Over the past few years Russia has continually been having issues with declining population numbers, and aparently sexual harassment is the solution. The decline in numbers has been both an embarrassed domestically in Russia and a concern of the Russian Government.

According to the article in the Telegraph:

The unnamed executive, a 22-year-old from St Petersburg, had been hoping to become only the third woman in Russia's history to bring a successful sexual harassment action against a male employer. She alleged she had been locked out of her office after she refused to have intimate relations with her 47-year-old boss. "He always demanded that female workers signalled to him with their eyes that they desperately wanted to be laid on the boardroom table as soon as he gave the word," she earlier told the court. "I didn't realise at first that he wasn't speaking metaphorically."

These issues are not isolated either. According to a recent survey in Russia:

100 per cent of female professionals said they had been subjected to sexual harassment by their bosses, 32 per cent said they had had intercourse with them at least once and another seven per cent claimed to have been raped.

This problem permeates all of Russian society. Students have reported that University professors will give higher grades for favors, that interviewers will not likely offer jobs without the mention of sex or other obscenities, and an astonishing 80% of women believe it to be impossible to ever receive promotions without having sex with their bosses.

As sickening as this is it is not new.

Human rights activists say that Russian women remain second-class citizens and are subjected to some of the highest levels of domestic abuse in the world.

The court's decision makes it clear that the Russian Government sees sexual harrasement as a public duty and a service to the future of Mother Russia.

This is what the Governor General’s website says about it’s awarding an Order of Canada to abortionist Dr. Henry Morgentaler.

What I ask is: why do we not then award the Order of Canada to those who celebrate life and birth, advancing options for women who understand that civil liberties do not extend into playing God?

Yay…Individualism, the new religion in Canada!

NIAGARA FALLS — Lured by the promise of crack cocaine and alcohol, a 17-year-old girl told police she was raped after going to party with two men she met at a Portage Road grocery store Saturday.

The victim, a former Youngstown resident currently staying with a friend in the city, told police she met the men around noon Saturday and decided to go with them after they offered to supply her with crack cocaine and alcohol. The three used both substances while driving around the city.

At some point, one of the men raped the victim, and she was later kicked out of the car, police said.

First, I need to start by saying that it obvious form my blog that I am a progressive person. I also always have been pro-choice, pro-woman rights, and believe no means no. I just wonder if sometimes a woman can put her self in a situation where the only result you could expect is to be raped.

I am not talking about a situation where a woman who wears a short shirt and had a couple up of drinks who runs into the wrong guy and some one then says she deserved it. The girl in question from the story who is 17 years old meets two guys that she does not know in a store and proceeds to leave with them because they offer her alcohol and crack cocaine . Come on now! The only way this story could have ended if she did not give it up willingly was that she was going be raped.

I know forcing someone to have sex by force and blaming the victim is not politically correct but can their be a situation where we tell the victim take look at yourself and get some help to change your life. What I am asking is can the girl be in the wrong just the same as the two men? I am not saying the guys who were involved are not scum bags and should not be prosecuted. I really would like to hear the opinions from women and men on this so please leave a comment. Any women who have had a similar real life experience and who would like to share please do so. Please note I am not looking for legal arguments but how society should view this episode.

I am sick and tired of it. Where are the commercials where the man holds up a shirt that is now spotless because he washed it with Ariel Future and where is the man who uses the wrinkle creme? He does not exist, if one should believe the TV-commercials. Oh well, I forgot, the TV-commercial for a new highly advanced vacuumer is presented by... a man. God forgive if it was a women who was to advertise for something so complex!

I cannot help but feel insulted when I see these commercials. Yes, I know that 63 pct. of all house-chores are executed by women and yes, I understand why the commercials for cleaning products then are targeted at women. But I will not accept that they have to insult my intelligence and my gender, like most of the TV-commercials for cleaning products, tampons and beauty products do. Of course there's also TV-commercials that show females as strong, witty and intelligent creatures, but they are rare.

Let me think of one... Hmm... Well... Okay, I have one, but even this commercial can be questioned whether it is actually portraying women as witty and clever OR bitchy and manipulative. It's a Danish TV-commercial for a woman's magazine. It is about a man who's asking his wife where his favorite "farmer" shirt is because he can't find it. She then answers that she doesn't know, while she is cleaning lamps with pieces of it and smiles to herself. Though I'm guessing it was intended to be funny (and it was indeed) it also makes me wonder... is that how woman are seen? If she doesn't like his shirt would some women then magically make it disappear? And is that bitchy or just plain old harmless tricks of a relationship?

Sadly, I cannot think of any other TV-commercials that celebrates or is targeted at the female intelligence. Some might say 'but should commercials even be made to stimulate the intelligence?' Perhaps not. But there's a difference in making funny, entertaining and non-intellectual TV-commercials and making serious commercials for a products that are degrading women to less intelligent, easy to please-women, I would argue.

People that know me, would probably say that I am obsessed with womens rights and that I perhaps think about it 'a little too much' and relate it to almost everything. This could be true. Last Monday on Skt. Hans for instance, I did not want to go and see a fire if there was a witch on top. I will not celebrate the coldblooded murder of women that went on for centuries. The day after I discussed it with a (female) friend, and she felt the same, but many of my friends thought I was saintly or perhaps a bit crazy. But I just cannot help to look at it that way. I cannot understand how anyone would go celebrate these horrible crimes that went on in the past. I think that it is wrong. Plain wrong.

Maybe I would be more easy going concerning womens rights if I saw that they were in their place. But they're not and as TV-commercials, I will probably continue being insulted and complain about it. Because I want my intelligence to be celebrated not insulted.

We're Robin Hoods, for the
good of the losers
The boozers, the ugly, the crazy,
The drunks and the punks,
The perverts, the lazy...

I'm not trying to speak "Truth to Power", that is just something hippies say when they go on and on talking and talking without saying one damn thing of any intelligence, importance or use. I am here to piss you the hell off. Hell I consider it my calling in life to destroy your fragile little self esteem, or as I like to call it the lies you have to tell yourself so you don't suck off a shotgun when you realize the pointlessness of your own existence.

I believe in almost every other libertarian view there is. Hell you want to be a junkie go ahead fuck your life up, but I will be damned if I am going to have to give my tax dollars to help you in any way and you better hope to god you don't show up at my doorstep for anything because I will shoot you in the face.

I'm the asshole at the show that makes the band chug beers during their set and then will throw the beer cans at the audience before starting a pit, and thats why you love me.

I hate everything other the punk rock, anime, beer, kittens, and salt water fish tanks. No exceptions.

I am the asshole that will explain to you why you beliefs are stupid, hell sometimes I will have charts and graphics for it. Nothing makes me feel better then knowing you have spent an hour in a corner crying to yourself questioning your entire concept of reality.

I truly believe that I am better then almost everyone on the planet and I don't even like myself that much. Now think about it, what does that say about you people?

I hate people and do not in any way feel the need to help them. No really it's true! I don't ask you for nothing and I sure as hell don't owe you shit! That's my view. I have my own life to deal with and you have no right to expect me to deal with yours. It's your life not mine and if you don't care about yourself enough to deal with your own life why the hell should I give a flying dead rat's syphilitic ass about you?

I don't care about Global Warming, I really don't, hell wasn't it Global Cooling 30 years ago? Get your facts strait now and then and stop the bullshit scare tactics, We know you only do it to make money because you are to stupid and useless to find a real job. Fuck your idiotic view on environmentalism. You want to go back to some preindustrial civilization in harmony with nature have fun with an average lifespan of 30 years and see how much fun life is when you don't have penicillin any more. On another note if pandas wanted to survive they might want to fuck a little more.

Obama is not Jesus so knock the shit off you freaks. You want to know why the youth vote Obama? It's the same reason they get knocked up when they are in junior high or watch MTV, because they are morons.

You want to talk about Islamaphobia? Last time I checked the entire religion was based off the violent subjection of the entire would. They are like a less honest version of communism. I think we all have the right to be worried. Plus nothing is less attractive then a culture/religion/political ideology that makes you get married to your first cousin. Do you know why the rest of the world doesn't force their woman to go around in full body bags at all time? It's because the rest of the world has enough self control to not rape every woman or underage boy in sight the second they see a little bit of skin, that's why! Your entire religion is like dealing with violent psychotic children with a thing for murder, rape and pedophilia. You want me to respect your religion maybe your all holy prophet Mohammed (peace be upon her) shouldn't have married a six year old girl then had sex with her when she was nine. He was in his fifties for gods sake. The only reason that there are still Muslim woman is because they are either as so afraid for their lives they fake like they still care or have Stockholm Syndrome. Islam is the only religion so off the wall crazy/stupid that it makes Scientology look sane by comparison and that is almost impossible to do.

You want to talk about race? Good. Fuck race! I could give a flying fuck about your race! It's not something that should be important for me or you. The thing is I am not going to treat you like poor little children just because you have a different skin tone then I do. You are people not a skin color! I might not always agree with your ideas but I sure as hell am not not going to call you an Uncle Tom or a Race Traitor because you don't agree with how I want you to think (unlike say the DNC). We are all people so knock the stupid shit off so we can all evolve past this stupid crap! You want to know why people can't have a real conversation on race? It's because rather then have a rational respectful and intelligent conversation/debate we all feel the need to get personal and accuse people of being a racist the second they don't agree with every last thing we think, thats why! Look both sides have or at least should have good intentions in this debate, so try understand that so we can finally all grow as people. Race is a artificial and self imposed joke anyway.

A Libertarian/Traditional Liberal Constitutional Republic is the only form of government that can guarantee true personal/economic freedom and human rights end of story. I said Traditional Liberal not the fucking morons that claimed the name but call themselves Progressives as well. They are just delusional assholes that don't know shit and don't have the balls to admit that they are Socialists and Communists.

I am a Capitalist because unlike you I contribute to society and demand you do the same.

If the hope for peace ever solved anything then what happened in Tiananmen square? If those kids had the Second Amendment do you think it would of gone down like that?

I believe that the First Amendment (freedom of speech) is non negotiable if you disagree please let me explain the Second Amendment to you since that is what makes sure that I keep the First.

I believe the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) is non negotiable. If you disagree feel free to come over and tell me what size of round you would like to penetrate your forehead, I have several styles and can assure you that you wont be disappointed.

I also encourage and or feed the trolls.

So fuck all you bastards The Revolution will be Televised!

April 21st, 2008

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Power corrupts as power does. Because of this, democracies are falling to competing and converging power interest, both religious and corporate/political.

If humankind was once more egalitarian as evidence indicates in some areas, even matrilinear, with women carrying significant if not preeminent spiritual roles, the might makes right take over by men has possibly polluted spiritual perception, even to the extent of how spiritual conceptions are qualified.

It is alleged that men, fearing woman's creative power, and other men's sexual interest, began to dismantle the role and authority of women, to the extent that until quite recently in historic terms, women were not considered to have a soul in some cultures. In some belief's, the woman could not question the husband. In places, women were even killed for not providing an heir (often meaning a boy).

Men to this day, often think of women as a kind of slave; to do what they say and not talk back. This is enforced by the often cowardly bullying tactics of might makes right. Superiority complex entitlement gets passed on, often by cognitive dissonance like selective amnesia about the inherent value of individuals other than oneself, especially those that can be boxed into a group in consciousness, an "other" group, with implied unknowns and unknowable motivations, and hence, threats. Superiority complexes are most always created to offset ones own inferiority beliefs subversively haunting self esteem.

Certain cultures have suggested a more balanced perception of human individuality and relationships to one another and the Divine. These were easy marks for male dominator warrior groups, who as far as might makes right is concerned, could rollover virtually unarmed targets. Indeed, modern warfare is attempting to evolve into a one world dominator might is right, where those who dissent or question will be if "need be", easily eradicated by the push of a button, or directive by any higher-up to so do. This power will be intrinsically evil, since might does not make right, and in humans hands, unequal power corrupts consciousness.

Our nearly paralyzed two party platform in the US is easy prey for power interest, as many can be bought off through lobbying and assumed sworn loyalty. One party has quite the foundations of the predatory feeding ground for the one world corporate hegemony. The other is halfway compromised, but even more seductively so, since conflict of interest in the fallen fourth estate, goes mostly under the radar of public perception. Two parties were to, in theory, come to represent a kind of yes and no and then compromise, in our political system. That attempt at balance is being overthrown.

WHERE ARE THE EYES AND EARS?  AND WHO ARE THEY?

The public is at the mercy of moneyed power interest who literally can buy their ways into might makes right domination. From media ownership share, to right wing or corporatist individuals hiring think tanks and promoting laws that take away the individual fair access to unfiltered important news. We do not know when we are fed propaganda as truth, and bias as fair reporting.

That allows power to pivot perceptions in significant ways to their viewpoint when they so require. Those of us who search for truth and differing opinion on the Internet are at the inevitable mercy of these power groups and associations who need to sculpt perception to their angle. Our window of opportunity may be a relatively short one.

The media is cast as some liberal forum, by those taking the right of critical thought away, and instead, alluding to their prescriptions of what is loyal as being the citizens duty how and what to think. One can be astounded at the slow but relentless turn around in perception in might makes right in Iraq, as the population has literally shifted by some 50% from being pro to con over 5 years. Why did it take so long and at such a cost for half the population to wake up to all the deceptions thrown at them? Why can we not see how wedge issues and impaired critical thinking, particularly the bombardment of false premises led by ad hominem accusation and assumption, grab our emotions to act against the actual likely truth?

Corporate hegemony is not yet absolute, and facts come in from the world; of death, destruction, devastation of economies, fracturing of fragile social structures and identities into tribal warfare. The intrinsic cosmological confusion of jingoist dreams of force straighting out deep historic dysfunction and group revenge psychology, is amplified by the hubris of the delusional who believe destruction is more relevant to creative change than understanding.

Diverting societies attention from mass manipulations is the bread and butter of dominator paradigms, be they religious or of the far left or far right, and also now, securing resources for society and world share control. We face an oncoming highly structured world culture of a few haves, and for the most, have little. The recipe for complete slavery, perhaps with a cartoon sideshow of alleged public input, and no meaningful means of redress of grievances.

Democracy, and the rights of the individual are nearing a precipice of darkness. It remains to be seen if we rise up into the light of understanding, insisting on unbridled truth and diversity of interpretation, or are seduced or forcefully cast into the rationalizations of darkness.

Ron Paul

We are swiftly moving toward a international world government system. That system will try to force with war and whatever other means necessary, the humans on the planet to accept their plan for economic control. The New World Order system will continue to put more power into government control. These governments like Saudi Arabia ( who still recognize a King), and the United States (as it is now), will seek to implement big brother and disguise it in the form of benefits. These benefits will seek to pacify the humans and keep them under government control. The Governments who are not interested in your freedom will continue to implement systems of control. For example the National ID card which is advertised to protect your benefits from Mexican Aliens will simply be used to make sure that US Government can keep tabs on your every move. Similarly National Health Care could be used by the United States Government to access your private Health Care records. Image the power that the Government could have over you with access to your Personal Health Records. Of course the Government would never do such a thing. Big government control of the Monetary System is critical to implementation of these Orwellian plans to subvert your freedom and to homogenize the world. With a "System Of Competing Currencies" in place the governments will be constrained to appropriate functions. This is the time to act and to move toward a new Monetary System. If we miss this opportunity we will need to wait until it gets worse... and believe me it will get worse.

Please take a moment to read the link below about Competing Currencies!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/1057/statement-on-competing-currencies/

From: http://www. mathaba. net/0_index. shtml?x=587426

In an interview, Jerry Zeifman said: ''She [Hillary] was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

''

By Dan Calabrese, North Star Writers Group
(American Chronicle)

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary..s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy..s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman..s 17-year career.

Why?

"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

"

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn..t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy..s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O..Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

"As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer," Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee..s public files.

So what did Hillary do?

"Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public," Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon..s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary..s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodman would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States. ]]> http://augustcandi.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/hillary-clinton-where-are-your-superdelegate-endorsements-since-super-tuesday/ Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:46:35 +0000 augustcandi http://augustcandi.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/hillary-clinton-where-are-your-superdelegate-endorsements-since-super-tuesday/ Since Super Tuesday...Clinton is -5 superdelegates and Obama is +55 or something like that...maybe +45...either way...when Clinton was asked about it she said "I dont keep track of those things"Are you kidding me? Your whole fight right now is for SuperDelegate endorsements...your making calls..YOU YOURSELF are calling superdelegates trying to get them to endorse you...but your not keeping track

can someone say "liar!"

how bout them tax documents!!!

IRAQI’S MEETING WAS IN WHITE HOUSE IN 1996, HE CLAIMS
By IRA STOLL, STAFF REPORTER OF THE SUN | March 27, 2008

A Michigan man facing federal criminal charges of illegally working for Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Intelligence Service says he met with Hillary Clinton at the White House in May 1996.

In a 1997 interview with this reporter, Muthanna Hanooti said that at the meeting, Mrs. Clinton was "very receptive" to his request for an easing of the American sanctions on Iraq that were in place at the time. He said Mrs. Clinton "passed a message to the State Department" about the need to implement the oil-for-food deal, which was intended to allow Saddam to sell billions of dollars' worth of oil to pay for food for Iraqi citizens.

Back in 1997, a spokesman for the first lady referred inquiries about the meeting to the National Security Council. At the time, a spokesman for the National Security Council, Eric Rubin, responded by saying that President Clinton, not the first lady, sets foreign policy.

Asked whether Senator Clinton recalls the meeting or whether the presidential campaign had any further comment on the meeting in light of Mr. Hanooti's indictment, the Clinton presidential campaign yesterday offered no formal response.

White House schedules for Mrs. Clinton that were released earlier this month by the National Archives show a May 9, 1996, "Private Meeting w/ Congressman Bonior and Chaldean-Americans" in the Map Room. David Bonior, who was a member of the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives until he stepped down in January 2003, backed Mr. Hanooti's efforts to ease the American blockade of Baathist Iraq. Mr. Bonior has been back in the news this week for having been one of the congressmen on an October 2002 trip to Iraq that Mr. Hanooti organized and that, apparently unbeknownst to the congressmen, was paid for by Saddam's government. Chaldeans are Iraqi Christians.

For the Clinton campaign, already reeling from Mrs. Clinton's misstatement on another 1996 episode — a landing at an airport in Bosnia that she claimed took place under sniper fire — the indictment of Mr. Hanooti and the disclosure of his claim to have met with her could not have come at a worse time. Mrs. Clinton has made her foreign policy experience in the White House an important part of her argument to voters that she is the only Democratic presidential candidate who would be ready to serve as president if the red phone rings at 3 a.m.

Mrs. Clinton and her defenders may claim that no one could have known in 1996 that Mr. Hanooti would become an agent of Saddam Hussein, engaged in what a grand jury and federal prosecutors say was a criminal conspiracy. The indictment charges that the conspiracy began "in or about 1999." Mr. Hanooti has pleaded not guilty.

But to reporters on the foreign policy beat in Washington at the time and to those active in the Iraqi opposition to Saddam, it was clear whose agenda was being advanced. The news article in 1997, published in the Forward, that described Mrs. Clinton's involvement with Mr. Hanooti began: "The American-led blockade of Iraq is crumbling, following an intensive, domestic lobbying effort that has involved Rep. David Bonior and Senator Abraham — and, according to some sources, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"

In the October 1997 interview, Mr. Hanooti identified himself as a Palestinian and said he had recently visited Iraq. He also said he had recently met with America's U.N. ambassador, Bill Richardson, to make the case against U.N. sanctions on Iraq.

"Of course we want the sanctions to be lifted, because we don't believe in it," Mr. Hanooti said. He added that the sanctions hurt the Iraqi people but do not affect the Iraqi regime.

When a reporter identified the Forward as a Jewish newspaper, Mr. Hanooti said, "It is interesting that our cousins are interested in this issue. We believe that part of the problem we have is their lobbying against lifting the sanctions.

"

Mr. Hanooti described the impact of the sanctions on Iraqis as "another Holocaust, like the one which happened to the Jews." He claimed that 1 million Iraqi children have died because of the lack of food and medical supplies there, and he said had raised the matter in the May 1996 meeting at the White House with Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Hanooti's dealings with politicians reach beyond Mrs. Clinton. Federal Election Commission records show he donated to the campaigns of Mr. Bonior, of President Bush, and of Spencer Abraham, a Republican senator of Michigan who served as Mr. Bush's energy secretary. He also gave to Rep. Tom Campbell, a Republican of California, and to Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat of Michigan.

Asked yesterday about the donation to Mr. Bush's presidential campaign, the White House referred The New York Sun to the Republican National Committee, which in turn offered no immediate comment. A Republican familiar with the president's 2000 campaign said the compliance committee for the campaign had disbanded. Nonetheless, this official, requesting anonymity, said, "We are looking into this.

"

As a senator, Mrs. Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war, but she has since stated both that she regretted the vote and that she thought it was a vote to allow more time for diplomacy and inspections by allowing the diplomacy to be backed by the threat of force. She is campaigning for president on the theme of bringing the troops home from Iraq.