Hillary Clinton Proposes Socialist America In Speech To Trade School Students

Hillary Clinton Proposes Socialist America In Speech To Trade School Students

To: News Assignment Desk

Media Contact:
Bill Wilson at bill@dailyjot.com

2007-05-30 — [WDC News Post] — WASH—May 30—DJNS– Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton would attempt to turn America into a government-dominated social state if she were elected president. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to understand the socialistic government philosophy of Hillary Clinton, especially after her revealing remarks to students at the Manchester School of Technology on May 29th. Clinton outlined an America where the government would control the economy, decide the pay of corporate CEO’s, and establish a globalized workforce. Her speech, reported by Associated Press, was full of one liners that in the first part of the sentence spoke of the free enterprise America, then in the second part painted a socialist vision of the nation.

Clinton said, “There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.” Clinton also said, “I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society. I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.” The subtle difference in what Clinton is proposing is that America was built on individual freedom to succeed, not success based on heavy handed government control of Americans and their opportunities.

Clinton told the students that the Bush Administration promoted an “ownership” society. She implied in her remarks that ownership is not something that should be promoted, but rather fairness brought about by government regulation and policies. In Clinton’s government-controlled society, students would be encouraged to attend alternative trade schools without the stigma associated with not having a college degree. She would also eliminate tax incentives for corporations and provide government mandated national health care. She said she would create jobs by pursuing energy independence—while she didn’t explain how, it is implied this would be done through expanding government programs.
Hillary Clinton’s America is a social democracy rather than a Constitutional Republic, a nation based on government intrusion in every aspect of an individual’s life, a country based, in her words, on shared responsibility and prosperity. This is the type of society that failed under the Soviet Union and even Communist China has abandoned these “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” philosophies of Karl Marx. Americans are a free people, but they won’t be if Hillary Clinton has her way.

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”– Galatians 5:1

American al Qaeda warns of attacks ‘worse than 9/11’…

Striking Against Security

Striking Against Security
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times | May 10, 2007

On the Amtrak train to New York a few minutes ago, the conductor announced, “If you see anything suspicious, please report it to the authorities immediately.” If Islamist-front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its friends in Congress have their way, however, this sensible, prudential announcement will have to be amended: “Be advised: If you do make such a report, you may be sued.”Could it really come to this? It could, if the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives gets away with an effort to deep-six legislation approved last month with the support of 109 of their caucus’ members.

According to a Republican memo circulated before the vote, that legislation is designed to ensure that “any person that voluntarily reports suspicious activity — anything that could be a threat to transportation security” will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure.” It “authorizes courts to award attorneys’ fees to defendants with immunity” and would apply retroactively to activities on or after Nov. 20, 2006.

That date is significant, of course, since that was the day when six Arizona-based Muslim clerics were removed in Minneapolis from an aircraft operated by US Airways. The deplaning occurred after fellow passengers did what my conductor urged those on his train to do: They reported suspicious behavior.

The six Islamist clerics — now universally known as the Flying Imams — reportedly engaged in behavior that seemed designed to trigger alarms. Such behavior is said to have included: praying ostentatiously before boarding the plane, changing seats to sit in pairs in unassigned seats (by some accounts in a pattern reminiscent of some terrorists’ modus operandi), making loud statements in Arabic that appear to have included derogatory comments about America and requesting unneeded seat-belt-extenders — which can, in a pinch, be used as weapons.

Following understandable expressions of concern by as-yet-unidentified fellow passengers, the crew consulted with airline and local and federal police. The decision was taken to remove the imams. In a lawsuit filed in March by CAIR on behalf of the imams, these “well-respected, religious leaders… felt degraded, humiliated and dejected as they were led before airport patrons and passengers who looked at them as if they were criminals.” In addition to suing US Airways, CAIR is going after unspecified “John Does” — namely, yet-to-be-served passengers, flight attendants and airport personnel the Islamist organization contends acted “with an intent to discriminate.”

Some perceive in the imams’ behavior — and CAIR’s effort to capitalize on the response it fortunately and predictably precipitated — an intention to use our civil liberties to diminish America’s preparedness and capacity for dealing with domestic threats. At the very least, this caper plays into the hands of CAIR as it promotes another piece of legislation, the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) of 2005 whose original co-sponsors were two prominent leftists in Congress, Democrats Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.

Now, “racial profiling” — like the “intent to discriminate” — are in many cases highly subjective calls. And claims of such wrongdoing are especially suspect coming from the likes of CAIR. After all, as the invaluable Center for Vigilant Freedom makes clear, this organization (established by a Hamas front group known as the Islamic Association for Palestine) feverishly seeks to demonstrate that Muslims in America are being victimized.

In fact, in a speech to the Muslim ADAMS Center on April 27, 2007, and transcribed by Vigilant Freedom (http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/04/30/audio-from-cairs-meeting-on-6-imams-at-adams-center/), CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, declared: “There were 196 cases reported by the Justice Department for Muslims in civil rights cases. There were over 1,008 cases reported by the Jewish faith. We need to do a much better job not only in recognizing our civil rights but also in reporting it to the government. [It] is very critical and very important. … We really feel our community is more targeted. Fifty-four percent — this is one of CAIR’s surveys — 54 percent of all Muslims surveyed said they had been subject to discrimination. Fifty-four percent, which if you put numbers down, we’re talking about tens of thousands of cases, not dozens, as is reported in the Justice Department’s annual report.”

In other words, it serves CAIR’s purposes to portray Muslims as victims. Imams who behave suspiciously are victims. Other Muslims who fail to report their victimhood undermine the efforts of CAIR and its ilk to secure not just equal treatment under the law but special rights (e.g., designated prayer rooms, cleansing facilities, Muslim-only hours for school gyms, etc.) In the process, they inure this democracy to encroachment of a religious code known as Shariah law and the parallel society Islamists seek to establish here, as elsewhere, en route to creating Islamic states.

It is against this backdrop that Congress must enact legislation to protect “John Does” and, thereby, to protect us all. It is unacceptable that the Democratic leadership is seeking to prevent such an outcome through parliamentary sleight-of-hand — by keeping the public in the dark about the make-up and timing of the conference committee that will hammer out differences between the House-passed legislation, which includes such protection, and the Senate bill that does not.

Every effort should be made to encourage our countrymen to report suspicious activities — which may prove to be the difference between life and death for large numbers of us. And every effort at odds with that duty must be exposed to the harshest scrutiny and most vigorous opposition.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Another Key Terrorist Captured


The Doctrine of Mahdism: In the Ideological and Political Philosophy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Mesbah-e Yazdi

Carl Cameron Of Fox News: Fred Thompson Will Not Announce On The Fourth of July…

Carl Cameron Of Fox News: Fred Thompson Will Not Announce On

 The Fourth of July…

f thompson founding father

…but on the 5th of July, once the holiday is over so the story will not be lost in holiday coverage. Polls indicate that 40% of Republicans are unhappy with their current field of potential nominees. The Politico story citing the 4th, and igniting all the brouhaha being well-reported at Hotair.

My money’s on Carl. He gave an on-air report in which he cited direct conversation with at least one source on Thompson’s team. Cameron’s been ahead of this story for awhile.

Posted by Pat Dollard 3 Comments

What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran

What No One Is Telling You About Our Talks With Iran

iranian sailor coffee

Watching the pundits discuss our historic meeting with Iran, you would have mostly heard despair at the notion that we have no leverage in these talks, and so therefor why would Iran give on anything? Why would they stop waging war against us in iraq if they have nothing to fear? To all the experts in the media, the whole thing seemed like some grand puzzlement. Was it just an attempt to appease the administration’s domestic critics who have been chiding it for not engaging in diplomacy ( a vaguery if there ever was one ) with the world’s top terrorist? No one you heard from could really quite grasp what was going on.

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America’s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go.

The administration is almost freakishly confident, in marked contrast to media reports like the one featuring Newt Gingrich’s attack on the President below. The U.S. is in the midst of another dipolomatic surge through the region to bolster allies for the final showdown with Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr has sent signals he may be ready to break with Iran. And, frankly, the military turnaround in Al Anbar province is of greater strategic significance than the increase in U.S. casualties this month. In addition, the surge is still not entirely deployed, and whole key neighborhoods of Baghdad have yet to be entered. While John McCain was being mocked for having to wear a flak jacket in a Baghdad market, the bigger story was that his son, a Marine newly deployed to the Al Anbar province, and a frontline grunt at that, was more likely than not to never see a shot fired in an area that until just weeks ago was called “the most dangerous place on earth”.

Oh, and preparations are under way for the construction of new U.S. airbases in Kurdistan, so we are not, under any circumstances, giving up a firmbase posture throughout Iraq.

And special props to VP Cheney who had nearly been ordered by his doctors to not even make the first trip. A compromise was had and he flew with a physician. He is preparing for a trip to Iran’s various northern neighbors like Uzbekistan and Khazekstan to shore up our position for offensives from the north.

We want to have them entirely surrounded.

Video Of Iran’s Surprise Guests:


Iran Backing Iraqi Terror Plots

Iran Backing Iraqi Terror Plots

Early warning.

America’s Islamist enemies in Iraq–including Iranian-backed Shiite militias and Al Qaeda-associated groups–are planning a major terrorist offensive that could involve bombings and attacks on an unprecedented scale.

The overall objective is to shed as much American and allied blood as possible in order to hasten America’s departure from war-torn Iraq–and the entire Middle East.

Islamists Threaten Jordan

Islamists Threaten Jordan

Intelligence item.

Jordan is scared.

The pro-Western monarchy feels increasingly encircled and threatened from within–by Iranian-backed Islamists.

Islamism is on the rise in Jordan. The leading Islamist opposition group, the Islamic Action Front, is publicly committed to peaceful methods. But some intelligence experts believe Al Qaeda has infiltrated the movement.

These same experts contend that hundreds, if not thousands, of Islamist fighters in Iraq are poised to enter Jordan, Lebanon, and other Middle Eastern nations.

Hamas is also a threat to Jordan. The Palestinian Islamist movement, which has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel, knows that its terrrorism and extremism are leading many observers to suddenly question the conventional wisdom of the sacrosanct two-state solution to the Palestinian/Arab/Islamist-Israeli conflict–i.e. the creation of an independent Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza. For the first time in decades, Jordan is seen by many in Israel and the West as a proper negotiating partner for the future of the contested West Bank territories of Judea and Samaria, which Israel conquered in the Six-Day War of June, 1967.

Hamas, which actually regards Jordan as part of historic Palestine, will do everything possible to derail talks between Jerusalem and Amman on the future disposition of the West Bank lands.


Muslim American Society declares victory

Muslim American Society declares victory

Patrick Poole
Following up on yesterday’s entry, “Jihad-by-lawsuit fails in Boston“, it is interesting to note the response by the Boston chapter of the Muslim American Society, which has claimed victory in the wake of the lawsuit’s withdrawal, even though the dismissal of this care represents a full retreat. (HT: Miss Kelly)

This declaration of victory is much like that of Sulieman in his failed siege of Vienna in 1529. After three weeks of assaulting the city with 250,000 troops, and the Viennese citizens’ successful defense under Nicholas von Salm with only a small band of 16,000 soldiers, Sulieman ordered the massacre of all the Christian captives his forces had taken on the march to Vienna, declared victory, and returned back to Istanbul with nothing to show for the effort.

The ISB and MAS-Boston can’t stand too many more of these “victories”.