Author: themomteam

Despite the many scandals associated with the Bill Clinton presidency and the deep involvement of Hillary in most of them, she has decided she wants to be President. Whether ishe is qualified to be President or whether it would be good for the country to rehash these follies probably never entered her mind. Hillary Clinton wants to be President and what Hillary wants, she will rape, pillage and plunder to get.

Already, reports are that her “team” has tried savaging Barak Obama, her greatest challenger from within the Democratic party. Her slanderous comments about Barak are not surprising considering that she is known for her animosity toward anyone who gets in her way. And, Barak is in her way right now.

Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, she has no skills or even the stature to be the President of the United States.

Her administrative skills, for example, are nonexistent because she has never been a governor, CEO, or held any position where she had to manage large areas of business or people. Her past history is largely one of delegating the intricacies of a situation to underlings. In the Senate, she is known for jumping on the band wagon of other senators’ bills, if it is politically popular. She has never attempted to actually learn to do the job of President, but rather has spent her time polishing her image in the hopes that the image alone will carry her to the White House.

She has no military skills or deep knowledge of foreign affairs although she pretends that her time as first lady and her trips abroad have filled in the gaps. She has no business skills to run the economy because her degree was in law. If the past is any evidence of her social abilities, she is also lacking in this area.

Even her character is suspect. She lives by the adage of “carpe diem” and not by any moral compass. If she believes that a religious attitude will further her career, she will adapt one. If she needs to be seen as “one of us”, she will breakfast with “the people”. However, her past betrays her true self. When she was in the White House, many of the staff reported that she ignored anyone who was “beneath” her. She screamed and swore her way through her husband’s presidency in private while smiling and cooing in public.

So, why should anyone vote for her?

Democrats are desperate to win the White House and they believe that name recognition will win the day. Democrats do not want to choose the best candidate of their party or someone who will serve our country effectively. They want to choose a winner regardless of a possible disastrous result for our country.

Let’s hope that the Democrats in the street will recognize this woman as the snake in the Garden of Washington, slithering hither and yon in search of fools to do her bidding. But, be careful. She speaks with a forked tongue.

From The Providence Journal:
01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, January 9, 2007
By Karen Lee ZinerJournal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday filed a federal lawsuit against the state police, alleging racial profiling and violation of the constitutional rights of 14 Guatemalan nationals during a July traffic stop that led to their detention by immigration officials.

Aren’t police EXPECTED to detain ILLEGALS?

Rather than concentrating on the fact that illegals have been caught, the ACLU is once again focusing on the wrong issue. Illegal alien means someone who is acting in contravention of our laws. Most people, I would think, would applaud the police for apprehending anyone who is illegal.

The ACLU is a group of lawyers and lawyers are considered officers of the court. So how can a representative of the law ever countenance breaking the law?

The ACLU — Wrong Again!

Mr. Elder, like any other commentator, apparently receives hate mail. Although he is an American citizen and deserves the right to speak his mind, others demand he fall in line with the tenets of a perceived “black” philosphy.

Never mind that other brilliant people, some who happen to be black and some who happen to be white, agree with Mr. Elder’s opinions. Although I do not put myself into the category of “brilliant”, I agree with much of what Mr. Elder believes. I imagine that others who have risen to great heights essentially under their own steam, like Clarence Thomas and Condaleeza Rice, would also agree with Mr. Elder.

There are probably many ways to deal with hate mail, but Mr. Elder included a poem recently which describes why he ignores most hate mail and why he continues to write about and for conservative issues.

You have no enemies, you say?
Alas, my friend, the boast is poor;
He who has mingled in the frayOf duty, that the brave endure,
Must have made foes!
If you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You’ve never turned the wrong to right,You’ve been a coward in the fight.
– Charles MacKay (1814-1889)

Now, Hilary says that, if she had known back then what she knows now, she would not have voted to go to war in Iraq!

My, oh my. Isn’t that called Hindsight? And, who wouldn’t do things differently if the future could be known in advance? Think of all the lives we could have saved if we had only known what the enemies’ plans were — in advance! Think of all the financial coups we could have pulled off if we had known how the markets were moving — in advance! Think of all the politicans we could NOT have elected if we had known they would use issues for political expediency — in advance!

Hilary voted for the war because that is what the evidence, and the political winds, demanded — at that time. Now, she wants to sneak in and claim the political advantage of being “against” the war due to a change in public opinion. I guess that is why she is a politician — only they are allowed to talk out of both sides of their mouth. And, only Hilary would have the crust to make such stupid comments and have the media pretend that her comments are honest and not politically driven!

1 – A new set of ethics for the media so they learn to report the news, not make the news.

2 – A new privacy wall that prohibits anyone from accessing someone else’s personal medical, financial, or other information, without that person’s consent.
a. This includes the media and the “public’s right to know” group.
b. Privacy means private.

3 – A new Democratic party that attempts to truly be bipartisan, and that stops damaging the war against terrorism by politicizing every issue.

4 – A new Democratic presidential hopeful who will be both capable and honest at the same time and not just someone who “wants” to be President.
a. Are Hilary or Obama or Edwards or Kerry really the best we can do?

5 – A new attitude that encourages people to work together rather than approach people and issues with aggression.
a. Let’s suppress talk and tv shows which encourage hostility.
b. Let’s require the UN to follow ethical standards.
c. Let’s teach our children to compliment others rather than denigrate them.

6 – A new understanding that tolerance is meant to smooth relationships, not to be used as a crutch for those who “want”, but don’t want to work for those “wants”.

7 – To abolish the ACLU and its mindless litany that they are the only true arbiters of “right and wrong.”

8 — More thankfulness from countries who benefit from the United States’ generosity and less criticism of us. We are a country that tries very hard to help others. It is time for those “others” to recognize our efforts.

9 – Less taxes to equalize the “haves” and the “have-nots” because success should be earned, not dished out by politicians who use that largesse to expand their voting base.

10 – Much more tolerance for those of us who believe that Christ is the Saviour. Our beliefs should be respected just as we respect the beliefs of those who cherish Mohammed or Allah or any other Supreme Being.

Maybe if these wishes can be granted, the world will have a peaceful 2007.

Finally, Kofi Annan is saying his good-byes. For a man who headed the UN and was supposed to be the penultimate diplomat, his fame far exceeded both his reputation and his skills.

During his tenure, pain and misery mounted in many parts of the world, and yet the UN seemed incapable of helping. In fact, the UN was part of the problem. UN “peacekeepers” were responsible for raping young girls in Africa and for stealing the food that was supposed to help the starving. Where was Kofi when these criminal actions were brought to the world’s attention? Kofi refused to acknowledge the aggressive characteristics of many nations, instead preferring to chastise the United States. Where was he when Chavez called for the death of our President? He was often times arrogant in his manner and more often than not, wrong in his opinions. Why did he say that Iraquis were better off under Saddam when he knows the Iraquis were routinely brutalized by Saddam and his cronies?

Kofi Annan is, and always was, a man who had risen above his talents. Only those in the world who were benefiting from his ignorance and greed, continue to designate him as a great humanitarian!

The UN was to serve as a mediator to avoid conflict in the world and not to be the generator of more hatred. Kofi Annan was directly responsible for inciting much of the hatred that exists in the world today, especially the ill will toward the United States. Although he demanded more and more money from us, he was most comfortable insulting us and blaming us for all the tragedies of our time. The ultimate insult, of course, was his farewell speech wherein he tried to blame our President, and us by association, for the world’s ills.

Sorry, Kofi. Without the mantle of the UN, your braying will only curry the favor of those who would benefit from the downfall of the United States. Hopefully, you will have to live in the disastrous conditions you helped create through your foolishness or stupidity. The only ones who will miss you are your lackeys who profited from the US’s generosity rather than the intended recipients.

Your leaving, hopefully, will result in a UN that attempts to work together rather than to merely oppose the U.S. Your leaving is a joyous event for the world, whether they know it yet or not. So, good-bye, farewell, good riddance.

The only question left for you is, “What took you so long to leave?”

Drudge is reporting that a Muslim woman is suing a fitness center because her prayers were interrupted by another patron, albeit unintentionally, and the center did not “satisfy” her requirements in handling the situation. She claims that her “right to rites” was not enforced.

What in the world is going on? In a mad rush to be all things for all people, the politically correct crowd is trampling on the rights of the majority.

A business is operating to provide a profit for the owners, not as a public service. If the business is following accepted business practices, no individual patron should have the right to require the business to adjust their business practicies for their own ideosyncracies. Why should a business be required to meet every demand, secular or religious, of a patron to avoid the threat of a law suit? If this particular business does not fulfill the patron’s needs, let the patron go to another business!

The majority’s rights are being denied when the President of a major Michigan university proclaim that “they”, by which she means herself and the others of her ideology, will force affirmative action into the admission process whether the Michigan residents agree or not! Shouldn’t the majority of Michigan residents have the right to decide how their public university is admitting students?

Affirmative action might have helped integrate businesses and institutions earlier, but now, it is becoming a crutch for those who want to enforce their ideology on all of America. For example, my alma mater, UW-Madison, also believes they have the right to choose students using ethnicity, family income, and family “situations”, as qualities essential for admission rather than choosing the most talented students, based on academic performance. They also continue to support staff (Barrett) who, based on poor credentials and even poorer research, lambast our country, despite the outrage of many Wisconsinites.

America has provided countless opportunities for millions of people who seek a better life. Those who want to rewirte the ground rules of our country are really trying to create a country where a select few, mostly themselves, will be able to write the rules and choose all the players in the game of Life. Donna Shalala tried to characterize hate speech as grounds for dismissal from UW-Mad even though no one could agree on the exact parameters for hate speech. The Michigan president wants to force the university — and Michigan — to accept her beliefs regarding characteristics necessary for admission to Michigan. Muslim Imams want a private place in airports to pray. A Muslim woman is incensed that her prayers are interrupted in an essentially public place.

Daily, we are bombarded by demands for individual “rights” when these same rights actually infringe on the rights of the majority of us. Where will it all end?

The ultimate goal of all these politically correct groups is to establish a status quo which conforms to their ideology of “right”. In the process, Muslims’ rights for rites will be confirmed and the rights of other religious groups will be denied. Businesses will be forced to comply with outlandish requirements rather than to be efficient purveyors of services and goods. Universities will be shaped into liberal entities where only other liberals are accepted. Essentially, those who do not conform to the liberals’ concepts will be left outside many American institutions. Everyone will be homogeneous.

We have to guard the rights of the majority of Americans and not allow the “rites” of any individual to over-ride our country’s rule which is that the “majority rules”. Otherwise, the end result of political correctness will be the loss of rights for the majority. And, as we all begin to conform to the new “ideal”, Diversity will become an extinct concept.

Fox network was using this as the question of the day. The question should not be if there are people working against Christmas, but whether these people are working against Christians?

Why is it politically correct to have a Jewish or Islamic religious symbol in a school, but the Christians are limited to a tree?

Why should the Imams ask for, and probably receive, a special area in which to pray when everyone knows that if a Christian asked for such a favor, they would be laughed out of the airport.

Why, if the majority of Americans are Christians, is the ACLU working so hard to discourage every single tidbit of religion in today’s society?

Why is it okay for a minority to make fun of a different ethnic group, but the rest of us must watch every word and action so as not to offend someone else?

Why, why, why?

It is because there is a small minority who feel that they have the right to control every facet of life in America today, including our thoughts, words, actions and religious beliefs. Kinda’ sounds like Iran, doesn’t it?