Hillary Clinton: Made in China

[GaryC 7]

Blogs do not = facts.

This blog=facts though.

with a grossly dramatic twist on them.

But they are facts none the less.

[Dan J 277]

Blogs do not = facts.

This blog=facts though.

with a grossly dramatic twist on them.

But they are facts none the less.

Facts with bias are not facts but opinions.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Blogs do not = facts.

This blog=facts though.

with a grossly dramatic twist on them.

But they are facts none the less.

Here's a fact... Fred Thompson doesn't have a ghost of chance of even taking the Primary.

[no name 1]

Blogs do not = facts.

This blog=facts though.

with a grossly dramatic twist on them.

But they are facts none the less.

Here's a fact... Fred Thompson doesn't have a ghost of chance of even taking the Primary.

A-MEN!

[GaryC 7]

Is the other Hsu about to drop?

Hillary's donor linked to China missile trader

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

Posted: September 2, 2007

10:36 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A shady Chinese megadonor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has close ties to an aerospace mogul accused of placing his business interests before national security by sharing missile secrets with Beijing during the Clinton administration.

Before his forced resignation last week, Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu sat on the board of trustees of the liberal New School university in New York with former Loral Corp. head Bernard L. Schwartz, who was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People's Liberation Army front after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton's 1996 campaign.

The New School has removed Hsu's name from its list of trustees. But the old list showing both Hsu and Schwartz is still captured on Google's cache files. Here is the screen shot.

Schwartz, vice chairman of the New School board, was among officials who introduced Hsu to the school's administration, WND has learned.

Last November, Schwartz and Hsu chaired a New School banquet at the Mandarin Oriental in New York which featured Sen. Clinton as keynote speaker. Clinton steered a $1 million federal grant to the college.

More recently, Schwartz and Hsu (pronounced shoo) appeared together at the New York Yacht Club for Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy's 40th birthday bash.

The pair are so-called HillRaisers – major donors to Clinton's war chest – with Hsu raising more than $1 million for her campaign. Hsu, like Schwartz, has lobbied the U.S. government to relax trade rules with China.

Before he was a Friend of Hill, Schwartz was a Friend of Bill. In fact, then-President Clinton feted Schwartz on his 71st birthday at a White House dinner.

Sources say Schwartz vouched for Hsu at New School, even though he was a fugitive convicted of grand theft in California.

New School President Bob Kerrey assumed Hsu, now in jail, was reputable. The former Democrat senator says he didn't question Hsu's credentials because he liked him. He also was taken by "his personal story, coming from China, and he had an interest in fashion as well."

"It all intrigued me," Kerrey said.

Of course, Hsu also gave generous sums of cash to Democrats and their causes, including The New School.

Kerrey assumed Hsu, a self-described apparel magnate, made his money in the garment industry. But even that claim is now in question.

It turns out that the various companies Hsu listed on federal campaign filings with the FEC no longer exist, and may always have been fictitious. Last decade Hsu declared bankruptcy.

The FBI has opened a criminal investigation into Hsu's fund-raising activities.

Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, see parallels to last decade's Chinagate fund-raising scandal, and are clamoring for public hearings to get to the bottom of what may be a new chapter in an old tale of corruption, foreign influence-peddling and espionage. All told, 22 Democrat donors were convicted in the Chinagate probe, which the Justice Department officially closed a few years ago.

After he was convicted of fraud last decade, and allegedly kidnapped by a Chinese gang in San Francisco, Hsu fled to Hong Kong, where he was born and raised. He returned to the U.S. not long after Hillary Clinton won her Senate seat. Then – for the first time – he started donating heavily to Democrats. He gave no political campaign gifts in the U.S. before 2004.

"The source of Hsu's income at this point is unknown," a congressional investigator told WND. "It begs the question, where did he get the resources to contribute so much money?"

During the last Clinton campaign of 1996, the People's Liberation Army launched a massive campaign to buy influence in the Democratic Party and steer military hardware and technology Beijing's way.

Reports by federal investigators say the PLA used a host of Chinese agents living in the U.S. as bagmen to funnel cash to the Clinton-Gore campaigns and gain access to the White House and sensitive government agencies.

Even U.S. corporate executives did their bidding. Most alarmingly, Schwartz persuaded the Clinton administration to give his Loral Space and Communications subsidiary a waiver to use inexpensive Chinese rockets to launch U.S. satellites into space.

Loral at the same time helped Beijing – over the objections of the U.S. intelligence community – improve its commercial space launchers. That in turn, helped make its nuclear-tipped missiles more reliable as ICBMs, several of which are aimed at U.S. cities.

In fact, it's believed China's recent downing of a satellite with a ground-based missile would not have been possible without Loral's technical assistance.

Schwartz, who was Clinton's top donor in the 1996 election cycle, insists his contributions did not buy policy changes regarding China. He says the favorable treatment he got from the administration was merely a "coincidence."

However, two months before he won a prized seat on a Commerce Department trade junket to China, he wrote a check to Democrats for $100,000. On the trip, Schwartz scored a meeting with China's top telecommunications official, which led to Loral winning a deal to provide cell phone service to China – a deal worth an estimated $250 million a year.

During the 1996 election cycle, moreover, Schwartz created his Loral Satellite and Communications subsidiary. He needed export controls loosened so the start-up unit could launch its satellites on cheap Chinese booster rockets, which are nearly identical to Beijing's strategic missiles that would greatly benefit from such dual-use U.S. technology transfers.

Schwartz lobbied the Clinton administration to transfer satellite export licenses to the more lenient Commerce Department. At the same time, he pumped $632,000 into Clinton-Gore and Democratic National Committee coffers.

That same year, in a major policy shift, President Clinton overturned an earlier 1995 decision by Secretary of State Warren Christopher and transferred authority for satellite export licenses to the Commerce Department, where Beijing managed to plant an agent by the name of John Huang. Loral got its waiver – over the objections of the Justice Department – and Schwartz kept on giving to the Clinton machine, in the end contributing well over $1 million.

Schwartz not only met with top officials at China Aerospace International Holding Ltd. – a PLA front – but he even formed a joint venture with the communist front company.

A key contact at China Aerospace was Liu Chaoying, a lieutenant colonel in the PLA.

In 1998, in the course of plea bargaining with the Justice Department, a Chinese bagman by the name of Johnny Chung confessed that at least $100,000 of his contributions to the DNC and the Clinton-Gore campaign had come from a Chinese aerospace executive – a lieutenant colonel in the Chinese military – who had given him $300,000. It was the same Chaoying involved with Loral, who happened to also be the daughter of the PLA's top general and a key member of China's Communist Party leadership.

Chung later told prosecutors that the $300,000 had been ordered into his bank account by the head of Chinese military intelligence, whom he said he met through the lieutenant colonel.

During the 1996 election cycle, Chung was a regular White House visitor. All told, he visited 57 times. During one visit to the first lady's office, he handed Hillary Clinton's chief of staff a check for $50,000. Three days earlier, he had received a $150,000 wire transfer from the Bank of China.

Hillary Clinton posed for a White House photo with Chung and two Chinese officials, and later penned a personal note on a print of the photo for Chung: "To Johnny Chung with best wishes and appreciation – Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Hillary Clinton rejects comparisons between Chung – and the entire 1996 Chinagate fund-raising scandal – and Hsu, her mysterious new Chinese donor.

"I don't think it's analogous at all," she said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=57450

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Damn, this site is gonna be KICKIN in 2008.

[GaryC 7]

Damn, this site is gonna be KICKIN in 2008.

With Mrs "scandle machine" Clinton running it sure will!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Damn, this site is gonna be KICKIN in 2008.

Does it make you wanna squeal like school girl?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Damn, this site is gonna be KICKIN in 2008.

With Mrs "scandle machine" Clinton running it sure will!

fo shizzle ma nizzle

[no name 1]

Lest you believe only hoaky right wing drama queens.....

Fred Thompson is the ####-You Candidate

Submitted by Bob Fertik on August 31, 2007 - 3:31pm.

Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the Mississippi civil rights workers murders about which the movie Mississippi Burning was written. This disgusting act sent an unmistakable dog-whistle message to the Ku Klux Klan and their racist sympathizers: that Reagan was one of them. And to progressives who knew their history, Reagan sent an unmistakable #### You.

Today we learn Fred Thompson will launch his campaign on Sept. 6 at a Chick-fil-A on Bush River Road in Columbia, South Carolina. While the location has its symbols, the most important fact is its time: one minute after midnight at 12:01 a.m.

Why 12:01 a.m.? For two reasons.

First, to say #### You to people who believe in campaign finance disclosure as a safeguard against bribery and corruption.

If Thompson waits until September 6 to formally declare his candidacy, he wouldn't have to disclose any of the cash given to his campaign until January 31 -- after many major contests are over, including the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses, and the New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida primaries.

Second, to say #### You to New Hampshire Republicans who want Thompson to participate in the Republican debate on September 5.

Why would Thompson want to start his campaign with a double ####-you?

Because that is the exact mentality of George Bush, ####### Cheney, and the hardest-core Republican Base.

So who in the media is going to call out Thompson on his double ####-you?

Probably only me.

source

[GaryC 7]

Lest you believe only hoaky right wing drama queens.....

Fred Thompson is the ####-You Candidate

Submitted by Bob Fertik on August 31, 2007 - 3:31pm.

Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the Mississippi civil rights workers murders about which the movie Mississippi Burning was written. This disgusting act sent an unmistakable dog-whistle message to the Ku Klux Klan and their racist sympathizers: that Reagan was one of them. And to progressives who knew their history, Reagan sent an unmistakable #### You.

Today we learn Fred Thompson will launch his campaign on Sept. 6 at a Chick-fil-A on Bush River Road in Columbia, South Carolina. While the location has its symbols, the most important fact is its time: one minute after midnight at 12:01 a.m.

Why 12:01 a.m.? For two reasons.

First, to say #### You to people who believe in campaign finance disclosure as a safeguard against bribery and corruption.

If Thompson waits until September 6 to formally declare his candidacy, he wouldn't have to disclose any of the cash given to his campaign until January 31 -- after many major contests are over, including the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses, and the New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida primaries.

Second, to say #### You to New Hampshire Republicans who want Thompson to participate in the Republican debate on September 5.

Why would Thompson want to start his campaign with a double ####-you?

Because that is the exact mentality of George Bush, ####### Cheney, and the hardest-core Republican Base.

So who in the media is going to call out Thompson on his double ####-you?

Probably only me.

source

:lol: :lol:

[no name 1]

Five Easy Arguments Against Fred Thompson

by Jennifer RubinPublished: August 26, 2007

When Fred Thompson enters the Republican primary in September, he’ll bring considerable charm, a nearly perfect pro-life voting record, a base of support from conservative opinion makers and a useful distance from the calamities which have befallen Republicans of late.

Still, the still-hypothetical Thompson candidacy is likely to prove a lot more vulnerable to attack than it seems on paper, and his opponents will have plenty of ammunition at their disposal.

Here are five relatively simple arguments that could give the Thompson campaign serious trouble.

“He’s no Washington outsider.”

Much of Fred Thompson’s charm lies in his seeming aloofness from Beltway politics. He hasn’t wanted to be president his whole life, he repeats again and again. He hasn’t made a career as a politician and doesn’t “need” to be president. (Not a candidate I'd want to vote for if he's only half in it)

His opponents’ answer should be to repeat the “L” word—lobbyist—endlessly. Mr. Thompson’s lobbying for a pro-choice group was more significant for the lobbying part than the pro-choice part. In defending himself against charges he aided the pro-choice cause Thompson was forced to reveal that he’s lobbied for dozens of clients, so many he can’t remember them all. Suddenly he was less outside and more inside than some of the current contenders. Add to that his gamesmanship in manipulating the “testing the waters” rule (which allowed him to prolong his entry, keep his TV series on the air and delay financial disclosures) and Mr. Thompson suddenly looks like a Beltway pro who built a career exploiting all the angles.

“He loves small government and federalism except when he votes.”

Mr. Thompson, to the extent he has talked in detail about any subject, has touted the benefits of returning to a Republican version of limited government and re-establishing that principle that the federal government should play a more limited role (focusing, for example, on securing the borders and fighting terrorism). Savvy opponents will argue that Thompson talks a good game, one that appeals to traditional Republican themes, but has actually contributed greatly to the expansion of federal power. The most obvious illustration will be McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform which he championed, co-sponsored and defended in a brief before the Supreme Court. Nothing rankles conservative activists more than federal regulation of political speech and Mr. Thompson, his opponents will say, bears as much responsibility as McCain for this intrusion of the federal government into campaigns, political speech and interest-group advocacy. They will no doubt also point to his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind, which federalized education, hugely expanded Washington’s spending on education and helped undermine state and local control of schools.

“We need a tough executive, not another amiable conservative.”

The Bush has been an embarrassment in its mismanagement of the war, the failure to deal with natural disasters like Katrina and the creation of personnel disasters like Alberto Gonzales. Republicans are well aware that they have something to prove before the public once again thinks of Republicans as tough, businesslike stewards of effective government. Three of Mr. Thompson’s toughest opponents—Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee—all boast records as executives and will remind voters repeatedly of their successes and executive know-how. Mr. Thompson, as rival campaigns will no doubt remind voters, has never run anything, and, so far, isn’t doing a very good job of running his own campaign. Being a conservative is nice, they will say, but it’s not enough.

“There’s no there there.”

To date, Thompson has gotten by with no tax plan, no health plan, no proposal for Iraq and no suggestions for returning Washington to fiscal sobriety. His opponents have reams of commitments, plans and programs which they say show that they are ready to hit the ground running. What is Thompson offering? He has hinted that entitlements are an issue—hardly a revelation to anyone following the news in the last decade—but hasn’t offered his own prescription for Social Security or Medicare reform. If Thompson can’t go toe-to-toe with opponents in detailed policy debates, they will be able to make the case that he’s simply not ready for the job.

“Hillary will kill him.”

Electabilty is certainly on Republicans’ minds these days as they come to the recognition the public is not pleased with their party and will be seeking to throw the rascals out. Mr. Thompson may have a harder time than any of the leading Republican contenders demonstrating that he can put any states in play for the G.O.P. in the general election. Nearly 80 percent of his initial round of contributions came from southern states—a sign that voters from purple and blue states have yet to discover his attractions. When Mr. Thompson attacks New York City in his pro-gun and anti-immigration ads, he’s not making friends with voters who like New York City and live in other urban centers. Are suburban and urban voters really ready for another folksy figure with rural props? (A red pickup truck? Really?) Couple all that with polls showing that his gender gap –a traditional Republican worry—is vast and that he badly trails Hillary Clinton in one-on-one match ups, and the arguments against Thompson ’08 start to make themselves.

source

[Dan J 277]

I would hope voters would realize how bad of an idea it was to vote solely on faith and values issues with Bush. But considering the short term memory of the electorate, I wouldn't count on many people remembering.

I really think the only group that Thompson will appeal to is those few who still think Bush is doing a good job. Since bush's approval rating is in the 20% range, that may be all the votes Thompson gets if he is the Republican candidate.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I would hope voters would realize how bad of an idea it was to vote solely on faith and values issues with Bush.

This is from the AP, today:

Seven in 10 in the nonpartisan Pew Research Center poll said they believe it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, including broad majorities of both parties.

...

John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said the poll showed a candidate's religion is "not always the most important factor, but one important factor" for voters.

The survey was conducted by the Pew religion forum and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It involved telephone interviews with 3,002 randomly chosen adults conducted from August 1 to 18, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Image with poll results from Pew's website: