Hillary Upset Over Analogy Comparing Bin Laden to Hitler & Lenin

Hillary seems a bit confused these days. She is upset because of an “analogy” made by President Bush comparing Democrats to Hitler. Sorry Hillary, it is not an analogy to the Democrats, but rather a recall of history and posing a question of if we learned from History. The an analogy is the comparison of Osama Bin Laden to Hitler and Lenin in terms for his declaration of intent. Now if we are going to ignore the threat and wait until a high price is paid, then there is an additional analogy, but it was posed as a question not a statement of fact.

It seems Hillary is more concerned about politicizing the terrorist escapades of enemy than protecting our country. Hillary, listen and learn, there is an enemy knocking on our doorstep, they have invaded our country and they want to kill as many of us as possible. Now what are you going to do about it if you are elected President?

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sharply criticized President Bush Thursday for comparing Democrats opposed to his terrorist-surveillance program to those who ignored the rise of Hitler and Lenin.

“George Bush’s faulty and offensive historical analogies aren’t going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or bring our troops home,” the New York senator said Thursday in a statement. “Americans are tired of the president’s efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division.

Speaking before the Heritage Foundation Thursday, Bush criticized Congress for failing to act on intelligence legislation that is “vital to protect the American people in this war on terror,” and suggested Democrats are underestimating the terrorist threat.

“History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake,” Bush said. “In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia — and the world paid a terrible price.

“In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews — and the world paid a terrible price,” Bush continued. “Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen?”

In the same speech, Bush also linked Congressional Democrats to the liberal group MoveOn.org and the anti-war group Code Pink.

“When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,” Bush said, “and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

Dem On Dem Attacks – With Friends Like This Who Needs Republicans

Hillary’s camp crying over Democrat on Democrat attacks. During the latest Democratic Debate, Hillary avoided answering questions, with coaching from Bill she does a wonderful job at dodgeball, flip flopped on issues during the debate and made herself look like a complete asshat. Her opponents, dug in deep and would not back off. Now that the debate is over, she is answering those questions, the ones she could not answer while under fire. Hmmm… Imaging if there was a real crisis she had to respond to with limited time to make a decision. No Imagine if she were President of the United States and we were under attack from Terrorists, maybe terrorists flying planes into buildings. Now Imagine her response. Is this what you want to lead our country? I hope your answer is no.

Hillary, take a bit of advise, take a position on the various issues you are confronted with, support those positions and act upon them. The people will have more respect for you than if you whine about how the “boys” picked on you…

Hillary Clinton’s campaign made a new fundraising pitch on Thursday, looking to somehow capitalize on the flak she’s taking from her Democratic opponents over her performance at a debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia.

In a letter circulated by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign announced that the presidential race has “entered a new phase.”

“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary,” the letter said. It then asked readers for a campaign contribution.

The missive came as Clinton’s opponents continued to take shots at the frontrunner over her seeming double talk at the debate. Most of the criticism has come in response to Clinton’s confusing answer regarding her position on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a stance she has since tried to clarify. That issue is not necessarily a divisive topic for Democrats, but rather the response is indicative of what opponents say is Clinton’s fatal flaw.

The campaign for John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was especially critical Tuesday night, released a statement Thursday saying Clinton is engaging in the “politics of parsing.”

“All the distractions in the world won’t undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honesty and directly while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues,” the statement said. “We understand that the Clinton campaign isn’t happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling?”

Clinton has tried to clear the air of confusion, saying late Wednesday that she supports Spitzer’s plan.

Spitzer’s plan, which he has retooled in the face of heavy criticism, would grant identification on a three-tier basis, decreasing with the level of proper documentation. Undocumented, illegal immigrants would receive a license only to be used for driving, and be inscribed “not for federal purposes,” meaning it couldn’t be used to board flights or cross borders.

“Senator Clinton broadly supports measures like the ones being advocated by Governor Spitzer, but there are details that still need to be worked out,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Wednesday.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administrations failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he added.

During the debate Tuesday night, Clinton offered support for Spitzer, saying he was trying to “fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” and noted millions of illegal immigrants are in New York at any one time. They should be able to have identification if they’re in an auto accident, for instance, she said.

When all seven of the candidates were asked whether they agree that illegal aliens should have driver’s licenses, only Sen. Christopher Dodd said he disagreed. He then pressed Clinton on the issue and argued against the plan, saying: “A license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.”

Clinton responded: “Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do.”

Dodd then quickly interrupted Clinton before she could finish, seizing on the apparent discrepancy. Moderator Tim Russert then tried to elicit an answer on whether she supported the plan or not, but she avoided offering specific support for the plan.

Then Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, both attorneys like Clinton, took turns dicing her statement.

“Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago,” Edwards said.

“I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” Obama said.

Clinton’s apparent indecision also made fodder for Republicans on the campaign trail.

Speaking to reporters in Nashua, N.H., former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a page out of President Bush’s campaign playbook, playing on a phrase used against Democratic candidate John Kerry in 2004.

Hillary Clinton was for it, she was against it, and she wasn’t sure if she was for it or against it, in the space of one answer,” Giuliani said. “She is known for taking one position with one audience and another position with another audience. … What they didn’t know is she can actually take two different positions in front of the same audience.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likened her support for driver’s licenses to tolerance of illegals in the workforce and those who benefit from city services.

“What that does is it communicates to people coming to the country illegally that with a wink and a nod it is alright. This sanctuary state of mind seems to permeate many liberals that they are going to have sanctuary cities, we are going to have sanctuary driver’s licenses, sanctuary tuition discounts for children of illegal aliens, and that sanctuary state of mind has contributed to millions of people coming here illegally, and it has to stop,” Romney said.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson said Clinton’s response was “another example of (her) dodging hard issues.” He later suggested that Clinton’s lack of clarity in her debate answers raises questions about her ability to handle diplomacy and foreign policy.

“When our worst enemy sits down at the negotiating table and looks across the table … how much can they get away with, how much of what they’re hearing is really true? Are they going to mean what is said on the other side of the table? The question is, ‘Who do we want on the other side of that table facing them?”‘ he told a crowd of GOP donors in Las Vegas.

And the Republican National Committee issued its own talking points memo, pointing to statements it said show that “Hillary’s stance on illegal immigration reforms remains vague and undefined.”

Meanwhile, the controversy over Spitzer’s plan is not going away any time soon. On Thursday, 32 Republican New York Assembly members filed a lawsuit against Spitzer, seeking to quash the license plan.

The suit states the plan violates the section of New York law that says the Department of Motor Vehicles must require a Social Security number before issuing a driver’s license. Among the concerns about the plan is that it will giving illegal immigrants the right to get ID that they could use to vote, to support terror activities or buy weapons.

“The basis of the suit is the governor’s proposal is unlawful,” said Josh Fitzpatrick, spokesman for New York Assembly Republican Leader James Tedisco, who is leading the effort against Spitzer.

Fitzpatrick said the assembly members resorted to court action after a move to amend the governor’s plan failed in special session. He said Clinton’s response to Spitzer’s plan during the debate Tuesday “raised awareness” about the issue but did not by itself prompt the lawsuit.

“It’s a battle that’s been raging for about six weeks now,” he said.

Nonetheless, Tedisco bashed Clinton in a statement Wednesday, calling her a flip-flopper and comparing her to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, whose positions were mocked by opponents as malleable.

Amid the renewed national attention, Spitzer stood by his plan Thursday.

“I have a very serious obligation. That’s to improve the security of the state, and that’s what we’re doing,” the governor said.

FOX News’ Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Wicked Witch of the West Wing

Just in time for Halloween

Happy Halloween!!!

Peter, Paul & Hillary

In the 2008 run-up the Hillary camp has twice been tied to questionable fund raisers. Bill’s last act as President was to pardon a man who had contributed to him. Hillary is back in the spot light on her 60th birthday, for unethical fundraising practices. Now the allegations are the same, however the evidence is new. In light of recent revelations about the Hillary camp’s financing mechanics, I think this bares more scrutiney by the voting public and is another strong argument for campaign finance reform, which the liberals promised to bring about last year if they took the House and Senate, another empty promise.

 One gift that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to enjoy on her 60th birthday Friday is the premiere of “Hillary Uncensored,” a scathing documentary whose 13-minute trailer has been No. 1 on Google Video since Oct. 10, with more than 1.1 million views to date.

The film’s first full-length showing is scheduled for Friday night at Harvard University, followed by viewings at universities through the weekend and a wrap Tuesday at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.

Among the allegations summarized in the documentary:

— Bill and Hillary Clinton solicited cash from Peter F. Paul, an international lawyer and businessman, even after Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager told The Washington Post she would not take money from him;

— FBI agents and U.S. attorneys colluded with the Clintons to keep Paul, who was convicted of cocaine possession and fraud, tangled up in the criminal courts for years;

— The Clintons later made sure Paul was kept in a Brazilian prison for 25 months, including 58 days in a maximum security cellblock nicknamed the “Corridor of Death,” while the Justice Department waited to extradite him;

— Hillary Clinton still hasn’t filed reports to the FEC enumerating Paul’s excessive contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Click here to see the trailer video posted on YouTube (part 1).

Click here to see the trailer video posted on YouTube (part 2)

Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign spares no kindness about its view of Paul, whose long arrest record, officials say, demonstrates his inherent deceit.

“Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee,” Clinton’s campaign said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

While it’s a coincidence that the film about the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate is being released on her birthday, the movie’s producers say it is no accident the film’s trailer is getting such attention.

Douglas Cogan, a businessman-turned-associate producer and researcher for the film, said he’s made it his mission to expose what he calls “the greatest campaign finance fraud that ever has been committed.”

The Clintons think “they are truly above the law,” Cogan said. “My country has never seen anyone like Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The allegations in the film are not new, although much of the video is. The film resurrects claims made by the thrice-convicted Paul that he unwittingly agreed to violate election-funding laws in exchange for a pledge from Bill Clinton to work with him in his new venture, Stan Lee Media, after Clinton left the presidency.

The documentary revisits Paul’s claim that, in exchange for Bill Clinton’s promise to promote Stan Lee Media overseas, for which Paul said he was willing to pay $17 million, he also agreed to produce an August 2000 fundraising gala in Hollywood for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 New York Senate campaign.

My interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton,” Paul told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview, noting that Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign “concocted” the whole idea of the fundraiser.

Paul said he believed that in exchange for organizing the gala, “I had accomplished the hiring of the president of the United States to work with me when he left the White House.”

The gala cost $1.2 million, which was under-reported to the Federal Election Commission and led to the arrest of Clinton’s then-Senate campaign fundraising chief, David Rosen.

Rosen was found not guilty; a co-host of the gala, Aaron Tonken, was sentenced in a separate case to more than five years in prison for misappropriating funds for charity to pay for fundraisers featuring Hollywood celebrities.

Paul never got to work with Bill Clinton. Stan Lee Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2001, long after it became apparent to Paul that Clinton wasn’t going to join the company and, Paul alleges, had stolen one of Stan Lee Media’s chief investors.

Paul writes off his convictions in the 1970s for cocaine possession and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million as part of an international anti-Castro effort gone wrong. He adds that the securities fraud plea that he agreed to cop in March 2005 was to get out of jail after 43 months in Brazilian and New York prisons. He still is awaiting sentencing on that plea despite being under house arrest since then.

As for the Rosen case, he calls that a farce aimed at getting a Clinton crony off the hook. The accompanying civil case, he said, also set a legal precedent Hillary Clinton later used to get out of being a defendant in his case against her and her husband.

“I am not the one-dimensional villain that I am portrayed to be, but I am the victim not only of the Clintons” but of their associates, who Paul says tried to steal his assets and wrap him up in a corrupt court system.

Not only was the indictment and the trial (of Rosen) a scam, the judge … turned it into a referendum on the credibility of Peter Paul,” Paul said, also faulting the prosecutor for not objecting to Judge Howard Matz’s characterization of Paul as a con man during his instructions to the jury.

“You conclude either that the prosecutor is incompetent or, worse, that the prosecutor is dogging the case.”

Paul claims that while he has been prosecuted and marginalized by the Clintons, his video evidence proves his case against them — that the power couple defrauded him by falsely pledging the former president’s post-White House services in exchange for footing the bill for all the gala’s expenses.

That video documentation, however, may be worth only the revenue from copies sold. The California Court of Appeals last week upheld, 3-0, a lower court’s ruling to excuse Hillary Clinton as a defendant in that suit. The court also noted that the new video isn’t new evidence.

“In his motion to admit new evidence, Paul also seeks to admit the videotaped recording of the July 17, 2000, telephone call to demonstrate Senator Clinton had sufficient knowledge of Paul’s business enterprises and the president’s involvement with Paul such that it would not have been a ‘fishing expedition’ to depose her. While the recording itself may have only been recently obtained by Paul, the substance of the conference call is not new evidence,” reads the ruling written by Judge P.J. Perluss.

Nonetheless, the conference call with then-first lady Clinton is among the most compelling moments in the new documentary. The video, taken in Paul’s Beverly Hills office a month before the gala, shows on one end of a teleconference, Paul, Tonken and their business partner Alana Stewart, Rod Stewart’s ex-wife. On the other end is Hillary Clinton.

Clinton can be heard saying: “Whatever it is you’re doing, is it OK if I thank you? … I am very appreciative and it sounds fabulous. I got a full report from Kelly (White House adviser Kelly Craighead) today when she got back and told me everything that you’re doing and it just sounds like it’s going to be a great event. But I just wanted to call and personally thank all of you. I’m glad you’re all together so I could tell you how much this means to me, and it’s going to mean a lot to the president, too.”

Paul’s attorney, Colette Wilson, argues that Clinton’s conversation proves she was in violation of campaign finance rules preventing candidates from personally having a hand in coordinating fundraising events in excess of $25,000.

The appeals court’s ruling to dismiss Hillary Clinton as a defendant is flawed because “my evidence showed that this gala was coordinated between the candidate and Peter Paul,” Wilson said. “The whole basis of (Clinton’s motion to dismiss) was her right to solicit campaign contributions, so she admitted” she knew about the gala planning.

Wilson said that the appeals court also erred when it cited the lower court’s claim that they were on a “fishing expedition” by demanding to depose Clinton about her knowledge of the gala.

“I would attack that by saying that the case is defined as too broad [when it] is asking to take a lot of people’s depositions. A fishing expedition means you don’t have a clue whether the person has any evidence or not,” she said.

But Wilson acknowledged that it’s the court’s discretion to admit new evidence or not.

“They don’t have to allow it in. The cutoff is what was available during the lower court submission,” she said.

Wilson contends that several of the videotapes, including the would-be smoking gun, weren’t available to Paul because they were confiscated by the FBI when the securities fraud investigation began in 2001 and were withheld from Paul until April of this year, long after the lower court heard the case.

“They still have the originals,” she noted, adding that the FBI sent the videos to a vendor to be copied and sent to Paul.

Wilson said she’s not certain she wants to appeal for an en banc hearing of the entire appeals court or to ask the California Supreme Court to take the case because it could mean a delay of two years before they can return to the underlying case — the alleged fraud committed by the Clintons in pledging that Bill Clinton would work for Stan Lee Media.

Of that, Wilson and Paul claim to have plenty of evidence and still are able to depose Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

Paul said he also is prepared to keep open the case against the Clintons through other means. He is filing a new complaint with the FEC and is requesting that when Michael Mukasey is confirmed as U.S. attorney general, he investigate how the government could have prosecuted Rosen when authorities knew he did not commit a crime.

Cogan said he hopes the film also shines light on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“Hillary can no longer feign ignorance in what went on here,” he said. “I think she is absolutely an unthinkable commander in chief.”

Click here to view more information on the allegations made in the film.

Click here to learn more about Peter F. Paul.

Israel Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor Under Construction

In update to the Israeli strike of a suspected stockpile of nuclear material in Syria, analysts determined that the Syrian military installation, the one Syria says was an abandoned facility, was infact a nuclear reactor under development. The reactor was based on North Korea’s nuclear facility, surprise surprise, and was about six years from completion.

I know, the liberals are jumping up and down already crying foul, six years away, blah blah blah… Well it is better to get rid of it now than wait until they have their first nuke ready to deliver.

As I said before, now Syria and Iran know that they are open season for Israel.

Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

The attack on the reactor project has echoes of an Israeli raid more than a quarter century ago, in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq shortly before it was to have begun operating. That attack was officially condemned by the Reagan administration, though Israelis consider it among their military’s finest moments. In the weeks before the Iraq war, Bush administration officials said they believed that the attack set back Iraq’s nuclear ambitions by many years.

By contrast, the facility that the Israelis struck in Syria appears to have been much further from completion, the American and foreign officials said. They said it would have been years before the Syrians could have used the reactor to produce the spent nuclear fuel that could, through a series of additional steps, be reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.

Many details remain unclear, most notably how much progress the Syrians had made in construction before the Israelis struck, the role of any assistance provided by North Korea, and whether the Syrians could make a plausible case that the reactor was intended to produce electricity. In Washington and Israel, information about the raid has been wrapped in extraordinary secrecy and restricted to just a handful of officials, while the Israeli press has been prohibited from publishing information about the attack.

The New York Times reported this week that a debate had begun within the Bush administration about whether the information secretly cited by Israel to justify its attack should be interpreted by the United States as reason to toughen its approach to Syria and North Korea. In later interviews, officials made clear that the disagreements within the administration began this summer, as a debate about whether an Israeli attack on the incomplete reactor was warranted then.

The officials did not say that the administration had ultimately opposed the Israeli strike, but that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates were particularly concerned about the ramifications of a pre-emptive strike in the absence of an urgent threat.

“There wasn’t a lot of debate about the evidence,” said one American official familiar with the intense discussions over the summer between Washington and the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. “There was a lot of debate about how to respond to it.”

Even though it has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Syria would not have been obligated to declare the existence of a reactor during the early phases of construction. It would have also had the legal right to complete construction of the reactor, as long as its purpose was to generate electricity.

In his only public comment on the raid, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was “related to the military” but which he insisted was “not used.”

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations. Neither Iran nor any Arab government except for Syria has criticized the Israeli raid, suggesting that Israel is not the only country that would be disturbed by a nuclear Syria. North Korea did issue a protest.

The target of the Israeli raid and the American debate about the Syrian project were described by government officials and nongovernment experts interviewed in recent weeks in the United States and the Middle East. All insisted on anonymity because of rules that prohibit discussing classified information. The officials who described the target of the attack included some on each side of the debate about whether a partly constructed Syrian nuclear reactor should be seen as an urgent concern, as well as some who described themselves as neutral on the question.

The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Saturday that the administration would have no comment on the intelligence issues surrounding the Israeli strike. Israel has also refused to comment.

Nuclear reactors can be used for both peaceful and non-peaceful purposes. A reactor’s spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract plutonium, one of two paths to building a nuclear weapon. The other path — enriching uranium in centrifuges — is the method that Iran is accused of pursuing with an intent to build a weapon of its own.

Syria is known to have only one nuclear reactor, a small one built for research purposes. But in the past decade, Syria has several times sought unsuccessfully to buy one, first from Argentina, then from Russia. On those occasions, Israel reacted strongly but did not threaten military action. Earlier this year, Mr. Assad spoke publicly in general terms about Syria’s desire to develop nuclear power, but his government did not announce a plan to build a new reactor.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Persian Gulf states, has also called for an expansion of nuclear power in the Middle East for energy purposes, but many experts have interpreted that statement as a response to Iran’s nuclear program. They have warned that the region may be poised for a wave of proliferation. Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed nation in the region.

The partly constructed Syrian reactor was detected earlier this year by satellite photographs, according to American officials. They suggested that the facility had been brought to American attention by the Israelis, but would not discuss why American spy agencies seemed to have missed the early phases of construction.

North Korea has long provided assistance to Syria on a ballistic missile program, but any assistance toward the construction of the reactor would have been the first clear evidence of ties between the two countries on a nuclear program. North Korea has successfully used its five-megawatt reactor at the Yongbyon nuclear complex to reprocess nuclear fuel into bomb-grade material, a model that some American and Israeli officials believe Syria may have been trying to replicate.

The North conducted a partly successful test of a nuclear device a year ago, prompting renewed fears that the desperately poor country might seek to sell its nuclear technology. President Bush issued a specific warning to the North on Oct. 9, 2006, just hours after the test, noting that it was “leading proliferator of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.” He went on to warn that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable.”

While Bush administration officials have made clear in recent weeks that the target of the Israeli raid was linked to North Korea in some way, Mr. Bush has not repeated his warning since the attack. In fact, the administration has said very little about the country’s suspected role in the Syria case, apparently for fear of upending negotiations now under way in which North Korea has pledged to begin disabling its nuclear facilities.

While the partly constructed Syrian reactor appears to be based on North Korea’s design, the American and foreign officials would not say whether they believed the North Koreans sold or gave the plans to the Syrians, or whether the North’s own experts were there at the time of the attack. It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago.

According to two senior administration officials, the subject was raised when the United States, North Korea and four other nations met in Beijing earlier this month.

Behind closed doors, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and other hawkish members of the administration have made the case that the same intelligence that prompted Israel to attack should lead the United States to reconsider delicate negotiations with North Korea over ending its nuclear program, as well as America’s diplomatic strategy toward Syria, which has been invited to join Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., next month.

Mr. Cheney in particular, officials say, has also cited the indications that North Korea aided Syria to question the Bush administration’s agreement to supply the North with large amounts of fuel oil. During Mr. Bush’s first term, Mr. Cheney was among the advocates of a strategy to squeeze the North Korean government in hopes that it would collapse, and the administration cut off oil shipments set up under an agreement between North Korea and the Clinton administration, saying the North had cheated on that accord.

The new shipments, agreed to last February, are linked to North Korea’s carrying through on its pledge to disable its nuclear facilities by the end of the year. Nonetheless, Mr. Bush has approved going ahead with that agreement, even after he was aware of the Syrian program.

Nuclear experts say that North Korea’s main reactor, while small by international standards, is big enough to produce roughly one bomb’s worth of plutonium a year.

In an interview, Dr. Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, said building a reactor based on North Korea’s design might take from three to six years.

The Soros Web of Deception and Its Actors

American Thinker links Soros to the liberal scam of the century, elect Hillary Clinton in 2008… Just think were we will be if Hillary becomes Soros’ proxy President…

For the past couple of months, I’ve been reading up on the Clinton/Soros connection into the wee hours of every night.  Ever since George Soros slipped through the backdoor to American political power at the tawdry invitation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, he has carpet-bagged his way to the Democrat Party inner circle and has become the “biggest political fat cat of all time.”  With more than $7 billion in his little Hungarian carpetbag, he thinks he can buy the Presidency for Hillary Clinton and get back into the throne-room of worldly hegemony — the Oval Office.


In 1995, George Soros appeared on PBS with Charlie Rose, and said this:

“I like to influence policy.  I was not able to get to George Bush (Senior).  But now I think I have succeeded with my influence…I do now have great access in the (Clinton) administration.  There is no question about this.  We actually work together as a team.” 

(The Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 91)

So, even though Soros is hedging his political bets by donating to more than one candidate, his intimate ties to Hillary and Bill, going back more than a decade now, make it clear that he would prefer a 2nd Clinton administration, where he is already part of the very in in-crowd. 

Not so fast, you two.  We’re onto you.

Senators Reid and Harkin are taking their cues from Media Matters, a Soros-funded front group.  As Hillary Clinton declared at the recent YearlyKos convention (her confirming sound bite played by Rush Limbaugh on the radio), she was the mastermind behind both The Center for American Progress (her think tank) and Media Matters (her media attack machine).  Hillary provides the name and political connections that Soros craves, and Soros provides the money.  Quite a powerful partnership, what some might even call a conspiracy. 

If you want a complete rundown on how all of Hillary’s and Soros’ “non-profit groups” work together in her plan to take over America, get yourself a copy of the book by her mentor, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.  In it, you’ll find the complete outline for throwing Judeo/Christian principles and honesty to the winds of revolutionary fervor.  Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky’s since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969.  If her admiration of Alinsky had died with her thesis, no one would care.  But it didn’t.  He remained a close confidant until his death (The Shadow Party, p. 56) and his tactical fingerprints are all over her projection of the false “Centrist” image she is manipulating to garner political power.  It’s all in the book.

The First Attack on Rush

Hillary’s media attack machine Media Matters first tried to hush Rush by attempting to have him thrown off the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service in May 2004.  In a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, they demanded Rush be silenced after his “trivialization” of the military misconduct at the Abu Ghraib prison.  The gag on Rush was necessary, they wrote, “to protect our troops from these reckless and dangerous messages.”

Senator Tom Harkin jumped on the Hush-Rush Campaign that time too, just as he is now, demanding “balance” in media.  With the taxpayer-funded, liberal propaganda organ, NPR, being broadcast to the troops 24/7, it’s hard to believe that anyone could feel one hour a day of Rush Limbaugh is a threat to balance.  If anything, that one hour of Rush may be the only balance to the unending, livestream of “The-War-Is-Lost” Harry Reid and his Democrat followers:  Tom Harkin, John Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

The only reason that Hillary Clinton keeps up the public façade of “moderation,” and doesn’t dare to go on record with her deep disdain for our military is that she is following the Alinsky model, which admonishes revolutionaries to milk their white, middle-class backgrounds and appearances to achieve the political power necessary to carry out the socialist revolution.

According to the Alinsky model of bloodless socialist revolution, Rush Limbaugh represents a Have as opposed to a Have-Not.  Now what does Rush Have that Hillary Clinton and George Soros Have-Not?  [A lot, actually, good ideas being perhaps the first thing that comes to my mind.] But in the current battle, what he definitely has is an established and quite verifiable reputation for unabashed patriotism.  This reputation is so strong that as soon as someone attacks it, then real, living, American Armed Forces and Veterans immediately come to his defense.

George Soros, on the other hand, even has a hard time being recognized as an American citizen.  And Hillary Clinton, even though she voted for the War, has done all she could to squirm out of it — without apologizing — ever since the War became more difficult than bombing an aspirin factory in the middle of the night. 

Rush’s Have Patriotism status, and the Soros/Clinton comparative Have-Not status is the dynamic that makes Rush a prime target of their revolution.

They are using Alinsky’s “basic tactic in warfare against the Haves,” which Alinsky refers to as “political jujitsu.” (Rules for Radicals, p. 152)  This tactic advises the Have-Nots to “club the enemy to death with his own book of rules and regulations.” (p. 152)  Rush is a great patriot, playing by the American patriot rulebook.  But even a true patriot can be caught every now and then using one or two words, that when taken out of context, might be used to choke him on his own “petard” (p. 152).

This works especially well for the revolutionaries in our high-tech age, and some of Soros’ money goes to pay full-time listeners and media-watchers at Media Matters to monitor every word of the Haves.            

In their battle to Hush Rush — preferably before he gets a chance to skewer Hillary in the general election campaign — Hillary and Soros are using their media attack machine, Media Matters, to apply Alinsky Radical tactics #8 and #10.

The eighth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 128): 

Keep the pressure on.
Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event — no matter how trivial – and turn it around to your advantage.  Make a big deal of it.  Keep doing it.  Over and over again.  Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win.  And the bloodless revolution succeeds.

The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The operations of the revolutionaries must be cohesive, organized and constant.  An action causes a reaction, which causes another reaction to the reaction, “ad infinitum.” (p. 129) 

And we see exactly how that happened with Rush.

– MoveOn, another Soros front group, came out with their ad defaming our Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.

– Because that was a political ad in a major public forum, The New York Times, and because it defamed an American General in wartime during his momentous testimony before Congress, the ad sparked a reaction in the Senate: a resolution denouncing the ad.  Notably, while many Democrat Senators joined in condemning the MoveOn ad, Senator Hillary Clinton did not.

– Media Matters picked up Rush Limbaugh’s denouncing of 2 scurrilous soldiers,  Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp.  They seized the only two words, which appear to catch Rush breaking his own patriotic rule of always supporting the troops.   

And they employed Alinsky’s 13th tactic:  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (p. 130)

The Soros-funded MoveOn ad provoked a reaction in the Senate.  The Clinton brainchild, and Soros-supported, Media Matters stepped in the battle for Patriotism honors and provided a reaction to the first reaction.  A few other Democrat Senators (including Senator Hillary Clinton) jumped on board with their reactions.  And the battle continues.    

After Air America crashed and burned, Clinton and Soros feel they must hush Rush and push to reinstate the “Fairness” Doctrine in order to completely control the message for Hillary’s run on the White House.

In short, bringing down Rush — or bursting the bubble of Rush supremacy, as George Soros might say — would prove more than a political plum in Hillary’s pudding.  It might actually give her the throne of power in the Oval Office, with George Soros her backer and enabler.

And the only thing that remains to be seen is whether it will be as easy to control the ballot box on Election Day as it apparently has been to control the Democratic Party.

Neo-Communism, the New Face of the Democratic Party

I think American Thinker’s article speaks for itself… It is a long read, but well worth it. I am only going to post a few snippets, you will have to visit American Thinker for the whole article.

There is a compelling factual case to be made that the contemporary radical Left can properly be called “Neocommunist.” The Hard Left is grounded in Marxist vision of creating a “new man” under a system led by a vanguard that knows best what the rest of society needs. And Neocommies behave in patterns with startling parallels to Old Communist tactics.

The Neocommies are not members of a Communist Party, and are part more of a movement than a conspiracy. They are utterly different from traditional liberalism in America and Europe. Traditional liberals were democratic — people like Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman. They fought passionately against the Totalitarian Left, as Ronald Reagan did when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild. Reagan started as a democratic liberal, and became the most famous conservative of the 20th century. As he said so often, he didn’t leave the Democratic Party — it left him.

Over time, the Democrats became more totalitarian in spirit and practice after the first wave of the New Left started its takeover of the Party in the 1970s and 80s. Half a century ago, true liberal Democrats like Harry Truman told Americans the truth about Stalin and the new Cold War  — and were hated for it by the Hard Left. The American Labor movement was dominated by true liberals like George Meaney, who earned their positions by expelling Communist infiltrators, and in some cases throwing out entire Stalinist unions like the Longshoremen’s Union.


The Historical Communist Conspiracy

We now have a great deal of factual evidence about the Communist conspiracies that were part of longest struggle against totalitarianism in the 20th century, much longer than the war against the Nazis. The struggle against Soviet Communism was a seven decade Long War. There was ample time to develop covert networks.

The new evidence comes from Communist archives that were opened after the fall of the Soviet Empire around 1990. It shows that the anti-Communist Right was quite accurate in its diagnosis of the disease. Former Communists like George Orwell, Arthur Koestler and Whittaker Chambers were telling the truth.  


The Academy

Today’s Neocommunists prefer to call themselves Marxists, which has again become a respected word on college campuses. But Marxism is Communist ideology. What else could it be? If you read carefully, Neocommunism is really out there, only slightly disguised. Just as Soviet propaganda insisted America was rotten to the core, so does the Hard Left and the institutions it controls parrot the line. The People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, now a favorite history textbook in the colleges, is proud to “revise” everything we think we know about America, from the true people’s point of view. 


Jew-Hating: Seems like old times

A new Stalin-Nazi alliance is alive in Europe and parts of the US, as Leftists openly ally themselves with Islamic Fascists. Islamists worship Allah and the Leftists worship atheism, but the ideological differences are not that big compared to the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Common enemies and common goals overcome doctrinal differences, to be worked out later.

The difference becomes even smaller when you put a sharp sword at the throats of the Left.



Anti-Americanism has come roaring back like a bad rash,  flaring up after years of remission. Anti-American rage is pervasive on our Left and the dominant media. (But I repeat myself, as Mark Twain might have said).

In Europe most of the major media — Der Spiegel, Stern, Le Monde, the Guardian, the BBC News — make a specialty of slamming America, with Israel thrown in as the Little Satan.   


Who the Hard Leftists are

The history of NeoCommunism is well known. It starts with the 68’ers in Europe  — les Soixant-huiteurs, named after the 1968 student riots, which served as the major agitprop opportunity. Radicalized youth were created and went on to careers in poltiics. People such as former German Socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who now literally works for the Russians, bought by the giant oil monopoly Gazprom. German anarchist and Green politician Joschka Fischer actually has now turned against his old comrades.  Where have we seen this before?

In the US, of course, the NeoCommunists were the Sixties Radicals who decided to carry on a “Long March through the Institutions.” That means the college faculties, the high schools, the media, Hollywood, and government. Today, major foundations started by Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie have turned Hard Left. Capitalist money is turned against the very engines of prosperity.

Hillary Clinton’s puppy love for Saul Alinsky, when she was a college student in the Sixties, is symbolic of the way the “new” radicals fell in love with the old, hard-line Communists.  Hillary Clinton started her adult life as a millenarian zealot, following the old prophet of radicalism. It’s anybody’s guess what she believes today, but I suspect it’s not the Methodism of her youth. The methods of the Democratic Party today are taken straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook.



The methods of Neocommunism parallel those of Old Communism to an astonishing degree.

The routine use of orchestrated group lying (so that many different people are  suddenly making the same accusation);

The constant use of innocent-sounding front groups like MoveOn.org and Media Matters;

The use of stooges (like military retirees, both real and phony);


Will the Evil Empire Strike Back?

The biggest difference between Old and New Marxism today is that NeoCommunists don’t control the Soviet Empire. The Left has turned that to its advantage, however. It is no longer possible to accuse them of being run by the Soviets. They will tell you they are patriotic Americans, which is very true, if you adopt their belief that America must be subjected to a Leftist regime for its own good. What’s good for the international Left is good for America. Just ask them, very politely. It’s not a secret. 



The ideological goals of NeoCommunism have not changed one bit, which is why the term “communism” is so accurate. The sucker goal is to create Paradise on Earth by overthrowing democratic capitalism. The real goal is to enable the rise of a new ruling class with huge power over ordinary people.  One reason that NeoCommunists have so much in common with Islamic Fascists is that both fantasize about the same millenarian end: Islamists also hate democratic capitalism, and they also want to take over the world for a purer, more idealistic tyranny. Check out Saudi Arabia and Iran for some good examples.


After the fall of the Soviet Empire, the Left changed tactics but not goals. In Europe the result was called the “Third Way,” and it is the controlling ideology of the European Union today. The “Third Way” claims to be a compromise between capitalism and Communism, but it comes down to sucking resources from relatively free markets for the sake of centralized State power and control. EU propaganda is just recycled socialist propaganda. You can easily see it on the web.

It is no accident that the United Kingdom today is surrendering its national sovereignty to the European Union as fast as possible: The socialist ruling classes in the UK know they will merge seamlessly into the EU elites, at higher salaries, bigger perks, and much more power.  The UK elites are simply planning to join the new ruling class of the emerging European Empire. It’s a promotion they just can’t turn down.


Obama “No Show” Contradicts Himself in Criticism of Clinton Vote

Obama is now critisizing Hillary on her vote to dub the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He claims this gives Bush a blank check to attack Iran. Now had Obama been present in the Senate that day he could have cast a vote against, however all he can say is that had he been there he would of. Where was Obama on such a critical vote, by critical I am refering to his use of this as cannon fodder against Hillary. Had this been such an important vote to him he would not have been too busy campaigning, he would have been doing his job that he is paid to do.

Now I have no love for Hillary, however I am developing an even nastier taste for Obama’s politics… He has no right to say anything about Hillary’s voting practice unless he participates in the same votes.

Is this really the man that should be our next President, where will he be when important decision need to be made?

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday criticized a recent vote by Democratic presidential rival Sen. Hillary Clinton as helping to give President Bush a “blank check” to take military action against Iran.


¨Sen. Barack Obama says Sen. Hillary Clinton has shown “flawed” judgment.

“We know in the past that the president has used some of the flimsiest excuses to try to move his agenda regardless of what Congress says,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Last month, Clinton voted to support a resolution declaring Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite part of the Iranian military, a foreign terrorist group. (The nonbinding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act passed by a 76-22 vote.)

Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn’t because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. “This is a problem” related to running for president, he said.

Obama said Clinton also had shown “flawed” judgment during the vote to authorize the Iraq war five years ago.

“We know that there was embodied in this legislation, or this resolution sent to the Senate, language that would say our Iraqi troop structures should in part be determined by our desire to deal with Iran,” Obama said. “Now if you know that in the past the president has taken a blank check and cashed it, we don’t want to repeat that mistake.”

Clinton on Thursday defended her vote on the resolution during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, saying “what I voted on was a nonbinding resolution. It’s not an amendment. It’s not a law.”

While Clinton was campaigning Sunday in New Hampton, Iowa, an audience member at a town hall-style meeting pressed her on why she voted for the Iran measure and asked why she hadn’t learned from past “mistakes.” Calling “the premise of the question” wrong, the senator from New York argued the resolution calls for the terrorist label so that sanctions can be imposed.

The sanctions, Clinton said, will in turn “send a clear message to the leadership” and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.

Earlier this month, Clinton also co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, that would prohibit military operations against Iran without congressional approval.

Obama’s comments came on the fifth anniversary of the 77-23 Senate vote that authorized the president to use force against Iraq. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against the resolution authorizing force at the time.

Clinton’s 2002 vote shows a clear difference in judgment between the two of them, Obama said. Video Watch as Obama questions Clinton’s judgment »

“I don’t think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment and it speaks to my judgment,” Obama said. “It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward.

“I think her judgment was flawed on this issue.”

Obama said he also will step up efforts to clarify his differences with Clinton, whom many political observers view as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

“There’s no doubt we are moving into a different phase of the campaign,” Obama said. “The first part of a campaign is to offer some biography and give people a sense of where I’ve been and what I am about.

“In this next phase, we want to make sure that voters understand that on big issues, like the decision to go into the war in Iraq, I had real differences with the other candidates, and that reflects on my judgment.”

Another leading Democratic candidate, John Edwards, also voted in 2002 to authorize force in Iraq while he was then a senator from North Carolina. He later called his vote a mistake.

In a veiled swipe at Clinton, Obama also suggested he could better unite the country and offer “something new, as opposed to looking backward and simply duplicating some of the politics that we’ve become so accustomed to, that frankly the American people are sick of.”

Obama would not say whether he would consider Clinton as his running mate should he become the Democratic Party’s nominee.

“I think Sen. Clinton is a very capable person,” he said. “Right now, my goal is to make sure I am the nominee, and she is still the senator from New York.”

Liberals afraid to Rush the Terrorists

If the liberals in this country really had any balls they would have let our military do its job, instead they try to lam-bast a radio show host, because they can’t accomplish anything in Congress. As Unalienable Rights points out, the three loudest never severed, yet misquote Rush and propagate false news,  in order to further their agenda and take the heat off of their lack of support for our troops.

Democrats: Soft on terrorists, hard on Rush Limbaugh

The Senate has become an increasingly ugly place under Democrat “leadership”, with Democrats trying to replicate all the class of their sleazy, dishonest nutroots supporters. This may be good for fund-raising, but it is not good for the nation. They ought to be ashamed, if only they had any shame.

On Monday, Senators Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama (all three who incidentally avoided serving in the military. Chickenhawks!), along with 38 other Senate Democrats, attacked radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for allegedly insulting members of the U.S. military, based on an utter falsehood, a totally out of context quote spread around by left-wing propaganda website (and Clinton ally) Media Matters (The transcript of Limbaugh’s original comments is here).

Senator Tom Harkin, who ironically has engaged in repeated fabrications about his own military service, clearly a man with no class or honor, decided to take a mean-spirited, compassionless, low-blow shot at Mr. Limbaugh’s past problems with addiction to prescription painkillers, proving only once again that liberal claims of compassion and tolerance are a total fraud.

If only the Democrats had as much interest in defeating al Qaeda as they do in defeating conservative talk radio hosts.

Another Convict For the Clinton Camp

The Clinton camp has Sandy Berger advising… Remember Sandy, the classified document thief in an attempt to cover up Clinton’s role/lack there of, in 9/11…

Here is a guy that lied to investigators and stole classified documents…

What would possess Hillary to want him on her team? Then again look at the whole fundraising criminal debacle the Clinton camp set itself up in.

Wonder if he will get pardon if Hillary is elected…

WASHINGTON (Map, News) – Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

“Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,” said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. “Berger lied.”

Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.” Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

Berger later conceded: “I was giving a benign explanation for what was not benign.”

The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”

At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years.