It's pretty obvious the word "conservative" means something different to the editors at the London Telegraph than it does to me. As I read through the list, it was readily apparent that they recognize no distinction between real conservatives and neocons- and, as evidenced by their choice as the most influential "conservative" in the United States, they don't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative, either.
Their choice as the most influential conservative? Rudy Giuliani. That's right, a pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control liberal is the most influential American conservative.
The failure to distinguish notwithstanding, the ratings themselves are laughable. I don't like Bill O'Reilly, but having him at #82 and Glenn Beck at #18 is patently absurd. Ron Paul made the list at #96, with Chuck Norris checking in 25 spots ahead of the Congressman.
The liberal list is a little more feasible, but George Soros at 15 is insane. Through his MoveOn.org and other progressive/socialist organizations, Soros basically controls the Democratic Party. At least they put Ah-nold on this list- although I'm not sure why Lieberman is listed among the Conservatives.
For a good laugh, you can see both lists in full here.
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
The First Chinese President?
They called Bull Clinton the first "black" president, so I guess Hillary would be the first Chinese president.
The royal house of the Bush-Clinton dynasty is corrupt. If this were any other candidate, RICO proceedings would have commenced decades ago.
Also, in keeping with the celebrity tradition of combining names (Brangelina, Bennifer... those two examples will have to suffice, otherwise I'd hurl), Hillary and Bill Clinton will hereafter be known as "HillBilly."
______________________
An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.
By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 19, 2007
NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.
And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.
All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.
Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
The rest of the article can be read at the
Los Angeles Times.
The royal house of the Bush-Clinton dynasty is corrupt. If this were any other candidate, RICO proceedings would have commenced decades ago.
Also, in keeping with the celebrity tradition of combining names (Brangelina, Bennifer... those two examples will have to suffice, otherwise I'd hurl), Hillary and Bill Clinton will hereafter be known as "HillBilly."
______________________
An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.
By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 19, 2007
NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.
And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.
All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.
Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
The rest of the article can be read at the
Los Angeles Times.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Hillary's Marxist Roots are Showing
The supposed heir-apparent to the Bush/Clinton dynastic throne- aka Hillary Clinton- is letting her Marxist roots show in her latest proposal- to give every child born in America a $5,000 account, to be issued along with their birth certificate. This is just another glimpse into her thinking towards her ultimate goal- the redistribution of wealth in America.
This is wrong on so many levels, I'm not even sure where to begin attacking it. I'll start by the illegal alien implications. Since Mr(s) Clinton seems to favor allowing the unfettered flow of aliens across our "border" with Mexico, I assume that all of the anchor babies will be included in her program. As if the billions in Federal and State aid the invaders are receiving, now we're going to up the ante even further, and provide even more incentive for the invasion to continue.
The cost per year is prohibitive. Live birth numbers in America hover around 4,000,000 annually, and that trend will likely continue, if not increase. If every child born receives $5,000, that $20,000,000,000 per year. In just 5 years, that'll total $100 billion. Where is that money going to come from? Spending cuts? Please. Couple this program with her mandatory health care plan, and we're going to be at a trillion dollars before we know it, just for those 2 boondoggles. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts isn't going to provide enough revenue, and true to progressive form (and Neocon form, for that matter), the only answer will be to raise taxes.
Then there's one tiny detail that seems to mean nothing to the Bush/Clinton regime- there's no constitutional basis for it whatsoever. Not only is it horrible fiscal and social policy, in light of the Tenth Amendment, it's indefensible from a constitutional perspective. But that matters very little to progressives and neocons alike- they only care about our greatest document when it suits them and their agenda.
Hillary if trying to rekindle the theology of FDR and LBJ- government is god, and is our only means of salvation. In the case of their religion (the state is god), Marx was right- religion is the opiate of the masses. Judging from the latest Presidential Preference polls, half the voting public is under the influence.
Marxism is alive and well, and married to Bill Clinton.
This is wrong on so many levels, I'm not even sure where to begin attacking it. I'll start by the illegal alien implications. Since Mr(s) Clinton seems to favor allowing the unfettered flow of aliens across our "border" with Mexico, I assume that all of the anchor babies will be included in her program. As if the billions in Federal and State aid the invaders are receiving, now we're going to up the ante even further, and provide even more incentive for the invasion to continue.
The cost per year is prohibitive. Live birth numbers in America hover around 4,000,000 annually, and that trend will likely continue, if not increase. If every child born receives $5,000, that $20,000,000,000 per year. In just 5 years, that'll total $100 billion. Where is that money going to come from? Spending cuts? Please. Couple this program with her mandatory health care plan, and we're going to be at a trillion dollars before we know it, just for those 2 boondoggles. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts isn't going to provide enough revenue, and true to progressive form (and Neocon form, for that matter), the only answer will be to raise taxes.
Then there's one tiny detail that seems to mean nothing to the Bush/Clinton regime- there's no constitutional basis for it whatsoever. Not only is it horrible fiscal and social policy, in light of the Tenth Amendment, it's indefensible from a constitutional perspective. But that matters very little to progressives and neocons alike- they only care about our greatest document when it suits them and their agenda.
Hillary if trying to rekindle the theology of FDR and LBJ- government is god, and is our only means of salvation. In the case of their religion (the state is god), Marx was right- religion is the opiate of the masses. Judging from the latest Presidential Preference polls, half the voting public is under the influence.
Marxism is alive and well, and married to Bill Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
