Thursday, December 13, 2007

Three Hopeful Presidential Candidates

Chances are, according to recent polls, that one of these candidates will become the next President of the United States. In November 2008, the world will know which candidate won. However, is there anything to rejoice over? I don't think so. The only way the corruption will stop is to get rid of the lobbyists and remove all the politicians, especially the millionaires and billionaires in the Senate, and return to the original Constitution of the United States and bring back all the freedoms, habeas corpus, and rights that the Bush administration duped from the citizens of the United States. Presently, the constitution is dangling from a thread and the way is prepared for a dictatorship not unlike the Fascist regime that existed under Hitler. Is there anyway to prevent the Orwellian world that seems to be unravelling before us? This is an important election. Will it be fair? 2008 will be a most interesting year. And lets not forget the Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. For myself, I wouldn't want to live at any other time as scriptures that speak of the "last days" seem to indicate that these are the times we are now living in. God be with us.
The Three Hopefuls
(Who Will Be the Next President?)
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake
Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2005 7:55 p.m. EST
From the Staff
For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake - in an apparent move to pacify growing dissatisfaction with her position among the Democratic Party's left-wing base.
"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday.
While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.
Citing "assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones."
In fact, "the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work," she complained.
The former first lady charged that "the Bush Administration short-circuited the U.N. inspectors - the last line of defense against the possibility that our intelligence was false."
By describing the White House's WMD evidence as not merely wrong, but false, Mrs. Clinton stopped just short of saying she was lied to.
At times, however, the top Democrat tried to have it both ways - trumpeting her criticism of the war while insisting she backed the troops.
"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war," Clinton said, before adding - "while standing firmly in support of our troops."
She also insisted that by constantly criticizing of the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, she wasn't emboldening America's enemies, explaining:
"Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism."
Hillary Clinton: Peace Mom Wrong on Iraq War
Friday, Sept. 23, 2005
From the Staff

2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton scrambled yesterday to put some distance between herself and Cindy Sheehan, after word of her private meeting with the anti-American "Peace Mom" was reported by the Village Voice.
While Sheehan herself gushed afterwards that her Hillary sitdown went "fabulously," the former first lady sounded a good deal less enthusiastic.
In comments guaranteed to infuriate the crowd, Clinton began by noting that she had met earlier in the day with about 20 moms from American Gold Star Mothers, who vehemently disagreed with Sheehan.
"My bottom line is that I don’t want their sons to die in vain," she told the Voice.
While Sheehan has called the U.S. liberation of Iraq "B - - sh - t," Clinton said:
"I happen to think that fighting for freedom is a noble cause. There are lots of things wrong with how Bush did it. I believe we should have gone through with the inspection process and acted through the U.N. But I believe that standing up against someone as dangerous as Saddam was a good goal.”
Hillary also rebuffed Sheehan's demand that she lead the charge to get the U.S. out of Iraq ASAP.
"I think it is a much more complicated situation," Clinton explained. "I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw."
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess
She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran
January 23, 2006
by Justin Raimondo
As the war in Iraq metastasizes into what General William E. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history," and the cost in lives and treasure continues to escalate, we are already being set up for Act II of the neocons' Middle East war scenario – with the Democrats taking up where the Republicans left off.
The Bush administration, for all its bellicose rhetoric, has shown little stomach for directly confronting Tehran, and this has prompted Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on the Bushies for supposedly ignoring the alleged threat from Iran. Speaking at Princeton University on the occasion of the Wilson School's 75th anniversary celebration, Clinton aligned herself with such Republican hawks as Sen. John McCain and the editorial board of the Weekly Standard, calling for sanctions and implicitly threatening war:
"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate:
"Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not.
"The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said."
This administration's increasingly hysterical statements on the alleged "crisis," supposedly sparked by Iran's resumption of its nuclear energy program, are – as in the case of Iraq – at variance with the judgment of the mainstream intelligence community. Once again, the Bamboozle Brigade – a bunch of freelancing "experts," shadowy exile groups, foreign lobbyists, and a bipartisan collection of pandering politicians – is mobilizing to gin up a war. These war propagandists, including Clinton, make only the most tenuous connection between American interests and the Iranians' alleged forced march to acquire nukes. Instead, they make the argument in favor of ratcheting up the conflict with Iran in terms of the necessity of protecting Israel. Clinton's speech is infused with this militant Israeli patriotism:
"The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not – dare not – waver from this commitment."
While Israel is an American ally, so are Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And don't forget the newly installed "democratic" and supposedly pro-American government of Iraq. Israel "at the core" of U.S. policy in the Middle East? I don't think so. Such an Israelicentric viewpoint, while not out of place in an Israeli politician, seems just a mite strange coming from an American – even if she is a senator from New York. It ought to go without saying that the foundations of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East – or anywhere else – have to be predicated on purely American interests, and that the "core" of that policy has to be our own economic well-being, which is inextricably linked to the stability of the region.
Do we really want to see the price of oil skyrocket to over $100 a barrel? Is it really in our interests – or the interests of the Europeans, for that matter – for Iranian oil assets to be tied to the Euro and other currencies, rather than the dollar? The economic consequences of either eventuality are potentially disastrous for the United States, and yet that is what the reckless Clintonian policy of confrontation with Iran would entail. Unfortunately, however, the grip of the Israeli lobby in the U.S. is so firmly locked around the necks of certain politicians that any rational discussion of what serves our interests – not Israel's – is next to impossible.
It is the task of Israel's amen corner in the U.S. to convince the American public, and especially to prevail upon their elected representatives, that Israel's interests and our own always coincide. The propaganda campaign launched to convince us that Iran's president is the next Saddam and Tehran is deserving of a little regime-change assumes this, and the Clinton speech is a prime example: "A nuclear Iran," she avers, "is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond" – an interesting order of priorities, to say the least. She doesn't bother making any explicit connection between the pursuit of American interests and this relentless campaign to demonize the Iranians: it is enough that Tehran poses a potential threat to Israel. For Clinton, that alone is reason enough to go to war.

There is a disturbing quality to Clinton's several reiterations of fealty to Israel: it isn't only the numbing repetition and the brazen pandering, it's also the matter-of-fact yet still hectoring tone, the assumption that only one position is possible:
"One cannot look at the Middle East today and not believe that there has been progress against great odds. Former sworn enemies of Israel are recognizing its existence, are even talking about ways of increasing trade, commerce, and diplomatic relations."
Surely there are more meaningful measures of progress in the Middle East than diplomatic and economic benefits accrued to Israel – such as, for example, the growing movement in favor of democracy in the Arab world. But oh no, that wouldn't do – unless, of course, any such development is explained in terms of how Israel will gain. A narrower, more sectarian view of the Middle East would be hard to imagine.
Another of the War Party's talking points on the Iran question is the argument that a conflict with Tehran is inevitable, a tack taken by the Clinton-Lieberman wing of the party in seeking to outflank the Republicans on the Right while placing the blame squarely on Bush's shoulders: "Part of the problem," says Clinton, is Iran's "involvement in and influence over Iraq." Yet she has never voiced regret for her vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion that brought the pro-Iranian Shi'ite coalition government to power – far from it. For her to decry Iranian influence in "liberated" Iraq, on the one hand, and to continue voicing opposition to the John Murtha out-pretty-soon-if-not-now position, on the other, is typical of her mealy-mouthed, passive-aggressive style of warmongering. Yet her position is nonetheless clear. Instead of getting out, she wants to use Iraq as a base from which to threaten Iran:
"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have."
A "quick strike" – against whom? And what could these "safe areas" be other than permanent military bases? Clinton is the first American politician to come out squarely in favor of building what amounts to launching pads for further aggression in the region. This is something even the Bush administration has been canny about, never acknowledging their clear plans to lay the groundwork for such bases. Not Hillary, however: she isn't the least bit shy about her vision of consolidating and projecting American power all the way to Tehran – and beyond.
She's intent on out-neoconning the neocons – a risky proposition, given the proclivities of her Democratic base, but one that she embraces, it seems, as a matter of high principle. If she's running for the Democratic presidential nomination, she should logically – in the name of opportunism – tilt left, i.e., toward the antiwar camp. Yet she is tilting rightward, or, at least, in a distinctly neoconnish direction: an indication that, in her own mind, she's already the nominee.
Surely such arrogance deserves punishment.
Right now, the main political obstacle to the peace movement isn't George W. Bush and the Republicans: they are plummeting in the polls, in part due to voter dissatisfaction with the way the Iraq war is going, and will be lucky if they can retain control of both houses of Congress in the next election. The main danger isn't the GOP, it's the DLC – the Democratic Leadership Council, one of the main engines of the War Party's influence over the Democratic elite. It is the DLC that has so far prevented the anti-interventionist wing of the Democratic Party from asserting itself at the national level. As the Clintonites, the Kerryites, the Kos-folk, and the growing antiwar caucus draw battle lines in the struggle for the soul of the party, the scene is being set for a new manufactured "crisis" over yet another "rogue nation" supposedly building "weapons of mass destruction." One of the first signs of this internecine fight is an effort by antiwar Democrats to challenge and oust Sen. Joseph Lieberman – the most visible and vocal Democratic supporter of the Iraq war, and a longtime advocate of going after Iran – in the upcoming party primary. One wonders, however, how these "Kossacks" will react to the increasing likelihood of Hillary as our commander in chief: although I would love to be proven wrong, my big fear is that, despite her Amazonian aggressiveness when it comes to foreign policy, these supposedly "antiwar" Democrats will find her Xena-like persona irresistible.
His Cheatin’ Heart
Published 6/23/2004
From the January 1994 American Spectator: David Brock's "Living With the Clintons: Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed."
Chapter V
The troopers were closer to Bill than to Hillary Clinton, who in their telling comes off as unflatteringly one-dimensional. The troopers chauffeured Clinton on a daily basis and were privy to his every move. Hillary, on the other hand, kept her distance. When she left the residence, she never informed them of her schedule. In fact, when she could, Hillary avoided even speaking to them, preferring to speak through Bill or some other third party, possibly because she disdained their role in facilitating his philandering.
Although Hillary's circle of friends and advisers included more activist liberals, the troopers saw Hillary -- like Bill -- as a shrewd and practical operator concerned primarily with personal political advancement. While the troopers saw Clinton playing the candidate, they saw Hillary playing the bad cop, gutsy and decisive, all backbone. They remembered well the now-famous time that Hillary showed up at a news conference of Tom McRae, Clinton's opponent in the 1990 governor's race, and interrupted the candidate's statement with a sustained defense of her husband.
From their direct observations, Patterson and Perry said they believe that Hillary is more obsessed than Bill with his political fortunes. She expressed this concern, as she did most everything, in language that makes the Watergate tapes sound like a Sunday school lesson. "I remember one time when Bill had been quoted in the morning paper saying something she didn't like," Patterson said. "I came into the mansion and he was standing at the top of the stairs and she was standing at the bottom screaming. She has a garbage mouth on her, and she was calling him motherf -- -er, c -- -sucker, and everything else. I went into the kitchen, and the cook, Miss Emma, turned to me and said, 'The devil's in that woman.'
"Hillary, as described by the troopers, pursued power with a single-minded intensity, had few friends outside politics, and was not especially close to her family -- just like her husband. "Everything was politics. They wouldn't go out to dinner with friends the way you or I would or the way I've seen this governor [Tucker] do," said Perry. "If they were invited to a private party, and there were only going to be eight or ten people there, she would say, 'We're not going to waste time at that thing. There aren't enough people there.' I never saw Hillary just relax and have a good time."
While Bill genuinely enjoyed shaking every hand in a room, Hillary seemed to view retail politics as a distasteful if necessary evil. "She hated Arkansas. She would always say how 'backward' the state was," Perry said. One trooper told Perry that Hillary forbade him to speak when he accompanied her on a trip to Washington because, as she put it, he "sounded like a hick from Arkansas."
One of Hillary's pet projects in Arkansas was HIPPY, the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, which provided the mothers of underprivileged pre-school youth with in-home instruction by state-sponsored tutors. During the presidential campaign, a commercial was filmed at the governor's mansion featuring dozens of the impoverished HIPPY children, who stood for several hours in the baking heat while the scene was set. For security purposes, the governor's residence is fitted out with several video cameras and one audio monitor -- at the rear door -- that connected it to the guard house. "They would usually forget that thing was on, and we would pick up a lot of what they said. On this particular day, I heard Hillary come out on the rear porch and say, 'I want to get this s -- - over with and get these damn people out of here,'" Perry remembered.
The troopers were also objects of Hillary's wrath. Patterson recalled the early morning of Labor Day in 1991, when Hillary came out of the mansion, got in her car, and drove off. Within a minute or so of leaving the gate, her aging blue Cutlass swung violently around and came charging back onto the grounds, tires squealing in the dust. "I thought something was terribly wrong, so I rushed out to her. And she screamed, 'Where is the goddamn f -- -ing flag?' It was early and we hadn't raised the flag yet. And she said, 'I want the goddamn f -- -ing flag up every f -- -ing morning at f -- -ing sunrise.'"
Such displays made Hillary by far the most unpopular member of the first family. Troopers volunteered to work several days of consecutive 16-hour shifts just to avoid traveling with her. Though it may have been a reflection of chauvinism on their part, the troopers thought Hillary "liked to intimidate men," Perry said. She would remark that troopers' guns are "phallic symbols." Or she would phone the mansion from her law office and order troopers to fetch feminine napkins from her bathroom and deliver them to her at the firm.
Though they believe she advised her husband on all important matters of state, it seemed to the troopers that the Clintons led very separate lives otherwise. Hillary drove herself in the Cutlass each morning to the Rose Law Firm, about a mile from the mansion. Clinton worked either from his office in the capitol or in the residence. More often than not, one of the troopers drove the Clintons' daughter, Chelsea, to school. In the evenings, the family members generally dined separately.
When Bill and Hillary did spend time together, they were barely civil to one another, in the troopers' assessment. Many times the couple would be driven to an event an hour or more outside Little Rock -- with Bill sitting in the front seat of the Lincoln with the driver and Hillary in the back seat -- and say nothing at all to each other, which struck the troopers as quite tragic. "If he was dead politically, I would expect a divorce in 30 days," Roger Perry said.
Chapter VII (excerpt)
The troopers speculated that Hillary tolerated this behavior much as eighteenth-century aristocrats maintained marriages of convenience to suit the social and material needs of both parties. Hillary herself was intimately involved with the late Vincent Foster, a partner at the Rose Law Firm and later deputy White House counsel. Foster killed himself in July under circumstances that remain murky. "It was common knowledge around the mansion that Hillary and Vince were having an affair," said Larry Patterson, though he conceded that the evidence for this is more circumstantial than his first-hand knowledge of Clinton's behavior.
According to all of the troopers, whenever Clinton left town, no sooner would he be out of the mansion gates than Foster would appear, often staying in the residence with Hillary into the wee hours of the morning. One of the off-the-record troopers drove Hillary and Foster to a mountain cabin in Heber Springs, maintained by the Rose firm as an out-of-town retreat for its lawyers, where the two spent significant amounts of time alone. Patterson and Perry were both aware of this at the time. On several chance occasions -- at the Heber Springs retreat, and once stopped at a traffic light in Little Rock -- troopers said they observed Foster and Hillary embracing and open-mouth kissing.
Patterson once saw the two in a compromising position at a birthday party for Hillary held at the Little Rock French restaurant Alouette's. Bill also attended. While seated at the restaurant's bar, outside the dining room, Patterson said he observed Hillary and another woman from the Rose firm, Carolyn Huber, come out to the bar for a private chat. Soon thereafter, Foster emerged from the dining room on his way to the men's room. "He came up behind Hillary, and squeezed her rear end with both of his hands. Then he winked and gave me the 'OK' sign," Patterson said. "On the way back, Huber was turned away, and Vince put his hand over one of Hillary's breasts and made the same 'OK' sign to me. And she just stood there cooing, 'Oh Vince. Oh Vince.'" Huber, now an assistant to the president, said she never attended such a party.
Pro Abortion Feminist Hillary Rodham Clinton
The woman behind the Monica events!
Is that a HIEL? Believer in the One World Order
Hillary Clinton Wears New Lapel Pin that Represents Her as an Illuminist

(Misinformation? This is how the "rags" get people to buy their trash.)

(What do you think? Any truth to Hillary being an Illuminati and a witch?)
Subtitle: Hillary Clinton and some Administration associates have been wearing a lapel pin that is clearly an ancient symbol used by the Masters of the Illuminati. This illustrates the contention that Hillary and Bill Clinton are practicing Illuminists. The public use if this pin gives credence to the concept that the New World Order is very, very close. The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!
The Cutting Edge
It has been reported that Bill and Hillary are practicing Illuminist witches, through the series entitled, "Clinton's Fatal Leadership". There have been reported many evidences of this phenomenon, but only after the Biblical foundation was set in NEWS1215, "Clinton Identifiable In Biblical Prophecy As One Of The 10 Kings of Daniel 2 & 7, and of Revelation 17." If you have not yet read this article you are encourage to do so now. Then read the full article and others in the series by clicking on the link on The Cutting Edge home page entitled, "Clinton's Scandals".
Phoenix Bird One of Major Symbols of the Illuminati
The Phoenix Bird is one of the foremost symbols of the Illuminati, according to Doc Marquis. Therefore, since Hillary Clinton is wearing this symbol, we can know conclusively that she is an Illuminist. Further, since this Illuminist lapel pin was worn by two people very close to President Bill Clinton, we can know for certain that he is an Illuminist, too. [This lapel pin was seen being worn by: Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services and Bettie Currie, Clinton's Personal Secretary, see U.S. News & World Report, 2/9/98].
Finally, this lapel pin was seen being worn by Conservative Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick! This fact demonstrates conclusively that both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, are equally committed to the New World Order! Now you are deceived no longer and you know the truth of what is really going on in Washington, D.C. President Clinton will not get removed from office because that is most definitely not the plan, as the Republican leadership is just as committed to the New World Order as is Clinton.
Hillary Clinton Receiving Blessing From a Shaman
This picture is truly worth 1,000 words. Here, we see Hillary being "blessed" by a Native American shaman, giving her a traditional American blessing. Native American spirituality is quite the rage these days, as you can see for yourself by going into a New Age bookstore, where you will find so many books touting their old religion. The reason New Agers and witches of all stripes are really "into" Native American spirituality is that the Native Indians practiced an Earth Mother worship very close to our current New Age. In fact, Native Americans are held up continuously as supreme examples of an entire nation "living close to Nature", in "perfect harmony and balance." Hillary would have had no trouble allowing a Native American shaman to bless her and pray over her.
The facts seem to be all in. Bill and Hillary Clinton are just what Doc Marquis said they were, telling me back in 1992 that they both were practicing Illuminist Witches, with Hillary outranking Bill in the occult world. Again, if you have not read our articles on the Clinton Scandals, we urge you to do so. After reading these articles, you will understand that our leaders are truly what the Bible says they will be at the End of the Age -- powerful, Black Magic witches, just as Antichrist will be when he arises.
(What the ... ?)
Rudy Giuliani
Firefighters Urge "Peeling Of Giuliani's 9/11 Onion"
Spokesman for largest Firefighters' union speaks outSteve Watson, Monday, March 12, 2007
The press secretary of the biggest firefighters' union, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) has today shed more light on the furor surrounding last week's press coverage of Giuliani's snubbing of the firefighters invitation to an upcoming presidential candidate forum.
Alex Jones was joined on air today by IAFF's Jeff Zack, who revealed in no uncertain terms that the image of Giuliani as some sort of a 9/11 hero could not be further from the truth as far as the firefighters of New York are concerned.
Last week the AP reported:
After Giuliani pulled out of a planned appearance at an International Association of Firefighters presidential forum next week, the group released a stinging draft letter indicating that it almost didn't invite him at all because of continuing anger at his "despicable" role in pulling firefighters off the Twin Towers' debris pile in 2001 before all hope of finding their dead comrades' remains was exhausted.
"The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families, and our New York leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten," said the three-page letter, drafted by union leaders in late February and first disclosed on Newsday's Web site Thursday.
A CNN report covers this in more depth here.
Mr Zack explained on the Alex Jones show that the initial decision from those debating the issue from New York City and from the national office was that Rudy Giuliani shouldn't be invited. Zack explained that this was:
"Because of the egregious way he treated our fallen and those attempting to pursue a dignified recovery of the citizens and firefighters that lost their lives that horrific day. In making that decision a discussion ensued about, well, how are we going to communicate to our membership that we're not inviting Rudy because, you know, he would be the only person that was not invited, every other major candidate was invited from the Republican party and the Democratic party. So we drafted a letter to let people know of exactly the circumstances that were discussed and why Rudy didn't deserve an invitation."
Before there was a final decision another discussion ensued and it was finally decided that Giuliani should be given a platform regardless, so he did get invited, confirmed his appearance last Monday and then two days later changed his mind and canceled. The firefighters' union, feeling somewhat snubbed, decided to release their previous draft letter anyway in order to give more clarity to the situation.
Mr Zack went on to explain exactly why the firefighters hold Giuliani in such low esteem:
"There were a number of issues over which our firefighters had severe disagreements with the mayor prior to September 11th, and then his actions following that horrific day where he made the decision to pull firefighters off the pile from searching for citizens and firefighters that lost their lives, and he went to a full what we call 'scoop and dump', where he was just taking all what he determined was trash, putting it on a barge and sending it to Fresh Kills landfill. Well that what he called trash contained the remains of thousands of citizens, hundreds of firefighters, and we felt that the families of those people deserved some sort of closure and some sort of dignified recovery process because they were innocent victims."
To this day the remains of hundreds of innocent victims of the September 11 attacks are still sickeningly buried in the world's largest rubbish dump, on Staten Island, where it has been decalred by New York officials that they will stay for ever. Officials, citing financial constraints, have refused to make any concessions and wish to leave those victims to rot in the ground with acres of stinking trash.
Giuliani's official reasoning for this was that he was acting in the interest of safety. The IAFF believes this to be totally false, Jeff Zack commented:
"For him to determine that it was unsafe, OK this actually was the most unstable unsafe destruction area in the history of the Untied States, but for Rudy Giuliani to all of a sudden become concerned, six weeks after the initial accident where hundreds and thousands of people had been coming through and working on that pile for weeks and weeks, all of a sudden he became concerned about the safety of people on that pile? That's disingenuous."
Zack then reiterated the real reason behind Giuliani's action:
"The real reason was that the Bank of Nova Scotia's assets were buried in that rubble, the day they got those assets out of that pile, Rudy shut the pile down, said 'everybody off, we're going to full scoop and dump'... It was gold, it was silver, it was other assets, I've seen a lot of numbers too, I don't have an exact one so I don't wanna give it to you... Our firefighters were on the pile helping excavate the gold as well, our problem is that all Rudy cared about at the end of the day was the gold bricks, not the lives and the memories of those that were the true heroes that day."
At the time, in November 2001, it was reported that $200 million in gold bullion has been recovered from the site. One day later around 50% of firefighters were removed from the job and totally denied access.
Many declared they were being disrespected, that the city was more concerned with gold than people. Others said the city wanted to speed up the removal of debris to save money.
'We're on a mission, and we won't leave until it's done,' insisted fireman Chuck Horack. 'We see the site as sacred ground. Our brothers are still in the debris. No one can ever know how important it is to bring their husband home to a widow.' Mayor Giuliani launched a bizarre and savage attack on the firemen, saying their actions were 'sinful'. 'They have absolutely no monopoly in caring about the people there,' he said.
Another huge 9/11 scandal that has angered the firefighters and first responders, is that of the criminal culpibility on behalf of government officials who certified the air safe to breathe in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Mr Zack stated:
"That's a whole another issue, the extreme denial, not only in which the Federal Government was, but the City of New York in cooperation with the Federal Government, about how dangerous it really was to be on that pile, not just working on the unsettled situation but breathing that air full of the toxic particles that we now know it was full of.
There was a whole lot of discussion including the Environmental Protection Administration, which said 'the air there is not a problem', New York City and Rudy Giuliani's administration agreed with that assessment and continued to put forward the idea that it wasn't a problem and that it was OK."
We have previously exposed in great detail how not only did the government know on the day itself that rescuers were being exposed to harmful dust, they also ordered misleading information to be given to the public, they ordered scientific research results on the air to be falsified, they allowed residents to return to their homes in the immediate vicinity knowing the air was corrosive and lethal and, to top it all off, they have since embarked on a collective program to block compensation and funding of health programs because that would be an admission of guilt.
We have also previously exposed how Rudolph Giuliani admitted to Peter Jennings that he got a warning that the South Tower was about to collapse.
Why is this important?
No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history. The event was unprecedented. To know the building was about to collapse would require inside knowledge of 'the 9/11 script' and how it was supposed to unfold on that fateful day.
Remember, right before the building collapsed, firefighters reported minimal fires which they could quickly and easily extinguish.
Why didn't the brave firemen and rescue workers who were rushing into the building get the same warning? Even if the warning was only only communicated minutes before the collapse, countless lives could have been saved.
Consider the amount of people on the lower floors, in the lobby and immediately outside that could have rushed to safety in those few minutes.
In the years after 9/11 Giuliani has made millions in speaker's fees, going around the country, billing himself as "America's Mayor". As Jeff Zack commented:
"Rudy Giuliani has made millions and millions of dollars off of 9/11, and the story he likes to tell about 9/11, and he has used those millions of dollars and those speeches around the country to build up this image that he was a hero that day and in the days following. As far as the firefighters of New York are concerned he is anything but a hero.
You should really be skeptical about someone who calls themselves a hero. Who spends millions and millions of dollars after the fact, building up an image as an American hero when in fact if you go back and look at what really happened that day and what the real heroes of that day really think of Rudy Giuliani, that's the true measure of who Rudy really is.
This story, Rudy's onion will continue to be peeled and America will learn the true character and who Rudy Giuliani really is."
Giuliani called wanting to search for and give proper burials to fallen heroes 'sinful' while he was ordering them to be scooped up, shipped off and disposed of in a stinking trash heap. He knowingly lied and ordered false information to be released about the toxicity of the air at ground zero. Now this man has the gall to paint himself up as a 9/11 hero and want to use that to become President of the United States.

Tarnishing the Aura of Giuliani on 9/11
by Ellis Henican
Published on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 by the Long Island, NY Newsday
It's the unexamined question of 9/11: What if Rudy Giuliani wasn't quite the hero everybody thought?
For nearly five years now, we've all lived in the glow of "America's mayor," that soot-covered father figure who rose to meet the greatest challenge of all. Rudy standing firm in the terror aftermath. Rudy guiding a rattled city back to its feet.
There was no denying this much in those early days of confusion: New York's grim-faced mayor looked a whole lot more in charge than America's deer-in-the-headlights president.
But what if Rudy's take-charge image was mostly a load of bravado and PR? What if the actual decisions he made -- before, during and after the terror attacks -- were directly responsible for the city's inability to deal effectively with crucial aspects of the crisis?
Well, it's about time someone opened that impolite inquiry.
Hold on tight, now! One of the most carefully guarded myths of 9/11 is about to be shattered for good.
"Grand Illusion," the book is called. "The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11." It is written by Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice and Dan Collins of, two of New York's shrewdest investigative reporters. Published this week by HarperCollins, "Grand Illusion" will forever alter how the world sees Rudy Giuliani's place in America's deadliest terror attacks. You can bet national political reporters will be combing though these chapters as the 2008 presidential campaign season revs up.
With dozens of exclusive and previously unreleased interviews, Barrett and Collins show how the ambitious ex-mayor has spent recent years revising his own truth of 9/11 -- and profiting handsomely from it. Casting himself as a prescient terror hawk who wisely prepared his city for the inevitable, Giuliani in fact ignored repeated warnings from the experts, including his own commissioners and aides.
Instead of confronting the looming danger, they tell how he grew increasingly distracted by pet projects, political turf wars and an extraordinarily messy personal life.
Slowly, the little decisions added up.
Equipping the police and fire departments with incompatible radios from a politically wired vendor. Overruling the warnings of his subordinates and installing the city's emergency-command center inside the World Trade Center -- "the only bunker ever built in the clouds."
"The facts -- depressing but unavoidable -- were that Giuliani had allowed the city to meet the disaster of September 11 unprepared in a myriad of ways," Barrett and Collins write.
When the planes finally hit, the mayor was great on camera, the authors say -- but not so great marshaling a coordinated city response.
Instead of directing his own confused troops, Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik was serving as Rudy's personal bodyguard.
So who was actually in charge in the crucial early hours?
"I don't know who was directing," current police commissioner Ray Kelly told Barrett and Collins. "I literally don't."
Barrett and Collins got exclusive access to some eye-popping 9/11 Commission interviews that have never been publicly aired before and weren't supposed to be for another three years. And they convinced quite a few of the central players to talk on the record, amazingly frankly.
Number two cop Louis Anemone recalled how he tried to get the mayor interested in a citywide anti-terror plan as early as 1998. "Rudy glazed over," Anemone said. "We never had any discussion about security at the World Trade Center. We never even had a drill or exercise there. ... There was just a lack of recognition of the problem at City Hall."
It was probably inevitable, Collins and Barrett conclude, that America would go looking for a ready-made hero at such a difficult time. "The disaster had been so complete that there were remarkably few candidates for the role," they write. Bush's undisclosed-location fly-around "was hardly the stuff of legend."
By contrast, the authors say, Giuliani "embodied the resolve of the nation." His "quick response and personal fearlessness ... provided a clean and reassuring narrative. ... When he assured New York that things would come out all right, he was blessedly believable."
That was almost five years ago.
Then a couple of journalists began to dig.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
Giuliani --- Blind Should Be Able to Carry Guns
According to FOX News:
Republican presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani is leaving the door open to allowing the blind and physically disabled to carry guns.
During a town hall meeting in northwestern New Hampshire Tuesday night, Giuliani told a former police officer blinded in the line of duty and concerned about the former New York City mayor's stance on guns, "You don't have to worry."
"You have a constitutional right, that is protected, to bear and carry arms. It is the Second Amendment," Giuliani told about 200 attendees in a high school gymnasium in Lebanon. "If someone disagrees with that, you have to get the Constitution changed."
He added that he believes in only three restrictions for those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right — a previous criminal record, a history of mental instability and an age requirement.
Kenyon Tuthill, 61, who served as a Suffolk County, N.H., police officer until his injury, told FOX News that he was satisfied with Giuliani's answer.
During his two terms as mayor, Giuliani supported strict gun laws at both the local and national level and advocated the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. But as a presidential candidate, he vows to protect Second Amendment rights at the federal level allowing state and local authorities to determine their own "reasonable" restrictions.
Of course, this is the same Rudy Giuliani that has now reversed himself on every gun violence prevention measure he once supported as Mayor of New York City. Apparently running for president is also a study of pandering, especially to the gun lobby who make up a significant portion (votes and money) in the conservative base.
We wish someone would ask Giuliani exactly why the September 11th terrorist attacks suddenly changed his thinking about gun violence prevention, as the Mayor indicated during his address to the NRA recently. A New York Times story about Giuliani's speech to the NRA on September 22nd quoted the former NYC Mayor:
“I believe that law enforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws,” Mr. Giuliani said. He added that his views have been shaped by his time as a prosecutor, mayor and even by the Sept. 11 attacks, which he said, “puts a whole different emphasis on what America has to do to protect itself.”
Does Giuliani think that we should allow guns on airplanes? Although it's a crazy idea, at least Giuliani could make some kind of connection between 9/11 and his flip-flopping on guns. But to use 9/11 as a shield to cover for his past support for gun control is, frankly, pathetic.
If we're going to allow the blind to have guns, while we're at it, why don't we allow blind pilots to fly aircraft?
Maybe we should turn our electoral politics into a game show where the looniest candidate wins the presidency? Sometimes it looks like that's the direction we're heading.
The 2008 Presidential Election Disaster
(Originally published by JTF.ORG on March 9, 2005)
Unless real conservatives wake up and act now, we will face an unmitigated disaster in the 2008 Presidential election - not from Hillary Clinton or other left-wing Democrats, but from left-wing Republicans who are quickly taking over the Grand Old Party (GOP).
According to polls and pundits, the frontrunners for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination are former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain, two notorious leftists whose positions on the issues are identical to those of the left-wing Democrats.A third possible contender who is being seriously mentioned is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, another hardcore establishment leftist.
The fact that Giuliani, McCain and Rice are currently regarded as the three strongest possible candidates should shock genuine Republicans.
Until recently, a pro-abortion candidate would never be seriously considered for the Vice Presidency on the Republican ticket, let alone the Presidency. In 1996, California Governor Pete Wilson wanted to run for the Republican Presidential nomination but decided not to even try because he knew that his pro-abortion position would never be acceptable to most Republican primary and caucus voters.
Wilson was the Republican Governor of the nation's largest state, and would have been able to easily raise tens of millions of dollars from California donors, but it still would have been futile because Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other early primary and caucus states would have rejected him overwhelmingly.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, another pro-abortion Republican, briefly sought the Republican Presidential nomination, but also decided to withdraw from the race before a single vote was cast, because he saw that no onewas willing to back a pro-abortion Republican candidate.
Rudy Giuliani supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion, in which a living, full-grown unborn baby's brain is sucked out of its skull with a vacuum tube
Yet in 2005, things have deteriorated to the point where all of the three leading Republican candidates are not only pro-abortion, but left-wing on every major issue.
Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.
Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.
(future U.S. President?)
Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.
Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)
Rudy Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton
Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.
When the Giulianis separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.
How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?
McCain claims to be pro-life, but is actually pro-abortion. In an interview in 2000 with the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said that if his daughter became pregnant, he would not object to her getting an abortion.
McCain is also fervently pro-Third World immigration. He once told Geraldo Rivera in a television interview that he thought the emerging Hispanic majority in America is "wonderful. It's wonderful."McCain is a staunch supporter of higher taxes. He was one of the few Republican Senators to vote against all of George W. Bush's proposed tax cuts.McCain zealously supported Bill Clinton's evil war against the Serb Christians, and actually criticized Clinton for not attacking the Serbs with U.S. ground forces.
Last year, McCain considered running for Vice President on the ticket of left-wing Democrat John Kerry.
Rice is pro-abortion and predictably pro-affirmative action. Her election would send a terrible signal about the demographic future of America.
Rice is also one of the architects of the disastrous Iraq war, where - as JTF predicted from the start - we are helping to create another Shiite terrorist nation that will be aligned with the murderously anti-American Islamic fanatics of Iran.
So far no real conservative has emerged as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2008. All of the prospective Republican candidates are horrific.
Unless conservatives wake up and organize now, there will be no difference whatsoever between the Democrat and Republican candidates for President, and the evil left will have succeeded in completely conquering both major parties.JTF wants to help organize a potent movement of right-wing righteous Gentiles in America, similar to the strong right-wing Jewish youth movement that we have succeeded in building in Israel.
For the sake of America, Israel and Western civilization, we hope and pray that we can motivate G-d-fearing American patriots to act. In your heart, you know we're right. And in your guts, you know they're nuts.
In your heart, you know we're right - And in your guts, you know they're nuts. (If the notoriously left-wing John McCain or Rudy Giuliani succeeds in winning the 2008 Republican White House nomination, there will remain no difference whatsoever between America's major political parties.)
Giuliani Ad Ignores Charges from 911 Firefighters and Families
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/19/2007
DNC Press
Washington, DC - On the same day 9/11 firefighters and families are in New Hampshire rebuking his failure to prepare New York City for a terrorist attack, Rudy Giuliani launched an ad that ironically touts his so-called leadership credentials. While Giuliani talks about "being tested" during "times of crisis" in the new ad, he has yet to answer questions from the 9/11 group who say he failed to protect firefighters and recovery workers from debilitating toxic air at Ground Zero.
According to the New York Post today, 9/11 families and firefighters who are holding a press conference at Dartmouth College this afternoon are outraged with Rudy Giuliani's leadership in the aftermath of 9/11. FDNY Deputy Fire Chief Jim Riches said, "He's misleading voters and distorting the truth. He didn't prepare the first responders for a terrorist attack. The Office of Emergency Management was a joke that day. There was a lack of communication. People died unnecessarily." [New York Post, 11/19/07]
"The testimony from the 9/11 families and New York's bravest speaks volumes about Rudy Giuliani's real leadership credentials," said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney. "It is disturbing that Rudy has yet to truthfully answer their concerns and take responsibility for his poor decisions before, during and after 9/11. No doubt voters will look past his flashy TV ad and seriously question Giuliani's judgment and his ability to lead during a time of crisis."
Giuliani: "I believe I've had the most leadership experience of anyone that's running. It's not just holding executive positions, like Mayor of New York…
Reality:New York Times: Giuliani Left Budget Worse Then He Found It. Giuliani's repeated claim that he "turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion dollar surplus" is "misleading," independent fiscal monitors said. In fact, Mr. Giuliani left his successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, with a bigger deficit than the one Mr. Giuliani had to deal with when he arrived in 1994. And that deficit would have been large even if the city had not been attacked on Sept. 11, 2001." [The New York Times, 8/27/07]
Los Angeles Times: Giuliani Has "Poor School Marks" And "Problematic Record on Education." An article entitled, "Giuliani's poor school marks; His record in New York City includes four chancellors, angry teachers and an inferior educational system." The article referred to "his [Giuliani's] problematic record on education." [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/07]
Reality:"Extensive Work By Others And A Healthy Dose Of Luck." "Five months after Mr. Giuliani left the office, some of those who are best qualified to judge him say in interviews that not all of Mr. Giuliani's accomplishments were as impressive as his press clippings suggested and that his successes stemmed partly from extensive work by others and a healthy dose of luck." [The New York Times, 7/11/89]
High Profile Cases Saw "Major Setbacks." In what The New York Times noted were "major setbacks," several key prosecutions started by Giuliani ultimately collapsed, were thrown out or reversed, including 7 of the 14 defendants in the Pizza Connection 2 heroine case, with many critics concluding Giuliani put ego ahead of sound legal work. Newsday wrote that among major cases ultimately lost or reversed were the John Mulheren Jr. stock manipulation case, lawyer-lobbyist E. Robert Wallach's racketeering conviction, and "the case against former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos for racketeering and fraud," finding at least 25 reversals from an appeals court that rarely granted them, particularly in cases were Giuliani made high-profile promises. [New York Times, 7/11/89; Newsday, 9/20/93]
Giuliani: … or 3rd ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department.
Reality:"Questionable Judgment." "Mr. Giuliani is also coming to be seen by some as an ambitious prosecutor who used questionable judgment in several episodes at the Justice Department, both before and during his tenure as United States Attorney," [The New York Times, 7/11/89]
Controversial Stance On Political Refugees. Outsiders "have questioned Mr. Giuliani's role as the main defender of the Justice Department policy of detaining illegal Haitian immigrants while he was the third-ranking official in the department in the Reagan Administration, which focused on control of illegal immigration. Human rights groups criticized the detention camps, saying many internees were political refugees trying to escape the repression of Jean-Claude Duvalier." [The New York Times, 7/11/89]
Ethics Snag On Meeting With Company Under Investigation. "He held a highly unusual meeting with the general counsel of McDonnell Douglas. The aeronautics corporation was under federal indictment on charges of fraud and conspiracy at the time and allegedly applied pressure to Republican lawmakers to get the Justice Department to back off." The career prosecutors handling the case wrote in a letter that he'd created the "appearance that certain influential defendants have access to senior officials." Giuliani lambasted the prosecutors and held a grudge against the prosecutors. [Newsweek, 3/12/07]
Strong Advocate Of Patronage "He also freely used official department letterhead to pitch job recommendations for friends, including 92 letters for the husband of one of his aides." [Los Angeles Times, 8/23/07]
Giuliani: It's having held those positions in time of crisis.
Reality:Exaggerating Fiscal Crisis In NYC: Time asked, "was New York City in financial crisis? Well it had gotten a lot better since 1975 when the city was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. In fact, some say the city's economic profile started to improve in 1990, along with the country's in general." Also, "Predecessors Ed Koch and David Dinkins and other city leaders had been working for years to rebuild from the fiscal crisis of the late 1970s, said Steven Cohen, a public affairs professor at Columbia University." [SwampCast,, 11/14/07; Associated Press, 11/14/07]
Crime Capital Claim "Not Quite True." As for Giuliani's claim that New York was "crime capital of America," says "that's not quite true. Two Cities, Chicago and LA, had higher murder rates, and seven cities had higher property crime rates." And as the Associated Press noted, "Crime began dropping three years before he arrived at City Hall and was also dropping nationally." [Associated Press, 11/14/07] [SwampCast,, 11/14/07]
5th Highest Murder Rate: According to FBI data for cities with populations over 1,000,000, LA, Dallas, Chicago, and Philadelphia all had higher murder rates in 1993 than New York City.
3rd Highest Violent Crime Rate. The same FBI data shows Chicago and Los Angeles in 1993 with higher violent crime rates, with Chicago almost 1/3 higher.
Eighth Highest Property Crime Rate. FBI data shows seven other major cities (1,000,000 or larger) with higher property crime rates in 1993. [Bureau of Justice Statistics]
Giuliani: I've been tested in a way in which the American people can look to me. They're not going to find perfection, but they're going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results. And in many cases, exceptional results. Results people thought weren't possible. I'm Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message."
Reality:September 2001: Giuliani Disapproval Almost 50%. Giuliani's job approval rating is 42-49. [Quinnipiac University Poll, 9/5/01, Conducted Aug 27-Sept 3] Giuliani's "Lengthening String of Exaggeration." "Giuliani added to a lengthening string of exaggerations and misstatements" wrote independent fact checking Web site, which has repeatedly criticized Giuliani's false claims about his record as mayor. [, 10/10/07]
Giuliani Has "A Habit Of Making Sweeping Statements With Little Or No Factual Support." The mayor seems to be making a habit of making sweeping statements with little or no factual support. See our recent posts on his claims about Mikhail Gorbachev and the end of the Soviet Union, the cost of health care premiums, and his own record as mayor of New York." [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 10/30/07]
Boston Globe: Giuliani "Exaggerate[s]" Fiscal Record. "Giuliani and his campaign exaggerate some facts and ignore many others to hone the point" about his fiscal record wrote the Boston Globe, finding holes in his claims about job creation, welfare reduction, tax reduction and the growth of government spending. [Boston Globe, 11/16/07]
Fact Checkers: Giuliani "Exaggerates His Role" In Reducing Crime As New York's Mayor. "Rudy Giuliani touts his crime-fighting record from his days as mayor of New York, but many experts don't think he deserves all the credit he takes….independent experts and studies of the phenomenon suggest Giuliani exaggerates his role." [, 9/2/07]
Boston Globe: Welfare Claim Questionable, Since City Lagged Nation. In an article headlined "Giuliani takes liberties on his NYC record" the Boston Globe wrote that "Giuliani's welfare overhaul was a success, reducing the number of New Yorkers on public assistance to the lowest in 35 years. But the results trailed those achieved by national welfare cutbacks. In eight years, New York's rolls plunged 54 percent, from about 1.1 million recipients to 493,000, compared with a 62 percent drop across the United States, according to the Citizens Budget Commission." [Boston Globe, 11/16/07]
Buzzflash News Alert
Giuliani Tells Manufacturers That What Defines "The Essential Nature" of Americans is "We Want to Sell You Something"
Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher,
December 9, 2007
BuzzFlash found an actual statement reflecting Rudolph Giuliani's honest thoughts. On Friday, December 7, he told an association of manufacturers in Illinois:
"You know what the essential nature of the American people is?" Giuliani said. "You know because your association stands for it. The essential nature of the American people is: We want to sell you something."
So it's not about the charade of trumped up GOP family values (of which Giuliani has been the antithesis in his personal life), nor the importance of religion, nor the nobility of democracy.
No, Rudy cuts right to the chase when among fellow hucksters: what defines us as Americans is that "We want to sell you something."
As usual, this most revealing of Rudy G. comments came at the end of an article (in this case in the November 8th Chicago Sun-Times). That's where we find a lot of the most important news in the mainstream media, in the last paragraph of news stories.
So, it's not about leadership, or moral values, or the Pledge of Allegiance.
It's about packaging, not substance.
And who can embody that more than the man who screwed up everything about handling NYC before, during and after 9/11, except for cutting a "heroic" and "defiant" image for the media? All style, no accountability.
There's something deeply troubling to hear a Republican like Rudy G. bare it all to the business community: what we are about as a nation, they believe, is not our liberty and freedom; it's about selling.
That's right: selling products that we don't need, selling wars, selling politicians who are corrupt and immoral (but repackaging them as heroic), selling us torture, selling us fear, selling us down the river so that a select few at the top can profit and seize unprecedented power.
The great experience of democracy, Rudy revealed, is not about all that patriotic pablum we learn in school; no, the "essential nature" of us as Americans is pushing products, just like Rudy G. is peddling "9/11" as his "brand."
No, Rudy G., America's greatness is not about "selling"; it's about real freedom, and real democracy, and real Constitutional rights, and real liberty -- not the manufactured slogans sold to us by you and the Republican Party.
You don't have to "sell" democracy; you just have to be able to breathe it to savor it.
That is our "essential nature" and nobility as a nation.
Barack Obama

The Politics of Obama's Past Cocaine Use
by: Douglas Burns
Thursday (12/06) at 15:57 PM
When Barack Obama speaks frankly about his youthful drug use in a generic sense on the campaign trail here, voters often respond positively to the Illinois Democrat's straightforward handling of the personal failing. In fact, many see it as revealing a canyon-sized difference between Obama's Generation X candor and the equivocation of Baby Boomers like the Clintons on such matters.
That said, when polls are examined more closely, and the question is posed to voters not on drugs generally but specifically on cocaine (which Obama admitted to using in his best-selling memior,"Dreams From My Father," by noting that he did "maybe a little blow when you could afford it.") the results show some potential vulnerabilities for the senator.
His Democratic opponents haven't seized this issue a in high-profile way. But Republican presidential Mitt Romney has challenged Obama on the drug angle, perhaps presaging a general-election strategy, while two western Iowa conservative Republicans see the issue as having no traction and being fraught with tripwires for their party if mishandled.
"I think it's important for us not to go into details about the weaknesses and our own failings as young people for the concern that we open kids thinking that it's OK for them," Romney said.
What will be facinating to watch is whether Americans' views on cocaine will play out in the election booths as a defining factor or anything close to that. If it does, that could spell trouble for Obama.
A survey of 1,010 adults conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University finds many Americans voice concerns about candidates who've used cocaine.
Adults in the survey were equally troubled over prospects of a president who tried cocaine in his youth, something Sen. Barack Obama has admitted. Only 34 percent said they think most Americans would accept this while 58 percent said it would not be acceptable.
In a New York Times poll in June, 74 percent of respondents said they did not think most people they know would vote for a presidential candidate who has ever used cocaine.
"In the few polls that explicitly ask about cocaine use in a presidential candidate (as opposed to the softer more generic 'Drug Use,')" says one Washington, D.C. insider, "Seventy-four percent say cocaine use makes a person unfit to be president. It's the highest negative apart from 'no government experience.' Put differently, never in the history of the presidency has a front runner openly admitted to using cocaine. So now that Obama is talking about the drug use more often, I am absolutely certain it's because he and his team know that the cocaine issue is going to roar forward. It will be a major issue if he is the nominee.The GOP will ride it hard and he is trying to inoculate."
On the ground here in western Iowa, the co-chairman of the Carroll County Republican Party, John Werden, a county attorney who has handled many cocaine-related cases, says Obama's admission should not be disqualifying. What's more, Werden has a different take on the Obama drug question than Romney, the candidate the long-time western Iowa prosecutor is supporting in the Iowa caucuses.
"As a father and a prosecutor I'm not willing to write off anyone for good public service because of bad things they've done in the past," Werden said.
This doesn't mean Werden doesn't find Obama's drug admissions troubling in one respect. In working with people addicted to drugs, Werden said, there are always concerns that they will grasp on to comments from successful, high-profile people about use and abuse to justify their own actions.
"In an indirect way, it absolves them and in some circles encourages drug usage," Werden said.
Both Werden and veteran Iowa journalist Chuck Offenburger referenced the late Iowa icon Harold Hughes, a popular U.S. senator and governor who was open about his battles with alcohol. Iowans were ahead of their time in accepting this, a history that could play out in Obama's favor with his contemportary admissions of past drug use.
"Everyone knew he (Hughes) had a problem with alcoholism," Werden said. "And that was back in the 1960s before many people even accepted there was a thing as alcoholism."
In southwest Iowa, State Sen. Jeff Angelo, a Republican from Creston and an evangelical Christian, thinks his party enters dangerous waters if it attempts to go after Obama on cocaine use, which Angelo thinks would be old news by the time the nominating process is complete.
"No, I don't think that we can," Angelo told Iowa Independent. "We were all really outraged about many of the allegations against George W. Bush."
Angelo says a 24/7 news cycle takes the shock value out of stories, cuts the legs out from underneath "news" that only years ago would have been catastrophic for candidates.
"I think the voters at this point have become rather numb to these kinds of revelations," Angelo said. "I just don't see it being used as a viable issue."
In fact, he sees some Christians being potentially drawn to Obama for admitting a flaw and seeking redemption.
In respone to a question from Iowa Independent on a conference call this morning, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, also does't see the cocaine question as having any traction with Iowa voters. And he doesn't see how Republicans make it work in a general election.
"I suppose they might try," Harkin said. "I mean, they'll try anything. I think as long as you're open and honest and above board I think more people will say at least he's honest about it, admitted it, and is moving on. A lot of people make mistakes in their lives and have done something that was illegal."
Harkin added, "I think that was one of this Bush's selling points when he ran for president. He admitted he'd been really a heavy drinker and all and kind of pulled himself together and overcame it. What the heck. I think that says a lot about a person."
One influential Obama suporter in Iowa, former state Democratic Party chairman Gordon Fischer this morning told Iowa Independent that George W. Bush would have been wise in 2000 to use the Obama strategy of today on revelations of personal shortcomings. A story about a Bush DUI broke late in the general election cycle and posed serious problems for the campaign, Fischer said.
"If he had talked about it in the primary process people would have said that was dumb but what else do you have," Fischer said.
Fischer said he's been to many Obama events and has never heard anyone raise the question of Obama's past drug use.
"Drug use has never come up, not explicitly or implicitly," Fischer said.
Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled
By Katharine Q. Seelye
Published: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
PHOENIX, Arizona: Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who said Sunday that he was considering running for president in 2008, has created a little sunlight between himself and both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For one thing, he said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled."
"That was the point," Obama told an audience of magazine editors.
The direct admission was in contrast to Bill Clinton's denial in his 1992 campaign for president that he had smoked marijuana.
"I didn't inhale," Clinton said, cementing the idea that he liked to have things both ways.
Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.
In an interview here at a meeting of the American Society of Magazine Editors, Obama said he was not making light of the subject.
"It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy," he said. "Teenage boys are frequently confused."
The question of drug use has become a standard one for politicians, sometimes as a test of their ability to be straightforward. If the politician has used drugs, conventional wisdom says it is best to try to get the question out of the way early.
Obama was also asked for his views about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat who has been a dominant figure in discussions about potential presidential candidates. Obama praised her but made clear that he did not agree with her vote for the Iraq war.
"I think very highly of Hillary," he said. "The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children."
But, he said, they clearly had "different assessments" about the wisdom of going to war in Iraq. Perhaps mindful that he could end up as her vice presidential running mate, he added that he had it easier because he was not in the Senate at the time, while she had to vote.
Asked how he might campaign against her in a primary, he said he had not thought about that.
But he did sound like a candidate in criticizing the Bush administration in somewhat stronger terms than he had previously.
"This administration has done great damage to this country," he said, citing the Iraq war as the chief reason.

Frank Talk About Drug Use in Obama's 'Open Book'
by Bernard Schoenburg, (Source:State Journal-Register)
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, who is running for U.S. Senate, didn't tell all when recently asked about any past use of illegal drugs. I know that because I found out more information in a 1995 book by - guess who - Barack Obama.
"Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," is, according to liner notes, a "lyrical, unsentimental, and compelling memoir" documenting how "the son of a black African father and white American mother searches for a workable meaning to his life as a black American."
In his introduction, Obama says he was asked to write the book because of publicity he received as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, and he took a year off after graduation to do so. He said last week he was 33 when he wrote it. He had gone to law school after being a community organizer in Chicago. His Kenyan father and his mother, a Kansas native, met when both were students in Hawaii.
Obama, 42, told me recently he had tried marijuana in high school and hasn't consumed any illegal drugs in 20 years. When I asked if there was anything beyond marijuana in his past, Obama said, "That'll suffice." But the book includes a passage in which Obama discusses how he dealt with questions from his mother when he was 17 and a senior in high school. The context of the book also makes clear that he was trying to deal with the problems his race presented.
"I had learned not to care," he wrote. "I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..."
"Blow" is a street name for cocaine. "Smack" is slang for heroin.
"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man," Obama wrote. "Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. ... You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection."
Obama last week apologized for not telling me earlier about his past as portrayed in the book. He said I had caught him off guard with the drug question and that, at the time, he had not wanted to overshadow his story of that day - his endorsement by the Illinois Federation of Teachers.
"My life is literally an open book," he said, referring to "Dreams of My Father."
"I was a confused kid and was making a bunch of negative choices based on stereotypes of what I thought a tough young man should be," he said of the period depicted in that section of the book. "Those choices were misguided, a serious mistake.
"Growing up to be a man involves taking responsibility," he said. "By the time I was 20, I was no longer engaged in any of this stuff."
"A lot of us make mistakes when we're kids. Part of my campaign, I think, is to be as clear and honest about who I am and how I've grown as a person over time."
Just for the record, I have been asking Senate candidates about their past drug use because I thought it fair to do so after another reporter popped the question to a GOP candidate at a news conference. Some have said they had used marijuana. Some have said they have never used illegal drugs.
Clearly, the small excerpt I have taken from Obama's 403-page book is just a tiny bit of his story. "'Dreams from My Father' is one of the most powerful books of self-discovery I've ever read, all the more so for its illuminating insights into the problems not only of race, class, and color, but of culture and ethnicity," author and journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault is quoted on the book's dust cover. "It is also beautifully written, skillfully layered, and paced like a good novel." I'll reserve the right to say more about it, if I ever get it all read.
Posted-by: Larry Seguin
Oprah Endorses Obama
By Jeff Zeleny, 03 May 2007

Oprah Winfrey (Photo: Paul Hawthorne/Associated Press)
In Chicago, there is no question who carries the title of the Big O. That would be Oprah Winfrey. It’s a safe bet that Senator Barack Obama doesn’t mind playing second fiddle to the talk show icon, particularly when he has her endorsement at his disposal.
Ms. Winfrey, who for years has been a close friend to Mr. Obama, reaffirmed her support for his presidential candidacy during an interview Tuesday evening on CNN’s Larry King Live. It is the first time that Ms. Winfrey has endorsed – not to mention thrown her brand behind – a political candidate.
“What made you do so now?” Mr. King asked.
“Because I know him personally,” Ms. Winfrey replied. “I think that what he stands for, what he has proven that he can stand for, what he has shown was worth me going out on a limb for – and I haven’t done it in the past because I haven’t felt that anybody, I didn’t know anybody well enough to be able to say, I believe in this person.”
“Is there a side of you, the woman side, that would lead toward a Hillary?” Mr. King inquired.
“Well,” Ms. Winfrey said, “I have great respect for Hillary Clinton. I think I’ve said this before and it’s true: Because I am for Barack does not mean I am against Hillary or anybody else.
“So the fact that I would endorse Barack Obama and the fact that I would support Barack Obama,” Ms. Winfrey added, “I have not one negative thing to say about Hillary Clinton.”
She said she has not written a check to Mr. Obama’s campaign.
“Well the truth of the matter is, whether I contribute or not contribute, you are limited to how much you contribute, so my money isn’t going to make any difference to him,” Ms. Winfrey said. “I think that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.”
And that, of course, raises the ultimate question: What exactly will Ms. Winfrey do for the campaign? Even Mr. Obama’s aides don’t have an answer and are far from certain how they will use – or attempt to use – this endorsement.
But is it such a bad problem to have?
Obama Receives Hero's Welcome at His Family's Ancestral Village in Kenya
Nairobi27 August 2006
Gnecchi report - Download 404k Listen to Gnecchi report
Barack Obama stands atop a desk during a speech in the village of Kogelo, KenyaU.S. Senator Barack Obama delighted crowds with a homecoming speech Saturday in his family's ancestral village of Nyangoma Kogelo, Nyanza province, in western Kenya. The Senator made time to visit his grandmother and other family members, while on an unofficial six-day tour of regional development and AIDS projects in Kenya.
The Illinois Senator began his tour of western Kenya on Saturday morning by taking a voluntary HIV test in Nyanza General Hospital to encourage an AIDS prevention campaign in the highly affected region. He then received a joyous reception from thousands of people at a primary school in his late father's village.
Senator Obama, who grew up in the United States, traces his father's origins to the small and humble village close to the shores of Lake Victoria in Eastern Africa.
Luo dancers from the Senator Barack Obama Primary SchoolIn his speech to well-wishers, Obama expressed a deep sense of solidarity with this small community and the Kenyan people. He said his father's remarkable life is the story of what is possible when a community comes together to support its children.
"He grew up around here. He was taking care of goats for my grandfather, and, maybe, sometimes, he would go to a school not so different from the Senator Barack Obama School," he said. "Except, maybe, it was smaller, and had even less in terms of equipment and books, the teachers were paid even less, and, sometimes, there wasn't enough money to go to school full time. Yet, despite all that, the community lifted him up, and gave him the opportunity to go to secondary school, then go to university in America, then get a Ph. D. in Harvard..."
Luo council of elders, listening to Senator Obama
Obama is only the fifth African-American to ever sit in the U.S. Senate, and his trip to Kenya has been highly anticipated by his relatives, the community and local politicians.
He has also used his personal connection to Kenya to challenge the country's leaders about good governance and fighting corruption. He warned that aid packages alone will not deliver development, and said the key to Kenya's success will come from its own people.
U.S. Senator Barack Obama, right, walks with his grandmother Sarah Hussein Obama at his father's house in Nyongoma Kogelo village, western Kenya, Saturday, Aug. 26, 2006 The Senator's wife and children were by his side, as he gave his commitment to help make sure that children around the world will have an equal chance for higher education and wider opportunities.
"That's why I'm so dedicated to trying to make sure that our young people, in Kenya, in the United States, in the Congo, all children can be well, all children can get the medicines that they need, all children have the opportunity to study, and, ultimately, get employment, so that they in turn can support a family, that all children have that same opportunity," continued Obama. "There is no reason why we can't do that. We have enough resources. We have the knowledge. We have the technology. What we lack is the commitment and will."
Obama has been on a five-nation tour of Africa, taking time to visit his father's home and relatives in western Kenya. This is his third visit to Kenya since the death of his father, Hussein Obama. All of Nyanza province helped prepare the heroes welcome that included T-shirts, baseball caps and even a local drink named after the celebrated senator.
Senator Obama is devoted to fighting HIV/AIDS and has made a personal donation of $14,000 to an AIDS orphan care facility in Kenya. He is also committed to making Africa a top priority in American foreign policy.
The Media's New Rock Star
By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Barack Obama will never get this kind of cuddly coverage again.
One hundred and fifty journalists in New Hampshire for his little drop-by on Sunday, when the guy hasn't even decided whether he's running for president?
Has he cast some kind of magic spell over the normally hard-bitten, cynical, run-over-your-grandmother-for-a-story press corps? Or are they just engaged in the audacity of hope that they might get to cover a young and exciting African-American candidate with a shot at winning?
Let's face it: The minute Obama gets into the race--a prospect that Newsweek now puts at 80 percent--the gloves come off, the investigative reporters start crawling over every piece of paper he ever signed, and he begins the long descent toward ordinary mortal. Because right now, the freshman senator is up in the media stratosphere, far beyond the slings and arrows of news organizations and potential opponents. Almost no one, for example, is asking whether a guy who has been in the Senate for all of two years is a plausible commander-in-chief.
Trust me, that will change.
If Obama orchestrated all this--book tour, Oprah embrace, hint-dropping with Tim Russert, pressing the flesh in Manchester and Portsmouth--he may be some kind of genius. But most of the coverage has focused on his star potential, not on his plan for a withdrawal for Iraq or how he would deal with Iran or North Korea. I still believe that any candidate without national security credentials is going to have a tough time, but maybe Obama will find a way to suspend the laws of political gravity.
Slate's John Dickerson was among the media pack in the Granite State:
"Brenda Bladen was trying to explain why she liked Barack Obama so much--he was authentic, selfless and inspirational. He was restoring her faith in politics. 'I'm not comparing him to Jesus Christ but . . . ' she said, before talking about the senator's humble beginnings . . .
"It's easy to see why New Hampshire Democrats were in a frenzy over Obama. He is a winning presence in a room. He is stylish in his uniform of white shirt, no tie and dark blazer. He carries himself with the weightless self-possession men's magazines achieve only by employing a team of stylists and wardrobe artists. Even his left handed signature is elegant--a 'B' and an 'O' connected by confident slashes. If he really were a rock star, he'd have it etched into the side of his private plane . . .
"But coolness doesn't get you elected, and coolness wasn't what had the New Hampshire audiences even more excited after they heard Obama speak. They were in love with the senator's message, a call to political renewal and rebirth that eschews what he calls the '24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics.' The audiences in New Hampshire reacted to his remarks with one word appraisals: inspirational, uplifting, moving . . .
"If he decides to run, Obama faces the difficulty of any politician campaigning against politics as usual--he can't act politically or he ruins his brand. Running for president is exhausting, brutal and chaotic even if you're using the old playbook. Obama is suggesting he will go through that slog under a new set of rules that include a higher standard of candor for himself and greater fairness towards his opponents than has ever been practiced in electoral history. That is audacious and perhaps impossible."
HuffPosters Dave Johnson and James Boyce devise a novel explanation for Obama's popularity: "Senator Obama is admired and he is loved. Look at the recent favorability polls and there he is, the Number One Democrat in America. But why? Why is a junior senator, nationally a virtual unknown just two years ago, now at the top of the national favorability ratings? Is it because of his new book? His great 2004 Convention Speech? His appearance on Oprah? All of these, of course, but in fairness, does Barack Obama truly deserve to be the Democratic leader with the highest national favorability in a recent poll? Hardly.
"With complete respect to Senator Obama, where are the long-time Democratic leaders who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country? Where are the other possible presidential contenders? What about Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry? Where are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Are they not leaders that deserve at the very least to have decent favorability ratings?
[Read the entire article at]
Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama, look at his background, since he has no real political record. He is NOT "black" he is Arabic! His father's birth certificate says he is ARAB, not 'black'. Obama is Arab-American, not 'black' American. - Submitted to Buzzflash by CSA citizen as comment for article, 'The United States is a Radical and Revolutionary Nation' on Sat, 07/05/2008.
"Throughout the world ... we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures."

Septic Truck