Posted on 01/04/2007 9:29:15 PM PST by Mia T
ping
"What did Sandy Berger know and when did he know it?" Excellent! Excellent! MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' We must nail missus clinton at every whistle stop, indeed. About this. About everything.
HILLARY CLINTON THREATENED JUANITA BROADDRICK 2 WEEKS AFTER BILL CLINTON RAPED HER (VIDEO)
|
fyi
Interesting- for later read!
thanx :)
This all screams the question, "Why has the media allocated so little focus on this?"
... The average reporter... once had a stronger loyalty to his craft than his biases -- perhaps the path to the good old days is through the future, and current journalism majors can lead us back to excellence.Today however,
... [T]he media's five-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives (as was reported by the Pew Foundation in 2004) is having a deleterious impact on us all in that we're only fully protected when the GOP commit the offense.... Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it's either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.
The Watergate scandal is an example of the first; Sandy Berger removing and extinguishing protected records of national security exemplifies the second.
... What happened to that kind of passionate investigative journalism? Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified documents is a story with so many startling facts already in evidence, even the layman newshound should think to ask, "What else is being hidden and what are the motives?"
Why is robbing national security documents less important than robbing campaign documents?
Worse than Watergate
Front Page ^ | Jan 5, 2007 | Alan Nathan
James Madison This was bound to happen. The premise behind the First Amendment as it applies to the press--that a vigilant watchdog is necessary, sufficient--indeed, possible--to protect against man's basest instincts--is tautologically flawed: The fox guarding the White House, if you will. Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." True in theory. True even in Lippmann's quaint mid-20th-century America, perhaps. But patently false in this postmodern era of the bubbas and the Pinches. When a free and great society is hijacked by a seditious bunch of dysfunctional, power-hungry malcontents and elitists, it will remain neither free nor great for long. When hijacked by them in the midst of asymmetric warfare, it will soon not remain at all. If President George W. Bush is serious about winning the War on Terror, he will aggressively pursue the enemy in our midst. Targeting and defeating the enemy in our midst is, by far, the more difficult task and will measure Bush's resolve and courage (and his independence from the MPRDC (mutual protection racket in DC)) more than any pretty speech, more even than 'staying the course.' "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place." H. L. Mencken
When the founders granted 'The Press' special dispensation, they never considered the possibility that traitors in our midst would game the system. But that is precisely what is happening today. (Hate America? Support jihad? Become a 'journalist!')
bump . . .
thanx, Twinkie :)
Tempe Star?
Would that the calculation of the heat being emitted by the 'star' under scrutiny in this thread were off by a similar order of magnitude and that the prognosis were at least as poor.... (Tempe Star ( K1-16) 'appears to be even hotter than first thought and may be evolving so rapidly that scientists will be able to watch its death over the next decade.'- HOTTEST KNOWN STAR HOTTER THAN THOUGHT)
Also: CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)
"IS MISSUS CLINTON MENTALLY FIT?"
I saw this in the book of world's stupidest questions along with "Are college campuses too conservative?" and "Is Ted Kennedy a good driver?"
Can't argue with that. ;)
That is, if one fails to considers entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, Clinton corruption is all about the irreversible degradation of the energy in our closed system. A leftist band of heat-producing useful idiots is currently assisting in the clintons' $8-million--make that $20 million--revisionist assault. And if ever there was a heat-producing useful idiot, it is Harvard's Elizabeth Sherman, who contends, apparently, that the clintons' rape of Broaddrick is somehow mitigated over time. Contrast Sherman with clinton Administration veteran, Berkeley professor, J. Bradford DeLong, who observed missus clinton up close:
J. Bradford DeLong There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous Democratic operatives like Susan Estrich, about the clintons sucking up the oxygen, but no one is paying attention to the irreversible transformation of light into heat by the clintons. Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must.
uffery coming from the clintons' perpetual promotion machine--the imperceptibly discontinuous miasmic belches--defies not only the laws of logic and decency but also the first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy. 
chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy.
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.
professor of economics, Berkeley
clinton Administration veteran
"Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far
away from the White House for the rest of her life."
Would that the calculation of the heat being emitted by the 'star' under scrutiny in this thread were off by a similar order of magnitude and that the prognosis were at least as poor.... (Tempe Star ( K1-16) 'appears to be even hotter than first thought and may be evolving so rapidly that scientists will be able to watch its death over the next decade.'- HOTTEST KNOWN STAR HOTTER THAN THOUGHT)
I only wanted to know what you thought of the color, (for my house). :^)
Another serendipitous error? ;)
Will get back to you on the color....
135 posted on 01/10/2007 9:28:15 AM EST by Mia T
~Looking at clock~
Hmmm, it's 3:41PM. I reckon she doesn't quite cotton to Tempe Star.
Oh well, at least my favorite JAP gets bumped. :^)
Oh, thank you very much Mia T. Not only for your reply, but for your considerate ways. :^)
P.S.
This thread sucks! Too many graphics, too long, and I have dial-up for heaven's sake!!!
Why do you think I would tell you my trade secrets after that P.S.? ;)
Image capture software.
bump
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.
About the clintons' rape of Juanita Broaddrick. (Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it's either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.)