Politics News

Jeremy Allen asked:


A. Mikhail Gorbachev.
B. Lech Walesa.
C. John Paul II.
D. Janos Kadar.

Anthony asked:


What word sums up your leader Hu Jintao he seems pretty chill to me everytime I see him on tv he is always clam not showing emotion. Is he like a party animal. They say Kim Jong Il likes American movies and kidnaps Japanese womens 2 have a sexy time does he invite Hu over to join him?
He does seem pragmatic Moonlites not like Georgie Bush

Jordan Christopher asked:


Well Hillary certainly did gain some degree of experience during the Bill Clinton years in the White House. She learned the art of media misdirection, the ability to double cross any bridge when she came to it, and the ability to deny the past if it is the politically expedient thing to do.

Where does her training come from, President Bill Clinton of course? Last night in his whirlwind tour of small town America in North Carolina on behalf of his wife he claimed that his Clinton years as President were the best years in “Modern American History.” I thought it was up to historians to make that determination but clearly Bill Clinton has already written the history books.

These were the best years in modern American history? If the Clinton years were the best years in modern American history then why doesn’t the public agree? In 1992 Clinton was elected with the smallest winning percentage in modern American history only 43% of the vote, tying Richard Nixon in 1968 for that dubious distinction.

By 1996 Clinton still failed to capture half of the vote winning 49%, but one half of the eligible voters were so disgusted with politicians they didn’t even vote. That means Clinton won with less than 25% of the eligible voters. Does that sound like the most successful presidency in modern history?

What happened during those Clinton years when Hillary was serving as assistant president according to her resume and campaign claims? It seems as if Bill Clinton had an epiphany and figured out how to out Republican the Republicans. Clinton became the first Democrat to be the darling of the business community as first the poverty stricken were victims of the Clinton epiphany, then the minorities, then the immigrants, and then labor unions, the core of the Democratic party.

Clinton slammed through the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement, with the help of his wife the First Lady, that led to the loss of millions of American jobs, a transfer of the production of American goods and services to foreign countries, and the failure to set in motion controls and testing that would protect Americans from poor quality, unsafe and dangerous foreign products.

Welfare and poverty programs were victims of budget cuts while immigrants, legal and otherwise, were denied benefits and legal representation. Prison populations increased rapidly from the law and order attitude of the president to the point that the death penalty was extended to cover many new crimes and actions such as the Waco FBI attack on a religious sect resulted in the deaths of 86 men, women and children.

Clinton ordered a bombing attack on Baghdad, Iraq just six months after taking office. Several times during the Clinton presidency Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the World Trade Center 9-11 bombings and worldwide terrorism network that would haunt us until this day could have been captured by the USA but each event was bungled by the administration. Is that a sign of the best presidency in modern American history?

Clinton maintained the military establishment although the Soviet Union was gone and there were no more wars. He courted the Republican business community with tax breaks, trade agreements, and other favors throughout his two terms. When it became necessary to cut government expenditures to balance the budget the Clinton White House approved eliminating $5 billion in educational spending to repair crumbling schools and rejecting a proposal to extend health insurance to 10.5 million uninsured children leaning on Congress to back his rejection.

Of course there is also the personal actions during the Clinton presidency like Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones and Whitewater to name a few that disgusted the public to the point of impeachment of the president. Only three times in our history have impeachment charges been brought against a president. Just twice in our history did the House vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial. The two cases were Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Clinton was acquitted after the trial on a tie vote.

This was the Clinton presidency that Bill now calls the greatest of modern times and that Hillary says was her training ground for presidential experience. It also led to her election to the US Senate and to her failing to disclose $24 million in Bill’s income over a three-year period (2004-2006) not to mention their joint income of $109 million

In the eight years since he was president Bill and Hillary earned $109 million including lucrative consulting contracts and six figure speaking engagements, hardly a sign of the people’s candidate. What companies can afford to pay over $100,000 to hear him speak? It is doubtful many struggling non-profits are on his itinerary. This is what makes the Clinton presidency the best in modern history?

One can only hope the traditional Democrats will see how they have been duped, the labor unions, immigrants and minorities will see how they have been taken for granted, and the general public will see how they have been used. Can we really afford eight more years of double talk, double crossing and double dealing at the highest levels of our government? If this is the legacy of the greatest presidency of modern times then I believe the last thing we need is experienced people like Hillary who were running the country through those years.

melanie l asked:


I just wanted to know if it really worked. My mom is coming to town when I am due and I really am not progressing at all and I don’t want my mom to miss her granddaughter b/c she lives so far away it will be a year before she gets the chance again. Has anyone used it? Did it work or not? Can someone tell me something good to bring on labor?

tobocseo asked:


If Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States of America, the country can assure that they will not fall short on one account, e-marketing. Demagogic run by Obama among the youth in the ongoing Democratic presidential primaries have stunned analysts and psephologists alike.

The curiosity led the experts to pry into how Obama was able to muster the positive vibes of the youth in favor of him. It was evident in the final lab report Barack camp extensively used social networking and video sharing sites to great effect in garnering votes of the youth. His success in using social medium as an electioneering tool clearly shows that a new guru has arrived in the world of e-marketing.

A survey showed that if one does not include social media in one’s election campaigns it would be hard to draw the attention of the youth. Majority of the youth interact through social networking sites since internet connectivity has increased to larger areas. Blog sites have virtually become e-diaries of today’s youth as outlets to vent their social and emotional feelings as well.

As a result, social media have supplanted televisions, radios and other advertising spaces for election campaigns. Hence, it has been proved, it would be preposterous to avoid employing social media especially, in a high voltage election campaigns such as, the US presidential primaries.

A statistics from a section of the press stated, immediately after the Second Super Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton had a comfortable margin of 15 percent lead over Barack Hussein Obama in Pennsylvania. But the same team of public opinion poll managers gave Clinton just 5 percent lead over Obama just two days before the same primary election.

Creating a huge 10 percent swing in favor of any candidate, that too in a month’s time, was unheard of in Pennsylvania. The credit goes to Barack camp, their stupendous game plan to engage with the youth through sublime tentacles of social suggestion has succeeded in gaining an all important 10 percentage points. If the alleged ‘terror tactics’ of releasing an Al Qaida video by Hillary camp would not have happened, Barack’s positive campaigning might have closed in the gap, and even he would have won the Pennsylvania primary. Still he has lost by only 10% as compared to the projection of 15% a month ago.

Comparative study on the usage of social networking and video sharing sites, one can see, again Obama winning hands down over his rival. Hillary uses the services of leading six e-communities where as Obama has made him available on 16 e-communities. On one hand, Hillary’s e-community spaces are sprawled with unpopular class room content, but Obama occupies his spaces with youthful jargons and related video contents on the other. Such measures have endeared Barack among the youth, which ultimately turned into votes all through the election, where Obama was trailing far behind Hillary before the start of the primaries.

Whether Barack Obama makes it to the White House or not, something is sure, his election strategy is here to stay for a long time. Hitherto, such marketing strategies were confined to e-commerce portals including Business to Consumer and Business to Business portals. For a successful business, one should know to market oneself well, and Obama has succeeded in doing so. Thereby, his business sense leaves a trail of new strategy in the field of election campaigning which could be replicated elsewhere. He also gives businesses a new lesson to use this social media to market one’s products or services which is until now used sparingly with stereo-typed content.

James William Smith asked:


Hillary Clinton had run a disciplined, mistake-free campaign for the first nine months of 2007. She had been able to portray herself as an experienced candidate for change. By contrast, the Obama campaign had an anemic nine months on the campaign trail without a clear message or momentum. Mrs. Clinton had Obama in a tough political spot.

To remain competitive in the race, Barack Obama needed to attack Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. The attack ads and negative campaigning would have left Obama open to criticism of abandoning his campaign’s primary theme of hope. It would challenge his assertion that he was a different kind of politician and it would appear to the voting public as a cynical attempt by him to get back in the race. Obama would look desperate and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination would be inevitable.

However, Obama never had to go “negative” because Mrs. Clinton started making a series of unforced mistakes. Her political mistakes from late September through early December have allowed the Obama campaign to surge into the lead in the first voting state of Iowa. In addition Obama has moved back into contention in the state primary in New Hampshire.

Clinton started her parade of mistakes in the debate of September 26, 2007. Her handling of a hypothetical question on terrorist torture from moderator Tim Russert was inconsistent with answers she has given on that same question posed to her in the past.

The mistakes continued for Hillary in the Democratic debate of October 30, 2007. Her answer to a debate question concerning granting illegal aliens drivers licenses was incoherent. She appeared to take a position on both sides of the issue within about sixty seconds. Her performance validated her Democratic opponent’s claim that she was trying to parse her position on issues and have it both ways.

Next, Bill Clinton showed up stumping for votes for Hillary in Iowa to remind us how slick and parsing he can be. In Iowa, it was all about Bill and little about Hillary on the campaign trail. Bill even tried to convince us that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, which is clearly not true. It sounded like Bill Clinton was running again and reminded the voting public about the fact that in electing Hillary, we would get Team Clinton back for President in the White House. This back to the future Clinton reminder to the voting public did not go over well.

Then, the voters got to see a Hillary Clinton interview with Katie Couric. This interview should have been a positive thing for Hillary. However, her poll numbers continued to drop after her appearance. In this interview, Hillary told Katie Couric that she has never contemplated losing this election. That she had not even considered the possibility that she would lose. The manner which she handle that question appeared presumptious to many voters. In fact, it fed into the negative image many people have of Hillary’s need and hunger for power. It was a continuation of the impression that she would say anything to win.

These mistakes from the Hillary Clinton campaign have helped to tighten the Democratic race for the 2008 Presidential nomination just weeks before the first vote is to be cast in Iowa. Barrack Obama clearly has the momentum in the race. Now it will be Hillary Clinton who will have to go negative to try and slow his campaign down.

For Obama to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, he must win Iowa in a decisive fashion. He also must win in New Hampshire or Hillary Clinton will absorb the Iowa defeat and move on. If Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton would be reeling and John Edwards would be out of the race. The Edwards vote would probably move to Obama and he would have a chance to defeat Clinton, one-on-one in the subsequent primaries. Democratic voters would certainly be questioning Hillary’s prospects as a candidate against the Republican Presidential nominee in the general election in 2008. A primary election battle between Clinton and Obama could go unresolved for weeks since Obama has the campaign war chest to contest Clinton in every primary state.

An Obama victory against Hillary Clinton is still a long shot. However, a series of unforced Hillary Clinton mistakes since September 26, 2007 have allowed Obama to remain competitive. Indeed, the result of her political mistakes have, at the very least, given Barack Obama’s campaign of hope a prayer.

chalis913 asked:


I saw the video clip on CNN and although many are viewing it as improper for diplomats and world leaders to act this way, I see it differently. It seemed to me there was some private joke there as Angela Merkel had a silly smirk on her face after Bush did that. Was this diplomats just being normal people and caught on tape, or was this improper and/or rude? Please give me your input!

APRPEH asked:


Is guilt by association fair?  Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH have made an argument that Barry Obama’s true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations.  Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort.  These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns.  Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized. 
Who are Obama’s friends and associates for which he should be measured? Let’s take a closer look using easy to find world wide web references.
(See the LATimes story from April 10, 2008 - Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) Obama’s special friend, Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the scumbag Yasir Arafat who held fundraisers for Obama, was honored with a speech by State Sen. Barack Obama in a 2003 going away party. Khalidi, according to the LA Times story is described as “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. 
Then there is Ali Abunimah, described in the same LA Times article as ” a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, and quoted as saying:Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.Now, lets add to the mix the Obama foreign policy advisors who have come and gone.  I am not even sure I remember them all.  Please feel free to add to the list in the comments:
Simple web searches on the following Obama advisors is telling.
Samantha Powers - (see National Review Online Monday, February 11, 2008 - Obama Adviser Samantha Power on Israel, “Jenin Massacre” )
Joseph Cirincione - (see World Net Daily May 01, 2008 -Obama adviser: Israel must give up its nukes)
Robert Malley -  (see Yid With Lid blog post February 5, 2008 Obamas Israel Hating Advisor Robert Malley)
Merrill Tony McPeak -   (see YNETnews March 26, 2008 - US Jews Hinder Peace)
Zbigniew Bzrezinski - (see American Thinker - January 16, 2008 - Barack Obama and Israel)Ed Lasko at American Thinker adds:The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.Financial support from not very friendly to Israel, George Soros can be added to the equation as well even though Obama has attempted to distance himself from the billionaire contributer. If Obama really wants to distance himself from the tens of thousands of dollars contributed through   Soros connections has he offered to return any recent donations and asked Soros and his Moveon.org friends to stop supporting his campaign? (see American Thinker article from April 30, 2007 - Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception and june 11, 2008 article George Soros and Obama’s veep also from American Thinker)
And while it is not necessarily Jewish related, how can we forget Syrian born friend Tony Rezko, former donor and fundraiser for Obama, convicted recently on corruption related charges. (Tony Rezko - Wikipedia article.)
Obama’s relationship with terrorist and political indoctrination specialist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (William Ayers wikipedia article along with former “Weatherman” and wife Bernadine Dorhn) is well documented and factual. 
 
So what is the point of going through this exercise, re-hashing the well published reports you might ask?  The Obama fans and possibly Obama campaign are behind an effort to obfuscate.   (see PostBulletin June 25, 2008 Can Obama fight Web-driven lies?)   and
 (see Jpost - June 19, 2008 -Snap Judgment: Have you read the latest Obama e-mail? Unbelievable!)
ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt)   (The Free Dictionary)tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates 1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” Robert Conquest.2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
It is true that a considerable amount of email and internet garbage is floating around alleging all sorts of BS about Obama.  It is also true that email based urban myth is one of the downsides of the electronic world.  Our email boxes are flooded with Nigerian scam email, phishing, and urban myths begging the reader to perpetuate the falsity. 
In fact, call it reverse guilt by association.  It is with this understanding that the agenda of the Obama camp to label every blog post, every email, every warning about Obama as driven by crazies with a hate filled, anti-Muslim or racist agenda is underway.  Some, they may say are just plain crazy.  But all of them, all criticism is illegitimate (according to this strategy) because it is someone’s opinion, not the truth - just another one of those “myths”. 
This policy must be confronted strongly and clearly.  The list above is composed of undeniable fact. The effort to re-cast the past of Obama as something else, something different, something sweet and innocent is a fraud and should be called a fraud. 
Obama cannot reasonably claim that he had no knowledge of the offensive, disgusting, and criminal aspects of his friends in the past as he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of or doesn’t agree with the antiJew and anti-Israel opinions of his foreign policy team.  If he really had no knowledge, he is the most ignorant man who has ever run for the Presidency. 
Of course, some Obama staffer can just say all of this is campaign rhetoric and to take it as a grain of salt. Afterall, it IS the internet. Or readers and concerned, thoughtful Americans can expose the truth, continue writing to the newspapers, calling talk radio, writing blogs, responding to blogs and talking to their friends who may be on the fence. Freedom is not free and free speech is under assault by the Obama people, a telling foretaste of an Obama administration.

Breonna Isabela asked:


If your car is not showing proper speed, mileage and smoothness in riding then this is the right time to get checked its suspension bushes. These are one of the most important parts of your car. If their function is hampered then you may feel body pain after a long drive and this is also not good for the overall health of your car.

The job of a car suspension system is to maximize the friction between the tires and the road surface to provide steering stability. It ensures the comfort of the driver, the passengers of a car and also of the car itself. If roads were perfectly made, with no irregularities, suspensions wouldn’t be necessary but roads are far from flat. The suspension system and suspension bushes of your new car might be working so hard to give you a comfort feel even on freshly paved road.

Therefore, it is necessary to take care of them and to replace them whenever needed. Best quality suspension bushes have certain qualities like they are easy to fit, tough, oil resistant, durable, non-perishing, self-lubricating and resilient. Ask your mechanic that one you are buying for fitting into your car has these qualities or not. In fact, these days you can buy best of them by checking all qualities through the Internet also.

If your car is fitted with the best quality suspension bush then you can feel it while riding it. It keeps the steering geometry of your car constant and always gives your steering a positive response so that the alignment of your car does not get disturbed. You can get prolonged tire life and improved vehicle performance. You can feel increased safety and immense satisfaction while driving it.

Hence, make it mandatory to get your suspension and steering systems checked out by a mechanic every 10,000 miles so that your car remain in excellent condition always.

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Much of the Democratic party is now finding out what all of the Republican party already knows. The Clinton’s are ruthless when it comes to winning. Get in their way and the IRS will come visit you (when Bubba was president). Attack Bill or Hill and a private detective will be employed to find out how much dirt that can find on you. But the latest delegate battle is a whole new thing indeed. All delegates are Clinton delegates or didn’t you know that?

Everyone is now getting acquainted with the super delegate fiasco of the Democratic party; however, the Clinton’s are taking even the pledged delegates to a new level (low).

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after PLEDGED delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination. This strategy was confirmed by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. We’re not talking about super delegates- the 800 hot dogs who are not pledged to anybody. We’re talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

Is that fair, legal? Yep!

A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right? Wrong!

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened. But not now that Hillary is behind. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides. Would Hillary or Bubba do that?

Duh!

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official said Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.” Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”

Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of the super delegates. So, to give some semblence of fairness, go after the PLEDGED delegates and have them switch their votes..

Hey, the Obama tsunami must be stopped at any odds. If the Wisconsin primary doesn’t do it, if Texas or Ohio doesn’t do it, then Bubba will do it!

So why are we going through all this primary hullabaloo? We do it to provide some sort of integrity and legitmacy; however, in the event truth does not work out as the powers that be want, then we’ll do it the old-fashioned way. Can you say power-brokering fraud and intimidation? And then they’ll point fingers at people like Jason Rae and say it’s his fault. Blame shift seems to always work these days.

I can’t wait to see how this all works out. Could it be that the history-breaking female and African-American dream candidates implode and shoot themselves in the foot and give us four more years of Bush-i-ness? God help us all!