Sarah Palin an Insult to the Hillary Clinton Die-Hearts?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

I caught a few comments made yesterday by the television pundits who were speculating on who John McCain's VP choice was going to be. One comment was to the effect that it would be condescending for McCain to pick Palin and that Hillary supporters would not be impressed, but rather, would be insulted. After all, they didn't just want a woman -- they wanted Hillary and would be satisfied with nothing less.

What I would like to know is...

What makes these pundits think that McCain picked Palin simply because she is a woman? Now that is where the insult rests. Well, at least one of the insults.

Life is not centered around Hillary Clinton, nor should it be. She was simply a woman running for president. She has no special powers or talents that others don't have. For any pundit to imply others can't live up to her bigger than life persona is the major insult and nothing more than media bias (free public relations) at its obvious. And let's be honest... how many Hillary Clinton make-overs can one life-time handle?

Sarah Palin is a governor and she did it on her own -- not on the coat tails of her husband. She was elected because of her abilities -- not her husband's. And if she is ever to be president -- she will be the one that earned the position and is expected to carry out the duties -- not her husband. And when she campaigns, we will know that the experience attributed to her, will be HER experience and not community property experience we seemed to have been exposed to for too long.

As I said...

The world does not center around Hillary Clinton. To suggest that Sarah Palin is a desperate pick on John McCain's part is actually an insult to all women. It is to say that if we aren't Hillary Clinton we are less deserving and less than capable. I think Sarah Palin is the woman to prove that old assumption to be idle gossip that we can throw out with the dish water. After all, life is too short to live by the illusion perpetrated on us thus far. It's time to put real people back into government.

AP Calling The Whole Enchalada for Obama

Not content to wait for the "flyover country" vote in South Dakota and Montana, AP is also calling the Democrat primary for Barack Obama.

From NewsMax:

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

Do you reckon anybody's told Mrs. Clinton yet?

If you see any flying ashtrays, you'll know she's got the word...

Hillary Clinton Attempts to Rule Over New Rules that Replace Original Rules?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Watching Hillary Clinton in action is simply amazing. Who would have thought we could sink so low, but we have.

It isn't that Hillary is fighting for the nomination, but rather, "how" she fighting that makes for a sad day in American history and politics. She and her campaign have taken us down a path that no one should be proud of, though some seem to think it is some special badge to be bragged about.

I wasn't involved in Florida and Michigan moving up their primaries, nor the decision to punish them for having done so, but Hillary Clinton was. She agreed that they should be punished, until it became clear to her that SHE needed their votes for HER campaign and for any possibility of HER gaining the nomination that SHE once thought was simply HERS.

How do the voters from Michigan and Florida not see that Hillary Clinton's sudden fight for them is self-serving? How indeed? After all, where was Hillary Clinton's concern when she thought she was winning?

It seems that Hillary Clinton is trying to make up the rules as she needs them, but there is a truth standing in the way that needs to be considered. Whether the rules were right or not -- and whether the punishment was appropriate -- those were the rules everyone went into the game under. As a result, those are the rules that everyone should have to live with this time around. If that isn't acceptable -- then it shouldn't have been acceptable before the race got underway. It's plain. It's simple. It's a matter of honor and integrity. It is, but is it how this madness shall play out?

Today the DNC Rules & Bylaw's Committee will meet. It should be a very entertaining and telling event. One that shows the world what standing "honor and integrity" has within the DNC and to what length's Hillary Clinton and her campaign will go to in order for her to get her way. Yes, it should be quite the event as we watch Hillary Clinton try to manipulate the results once again. Will she succeed? The end of the day should tell.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Quality or Not -- Support the Woman: Hillary Clinton for President

by Carrie K. Hutchens

I find it totally offensive that some women are supporting Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman. How disrespectful of self and others is that?

I believe that "qualified" and "quality" women should have an equal chance at being in law enforcement (or any other position being sought) as any "qualified" and "quality" man. However, I do not believe that women should have some free pass that skips the qualified and quality stage and puts totally unsuitable women in a position they (as individuals) have no business being in.

Responding to any call, promoting the "women's agenda" would be the last thing on my mind. I would want my fellow officers to be trained and capable. I really wouldn't be happy to know that my supposed backup was a female that was wearing the badge not because she deserved it, but because women's rights groups not only forced the door open for her -- they decreased "quality" in the process. Primary on my mind would be all of us getting home safely -- not that some points were made for the women's movement.

So what are women thinking in this voting process?

Do they want a "woman" so badly that they are willing to sell themselves out?

Do they think if we don't grab Hillary that we have lost all chances of putting a woman in charge of the White House ever?

Do they think Hillary Clinton is the last woman in the world?

Perhaps we should share the secret that there are plenty of truly qualified and quality women out there that could and would excel as our president. We don't need to settle. We don't need to lie, steal, cheat, or manipulate our way to the top position of our country. Instead, we need to be honest, able and ready to fight for right for all, rather than clinging to out-dated personal agendas that have turned destructive in nature and action.

Sexism has affected Hillary Clinton's campaign and she is complaining? Looks like the only way it has affected her campaign is to get her a blind following. A following that will vote for the woman irregardless of any reason they shouldn't. (Isn't this sexism in and of itself?)

Sexism? It isn't that HIllary Clinton is a woman that goes against her. It is that the woman is Hillary Clinton.

We don't have to settle and we shouldn't.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary to Run as an Independent?

Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that if Hillary Clinton doesn't win the Democrat nomination (which she won't, at least not above-board), 29% of Democrats say she should run as an Independent for the White House.

Well, that would sure keep the fun rolling until November in this campaign.

Knowing the monumental ego of the Clintons, it could happen...

Politicians, Pigs and the Media

By John W. Whitehead

Bill O’Reilly: This is the most fun interview you’ve ever done, I know it is. I can just tell.

Hillary Clinton: I was going to say it’s the most fun interview you’ve ever done.

O’Reilly: It is. Well, I don’t know about that.

Clinton: Come on. Get on the record.

O’Reilly: No, I interviewed Cher one time, and that was just a blast.

Clinton: That must have been really fun.

O’Reilly: That was great.

Clinton: Yes.

O’Reilly: Senator, thanks for taking the time. We really appreciate it.

Clinton: Thanks a lot, Bill.

The last sentence in George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm aptly sums up the state of politics today. As Orwell observed, “No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

This almost surreal merging of two different organisms is epitomized in many ways, but nowhere is it more clearly seen than in the strange political marriage of late between Fox News, known for its right-leaning viewpoint, and the Democrats. They have become, as journalist Brian Stelter writes, “strange bedfellows.” Indeed, Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, recently praised Fox as being “fair and balanced.”

For those befuddled by the odd pairing, the New York Times explains: “Fox News and the Democrats abruptly find each other useful.” For Fox, it’s partially about the ratings, while for the Democrats, it’s about reaching out to Fox’s viewing audience, which is largely white, conservative and undecided.

This alliance, while it may seem strange to some, has actually been a long time coming. Just two years ago, in July 2006, conservative media owner Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton at Fox News headquarters in New York City. No cameras were present, and as the New York Daily News reported, Murdoch “tried to keep their political get-together as secret as possible.” Indeed, when it was over, Clinton slipped out a side door.

Considering that Murdoch is known for his financial support of Republican agendas and right-wing causes, this fundraiser caused many on both sides of the political aisle to scratch their heads in bewilderment. One commentator characterized political analysts’ responses as “punditocracy in a tailspin.”

Now Bill O’Reilly has added himself to the cozy mix, with his recent four-part interview with Hillary Clinton that scored high ratings and set a year-to-date viewership record for Fox’s O’Reilly Factor. Yet as the Clinton-O’Reilly interview illustrates, it no longer matters what side of the aisle these politicians claim to hail from because this presidential election has turned into one big game.

But where does that leave the American people?

Most Americans want to believe that the voting process works and that when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who takes the job of representing us seriously—someone who truly cares about finding solutions to our problems and is more interested in representing “we the people” than playing partisan politics.

We also want the media to be square with us and give us the news without some hidden agenda. Unfortunately, the lines have been so blurred between so-called “news items” and entertainment coverage that it’s nearly impossible to get at the truth anymore, let alone stay abreast of what’s really happening in our government.

Above all, most Americans desperately want someone or something to place our faith in, who can offer us even a glimmer of hope that things will get better. That’s why so many people fervently back political candidates or seek guidance from talk show hosts. But as any student of history will tell you, there is little hope to be found there.

For instance, take a close look at the front runners for the White House, and you’ll see that there is really very little difference between them. None of the candidates present any real solutions to the myriad of problems that average Americans must grapple with every day—such as an economic recession, the mortgage crisis, near-crippling gas prices, inflation, soaring food prices, the unbelievably large deficit, never-ending wars, immigrants rushing across the border, ad infinitum.

Furthermore, none of the candidates have made any discernible impact on the nation while in office. Nor do they really represent “the people.” What’s more, these candidates are all members of one of the most corrupt institutions in the history of the United States—the present U.S. Congress. What does it say about Congress that a cross-section of its members are under investigation, criminal or otherwise? Or that many of them routinely work less than a hundred days a year and earn a salary much greater than the average American earns? Or that many of them are multimillionaires with virtually nothing in common with average Americans like you and me?

Little surprise, then, that Americans find themselves dissatisfied with our nation’s leadership and the direction in which they’re moving our country. This country is going to hell in a hand basket, and when all is said and done, the last thing this country needs in the White House is another politician. But that’s unlikely to change this time around. No matter who wins this year’s election, it will still be politics as usual. Thus, if hope is to be found, we’ll have to look elsewhere.

Perhaps the solution for leadership in America lies outside Washington, DC, in the business sector. Certainly, we could use someone in office who understands the importance of running our government efficiently, economically and responsibly.

Bottom line, it’s time for a reality check. Otherwise, we’ll soon find ourselves on the road to nowhere.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Video: Hillary Clinton Bill O'Reilly Interview DAY.2 Pt.2

Video: Hillary Clinton Bill O'Reilly Interview DAY.2 Pt.1

Video: Hillary Clinton Bill O'Reilly Interview Pt.2

Video: Hillary Clinton Bill O'Reilly Interview Pt.1

Sniper-Fire Hillary Wins PA as She Threatens to Nuke Iran?

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Hillary Clinton claimed to come under sniper fire in Bosnia. She lied!

Then... Hillary goes to Pennsylvania, tosses down a shot with her beer, claims her daddy taught her to fire a weapon and that she is going to nuke Iran if it messes with anyone -- and she walks out with a win?

I'm speechless!

Video: Clinton Doing What He Does Best--Lying

Truth 'n Politics

by Carrie K. Hutchens

My theory, which includes the Hillary Clinton & Obama campaigns, is that a law needs to be passed that requires anyone guilty of false advertising and false accusations and statements while campaigning to be required to immediately surrender the office, if won by the lies and deceit. Should guilt be proven as the campaign is in progress, then the candidate should be immediately removed from the race, with no option to re-enter under a different party or as an independent. These should merely be the initial and immediate steps. Those guilty should face consequences such as losing qualification for any future office, fines and perhaps incarceration. After all, when "lying" to win -- the candidate is attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the American people. Why should it be excused in the game of politics? It shouldn't!

Politics and politicians have been given a free ride for far too long. It is time for accountability. It is time to require each candidate to win based upon the "truth" , rather than dirty politics, outright lies, distortions and rumors to wrongly cast doubt on the other candidate and his or her positions and record. It is time that the American people have the opportunity to vote for a candidate for who the candidate actually is and what the candidate will and won't actually do, rather than some marketing fiction or honesty problem with the opposition.

Fantasy world as it might seem I'm in, knowing what we do about the politics of the past to now, why not? Why not change it all around to make it right? It's not like we can't if we want.

Ironically, we may already have laws that do apply, but we just haven't applied them to situations involving politics.

What happens if the candidate of our choice was the candidate of our choice only because we believed something that turned out to be an outright lie, or even a distortion that implied an outright lie? Our vote was "stolen". We were conned. False advertisement. Absolute slander and libel may be at issue. And then what? We merely have to wait until the person's term ends because he or she got by with it until the closing of the voting booth?

Maybe we should start taking our representation a little more seriously!

Maybe we should hold our representatives a little more accountable!

Maybe lying politicians shouldn't be considered, or accepted, as the norm, but instead exiled to the land of "once upon a time".

If politicians were held accountable for their campaigns, as the laws that govern crimes involving cons and perpetrating a fraud upon the people, we might see a whole new movement. However, it isn't going to happen unless we believe it can happen and demand that it does.

Truth 'n politics -- what a concept!!!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary Clinton Lies About Bosnia Sniper Fire: Bill Blames Media

by Carrie K. Hutchens

I woke up to a clip of Bill Clinton blaming the media for what he considers unjust coverage of Hillary's "misstatement" of the 1995 Bosnia trip. Poor Hillary, it was late at night, he claims. Besides the fact that the trip was in 1996, rather than 1995, he had some other facts wrong, too.

Hillary made the sniper fire statement on more than one occasion, contrary to his claim of once and at 11 at night when she was supposedly tired. But, of course, it wasn't his fault he brought it up again, or that Hillary lied in the first place -- it was all the fault of the media.

Speaking of confusing the facts when it is late at night -- if Hillary gets that confused at 11 PM, just how confused is she going to be at 3 AM when that phone rings?

Then we have Bill, who apparently can't get things right in the light of day, yet he has no hesitation blaming the media for worrying about it or reporting it. How dare they? That's unfair coverage according to Clinton it would seem.

The Clintons also suggest that Hillary was the only first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit a combat zone. Guess Pat Nixon and Barbara Bush don't count. Maybe the Clintons meant to say the only "Democrat" first lady and it just "slipped their minds" to add that little added description.

Bill did give me an additional chuckle. He suggests when others get to be 60 (which Hillary is) that they might forget something when they are tired at 11 P.M., too. Is he saying, that at 60, people start getting to be feeble-minded and we should over-look their forgetfulness on major issues -- like being shot at? Yep, I want a feeble-minded president that confuses smiles, hand shakes, welcomes and a little girl's poem with sniper fire and need to duck and run immediately to waiting vehicles.

Did I mention that if Hillary gets THAT confused at 11 PM, we might have concern about a 3 AM call? Oh well... never mind, I'm sure if she gets too confused, it will be the media's fault and she can always go talk to Jay Leno about it.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Penn out as Clinton senior strategist

Penn out as Clinton senior strategist

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid, left the campaign Sunday after it was disclosed he met with representatives of the Colombian government to help promote a free trade agreement Clinton opposes.

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton Campaign," campaign manager Maggie Williams said in a statement released Sunday. "Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign."

To read the rest of the article, go to Yahoo News!

I don't think Penn is having a very good weekend!

Colombia Fires Top Clinton Aide's Firm

Colombia Fires Top Clinton Aide's Firm

Saturday, April 5, 2008 2:29 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Colombian government said Saturday it has fired Mark Penn's public relations firm after the chief campaign strategist for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for meeting with Colombian officials pushing a trade deal with the U.S.

Colombian officials said they terminated their contract with lobbying and public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in response to a statement released Friday by Penn, the firm's chief executive, calling the meeting an "error in judgment." Clinton opposes the trade deal.

"The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable," government officials said in a news release. The government will continue its push for a free trade agreement with the United States, they added.

To read the rest of the article, go to Newsmax .

Looks like it didn't work out trying to profit from being on both sides at the same time.

Mrs. Clinton Lying About Health Care

A pregnant woman and her unborn child died after being refused treatment at an Ohio hospital having been turned away because she was unable to pay. The account of the incident, as repeatedly told by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, goes on to say that the hospital demanded $100 payment “up front” when she told them that she was uninsured. After being refused treatment she later retuned to the hospital by ambulance and subsequently died after delivering a stillborn infant.

Mrs. Clinton has repeated this story many times at rallies when making her case for universal health care. The problem is, it is not true. Mrs. Clinton, beginning with her husband’s first term as president has claimed to be an expert on the American health care system and especially its many faults and failings. She and her advisors proposed radical and sweeping changes that were soundly rejected in 1993. She is back again promising even bigger and better plans for “free” health care for all.

With all her professed expertise it is hard to understand how it is that she doesn’t understand the laws that prevent just such an incident as related above from happening. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was passed by Congress in 1986 as part of Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and it requires hospitals and emergency services to provide emergency care to any person in need regardless of ability to pay, citizenship, or any other reason. Patients cannot be discharged except with their consent and only when the condition has been stabilized or when the patient is tranferred to another facility better equipped to handle the emergency. A transfer requires that, first the hospital must do all that they can to stabilize the patient’s condition and then the attending physician (usually the ER doc) must contact the doctor at the facility to which the patient is to be transferred and provide a thorough report of the patient’s condition and the doctor at the receiving hospital has to accept the patient and agree to provide the appropriate care. All of this has to be thoroughly documented and all records have to accompany the patient to the receiving hospital. Any failure to comply with EMTALA regulations can result in very stiff fines to the hospital and possible loss of certification and disqualification from caring for and billing for Medicare and Medicaid patients in the future (this would result in financial ruin).

If Mrs. Clinton is ignorant of this situation, which is hard to believe, then she most certainly is ignorant of many other aspects of medical care in the U.S. and is not qualified to propose a plan to overhaul a system that she clearly doesn’t understand. The alternative consideration, which is much more likely, is that she knowingly relates a story that she knows to be false for the purpose of advancing her political ambitions by portraying American doctors and hospitals as heartless beasts that care only about money. Emotionally aroused, her listeners eagerly buy into her plan to let Government take over so that all Americans can then have “free health care.” Well, if you like going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for new plates or calling the IRS for information about deductions, you are going to love Government Health Care. In any event, don’t voters deserve an honest discussion of the issues before making a decision? An emotional appeal based on lies is not the way to solve the very serious problems that exist in American health care.

Hillary Clinton Thinks Lying Is Funny?

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Hillary Clinton thinks it is all a big joke that she lied? She thinks it is funny? So funny that she tells Jay Leno on the Tonight Show that she was afraid she wouldn't make it to the studio because she was pinned down by sniper fire? And this is a person running for president?

Did Hillary also think it was funny when Zeifman is said to have fired her and one of the reasons claimed was for lying? ("Shocking Revelations about Hillary Clinton's Watergate Committee Job" by Rick Moran - April 2, 2008 and More on Hillary's Unethical Watergate Conduct by Bob Ellis - April 3, 2008 .)

There is something wrong with someone that can get caught lying and then go on television and try to make it a comedy routine. Lying should bring feelings such as regret and shame -- not light-heartedness, laughter and the attitude of, "Yep, I lied. Hehe isn't that funny? You caught me! Hehe oh my side hurts from laughing so hard. Want to hear another one?"

People need to take a step back and give this matter some serious thought.

Parents need to consider how they would feel if their child lied and then acted like it was a joking matter -- something to brag about. Employees need to consider how they would feel if a co-worker or boss lied. What if it was a teacher, minister, police officer, or doctor? Wouldn't there be a trust issue? Wouldn't people note the inappropriate reaction to being caught in a lie and wonder what was wrong with the person?

Hillary Clinton has been caught lying on numerous occasions but it seems that she has never had to pay a price she thought serious enough to stop her. As a matter of fact, she apparently thinks it is all so funny that she performed her little comedy routine on television. I wonder if she will be taking that routine on the road soon? Oh... never mind. I forgot. She did that first!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

More on Hillary's Unethical Watergate Conduct

If you follow Dakota Voice regularly, then you saw the post yesterday about the interview with Jerry Ziefman. Ziefman says that though he hired her, based on her participation in the Watergate scandal, Hillary Clinton was an "unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Now there is a video available on YouTube which explains these allegations in a bit more detail:



Based on all the behavior we've seen from Hillary Clinton, this revelation should be no surprise. Facts, reality and history are no obstacle to her. Should it be a surprise that things like the law and the Constitution are no obstacle to her agenda, either?

Hillary Clinton: Shaper of Realities

Hillary Clinton is at it again: bending and shaping both history and reality to her will.

The woman who worked hard and supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been against it "from the very beginning."

How someone could support a lying, scheming, two-faced liar like Hillary Clinton, I'll never know. How can you trust someone like that? Even if they're saying the things you like right now, how long until they turn on you? Being close to her is like being close to a rattlesnake: it's only a matter of time until she bites you.

The thing is, while there are a few good Democrats still floating around, almost all of the Democrats at the national level are like this: adrift from facts, reality and history.



HT to Fort Hard Knox.