The Other War
These articles were reprinted from other websites to emphasize the critical nature of what I so affectionately call ”the other war”. I greatly admire President Bush, but he is way off base on this matter. I get the impression that there is a personal implication in the reason for his lack of action and mysterious personal attitude in regards to this issue. He is beginning to take some action, but is still avoiding the crux of the problem, the illegal immigrants that are already here! He says that he is against amnesty, but his temporary worker permit is exactly that. And only naivety would lead one to believe that these workers would just up and leave when their temporary permit expires. The Bush administration also says that rounding up all (more than 11 billion) of the illegal immigrants would cost billions of dollars. Just by reading the two articles below would indicate that the cost to our healthcare system is costing us billions every year! A general round up and return of these illegals would save trillions in the long run
One must also remember that the Mexican government has vowed for more than a century to take back the contested lands of California, Texas and Arizona. Looks to me like they intend to take over the entire United States of America! We need to move all illegals out and then fence them out, for the safety and security of our own country. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47955)
This country is founded on the legal immigration of peoples from all over the world.
This is what makes this country great. I emphasis, these are LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!
From the American Daily (www.americandaily.com)
Illegal Immigrants Are Spreading Dangerous Diseases Across This Nation
By Dave Gibson (05/12/05)
It is often said that the flood of illegal immigrants into this country is reaching ‘epidemic proportions.’ While that statement is true–it is just as true that the illegal immigrants pouring over the U.S.-Mexican border are endangering this country with actual epidemics. Tuberculosis, hepatitis, dengue fever, chagas, and even leprosy are being imported into the U.S. inside the bodies of illegal aliens…And you thought they only carried heroin-filled baloons inside their bodies!
A ‘hot-zone’ of disease can be found in this nations border states. Illegal immigrants are setting up so-called “colonias” just inside the states of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The shanty towns are comprised mostly of cardboard shacks and huts made with cast-off building materials. They have no sanitation, and are surrounded by mounds of garbage. The estimated 185,000 illegals share their makeshift towns with armies of rats. Of course, diseases only common to Central and South America run rampant in these places.
One of the imports to this country is chagas disease. It is caused by a parasite known as trypanosome. It is a blood-borne disease and is spread by triatomine insects. The parasite burrows into human tissue (usually in the face), where it then begins to multiply. In addition to being spread by insects, it can also be contracted through blood transfusions.
After cases of chagas were reportedly discovered to have been spread by transfusions in Canada, that nation began testing all blood donations for the disease.
For 40 years, the number of recorded cases of leprosy within the United States totaled 900. Today, we know of more than 7,000 current cases of leprosy in the U.S.
Dr. John Levis of New York’s Bellevue Hospital’s Hansen Disease Clinic said of America’s documented cases of leprosy: ‘There are probably many, many more and they are spreading.”
Most of those in the U.S. who are suffering from leprosy are from Mexico, India, Brazil, and the Caribbean. However, there are a few documented cases in which the person became infected with leprosy inside the U.S. The majority of the cases have been discovered in this nation’s northeastern region.
Once thought to be nearly eradicated in this country, TB is now making a strong comeback. In a recent interview with Mother Jones Magazine, Dr. Reichman of The New Jersey TB Clinic recently said: In the 1990’s, cases among foreign born Americans rose from 29 percent to 41.6 percent. Antibiotic resistant strains from Mexico have migrated to Texas. Since three years ago, 16,000 new cases of TB were discovered in the United States. Half were foreign born. Strains of TB once only found in Mexico have migrated to the border states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. It will move north as illegal aliens work in restaurants as cooks, dishwashers, and food handlers. We sit on the edge of a potential catastrophe.”
In 2001, New York’s Tuberculosis Control Program discovered that 81 percent of that city’s new cases of TB were attributed to immigrants
Cases of TB are now being found in many areas of the country, where there are high concentrations of illegal immigrants. In March of 2002, The Washington Post reported that Virginia’s Prince William County experienced a 188 percent increase of TB infections over the previous year. Yes, the streets of Prince William County are over-run with illegal aliens seeking day-laborer jobs.
Last year, the rate of TB in the northern part of Virginia rose 17 percent. The Va. Department of Health blamed the rise on that region’s recent flood of illegal immigrants. Many strains of TB are being found in certain neighborhoods, which are dominated by illegal Latin American immigrants.
The threats posed to our country by illegal immigration are many. However, our political leaders will undoubtedly continue to ignore them. Our own president is willing to place all Americans at risk, in exchange for securing the Latino vote for the Republican Party.
If left unchecked, illegal immigration will destroy this nation one way or another.
*Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.
From Men’s News Daily (www.mensnewsdaily.com)
The Medical Cost of Illegal Immigration: The Crisis for US Hospitals
December 5, 2005
by John David Powell
President Bush’s plan to deal with illegal immigrants may not be the best idea on the table, but it increased the national discussion, and forced the mainstream media to make the issue their lead stories, if only for a few hours. Rarely mentioned by politicians, pundits, and promoters of special interests is the silent threat to our nation’s healthcare system because of lax border enforcements and liberal policies regarding medical care.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (emtala.com) requires all emergency departments to treat any person seeking help for a medical condition, which can range from a gunshot wound, to a traffic accident injury, to labor, to a splinter in a finger, to a cough. The emergency department must provide screen and treat the patient until ready for discharge, or stabilize the patient for transfer, regardless of ability to pay.
Uncompensated costs to hospitals and other healthcare providers run into the billions of dollars annually. States bordering Mexico take the biggest hits. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR (fairus.org), estimates that last year, California lost $1.4 billion, Texas lost $850 million, and Arizona lost $400 million. Officials believe care to illegal immigrants make up 25 percent of those costs. If that is true, then hospitals serving the 24 US counties along the border ate $190 million in the year 2000, according to an oft-cited study by MGT of America ( mgtamer.com) sponsored by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition (bordercounties.org)
No one can say for sure if the 25-percent estimate is high or low, because federal laws prohibit healthcare providers from asking residency status of a patient. But, no one contests the guess. The Government Accounting Office figures lack of a Social Security number is the best proxy in hospital records for assessing the cost.
Most folks have a hard time grasping the concept of billions of dollars; the numbers are so huge they just pass through the mind. That is why it is always better to break down the numbers to more understandable portions by looking at individual examples.
A 12-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico, as reported by the New York Times in 2003 (“Burden Grows for Southwest Hospitals”), received burns over 25 percent of his body when a gasoline can caught fire while he and some friends torched ants. His unreimbursed hospital charges at a Phoenix, Ariz., medical center exceeded $250,000.
Between 1993 and 2003, sixty California hospitals shut their doors because half of their services went unpaid. Nine more hospitals closed last year from losses associated to medical care to illegal aliens.
In 2003, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal.) said her state spent about $980 million on emergency services for undocumented immigrants. That same year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors estimated public hospitals and clinics in LA County spent $340 million a year to treat illegal aliens.
Mississippi’s state auditor (www.osa.state.ms.us) is conducting a performance audit to determine how much his state’s citizens pay out to provide health care to illegal residents. The University of Mississippi Medical Center (umc.edu) wrote off $48 million in indigent care in 2003, and $73 million in 2004.
Then there is the issue of “anchor babies” born in this country, at no cost to the parents, for the sole purpose of pulling the rest of the family into permanent residency. Anchor babies make up about ten percent of all newborns in the US annually, according to the Center for Immigration Studies (cis.org). In 2003, anchor babies accounted for seventy percent of all births in San Joachim General Hospital in Stockton, California. New Mexico hospitals lose about $210 million a year because of anchor babies and illegal aliens.
The federal government will allot $1 billion, distributed among all states and the District of Columbia over the next four years, to cover a small portion of the cost of emergency care for uninsured patients, regardless of citizenship status. Providers can apply for this special reimbursement only after they seek reimbursement from Medicaid or private health insurers. The six states that arrest the most illegal aliens for each fiscal year will get one third of the funds. This year, California receives $70.8 million, Texas receives $46 million, Arizona gets $45 million, New York gets $12.5 million, Illinois gets $10.3 million, and Florida gets $8.7 million. Hospitals will receive most of the funds, with physicians and ambulance services also sharing in the reimbursements.
As our nation’s acceptance and dependence on illegal workers and their families grow, so will the costs to our taxpayers and their families. In this case, however, cost is not measured exclusively in dollars. The cost also will include lives lost because emergency departments that should have provided life-saving services may not be open for business. John David Powell is an Internet columnist, communication professional, and contributor to the Christian History Project. His email address is johndavidpowell@yahoo.com.
John David Powell
John David Powell is an award-winning writer and Internet columnist, professional speechwriter, and contributor to the Christian Millennium History Project. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. John David Powell can be reached at: johndavidpowell@yahoo.com Visit John’s website at: www.geocities.com/johndavidpowell
The Barrett Report
Dec 9, 2005
by Tony Snow
WASHINGTON, D.C. — “No wonder they call us the Stupid Party,” said a disgusted Republican operative in Washington. “You’ve got to wonder what these guys were thinking.”
At issue was the publication of a report by David Barrett, an independent counsel who has spent the better part of a decade looking into some of the most hair-raising allegations of presidential malfeasance in American history.
Like most independent counsels, Barrett didn’t set out on such a mission. He was assigned the duty of looking into whether former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros committed tax fraud in trying to cover up payments to a former mistress.
Yet, as published reports have indicated, he soon discovered that he was onto something much bigger. He found unsettling evidence that Justice Department officials were actively interfering with the probe and even conducting surveillance of Barrett and his office. Worse, there were indications that Team Clinton was using key players at the IRS and Justice to harass, frighten and threaten people who somehow got in the former president’s way.
The pattern was set early on, when the White House sicced the FBI on Billy Dale, who had served as the director of the White House Travel Office since the days of John F. Kennedy. They mounted a baseless probe of Dale’s finances, while chasing after his daughter, his sister and others. Dale was guilty of holding a job coveted by presidential pal Harry Thomasson. But rather than simply firing Dale, the Clinton White House chose to destroy him.
By all accounts, the 400-page Barrett report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential prospects. At the very least, it would bring to public attention a scandal that would make the Valerie Plame affair vanish into comical insignificance.
Democrats know this. Using provisions in the independent-counsel statute that permit people named in a report to review the allegations against them and file rebuttals, attorneys close to the Clintons have spent the better part of five years reviewing every jot and tittle of the charges arrayed against their clients and friends.
This careful and continuous monitoring of the report explains why Sens. Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin and John Kerry took the highly unusual step earlier this year of trying to slip into an Iraq-war spending bill an amendment to suppress every word of the Barrett report. (Every other independent counsel finding has been printed in its entirety, with the exception of small sections containing classified material.)
Alert Republicans, pushed by talk-radio listeners and bloggers, managed to short-circuit that effort, but Democrats patiently pursued their goal. They got what they wanted recently, when the House and Senate met to iron out differences in yet another appropriations bill. Democrats inserted language that would prevent public release of the 120 pages of the report listing the Clinton transgressions. They offered what may have looked like a good deal. They promised not to object to letting Barrett continue with any prosecutions already underway.
Republicans negotiators, led by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich, took the bait. They agreed to keep the public in the dark about the important stuff in exchange for a big, fat nothing. Unbeknownst to Bond and Knollenberg, Barrett shut down his grand juries three years ago.
The move represents more than just boneheaded politics. It’s grossly irresponsible. If the report contains the kind of bombshells that have been hinted at in reports published by The Wall Street Journal and National Review, among others, the public not only has a right to know, Congress has a duty to investigate.
If Barrett has found evidence that officials at Justice and the IRS served as a praetorian guard, that means some bureaucrats felt it appropriate or beneficial to ignore their duty to the public and instead to perform dirty work for the people who oversee their budgets.
Another big “if”: If such behavior were covered up, the malefactors would conclude that they may do the same thing again for other presidents.
Something stinks, and the only way to get at the truth is to release the full report. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who fought a lonely battle to ensure the document’s publication, is furious. So is House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc. The question is whether Republican leaders Bill Frist and Denny Hastert will step in and ensure the report’s publication, or whether they’ll just sigh and look the other way.
Tony Snow is the host of the ‘Tony Snow Show’ on Fox News Radio.
Copyright © 2005 Tony Snow
The Abramoff Scandal
Now to get to the subject of this article, everyone seems to becoming disenchanted with the republican party over the recently announced Abramoff scandal. I myself will admit that this does not bode well for the Republican Party. There are even polls suggesting that voters are considering putting Democrats back in power in 2006 and again in 2008. I have never put any faith in polls simply because of who does the polling and the way a single question can be restated a dozen different ways resulting in a dozen different answers. But for those of you who may be considering a Democratic comeback, I simply say,READ YOUR HISTORY BOOKS!! Did you not vote the Democrats out of power because the corruption in the Democratically controlled Congress just became absolutely intolerable! We now have GOOGLE and many other search engines on the internet. BLogs like mine abound, some good some bad. Looking back in history has never been easier. I suggest you research both the Democratic and the Republican History in the Whitehouse before you go off on some crusade to empower the Democrats.
Now for Abramoff, the man. If you research this man, you will find him to be a pretty sleazy guy. Yes, it’s true that he had dealings with Republicans. I have stated many times that there are corrupt Republicans around. When you go into politics, only the absolute strongest of sincere, conservative politicians remain incorruptible. I dare say that the single most demanding task of a politician is to remain true and honest to those who elected him/her! I could say that he also gave money to Democrats, which he did. In fact, this investigation will reveal that many, many Democrats took money from him. The ones who are the most fearful are returning as fast as they can, or giving it to charities. This is happening on both sides! I could say that researching Democratic scandals in the Clinton era alone could fill volumes. The scandals from the Clintons alone is far, far more than can even come close to any Republican scandal! (see http://www.uhuh.com/clinton/list-cli.htm or just Google “Clinton scandals”) I could say all this and more, but it does not condone the fact that there are Republican scoundrels out there too. I do not advocate the “lesser of two evils” rule either. I have observed that the longer a politician serves, the chances of corruption increase dramatically. I have always leaned toward term limits for all political positions, but I find a dilemma in fully advocating it because it takes time to get many problems solved. A new face with new ideas is sometimes advantageous in politics, but many complicated problems would never be solved with so many new faces every election year. Maybe the best thing to do is to hold your elected official to task with your vote. This is the most difficult of all solutions because it requires each individual voter to keep tabs on their elected officials, watching their accomplishments and failures. How many of you even try to keep track of those you elected?? You know, the solution to corruption is so very simple, and everyone has the power to stop it! If your representative is corrupt or not doing the job you elected him/her to do, you simply use the most powerful weapon one could ever have, YOUR VOTE!!!
Abramoff should get the punishment he deserves, if found guilty. So should every politician, whether Democrat or Republican, if found guilty. But everyone should be very careful when considering returning Democrats to power. The Democratic Party is NOT the party of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If fact, JFK is probably rolling over in his grave at what his party has become. Democrats believe in controlling every aspect of your life. They want everyone to be on welfare so they can take care of you because you, their poor flock, are incapable of taking care of yourself!! They are 100% tax and spend. They need all that money to be able to take care of you! Democrats are isolationists! They believe that the world should take care of itself and the United States should only be concerned for the US. Well, the world is just a short flight away by passenger jet. Do your Google search thing and research our past wars and see what party was in power during those wars. You will be alarmed. You may never want a Democrat to hold any position of power!
The Democratic Party is no longer the Democratic Party. Until the Democrats who are Conservatives and who still have some semblance of what their religious values were before politics, decide to take their party back from the Liberal radicals who have hijacked it, and put those special interest groups out of business who have bought and paid for the Liberals who are running the party now, then no Democrat should be voted into office. Now, I am totally against one party rule. One party rule results in, again, corruption! I believe in healthy debate. I do not wholeheartedly agree with everything the Republicans are doing. Democrats have some great visions for our future. But their nightmare visions are way too many and way too dangerous to put them in power. If you are a Conservative Democrat and want to vote your party, then find a Democrat with deep Christian values that is not afraid to stand up to the Liberals and take their party back (They now prefer the term “Progressive”, I guess LIBERAL leaves a bad taste). Find another Joe Lieberman!! If you cannot find such a person in your party then I would suggest you vote Conservative Republican. Just make sure that they, too, hold deep Christian values. Not all Republicans are honest people.
I am not condoning a religious state, and I never will. When I look back in history and see the decay and evil that has befallen this world since secularists have been able to remove religious values from all aspects of government, as well as the removal of religious support from our schools and colleges, the raping of Christmas by big business, I realize that without Christianity in every aspect of our lives, political, public and private, then we are all doomed to hell. If fact, the planet on which we live will be the hell all Christians of all faiths dread.
Paul vs. Hilary
LANDMARK FRAUD CASE
PAUL V. HILLARY CLINTON TO BEGIN DISCOVERY
From Human Events Online (www.humaneventsonline.com)
“Rather than perpetuating the signature Clinton ethic of denial, semantical and rhetorical responses to valid requests and questions, and stonewalling, it is time to accept your responsibility as a Federal elected official and do the right thing…” demand made on Sen. Clinton by her Mega-Contributor turned Whistle-Blower Peter Paul.
These suits were credited by the New York Times as causing the indictment of Hilary’s former finance chief, David Rosen for fraud. This is a huge victory for Peter Paul.
The Testimony at Mr. Rosen’s trial validated that the costs associated with the 2000 Hollywood fundraiser were falsified, that Peter Paul personally donated more than $1.2 Million, and that his identity was illegally hidden in Federal Election Commission reports!
THIS SUIT MAY BE THE MEANS THAT FINALLY EXPOSES THE DIRECT EVIDENCE LINKING HILLARY CLINTON TO CRIMINAL AND LEGAL MISCONDUCT. IT MAY ALSO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FORCING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO FINALLY ACT AGAINST HER.
HillCAP
The Hillary Clinton Accountability Project
Care Of: U.S. Justice Foundation
PO Box 1203
Merrifield, VA 22116-9998
Dear Friend,
Over the years, the U.S. Justice Foundation has stepped up to the plate to help people fight for their rights in our U.S. judicial system when they had nowhere else to turn for help.
From assisting parents fighting against school systems that are intent on taking their parental rights away to protecting the reverent words “Under God” from being removed from our Pledge of Allegiance, the U.S. Justice Foundation has donated its time, resources, top attorneys and legal expertise of 26 years to defend and protect the rights of main street, patriotic Americans.
Our driving force in many of these cases is to “right” what we believe to be terrible “wrongs.”
Recently, the U.S. Justice Foundation has taken on a project that we believe is one of our most important endeavors. If it succeeds it can change American political history and finally stop the unprincipled and unethical career of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
We have agreed to help a courageous whistle blower, Peter Paul, the first man to file a civil suit charging a U.S. President and a U.S. Senator with fraud, coercion and conspiracy.
This landmark lawsuit has already been reviewed by the California Supreme Court and is proceeding toward trial!
I must be honest, when former Clinton supporter Peter Paul, came to us and asked for our help, we were hesitant.
First, we wanted to make sure that the allegations of fraud, coercion and conspiracy could be backed up with facts. After researching the lawsuit, we are convinced Peter Paul is telling the truth. In addition, ABC news, on its award winning 20/20 television program, confirmed Peter Paul’s story. Moreover, in the recent criminal trial of Hillary’s campaign finance director, the government presented evidence supporting all of Paul’s principal allegations.
Second, we considered the possibility of the Clintons and their henchmen trying to “take us down” because of our involvement.
And, although we remain concerned about being targeted by the Clintons, we believe this case is of such national importance that we would be negligent if we did not agree to help Peter Paul in his fight against the Clintons.
We have launched this effort as the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project (www.HillCAP.org) and are intent on making sure that the facts of the largest campaign finance scandal in history get out to the public and the media untainted from liberal spin.
I’ve sent this letter to you because I believe that you believe as I do — that the Clintons are a treacherous, powerful force.
The full impact of their transgressions over the years has not yet been felt by America. However, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Americans’ respect, faith and confidence in our leaders plummeted…
And now Hillary’s career in the U.S. Senate allows this power-hungry, arrogant, couple to continue to operate above the law — crushing the lives and careers of anyone who dares to stand in their way.
The Clintons’ co-presidency was involved in scandal after scandal.Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Cattlegate…And suspected ties to several mysterious deaths like Vince Foster and Ron Brown…
And the many “women” of Bill Clinton that Hillary allegedly threatened in efforts to silence them –Gennifer Flowers, Paula
Jones; Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick…
But time after time, the Clintons have escaped punishment for these offenses and remain free from any accountability.
The U.S. Justice Foundation, the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project and Peter Paul want to make sure that this time the Clintons don’t succeed in their quest to avoid accountability for the frauds that enabled Hillary to win her Senate seat.
We are dedicated to ensuring that the evidence of their misconduct is presented in a court of law through the Paul vs. Clinton civil suit and in the court of public opinion, through a documentary that will be distributed throughout the land.
But to be successful, and to prevent the Clintons from sweeping yet another scandal under the rug, it is vital that you play a role in our efforts.
Peter Paul filed his lawsuit against Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2001. The media kept it out of the spotlight…
The lawsuit stems from a fundraiser in 2000 organized by Peter Paul. The event, “Hollywood Salute to President Clinton,” paid tribute to Bill Clinton for his service to our nation as president, while helping Hillary’s Senate campaign.
The lawsuit accuses the Clintons and a number of Democrat “Big Dogs” with several counts of fraud, coercion and conspiracy.
The extent of the corruption surrounding this event is shocking even for the Clintons.
Peter Paul agreed to underwrite and produce a star-studded gala as its co-host. This fundraiser for Hillary Clinton was witnessed by most of “A” list Hollywood and raised $1 million that Hillary desperately needed in the last few weeks of her campaign for Senate.
Days after the event the Clintons began to weave their web of deceptions and lies.
The lies and deceptions began when the estimated cost of the event went from $500K to well over $2 million, a fact which the Clintons needed to cover up due to federal campaign laws.
When Peter Paul made his concerns known to Hillary’s entourage about the skyrocketing costs and many of the invited “Stars’” outrageous demands, he was told to keep paying or he would be blamed for sabotaging the event and Hillary’s campaign.
The costs to hold that “Star-Studded” gala in August of 2000 were reported on Hillary’s financial reports to the government as an “in-kind” contribution of $500K from Paul’s company. In fact, the company contributed nothing. And Peter Paul’s cancelled checks show that he personally spent more than $1.2 million on the gala and that contribution remains fraudulently misreported by the Clintons to this very day!
Enraged that Hillary would make him a co-conspirator by hiding from the government the identity of her largest contributor and the amount of the contribution, Paul immediately went to the Justice Department and made four separate proffers of the true facts.
He filed a civil suit against the Clintons in June 2001, and then had a demand letter delivered to Senator Clinton’s Senate chambers. This letter informed Hillary that her campaign reports were false and that made his contributions “illegal.” He demanded she accept responsibility as an elected official, correct the fraudulent reports she had filed, and refund the money he donated because her actions made his contributions illegal under the law.
Not surprisingly, Hillary has never acknowledged this correspondence, nor returned Mr. Paul’s contributions.
But Peter did not give up.
Peter Paul filed a complaint with the FEC and a civil suit against the Clintons in the Superior Court for the State of California.
These suits were credited by the New York Times as causing the indictment of Hillary’s former finance chief, David Rosen, for election fraud.
This is a huge victory for Peter Paul.
The testimony at Mr. Rosen’s trial validated that the costs associated with the 2000 Hollywood fundraiser were falsified, that Peter Paul personally donated more than $1.2 million, and that his identity was illegally hidden in the reports!
THIS SUIT MAY BE THE MEANS THAT FINALLY EXPOSES THE DIRECT EVIDENCE LINKING THE CLINTONS TO CRIMINAL AND LEGAL MISCONDUCT, SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT HILLARY IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION FOR HER DISREGARD FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
I must be frank with you, this suit against the Clintons — who are defended by the best lawyers in Washington that money can buy — will be very expensive. We estimate at this time it will cost approximately $1 million to get us through the trial.
Now I know that is a lot of money, but that is why your help is so important! If thousands of people across this great country contribute $25 or $35 or $50 or $75 or $100 or $250 or $500 or even more, we will have the funding we need to carry this case through to the end.
If we do not prevail, the last and best chance to hold Hillary — ONCE AND FOR ALL – accountable will be lost. Furthermore, other politicians, government officials and public representatives will take a Peter Paul defeat as a sign that they too can run roughshod over the Constitution, our legal system and any person who gets in their way.
That is why it is critical that U.S. Justice Foundation and its Hillary Clinton Accountability Project have your support immediately.
Recently, Hillary Clinton filed a motion with the court in efforts to dismiss the entire case -– but WE WON – The Court sided with U.S. Justice Foundation. But that didn’t stop her! She then appealed the court’s previous decision refusing to dismiss her personally and her campaign from the case. I argued against that appeal in court in just a few weeks ago, and WE WON AGAIN!
Dismiss Hillary from the case?! She is the case! These tactics are clearly designed to make us burn up our money so we cannot see this case through to the end.
Gary G. Kreep
President
P.S. This suit may be the means that finally exposes the direct evidence linking the Clintons to criminal and legal misconduct, sufficient to convict Hillary in the court of public opinion for her disregard for the rule of law.
A Project Of:
The U.S. Justice Foundation * 932 D Street, Suite 2 * Ramona, CA 92027-2709
Democrats & National Security
This Is Why We Don’t Trust Democrats with National Security
By Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 4, 2006
From Human Events Online
It seems the Bush administration — being a group of sane, informed adults — has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even if you were “an American citizen” making the call from U.S. territory — like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah’s speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only “American citizen” Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.
The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA’s spying cited by the Treason Times was “an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.” Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words “ties to Osama bin Laden,” we’re still left with those words — “ties to Osama bin Laden.” The government better be watching that person.
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I’m pretty sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had any brains, they’d distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush’s impeachment for listening in on terrorists’ phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they’d be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama’s cell phone number.
That’s all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can’t be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to the Treason Times’ exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, “1,754 warrants were approved.” No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: “The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary.” He “wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests,” said USA Today.
Put aside the question of why it’s so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it’s nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court “modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.”
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify — much less reject — one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges “modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration.” In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 “substantive modifications” to warrant requests and rejected or “deferred” six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I’m sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims’ families that, after all, the killer’s ties to al Qaeda were merely “dubious” and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security. This is today’s lesson.
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).