Friday, December 30, 2005
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has finally broken her silence on the Bush administration National Security Agency program that conducts surveillance on suspected terrorists based in the U.S. - saying that she opposes spying on "Americans."
The top Democrat chose an unusual forum to announce her opposition - a fundraising letter emailed Friday in which she detailed her resolutions for the New Year.
"I am resolved to keep speaking out about my disagreements with this administration and their congressional allies," Clinton told her supporters, listing among her complaints: "A secret program that spies on Americans!"
After noting the NSA program, Mrs. Clinton vowed to fight for "national security policies that tell the truth and level with the American people."
She also observed that "the values that made America in the 20th century not just the economic leader of the world, but the moral leader of the world are under attack today."
First of all, no one with the last name 'Clinton' should be allowed to have any say on "values" or "morals".
Secondly, this is another example of Hillary at her best--keeping an eye out on the polls and playing the Leftist card to cater to her liberal fanbase when needed, while not venturing too far left to rankle her more centrist ideologies.
Of course, leave it up to Clinton and the rest of the liberal zealots to leave out the fact that the only Americans being "spied" on are people engaging in calls with people say in Afghanistan, a perfectly legal effort that worked to disrupt a plot to blow up a landmark right in Hillary's backyard, the Brooklyn Bridge. Then too, Mrs. Clinton forgot to mention that 64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. And it's also funny how Clinton makes no mention of the fact that when he was president, her husband usurped the NSA way more than George W. Bush has.
That Hillary. What a mercenary.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- The impeachment of former President Clinton is in a gray area of history, too long ago to be a current event, too recent to be judged in perspective. Yet history is already judging Clinton in the place where millions of students get their information about him -- textbooks.
Seven years after he was impeached in a scandal of sex, perjury and bitter politics, Clinton has become a fixture in major high school texts.
The impeachment is portrayed in the context of his two-term tenure, a milestone event, but not one that overshadows how Clinton handled the economy, crime and health care.
The most commonly used texts give straightforward recaps of Clinton's toughest days, with some flavor of how it affected the nation. Absent are any of the lurid details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky that spiced up daily news reports and late-night talk shows as the scandal and impeachment played out in 1998 and early 1999.
"It should not be in the book for titillating purposes or settling scores," said Alan Brinkley, the Columbia University provost who has written or contributed to several history text books. "It should be in the book because of its significance to our recent history."
My first question is what took our public school system so long to include in their textbooks one of the most sordid events in our nation's history? Secondly, since when is it "judging" someone to make notice of an event that defined their character and proved vital in changing the course of a nation? Ever since elementary school I was taught that Andrew Johnson was the only President to be impeached and that Richard Nixon was the only President to resign. Regardless of how you feel about either one of those men their legacies are, in part, shaped by their downfalls.
So why shouldn't our kids be reminded about Slick Willie and his personal indiscretions while commander-in-chief? It was an embarassment to this country, it was an embarassment to everyone who voted for him and Slick Willie had no one to blame for everything that led to his impeachment but himself (that is, of course, unless you're a liberal who has no problem with adultery, much less the crime of lying under oath). Granted, I've never liked Bill Clinton, but the annals of our history isn't to judge, it's to present facts without bias. If our future leaders are to assess Bill Clinton in the proper context than they must be provided with ALL the information: good, bad and Monica Lewinsky.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Is Bill Maher ready to give up his bachelor status? Several friends of HBO's resident political pundit say that Maher could be on the verge of proposing to his girlfriend Karrine Steffans.
Steffans, the (shall we say) sexually generous dancer who penned the best-selling memoir "Confessions of a Video Vixen," met Maher in April, and the two have been dating ever since.
Maher has been adamant that he'd never get married and vowed never to date seriously again after being sued last year for $9 million in palimony by an ex-girlfriend, flight attendant Coco Johnson. But he and his new girlfriend were recently spotted shopping for rings at Tiffany's in Beverly Hills, and there has even been talk of the couple writing a sex-and-relationship book together.Although he's a libertarian, Bill Maher gets a lot of brownie points from the Left for his incendiary humor along with ridiculing (in-between constantly interrupting) conservative guests on his "Real Time With Bill Maher" show and constant bashing of President Bush. Of course, nevermind that he's a short man with serious Napoleon complex, who has one failed talk show to his credit as well as being a lifelong bachelor with a fixation for only dating Black women, Maher is still noted as one of the top political humorists in the business.
Yet, now Maher is poised to marry Karrine "Superhead" Steffans, a woman who gained "stardom" by writing a best-selling book about her over-the-top promiscuity within the Hip-Hop industry.
Do you need any more reasons as to why liberals love Maher so much?