriet Tubman,” the senator told 1,800 cheering supporters when her mike was restored.

“She made it to freedom after having been a slave and she got to New York and she could have been so happy . . . but she kept going back down South to bring other freed slaves to freedom.

“And she used to say, ‘No matter what happens, keep going,’ ” Hillary Clinton said. “So we’re going to keep going until we take back the White House!”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/04/24/2007-04-24_ill_fight_like_harriet_tubman_hil_tells_.html

I couldn’t confirm the particular quote that Mrs. Clinton used as coming from Harriet Tubman (and I am skeptical considering Mrs. Clinton for years claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary), but I did find several quotes by Harriet Tubman that are apropos:

I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other.

I would fight for my liberty so long as my strength lasted, and if the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me.

Lord, I’m going to hold steady on to You and You’ve got to see me through.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/harriet_tubman.html

These are the words of a truly brave woman. It is appalling that a woman who has always lived in the lap of luxury, never having truly risked her life or her comfort for anything, would cheapen Harriet Tubman’s memory by comparing Tubman’s brave and selfless actions to her own run for the presidency. This from a woman who doesn’t even have the courage to stand by her Iraq vote.

Bill Clinton, Roaming Ambassador to the World

Filed under: Hillary!,Politics — mary @ 10:32 am

More odd news from the Hillary Clinton campaign:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation’s tattered image abroad.

“I can’t think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?” the Democratic senator from New York asked a crowd jammed into a junior high school gymnasium. “He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/21/163641.shtml

When the Clintons backed up the moving van to the White House in January, 2001, taking many artifacts that belonged to the people of the United States, I thought that the Clinton’s plundering of the US Treasury had come to an end. Unfortunately, we see that, in fact, they still have plans to plunge their sticky fingers into our pockets once again.

One must admit that this is a brilliant way for Bill Clinton to fund his retirement travel on the backs of the hard-working taxpayers of this country.

I can see it: Bill and Hill (or do we say Hill and Bill once she has become supreme leader?) sitting at the breakfast table in the family quarters:

Bill: “Golly Hillary, this Washington winter has really gotten me down. I’m sure tired of being cold. I heard that Tahiti’s perception of the U.S. is really low right now. I think it’s time for me to go over there and shore it up. And I hear that someone on Grand Cayman said that America is mean. That island needs some attention too.”

Hillary: “I’ll phone Andrews AFB and have the luxury 757 at your disposal, Bill. The Travel Office will book you at the hotel on the beach. I will make sure that you are able to stay until you have a nice tan, er, until people like us again.”

And, wouldn’t it be a good thing to help reduce his carbon footprint if he coupled these friendly visits with a paid speech?

On February 27, 2007, the Washington Post reported:

Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Last year, one of his most lucrative since he left the presidency, Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit. He averaged almost a speech a day — 352 for the year — but only about 20 percent were for personal income. The others were given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS.

His paid speeches included $150,000 appearances before landlord groups, biotechnology firms and food distributors, as well as speeches in England, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia that together netted him more than $1.6 million. On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022202189_pf.html

I’m sure that countries such as England, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and Canada will need their support shored up over the next several years if Hillary becomes president!

Do you think he will receive an Ambassador’s salary? Do you think he will claim that it is non-taxable as it is actually earned on foreign soil?

Sit back and watch the plundering my friends….

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.