Not Hillary:
" Mah fellow Republicans, ah accept your nomination for U.S. Senate!"
Posted on 08/10/2005 7:53:02 AM PDT by stuckinNY-NJ
We can't toss the RINOs, and shoot for for conservatives in a number of these states until we get a solid 55 or so conservatives elsewhere. Getting a bulletproof conservative majority will marginalize the RINOs and they will either need to become more conservative or be replaced in time. Also, it takes the right candidates to win elections and they need to be groomed and tested.
This all takes time and election cycles but so far it is moving in our direction, and demographic shifts favor Red States when the 2010 Census is completed.
On Ann Coulter's site, she has a picture of her with Al Sharpton. I wouldn't read too much into this.
Rush is not a shill. You sound like the libs who criticize him but who have never listened to him.
Why don't you hammer the opposition instead of one of our leading conservative advocates.
Since both Jeanine and Hillary are pro-choice, a vote should be cast on other positions of these two women......primarily the evil heinousness of Her Heinous.
Leni
If Pirro wins primary then fine. BUT she is not ht person to support in the primary. That is the point
Because I EXPECT the BAD guys to be whacky .... my concern is when my team runs off the track. Then we're REALLY in trouble.
PS please learn to distinguish shilling from advocacy.
I can distinguish just fine. Thank you very much. Rush is a conservative advocate. If your hobby is hammering Rush. I'm sure you'll be quite welcome over at DU.
Leni
Wrong on all counts.
What a coincidence! I can't keep track of all of your statements, either, because your threads keep getting pulled as the moderators are getting tired of your spamming the site.
I spend very, very little time in concern for Rush.
OK, I'm totally open to a better choice is he/she can win.
Not Hillary:
" Mah fellow Republicans, ah accept your nomination for U.S. Senate!"
What is it with the state of New York, has everyone worth running as a Republican left the state.
When missus clinton starts demagoguing immigration, all we have to do is pull out the clinton record:
... thereby locking up any illegal immigrant voter who may have missed hillary clinton's (and her rapist husband's) unflagging support over the years for illegal-immigrant (and illegal-other) illegal-iterative illegal suffrage.... |
Mia T
In words that now seem like a harbinger of her own Sept. 11 death at the hands of the Middle Eastern terrorists, Olson cited example after example of how U.S. officials strenuously warned Clinton that pardoning FALN Puerto Rican separatists who had waged their own bombing jihad on America posed a threat to national security. In August 1999 Clinton pardoned 16 FALN terrorists without even being asked, in a move that was widely seen as a cynical ploy to win Hispanic votes for his wife's New York senate bid. The group had planned and executed 130 bombing attacks on New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. from 1974 to 1983. Miraculously, the FALN managed to kill just six Americans. But hundreds more were seriously wounded. Law enforcement officials were stunned when Clinton decided to pardon the FALN bombers. "The FBI's assistant director of national security, Neil Gallagher, said that the people turned loose by Clinton 'are criminals, and they are terrorists, and they represent a threat to the United States,'" Olson wrote. In a subchapter eerily headlined "Pardons for Terrorists Send a Signal," she reported: "President Clinton had not bothered to consult with relatives of victims of FALN terrorism. In fact, the survivors of those murdered and those whose lives had otherwise been destroyed by the terrorists were not even informed that their attackers were being released." Olson continued: "Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.... conceded that the nation owed much greater consideration to the victims. And Holder's boss, Janet Reno, explicitly acknowledged that groups aligned with the FALN still posed a threat to national security." In comments turned gut-wrenching in light of last month's attacks, former Justice Department pardon attorney Margaret Love told the late author that Clinton's terrorist pardons should have set off alarm bells. "We should have seen a big flashing red light because of the FALN cases.... That was a foreshoadowing of what happened later." Love was referring to Clinton's January 2001 pardons of drug dealers and international fugitives, not the attacks on the U.S., which no one foresaw. But it's nearly impossible now to read those words as anything but prophesy of the terrorist acts that murdered Olson and nearly 6,000 others last month. In a moment of now legendary heroism, the late author telephoned her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, from American Flight 175 to warn that terrorists had hijacked her plane. Mr. Olson had the terrible task of telling his wife that two planes had slammed into New York's World Trade Center minutes before. Barbara Olson's phone call was the first warning the government had that Washington, D.C. had come under similar attack. In comments sure to irk those who argued for eight years that Bill Clinton's private life was nobody else's business, the late author contends that the terrorist pardons were payback for Mrs. Clinton indulging her husband's decades of rampant philandering. "Hillary had done a lot of heavy lifting for her husband, much of it, such as the various bimbo eruptions, that required her to hold her nose. She had to cover for her husband and lie." Olson called the FALN pardons Bill Clinton's "first return on her investment." Though a lively debate has raged ever since Sept. 11 over whether the ex-president did as much as he could to stop Osama bin Laden, the one-time congressional Clinton investigator is the first to raise the FALN pardon question at any length. Perhaps now Sen. Clinton, who has made herself newly available on the TV talk show circuit since the World Trade Center attacks, will be asked whether she agrees with Olson that her husband's terrorist pardons "sent a signal." Olson Book's Chilling Warning: Clinton's Terrorist Pardons Sent Signal Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC <-> DNA sequencing. In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas which have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect. If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time. Mia T, THE ALIENS
Sen. KnowNothing Victim ClintonEffectively Pleads 5TH in Press Conference
by Invoking Spousal Privilege
In a bone chilling chapter of her new book "The Final Days," late heroine-author Barbara Olson warned that ex-president Bill Clinton's pardons of terrorists who had repeatedly bombed buildings in New York City "send a signal" that the U.S. isn't serious about fighting terrorism.
Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
News Max
Oct. 14, 2001
June, 1999
Voter fraud, again! © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com Stop the presses! I mean it. Stop the election! Something is going on in Washington and California that will have a great impact on tomorrow's election -- and it stinks to high heaven. Let me start by telling you how I found out about it. A very good friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, has a long-time live-in housekeeper from Guatemala. The housekeeper has a daughter who just turned 18. The immigration status of both mother and daughter has been pending for years. Papers have been filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Hearings have been held. But they are not citizens. This is very important: The daughter has not registered to vote. But, a few days ago, the 18-year-old got a very attractively packaged "Dear friend" letter from Bill Clinton, paid for by the California Democratic Party. Here's what it said (on one side in Spanish and on the other side in English): "While every election is important, the November 7th election will determine our future for the next decade, and beyond. The stakes are high for America's Latino families. And California is the critical battleground. "That's why I'm writing. We need your help to elect a Democratic Congress. "Despite our strong economy, many hard-working people still struggle to make ends meet. Quality, affordable health care, a world-class education, aging with dignity, and well-paid jobs are part of the American dream -- rather than an American reality -- for too many people. "Electing a Democratic Congress is essential for our 'Families First' legislative agenda. "Congratulations on your decision to register. Registering to vote is a basic responsibility of citizenship that far too many people ignore. "Now that you are registered ... "Remember: Your Vote is Your Voice. "Su Voz, Es Su Voto. Make your voice heard on Election Day. "Sincerely, President Bill Clinton" Below that letter is a P.S. that explains: "Here is your personal Voter Identification Card. Sign your name, then detach your card. Bring your card with you to your polling place on Election Day. It will help your voting go more smoothly." Apparently all the recipient needs to do with this Voter Identification Card is sign it to be eligible to vote. Keep in mind, this was sent to a previously unregistered voter. As my friend points out, only the U.S. government knows her age and pending residency status, and, obviously her Latino background. How did this information wind up in the partisan political hands of the California Democratic Party? And what kind of impact will a mailing like this -- obviously utilizing a government database for political purposes -- have on the California legislative races? How widespread is this fraud? This is making my head spin. The recipient of this letter happens to live in congressional and state legislative districts that are very hotly contested in Southern California. But this appears to be a statewide mailing from the Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento. It's mind-boggling. The fraud is so blatant. Yet, not a peep out of the Republicans. They apparently won't even know what hit them. The polls in recent days show them making big gains in this once-invulnerable Al Gore stronghold state. A mass mailing like this effectively registering tens of thousands of potential Democratic voters days before the election is a secret weapon held back deliberately to avoid detection, scrutiny and publicity. After the election, the party will be happy to pay a fine for any illegalities involved. Clinton will be out of office and untouchable as always. There will be a new regime in at the INS. And it will all be swept under the rug. And who knows if this technique is not being deployed by other state Democratic Party units? I don't doubt it for a minute. This is voter fraud, pure and simple. And those responsible include the president of the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, possibly the Census Bureau and certainly the California Democratic Party. I'm outraged. Are you?
|
SENATORS FOR VOTE FRAUD By ARNOLD ALHERT
October 19, 2002 -- IT'S more than a little ironic. On the same day it was announced that Saddam Hussein has been "unanimously" re-elected, the only two senators preventing a unanimous vote in the Senate on the election-reform bill were New York's own Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. Why? "This would make it more difficult to vote in New York. It's designed to suppress minority voting participation," said Sen. Clinton. The "this" Sen. Clinton is referring to is the new anti-fraud provisions in the bill. They require that every person wanting to vote show a driver's license, Social Security number or other approved ID in order to cast a ballot. Clinton and Schumer preferred a system where a potential voter merely had to sign his or her name. So who is it exactly that this bill is "suppressing"? U.S. citizens have all the requisite ID - no matter what their ethnicity. Could it be that Clinton and Schumer are "sensitive" to some of the leftist fringe groups in this country who are clamoring for the right of illegal aliens to vote? It is no secret that New York is home to thousands of undocumented "residents" - who would vote overwhelmingly Democratic if they could just get past these darn ID requirements. New York's dynamic duo have a lot more 'splainin' to do on this one. E-mail: ahlert@mindspring.com |
We talked about politics in general and the Democratic Party in particular. He was sad to admit that the party he supported during most of his lifetime cares about one thing only --- retaining power. Their issues involve scaring people. That's all they can do. Scare people. Schippers talked about a 1998 recording of Hillary Clinton in which she tried to get out the vote by telling her minions that she had inside information about the Republicans plan to "close down all of welfare..." Regarding the illegal activities in pushing alien criminals to become citizens in 1996, Schippers really wanted to go after that case. They were ready to take the next step and was told that he had the support of the FBI. He believed that U.S. Attorneys were going to file criminal charges against those involved. But it was all suddenly shut down. David Schippers |
|
The clintons' refinement of the DNC "drag and drop," a vote fraud technique by which unwitting, unwilling and/or illegal blacks are coerced into voting multiple times, is not merely illegal and exploitive. It is racist. Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing. In the senate race against Rick Lazio, it is widely understood that the "drag and drop," (followed by the OLD ANGLE / NEW SQUARE / OVAL OFFICE SCHEME ) was clinton's vote fraud technique of choice used to overcome her low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures. Mia T |
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.