Senator Clinton agrees with President Bush... or does she?

This story from the AP is interesting:

RYE BROOK, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

Say what? I thought Senator Clinton disagreed with the Bush Administration on the whole Iraq war.

Well, she does:

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.

Or does she?

At the same time, Clinton said the Bush administration's pledge to stay in Iraq "until the job is done" amounts to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."

Now wait a minute, I'm confused. Which is it? Is Senator Clinton FOR our actions in Iraq or AGAINST our actions thus wanting the US to pull out. Wait a minute, the end of the article....what's that?

Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over.

"Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," she said.

Ohhhhh, now I get it. Senator Clinton is pulling plays from her husband's playbook. She's not quite sure which position to take until she sees which way the wind is blowing. So watch the news. Depending on the results of the Iraqi election in December, and depending on how the press reacts to that AND DEPENDING on how Senator Clinton can use if for her eventual Presidential bid, we should eventually know where she stands....maybe.

Senator Clinton Believes Government Should Control Private Business

On October 25, Senator Clinton delivered a speech to the conference of the Cleantech Venture Network. In this speech, Senator Clinton stated:

...ensure that we re-invest the tremendous drain that higher energy prices are exacting on middle-class families and the economy in a better energy future...

Anybody have a clue what that government double speak really means? I'm betting it's another redistribution of wealth strategy. But of course, in perfect fairness. Let's listen a little further.

I believe that we need to assess the oil companies an alternative energy development fee to be put into the new Strategic Energy Fund

Ok....so how's the government going do that? Where's that fee going to come from? Shhh...listen:

...so it is taken solely out of unanticipated profits from the sky-high oil prices and ensure that it is not passed on to consumers.

Say what? What exactly is an "unanticipated profit" and why would the government develop a fee based on an unexpected source? Secondarily, how is the GOVERNMENT going to "ensure that it is not passed on to consumers"? In case you don't already know, businesses don't pay taxes. YOU DO! Whenever there's an increase in fees or taxes for businesses, these increases ultimately get passed on to the end consumer. (For an EXTREMELY good explanation of all of this, please read Neal Boortz's book The FairTax Book.)

This "fee" of course would be temporary:

...temporary, lasting just long enough to kickstart the alternative energy market that we all know is out there.

We...which we? Look, if alternative energy sources were profitable, don't you think companies would be developing products and services as quickly as possible?

Finally, at the bottom of all of this the truth comes out. It's all about taxes.

...reform our energy taxes so that large oil companies which reap huge benefits over the next two years will pay a portion of their profits to fund new tax incentives for consumers and companies who want to do what we believe is the right thing...

What WHO believes is the right thing? Ohhhh, I get it, because Senator Clinton believes that alternative energy is the "right thing", that perfectly justifies a new tax...excuse me, fee to prop up this energy. Does this sound like the whole government subsidized Ethanol program going on today?

Just remember this in 2008. Anything Senator Clinton deems as "the right thing" or "good for the people", will become part of her campaign platform to increase your dependency on the government. Willingly or Unwillingly.

Senator Clinton Ticked at Children's Book

This one is too good!

Hillary Clinton Denounces Anti-Liberal Kid's Book

Hillary Clinton, through her spokesman, twice denounces best-seller kid's book that features a villainous Hillary look-alike. Joins chorus of liberals in denouncing popular illustrated story. International media intently follows this U.S. controversy.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) November 2, 2005 -- What kind of children's book, written by an unassuming 35-year-old mother of three, could possibly provoke the ire of Hillary Rodham Clinton's press secretary on multiple occasions? The answer, it appears, is one that features a cartoon villain who bears an uncanny resemblance to the New York Senator taxing and regulating a child's lemonade stand.

Katharine DeBrecht's illustrated “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” (Kids Ahead; hardcover $15.95; ISBN 0976726904) has been a hit in U.S. bookstores and garnered an international media following, but twice in the past two weeks it has attracted the wrath of Senator Clinton's top spokesman.

Last month, the influential Congressional newspaper The Hill quoted Clinton's press secretary Philippe Reines as dismissing the book, which also features look-alikes of fellow liberal icons Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Reines was quoted as saying, “(I) can't wait for the sequel, 'Help! Mom! I Can't Read This Book Because Republicans Have Cut Literacy Programs!'”

"It's ironic that Hillary's press secretary would call for more government intrusion into our lives while bashing my book," author DeBrecht replied at the time. "Who needs parents when you've got bureaucrats in the Department of Education taking care of our kids? Evidently Hillary thinks it takes a village to teach a child to read!"

When asked by The Hill's reporter last week to respond to DeBrecht's remarks, Reines fired back, this time insinuating that her book was not selling well. “It's not the liberal under the bed that they should be worried about,” he crowed, “it's the sales that are in the basement.”

“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” has consistently been among the top selling children's books on Amazon, and at one point it hit #1 on the Barnes & Noble bestseller list. The book has been on the market for only six weeks and the publisher is already preparing for a third printing.

Hillary Clinton's spokesman is not the first liberal to denounce DeBrecht's satirical book. Talk show host Alan Colmes called it "brainwashing," pundit Andrew Sullivan likened it to Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung, and MSNBC host Ron Reagan said he wanted to do his own book portraying conservatives as "hating black people." The popular website Democratic Underground also named DeBrecht to their "Top 10 Conservative Idiots" list.

The strident liberal response to this children's story has attracted the attention of reporters all over the world. Publishers Weekly, the Washington Times, and U.S. News & World Report have profiled the picture book, as have international newspapers such as London's Telegraph, Melbourne's The Age, and The Calcutta Telegraph.

“Hillary Clinton might not like 'Help! Mom!' since it advocates traditional values, but apparently she doesn't object to left-wing children's books,” adds DeBrecht. “She hasn't criticized 'Rainbow Fish,' where a beautiful fish is hectored into giving away his shiny scales, or 'King & King,' where a young prince rejects a princess and marries her brother. I guess Senator Clinton thinks these liberal books are ideal for public schools -- maybe she can propose a federal program to purchase more.”

It must be Halloween, because Senator Clinton is seeing goblins and demons everywhere. I'm just glad someone is trying to provide an alternate view to our children in an attempt to balance the liberal schools.

Senator Clinton's Record

From Mr. Boortz:

I've been telling you for some time now that the left is going to try to find a way to shut down talk radio in the months leading up to the 2008 presidential election. The Democrats know that they can by and large control the mainstream media. I think that it's fair to say that well over 90% of the mainstream journalists who will be covering the next presidential contest will be hoping that Hillary wins. These are people who are not likely to initiate any reporting on Hillary's corrupt past. Examples? Fine. For starters, here are some of the stories that the mainstream press won't address in a Hillary presidential run.

* Hillary's disdain for the common man.
* Hillary's obstruction over the Rose Law Firm billing records.
* Hillary's drafting of the Casa Grande documents, documents used in a scheme that cost the American taxpayers millions.
* Hillary's controlled campaign appearances.
* Hillary's phony "listening tours."
* Hillary; socialist or not?
* Revisiting Hillary Care
* The Clinton pardons

And that's just for starters. The point here is that while the mainstream media can be counted on to ignore those stories, and more, it will not be the same for talk radio, and the left knows it. I don't know when the effort to shut us down will come, I only know that it is a virtual certainty.

By the way ... something for you to notice. When the mainstream media addresses talk radio you will always hear Air America referred to as "liberal" or "progressive" (retch) talk radio. If the radio show isn't left-leaning it will be referred to as "right-wing" talk radio, never "conservative" talk radio. Just a little observation.