People still die in 'gunless utopia'

"carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for — excuse me — their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

Read the whole article here

ADOPTION OF ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN IS 'UNAVOIDABLE', SAYS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Is this guy NUTS? It's like they can't wait to wipe out our Western Civilization! When is this PC crap gonna end?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion [emphasis added].
Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World At One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.
Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.
He said it would also require a change in perception of what Sharia involved beyond the "inhumanity" of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.
Dr Williams said: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.
"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances."
He added: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.
"It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general. Sharia law in Britain would provide Muslims with an alternative to our divorce courts
"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.
"In some cultural and religious settings, they would seem more appropriate."
But his views were condemned today by senior Tory MP Peter Luff, who said: "This is a very dangerous route which we should not go down. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have a little bit of sharia law [emphasis added].
"We should not start introducing new different legal systems alongside ours."
But the Archbishop defended his position saying people needed to look at Islamic law "with a clear eye."
"They should not imagine, either, that we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and just associate it with ... Saudi Arabia, or whatever," he continued.
"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women."
There were questions about how it interacted with human rights, he said.
"But I do not think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights just because it doesn't immediately fit with how we understand it."
Dr Williams said Orthodox Jewish courts already operated in the UK, and anti-abortion views of Catholics and other Christians were "accommodated within the law".
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there."
He said the issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced under equality laws to accept gay parents showed there was confusion on the matter.
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western democracy.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
He said he accepted people might be surprised by his call but urged them to consider the wider question.
"What we don't want is a stand-off where the law squares up to people's religious consciences, on something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the Commons ... we don't either want a situation where, because there's no legal way of monitoring what communities do, making them part of the public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression within a community."
Sharia law was originally more enlightened in its attitude to women than other legal systems, he pointed out, but did now have to be brought up to date.
"But you have to translate that into a setting where that whole area of the rights and liberties of women has moved on.
"The principle and the vision which animates the whole Islamic legal provision needs broadening because of that."
Responding to comments by one of his senior bishops that Islamic extremism was creating communities with "no-go areas" for non-Muslims, he said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion.
"But we do have a lot of social suspicion, a lot of distance and we just have to go on working at how that shared citizenship comes through."
The Bishop of Rochester, The Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month that non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals.
Dr Williams said the use of the phrase "no-go areas" had sparked controversy because it reminded people of Northern Ireland.
"I don't think that was at all what was intended; I think it was meant to point to the silo problem, the sense of communities not communicating with each other.
"Many Muslims would say that they feel bits of British society are no-go areas for them."
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed the comments.
"These comments further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance.
"Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some Western countries with much success; I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith.
"We are however disappointed that the Archbishop of Canterbury was silent when Mr Nazir-Ali was promoting intolerance and lying about no-go areas for Christians in the UK by Muslim extremists.
"Unless he speaks out against this intolerance, Muslims will take his silence as authorisation and support for such comments.
"The Ramadhan Foundation will continue to work with the Church of England to build understanding and respect for our two communities."
Dr Williams's comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
But he insists that Sharia law needs to be better understood.
At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

Conservative?????

EU set to ban patio heaters to help save the planet

Outdoor heaters that keep smokers warm outside pubs and clubs could be banned as part of the battle against climate change, costing the hospitality industry £250million in lost trade. Euro MPs are expected to back a resolution calling on the European Commission to set a timetable for abolishing goods with low energy-efficiency ratings.

read more | digg story

EXCLUSIVE - Obama's Nation of Islam Staffers. The real Obama

A former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.

read more | digg story

Why ’Global Warming’ is Not a Global Crisis

By Christopher Monckton, 1/22/2008 8:06:23 AM
I earned my Nobel Peace Prize by making the United Nations fix a deliberate error in its latest climate assessment. After the scientists had finalized the draft, UN bureaucrats inserted a new table, but with four decimal points right-shifted. The bureaucrats had multiplied tenfold the true contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise. Were they trying to support Al Gore's fantasy that these two ice-sheets would imminently cause sea level to rise 20ft, displacing tens of millions worldwide?
How do we know the UN's error was deliberate? The table, as it first appeared, said the units for sea-level rise were being changed. But the table was new. There was nothing to change from. I wrote to the UN that this misconduct was unacceptable. Two days later, the bureaucracy corrected, relabeled and moved the table, and quietly posted the new version on its Web site. The two ice sheets will contribute, between them, over 100 years, just two and a half inches to sea-level rise. Gore had exaggerated a hundredfold; the UN tenfold. Hawaii is not about to disappear beneath the waves.
The High Court in London recently ordered the British Government to correct nine of the 36 serious errors in Al Gore's climate movie before innocent pupils were exposed to it. It was Gore who, in 1994, announced that Mars was covered in canals full of water. This notion had been disproved before his birth. It was Gore who recently spent $4 million of the profits from his sci-fi comedy horror movie on a luxury condo just feet from the supposedly rising ocean at Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco. No surprise that he and the mad scientists with whom he has close financial and political links are under investigation for racketeering -- peddling a false prospectus to investors in his "green" investment corporation by distorting climate science even after the UK judge's ruling.
It is not so well known that the UN's climate reports are also error-packed and misleading.
To begin with, the UN denies that global temperatures were warmer than today in the medieval warm period. It overlooks the dozens of peer-reviewed papers that establish this fact, and continues to rely on the bogus and now-discredited "hockey-stick" graph by which its previous assessment in 2001 had tried to rewrite history.
It was also warmer than today in Roman times, and in the Minoan warm period or Holocene climate optimum, when temperatures were warmer than today for 2000 years in the Bronze Age, firing the emergence of great civilizations worldwide. In each of the four previous interglacial periods, temperatures were 10F warmer than today's. For most of the past half billion years, temperatures were nearly always 12.5F warmer than the present. So the warming that has now stopped (there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998) was well within the natural variability of the climate.
The only chapters in the UN's 1,600-page ramblings that are worth close analysis are those which consider "climate sensitivity" -- how big is the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature? The scientific debate centers not, as the Greens try to suggest, on whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warmer weather (it will), but instead on how much warmer the weather will be. So the only variable that truly matters in this debate is lambda -- the "climate sensitivity parameter." Here are just some of the UN's errors and exaggerations in calculating lambda.
First and foremost, the UN's crafty definition of lambda allows it to overlook the fact that the oceans -- 1,100 times denser than the atmosphere at the surface, and many times denser still at depth -- soak up a good proportion of any additional radiant energy in the atmosphere (see papers by Lyman et al., 2006; Schwartz, 2007). The oceans cancel a great deal of "global warming," because the next Ice Age will arrive long before the oceans lose their capacity to take up heat from the atmosphere.
Next, the UN has unwisely repealed the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation, the fundamental astrophysical law that relates changes in radiant energy to changes in temperature. The entire debate is about exactly that matter. Yet in 1,600 pages the UN does not mention this crucial equation once. Result: the UN's "no-feedbacks" value of lambda is way too high. As an eminent physics professor pointed out to me recently, if the UN were correct, global surface temperature would now be 20F higher than it is.
It gets worse. The UN's computer models predict that in the tropics the rate of increase in temperature five miles above the surface will be three times the rate of increase down here. But 50 years of atmospheric measurement, first by balloon-borne radiosondes and then by satellites, show that the air above the tropics is not merely failing to warm at three times the surface rate: for 25 years it has been cooling. The absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" indicates that the computer models -- expensive guesswork -- on which the UN's rickety case is founded are, in a fundamental way, misunderstanding the way the atmosphere behaves (Douglass & Knox, 2004; Douglass et al., 2007).
On top of the "radiative forcings" from greenhouse gases, the UN says the mere fact of temperature change will cause more change still, through what it calls "feedbacks." The UN has hiked the feedback multiplier by more than 52 percent since its 1995 report, without quite saying why. Shaviv (2006) and Schwartz (2007) calculate that the sum total of all feedbacks is either nil or very small; Wentz et al. (2007) report that the UN has missed out two-thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its assessment of the water-vapor feedback; Spencer (2007) finds that the cloud albedo feedback, which the UN says is strongly positive, is in fact negative; Ahlbeck (2004, 2005) says the CO2 feedback has been enormously exaggerated.
I have mentioned a dozen scientific papers. I could have mentioned hundreds more that challenge the UN "consensus." There has never been and can never be a scientific consensus on climate change. Lorenz (1963), in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, stated and proved his famous theorem that the long-run evolution of mathematically chaotic objects like the climate cannot be predicted unless one knows the initial state of the object to a degree of precision that is in practice unattainable. Whenever you hear anyone recite the propaganda mantra "The Science Is Settled," laugh at his redneck scientific illiteracy. The science can never be settled.
Schulte (2008: in press) reviewed 539 papers on "global climate change" in the scientific journals. Only one paper mentioned that "global warming" might be catastrophic, and even that paper offered not a shred of evidence for the supposed apocalypse.
Bottom line: a recent peer-reviewed paper (Lindzen, December 2007) says all the UN's climate sensitivity estimates should be divided by three. We don't have a climate problem. The correct policy to deal with a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Don't let your legislators in Hawaii waste time on this non-problem. The real problem of the 21st century will not be "global warming" but resource depletion, starting with oil. Let your lawmakers do some real work, and get to grips with that.
(me-the cooling trend and probable 'little ice age' conditions to peak around mid century will add to the depletion and shortages ultimately proving to the world a warmer world is much more friendly than a colder one!)

Muslim opening prayer at Iowa Statehouse raises concerns

When is this insanity going to end? I fear it will not utill they've taken us over!

By: Erin Ballou, Pilot Tribune Staff Storm Lake Pilot Tribune, January 24, 2008

The Iowa Legislature started just over a week ago and some people were upset before the first issue was ever addressed.
When the session began, a Muslim Imam began the prayer in the Iowa Legislature. This is where the controversy begins.
The prayer asked of "Victory over those who disbelieve," and "Protection from the great Satan" among other things.
Pastor Steve Smith of the Evangelical Free Church in Albert City is among those concerned about the Muslim prayer. Rev. Smith admits that he doesn't know about all the levels of Muslim but knows that the Jihadists believe those in the U.S. are the great Satan.
Rev. Smith also wants to point out the mention of "victory over those who disbelieve." He feels "this is a request in the Iowa Legislature for God to grant the Muslims victory over every non-muslim. Not a request for salvation." Smith takes it as a gesture not of prayer but more as a political statement, especially with the wars that have been going on in the Middle East.
"I'm not concerned about a Muslim Imam opening the Legislature in prayer but it concerns me with the statements that were made. He interpreted this prayer from his understanding of Islam."
Here is the text of the opening prayer, as transcribed by Radio Iowa:
Imam Muhammad Khan of the Islamic Center of Des Moines spoke first in Arabic.
"I seek refuge in God against the accursed Satan in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful," Khan said in English. Khan made no specific mention of the war in Iraq or foreign affairs, but he called God the "master of the day of judgment" and asked for "victory over those who disbelieve."
"As we begin this new year...in a world with trials and tribulations, we ask you to open the hearts of our legislators and policy makers to make the right decisions for the people of Iowa," Khan said. "...We ask that you guide our legislators and give them the wisdom and knowledge to tackle the difficult problems that face us today in order to eliminate the senseless crimes on humanity. Help them, Lord, to solve the complicated problems in the State of Iowa so that we can be a model to the world."
Khan's prayer lasted about four minutes and he closed with a few words for legislators.
"On behalf of the Muslim community of Des Moines and Iowa, I wish you all the success in this year for making the right decisions for us," Khan said. Khan was the guest of State Representative Ako Abdul Samad of Des Moines, who is also a local Muslim leader.
Rev. Smith has urged others who may be concerned to contact their representative.
When asked about the prayer, Senator Steve Kettering replied in an e-mail that he had not heard the prayer, which did not take place in the Senate chambers.
"I cannot tell you what was said. I have received e-mail regarding this, but since it did not occur on the Senate side I do not have much information," Kettering said. "I should point out that the senate had a Catholic priest for their opening."
Representative Gary Worthan of Storm Lake said that he agrees with the concern being shown over the Muslim prayer.
He said that he has registered his concerns with the proper authorities.
As the father of two sons who have fought terrorism in the military, Worthan said the phrases mentioned earlier also jumped out at him and he said he shares concern for the same reasons as the constituents he is hearing from.

Liberal "Tolerance": Kansas City Official Forced to Resign

Ms. Semler resigned from the parks board because she felt her involvement had become too contentious. Why? Well, the National Council of La Raza and Southern Christian Leadership Conference canceled plans to hold their national conventions in Kansas City because of Ms. Semler's presence on the board, solely because she is a member of the Minutemen.

read more | digg story

School Textbook: Islamic 'jihad' means doing good works

An Islamic "jihad" is an effort by Muslims to convince "others to take up worthy causes, such as funding medical research," according to a middle school textbook used in California and other states.

read more | digg story

Finnish Blogger Fined & Shutdown: The New Fascism

Read about it here at Atlas Shrugs

PETA Killed 97 Percent of “Companion Animals” in 2006

An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it’s perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.

Follow the link and read the rest of this article and others exposing PETA's hypocrisy!

Something to see

Our global warming 'Animal Farm'

In one of his incomparable essays, C. S. Lewis criticized man's often insolent determination to control the forces of nature. He remarked that man's control of nature was frequently nothing more than man's control over other men - with nature as the instrument.

Nothing explains the mad obsession with global warming quite so pointedly. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the global warming panic has little to do with temperature change and everything to do with man's control of other men with climate as the instrument.

The global warming hoax is a dream come true for the global bullies intent on imposing their repressive regulatory regime upon a willing world of useful idiots.

Follow the link and read the whole atricle.

American Free Speech and Press Rights

This “Legal Jihad” Must Be Stopped!

Imagine an America where no journalist, author, or speaker dared to write or speak out about militant Islam and Islamic terrorism. Imagine an America where books like Brigitte Gabriel’s Because They Hate were never published out of fear by the publishing company that they could be bankrupted by “libel” lawsuits.

Sounds impossible in America, right? After all, this is the world’s beacon light of free speech and free press, right?

Yes, but those rights are under very serious assault from another tentacle of Jihad – “Legal Jihad.”

One of the tactics being employed by Islamists to intimidate critics and muzzle investigative reporting of Islamic militancy and terrorism is the use of lawsuits alleging defamation of character and slander. A particularly egregious example of this has ensnared Rachel Ehrenfeld, noted author on terrorism and related issues, and a member of the Advisory Board of American Congress for Truth, ACT! for America’s sister organization.

Ehrenfeld was sued in a British court by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz for detailing in her book how Bin Mahfouz, and some of his family, are allegedly tied to funding terrorist organizations. She lost the suit by default and was ordered to pay Bin Mahfouz over $225,000 in damages.

Bin Mahfouz has used the British legal system to obtain more than three dozen such judgments affecting the U.S. media. His tactics have been so successful that several major American media companies and book publishing companies have chosen to pull books and issue apologies and retractions, rather than face the economic consequences of losing to him in British courts.

Such legal assaults, if allowed to succeed, have chilling and far-reaching implications for our cherished freedoms of speech and the press so enormous that they threaten the very foundation of American liberty.

It is no accident that our Founding Fathers placed freedom of speech and the press in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. They understood that without such freedoms, there cannot be a free people.

Ehrenfeld rightly sought a court order and legal protection of her constitutional rights in the New York court system. Shockingly, a New York Court of Appeals has ruled that it cannot protect her from this lawsuit. The court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from a foreign defamation verdict!!

This court ruling has stunned many in the legal, media and publishing community. The British court system’s legal standard for libel is much lower than that in the United States, which explains why litigants like Bin Mahfouz file lawsuits in Great Britain. They recognize they are unlikely to succeed with such lawsuits in America, so they use foreign courts in an attempt to intimidate and muzzle American authors and journalists.

This is nothing more than “Legal Jihad” – and it must be stopped.

Fortunately, a bi-partisan effort is now under way in New York to pass legislation designed to protect journalists, authors and publishers from lawsuits filed outside the U.S. by foreign nationals seeking to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American citizens, particularly those reporting on terrorism and its financiers.

This Sunday, January 13th, at 10:30 a.m., on the steps of the New York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, a bi-partisan news conference will be held by New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, where they will announce the introduction of such legislation. The two lawmakers, Ehrenfeld, and members of the bar, will warn that without this legislation, not only are authors and journalists threatened, the contents of the New York Public Library could be subject to assault by foreign nationals seeking to silence public debate in America. They are to be applauded and supported for this effort.

If you live in the New York area, you are invited to attend this news conference. Next week, once we have specific details regarding the legislation, we will launch a full-scale educational and lobbying effort to ensure its passage – so please watch for our alerts in your email boxes.

Ladies and gentlemen, if Islamists are allowed to “court shop” around the world, seeking friendly judges who will issue court rulings and monetary judgments against anyone in America who dares to write or speak out against the assault of militant Islam, not only will our ability to resist this threat be dramatically imperiled. This will be a stake in the heart of American free speech and press rights.

We cannot allow this to happen.

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

Boston Firefighter Stabbed: 'Don't want any gringo here'...

Here's an OUTRAGE that you've probably never even heard about!!

A Boston firefighter is mending from what could have been deadly stab wounds he suffered early yesterday morning when he was allegedly jumped in East Boston while off duty by a group of Hispanic males who told him they "don't want any gringo here."

read more | digg story

Had a bad day

Enjoy!

Learning an Illegal Lesson in Our Public Schools

Nothing shocks us anymore, especially when it comes to illegal immigration.

The latest outrage is much closer to home. In fact, it's at home — in our nation's heartland to be specific — in a high school classroom in Ohio.

Public school students were assigned the role-play project of immigrating to and then living and working in the United States ... illegally.

Follow the Link and read the whole story. OUTRAGEOUS

Isolated Arizona Town Resorts to Second Amendment to Save Itself

Backwater Farming Community Forced to “Keep and Bear Arms” to Battle Deadly Crime Wave

Our Founding Fathers insisted upon including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they recognized the fundamental human right of self-defense, whether against government tyranny or individual criminal aggression.

Those on the Left, however, conveniently deny the Second Amendment’s terms while simultaneously concocting imaginary Constitutional “rights” – access by foreign enemy combatants to domestic federal courts comes immediately to mind – and dismiss the right to keep and bear arms as a mere anachronism.

Follow the link and read the whole story.

Climate-Change Lunatics' Latest Target: Hanukkah Menorah Candles

Environmental Alarmists Ask Jewish Celebrants to Burn One Fewer Hanukkah Candle to Fight Global Warming

Just when you thought that global warming lunatics couldn't descend any deeper into their morass of absurdity, they proceed to pioneer new realms of insanity.


Follow the link and read the whole story.

WHAT A SWEET LADY

I thought this was just crap, but SNOPES verifies it. The references given for these quotes have been confirmed by Snopes

(http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp), but the publications do not always give the source of the quotes.


This needs to go around a lot before November 2008


"Where is the G-dam f***ing flag? I want the G-dam f***ing flag up every f***ing morning at f***ing sunrise."


--From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 - (Hillary to the staff at the

Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

----------------------------------------------


"You sold out, you m***er-f***er! You sold out!"


-From the book "Inside" by Joseph Califano, p. 213 - (Hillary yelling at a Democrat lawyer.)


----------------------------------------------


"F*** off! It's enough that I have to see you sh**-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!!


Just do your G*dam job and keep your mouth shut."


-From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - (Hillary to her State Trooper

body-guards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning.")

-------------------------------------------------


"You f** *ing idiot"


-From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - (Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

--------------------------------------------------


"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!"


--From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - (Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

---------------------------------------------


"Get f***ed! Get the f*** out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"


--From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - (Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

---------------------------------------------


"Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else!


Just f***ing do as I say, Okay!!!?"


-From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 –


(Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail)

--------------------------------------------------


"Where's the miserable c**k sucker?"


-From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 -

(Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

---------------------------------------------


"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses.


We need to go back!"


-From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 - (Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while enroute to Air Force One.)

-------------------------------------------------


"Son of a bitch."


-From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 259 -

(Hillary's opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly visited Iraq just days before her highly publicized trip to Iraq )

-----------------------------------------------


"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!"


-From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p. 99 - (Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House)

---------------------------------------------


"Come on Bill, put your d**k up! You can't f*** her here!!"


-From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 -

(Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally.)

----------------------------------------------


"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being"


--- Hillary Clinton -From the book "The Case against Hillary Clinton" by Peggy Noonan, p. 55

-------------------------------------------------


"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"


-From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 20 - (Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hasert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan.)

--------------------------------------------------


"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" ---Hillary in 1996"


-From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p.6

--------------------------------------------------


This ill-tempered, violent, foul-mouthed, hateful, abusive, beastly woman wants to be your President and have total control, as your commander-in-chief of our military, the very military for which she has shown incredible contempt & disdain throughout her public life. Surely we the people of the The United States can easily do better than this.