Hillary Clinton’s S O T U

Discussion in 'United States' started by Flanders, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hillary Clinton today is the same person who arrived in town with only one mandate; control bimbo eruptions. In those days she cackled a lot when she wasn’t dealing with Bubba’s indiscretions or railing against right-wing conspirators. Nowadays, she frowns a lot, and you never hear her screech the communist mantra since she became secretary of state the way she screeched “We want our country back.”

    Then-Senator Clinton never told the rest of us who was holding her country captive, but she knew she had to get it back. Tea Partiers are being portrayed as extremists for wanting THEIR country back years after Clinton first accused unnamed thieves of stealing her country. At least Tea Partiers name the burglars.

    The heart of the matter

    Democrats are the people who say their policies unite the country when their entire ideology divides Americans along racial and ethnic lines, class warfare, and America’s sovereignty.

    Sad to say, most Americans do not think of this country’s sovereignty in terms of how it is dividing the country. More to the point, most Americans cannot see how Democrats are dividing the country with their betrayals. Clinton barely scratched the surface when she said this in February 2007:


    "When I'm president, I'm going to send a message to the world that America is back - we're not the arrogant power that we've been acting like for the last six years," Sen. Clinton said during her first campaign stop in the Sunshine State.​

    http://www.hillarygrassrootscampaign.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

    Those are not the words of a screeching Harpy proclaiming her patriotism while demanding that she and the poor downtrodden masses get their country back. Her words are the words of a dedicated Socialist/Communist letting the faithful around the world know that help is on the way. Her little homily told America that Socialists will take back “their country” and everybody else had better get used to it.

    Notice that when Clinton says something she sees as positive she couples it with a knock against the country. She says “. . . America is back . . .” then segues into Victoria’s pronoun as though she and America are one and the same. Using the royal “we” is nothing new to Senator Clinton. Now that she is on the prowl for the vice presidency she will get more editorial leeway from the press than she got throughout the years she has been a media darling.

    Clinton said it first, but Hussein ran with it in Tuesday’s State of the Union address:


    Obama: 'America is back'
    By BYRON TAU |
    1/24/12 10:10 PM EST

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-america-is-back-112187.html

    Flesch-Kincaid

    The Flesch-Kincaid readability test gives Hussein low marks for the SOTU address:


    "My Message is Simple": Obama's SOTU Written at 8th Grade Level for Third Straight Year
    By Eric Ostermeier on January 25, 2012

    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php

    It is lucky for Hussein there is no test for originality. I did not watch the SOTU address, but from what I read Hillary Clinton wrote most of it. Hell, her DNA is all over the thing. She can even accuse Hussein of plagiarism if she does not replace admitted plagiarizer Joe Biden on the ticket.

    Now that they have it back what are they going to do with it? Answer: Hand it to the United Nations. (Nobody can accuse Tea Partiers of that betrayal.)

    What are they hiding?

    Leading Democrats would not be so quick to defend against the charge of disloyalty if they had nothing to hide. In fact, Senator Clinton flipped out on the very subject of patriotism in April 2003:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NJxmpTMGhU0

    Did not Senator Clinton’s angry outburst call to mind an observation by Whittaker Chambers? "Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."

    Neither Clinton nor any leading Democrat can defend their loyalty in an honest debate on where they are trying to take the country. Indeed, they live in fear of their opponents bringing up loyalty and Democratic party support of communist regimes abroad and collectivist policies here at home. To hear them tell it leading Democrats are flag-waving patriots not traitorous Socialists/Communists.

    Just to be clear. Most rank and file Democrats are anti-communist along with conservatives. This is borne out by the fact that leading Democrats have to lie like hell to get elected; never daring to admit that their policies taken in the aggregate end in totalitarian communism.

    For all of the demagoguery one hears from Democrats their policies do not support their claims of loyalty, or even support their claim of the Right to debate and disagree. The following article in two parts covers Democrat opposition to a few of the very things they say they stand for.

    Think about Democrat claims of loyalty when you read Executive Order Empowering Interpol. Think about Clinton screeching her Right to debate and disagree when you read Monitoring Speech.


    January 25, 2012
    Are We Losing Our Constitutional Republic?
    By Janet Levy

    While pundits at opposite ends of the political spectrum seldom agree, many seem to have reached accord over recent Obama administration deviations from constitutional principles. The conclusion on both sides: the United States is moving precariously away from its origins as a constitutional republic and toward repressive government control of many aspects of life.

    These changes, sparked perhaps by 9/11, are nonetheless uncharacteristic of a free society. In a free state, access to information is unrestricted, freedom of speech by individuals and the press is upheld, dissent is lawful, and the opinions and attitudes of citizens toward government and law enforcement do not spur investigations. Further, surveillance and investigations are limited to planned or actual criminal activity, due process is honored, and unreasonable search and seizure by government agents is unacceptable absent probable cause.

    Yet, since Obama assumed the presidency in 2009, he has sought and/or instituted policies that consolidate power at the federal level, restrict the availability of information, extend the boundaries of protected speech, expand monitoring of American society and increase law enforcement's role. Just as policies that place limitations on government oversight advance the cause of freedom, the opposite is true: policies that expand the role of government stifle liberty and invite repression. A sampling of some proposed and/or established policies of the Obama administration indicates a troubling move toward a more restrictive, autocratic government.

    Executive Order Empowering Interpol

    On December 16, 2009, Obama officially altered President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425 (EO 12425) to give Interpol, the policing arm of the International Criminal Court (ICC), carte blanche to operate with impunity on American soil. This was in contravention of restrictions put in place by Reagan to hold the international police force accountable for its actions, not unlike American law enforcement agencies, and to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution as the highest form of law in the United States.

    Instead, Obama placed Interpol, whose past presidents have included members of the Nazi SS, beyond the reach of law enforcement, the FBI, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. By signing EO 12425, Obama made all Interpol property and assets immune from search, discovery, and confiscation, affording no recourse or protection for American citizens from Interpol abuse. Thus, with Interpol above the U.S. Constitution and American law enforcement authority, U.S. citizens on American soil could potentially be secretly arrested. At a time when Islamic terrorist detainees are entitled to due process, Americans arrested by Interpol could conceivably be denied access to documents sought during the discovery process.

    Curiously, the United States is not an ICC partner. In 2002, to safeguard U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq from politically manufactured "war crimes" charges and actions, President George W. Bush removed the U.S. signature to the 1998 Rome Treaty, which created the ICC, and overturned President Clinton's signing in 2000. Still, Interpol, serving as a liaison among its 190 member states, operates within the U.S. Department of Justice through the auspices of local police departments.
     
  2. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    PART TWO:

    DHS Report on "Right-Wing Extremism"


    In 2009, Obama's Department of Homeland Security issued the report "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Previously, the DHS focused on specific groups engaged in violent acts. This report, however, was not based on actions or incidents perpetrated by any groups; instead, it identified the "economic downturn" as a potential catalyst for future right-wing extremist action.

    Absent any actual evidence or statistics, the report cited the prospect of a "resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization." This assertion was based on the expression of dismay by conservative groups about the government's departure from traditional American values, the curtailment of Second-Amendment rights, and the loss of U.S. status as a global power, as well as conservative opposition to publicly funded abortions, equal status for homosexual marriages, citizenship and government assistance for illegal immigrants, and other issues.

    In light of recent activities by the radical left-wing Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, the focus of the DHS report seems ironically misplaced. The participation in OWS by radical Muslim groups, the Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and a collection of left-wing extremist organizations created a level of anarchy that led to violence, sexual assaults, pilfering, spread of disease, child abuse, and other dangerous and depraved behavior. The White House, Democratic politicians like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the unions, and Hollywood celebrities have all embraced this licentious movement while tarring and feathering the orderly, focused, and respectful TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party activists who operate within the confines of the law to lobby for lower taxes and smaller government. With the OWS movement record of close to 6,000 arrests, public defecations -- including on police cars and in banks -- the terrorizing of businesses and motorists, attacks on police, public masturbation, illegal drug use, the pimping of children as well as the use of children as human shields, and other depravities, the DHS effort seems like a politically motivated, misguided witch hunt.

    Access to Information

    In October, the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed revised FOIA rules to allow federal agencies to lie about the existence of documents to those seeking certain sensitive records. This revision, withdrawn due to public outcry, would have permitted government agencies to deviate from the current policy under which they must cite a relevant reason or exemption from releasing documents, thus providing an arguable legal basis for the denied party to pursue in court. Had the proposed FOIA revision gone through and the very existence of information been denied, the possibility of a lawsuit would have been removed as a potential avenue for obtaining the requested data.

    Former federal Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams exposes more about the radical agenda of the Obama Justice Department in his recent book Injustice. Adams writes that the DOJ logs clearly indicate a liberal bias in responses to FOIA requests. Right-leaning FOIA requestors receive no reply or endure lengthy wait times -- from four to six months -- while left-leaning FOIA requestors typically receive information within three days.

    Meanwhile, federal agencies, who work closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, have been sanitizing counterterrorism training programs for federal and local law enforcement to exclude references to Islamic terrorism and to marginalize and defame recognized experts on Islamic doctrine. All official materials that expose the truth about jihad have been censored in favor of generic information on "violent extremism." Telling the truth about Islamic ideology and accurately examining the contents of Islamic doctrine (even as explained by esteemed Muslim clerics) is now redefined as Islamophobic or hate speech. These revised programs hide the truth about jihad in Islam and liken an entrenched 1,400-year-old supremacist ideology to the battle against gangs and drugs.

    Further, the U.S. Army recently published a "cultural literacy" handbook for soldiers. This new publication whitewashes jihad, calling it the "communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack." Jihad is also explained as "an everyday spiritual and moral struggle to live a life submitted to G-d" or "the attempt to spread Islam by education and example." This shamefully irresponsible misrepresentation of Islamic doctrine condemns American soldiers serving in Muslim countries to ignorance with potentially deadly consequences. It represents yet another way the U.S. government under Obama is controlling information content and access.

    Monitoring Speech

    The Obama administration has given the Department of Homeland Security the power to monitor the social media activities and online networking platforms of journalists and to retain the data for up to five years. In other words, the federal government is setting a dangerous precedent with serious First Amendment implications by using taxpayer dollars in the surveillance of those who write news for the public. Any reporter from anchor to blogger can be scrutinized under the current regulations. Since 2010, the DHS has monitored popular websites, including news, social media, blogs, forums, and message boards. Two recently proposed bills -- the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Act -- could potentially give the DOJ broad new powers to police the internet.

    UNHRC - Istanbul Process

    Last month, the United States approved adoption of the U.N. Human Rights Commission (UNHRC)'s Resolution 16/18, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a confederacy of 57 Islamic states. The OIC has long endeavored to limit speech that defames religion, and Islam in particular. This resolution, initially proposed to stem alleged but virtually nonexistent discrimination of Muslims post-9/11, places limitations on critical speech, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Resolution 16/18 includes measures to criminalize "incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief" but doesn't specify who decides what constitutes "imminent violence" and whose violence is punishable. It also fails to address the persecution of Jews and Christians in Muslim countries and the prevention of the horrific Muslim killing sprees that followed the publication of the Mohammed cartoons and the Koran-burnings, both legally protected activities under the First Amendment.

    As part of his entreaty for the passage of the Resolution 16/18, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Muslim head of the OIC, issued a veiled threat implying that the failure to act against religious "hate speech" would result in acts of Islamic terrorism. It appears that the overriding purpose of the resolution is to limit and criminalize criticism of Islam. The resolution also would place the blame for terrorist attacks on its victims for their non-compliance with Islamic doctrine or sharia, which prohibits criticism of Islam under threat of death. The UNHRC resolution contains a measure to counter religious profiling which could hamper American law enforcement efforts to apprehend Islamic terrorists. It is indeed alarming that the Obama administration would entertain a policy that clearly places limits on free speech and imposes de facto sharia.

    In all the examples detailed above, Obama is signaling a significant departure from our founding constitutional principles. If this represents a slippery slope toward an increasingly authoritarian regime in America, only time will tell. But we would be wise to head the words of Thomas Jefferson, our nation's third president and the author of the Declaration of Independence: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Americans would be remiss to fail in vigilance and ignore these alarming trends.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/are_we_losing_our_constitutional_republic.html
     
  3. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is Hillary's arms getting larger?

    She is going to look like one of those Italian chefs in a few years. You know the type with the Popeye forarms.
     
  4. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To Clint Torres: With or without tattoos?
     
  5. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Without of course.

    But she is a cool potato when it comes to cooking up policies.
    She was a cool FLOTUS a decade ago.
     
  6. tuanprolib

    tuanprolib New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks after the GOP primary reality TV show giggle it was nice to see someone who takes it dead seriously. Now go take your meds.
     
  7. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,828
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is now 2015 and Hillary is looking forward to the White House. Good for her!
     
  8. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says, "Dat's right - if she got more votes, den she ought win the `lection...
    :grandma:
    Clinton being pushed to seek vote recount in 3 states
    November 24, 2016 — A group of election lawyers and data experts has asked Hillary Clinton's campaign to call for a recount of the vote totals in three battleground states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — to ensure that a cyberattack was not committed to manipulate the totals.
    See also:

    Clinton Popular Vote Edge Over Trump Tops 2 Million
    November 23, 2016 | WASHINGTON — Democrat Hillary Clinton has now amassed more than a 2-million popular vote lead over U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who won the White House by winning where it matters, in states with enough electoral votes to become the country's 45th chief executive.
     
  9. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More onna story...
    :grandma:
    A plot to topple Trump: Millions are hoping Electoral College can deny Trump the presidency
    Thursday 24th November, 2016 | WASHINGTON, U.S. - The Electoral College will meet on December 19 to cast their vote for president, and Hillary Clinton's supporters are hoping for a miracle.
    See also:

    Why is Donald Trump avoiding intelligence briefings on national security threats and challenges?
    Friday 25th November, 2016 - Officials at the White House and Pentagon are a worried lot.
     
  10. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,817
    Trophy Points:
    113
    can't happen, as if they could do this now, they could do it to ANY winner.... thus making the peoples vote not count at all
     

Share This Page