Hillary’s list of lies

Hillary’s list of lies

By Dick MorrisThe USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll. Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

    o Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
    o Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
    o She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
    o She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won’t Confess To

    o She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.
    o She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
    o Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
    o She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

A Decades Deep Treasure Trove

A Decades Deep Treasure Trove

Russ Vaughn
Barack Obama’s supporters are quick to level the cherry-picking charge in any discussion of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s video vitriol, claiming that Obama’s critics are selectively condemning the pastor with but a few exceptional sermons out of twenty-plus years of weekly sermons.

The problem with that argument is that the church’s gift shop packaged and sold in DVD format the very sermons that are being used now with such devastating political effect, characterizing them as a “best of” series. One can only speculate as to whose characterization that is, but after seeing the Rev’s rather formidable ego demonstrated in the videos and in television interviews, I do not think he is one who would delegate the task of selecting his best sermons for resale purposes to any subordinate; which leaves us to conclude that Reverend Wright himself holds those cherry-picked videos in very high esteem.
Now, do any of us skeptics out here really believe that if those videos are the Rev’s choice for his “best of” series, that they are the only exceptional examples of thirty-six years of preaching from that pulpit? Are we to accept that after three and a half decades, the Rev can point only to that skimpy handful of videos and say, “There is the sum total of the very best of the fruits of my labors in service to the Lord?”
So what becomes most intriguing here is the question as to just how long the church has been recording and selling the Rev’s weekly exhortations to his flock and just how many of those tapes may be out there in circulation. Obviously, from what we’ve already seen, the church has been taping at least since the week after 9/11, which means there could be hundreds of tapes in just that time, perhaps multiple thousands if one considers that most likely every performance (three services every Sunday) is taped to provide the collection from which a “best of” series can be selected.
Obama’s supporters try to reassure themselves that this will blow over; but I wonder how many of them lay awake wondering just how many more of these tapes are out there and just when one of the Clintons’ opposition research operatives is going to pay some disgruntled, or just greedy, former parishioner a very hefty sum for his extensive collection of the “best of” series? That cannot be a sleep-inducing thought within the Obama campaign, especially if one of those videos should contain audience shots that include an enthusiastic, wildly cheering Barack and Michelle.
And just think there’s only twenty years of possibilities in this potential treasure trove. Once the Clintons get through digging, there may even be a jewel or two left for Republican oppo investigators should Obama win the nomination.

How would you like to see this couple as the Commander in Chief, and as the First Lady, in charge of the United States of America, next year?..

Talk about a need for America to pray and seek God!!!
How would you like to see this couple as the Commander in Chief, and as the First Lady, in charge of the United States of America, next year?.. If you think we have problems now…   With them in office..  “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”…  

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michelle Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on “crime and hatred”. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were “ineradicably racist”.   The 1985 thesis, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. 
Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to “Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first…” However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, “If those “Whites at Princeton” really saw Michelle as one who always would “be Black first,” it seems that she gave them that impres sion”.
Most alarming is Michelle Obama’s use of the terms “separationist” and “integrationist” when describing the views of black people.
Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a “separationist” view of race.
“By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may

 better understand

 the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution 

as opposed to anintegrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”
Michelle Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder. 
Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world.
Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:
“There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. “
What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she’s first lady that will elevate black over white in America?
The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.
“Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.”
The conclusion of her thesis is alarming.
Michelle Obama’s poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.
Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama’s thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

Michelle Obama’s intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.
Now maybe she’s changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America. Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites?  I am sure that it will.  But it shouldn’t.