In perhaps the greatest irony in American history an individual who: because of numerous long-term subversive associations; admitted heavy drug use; and, failure to produce a birth certificate - could NOT pass a basic FBI background check for an initial security clearance, is considered to be a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States! How is it possible that a man who is widely recognized as the least experienced; and, most radical far-left extremist ever nominated by a major political party could beguile so many simply because he's a SLICK TALKER? In perhaps the ONLY forthright moment of his extended campaign, Obama, while being interviewed on ABC, lamented the dispersions frequently cast against: "MY MUSLIM FAITH". The ascendancy of this charlatan to the Presidency would unquestionably mark the portending demise of our Constitutional Republic that so many have shed their precious blood to nurture and preserve. Greg Neubeck
Does America really want Clinton style Socialism? Unfortunately it's essential to preempt any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. The American electorate should carefully evaluate the Marxist rhetoric coming from the Hillary campaign and her minions. Greg Neubeck
Both Clinton and Obama have to mature in their thought processes on Iraq. From both candidates, we are asked to accept that al-Qaida, with recognized terrorist affiliates in more than 60 Nations, had no discernible presence in a hub of world terrorism, I.e. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq! For years, Saddam gave sanctuary in Baghdad to both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, who prior to the emergence of bin Laden, were two of the world’s most notorious terrorist operatives. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was an al-Qaida affiliate in Afghanistan, where he commanded a terrorist training camp in the production and deployment of chemical agents, was also provided sanctuary in Baghdad in 2002, along with a cadre of his lieutenants; and, extended medical treatment was given to Zarqawi for injuries that he had received in a U.S. air-strike against his base camp. Zarqawi then transitioned to Northern Iraq and integrated with the the al-qaida affiliate, the Ansar al-Islam extremists, a terrorist organization that Hussein had permitted to operate under the supervision of a senior Iraqi intelligence agent. A group that, with Iraqi compliance, had constructed an extensive underground chemical weapons facility. By claiming that he had no control over his Northern sector, Hussein created plausible deniability with willing dupes such as Clinton and Obama in the event poisonous toxins, such as the ricin attacks in Europe, were traced back to the al-Islam enclave. Of course, we all know that Saddam gassed the Kurds who occupied the same sector when they deviated from his agenda. Further, overhead reconnaissance had verified multiple terrorist training sites within the interior of Iraq, to include an aircraft hi-jacking training facility. As well, Hussein openly funded Palestian homicide bombers who carried out attacks against Israel thru their Hamas and Hezbola initiators; and, dispersed Iraqi agents throughout the world who have been documented to have had numerous contacts with al-Qaida operatives.. Recall that it was Saddam who blatantly attempted to assassinate the 1st President Bush. Can there be any doubt that Saddam would have surreptitiously provided dangerous toxins to disparate terrorist organizations who were in pursuit of his common objectives! Greg Neubeck
Interesting that Hillary is fond of claiming to have been a key player in the formulation of Clinton Foreign Policy: 9/11 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration’s feckless responses to the numerous Al-Qaida provocations and terrorist assaults against our national interests; as well as, Clinton’s inexplicable temerity in refusing to take Osama bin Laden into captivity when offered several times by the Sudanese. Clinton then exercised little more than his jawbone as bin Laden trained literally thousands of terrorists in his Afghan camps. All of which, convinced bin Laden that he could strike our homeland with relative impunity. The potential for success in bin Laden’s planned assault on our homeland was significantly enhanced by the infamous Gorelick memo which the Clinton Administration promulgated to prohibit any terrorist information exchange between our FBI and CIA intelligence operatives. However, history will record the most heinous assault on America's national security interests by a U.S. president as Clinton's transfer of our most advanced missile guidance technology to the CHICOM for a few campaign shekels. Does any rational person really want to return the Clinton cabal/scandals to the White House?
Let's don't let Hillary pull an Austin in Cleveland tonight. The most noteworthy commentary in the recent Obama/Clinton Austin debate was Hillary's closing comment. A subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Still again holding back the tears, Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the astute retention of the infamous "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation-only audience took the bait "hook, line and sinker". The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck
Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. Greg Neubeck
The Austin debate. Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the Bush taxcuts which she says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that if Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. So Hillaryspeak would damage the poor more then any other group. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. The second noteworthy commentary was Hillary's closing comment, a subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation only audience took the bait hook, line and sinker. The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck
Observing Bill Clinton's almost daily temper tantrums when an audience member expresses support for the Obama candidancy suggests that Slick is very close to loosing it. The "serial groper" is unable to accept the fact that he's trying to peddle a defective product; i.e. Hillary. This is a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" for Bill's White House Brothel. So what possibly is there that qualifies Bill's official "Bimbo Containment Chief" for the Presidency? Further, Hillary's increasingly frequent crying jags raises a legitimate concern about her mental stability. But, having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation. Greg Neubeck
Obama, McCain must detail their job-creation initiatives
In perhaps the greatest irony in American history an individual who: because of numerous long-term subversive associations; admitted heavy drug use; and, failure to produce a birth certificate - could NOT pass a basic FBI background check for an initial security clearance, is considered to be a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States! How is it possible that a man who is widely recognized as the least experienced; and, most radical far-left extremist ever nominated by a major political party could beguile so many simply because he's a SLICK TALKER? In perhaps the ONLY forthright moment of his extended campaign, Obama, while being interviewed on ABC, lamented the dispersions frequently cast against: "MY MUSLIM FAITH". The ascendancy of this charlatan to the Presidency would unquestionably mark the portending demise of our Constitutional Republic that so many have shed their precious blood to nurture and preserve. Greg Neubeck
October 11, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Clinton Rally at Youngstown's Chaney High School
Does America really want Clinton style Socialism? Unfortunately it's essential to preempt any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. The American electorate should carefully evaluate the Marxist rhetoric coming from the Hillary campaign and her minions. Greg Neubeck
March 2, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Barack proves naysayers wrong, wife says
Both Clinton and Obama have to mature in their thought processes on Iraq. From both candidates, we are asked to accept that al-Qaida, with recognized terrorist affiliates in more than 60 Nations, had no discernible presence in a hub of world terrorism, I.e. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq! For years, Saddam gave sanctuary in Baghdad to both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, who prior to the emergence of bin Laden, were two of the world’s most notorious terrorist operatives. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was an al-Qaida affiliate in Afghanistan, where he commanded a terrorist training camp in the production and deployment of chemical agents, was also provided sanctuary in Baghdad in 2002, along with a cadre of his lieutenants; and, extended medical treatment was given to Zarqawi for injuries that he had received in a U.S. air-strike against his base camp. Zarqawi then transitioned to Northern Iraq and integrated with the the al-qaida affiliate, the Ansar al-Islam extremists, a terrorist organization that Hussein had permitted to operate under the supervision of a senior Iraqi intelligence agent. A group that, with Iraqi compliance, had constructed an extensive underground chemical weapons facility. By claiming that he had no control over his Northern sector, Hussein created plausible deniability with willing dupes such as Clinton and Obama in the event poisonous toxins, such as the ricin attacks in Europe, were traced back to the al-Islam enclave. Of course, we all know that Saddam gassed the Kurds who occupied the same sector when they deviated from his agenda. Further, overhead reconnaissance had verified multiple terrorist training sites within the interior of Iraq, to include an aircraft hi-jacking training facility. As well, Hussein openly funded Palestian homicide bombers who carried out attacks against Israel thru their Hamas and Hezbola initiators; and, dispersed Iraqi agents throughout the world who have been documented to have had numerous contacts with al-Qaida operatives.. Recall that it was Saddam who blatantly attempted to assassinate the 1st President Bush. Can there be any doubt that Saddam would have surreptitiously provided dangerous toxins to disparate terrorist organizations who were in pursuit of his common objectives! Greg Neubeck
February 28, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Students weigh in on Obama vs. Clinton
Interesting that Hillary is fond of claiming to have been a key player in the formulation of Clinton Foreign Policy: 9/11 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration’s feckless responses to the numerous Al-Qaida provocations and terrorist assaults against our national interests; as well as, Clinton’s inexplicable temerity in refusing to take Osama bin Laden into captivity when offered several times by the Sudanese. Clinton then exercised little more than his jawbone as bin Laden trained literally thousands of terrorists in his Afghan camps. All of which, convinced bin Laden that he could strike our homeland with relative impunity. The potential for success in bin Laden’s planned assault on our homeland was significantly enhanced by the infamous Gorelick memo which the Clinton Administration promulgated to prohibit any terrorist information exchange between our FBI and CIA intelligence operatives. However, history will record the most heinous assault on America's national security interests by a U.S. president as Clinton's transfer of our most advanced missile guidance technology to the CHICOM for a few campaign shekels. Does any rational person really want to return the Clinton cabal/scandals to the White House?
Greg Neubeck
February 27, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Obama, Clinton reps to speak at JCC
Let's don't let Hillary pull an Austin in Cleveland tonight. The most noteworthy commentary in the recent Obama/Clinton Austin debate was Hillary's closing comment. A subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Still again holding back the tears, Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the astute retention of the infamous "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation-only audience took the bait "hook, line and sinker".
The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck
February 26, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Young people sign on as poll workers
Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. Greg Neubeck
February 24, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Who will you vote for president in the March 4 Ohio Democratic primary?
The Austin debate. Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the Bush taxcuts which she says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that if Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. So Hillaryspeak would damage the poor more then any other group. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians.
The second noteworthy commentary was Hillary's closing comment, a subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation only audience took the bait hook, line and sinker.
The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck
February 22, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Agenda of change
Observing Bill Clinton's almost daily temper tantrums when an audience member expresses support for the Obama candidancy suggests that Slick is very close to loosing it. The "serial groper" is unable to accept the fact that he's trying to peddle a defective product; i.e. Hillary. This is a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" for Bill's White House Brothel. So what possibly is there that qualifies Bill's official "Bimbo Containment Chief" for the Presidency? Further, Hillary's increasingly frequent crying jags raises a legitimate concern about her mental stability. But, having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation. Greg Neubeck
February 19, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. permalink suggest removal