Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Vote Trust USA Exposes Potential Democrat Fraud

Lets be real clear what the democrats have done. They have received databases to makes hacks to win elections by fraud. They will make this hack and use it anywhere they can. Note this: (Brakey said after the database turnover to Democrats that the information obtained from them will be used to create a computerized tool that will help elections officials and political parties nationwide investigate their own local voting systems for security weaknesses that could be used to rig elections.
"We're going to build it and give it away," Brakey said.) Your vote and mine is up for grabs. Ms hillary will find many ways to use this database to hack our votes and win the election. She will do anything to win and this is just the beginning. We will never see this reported in the national news.

Arizona databases for elections
Arizona: Databases for Elections Released to Democrats By Garry Duffy, Tucson Citizen
January 12, 2008
Pima County Elections Division officials Friday turned over the computer databases for the 2006 elections to the Pima County Democratic Party, as directed by the Board of Supervisors earlier this week.

Democrats sought the databases - electronic records of the county's Diebold-GEMS voting system and ballot tabulating procedures - to look for irregularities that might show vote tampering.

Party officials also plan to use the information to create a tool that will automatically analyze elections systems and vote tabulations for aberrations that could point to elections fraud.

The Democrats prevailed in a lawsuit filed last year seeking the databases.

Elections officials and County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry had refused their request to examine them.

The surrender of the databases to a political party as part of their role as official elections observers may set a precedent.

"This is the biggest release of electronic data files ever in this country," said John R. Brakey, one of the computer experts assisting the Democrats in their case.

Databases for elections released to Democrats
Tucson Citizen
Pima County Elections Division officials Friday turned over the computer databases for the 2006 elections to the Pima County Democratic Party, as directed by the Board of Supervisors earlier this week.
Democrats sought the databases - electronic records of the county's Diebold-GEMS voting system and ballot tabulating procedures - to look for irregularities that might show vote tampering.
Party officials also plan to use the information to create a tool that will automatically analyze elections systems and vote tabulations for aberrations that could point to elections fraud.
The Democrats prevailed in a lawsuit filed last year seeking the databases.
Elections officials and County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry had refused their request to examine them.
The surrender of the databases to a political party as part of their role as official elections observers may set a precedent.
"This is the biggest release of electronic data files ever in this country," said John R. Brakey, one of the computer experts assisting the Democrats in their case.
It didn't come easy. Superior Court Judge Michael Miller last month ordered the county to surrender most of the elections databases sought by the Democrats.
But the county delayed, contending that remaining legal issues from the lawsuit prevented it from doing so.
That prompted the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to order the release of the databases to Democrats, including those from the May 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election that were not part of Judge Miller's order.
Supervisor Ray Carroll, a Republican, pushed the board to release the information.
Friday, elections officials and local Democratic leaders sparred for three hours before agreeing on protocols for the copying and transfer of the databases.
The surrender of the electronic elections records could hold national implications for elections where computerized voting systems are used.
News reports of security weaknesses in such systems to errors or possible hacking to change election results have appeared frequently since the 2004 presidential election, where charges of fraud were voiced by Democrats in key states that helped re-elect President George W. Bush.
Brakey said after the database turnover to Democrats that the information obtained from them will be used to create a computerized tool that will help elections officials and political parties nationwide investigate their own local voting systems for security weaknesses that could be used to rig elections.
"We're going to build it and give it away," Brakey said.
They want to give it away, which means a computerized tool which could be a virus or a firmware modification to a voting machine which is allready wide open to hacks and virus makers. Voting Machine Facts
Are unexamined ballot definition files accurate and trustworthy?

A little-known but crucial moving part in election software is the ballot definition, prepared relatively close to the time of an election. This is unique programming for each election, defining all the races and candidates for each precinct. Faulty ballot definition programming can thwart accurate electronic vote tabulation of DREs and optical scanners. "Every voting system includes a key component, called the ballot definition file (BDF), that is never subjected to an outside review. Given that BDFs determine the way votes are recorded and counted, the lack of independent oversight of these files is a major security vulnerability," writes Ellen Theisen.

(Webmaster comment: This ballot definition file that is not subject to review seems to be an easy way for county officials or anyone to skew, fake, steal etc the election results. This is an amazing security flaw, it is not subjected to any review which means the vote count can be flipped or anything. How can anyone in their right mind think when voting on an electronic voting machine their vote is safe and will be counted correcty?)

Which one would you choose based on this?

This post by another blogger is interesting. It explains the sacred underwear thing and poses the question is hillary's underwear sacred? Ole bill clinton doesn't think so just as monica and all the other women Ms clinton has trashed. If we start comparing "sacred underwear" it seems Romney would win the debate. I do think mormon's have a big mix of strange beliefs combined with some truth. This is just what the democrats are serving up. Do you see the common ground? Both are deluded in some of their beliefs.
Hillary found her voice and the mormon's found buried tablets. Both are just false. The tablets were manufactured and fake and so is the quote by hillary. Look for her to dig up some obama tablets and exclaim them as new found truth, but it will only be what she has designed and manufactured. I do think that Mitt Romney is real but Ms Clinton is FAKE and a flake. I can overlook the sacred underwear but the hillary lies I cannot.
Warmed up and remixed old Ms Clinton lies are all i'm hearing from the media. What a wicked witches brew!

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Oral history: The Monica Lewinsky scandal ten years on

The article below from the times online refreshes our memory about bill clinton and how he disgraced the office of the President in the oval office building. How anyone can give him any credibility for anything he says or does is amazing!

Ten years after a young intern nearly brought down a president, the players in the Monica Lewinsky scandal talk.

Damian Whitworth

On the evening of Saturday January 17, 1998, the internet gossip merchant Matt Drudge posted a story that opened the most sensational scandal season in the history of the American presidency. He reported that Newsweek magazine had killed a story about President Clinton’s sexual relationship with a former intern. The next day he had her name: Monica Lewinsky.

The mainstream media were slow to catch up, but by the following Tuesday they were reporting that Clinton was being investigated for encouraging others to lie to cover up the affair.

For the next year the story dominated the headlines as Clinton was investigated, impeached and eventually found not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours in a Senate trial.

Ten years on we know what happened to Bill Clinton. He is campaigning tirelessly for his wife as she seeks to win the second Clinton presidency. It is a curious twist of fate, and an indication of how deep were the repercussions of the scandal, that her campaign might not be happening if it weren’t for Monica Lewinsky.
Hillary's impossible men, starting with her father

Early life putting up with a demanding patriarch and echoes of Hillary's future marriage

* The pain of being Hillary

* How Chelsea, the 'miracle child' helped keep the marriage together

* Hillary leads, but Obama is the man to watch

* The danger of emotional affairs

* Manage an office relationship

* Lots of sax and no sex at museum to the life and times of Bill Clinton

* My wife says boss's name during sex

For it was in the wake of the scandal, in which Hillary was seen as the wronged wife, that she decided to run for the Senate from New York. Her shamed husband, anxious to try to make things up to her, eagerly threw his weight behind the move. A wave of sympathy helped to sweep her to victory. As soon as she was elected, talk began about her running for president.

But what of the other dramatis personae from that sorry saga? Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House, resigned when voters expressed their disapproval at the impeachment drive. Two years later, though, scandal fatigue severely complicated Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Now many of the Clinton aides intimately involved in the defence of the President are at his wife’s side. Many other supporting actors saw their lives changed for ever. Some are desperate to stay in the spotlight, others would love to be able to leave the stage, but few have been able to find the exit.

Paula Jones: the woman who started it all

Paula Jones was not the first of the Clinton women. There had been many before her and there were more after. But she was the trigger for the investigation of the President that nearly brought him down. Jones brought a sexual harassment case claiming that when she was a lowly state employee and he was Arkansas Governor a state trooper took her to Clinton’s hotel room, where he exposed himself.

The case came tantalisingly close to being settled before Monica Lewinsky ever appeared on the radar. But when it became clear that Clinton would not apologise as part of the deal, Jones, spurred on by her angry husband, pressed ahead with it.

Her lawyers wanted to establish a pattern of behaviour, and it was during the process of tracking down other women employed by the state or federal government who had been sexually involved with Clinton that the Lewinsky relationship was discovered. In November 1998, after admitting to the Lewinsky affair and facing a Senate trial, Clinton belatedly settled the case, agreeing to pay Jones $850,000 but not admitting any wrongdoing or apologising.

Since then Jones and her husband have divorced. In posing nude for Penthouse she was denounced as “trailer-park trash” by one former high-profile conservative supporter and she lost a televised boxing match against Tonya Harding, the former figure skater notorious for her part in a plot to harm her fellow skater Nancy Kerrigan.

Jones, 41, remarried and has a four-year-old son, as well as two older children, aged 15 and 11. She works for a real estate agent in Little Rock. She talks on the phone but declines to meet for an interview because “I’m kinda wanting to write a book. Nobody ever would have had books out there if it wasn’t for me in the first place and I’m the one who seems to be blackballed and not been able to tell my story.” Publishers are either “big-time liberal or they’re scared. Maybe they want to protect the up-coming election. Everybody who has been connected to the Clinton scandal has done a book, even Monica Lewinsky. If it wasn’t for me they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to line their pockets.”

She says the settlement did not cover her huge legal fees and she still owes money to lawyers. How will she repay it? “I won’t. They know that.”

Unsurprisingly, she says she won’t be voting for Hillary and is astonished that Bill and Hillary Clinton are still campaigning. “I just laugh, that’s all I do. Lord have mercy, I don’t know. Everybody had to have their part; they didn’t care what I ended up with. Have you got any book people you could send in my direction?”

Kathleen Willey: the accuser from the Oval Office

Kathleen Willey sits drinking tea on a balcony at the grand Jefferson Hotel in Richmond, Virginia. She talks softly, but that doesn’t diminish her anger at Bill Clinton and, more surprisingly, his wife.

Willey and her late husband Ed, the son of a prominent Virginian politician, helped to form Virginians for Clinton when he ran for president in 1992. On one occasion during the campaign a sick Clinton tried to persuade Willey to bring him chicken soup in his hotel room when Hillary wasn’t around. She declined that and other invitations, but went to work as a volunteer in the White House after he was elected. Volunteers were amazed at how friendly he was towards her. Others called her flirtatious.

One day in 1993, when her husband was in desperate financial difficulties of his own making, she went to see Clinton in the Oval Office to ask for a proper job. During their meeting, she says, he sexually assaulted her. He groped her and put her hand on his erect penis while aides were outside banging on the door because he was late for a meeting. She extricated herself and left.

She says now that what he did was “wrong and slimy and predatory, but it was not devastating”. In any case, she had other things on her mind. Her husband did not come home that night: the next day he was found dead in remote woodland, having apparently shot himself. There was a report of a gunshot around 3pm, the time she had been in the Oval Office. “Almost at the exact moment,” she muses. “It gives me goose bumps just thinking about it.”

Willey, 61, says she never wanted the story of what she claims happened in the Oval Office to become public. But she confided in people, including Linda Tripp, who would later befriend Lewinsky. Somebody tipped off Paula Jones’s lawyers (she says it was not her) and Willey was issued with a subpoena.

Tripp, who encountered Willey shortly after the alleged incident, has given different accounts of what Willey told her, suggesting at first that Willey did not speak of an assault and that she seemed happy after the Oval Office encounter. Later, Tripp said that she believed Willey’s account.

Willey was criticised in the final report of the independent prosecutor’s office for some contradictions in two different accounts of the incident that she gave. In the end it was a “he said-she said” and evidence was not available to charge Clinton with lying under oath about what had happened that day.

Willey did not sell her story at the time or write a book. But now, just in time for the presidential primaries, a conservative publisher has released her memoir – Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. She has done more than 160 radio interviews to promote the book but says it is not just about hitting Hillary’s campaign.

“Is it just to get back at the Clintons? No, it’s not revenge, but I think that it’s a powerful story about what happened to an ordinary American woman who found herself involved in the biggest political scandal that ever happened in this country.”

She says she expected Clinton to say that all he did at their meeting was give her a peck on the forehead – “he wasn’t going to admit it” – and was not surprised by his ungentlemanly comment to Monica Lewinsky that he would not go for Willey because she had small breasts.

When people suggest that any sexual activity was consensual, “basically I just laugh”.

Others have questioned her state of mind in the aftermath of her husband’s death. “You don’t misremember things like that. Women don’t misread a situation like that,” she says. “I was in a time of need, frightened, panicky, my world was crashing in on me. I went to see a friend for help, he took complete advantage of me.”

Her credibility suffered a blow at the time of her original allegations, when the White House released friendly letters that she wrote to Clinton after the incident. She robustly defends this action, saying that she wrote them with her lawyer’s approval because she was desperate for a job to ease her parlous financial situation.

She was subsequently given some assignments, including places on overseas delegations for which she lacked experience, but Clinton did not come up with a job for her.

She believes that Clinton is a sex addict and Hillary is an enabler. “Rather than address the problem, it’s this ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’. Rather than give him an ultimatum and kick him out and say you are not coming back until you get well, she has enabled his behaviour and it hasn’t stopped.

Really, how much public humiliation can one woman stand?”

She goes as far as to call Hillary Clinton “evil” for what she believes was her role in trying to destroy the credibility of the women who claimed sexual relationships with her husband. “A lot of women out there are voting for the first time and are excited about voting for a woman. This country is certainly ready to be run by a woman. Just not this woman.”

A few years ago Willey remarried, but that marriage has ended. She has two grown-up children who accept her decision to put herself back in the public eye, and three grandchildren.

Some of her allegations seem wild. She believes that shadowy figures subjected her to a campaign of intimidation that included killing her cat.

But some of her other claims, if true, are puzzling. For example, why should anyone break into her house, as she said someone did last year, and take only one thing: a copy of the manuscript for her book? Like many aspects of this scandal, the truth seems likely to remain shrouded in murk.

Linda Tripp: the woman who was everyone’s friend

I find Linda Tripp, 58, at the Christmas Sleigh, a year-round Christmas store that she runs with her husband in the twee town of Middleburg in affluent Virginia horse country, about an hour from Washington. At least, I think I find her. As I walk up the street I see a woman who looks like Linda Tripp entering the store. She disappears into a back room. I spend a few minutes admiring the pricey wooden German toys and traditional Austrian clothes. A stack of copies of a book about Christmas in the White House is prominently displayed.

Then she emerges from the back room. “Linda,” I say, going to introduce myself. She looks at me for a moment and then corrects me: “Karen.”

Linda Tripp, who had worked for and revered the first President Bush, was one of the few who stayed on to work for the Clinton Administration. She had an uncanny ability to turn up wherever scandal hit. She was possibly the last person to see Vince Foster, the Clinton lawyer who was found dead in what was officially suicide but has kept conspiracy theorists busy ever since. She was a colleague and sometime friend of Willey but later accused her, according to Willey, of taking her job and gossiped about Willey’s relationship with Clinton.

She moved to the Pentagon, where she befriended Lewinsky, who had been moved out of the White House by aides concerned about her relationship with the President. Tripp became the younger woman’s confidante as she agonised about what Clinton really thought of her.

Tripp has always maintained that she taped their phone calls because she feared that she was being pressured to say she would lie about Willey and Lewinsky in the event that she was ever subpoenaed. But it became clear that she was also out to get Clinton and manipulated the situation. She was in cahoots with Lucianne Goldberg, a literary agent with links to conservatives, and talked about a book deal. She led Lewinsky on to discuss Clinton while she was taping, she encouraged her to use a courier service to send her packages so that there would be a paper trail and she insisted that Lewinsky hold on to the famous blue Gap dress soiled with the President’s semen, which became crucial evidence that finally persuaded Clinton to admit to the affair.

Tripp volunteered to give evidence in the Paula Jones case and then went to Kenneth Starr, the independent prosecutor, triggering his probe of the President. She participated in an FBI sting operation in which she wore a wire to record her friend and then arranged to meet Lewinsky again so that agents could apprehend her.

She became a hate figure for many and was depicted as a villain of the piece. An odd twist was that she was one of the few players in the drama to be prosecuted, when she was charged with illegal wire tapping for secretly taping her calls with Lewinsky. The case was eventually dismissed. On the final day of the Clinton administration, she was dismissed from her job.

In the intervening years she has survived breast cancer and married her childhood sweetheart, a German architect, Dieter Rausch. Together they opened the Christmas Sleigh. She has had extensive plastic surgery.

I look at the woman who calls herself Karen and she looks back, her mouth twitching. She bears an uncanny resemblance to the pictures I have seen of Tripp, postplastic surgery. Could this be Linda’s sister? But her sister isn’t called Karen.

I explain who I am and that I had heard Linda owns the shop. “She does actually – with her husband,” says the woman who calls herself Karen. That must have been the husband I had glimpsed going into the back of the store earlier wearing lederhosen, just as he is pictured in the leaflet advertising the store.

But no, it cannot be him because, as Karen tells me when I ask if I can speak to them: “They are not here right now. They won’t be back until tomorrow.”

But you are here. You are her, I want to say. But then I remember what Linda Tripp told Monica when discussing what she would say if she was asked under oath about the affair with Clinton: “I would do almost anything for my kids, but I don’t think I would lie on the stand for them.” Linda Tripp would not pretend to be someone else when a reporter came in.

“She doesn’t speak to the press at all,” says the woman who calls herself Karen, but then adds: “I am told they are going to do one interview,” for the tenth anniversary. I wonder who told Karen. Linda?

“They have a lot of media requests,” she says and heads to the back of the shop. “You are welcome to not take any pictures.”

I thank her and remark to myself on the extraordinary coincidence of having two people in one small shop who both look exactly like Linda Tripp after she has had some work done.

Monica Lewinsky: the world’s most famous intern

Monica Lewinsky was 21 when, as a White House intern, she delivered pizza to the President, flirted with him, flashed her thong and began an 18-month relationship that involved oral sex, phone sex, an infamous incident with a cigar, a great deal of soul-searching about what he really felt for her and then increasing fear and panic as it became clear that the relationship could become public.

In the immediate aftermath of the scandal she wrote her account, with Andrew Morton, and promoted the book with interviews. She resented how Clinton had characterised the relationship: “He talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn’t resist the dessert. That’s not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels.”

She started a venture making handbags, appeared on Saturday Night Live and hosted a reality show, Mr Personality. Then she tried to go under the radar. She enrolled at the London School of Economics, and-graduated in December 2006 with a masters in social psychology.

Apart from the occasional sighting of her in New York or Los Angeles, the 34-year-old has been invisible. “After she graduated we tried to keep a low profile,” says her friend and sometime publicist, Barbara Hutson. “She’s getting on with her life, she never wanted to be a public figure. She’s going to try and be as anonymous as possible. But she’s never going to be, especially if Hillary becomes President. The kids who didn’t know who she was will now know who she is because her name is constantly being brought up due to Hillary’s running. She was 21 years old, it was a stupid thing. She made a mistake. Look at all the girls who are doing crazy things now.”

Hutson says the Clinton Administration tried to ruin Lewinsky’s reputation. “They destroyed her and never apologised. They ruined this girl’s life. Every major company here has somebody on the board who is friends with Bill. They are not going to give her a job no matter how smart she is.”

Hutson says that when Nixon and Reagan were engulfed by scandal the stories were called Watergate and Iran-Contra, but the emphasis of the 1998 scandal was put on the intern rather than the President. She says the media were influenced by the White House to coin the phrases Monicagate and the Lewinsky scandal. It is hard to imagine that such nomenclature was uppermost in the minds of presidential aides at the time but Hutson believes “very simply they put it all on her and for ever that will haunt her. She is a private citizen and her name is mud, her family’s name. Why didn’t they call it Clintongate?”

She will not say where Lewinsky is now, although when pressed admits that despite reports at the time of her graduation that she was job hunting in London, she is unlikely to be seen in the UK. Hutson jokes that Lewinsky could be in India or hiding on a farm in the Midwest, but says that she would not give an interview because “if she comes out now and says anything, if Hillary loses they will blame her. Probably if Hillary loses it will be the best thing for her.”

Bob Bittman: the man with the awkward questions

Bob Bittman had the job of asking almost certainly the most extraordinary questions ever put to a President of the United States. Questions such as: “Mr President, if there is a semen stain belonging to you on a dress of Ms Lewinsky’s, how would you explain that?” (Answer: “We met that night and talked. So that’s a question you already know the answer to.”) Bittman was deputy to the independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, and ran the investigation into Monica Lewinsky. There was an early discussion in the Starr team about whether it was appropriate to proceed, but a unanimous decision was taken that there was ongoing criminal activity in the form of efforts to deny the relationship in the Paula Jones case and possible suborning perjury and obstruction of justice.

Bittman was astonished by what he learnt from the tapes and interviews. For the President to carry on with a 21-year-old intern while facing a sexual harassment case was “crazy”. Amid a media feeding frenzy, the lawyers worked in a sealed building round the clock to check every fact to establish if Lewinsky was telling the truth about the relationship.

“We just had to focus on the next stage of the investigation and check everything out to see if it fitted with Monica’s account. We could only do the best job we could.” Of the morning that he interrogated the President, Bittman says: “I was nervous.

But I had been very well prepared. We all wished it had not got to that stage. If he had admitted it earlier he would have spared himself and the country that ordeal.”

The line of questioning had been carefully prepared with a lawyer standing in for Clinton. Some episodes that appeared in evidence, such as whether the President had masturbated into a bin during one encounter, were not pursued because they were not relevant to the legal case. He was, however, asked about the cigar because the act of insertion could have constituted “sexual relations”, which Clinton had denied. Bittman didn’t balk. “They were questions that had to be asked. We only asked questions that had some direct relevance to the crimes we were investigating. I felt that Clinton did pretty well. Very sophisticated, very well prepared, and very experienced at misleading people.”

The Starr team did not want much of the information they had uncovered to enter the public domain, because they believed it was too salacious and they wanted to preserve the dignity of the presidency. But when it was sent to Capitol Hill the House of Representatives decided to release it all before even reading it. “Our position was that it was not our job to tell the House what should or should not be made public. We believed that the House – especially because we had specifically warned them in the transmittal letter of the sensitive nature of the facts – would act responsibly and at least read the referral before releasing it.”

He has no doubts that Clinton should have been impeached (charged with an offence). “Our job was to investigate and present our findings. It was up to the House to impeach. Personally if I had been in the House I would have voted to impeach and if I had been in the Senate I would have voted to convict. But it became a political decision, as it should be. I believe we presented a strong and compelling case. I think history bears out that Clinton did the things outlined in our referral.”

One of his few regrets was the decision not to respond to the media campaign being waged by the White House against what they were doing. If they had done a better job of explaining to people that they weren’t just investigating sex but wrongdoing in a sexual harassment case, public sentiment might then have been less hostile and the politicians might have been more willing to convict of high crimes and misdemeanours.

This might also have improved the image of Starr, who was popularly portrayed as a witch-finder, obsessed with sex. “Judge Starr is a very bright man. He was a great leader and very generous with his staff. He always tried to do the right thing. He always stayed within the law.” Starr is now the Dean of Pepperdine School of Law in California and busy in private practice, where he has raised eyebrows by working for convicts on death row, saving the life of one man the day before he was scheduled for execution.

After the investigation was wound down the statute that allowed for independent prosecutors was not renewed. There was widespread agreement that this was right because it allowed parties to claim that the prosecutors were out of control and not accountable.

Bittman is a career prosecutor who now works for a big Washington firm. The Lewinsky investigation helped his career because it made him well known. The downside is that he encounters people who resent him for his involvement in such a polarising case. The Starr team enjoy regular reunions. Working on that investigation was “like nothing else. You work long hours, all working on the same case and everyone is at the top of their game,” says Bittman. “In that sense it was great fun.”

Mike Isikoff: reporter who lost the scoop of his life

Michael Isikoff of Newsweek magazine was covering the Paula Jones story when he tracked down Kathleen Willey. She told him that there was somebody who would corroborate her story, who had seen her soon after she emerged from the Oval Office. That woman was Linda Tripp. When Tripp got talking she put the reporter on the trail of Monica Lewinsky.

After Kenneth Starr’s agents brought Lewinsky in, Isikoff wrote a story about the investigation only for the scoop of his life to be spiked by nervous editors at Newsweek. Isikoff got much of the credit for unearthing the story and went on to write a successful book, Uncovering Clinton. He subsequently won awards for his reporting of President’s Bush’s War on Terror, but a story he wrote about a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay led to rioting in the Muslim world that caused at least 17 deaths, and Newsweek retracted it. He declined to comment about his role in the Lewinsky story or whether he still dreams of the glory that might have been.

His name has been eclipsed by that of Matt Drudge, who leapt from obscurity to worldwide fame in a few million clicks. Today his bulletin board, which links to stories from other media and throws out titbits of gossip, often gets more than 20 million hits a day. Despite the disapproval of many in the mainstream media he is arguably the most influential figure in American news, and a jealous guardian of his own privacy.
This could explain why Bill strayed from the farm. It seems to be a "big piece" of the puzzle. It seems she has a big problem and so does ole Bill. She can't give it and he can't take it! So what have they got, each other. Its seems this pair is hell bent on entangling us all in their "problems".

How Chelsea, the 'miracle child' helped keep the marriage together

Chelsea Clinton, from the moment of her difficult conception, was an enormous factor in keeping her parents together.

After her birth, far more complicated considerations were at work than the simple nostrum of parents who “stay together for the sake of the children”.

But Hillary’s and Bill’s devotion to their daughter was in its unconventional way (given the chaos and tension they generated) absolute and unconditional. Whatever the distractions, the family unit, when isolated from the outside world, functioned reasonably well. Bill and Hillary were both good at being hands-on parents.

Hillary had married for love, to have children and to create her idea of a model family. She felt she could figure out how to make the political part of her life work, but unless she could be a mother with a loving husband who was father to their children, life’s fulfillment would elude her.

She suffered, however, from a condition called endometriosis, which often makes conception difficult, can cause infertility and frequently results in extreme pain during and after intercourse.

From early in their marriage Hillary and Bill tried to have a child, and — famously — they even chose a name after hearing Judy Collins’s version of the song Chelsea Morning on a Christmas holiday in London in 1978.

Still unsuccessful after four years, they decided in the summer of 1979 to see a fertility specialist; but before the appointment Hillary found she was pregnant.

It was a worrying pregnancy and Chelsea was born three weeks early by caesarean section. Normal procedures forbade fathers in the delivery room when surgery was ordered, but Bill appealed to the hospital’s administrator, saying that Hillary needed him, and promised “that they could cut Hillary open from head to toe and I wouldn’t get sick or faint”.

They frequently referred to Chelsea as their “miracle child”. Hillary took four months’ maternity leave from her job as a lawyer and was sensitive to any criticism that she skimped as a mother. When a friend wrote and performed a song specially for Chelsea that included the words “We may not be worthy, but we’ll try to be wise”, Hillary seemed to bristle at the notion she was unworthy.

Friends of the Clintons were aware of her disappointment at not being able to have a second child. Even during their early years in the White House she and Bill talked seriously about adopting, and they discussed with friends in California who had adopted how they might go about the process themselves.

At the age of 48, Hillary raised the subject in an interview with a Time magazine reporter, saying: “I must say, we’re hoping to have another child.”

When the stunned journalist asked if she meant by natural birth, she added: “I have to tell you I would be surprised but not disappointed. My friends would be appalled, I’m sure.”

Having another child had been a recurring discussion in the Clinton marriage. “I think we’re talking about it more now,” Hillary said. “We’d obviously wait to get serious about it until after the [1996] election.”

This was before she’d heard the name Monica Lewinsky.


Hillary's impossible men, starting with her father
Early life putting up with a demanding patriarch and echoes of Hillary's future marriage

Carl Bernstein

Hillary Clinton’s childhood was not the idyll suggested by the front porch and gently sloping lawn of what was once the family home at 235 Wisner Street, Park Ridge, on the fringes of Chicago.

In this leafy environment, hers was distinctly a family of odd ducks, isolated from their neighbours by the difficult character of her father, Hugh Rodham. He was a sour, unfulfilled man whose three children suffered his sarcasm and parsimony and silently accepted his humiliation of their mother.

Hugh and his wife Dorothy were polar opposites — intellectually and emotionally. He was a 16-stone former naval physical education instructor who recreated the barracks experience in his own home. She was a resilient woman whose childhood had been a horror of abandonment and cruelty.

When Hillary’s first boyfriend in college, Geoff Shields, visited the Rodham house, he wondered why Dorothy had not walked out. But she had made her own uneasy peace with her husband and, when the children were still young, had decided to stay in the marriage.
Related Links

* The pain of being Hillary

* How Chelsea, the 'miracle child' helped keep the marriage together

* Hillary leads, but Obama is the man to watch

Keeping the family together was more important than escaping her husband’s indignities, though she had to witness much harshness toward the children.

“Maybe that’s why she’s such an accepting person,” Dorothy once said of Hillary. “She had to put up with him.”

Hillary’s own difficult but enduring marriage is perhaps more easily explained in the context of her childhood and the marriage of her parents.

As a child, she tried every way she knew to please her father and win his approval, and then spent years seething at his treatment of her. The pattern seemed to repeat itself in her marriage.

Both Hugh and Bill Clinton, who came to like and respect each other, were outsized personalities who dwarfed others around them. In Clinton’s case, this dominance was seductive. Rodham’s effect on people, especially outside his immediate family, was usually unpleasant.

As she later did with her husband, Hillary eventually took an almost biblical view in her forgiveness and rationalisation of her father’s actions: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

One of Bill’s and Hillary’s principal aides was sceptical.

Hillary, said the aide, “hates the fact that Bill Clinton cheats on her, and that he doesn’t need her as much as she wants. And he’s weak.

She’s a very judgmental Methodist from the Midwest. As much as they talk about loving the sinner, they actually also despise a part of the sinner. They hate the weakness. They hate the part of the person who can’t toe the puritan line.”

Hillary, said the aide, evolved into “kind of the classic bitchy wife . . . not quite putting her hand on her hip and finger-wagging at him, but practically. Nah-nah-nah . . . She has a derisive tone that is very similar to the way she sometimes sounds publicly — a sing-songy tone, like, ‘I guess I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had cheese.’ That tone only more so. . .. It’s very much directed at him, his faults, his shortcomings; that he’s let her down again.”

The same tone, others observed, characterised the way Dorothy Rodham sometimes responded to her husband’s failings.

AS harsh, provocative, and abusive as Rodham was, he and Dorothy imparted to their children a pervasive sense of family.

They were assertive parents who believed that with discipline, hard work, encouragement (often delivered in an unconventional manner) and enough education at home, school and church, a child could pursue almost any dream.

In the case of Hillary, born on October 26, 1947, this would pay enormous dividends, sending her into the world beyond Park Ridge with a steadiness and sense of purpose that eluded her two younger brothers.

But it came at a price: Hugh imposed a patriarchal unpleasantness and ritual authoritarianism on his household, mitigated only by the distinctly modern notion that Hillary would not be limited by the fact that she was a girl.

He presided over life in the Rodham household like a belittling, impossible-to-satisfy drill instructor. A former college football player, he was broad shouldered and 6ft 2in tall, the same height as Bill Clinton. But he had an injured knee and he issued his commands from his living room chair (which he rarely left, except for dinner), barking orders, denigrating, minimising achievements, ignoring accomplishments, raising the bar constantly for his frustrated children. “Character building,” he called it.

Nurture and praise were left largely to his wife, whose gentler nature he often trampled.

“Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out,” he frequently said at the dinner table when she’d get angry and threaten to leave.

Confronted with resistance, he turned fierce. If Hillary or one of her brothers had left the cap off a toothpaste tube, he threw it out the bathroom window and told the offending child to fetch it, even in snow. At dinner he growled his opinions, indulged few challenges to his provocations, and rarely acknowledged the possibility of being proved wrong. Still, Hillary would argue back if the subject was substantive and she thought she was right.

Decades later, Hillary and her brothers suggested that their father’s confrontational style was part of a grander scheme to ensure that his children were “competitive, scrappy fighters”, to “empower” them, to foster “pragmatic competitiveness”. But there is little to suggest that she or her brothers interpreted it so benignly at the time.

In high school, Hillary realised she was by no means the cleverest member of her class and that to compete at the top level she would have to work harder than others. She was an honour roll student by force of will, intense preparation and dutiful study.

Even with such extraordinary effort, her grade average was too low to be among the top 10 students in her class. But in classroom debates, her prodigious memory and preparation made her formidable.

When she came home with all As except for one B on her report card, however, her father suggested that her school was too easy.

Unleashed, his rage was frightening. Betsy Ebeling, Hillary’s closest childhood friend, could see that life with Hugh Rodham was painfully demeaning for her mother.

Sometimes his tirades would begin in the kitchen and continue into the parents’ bedroom while Hillary put her hands over her ears.

“I could go home to two parents who adored everything I did,”

said Betsy. “Hillary had a different kind of love; you had to earn it.”

Hugh had worked in lace-making and embroidering since childhood, as had his Welsh immigrant father. He manufactured shades and curtains that he sold to hotels, offices, cinemas and airlines — printing, cutting and sewing the fabric himself.

He invested wisely and saved prodigiously.

Every summer the family took a two-week holiday at a cabin he and his father had built in the rolling Pennsylvania hills. It had no heating, bath or shower.

When Hillary and her mother became reluctant to go, Hugh promised a shopping spree on the return trip. He drove to Fifth Avenue in New York and told them they could buy whatever they wanted before the stores closed at 5pm. Mother and daughter had only 25 minutes; they took off their shoes and ran.

Certainly Hugh Rodham was proud of the accomplishments of his children, but if his methodology was intended to convey tough love the results were mixed at best.

His constant pushing of Hillary’s brothers — “They got ridden, treated like men from the time they were three years old,” said a relative — did not always take. Hillary alone seemed to possess his self-discipline. Toward her he was capable of a modicum of tenderness. He taught her baseball; fished with her; lingered over her maths homework; told her tales of his childhood; and exempted her from some of the tasks assigned to her brothers.

Hillary found a way in difficult times either to withdraw or to focus on what her father was able to give her, not what was denied. She knew she was loved, or so she said.

Their relationship deteriorated as she reached her teens, however.

He refused to allow her to take ballroom dancing lessons.

He did not want her dancing with boys, did not want her in the dating game.

Some boys didn’t think she was attractive, said one of her male classmates. They liked girls who were “girlish”

. Hillary was “womanish”. Her ankles were thick. She had a reputation for being bossy. Though she displayed an easy humour with girls, boys often perceived her as too earnest and aloof and, by implication, uninterested in sex.

Other boys, usually older ones, were attracted by her seeming self-possession. She did not go out on dates often, but it wasn’t for lack of invitations. Partly it was because she was more interested in other pursuits, and partly because she seemed anything but confident about herself with the opposite sex.

Hillary was convinced that her father’s penurious attitudes and his tendency to overrule her mother in decisions affecting her as a young woman forced her to dress unattractively.

Betsy and others at school believed his attitude undermined Hillary’s sense of femininity.

GRADUALLY, the conflicts over money and boys, and Hillary’s chagrin at her father’s prevailing demeanour, led to an almost complete breakdown of their relationship.

As this chasm broadened, Hillary and her mother drew closer.

Dorothy had been abandoned by her own parents at the age of eight and raised by a cruel grandmother until another family took pity on her.

She was determined that Hillary would experience no hesitancy in speaking her mind or pursuing her goals. If someone tried to muzzle Hillary or get in the way, Dorothy counselled, “don’t let it happen”.

“Dorothy is the person who shaped Hillary more than any other, and there is no way to see Dorothy and not see how she fashioned her daughter,” said Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, who is among Hillary’s closest long-standing friends.

Matters are hardly so simple.

Hillary’s cousin Oscar Dowdy, who regularly visited the Rodham home as a youngster, concluded more succinctly that Hillary had inherited her mother’s orderly mind and her father’s bluster.

There was another influence. In 1961 there arrived in a red Chevy Impala convertible a transforming figure who, until she met Bill Clinton, would become the most important teacher in Hillary’s life. He was a Methodist youth minister, the Reverend Don Jones, 26.

Hillary had never met anyone like him. Jones became something between a father figure, adored brother and knight-errant.

Hillary had been confirmed at the Methodist church in Park Ridge, but until Jones showed up there her sense of politics and her sense of religion existed on two different planes. Now they began to meld into one as he promoted what he called the “University of Life” two evenings a week at the church.

He assigned Hillary readings from TS Eliot and EE Cummings; showed them copies of Picasso’s paintings; discussed Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov; played Bob Dylan’s A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall; and shepherded the privileged children of Park Ridge to black and Hispanic churches in Chicago.

After two years, Jones was forced out by members of the congregation for being too “freethinking”. But he remained a counsellor over the decades, showing her ways to cope with adversity and to “salve [her] troubled soul” through the doing of good works.

During the Clintons’ White House years, Jones and his wife were frequent visitors there.

Aside from her family, Hillary’s Methodism is perhaps the most important foundation of her character. As one of her aides said during the Lewinsky epoch, “Hillary’s faith is the link . . . It explains the missionary zeal with which she attacks her issues and goes after them, and why she’s done it for 30 years. And it also explains the really extraordinary self-discipline and focus and ability to rely on her spirituality to get through all this . . .

“She’s a woman of tremendous faith. Again, not advertised. She’s not one of those people who’s out there doing the holy roller stuff. But that’s how she gets through it: some people go to shrinks, she does it by being a Methodist.”

Other members of the White House staff believed, however, that she used her religiosity as a cover for her faults. Some saw it as a mask in her relationship with her husband.

“She elevates her staying with [Clinton] to a moral level of biblical proportion,” said a presidential deputy. “I am stronger than he is. I am better than he is. Therefore, I can stay with him because it’s my biblical duty to love the sinner and to help to try to overcome his defects of character.”

Her father shut his business and retired at only 54, broken in spirit and withdrawn after the deaths of his parents and brothers.

Depression seemed to haunt the Rodham men. Both of Hillary’s brothers, to varying degrees, seemed to push through adulthood in a fog of melancholia.

Hillary herself fell into debilitating, self-doubting funks at college. And whatever tendency toward depression she had either inherited or developed would surface again in the White House.

There was, however, a reconciliation with her father, and when he lay dying after a stroke in 1993 she rarely left his bedside.

Her mother fulfilled a lifelong goal of attending college in her late sixties (majoring in psychology). She lives with Hillary in Washington.

The other two members of thee family, Hugh Jr and Tony, were the beneficiaries of their sister’s protection. In her teens and in her years in the White House she came to their aid when they got into scrapes that required some artful intervention — whether to mollify their father or, later, to quiet a nosy press corps.

Though grateful for her intercession, they were also terrified of her.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Bush wants to take away your right to own a gun

It seems that the President Bush supports limiting our rights as US gun owners.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported. There is no reason to limit a legal gun owners right to own guns. They biggest threat is the US government trying to taking away our right to own guns. It is our right to defend ourselves against anyone who would do us harm including, as the founding fathers knew, the government itself! Take away our guns and they will take away your freedom.