As NewsBusters reported Sunday, the leftwing organization responsible for the recent smear campaigns against Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, Media Matters, has direct ties to the Clintons.
To be sure, folks on the left, and in the media that support them, will either deny this connection, or ignore it.
In the end, that's going to be hard to do, for on August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York boasted of "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
Our friend Mike Church has been kind enough to provide the following audio of this segment of her speech that day (partial transcript to follow). Those interested can also view the video available here (relevant section at 2:20):
We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.
Sounds like the junior senator confirmed my contention from Sunday: "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media.
She continued:
You know, we're beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side. Uh, you know, when I made that comment about the vast right-wing conspiracy, I wasn't kidding. Uh, what I never could have predicted is that it was not a conspiracy, it was just wide open and out there for everybody to see.
Well, Senator, it now appears that the advocacy network you "helped to start and support" is wide open and out there for everybody to see.
Talk about your inconvenient truths!
Update 10-02 9:31 | Matthew Sheffield. In yet another instance of Media Matters making false claims, the left-wing group has issued several denials that it is tied to Hillary and Bill Clinton.
But in true Clintonian fashion, these denials are hardly that at all. Here is the phrase that the group keeps falling back on:
"Media Matters for America is a 'progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.' The Center for American Progress identifies itself on its website as 'a progressive think-tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action.'"
Of course this means nothing whatsoever as far as Hillary Clinton goes. And yet in typical disreputable MM fashion, the far left group has repeatedly referenced it in subsequent articles as a denial of a Clinton connection.
Apparently Media Matters can't even quote itself in context!
We can't help but wonder how the group tries to spin and distort this flat-out statement of involvement from Clinton.
Are you sick of the left totally dominating comedy? Check out our new comedy show "NewsBusted" for a funny, conservative look at the news of the day.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So much for their
October 1, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Chris NormanSo much for their independence. Can you imagine if the MRC was helped to start by, say, Fred Thompson? Won't be mentioned in the MSM, though.
Truth
October 1, 2007 - 19:32 ET by JDWOne must give credit where credit is due.
JDW
CFR: Chung, Riady, Hsia, Trie, Huang, Hsu, Paw... Who's looking?
HILLARY & MMFA...
October 2, 2007 - 12:56 ET by danybhoyThose at MMFA will still deny it, that is what's funny about this. That, & the view of those who post their. God bless them, but man are they out there. I love reading their stuff, they make me laugh.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
She won't have to deny it,
October 1, 2007 - 18:05 ET by drillanwrShe won't have to deny it, of course, when the fallout from this starts "radiating" ...
The neoPRAVDA will completely bury or ignore it for her royal commie.
this is still very
October 1, 2007 - 18:29 ET by TruthMongerthis is still very helpful
thank you hitlery!
yours truly,
the vast wide-open patriotic conspiracy
(we are pretty easy to spot - just look on the map where it says "United States of America")
Hillary Matters
October 1, 2007 - 18:15 ET by 10ksnookerWho knew ... soon everyone in Amercia will know what kind os slime ball outfit this is.
If her lips are moving...
October 1, 2007 - 18:23 ET by m4ster chief...need I say more? Let me see, Al Gore invented the Internet, Bill Clinton came up with variations of the word "is," etc...very creative people, them Libs and Dems.
Sunrise at sea; a breeze across the deck, salty spray tickles the face, the aroma of fresh coffee, stack gas, and haze-gray paint is in the air. Another Navy day aboard ship as a Navy Chief...the perfect life!
What do you know Hillary is
October 1, 2007 - 18:16 ET by bigtimerWhat do you know Hillary is admitting something called the truth that a lot of us have written and talked about for years now...her involvement in taking over and creating the mass media operation she has worked on for a long long time....(I still have links to a lot of it too)
What a gal.
You haven't fooled everyone all the time Hill, you won't succeed either in the end.
I will be glad to see her defeated.
Hillary Mellon Scaife?
October 1, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Del DolemonteI'm sure this story will be Page 1 above the fold in tomorrow's Punch World Daily.
Media matters smells of
October 1, 2007 - 18:29 ET by buddycMedia matters smells of Hillary. I didn't know she admitted it but it would not matter. It is a more expensive, slicker, but just as ruthless adaptation of her bimbo squad.
Hillary will make Richard Nixon look meek by comparison. "She is the most ruthless bitch I have ever seen " according to one of her former law partners.
The Clintons totally ruthless quest for power has almost destroyed this country.
Media Matters smells
October 1, 2007 - 19:45 ET by merlin61Hopefully Hillary's past will catch up with her
in the near future before the primaries, and
will spell the end of her hopes for presidency.
We can only hope and pray!!!!!
buddyc & merlin, the Hildebeast will be POTUS # 44.
October 1, 2007 - 22:08 ET by Dave RI hate to say it yet again, but barring some unforseen calamity, the Hildewench will be the next President of the United States. At this point, all the head-up-their-ass republicans can do is to try and prevent her from having a dim-controlled congress. Given the rampant incompetence of the current leadership of said party, I seriously doubt they will manage to prevent even that.
The security-before-freedom-crowd no-matter-what (single women) will effect the election (corronation?) of the Hildebeast.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Don't be so quick to surrender, Dave
October 1, 2007 - 22:14 ET by RJCNN ran a segment today asking if Hillary had peaked too soon? They followed the question with a number of examples of Democrat backlash against her "inevitability."
And last Saturday, SNL did a scathingly funny opening segment on the same subject.
There's a long time between now and November 2008.
Ahhh Dave R...Always the Positive One
October 1, 2007 - 22:21 ET by Airforce_5_ODave you are killing me…Why not gouge out my eyes? Torture me but don’t make me live through a Hillary presidency. Send me to Gitmo, give me a prayer rug and three squares, but not Hillary!!!!!!
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
RJ & AF,
October 1, 2007 - 22:36 ET by Dave RLook, you guys know I respect the hell out of both of you, but I have to call this as I see it.
No one else in the dim establishment has the clout (or the gonads) to go up against the Clinton Machine. Nobody. Not Obama, not Richardson, not even Al Gore-who, IMHO, is scared to death of them-else he would be running against her even now.
Even if Hsu is sitting in the offices of the FBI and singing like Tweety-bird, it will not matter. As I see it, the Clinton's compromised the integrity of the FBI over two decades ago. Let's face it, even if Hsu were to produce verifiable video of HRC personally putting a bullet into the head of Vince Foster, I doubt anything would come of it.
Does anyone here at NB really think that Craig Livingstone simply walked out of the FBI offices with all those files without someone's blessing way up high in the FBI chain of command?
Not hardly.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Oh, well, then, Dave
October 1, 2007 - 22:40 ET by RJSince you put it that way (call it as you see it), I take back everything I said.
Now, dammit, where'd I put that Chicken Little suit.... ;^>
DaveR
October 1, 2007 - 22:46 ET by Airforce_5_OIf a good strong Repub we will be singing "Hail to the B***H" by 09. I Think you are throwing in the Towel a little soon here. She hasn't even gotten the nomination yet.
Silver lining there buddy. Wait and lets see who we put up against her.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
AF & RJ,
October 1, 2007 - 22:58 ET by Dave RI am far from throwing in the towell here, but the no-longer-conservative Republican Party essentially has tossed it in, and is therefore no match for the Clintonistas. I just cannot see any other dim taking the nomination away from the Hildewench. The conservative movement has effectively been silenced. Heck, they may as well be invisible. Who would notice the difference?
We are now thirteen months from what I believe will be the defining election for the future of our republic.
Where the hell is the so-called "conservative" Republican Party?
AWOL, if you aske me.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Hey, Dave, whaddaya talkin' to me for?
October 1, 2007 - 23:10 ET by RJI've capitulated, just like you. Just call me Neville.
BTW, have you seen my Chicken Little suit? It seems to have disappeared....wait a minute! Where did you get the one you're wearing? Is that mine? ;^>
Okay, RJ, I give up.
October 1, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Dave RJust remember, that cold January inaugural morning is going to be downright frigid-in more ways than one.
BTW-As Chamberlain was decidedly complacent in ignoring the stark realities of his day, I consider myself to be Churchill in this scenario, as he was essentially ignored until the flying feces really impacted the proverbial fan.
I see the fan spooling up even now. The feces cannot be long in coming.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Churchill?
October 1, 2007 - 23:29 ET by RJUm, Dave, wasn't Churchill the guy who WOULDN'T GIVE UP?
(ok, I'm done here. 'night all.)
RJ,
October 1, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Dave RI'm not giving up, but I have lost all confidence in the Republican Party. They have truly become the League of Nations of our time.
Only less effective.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
"I'm not giving up"
October 2, 2007 - 09:06 ET by RJYour prior statements contradict you, Dave.
"I hate to say it yet again, but barring some unforseen calamity, the Hildewench will be the next President of the United States."
...and that's just ONE example of what you've written.
Look, most of us recognize that the Republicans have turned into a bunch of weenies, but to say, over a year out, that "all is lost" is just too much Chicken Little for me.
AF
October 2, 2007 - 00:12 ET by Dave RI sincerely hope I am wrong. Believe me, I do.
Only problem is, I think we are headed for the revenge of the have-nots in '08.
We here at NB seem to think that linear logic will eventually rule the day. Only problem is, most of the unwashed out there do not think linearly, as most of them get their news from ET and Inside Edition. They aren't reading NB, nor listening to Rush, Sean, Neal or whoever. All they care about is "security," and they won't bat so much as an eye in voting to deny us our freedom, if that is what it takes to give them the sense of "security" they seek.
Single women in this country, who are only concerned with security, will be the ones who put her in the WH.
There are just too many of them now.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Dave, WTF?
October 2, 2007 - 00:25 ET by BlondeDave...WTF?
I am just going to slap the snot out of you. Seriously!
Single women in this country, who are only concerned with security, will be the ones who put her in the WH.
You may be a great cook, Dave, ...but seriously,...that was extremely rude. Don't ever go there again..if I'm around.
No lumping of "women"...sheesh..you are making me take alot of sides.
Women...wow, I'd really like to explain this to you. Conservative (well, I know you know that).
But seriously...don't ever dis (short for disregard) me or my sex (let's go GIRLS!) again. Ever.
Love you Dave....I'll send you a pm...no worries.
You don't really need to run...my broom is working on cleanig up things....& is unavailable for me to ride.
P.S. Is anyone else annoyed by Hillary's "cackling"?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, I stand corrected, as I failed to make one distinction.
October 2, 2007 - 00:34 ET by Dave RI should have said non-conservative single women. I realize there are single women out there who are wholly self-reliant.
Only problem is, I'm not sure there are enough of them. IYKWIM.
I meant no disrespect.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Single women
October 2, 2007 - 00:48 ET by ChaitealoverThere's more than a few of us self-reliant types still around - and I know a lot of up and coming young ones who are learning that it's up to them to keep the movement going. I count among them my 17 year-old-granddaughter who thought she was in favor of Democratic points of view until she got her first job and saw who's pocket those plans came out of. She'll be voting next election, along with her conservative friends.
sniffle - the Padres just lost the wild card playoff - sniffle
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
The Cackle is great!
October 2, 2007 - 00:42 ET by CTI think I might try to record it online and make a long string of it. I'll play it at the front door when the neighborhood kids come around for their 'Trick or Treats'.
Have you ever heard a more forced phony gut wrenching cackle in your life?
hrc
October 2, 2007 - 00:53 ET by shawn228I wonder if she is elected the next CIC if she will appoint Helen Thomas to be Press Secretary just to be spiteful, then you will hear a real cackle.
shawn,
October 2, 2007 - 01:08 ET by Dave RLOL-Don't tell me you are going to be the other prophet of doom around here.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
lol Dave
October 2, 2007 - 01:17 ET by shawn228I never count my chickens before the eggs are hatched.I am a independent, but at the same time a registered Democrat."before I was a member of Newsbusters" I am actually hoping Edwards gets the nomination.
Hildabeast is very spiteful, would it surprise you if she did something like putting HT as press secretary just for kicks?
shawn,
October 2, 2007 - 01:59 ET by Dave RTo be bluntly honest here, the libertarian in me is beginning to return in a huge way.
Short of someone rising up who is a combination of Abe Lincoln, who also has the spunk of Roosevelt (Teddy), the put up-with-no-BS of Harry S. Truman, the foreign-policy (only) portion of Nixon, and the (sometimes) conservatism of Ronald Reagan, I may very well be writing in my schnoodle Oliver for prez in '08.
LOL-Heck, maybe I'll run myself.
"Free Webers for everybody!"
-Or something like that. Damn.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Was this one of those slips
October 1, 2007 - 18:31 ET by bassndudeWas this one of those slips when the camera was supposed to be off, or the mic not connected yet?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Accordinging to FrontPage:
October 1, 2007 - 19:55 ET by ding7777Anybody know what Media Research Center publishes? Or why there would be a need for a "liberal equivalent"?
Well, duh.....
October 1, 2007 - 20:32 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, ding, I think we know what MRC publishes. The question is, what Republican "encourag[ed] the creation" of MRC? And how would that be seen insofar as the "credibility" of the site? If a "liberal equivalent" was needed, why did it take a politician to mid-wife it? Not especially "grass-roots" then, is it? Lastly, quoting FrontPage isn't exactly neutral, "non-biased" sourcing.
Otherwise, though, good point. ;^)
Hey Joe,
October 1, 2007 - 20:47 ET by BlondeGlad to see you back....where've you been hiding?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hi Blonde,
October 2, 2007 - 06:41 ET by Indiana JoeWhere I've been? Well, it's a long story. "Health-related" is the short version. Gotta run to work, will catch up with you later. ;^)
Indiana Joe
October 2, 2007 - 04:29 ET by ding7777If you want to see which Republicans "encourag[ed] the creation" of Media Research Center, then I suggest find a list the members of the Council for National Policy
Yes, Brent Bozell is a member of CNP and a creator of MRC.
No, they are not "grass roots" - they are conservative politicians, religious and political activists.
I try to use conservative sources (like the conservative FontPage magazine) for quotes to minimize the off-topic rope-a-dope comments (in this case, even using a conservative source spurred you on to an off-topic rope-a-dope comment - well done, Joe).
Questioning sources is no
October 2, 2007 - 06:39 ET by Indiana JoeQuestioning sources is no more "rope-a-dope" than selectively quoting them, ding. In this case, I DID miss the particular affiliation of your quote. But doesn't the fact you could find a quote that seems to implies criticism of MRC in a "conservative" source say something (positive) about the source's objectivity? I would say so.
To my knowledge, Brent Bozell is NOT a politician. He IS, or at least seems to be, a conservative.
As Blonde notes, I've been away awhile. I'll admit to a bit of ferrous oxide accumulation, but I think I can safely stand by my point in this case. ;^)
Ding
October 1, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Noel SheppardDing,
Yeah, I do. Now, since the MRC was created in 1987, could you identify that Ronald Reagan helped start it? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top? And provide a link or an MP3 with him stating such?
Honestly, folks, this is fish in a barrel, and all too easy! ns
Must. Resist. Urge. To. Keep. Score.
October 1, 2007 - 20:53 ET by Free StinkerNoel: 17,000,000
Ding: 0
FS
October 1, 2007 - 20:59 ET by Noel SheppardFS,
With all due respect, I think you're being conservative. :-) ns
It's his job, Noel
October 1, 2007 - 21:16 ET by BlondeTo be "conservative" in his score-keeping.
Free is better than every single one of those PAC-10 refs.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Noel
October 1, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Free StinkerNoel,
Sorry. I start losing count after 15 million. ;-)
Don't forget Algore
October 1, 2007 - 21:08 ET by Airforce_5_ODon't forget Algore invented the internet. I invented the question Mark.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
Who's Mark????
October 1, 2007 - 21:13 ET by botgbut if algores the answer it must be a stupid question you invented.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
btog
October 1, 2007 - 21:22 ET by Airforce_5_OCan I claim quotation Fingers???????
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
shirley
October 1, 2007 - 21:28 ET by botgshirley
Noel
October 2, 2007 - 04:59 ET by ding7777Are you trying to make an analogy between who was President in 1987 (Reagan) when MRC was created and who was President in 2004 (Bush) when Media Matters was created?
Since my universe isn't as Reagan-centric as yours, please, please, please tell me what Reagan has to do with this post?
Simple, ding.... Name any
October 2, 2007 - 06:48 ET by Indiana JoeSimple, ding.... Name any Republican politician who helped or ever claimed to help create MRC.
I'd rather be "Reagan-centric" than Clintonphilic anyday.
Hmm... or Reaganphobic....
IJ
Indiana Joe
October 2, 2007 - 09:49 ET by ding7777Many politicians support MRC, just like many politicians support Media Matters
Hillary never said she created Media Matters - that's just more right-wing noise (reinforced here by a truncated transcript of her comment).
Hillary was speaking of the "new progressive infrastructure" which her "vast right-wing conspiracy'' comment "helped to start" .
Bill prefers the word,
October 2, 2007 - 10:04 ET by kathleenirishBill prefers the word, "Clintophallic". Suits him more.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Ding
October 2, 2007 - 09:44 ET by Noel SheppardDing,
You're 100 percent correct. It was foolish of me to offer this analogy to someone such as yourself who in the past has shown an abysmal lack of insight and creative thought. I'm sorry. I won't do it again.
Mindful of your limitations, let me make this easier: Please name any Republican figure previously in the White House that has admitted to help start MRC. To make this even easier for you, this would include Ford, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43.
Furthermore, if one of these five had been involved in starting the MRC, do you think this would be MUCH more disseminated in the news than the boycotting of the fact that the Clintons are tied to MM?
Or, even taking this further, let's assume two months ago, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson admitted involvment with the MRC. Do you think THAT would be newsworthy?
In reality, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to ask, for even if you had an answer, from what I've seen, you couldn't possibly be honest enough either with yourself or with folks here to present anything of value. Of course, you might surprise me. :-) ns
GAME.... SET..... MATCH!!!!!!
October 2, 2007 - 09:50 ET by JimboGAME....
SET.....
MATCH!!!!!!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Noel
October 2, 2007 - 10:08 ET by ding7777I'm shocked, just shocked that you would resort to childish insults :-)
Hillary's VWRC help start the progessive infrasture and she supports the results of that infrastruture like Media Matters.
Ding, instead of disingenously "reinterpreting" Hillary's words,
October 2, 2007 - 10:23 ET by RJas you parrot the MediaMatters line on the subject, try heading over to Noel's post from the other day (where you were conspicuously absent) to discuss Hillary's initial and continuing deep involvement with MediaMatters and it's founder...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/30/group-behind-smear-campaigns-against-limbaugh-o-reilly#comment-444707
Is it just me missing the
October 2, 2007 - 10:25 ET by JimboIs it just me missing the point or is this cut and paste job just another failed attempt to support a half baked idea?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Ding
October 2, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Noel SheppardDing,
As I expected, you either lack the intellectual capacity or personal integrity to answer a direction question that challenges your dogma. Color me unsurprised.
Although I expect nothing but a snarky response -- why should I anticipate anything more substantive? -- I have one final question for you: How much money do you spend every day having air pumped into that bubble you reside in?
You know, you could come out into the open, breath real air, let some oxygen flow through your cranium, and give all that money you're spending to isolate yourself from reality to a number of great charities that would distribute your funds in a much more beneficial way than you are.
Just a thought. Adios muchacho. ns
Pin the tail on the donkey
October 1, 2007 - 20:02 ET by KC MulvilleWhen it becomes clear that all these smear campaigns were a deliberate effort, pin it all on Hillary. She let loose the dogs, and now let them bite her in the pants suit.
Now let's watch the twin strategy evolve ... (a) she can't control what goes on in her name, like Norman Hsu, and (b) somehow, she'll let Bill take the fall.
Astute, KC
October 1, 2007 - 20:12 ET by BlondeAstute commentary as always.
Do you think she'll get the cackle under control now that she knows it's not so absolutely endearing (not to mention pretty much acknowledged to be a stupid stalling methodology)?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
We are the world
October 1, 2007 - 22:16 ET by KC MulvilleCan we get the tape where she practices different laughs, just to see how they'll play for the focus group? I can see it now ...
Thanks for the appreciation, by the way ...
I guess Bill is tired of her
October 2, 2007 - 09:51 ET by JimboI guess Bill is tired of her "faking it"...
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Oh, yeah! Oh,
October 1, 2007 - 20:16 ET by drillanwrOh, yeah! Oh, yeah!!!
Just heard Bill O`Reilly say he was trying to get Rush Limbaugh on tomorrow nights Factor, and that they need to get together to fight these lefty smear organizations!
On one of these threads today I stated `look out' if these two get together ...
Yup!
If Rush does go on with
October 1, 2007 - 23:05 ET by MikeBIf Rush does go on with O'Reilly, will O'Reilly shut up long enough for Rush to make his point? No need to answer, it was a rhetorical question.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
ok it's ok for the hildabeast, but not newt????
October 1, 2007 - 21:32 ET by lunaticcringeradioit's ok for hillary to run for president having direct connections that violates the stooopid mccain/feingold bill, god it makes me sick everytime i have to drive by his headquarters, but newt can't run because he's an advisor for a similar conservative group? how does that work out? where is the parity? where is the freedom of speech? only if you're a liberal i guess. that's why i will never run for an office, i can't shut my mouth and i want to do my out of pocket online radioshow.
lunaticcringeradio
RECOIL SHOOTING TERRORISTS
October 2, 2007 - 06:06 ET by FAPLANDI HOPE THEY WERE HEAD SHOTS USING A MACMILLAN .50 BMG USING API SILVERS. NICE RECOIL AND THE BEST PART IS THE FLAMING BRAINS BEING SPLATTERED WITH VERY SMALL SKULL FRAGS.
Hillary also claimed she
October 2, 2007 - 10:34 ET by Jack BauerHillary also claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who conquered Everest 6 years afters her birth.
But I do believe she invented Media Matters with her good friend David Crock.
I also beliieve she only made her offer of giving $5000 taxpayers money to each baby in America after private polls showed 57% of voters feared if she became Presidentess she would immediately authorize the slaughter of the newborn.
"Progressive" = code word
October 2, 2007 - 17:42 ET by sguild2"Progressive" = code word for LIBERAL! I just love it when Hillary's own words come back to haunt her.