I don't know about you, but I've had alot of questions about Obama, but didn't know where to go to find the answers.  Until now, that is.  My sister called to tell me about the video below, and OMG it is a real eye opener.

It's 13 minutes long, but it's well worth the time to see (please watch to the end):

I have to admit that I had been wanting Obama to take the Nomination to knock Hillary out and make her irrelevant.  Then work on getting Obama out.  But now I see that is far too dangerous to take a chance on even letting Obama get his foot in the door.

I never thought I'd see myself writing this, but I hope Hillary wins Pennsylvania tonight.

What have the Democrats accomplished over the past two years, since they've had control of Congress?

1. Elected Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House (mistake number 1)
2. Elected Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader (mistake number 2)
3. Complain about Republicans

Democratically-controlled Congres has a DISapproval rating of 72%.  That means that 7 out of every 10 people you pass on the sidewalk DISapprove of what the Democrats are doing!

So if the Democrats doing such a poor job of taking care of us for the past two years, then why-oh-why would we bother to re-elect them...much less elect them to the Presidential position?

Just to name a few things the Democrats HAVE promised us if they are elected:  raise our taxes, pull out of Iraq, give amnesty to illegals, and force universal health care on all of us. 

Flipping through channels the other day, I came across Tim Russert interviewing Christopher Hutchins.  Knowing that Christopher is usually colorful, I decided to stay and find out what they were talking about.  Much to my surprise, it happened to coincide with an e-mail of an article he wrote that I received last week about his personal knowledge of the REAL STORY on the Clintons and Bosnia.

As you'll remember, Bill Clinton's first term in office from 1993-1997. 

Allow me set the stage.  Hitchens happened to be in Sarajevo the summer of 1992 and noted that the Bosnians were "enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge...to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing."

1993 = Nothing done by U.S.

1994 = Nothing Done by U.S.

1995 = Nothing Done by U.S.

What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

According to a quote from Sally Bedell Smith's "admirable book on the happy couple: For Love of Politics:"

"Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people."

The following is from Christopher Hitchen's article:

"I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care 'initiative.'" (emphasis is mine)

So to sum it up, why did those 250,000 people die?  Because Hillary didn't want any action(s) over there to detract from her shot at health-care reform (which failed miserably).

And now she has the audacity to LIE about her trip over there?  Having to dodge sniper fire while running from the plane to the car???  Perhaps she was THINKING that is what the people might have done had they known the REAL REASON that those 250,000 people had to die!

I can just imagine one of those 3:00am phone calls she wants to get as President.

Advisor Vincent, "Mrs. President, our worst fears after pulling all the troops out of Iraq have been realized.  Osama bin Laden has taken control of Saddam's Baghdad Palace."

Hillary responds, "Vincent, we can't do anything about it right now because I have a bill pending in Congress to rename the Mid-Manhattan Library in New York The Hillbilly Library and I don't want anything to detract from that!  We'll work it out on Tuesday." 

Who do you want to answer the phone at 3:00am?

P.S.  If McCain is President, that phone call wouldn't even be made as he isn't talking about pulling out troops prematurely!

I just found this too funny not to do a post on. 

According to businessandmedia.org,

"Howell Raines, former executive editor of The New York Times, is scared for his pension."

"Raines wrote in the April 2008 Condé Nast Portfolio that he fears the “pirate” Rupert Murdoch will bolster the quality of The Wall Street Journal – which he recently purchased – and “will spend whatever it takes to undermine the Times’ standing as America’s leading general-interest paper.”

But what’s really behind Raines’ fear of Murdoch is a self-interest in protecting his retirement. “As a Times pensioner,” Raines wrote, “I want the paper to make money under public-spirited owners. As a reader, I believe a Murdoch takeover of our last independent national newspaper would be a disaster for the trustworthy reporting on which our civil life depends.” 

IMHO, I personally take issue with the last half-sentence that losing the NYT "would be a disaster for the trustworthy reporting on which our civil life depends"! 

Oh puhleez!!!  The same kind of 'trustworthy reporting' that jeopardizes our safety by trumpeting NSA confidential guidelines?

The same kind of 'trustworthy reporting' that caused you to fire several reporters only AFTER it came out that they fabricated their stories?

Oh, now I see the connection that NYT has with Hillary.  The Times & Hillary both know how to fabricate details of things that never took place!!!

The game of politics in Washington D.C. was a "gentleman's game" until Bill & Hillary came bursting on to the scene in the '90s.  Everyone had their own opinion, as they do today, but they were courteous to each other and in the end they did get "the People's Work" done.

The best analogy I can think of to describe then versus now would be a Pomeranian and a Pit Bull in duking it out.  And guess who the Pit Bull is?  You're right!  The Clintons!!!

Unfortunately, the Pit Bulls have been training the other dogs in Washington and now we have an epidemic.  It seems that this epidemic is antibiotic-resistant, and the only way to get rid of it is to excise the affected parts.

How do we excise the infected areas?  Defeat the Incumbants and get newbies in there.  If the newbies get infected, then we need to get rid of them too!

The American People are going to have to get serious if we want to get our government back to work on OUR problems, instead of the SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS' problems.

As you can see from the left column, the vast majority of my posts have been on Iraq.  During all those posts, we were up to about 17,000 hits per month.

Like many other bloggers, I was trying to get the word out that things were finally turning around in Iraq, but not being reported in the MSM.  The weird part of it was that, according to Michael Yon, the MSM reporters had quit coming to Iraq...and yet they continued to write on something they weren't seeing first hand.  That's like giving a blow-by-blow description of a baby's birth from 20 miles away.  The picture won't be accurate.

Then courageously two guys who had been on an anti-Iraq tear (participants in a liberal think tank) went over to Iraq to see what was going for themselves.  I guess they, along with a million others, had been reading Michael Yon's posts about the progress being made and wanted to see for themselves.  Definitely admirable. 

They were absolutely astounded at the progress and wrote a story about it.  However, when they got home, they were torn apart by the liberal MSM who didn't want positive things reported, and these two guys had gone against that edict.  They defended themselves and their story.

After that, the MSM was forced to start recognizing what President Bush had been saying since a couple of months after The Surge began.  Not many reports, mind you, but at least they were finally reporting on the success The Surge had been evoking.

Then came Hillary's smarta** remarks about it requiring "a willing suspension of disbelief" to believe General Petraeus' report to Congress that alot of things were good, some bad and some that still needed to be accomplished.  Her remark, and MoveOn's one-page negative Petreaus ad, were uncalled for and cheap shots.  Because had it not been for General Petraeus' methods, I truly believe there would be NO good news to report.  But leave it to Hillary to put it down because her name was not involved with something positive.

Then shortly thereafter, Hillary said that when she became President she would immediately cut the Pentagon's budget by $1 billion or more.  Gee isn't that deja vu?  Didn't Bill visit such severe financial cutbacks on the military that when we needed them to fight for us, they weren't ready?

Sorry, but we just can't have our military crippled again.  Not in this climate of terrorism.  Therefore, I decided to switch gears on this blog and focus on doing my little part to shine light on Hillary.  A light so bright that, hopefully, it would show her imperfections to others.

I want to get back to writing about Iraq soon, because once again the only reports I'm hearing are our soldiers' body counts.  And that's not right!

So, if you see Iraq posts mixed in with Hillary posts, you'll know why!

In the AP's 3-24-08 story referring to Hillary's campaign speech last week, they referred to her story about her trip to Bosnia with Chelsea and some other celebrities.

To highlight the danger she faced in order to meet the head of state, she said"

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

However, according to an AP story at the time:

"Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire."

Once this was brought up to the Clinton Campaign, they immediately went in to damage control and Clinton's Spokesman, Howard Wolfson:

"...pointed to Clinton's previous written account in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina."

Clinton wrote: "Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find."

"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

The written account in Clinton's book contradicts the comments she made last Monday about the welcoming ceremony."

Now just to show you how good of a liar she is, right after her Campaign Speech, she was even able to give details of something that never happened:

"Just after her speech last Monday, she reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it by reporters at a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base."

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton told reporters. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

Here, check the video out for yourself!

Just in from the AP. 

According to Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, premature withdrawal from Iraq would be irresponsible.

Zebari said changes could be made but warned that the consequences of a premature withdrawal would be "disastrous." All the security gains from a U.S. troop buildup "would evaporate," he said

"We are in an election season and many candidates will say things that appeal to the public, but when the real national interests of the United States, of the nation confront them I think they have to make hard decisions," Zebari said of the candidates.

"I think now American interests in this part of the world are as important as they were in Germany during the World War so it will not be easy for any administration, Republican or Democrat, just to wash off their hands and walk away," he said. "There is a certain responsibility, an international and moral responsibility, to help the people of Iraq to reach a stable form of governance."

He expressed concern about growing weariness by the American public with the war, and promises by rival Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to begin withdrawing forces quickly if elected.

What the Democratic hopefuls don't seem to realize is that their campaign rhetoric is heard across the world and does not bode well for them or their future with these foreign leaders.

If I recall correctly, it was just a couple of months ago that the Iraqi President chided Hillary for what she had said about the Iraqis needing to finish setting up their government.  He said something about that they were doing fine and that she needs to watch her mouth (my words, not his). 

Okay, so it all just came together on Clinton's campaign strategy.  And I do mean STRATEGY.

The DNC said Michigan and Florida were out of the DNC Caucus because they dared to move up  their primary dates...thereby messing up their power of numbers in a certain sequence.  Michigan & Florida thumbed their noses at the DNC and moved it up anyway.

The DNC immediately blackballed the states and told the Democatic nominees NOT have anything to do with either state. 

As soon as I heard that Hillary was taking a break and campained (a/k/a "fundraisers") a little bit in Florida that's when it hit me...her underhanded tricks are continuing, she wants to get a head start in case the DNC changes its mind OR she knew something the DNC and Obama's campaign didn't with regard to the agreement she signed. 

Florida would probably vote for her because they thought she was thumbing her nose at the DNC too.  And that's exactly what happened, they voted Clinton.  With Hillary, appearances are everything.  She wanted a good public perception, even though her behind-the-scenes strategy is devious...and that's putting it nicely.  They were going to use Florida as their ace in the hole, if necessary.

But then when she didn't campaign in Michigan, I thought I was being TOO suspicious, I thought I was being overly-sceptical and went on to other things.  That is until I heard that her name was the only one on the MICHIGAN ballot and she had done a "fundraiser" in Michigan after all. 

As you've no doubt heard, Hillary is going to see what she can do to overturn the ban on Michigan and Florida...in the name of "voter disenfranchisement"! 

Hmmmm!  Not so overly-analytical after all...

Where were her concerns about the "voter disenfranchisement" at the time this was originally being discussed at the DNC?  Does she really think we're that stupid...that we can't see what and how she plots?

NOTE:  REPUBLISHED DUE TO A SERVER ERROR, ALL POSTS FROM March 3, 2008 WERE ERRONEOUSLY DELETED.

The following video is unbelievable!

I do have one question, however. 

If an Italian or Russian-speaking firefighter were on their firefighting crews, would the supervisor be required to learn that language as well?  If not, then this is a new kind of discrimination at its' worst!