Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

Of Tapeworms, Liberals, and parasites in General

October 19, 2010

“The political success of liberalism is parasitic, feeding off order and prosperity that the implementation of liberal policies couldn’t possibly create. Bill Clinton’s recent bragging on the campaign trail about the budgets that he balanced in the 1990s is an illustration of this: Where did those budgets come from? Not from the policies of liberalism. Take away the significant reductions in defense spending that came from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War, the wealth from an entrepreneurial economy that an era of tax cuts generated, and the check on Democratic spending schemes from Newt Gingrich’s Congress, and those budgets would never have been balanced. In his first term, Clinton had every intention of busting the budget with HillaryCare, but he just couldn’t get away it. If Clinton is a ‘successful’ president, as pundits these days insist, that’s because his agenda failed where Obama’s succeeded. By passing ObamaCare and a raft of other bad bills, the Democrats have made it possible for voters to measure liberal rhetoric against the grim realities it produces. The parasite got fat enough to eat the conservative host whole, and now it is dying. … Liberalism normally enjoys the demagogic advantage of appealing to emotion over reason. But in moments of crisis, people want reason over emotion.” –columnist George Neumayr

SOURCE

Obama re-treads Clinton choices for Administration

January 18, 2009

As the inauguration of Barack Obama approaches, the men and women he has nominated are starting to face questions in their Senate confirmation hearings. In a number of cases, this includes some high-profile appointees who will have a significant impact on the Obama administration’s policies on firearms rights.

Chief among these is Attorney General designate Eric Holder, who has a long history of opposition to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. There are already significant concerns about Holder’s nomination. “I have many serious questions about Mr. Holder’s nomination,” said Senator David Vitter (R-La.). “At the top of the list are his anti-Second Amendment right positions. He’s clearly advocated near universal licensing and registration, and he joined and filed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court case arguing that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That’s deeply disturbing.”

NRA has also opposed Holder’s confirmation, and strongly believes he will actively work to restrict gun owners’ rights. (See the letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox here.)

The more things change, the more they stay the same: Poly Sci 101

November 23, 2008

Change! That was the mantra of the Obamasia was it not? Well, so far it appears that we will be having a rerun of the Clinton years. Are we really wanting to see things going on like that again? I mean, after all is said and done can we truly be proud of the things that went on with the “Crew.” From one thing after another it was a very bad time for America. So much change that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State?

What follows is from last Fridays Patriot Post, enjoy.

As the Obama administration begins to take shape, “change” has become little more than a bag of recyclables from the Clinton years. On a near-daily basis, it seems, Barack Obama has stocked his shelves with Clinton retreads or other longtime Swamp-dwellers. The next attorney general, for one, will be Eric Holder, Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general from 1997-2001. Holder was instrumental in returning young Elian Gonzales to Communist Cuba at gunpoint, and in processing that rogue’s gallery of Clinton pardons in January 2001. Nothing like the smell of change…

The post that everyone is talking about, however, is that of secretary of state. Swamp gossip points to Hillary Clinton as the prime candidate, but despite some wishful thinking, it is not a done deal. History has proven that the best secretary of state is the one who acts as the mouthpiece of the president. Think Henry Kissinger or James Baker III. Those who do not promote the president’s ideological stance tend to be failures, pushing America’s foreign policy off the rails. Think Colin Powell. With that in mind, it’s hard to picture Hillary Clinton as the person charged with acting as the international mouthpiece of President Obama.

On the campaign trail, these two held strongly opposing views on American foreign policy. It could be said that Obama wants Clinton on board precisely because she can make up for his own inadequacies in foreign policy. If that is the case, then what does one do about the elephant in the room — i.e., Bill? As we all know, he has made a cottage industry of the ex-presidency, raking in millions of dollars from overseas speeches, consulting and philanthropy. As a private citizen, he’s of course allowed to keep many of his dealings secret, but how many of those secret deals will run into direct conflict with the interests of the United States if his wife is secretary of state? Clintonistas say this is not an issue, which means it’s a huge issue.

Furthermore, Hillary still has a future to consider. She has made a name for herself in the Senate, and another run for the White House isn’t out of the question. However, if she is tied to Obama’s administration and it falters, then she is likely to absorb a share of the blame. Perhaps the best advice came from former UN ambassador John Bolton: “Obama should remember the rule that you should never hire somebody you can’t fire.”

Meanwhile, what happened to John Kerry, who was openly vying the secretary of state post? He was recently named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — ironically, the very committee to which he testified in 1971 that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were committing war crimes. According to Kerry, our military personnel in Vietnam “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to … the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.” Kerry then added, “There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.” So now we have a confessed war criminal in charge of the Foreign Relations Committee. That’s a change, all right.

The cost of being humanitarian?

May 17, 2008

Interesting how one of the top issues that confront the people of America has been swept under the table by all three presidential candidates. National sovereignty just is not on the table. Not a one of them thinks that there is anything wrong at all with being over run by people that take advantage of our generosity while breaking our laws. That innate kindness toward the downtrodden could very well be the catalyst that leads to an actual civil war here in these United States. Not all that surprisingly, Americans of Mexican decent that I grew up with are among the most outspoken of our brethren on the subject. One, a green eyed red haired Latina has been quite specific: “My father was a Marine, my brothers have all been Marines, Camp Pendleton is built on what was our family ranch since before California was a state. Now these people are coming here and destroying our way of life. They commit crimes against us, and then run back across the border where nothing is done to them. Tell you what? Out here in Fallbrook, we are gunning up, and pretty soon, we are just going to start shooting. Enough is enough.” *note; Her families land was the part of Camp Pendleton near Temecula, and what is the Navel Weapons Station.

Illegal immigration is still a serious problem whether the major candidates recognize it or not. Racist separatist groups such as La Raza are intent on overthrowing the United States, at least the western portion, and even into the southern regions of Canada in some places. How will they do it? As much as many would love for them to try a direct assault, which would doom them to oblivion, they will, and are using fifth column methodology’s, including using our strength (kindness) against ourselves. One method? Read below…

Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly
famous institution and for a variety of reasons:

1. John F. Kennedy died there in
1963.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly
after.
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few
years later..by coincidence.

‘On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second
busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving
each year. (That’s almost 44 per day—every day)

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave
birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal
immigrants. That’s 11,200 anchor babies
born every year just in Dallas .

According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7
million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8
million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas
County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5
million.

The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is
25 years old, married and giving birth to her second
child.

She is also an illegal
immigrant.

By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care
based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That
doesn’t mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class
American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do. ‘ Parkland Memorial
Hospital has nine prenatal clinics’.

That’s right !!!!
NINE.

The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a
patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child—her previous
two were also born at Parkland . Her first two deliveries were free and the
Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost
$200 to have them in Mexico
This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the
delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it
matters, the hospital won’t turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking
at this point.)

‘How long has this been going on? What are the long-term
affects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at
Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally – now she is
having her own child there as well. (That’s right, she’s technically a US
citizen.)

These women receive free prenatal care including
medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get
freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and
formula.

Most of these things are available to American
citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape
involved is almost insurmountable.

Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do
not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification – no proof of income.
An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would
reveal their annual income – an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and
the hospital must take them at their word.

Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less
than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health
coverage at their current job. Yeah, the ‘free’ care is not so easy for
Americans.)

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for
un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free
treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital
is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How
stupid
is this?

As if that isn’t annoying enough,
the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff
not speaking Spanish . In this AP story, the author speaks with a
woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff
into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to
the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke
Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to
her.

In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff,
Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for
applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University
of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will
now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed
curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous
multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.

( Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation
particularly to our’employees’ in Congress.)

Remember that this is only ONE
hospital in Dallas , Texas There are many more hospitals across our
country that also have to deal with this.

If
you want to verify accuracy:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp


%d bloggers like this: