Hillary's Senate record

That seems to be the pattern of communist leaders over the world. They live like kings while the peasantry is impoverished.

Hillary will make Kerry & Ted "hiccup" Kennedy look like moderate centrists!

And the last memorable rule Hillary broke was running and attaining the title of Senator from NY, having only purchased a house in Westchester Co. (Borrowed money of course. I'd like to see the contract on that deal.)

HillaryCare Unveiled

One of the most terrifying features of the rejected HillaryCare proposal, through which the Clinton Administration attempted to seize the health care industry and nationalize 15 percent of our gross national product, was the section mandating the criminal prosecution of physicians for "bribery" and "fraud," which would have included the provision of health care services deemed "medically unnecessary" by federal officials. These enforcement provisions were intended to put the muscle of federal enforcement power at the service of the Clinton Administration’s philosophy of medical rationing.
As explained by Hillary Clinton in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee on September 30, 1994, the Administration’s socialized medicine plan would not deny treatment unless "it is not appropriate," meaning that in the view of government regulators, it "will not enhance or save the quality of life." What of doctors who took their Oath of Hippocrates seriously and sought to provide treatments not covered by the federal plan? Under HillaryCare, if doctors provided "unauthorized" treatment on a fee-for-service basis, they would have been subject to fines as large as $50,000, forfeiture of their property, and — in some cases — life imprisonment. When such horrific provisions received widespread publicity, the HillaryCare scheme was defeated — apparently. It is not widely understood that the Administration’s rejected plan to socialize health care merely amplified the statist trend presently undermining our health care system. That trend is best described as "corporate socialized medicine" — or, if one prefers, medical fascism.
Under the ethics of Hippocrates, physicians place the interest of the individual patient above that of the practitioner or society at large. But under corporate socialized medicine, or what is more commonly known as "managed competition," the physician is required to place cost considerations and the interest of third-party payers — such as insurance companies and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) — above the concerns of the patient. This leads to the adoption of what Swiss physician-philosopher Ernest Truffer calls the "veterinary ethic," in which the human patient is treated like a pet and provided with the type of medical care determined by the "master" — in this case, the person or corporation responsible for paying the medical bills.

Even without the enactment of Hillary Clinton’s ghastly socialized medicine program, America’s health care system is in serious danger of being shackled with the worst aspects of HillaryCare — rationing of health care and the criminalization of transitional medicine. For the first time in the history of American medicine, physicians are being coaxed or coerced — depending on the stubbornness of the practitioner — into rationing health care by restricting their patients’ access to specialists or to specialized treatments.

What hillary proposed was clearly socialist, not anarchistic. She wanted vastly expanded government control of the health care private sector, along with government restrictions on individual health care choice and a new layer of bloated government bureaucracy to regulate and enforce these new edicts of hers. That is big government socialism any way you slice it. It is not "anarchy." The added dimension of corruption and personal favoritism which would undoubtedly accompany any such scheme by her does not alter the fact that hillary's initiatives and legislative proposals all tend toward central government control and a broad assault on individual rights. Everything she supports, from "gun control" to "internet gatekeeping," proves this.

She is no anarchist.

Anarchy

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

Hopefully someone will obtain a copy soon.

Until then, here's her 1969 Commencement speech:

Wellesley College

1969 Student Commencement Speech

Hillary D. Rodham

May 31, 1969

Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows:

In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior, and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham.

Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:

I am very glad that Miss Adams made it clear that what I am speaking for today is all of us -- the 400 of us -- and I find myself in a familiar position, that of reacting, something that our generation has been doing for quite a while now. We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest and I find myself reacting just briefly to some of the things that Senator Brooke said. This has to be brief because I do have a little speech to give. Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything.

We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage.

We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot.

Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities.

But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18.

It just inspired us to do something about that gap. What we did is often difficult for some people to understand. They ask us quite often: "Why, if you're dissatisfied, do you stay in a place?" Well, if you didn't care a lot about it you wouldn't stay.

It's almost as though my mother used to say, "I'll always love you but there are times when I certainly won't like you." Our love for this place, this particular place, Wellesley College, coupled with our freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality allowed us to question basic assumptions underlying our education.

Before the days of the media orchestrated demonstrations, we had our own gathering over in Founder's parking lot. We protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement. We worked for a pass-fail system. We worked for a say in some of the process of academic decision making.

And luckily we were in a place where, when we questioned the meaning of a liberal arts education there were people with enough imagination to respond to that questioning. So we have made progress. We have achieved some of the things that initially saw as lacking in that gap between expectation and reality.

Our concerns were not, of course, solely academic as all of us know. We worried about inside Wellesley questions of admissions, the kind of people that should be coming to Wellesley, the process for getting them here. We questioned about what responsibility we should have both for our lives as individuals and for our lives as members of a collective group.

Coupled with our concerns for the Wellesley inside here in the community were our concerns for what happened beyond Hathaway House. We wanted to know what relationship Wellesley was going to have to the outer world. We were lucky in that one of the first things Miss Adams did was to set up a cross-registration with MIT because everyone knows that education just can't have any parochial bounds any more. One of the other things that we did was the Upward Bound program. There are so many other things that we could talk about; so many attempts, at least the way we saw it, to pull ourselves into the world outside. And I think we've succeeded. There will be an Upward Bound program, just for one example, on the campus this summer.

Many of the issues that I've mentioned -- those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world.

But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar.

It talks about integrity and trust and respect.

Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling.

We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty.

But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us.

We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.

And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue. The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us.

We have seen heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words -- integrity, trust, and respect -- in regard to institutions and leaders we're perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves.

Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness.

Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs.

There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere.

But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves.

To be educated to freedom must be evidenced in action, and here again is where we ask ourselves, as we have asked our parents and our teachers, questions about integrity, trust, and respect. Those three words mean different things to all of us.

Some of the things they can mean, for instance: Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. If the only tool we have ultimately to use is our lives, so we use it in the way we can by choosing a way to live that will demonstrate the way we feel and the way we know.

Integrity -- a man like Paul Santmire. Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust."

What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before.

And then respect. There's that mutuality of respect between people where you don't see people as percentage points. Where you don't manipulate people. Where you're not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. And the word "consequences" of course catapults us into the future.

One of the most tragic things that happened yesterday, a beautiful day, was that I was talking to woman who said that she wouldn't want to be me for anything in the world. She wouldn't want to live today and look ahead to what it is she sees because she's afraid. Fear is always with us but we just don't have time for it. Not now.

There are two people that I would like to thank before concluding. That's Ellie Acheson, who is the spearhead for this, and also Nancy Scheibner who wrote this poem which is the last thing that I would like to read:

My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems" Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all. The hollow men of anger and bitterness The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation All must be left to a bygone age. And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle For all those myths and oddments Which oddly we have acquired And from which we would become unburdened To create a newer world To transform the future into the present. We have no need of false revolutions In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds And hang our wills up on narrow pegs. It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.

And once those limits are understood To understand that limitations no longer exist. Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free Not to save the world in a glorious crusade Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain But to practice with all the skill of our being The art of making possible.

Thanks, AR. Excellent links!

FYI BTTT......

Re your # 32...Another view of this human horror show!

bump! :^D

Amen, to that.

Trained by her mentor, Saul Alinsky..

ROFL! Thanks. Haven't seen that one in a while. Love it.

Let's not forget another of her favorite leftist gurus, Lerner.

The Clinton Circle satisfies def b. and def c. Even in traditional form, anarchists were members of a cadre or cabal. Alinsky's book presents rules and tactics for grabbing power. Def a. has never existed nor has Utopia. Hillary's tactics are anarchistic and divisive. Should she attain real power (the Presidency), she'd evolve to despot.

See AlohaRonnie's post #39.

BTW, our argument is enjoyable; politics is messy.

But will she and bill give up their wealth and newfound neuveaux riche lifestyle to become TRUE communists?????????

When did any communist leader EVER do that? They all live like kings while their people suffer. Communism never was, and never will be, anything but a SCAM.

"...satisfies def b. and def c."

Nonsense. Both Clintons have devoted their lives to obtaining government power so they can use it to further their control over societies and individuals. The definition of anarchy specifies the absence of governmental power, ie. no government at all.

thx

MISSUS CLINTON ENTERS POST-ELECTION MORALITY-PLAY FRAY (THE LEFT CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE ITS UNFITNESS IN REAL TIME) HAROLD ICKES: on winning the presidency by terrorizing white women

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com

http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women. By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points. In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%. That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values. I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women.": HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN
"Crucial to this protective wall was the secret police, a group of private detectives hired to protect hillary and 'Saturday night bill.' Their tactics included digging up dirt on women who might be linked to bill in order to cow them into silence. There is even some evidence of possible physical intimidation.": HEAR DICK MORRIS
There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that... [f]urthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism
GEORGE WILL
SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL

Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio show Wednesday that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.

Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators.

Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling:

"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
'Shays Shocker Clinton Raped Broaddrick Twice'
National Review Online
By NR staff
8/02/2000

The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know.

She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."

It was the job of these two to squelch the story.

doug from upland to Sean Hannity,
WABC, 10/16/00

"It's no longer acceptable to say that the abuse and mistreatment of women is cultural. It should be called what it is: criminal."

Hillary Clinton
addressing the UN, 3.4.99

"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.

For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

Richard Poe
The Hillary Conspiracy

[Hillary Clinton] began by insisting that the entire Middle East region work to socially and politically enfranchise women. "Human rights are women's rights," she said.

Though some Middle Eastern nations have taken small steps in the right direction, Clinton said women and girls are consistently marginalized in all aspects of society.

"When we look at the political, economic and strategic position in the Middle East today, it's obvious that progress cannot be made if there is an unwillingness to include half the population of these countries," she said.

Clinton described herself as "one of the early voices speaking out against the treatment of women by the Taliban in the 1990s...."

Clinton recommends U.S. foreign policy shift
The Tufts Daily
Patrick Gordon
November 11, 2004

"Gay marriage was an overwhelming factor in the defeat of John Kerry... With one decision of one Supreme Court, all of a sudden we have a constitutional amendment designed, I think, to whip people up, to inflame them, make them stop thinking about other issues, [the result of which was] "an astonishing turnout among evangelical Christians who were voting on the basis of moral values.... I do not believe either party has a monopoly on morality or truth."

bill clinton
Hamilton College, Utica, N.Y.
Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2004
NewsMax.com

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

He rips into jokes about President Bush's intellect as "another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days," adding, "The fact has to be faced: the intellectual candlepower of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration . . . [and] the level of professionalism is very much higher."

hitchens on the clintons

"My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.... there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president"
J. Bradford DeLong
professor of economics at Berkeley
veteran of the Clinton administration
Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy: by Mia T, 01.13.00


ohn Podhoretz recently asked, "Whence comes hillary clinton's reputation for brilliance?" For the answer, he intuitively, rather brilliantly in fact, looked to her anatomy and noted,"This isn't the first time she's shot herself in the foot."

The above anatomical analysis supports the Podhoretz thesis. Notwithstanding The Pod's erroneous conclusions concerning hillary clinton's heart and nerve, he basically has it right. Anatomy is destiny...
Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a Tony Blair [NB: a pre-9/11 Blair]; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."
The pols understand their anatomical limitations well; they attempt to mitigate them with veneer. And so we suffer mindless alpha-beta-beelzebubba grotesquerie. . .
CAMOUFLAGE
KERRY'S PERFECT METAPHOR
POURQUOI JOHN KERRY EST DANGEREUX POUR L'AMÉRIQUE

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

and rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy.

With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth.
The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . .
Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.
Thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root (medius) for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity.
Jimmy Breslin agrees. In Hillary Is the 'Me-First' Lady, Breslin laments:: "At the end of all these years and years that are being celebrated this week, the national press of America consists of people with dried minds and weak backbones and the pack of them can't utter a new phrase for the language or show the least bit of anger at a business or profession or trade or whatever this business is that is dying of mediocrity."

Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché.
In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding).
Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, Can the President Think?
A wasted brain is a terrible thing.

The Clintons devotion to obtaining govt. power is their goal. I agree. Bill Clinton disabled the Justice Dept. for benefit of his cronies and himself. Hillary's tactics fall in place having been enabled by Bill's neutering Justice. Recall the FBI files, Billy Dale and the Travel Office firings and the obstructions to vetting White House personnel (for a few). Recall also the number of whimsical Executive Orders Clinton issued, unchallenged.

Anarchy, utopia and Grand Conspiracy do not exist, however radical anarchistic tactics and petty conspiracies are common. Hillary is a practitioner of both.

.

Originally China Army Money man TERRY MacAULIFFE inked his illegal "No-Stings' finanicial backing for that CLINTON New York home loan until LARRY KLAYMAN's Judicial Watch stopped them.

President CLINTON quickly responded by holding a White House Press Conference to publically:

1) Blast LARRY KLAYMAN and his Judicial Watch Public Interest Law Firm for keeping CLINTON from getting what he wanted, when he wanted it.

2) Blast my U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment for committing a massacre of Korean civilians at the Bridge of No Gun Ri at the start of the Korean War that was later proved to have NEVER HAPPENED.

2 weeks later the car LARRY KLAYMAN was riding in at 55 mph, fresh from the Dallas Airport, was viciously sided-swiped by a fast moving van on the Freeway that quickly sped away. KLAYMAN was nearly killed that day.

And this week CLINTON tells PETER JENNINGS "Don't go there" in a Presidnetal Libray Interview this week.

What's next, I wonder..?

Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
Veteran-U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment's 1st Major Battles of the Vietnam War-1965/1966

http://www.WeWereSoldiers.com
http://www.lzxray.com
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm

.

Don't ya just love the Clintons. They're the "Gift" that keeps on giving! ( Das Gift in German means poison.)

Larry Klayman's senatorial race website