As Chinese authorities have clamped down on unrest in Tibet and jailed dissidents in advance of the 2008 Olympics, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a strong public stance, calling for restraint in Tibet and urging President Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies in Beijing.
But her recent stern comments on China's internal crackdown collide with former President Bill Clinton's fundraising relationship with a Chinese Internet company accused of collaborating with the mainland government's censorship of the Web. Last month, the firm, Alibaba Inc., carried a government-issued "most wanted" posting on its Yahoo China homepage, urging viewers to provide information on Tibetan activists suspected of stirring recent riots.
Alibaba, which took over Yahoo's China operation in 2005 as part of a billion-dollar deal with the U.S.-based search engine, arranged for the former president to speak to a conference of Internet executives in Hangzhou in September 2005. Instead of taking his standard speaking fees, which have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, Clinton accepted an unspecified private donation from Alibaba to his international charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.
The nation's free-market doctrine is ill-suited for today's global market, Sen. Hillary Clinton emphasized in an interview with USA Today.
The New York Democrat told the national daily that if elected president, she will aggressively use federal tax and regulatory policy to promote key sectors of the U.S. economy.
She proposed stripping tax benefits from sectors such as the oil industry and using government policies to boost industries such as automakers, wind turbine producers and steel companies, the paper said.
Clinton insisted, however, her policies would not be dramatically different than the country's traditional practice.
"We subsidize the oil companies. We think it's important that we give them our tax dollars so they can go out and explore and extract and produce oil. That's a clear decision right along the lines of an industrial policy," she said. "We subsidize all kinds of industries. We don't call it that. But we've made a decision we're going to subsidize them. I think that what we subsidized in the past is not what we should be subsidizing right now."
Leaving economic outcomes to the market, she argued, has resulted in stagnant incomes for the typical family and special treatment for the well-connected.
So wouldn’t asking money away from "the typical family" in the form of taxes and giving it to targeted business be considered "special treatment for the well-connected"? Yes it does, This lie is way bigger than her Bosnia fib.
And Barack Obama has also attacked America’s free market principle:
As WND reported, Sen. Barack Obama expressed skepticism about free-market values as he entered politics in 1995, disparaging the "right wing" American value of achieving prosperity through personal initiative as the "old individualistic bootstrap myth."
As Obama’s pastor let the Marxist cat out of the far-left bag, Hillary pushes the New World Order:
Clinton also said that if she becomes president, she will push for a more active government role in shaping the effect of globalization on the economy, including identifying key industries for protection.
And in South Dakota we have a Republican governor is not too far from the totalitarian policies that the two front runners for the Democratic nomination for president are.
Remember how unpopular Hillary Care was? Why would Hillary promote this:
Will Hillary Clinton as president tap into workers' wages to achieve her goal of health insurance for all Americans?
The possibility exists as the candidate was pressed on the matter during a television interview today.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program, the Democratic senator from New York said she might be willing to have wages garnisheed if people refuse to buy health insurance.
"I think universal health care is a core Democratic value and a moral principle, and I'm absolutely gonna do everything I can to achieve that," Clinton said. "I think there are a number of mechanisms" possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Host George Stephanapolous asked Clinton specifically about garnisheeing wages at least three times before she made the admission.
"What we've got to do is have shared responsibility. Everybody has to pay something, but obviously on a sliding scale," Clinton said. "I think you can automatically enroll people, and you will then say, 'You've got to be part of this.'"
"If you don't start with universal health care, if you don't say everybody's going to be in the system, we'll never get there," she added.
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford coverage but refuse to purchase it, increasing the financial pressure on hospitals. She indicated her plan "will be affordable for everyone" because she'd limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."
Within days of introducing a $50 billion plan to combat AIDS, Sen. Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation at one of the nation's most influential evangelical churches after addressing its "Global Summit on AIDS and the Church" today.
If the Democratic presidential frontrunner's aim was to make inroads into the heavily Republican evangelical electorate, her appearance at Saddleback Church with pastor and "The Purpose Driven Life" author Rick Warren apparently didn't hurt.
Only Democrats would think about using the authority of the IRS to threaten a church who hosted a sitting Senator and candidate for president. But note the "Global Summit" thing. Is it about spreading Christianity and abstinence? No, big government socialism:
In her speech, Clinton discussed her AIDS plan, which calls for at least $50 billion to provide universal access to treatment, prevention and care for global HIV and AIDS by 2013. It also includes $1 billion per year toward the goal of "stamping out malaria deaths in Africa altogether by the end of her second term."
The proposal would provide health insurance for all HIV patients in the U.S., and promote "evidence-based" prevention programs, which typically has meant condoms and needle-exchanges rather than encouraging abstinence.
Not exactly a Christian idea now is it. And I doubt Rick Warren ended with a sermon about false prophets.
Hollywood filmmakers normally inclined to support candidates such as Sen. Hillary Clinton are working quietly behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on a documentary alleging the New York Democrat committed felonies to get elected and assisted her husband in defrauding a major donor.
"The producers are essentially liberal Hollywood Democrats who fear exposure and retribution," said Jim Nesfield, director of the Equal Justice Foundation of America, which is sponsoring the hour-long film, "Hillary Uncensored."
Over the past two weeks, the trailer for the documentary became the No. 1-most viewed piece on Google's video site, even though it was unlisted. The 13-minute video was posted July 18 but only recently became exposed through blog references, and it now has more than 860,000 views.
The full film – debuting Friday at Harvard University – tells the star-studded story of business mogul Peter Franklin Paul's civil fraud suit against former President Clinton.
The documentary opens with scenes from the Aug. 12, 2000, gala, with Cher singing to an audience of the Democratic Party's top leaders and A-list entertainers such as Brad Pitt and John Travolta, who were there to salute President Clinton and contribute to Hillary Clinton's first Senate campaign.
Imagine that Sandy Berger was a Bush administration official. The Drive-By media would be pounding this thing to death:
Two years after agreeing to a polygraph in a plea deal, former National Security adviser Sandy Berger still has not taken the test, prompting 23 Republican Congress members to demand action by the Department of Justice.
The aim is to determine "what documents were stolen and how our national security was compromised," said the letter by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., to the acting attorney general.
Berger – who was placed on probation, fined $50,000 and stripped of his security clearance for three years after admitting he took classified documents from the National Archives – reportedly is advising Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, but the New York Democrat insists he has no official capacity.
The documents have never been recovered, Rohrabacher points out in the letter.
"Mr. Berger removed the documents by stuffing them down his pants and in his suit jacket, presumably with the intention of getting rid of any damning evidence showing his involvement in the failure of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to prevent Sept. 11 attacks prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission," Rohrabacher writes. "The Congress and the American people deserve to know the facts of this crime and what Mr. Berger was covering up."
In 2005, the former Clinton aide agreed, as part of the plea deal, to have the Department of Justice administer a polygraph test, but Rohrabacher notes "two years have passed and he has yet to fulfill his legal obligation."
At the time, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., and 17 other Republican House members called on then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Department of Justice to administer the test.
In January, a House committee led by Davis released a report concluding Berger went to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security and that the Department of Justice could not assure the 9/11 commission it received requested documents.
Davis, ranking Republican member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said his staff's investigation revealed Berger "compromised national security much more than originally disclosed."
"It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience," Davis said.
Last year, Berger plea bargained a criminal sentence on the charge of unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. A judge gave him no prison time, a $50,000 fine, 100 hours of community service and a ban from access to classified material for three years.
The document upon which Berger focused was the National Security Council's "Millennium After Action Review" on the Clinton administration's handling of the al-Qaida terror threats in December 1999. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the 9-11 commission about the millennium report, urging the panel to ask why the document's warnings and "blueprint" to thwart al-Qaida's plans to target the U.S. were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff.
Last week, USA Today asked Sen. Clinton whether she had any qualms about having Berger advise her campaign.
"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said.
The paper asked Clinton to clarify whether Berger was serving in an unofficial capacity.
"I have thousands of unofficial advisers," said Clinton, "and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401 (K) retirement accounts. The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.
Hugh Hewitt explains how Hillary sides with those who attack one of America’s military leaders, but says little when one of the leader of our enemy wants to visit Ground Zero:
Reports early on Thursday evening relayed that the fanatic who is the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had decided against visiting Ground Zero. Perhaps he lost faith in his ability to mesmerize what promised to be an energized crowd of New Yorkers unwilling to forgive and forget the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, the bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994, the supply to Hezbollah of the rockets and missiles used in last summer's indiscriminate attacks on civilians, or the killing and wounding of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq through the use of Iranian manufactured explosives and Iranian trained and directed terrorists.
New Yorkers may be liberals, but on terrorism and state sponsors of terror, on the threat Iran poses to the world and especially Israel, and on Ahmadinejad 's Holocaust denials and his genocide incitement, they are not MoveOn.org lefties --and they were not about to allow this fanatic to desecrate the site of the 9/11 attacks.
Question: Do you know why so many Americans are ready to give up a little bit more of their freedom and see a little bit less of their paycheck every week for a nationalized health care program?
Answer: Because most Americans have not yet experienced the horrors of socialized medicine first hand.
That's the only reason.
But, in this global village we keep hearing about, it is getting more difficult to hide the shortcomings of what will soon become known in this country as HillaryCare.
In England, for instance, it is not at all unusual for patients to be denied needed surgery because they refuse or are unable to quit smoking.
Get ready for this in the U.S. beginning in 2009 if Congress believes you voted for nationalized health care in the next election. This will be Hillary Clinton's No. 1 issue – and probably, after Iraq, the biggest issue for those running for Congress.
What's it going to be for you?
Do you want to live in a nanny-state where decisions about your welfare and your lifestyle are made by government bureaucrats?
Or do you want to preserve what's left of freedom in this country – maybe even expand it as our brave ancestors did?
Time is running out.
Right now, political inertia is pushing us closer and closer toward nationalized, socialized medicine in this country. It's not just Democrats supporting it anymore; Republicans are tripping over themselves to show how compassionate they are, too.
Since the New York Times has now stepped up to cover Hsu/Hillarygate, that should send a clue that it is OK for the Argus Leader to put it front and center:
Of all the possible vulnerabilities facing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton has long believed that the one of the biggest was money, friends and advisers say. Some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged.
As a result, Mrs. Clinton told aides this year to vet major donors carefully and help her avoid situations in which she might appear to be trading access for big money, advisers said. Also to be avoided, the senator said, were fund-raising tactics that might conjure up the Clinton White House coffees and the ties to relatively unknown donors offering large sums, like the Asian businessmen who sent checks to the Democratic National Committee.
Yet nine months into her campaign, Mrs. Clinton is grappling with exactly the situation she feared — giving up nearly $900,000 that had been donated or raised by Norman Hsu, a one-time fugitive and one of her top fund-raisers, whose actions raise serious questions about how well the campaign vetted its donors. As a result, Mrs. Clinton now finds herself linked to a convicted criminal who brought in tens of thousands of dollars from potentially tainted sources.
The Hsu case has revived ugly memories for voters about the Democratic fund-raising scandals when Bill Clinton was president, the senator’s campaign advisers acknowledge, a time when both Clintons were often photographed with people whose money later turned out to be dirty, including Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie. Mrs. Clinton is running on her White House experience in the 1990s, and any attention cast on past fund-raising controversies could threaten her image with voters.
Even some of her own major donors are aghast that, given the Clintons’ past problems with fund-raising, Mrs. Clinton’s vetting process did not uncover Mr. Hsu’s criminal history. Even though Mr. Hsu had previously donated to other politicians and charities without his past surfacing, these donors say, the Clinton operation had been widely considered one of the best-run in recent campaigns — until now.
"People have often said about the Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them," said one of Mrs. Clinton’s major fund-raisers. "The larger point in all of this is that the Clintons are the ultimate pragmatists in who they hang out with; if you can be useful to them, they will find a way to make it work."
Advisers say Mrs. Clinton is not so much furious about the scandal, as she is worried about containing the political damage.
Just like she could care less about Bill’s affair with Monic, instead only "worried about containing the political damage…thus the Right-wing conspiracy theory.