The Hillary Playbook and How to Counter It

Because I am a junkie of politics I subscribe to email lists of all persuasions. As such, I found myself on Hillary Clinton's email list. (This started initially when I wrote her an email about the absurdity of her mortgage bailout. Because I needed to put my name and email in my address I found myself on her list) Here is an email I just received from her campaign.

Running for president means asking a lot of people to put their faith in you -- and putting your faith in a lot of people. You've never let me down, and my promise to you has always been this: if you put your faith in me, I will fight for you every day when I'm president.

When I get to the White House, I'll end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. I'll stop the cowboy diplomacy and Bush's war on science. I'll reverse the attacks on our Constitution and civil liberties. I'll ask the Congress to send me everything that Bush vetoed, like stem cell research and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

From day one, I'll be fighting for you, because America needs a clean and decisive break from seven years of George Bush. Not one of the Republican candidates is capable of making that happen. They're all promising four more years of the same failed policies. They see Bush's failure in Iraq and want to continue it. They see failure of leadership on the economy and want to repeat it. They see his assault on civil liberties and the disgraces of Guantanamo and want to carry them on.

Now, since this is meant for Democratic primary voters we can disregard the digs at Bush and look merely at the substance of what Hillary is saying.

She first says this about Iraq...

I'll end the war in Iraq?

My question is immediately when. Here is what Hillary Clinton said in a previous debate about pulling out of Iraq.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting,"

She went on not to commit to pulling out of Iraq before her first term were to end. Thus, while she gives her supporters the impression that she makes pulling out of Iraq a priority, she also doesn't even commit to pulling out of Iraq until after 2013. This dichotomy of positions is so easy to attack that I don't know where to begin. This is of course perfect for any advertisement. Also, depending what she says in any debate, her other position can also be used to bludgeon her.

Then, Hillary points out that Bush has conducted a war on science and mentions stem cell research. Here, like most Bush opponents on this matter, Hillary simply mischaracterizes Bush's position on the matter. Bush is not and never has been against stem cell research. In fact, the Bush administration has been funding stem cell research since 2001.

In a much-anticipated decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines.

Bush said there are about 60 existing stem cell lines in various research facilities -- cell lines that have already been derived from human embryos.

The president stopped short of allowing federal funding for research using stem cells derived from frozen embryos, about 100,000 of which exist at fertility labs across the country.

The question for the Bush administration always involved EMBRYONIC stem cells. Clinton doesn't say EMBRYONIC stem cells but rather an all encompassing stem cell research. Bush's position is that he doesn't want the federal government to fund research in which human life is created solely so that it can be destroyed and studied. Since this is a much more difficult position to attack, folks like Clinton try to inaccurately paint Bush as against stem cell research altogether. In this situation, as in any in which someone is not saying something accurate, Hillary needs to be confronted with the truth and see how she deals with it then. First, she must be held accountable for her mischaracterization of Bush's position. She isn't the only one and at this point I am sick of everyone mischaracterizing Bush. If you have to mischaracterize your opponents, then how strong can your position be?

Second, Clinton has to be confronted with this...if she is all right with science creating life solely so that it is destroyed, at what point does she see science as going too far? Is she against cloning for instance? After all, there are a lot of exciting possibilities in cloning? If she has no problem creating life to destroy in the name of science, why would she have a problem with cloning life in the name of science? Where would scientific research stop and morality and ethics start in her administration?

Next, she says that she would end the so called assault on civil liberties and mentions Gitmo by name. Since she doesn't specifiy which assualts, we can only assume that she means things like enhanced interrogations, warrantless wiretaps, military tribunals, and of course Gitmo altogether. Since she finds Gitmo so especially obscene, my first question would be where those prisoners would go. Most of their home countries don't want them. Does she plan on trying them in our own federal system? Does she understand that terrorists routinely kill the friends and families of those that they see as turning against them? Does she understand that any witnesses against any terrorist in any open court would immediately have their lives threatened? Given that, how exactly does she expect any terrorist to be convicted in any federal court?

As for enhanced interrogations and warrantless wiretapping, this creates another opportunity to paint Hillary as weak on national defense. First, I have always found the entire debate about warrantless wiretapping to be quite absurd. I don't know any other time in the history of warfare in which the President needed a judge's permission to spy on the enemy. Thus, proclaiming that the Commander in Chief is destroying civil liberties because he is spying on the enemy without a judge's permission is to me absurd. On a political level, it can be painted, rightfully so, as weak on national defense. Most of the Republican candidates have, rightly so, not identified what techniques they will and won't allow because then you are telegraphing that to the enemy. By coming out against Bush, as she has, Clinton has in fact told the enemy what she won't use. Because she sees anything outside basic police interrogation protocol as an erosion of civil rights, the enemy can prepare for the basic interrogation techniques that she will allow. This gives Republicans yet another chance to paint her as weak on national defense.

Now, anyone of us that knows Hillary knows that this is only scratching the surface as far as attacks on her, however since she has chosen to highlight these things to her supporters we can assume that these are her priorities, and this is how these priorities ought to be countered.

Is There a War on Christmas?

That was the question asked by the Chicago Sun Times in their editorials section. Andrea Sarvady argued that there is no war. Like most secular progressives, she made Bill O'Reilly the issue in her arguement that so called war on Christmas is overblown.

It's the "war" Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly and his "cultural
warriors" battle every December, trying to save Christmas. Frothing at the mouth for hours of air time, O'Reilly extrapolates from various church vs. state skirmishes and politically correct marketing efforts that there is a national conspiracy to eradicate Christmas.

It's ironic, because what this avowed patriot is actually railing against
couldn't be more American: the First Amendment.

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, explains the guiding principle -- simply, to "treat people of all faiths or none with fairness and respect." Therefore, holiday programs "shouldn't make any students feel excluded or identified with a religion not their own." Religious music shouldn't dominate a choral program, but can be included. Public seasonal displays should contain both secular and religious elements.

This is a peculiar perspective for several reasons. It starts with her peculiar interpretation of the first amendment. Here is the text from the Constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Now, I must have missed the part where it is against the first amendment to make someone feel uncomfortable. Second, Christmas is a federal holiday. Now, Ms. Sarvady would apparently have us celebrate this FEDERAL holiday without any mention of it anywhere in public. Third, O'Reilly isn't against displaying religious symbols from all the holidays of the season. He just feels as though Christmas shouldn't be singled out and not displayed. Here is how he put it.

The usual Christmas deniers are appalled the ACLU is not going to sue anybody this year. And that's because they lose almost every time they drag Christmas into court. And even those pinheads are tired of wasting money.

In Wisconsin, the state assembly has voted to restore the name of the
"Christmas tree" to the "Christmas tree". That's because they changed it to the "holiday tree". On Capitol Hill, the House voted yesterday 372 to 9 to recognize the "importance of the Christmas tradition and to condemn bigotry against Christians." And those who voted against that Ackerman and Clarke of New York, DeGette of Colorado, Hastings of Florida, McDermott of Washington state, Scott of Virginia, Lee, Woolsey, Stark of California.

So all over the country, the sights and signs of Christmas are on display. Few department stores are telling employees not to say a "Merry Christmas." And the Taliban like oppression of the holiday has largely ceased, but the SPs are not happy about that.

Sarvady's arguement totally falls apart for me with these next two points...

Some school and city officials choose to excise the holidays completely in order to avoid offense. Haynes, a consultant to school districts, feels that year-round education on various religions is a more effective way to mitigate the "December Dilemma."

Though well-versed on all sides of the issue, he still doesn't understand the attack on more all-encompassing greetings like "Happy Holidays," saying: "People who use that expression are just trying to be kind."

...

One of the more insidious aspects of this trumped-up "war" is an eagerness to blame everything on what Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council calls "overzealous secularist officials." Clever. Pretend the separation of church and state matters only to secular leftists and the rabid right won't sound like they're trying to propagate a religious crusade.

Isn't it amazing how someone supposedly stands up for the first amendment in one breathe and then finds nothing wrong with schools taking away everyone's ability to express their religious beliefs in the other? How exactly is this in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the first amendment?

Some school and city officials choose to excise the holidays completely in order to avoid offense...

I guess in the world of Ms. Sarvady taking away every religion's right to express itself is protecting the first amendment. Like I said, I didn't know that offending someone was a violation of the first amendment. Then Sarvady uses this strawman arguement.

Pretend the separation of church and state matters only to secular leftists and the rabid right won't sound like they're trying to propagate a religious crusade.

What's clever is pretending as though the separation of church and state is anywhere in the Constitution. The phrase the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, it was first used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter
written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [7]

This so called wall is not and never has meant to be to stop any and all religious expressions in the public square. The first amendment is supposed to keep Congress from favoring one religion over another. Now, some might argue that making Christmas a federal holiday violates that principle, however that is found nowhere in Sarvady's arguement. Since she knows that removing Christmas as a federal holiday is frankly a non starter, she makes all of these other arguements. Arguements that only make sense in the alter universe of the secular progressive.

A Massachusetts Law, A Massachusetts Non Law: The Case Study Against Secular Progressivism

Jessica Lunsford was a nine-year-old girl who was abducted from her home in Homosassa, Florida on February 23, 2005, then raped and murdered by 47-year-old John Couey. The case sparked controversy and in many ways it created the sort of critical mass necessary for serious and meaningful action against child predators.

In its aftermath, Jessica's Law was created first in her homestate of Florida and then (especially with the backing of her father Mark Lunsford and television bloviator Bill O'Reilly) throughout much of the rest of the country.

Here are the main components of Jessica's Law:

a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison[1] and lifetime electronic monitoring[2] of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole.[3]

Currently, only seven states have no intention of passing any form of Jessica's Law: New Jersey, Hawaii, Wyoming, Colorado, Vermont, Idaho, and Massachusetts.

In fact, Massachusetts' record on child predators is so weak that it is downright scary and dangerous for children.

in June 1999, George Roy was charged with sexual assault of a four-year old girl
in Springfield. Roy had been given a two-year suspended sentence with probation
in 1991, but never registered as a sex offender, although he had been registered
to vote all the while.

In June 1999, Michael Vick, a Lynn man with a history of convictions for breaking and entering and sex offenses was arrested for molesting a four-month old boy in Revere. A judge had lowered Vick’s bail in an October rape case from $25,000 to $5,000 in February, because the District Attorney did not take the opportunity to show the court that Vick was dangerous. The DA said that he did not want to harm the child victim in a dangerousness hearing, but a court official told Massachusetts News that a judge might have granted the petition even without the testimony of the victim. "An attempt should have been made by the District Attorney," the official said.

In November 1998, Eben Hoyt was arrested for dozens of child rapes while on
probation, and while registered as a sex offender. Hoyt, a former Methuen school bus driver, pleaded guilty to molesting an eight-year old in 1996. He plea-bargained to avoid prison and was placed on probation.

In January 1999, a twice-convicted sex offender was arrested for raping a four-year old boy in Northboro.

Last fall, Frederick Wyatt used a 1994 Massachusetts law that allows convicted sex offenders to persuade a jury (rather than a judge) that they are no longer sexually dangerous. Wyatt refused treatment during his fifteen years in the Bridgewater Treatment Center for the Sexually Dangerous. State officials warned that Wyatt remained a danger and called for stronger criminal penalties and sex offender registration laws. Wyatt moved to Ohio after his release.

This April, Brian Nagle, who had been convicted of sex crimes in 1987 and 1996, and was registered as a level III (most dangerous) sex offender, raped a six-year old boy in Amesbury, was sentenced to life in prison, but will be eligible for parole after fifteen years.

Currently in Massachusetts, the guidelines for sexual assault against a child under thirteen is an absurd three years in prison. That's because, in the absurd view of the secular progressives that run the states, child predators need treatment not punishment.

Now, while the state of Massachusetts seems to be quite lax when it comes to child predators, they are quite gung ho in protecting children from other "abuse": spanking.

Kids out of line? Spanking might not be an option in Massachusetts if a proposal takes hold in the state legislature.

The proposal, submitted by a nurse, would ban corporal punishment, including spanking, in all cases for children under 18 unless it is to save them from danger. Parents would face charges of abuse or neglect, according to The Boston Herald.
Click here to read the full report in The Boston Herald.

A hearing and debate is scheduled in the State House on the measure Wednesday, the paper reports.Democratic state Rep. Jay Kaufman introduced the measure on
behalf of the nurse, but isn't taking a position on it.

Here is another view of the proposed law to ban spanking by parents of their children.

Massachusetts lawmakers say a proposed measure that would ban parents from spanking their children, even in their own homes, is a way to protect kids from abuse. But many parents believe it's an example of government run amok.

In all 50 states, parents are legally allowed to spank their children. But in 29 states it's illegal for a teacher to practice corporal punishment, including spanking.

A Massachusetts nurse is hoping to change that and make the state the first in the nation to ban corporal punishment at home.

"I think it's ironic that domestic violence applies to everyone except the most vulnerable  children," said Kathleen Wolf, who wrote the bill.

I am not necessarily a huge fan of spanking, however it is not only ironic but downright shameful that a state moves quicker to stop parents from deciding for themselves what punishment their kids should have than they do from protecting children from actual child predators.

Such is the absurd and perverse world view of the secular progressives. In their world, all criminals need treatment not punishment. At the same time, parenting decisions are taken away from the parents and controlled rather by the states. In some sense, child predators have more rights than parents.

Make no mistake, this is exactly the culture war that O'Reilly was talking about in his book Culture Warrior. If anyone wants to know just how the world would look if the secular progressives ever got power, they only need to look at the absurd dichotomy of these two areas in Massachusetts.

Shooting the Messenger: The Chronicle, The Catholic Church, and Gay Militants

On October 6th, two members of the gay militant group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence entered mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church and took communion. Dressed in drag with full face paint their goal was to no doubt mock the proceedings. They even went so far as to film their deeds. This was not only a sacreligious act but an act of vandalism and trespassing. If this had been done in a mosque or a synagogue, the media attention would have been overwhelming.

Since it was done in a church, the only media attention was from Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor

Another outrage in San Francisco and this one is very hard to believe. As you may know, San Francisco is run by far left secular-progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion. Not everybody in San Francisco feels that way, but certainly the power structure does. Time and again, we have brought you stories of outrageous behavior on the part of militant people living in that city.

Now, things have reached critical mass, no pun intended. Last Sunday, at the Catholic Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, Archbishop George Niederauer was celebrating mass. As part of that ritual, holy communion is given to Catholics by the celebrants. Two gay militants in bizarre dress took communion from the archbishop in an attempt to mock the mass and the man. — The people who did this are members of a militant homosexual group that runs around San Francisco dressed as nuns.

All city officials are aware of the group because in the past they have publicly demeaned Christianity. The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has refused to comment.
The District Attorney, Kamala Harris, says she is waiting for a complaint to be filed.
The Catholic Church says it will do its own investigation and doesn't want the police involved at this point. The archbishop has apologized, saying he's embarrassed and sorry he gave communion to people committing sacrilege.

But it really is not the archbishop's fault. — He is an elderly man who was taken by surprise. The fault here lies with the leadership of San Francisco. Mayor Newsom has consistently avoided criticizing behavior that is harmful.

Anyone that watched any of the reporting by O'Reilly knows there was genuine rage at this act. The rest of the media was in total blackout however. In fact, the local paper, The San Francisco Chronicle, didn't say a word until ten days later (no doubt under the pressure that O'Reilly was creating) when they finally wrote this.

It was a typical Sunday Mass until two men in heavy makeup and nuns' habits received Holy Communion from San Francisco's top Catholic official.

On Oct. 7, Archbishop George Niederauer delivered the Eucharist to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - an activist group whose motto is "go forth and sin some more" - prompting cries of outrage from conservatives across the country and Catholics in San Francisco.

In response to a request for comment, Niederauer released a letter of apology addressed to "Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large" in which he said he did not realize his mistake until after the Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district.

In fact, the story was largely uncritical of the militants who intruded upon mass in order to mock and ridicule the proceedings. The Chronicle really only had any strong criticism for one person, Bill O'Reilly, as they quoted their mayor, Gavin Newsom.

"This debate really is about San Francisco values. The Bill O'Reillys of the world are threatened by San Francisco because we value diversity, universal health care and civil rights for all. They will exploit any controversy to attack our values."

In fact, San Francisco values are the larger story. In San Francisco, The boy scouts are shunned because of their policy against openly gay scout leaders. They also shun the U.S. navy. They even shun the Junior ROTC. In fact, their school board commissioner once said that we don't need a military.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Should we give up our weaponry? Should we give up
our war, our tools of war?

GERARDO SANDOVAL, SAN FRANCISCO CITY SUPERVISOR:
You know that's a very complicated question, but I would say, if you forced me to answer, I would say, yes, we should...

(CROSSTALK)

ALAN COLMES,
CO-HOST: Let me ask you a question, Gerardo. This is Alan in New York.

SANDOVAL: Hey, Alan.

COLMES: Should we not have a
military?
SANDOVAL: I don't think we should have a military.

At the same time, tax payer money goes to support a gay street fair which used a poster to mock the Last Supper. Their homeless problem is out of control. Medical marijuana is available to anyone with any imagination. Now, we have gay militants mocking the Catholic Church. The media refuses to cover it, and the mayor attacks the one messenger that is covering it.

Damn right, Mayor Newsom, this is about San Francisco values, however to most of us, with sense, that is not meant as a positive.

In fact, folks anyone that wants to know what George Soros social vision would look like need only go look at San Francisco for direction.