Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

What is happening to this country?

April 28th, 2011 2 comments

Right now, something is happening in America that, try as they might, the liberal media can’t stop simply by distorting or ignoring it.

I’m talking about the surging opposition to President Obama’s plans to "remake" America (his word) from an independent republic of freedom-loving, self-reliant citizens into a Euro-socialist nanny state.

Call it a backlash. Call it a counter-revolution. Call it a conservative comeback. Call it what you will — but it’s real, it’s massive, and it’s about to boil over into something the liberals can’t deny any longer.

IN THE POLLS showing a sudden and dramatic erosion in President Obama’s approval ratings — and an even steeper, faster decline in support for his neo-socialist policies

ON THE STREETS of mainstream America where "tea party" tax protests and other expressions of populist outrage are spreading like wildfire from town to town, city to city nationwide

IN STATEHOUSES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS where voters are forcing legislators — by popular referendum if necessary — to roll back the tax-and-spend policies that have brought so many states and localities to the brink of bankruptcy

ON THE AIRWAVES where conservative TV and radio personalities such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are soaring to new heights of popularity — while the ratings for liberals like Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman are plummeting

ON THE BESTSELLER LISTS where books like Mark Levin’s " Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" and "Glenn Beck’s Common Sense" have dominated for months, outselling liberal tomes by hundreds of thousands

AND EVEN, AT LONG LAST, IN CONGRESS where, after years of selling out conservative principles, a small but growing number of Republicans are loudly voicing and voting those principles once again — despite the loud complaints of the liberal media.
What’s driving this extraordinary phenomenon? In a word — outrage.

After trusting Barack Obama’s soothing promises, and the media’s constant reassurances, that once in office he would "transcend" partisan politics, Americans quickly realized they had elected the most radical leftist ever to serve as President of the United States.

They also realized that for all Obama’s talk of "transparency" and "accountability," his administration was creating the conditions for a level of political sleaze, corruption and back-room wheeling-and-dealing far worse than anything Washington has seen in a very long time.

And now that the gap between Obama’s smooth-talking rhetoric and his actual performance has finally become plain to anyone but the most besotted of his admirers, Americans have had enough.
They have had enough of the out-of-control spending on bailouts and "stimulus" that have sent the federal deficit soaring to $1.8 trillion for 2009 alone — and even higher down the road — threatening to bankrupt our nation, destroy our currency, and impoverish our descendents for generations to come

They have had enough of Obama’s crusade to replace private healthcare with a government-run system that will empower federal bureaucrats to make life-and-death decisions about your medical care — and that will put all your private medical records in a government database (don’t worry, they promise never to use them to harm you)

They have had enough of Obama’s proposed tax hikes and tax "surcharges" to pay for all his spending programs that will drive U.S. tax rates higher even than the welfare-state economies of Europe (New Yorkers, for instance, could face a combined federal-state income tax rate of nearly 60 percent)

They have had enough of the appalling rogue’s gallery of crooks, cronies, tax cheats, and political big-spending leftists that Obama has appointed to the highest levels of our government — while firing or abruptly "retiring" official government watchdogs who have blown the whistle on his cronies and their schemes

They have had enough of the outrageous threats to investigate and prosecute Bush-era anti-terrorist agents and officials for the heroic work they did in keeping our country safe

They have had enough of the endless procession of unelected "czars" President Obama has appointed — 32 at last count! — to bring one sector after another of our economy and government under his direct control (come to think of it, why don’t we just call him "Czar Obama"?)

They have had enough, in short, of how President Obama and his allies are rapidly destroying so much of what has made our country prosperous and free — while arrogating to themselves a degree of power that would make Hugo Chavez blush.
And what about you, my friend? Have you had enough? Are you ready to join the swelling ranks of Americans who are determined to put a stop to this madness? Are you ready to add your voice to theirs in demanding an end to this assault on our liberties… an end to this era of fiscal insanity… an end to this government "of the cronies, by the croni

obama sucks

Why does President Obama have a Connecticut Social Security Number?

April 19th, 2011 20 comments

This is what we know so far. We get more info on Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, had CT SSN obtained in 1976 and died in HI around 1981. There are 2 SS numbers for him and records show him dying in 2 different states: CA and HI around 1981.

The reason this is important, is because there is a similar fact pattern to Obama. Barack Obama is residing today in the White House, using CT SS number 042-68-4425, issued in CT in and around March 1977 to an elderly individual named John Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, who is presumed dead and whose death was either never reported to the SS administration or reported and deleted from the database by someone.

Obama’s maternal grandmother Madelyn Dunham, worked as a part-timer or volunteer in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse. Thus she would have access to the estate files of anyone who died there. Thus if the elderly man originally from CT died intestate in Hawaii with no known relatives, Grandma Dunham would have known this person is a prime candidate to steal the SSN of since there would be no known surviving family worrying about the death benefit from SSN and that the benefit was not likely applied for and thus SSA did not know he died. Thus the SSN remained active for the deceased person and Obama could "adopt" it as his own. This is a clear case of identity theft at the federal level.

This is what we know about Ludwig:

In 1924, Jean Paul Ludwig worked for Senator Reed of PA, in Washington DC.

On the ship manifest of ‘Leviathan’, he listed Senator Reed in Washington, DC as his empl., in answer to where he intended to live in the US.

Jean Paul Ludwig had been in the US for 3 yrs in 1924, but he was listed on the “Immigration” manifest and refered to as an alien in the column headings.

Listed under “States Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival”, New York, Aug 12, 1924:

Jean Paul Ludwig, Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924, Port of Departure:
Cherbourg, France, Line#: 0008

Line #8: By Whom was Passage Paid: Emp. Mr. Reed; Whether in possession of $50: Yes; Whether ever before in US: Yes; If Yes-Period of Years: 3; Where: PA

Whether going to join relative or friend: Empl. Senator Reed, Washingto, DC

Length of time alien intends to remain in the US: Always

Height 5?5?, Complexion Dk., Hair Br., Eyes Br., Marks of ID: None

Place of Birth: France, Ammersville.…T=LL&section=3

First Name: Jean P.
Last Name: Ludwig
Ethnicity: France
Last Place of Residence: Washington, D.C.
Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924
Age at Arrival: 34 Gender: M Marital Status: S
Ship of Travel: Leviathan
Port of Departure: Cherbourg, France
Manifest Line Number: 0008

U.S. Social Security Death Index
Name: Jean Ludwig
Birth Date: 17 February 1890
Zip Code of Last Residence: 96816 (Honolulu,HI)
Death Date: June 1981
Estimated Age at Death: 91

That wonderful information is courtesy of Orly Taitz, the much aligned lawyer/dentist/real estate agent.
And it proves exactly – nothing.

can you summerize this? about the war in afghanistan?

April 8th, 2011 2 comments

KABUL – Roadside bombs — the biggest killer of U.S. soldiers — claimed eight more American lives Tuesday, driving the U.S. death toll to a record level for the third time in four months as President Barack Obama nears a decision on a new strategy for the troubled war.

The homemade bombs, also called improvised explosive devices or IEDs, are responsible for between 70 percent and 80 percent of the casualties among U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan and have become a weapon of "strategic influence," said Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz in Washington.

The attacks Tuesday followed one of the deadliest days for the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan — grim milestones likely to fuel the debate in the United States over whether the conflict is worth the sacrifice.

Obama has nearly finished gathering information on whether to send tens of thousands more American forces to quell the deepening insurgency, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. A meeting Friday with the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be among the last events in the decision-making process, Gibbs said.

Both attacks Tuesday took place in the southern province of Kandahar, said Capt. Adam Weece, a spokesman for American forces in the south. The region bordering the Pakistan frontier has long been an insurgent stronghold and was the birthplace of the Taliban in the 1990s.

The Americans were patrolling in armored vehicles when a bomb ripped through one of them, killing seven service members and an Afghan civilian, U.S. forces spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said.

The eighth American died in a separate bombing elsewhere in the south, also while patrolling in a military vehicle, Vician said.

The number of effective IED attacks in Afghanistan has grown from 19 in September 2007 to 106 last month.

"It’s a weapon system that the enemy has figured out has strategic impact," said Metz, who leads the U.S. military organization tasked with defeating improvised explosive devices. "It really hampers our ability to execute a counterinsurgency doctrine. And it’s a weapon system that has to be fought, and I don’t think we can back off or shy away from fighting it."

Nine coalition forces were killed and 37 were wounded by IEDs in Afghanistan in September 2007. In September 2009, 37 coalition forces were killed and 285 were wounded by IEDs, according to the figures.

Several other Americans were wounded in the Tuesday blasts. The military said the deaths occurred during "multiple, complex" bomb strikes, but gave no details.

"Complex" attacks usually refer to simultaneous assaults from multiple sides with various weapons — including bombs, machine guns and grenades or rockets.

In Washington, a U.S. defense official said at least one of the attacks was followed by an intense firefight with insurgents after an initial bomb went off. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to release the information.

The casualties bring to 55 the total number of Americans killed in October in Afghanistan. The next highest toll was in August, when 51 U.S. soldiers died and the troubled nation held the first round of its presidential election amid a wave of violence.

By comparison, the deadliest month of the Iraq conflict for U.S. forces was November 2004, when 137 Americans died during a major assault to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah.

"A loss like this is extremely difficult for the families as well as for those who served alongside these brave service members," said Navy Capt. Jane Campbell, a military spokeswoman. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends who mourn their loss."

The deaths came one day after 11 American soldiers were killed in separate helicopter crashes, marking the biggest loss of American life on a single day in four years.

One chopper went down in western Afghanistan as it left the scene of a gunbattle with insurgents. Seven soldiers were killed along with three Drug Enforcement Administration agents — the agency’s first deaths since it began operations here in 2005. Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium and the trade is a major source of funding for insurgent groups.

Two other U.S. choppers collided while in flight in the south Monday, killing four Americans.

Casualties swelled at the start of the month when eight U.S. soldiers were killed Oct. 3. Several hundred militants had launched a coordinated attack on a pair of remote U.S. outposts in mountainous Nuristan province’s Kamdesh district. U.S. troops pulled out days later as part a new strategy by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to shut down difficult-to-defend posts and redirect forces toward larger population areas to protect more civilians.

Also Tuesday, NATO-led forces announced they had recovered the remains of three American military contractors from the wreckage of a U.S. Army reconnaissance plane that crashed two weeks ago in Nuristan.

read it urself

Why does Hawaii want to make it a Death Penalty offense to ask for the Usurper’s records of birth?

March 20th, 2010 10 comments

We don’t know his name — this man, this usurper — is it Steven Dunham, Barry Soetoro, or Barack Obama? No one has seen his college records, his Illinois Bar records are scrubbed. Some claim he was born in Hawaii. Kenyans claim he was born in Kenya. He says his Dad was a Kenyan. He may have claimed at times to have been Indonesian — that is, he may have enrolled in college as a foreign exchange student. There’s no marriage certificate for his parents, and the one one divorce record seems somewhat questionable.

Hawaii refuses to release any substantial records which would help resolve the issues of this usurper, despite the fact that their own laws allow them to when there is a legitimate public interest. And now Hawaii attempts to make asking for those records a felony. A capital crime. Capital crimes, felonies, are those possibly subject to the death penalty.

Is this still America, the free?

"felony n. 1) a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine. "

“Vexatious Requestor” Bill

"On January 27th Hawaii State Senator Will Espero introduced SB2937 , which would add to Hawaii’s existing open records law, UIPA, a provision to label as “vexatious requestors” people who exhibit 2 or more behaviors that the bill calls “abuses” of UIPA."

It’s only another step towards making it a felony …
Hawaii goose steps towards making gathering information about Obama criminal. The last step of that march ends up like Döllersheim. Look up the fate of that town.
"Unauthorized disclosure is permitted. Vital statistics–required information on death and birth certificates–has not been changed by HIPAA. The information required on [a birth or death] certificate can be provided without authorization."
Penny Lee:

(1) Felonies, by DEFINITION are those crimes for which the death penalty might be applied. Misdemeanors are those crimes which would never get a death penalty. Do proper research, girl!

(2) Laws start as toothpicks and end up as pikes thrust through the body public.
Even if the Federal HIPAA law applied to Birth Certificates — WHICH IT DOES NOT — it would still be trumped by the Constitution! The Constitutional requirement to determine the natural born citizen status of a President (or VP) means that the NATION has a interest that trumps all privacy interest, for persons seeking those offices.

If Congress can contemplate throwing people in jail for not buying insurance, then there is little that they not capable of. They are after all the body that voted unanimously to recognize the citizenship of Obama.

Why did Obama vote NO to helping babies of botched abortions live?

March 16th, 2010 6 comments

Just how pro-abortion is Obama? Consider the following excerpt from a Sept. 1, 2004 column on by former nurse and noted pro-life activist Jill Stanek:

“For three years in a row I submitted the same testimony to Illinois Senate committees that were deciding whether to let the full Senate vote on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

“It was during those committee hearings that I first came face-to-face with state Senator Barack Obama, who functioned as either a member or the chairman, depending on the year and the committee.

“Each time I testified, I described to Obama and other members the death of a particular little girl who was aborted alive at Christ Hospital.

“The baby’s death haunts me, because she might have lived with help. Her abandonment by medical professionals clearly demonstrated that wanted and unwanted babies are treated differently at delivery….

“When Obama and his fellow Democrats voted against [the Born Alive Infants Protection Act] in committee that first year, I didn’t think they understood the magnitude of the 23-weeker’s death.

“So the next year along with my testimony I submitted a page from the neonatal textbook demonstrating the resuscitation of a baby about the same age as I described. I watched Obama look at those photos… before he voted no again….”

Besides his 100 percent pro-abortion voting record, Obama also opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual “marriage.” (He has, however, claimed that he is not in favor of homosexual “marriage.” Only “civil unions,” you see.)

Its sick isnt it, but thats the democrats for you. They allow want to abolish the death penalty but favor abortion on demand

Is Obama the weakest candidate on Crime ?

March 6th, 2010 7 comments

Of course McCain supports capital punishment. His record on Crime issues is near-perfect if we leave out the contentious illegal immigration issue. McCain is clearly the strongest on Crime. But what about Obama and Hillary?

When Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her campaign for the Senate in 2000, she declared – emphatically, according to an interviewer – that she supported the death penalty.

When Barack Obama first ran for the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he said in a campaign questionnaire that he opposed capital punishment.

Obama also opposes federal minimum sentencing, concealed carry, and other anti-crime measures. An Obama presidency would be a huge gift to criminals everywhere

Obama is very soft on crime. This country will have a huge hike in criminals if he gets elected. Another gift to his brothers.

Sarah Palin speech fact checker?

March 4th, 2010 7 comments

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She’s been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply … She’s responsible for 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply. I’m entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News’ Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain’s phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she’s no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She’s the commander of the Alaska National Guard. … She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska’s national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Pali

She’s just covering up for the fact that she has fewer qualifications than Urkel:

Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who has supported infanticide?

February 26th, 2010 15 comments

Barack Obama is the only US senator on record for voting for infanticide. As an Illinois state senator, he led the opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), which says, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

Why was such a law needed? Late-term abortions often use prostaglandin to induce contractions, forcing a premature birth. The labor contractions usually kill the baby, but not always. Sometimes preemies survive the procedure, fighting for air, nourishment, and a human touch. Standard practice has been to abandon the baby to die, lying in a pool of afterbirth and medical waste.

When BAIPA came before the Illinois Senate in 2001, Obama said it would establish that babies surviving abortion "are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a nine-month old child that was delivered to term." Apparently, Obama thinks you have to be nine months old to be protected from abuse and neglect.

Three months later, the U.S. Senate passed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act by a vote of 98-0. At the federal level, the bill included an explicit disclaimer about babies still in utero. Later, Obama claimed he would have supported the federal version.

That was a lie. When the federal language was included in an Illinois version in 2003, Chairman Obama bottled it up in the Health Committee, killing the bill.

Barack Obama is not just for abortion. Obama demands that every abortion result in a dead baby. My question is, can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is not just pro-choice, but pro-death?

Oh, most definitely not. Our Bishop just sent out a letter to the entire diocese last week reminding is that not only must we vote our conscience, but we must remember that our foremost duty as Catholics is to protect life, from conception to natural death, and it would therefore be an unconscionable decision and a form of self excommunication to vote for a candidate that openly supports abortion, especially when there is an opposing candidate that will work to protect life.

SAUDI TO BE CHARGED IN COLE BOMBING – why do hayseeds ignore Bush’s Saudi ties, but fear ‘Obama the Muslim’?

February 22nd, 2010 5 comments

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon said Monday it is charging a Saudi Arabian held at Guantanamo with "organizing and directing" the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, and will seek the death penalty.

On the television in his living room, Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor’s house, at his son’s auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate’s background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

It’s a republican thing, the rest of us are not expected to understand it.
However the confession was the result of waterboarding and may not be admissible so it may never be prosecuted. One more job well done by this (MIS) administration.

Why would you vote for this person?

February 22nd, 2010 8 comments

By Dick Morris
Published on on April 25, 2007.

Printer-Friendly Version

Polls suggest that the leading attribute attracting voters to Hillary’s presidential candidacy is her "experience," a virtue which contrasts, presumably, with the lack of it in Senator Barack Obama, her chief rival. But a close examination of her record as first lady and as New York Senator suggests that her experience is largely in the avoidance of death by scandal. Were it to be captured in a television series, it would certainly not rise to the level of "Commander In Chief" and probably not even to that of "West Wing." It would find its televised metaphor in the reality series "Survivor."

Consider what her experience has been. She burst forth on the national stage with two tasks in her husband’s administration: The selection of the nation’s first female Attorney General and the design and adoption of a comprehensive program of health care reform. Her efforts to designate an Attorney General hamstrung the new Administration for months as two nominees, in succession, had to withdraw their names from consideration. Finally, at the eleventh hour, she urged her husband to appoint Florida’s Janet Reno, a selection Bill Clinton would come to describe as "my worst mistake." In the bargain, she suggested the appointment of Lani Guanier as head of the civil rights division, a job she was shortly forced to relinquish when her radical views became known, another embarrassment for the new Administration. Her other selections for the Justice Department, the White House staff and the Treasury were her three law partners: Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and Willi am Kennedy, appointments which culminated in one imprisonment, one suicide, and one forced resignation.

Her other assignment, health care reform, collapsed in such a debacle that it cost her party control of both houses of Congress, a fate from which it took twelve years to recover.

Beyond these initial tasks, her main focus in the Administration was scandal defense. From Jennifer Flowers to Whitewater to the FBI file affair to the travel office firings to her Commodities Market winnings to the missing Rose Law Firm billing records to the Paula Jones scandal, she orchestrated the Administration’s defense against scandal allegations. In the process, she almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.

And her advice in handling these matters was uniformly bad. It was Hillary who counseled Bill not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit even when the plaintiffs called for neither an apology nor payment and she who stonewall ed the release of Whitewater documents even when it led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. When the prosecutor whose appointment she had caused heard about the depositions in the Paula Jones case she had refused to settle, the Monica Lewinsky scandal eventuated.

During the period of 1995-1997, the period of the Clinton Administration’s greatest achievements, she was nowhere to be seen, focusing instead on writing It Takes A Village, and on dodging criminal inquiry. She did not participate in the formulation of a balanced budget, nor in welfare reform legislation, nor in the reduction of crime that stemmed from the 1994 anti-crime bill.

Her experience continued when her race for the Senate and its aftermath became, in turn, mired in scandal. The pardon of the FALN terrorists to get Latino support in New York, that of the New Square Hassidim to get Hillary Jewish support, and the clemency shown toward Hillary’s brothers’ clients to get them financial support caused her ratings to plunge to their lowest level in March of 2001 as she took her Senate seat. The theft of White House gifts, almost $200,000 of which had to be returned, did nothing to endear her to the electorate.

Since then, Hillary has done nothing of note in the Senate except to vote for the Iraq War, a position she has since disavowed, and to win the applause of her colleagues for not being partisan and obstinate. Her main efforts have been directed at raising massive sums of money for herself and her colleagues and making a lot writing and selling her memoirs. Her efforts on behalf of New York after 9-11 have been exposed as largely derivative of those of her colleague, the more effective Chuck Schumer.

She has passed no important legislation, except for twenty bills renaming post offices and courthouses and congratulating Alexander Hamilton, Shirley Chisolm, Harriet Tubman, the American Republic, and the Syra cuse men’s and women’s Lacrosse team on their respective accomplishments.

If this the experience upon which her candidacy is based? Did I leave anything out?

Great Info she claims to be the "change candidate" but she doesnt want to make the changes necessary to do it like stop taking money from lobbyists and PAC’s. To this point she has not released any of the details to her new plans for healthcare and education. She is banking on the symbolism of the first woman president which is not enough. As time goes on she will eventually be exposed for what she really is, I hope. Another Clinton is not what we need to really chnage america for the better.