What does Russia think of Rosie?

Saint Petersburg City... what do you think of Rosie's mouth?

Rosie in a Mouth Trap

 

It isn't very often you actually catch a liberal caught in a trap of their own making... and when it's an overweight lesbian (As I'm sure we can't say 'fat' nowadays), but what a sight it is. Rosie's mouth dug her a hole that even she couldn't scream her way out of. So thank goodness, she crawled away like the cockroach she is. It took a bit of looking to find the transcript of what happened, but here it is. Have a look at an angry liberal.....

 

 

 

 

 

JOY BEHAR: I was watching Al Gore on, on "Larry King" last night and, you know, he has a new book out, Al Gore, where he basically really says that Bush was the worst president that we've ever had in the history of the country. And I noticed that Jimmy Carter, a former president, is saying the same thing. So now if the former president Jimmy Carter is saying it and a former vice president of the United States is saying it and I have a list here of the things that Bush has done. I don't really understand why he's still there. Does anyone have any idea why we can't get rid of this guy who stole the election in 2000, killed the surplus with tax cuts –

 

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: According to Gore he stole it.

 

BEHAR: Wait a minute. It's very long. Wanting to privatize social security. Let me get through the list.

 

HASSELBECK: It's very long, so we might be here for a while.

 

BEHAR: We might be here for a while. I let you talk yesterday. Now I'm talking. And I love her, but let me do this. He withdrew us from the Kyoto Treaty, John Ashcroft. Sat in the classroom after learning about 9/11 --

 

HASSELBECK: So he was supposed to freak out the kids when he was reading to them, I suppose.

 

BEHAR: And read "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes after we were attacked on 9/11.

 

HASSELBECK: Right, he should have definitely panicked the children.

 

BEHAR: He lied to us to get us into the war. He awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton, Abu Ghraib. He promoted his friend Michael Brown to take care of Katrina. Heck of a job, Brownie. Remember that? He doesn't listen to the Iraq Study Group. He choked on a pretzel. [laughter] He waited a week to visit New Orleans and then only to watch some jazz. He stood by Alberto Gonzales, who needs to be thrown out, we all know that, and he stood by Rumsfeld, who some people think is a war criminal. He can't pronounce the word "nuclear." [laughter] These are just some of the reasons -- [Applause] -- That this guy needs to be thrown out of office.

 

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Yes, but he didn't sleep with an intern.

 

[laughter]

 

BEHAR: Yes, but maybe he should.

 

HASSELBECK: No, he did not.

 

BEHAR: I'm just saying something is wrong in this country when we are continuing to support this administration. I am furious today over all of this and Al Gore makes me mad because he doesn't run. Now, he says in the interview yesterday with Larry King that he's not running because he thinks global warming is more important. Well, the president of the United States has more power than anybody in the world and he needs to run for office if he wants to fix global warming and get us out of this mess that we're in.

 

SHEPHERD: You think Al Gore could get us out, Al Gore?

 

BEHAR: Who else could? Who else could?

 

HASSELBECK: I knew I liked you, Sherri.

 

SHEPHERD: No I'm just saying, Al Gore, you know what he's talking about with the Green Peace and everything, but you really think Al Gore is the one to get us out of this mess?

 

BEHAR: Why not?

 

HASSELBECK: What's his plan to keep us safe other than, in terms of the evironment?

 

BEHAR: He has a plan, read the book. He has a lot of plans in that book.

 

HASSELBECK: I'm sure he does.

 

BEHAR: He doesn't just criticize the president. He also criticizes the media. He says when we had that O.J. Simpson trial, he thought that was an aberration and we would not be so stupid as to be watching nonsense like that constantly, that CNN was constantly doing. But it's not an aberration.

 

HASSELBECK: Isn't he using the media to promote his books and films?

 

BEHAR: And we watch "Dancing with the Stars" instead of dealing with what's going on--

 

HASSELBECK: No, not instead of, not instead of. You can watch "Dancing with the Stars" and also watch a lot of things that pertain to world politics, news safety, etcetera, absolutely.

 

BEHAR: How many people watched him speak on CNN? I'd like to know.

 

HASSELBECK: It's called Tivo.

 

BEHAR: I'm just wondering.

 

SHEPHERD: I'm sorry. I wanted to see Laila and Apollo, but I did.

 

HASSELBECK: I don't think you're a bad person.

 

BEHAR: I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm just saying nobody is interested.

 

HASSELBECK: People are interested. They just can do it on their own time. We're in a situation now where technology allows us to do it.

 

BEHAR: We need to be furious. This country needs to be furious with what's going on.

 

[Applause]

 

HASSELBECK: It's called the election. You have- here is your opportunity, okay. You have, we're a democratic society, you have the election in 2008 to change things.

 

BEHAR: Do you know how much damage this guy can do in a year and a half? He can invade Iran for all I know.

 

HASSELBECK: With Congress now as is?

 

BEHAR: Congress cannot pass anything because he, he vetoes it and they can't override it because his cronies in the Republican party stick by this president for political reasons.

 

[applause]

 

HASSELBECK: They stick by him for not demanding a pullout date for the troops, which is essentially saying to your enemies, I don't know any team out there. I don't have any strategy that says-

 

BEHAR: He doesn't have a plan.

 

HASSELBECK: -Here is the date that we are going to leave.

 

ROSIE O'DONNELL: To our enemies?

 

HASSELBECK: To our enemies, this is when we are going to pull out.

 

O'DONNELL: The enemies in Iraq?

 

HASSELBECK: Al Qaeda.

 

O'DONNELL: Wait, the enemies in Iraq?

 

HASSELBECK: Al Qaeda.

 

BEHAR: He didn't even go after Osama Bin Laden when he was supposed to.

 

O'DONNELL: Elisabeth did, wait Joy. You just said our enemies in Iraq. Did Iraq attack us?

 

HASSELBECK: No. I'm saying Al Qaeda which is in Iraq.

 

O'DONNELL: Okay did Iraq talk us, Elisabeth?

 

HASSELBECK: Iraq did not attack us Rosie.

 

O'DONNELL: Correct.

 

HASSELBECK: We've been there before. I'm saying our enemies, Al Qaeda, are you hearing that?

 

O'DONNELL: I hear it. But where do you want to go?

 

BEHAR: This is a political discussion. Don't interview each other. Just say what you mean.

 

HASSELBECK: If you're playing a game, okay, if you're playing a game and I'm going to say okay I'm going to throw to my wide receiver, wide right, okay. Do you do that- what does it do for your enemy? It gives them time to plan.

 

O'DONNELL: If the enemy are innocent civilians, I don't want to play that kind of football.

 

[applause]

 

HASSELBECK: The enemy are not innocent civilians.

 

O'DONNELL: Iraq did not attack us!

 

BEHAR: Don't yell at each other. Please let's have a conversation.

 

O'DONNELL: You know why I don't want to do this, Joy? Let me tell you why I don't want to do this. Because it here's how it gets spun in the media: Rosie, big, fat, lesbian loud Rosie attacks innocent, pure, Christian Elisabeth.

 

BEHAR: Wait a minute. You don't have to, let me do it!

 

HASSELBECK: I haven't heard that line. Listen, I think it's unfair.

 

O'DONNELL: You should watch some of the shows you don't watch.

 

HASSELBECK: You accused me of watching all of those shows yesterday.

 

BEHAR: I'm okay arguing with Elisabeth.

 

O'DONNELL: You're just as sensitive when I'm hurt as I am when you were. Every time you were hurt, did I reach out to you?

 

BEHAR: Why is this personal? There's a war going on out there. It's not personal.

 

SHEPHERD: You know, this is why I like watching "Dancing with the Stars." This is exactly why.

 

[Applause]

 

HASSELBECK: I just don't understand why it's my fault if people spin words that you put out there or phrases that suggest things. And I gave you a opportunity, two days ago, to clarify the statement that got you in trouble on all those issues.

 

O'DONNELL: That, that got me in trouble. As a friend, you gave me the opportunity. That was very sweet of you. What I was asking is you, who actually knows me, do you believe I think our troops are terrorists, Elisabeth?

 

HASSELBECK: I don't think that you --

 

O'DONNELL: Yes or no?

 

HASSELBECK: I don't believe that you–

 

O'DONNELL: Do you believe that, yes or no?

 

HASSELBECK: Excuse me. Let me speak.

 

O'DONNELL: You're going to double speak. It's just a yes or no.

 

HASSELBECK: I am not a double speaker and I don't put suggestions out there that lead people to think things and then not answer my own question.

 

O'DONNELL: I have a question to you and you didn't answer it.

 

HASSELBECK: I don't believe that you believe troops are terrorists. I have said that before. But when you say something like 650,000 Iraqis are dead, we invaded them.

 

O'DONNELL: It's true.

 

HASSELBECK: Let me finish, "who are the terrorist?"

 

O'DONNELL: You don't like the facts.

 

HASSELBECK: I'm all about facts. You know that. You tell me not to use facts because you want me to go only on emotion. Guess what? I like facts.

 

O'DONNELL: You cherry pick the facts you like.

 

BEHAR: Did I or did I not give this panel a list of facts?

 

[Applause]

 

SHEPHERD: And you know what? Oh my gosh! We're going to be right back with Alicia Silverstone!

 

[applause]

 

O'DONNELL: No, no, no we're not. Because we have a lot more time.

 

BEHAR: If you want to change the subject, that's something.

 

HASSELBECK: People were criticizing you for saying that because it suggested-

 

BEHAR: Oh, my God!

 

HASSELBECK: I said take your opportunity now. You have a show right now to tell the world --

 

O'DONNELL: I did take my opportunity to tell the world. I wanted to know what people like you, but you are my friend, since September, do you believe that I think our troops are terrorists? And you would not even look me in the face, Elisabeth, and say no, Rosie.

 

HASSELBECK: What are you talking about?

 

O'DONNELL: "I can understand how people are would have thought that, why don't you take this opportunity" like I'm six.

 

HASSELBECK: Because you are an adult and I'm certainly not going to be the person for you to explain your thoughts to. They're your thoughts. Defend your own insinuations.

 

[applause]

 

O'DONNELL: I defend my thoughts.

 

HASSELBECK: Defend your own thoughts.

 

O'DONNELL: Right, but every time I defend them, Elisabeth, it's poor little Elisabeth that I'm picking on.

 

HASSELBECK: You know what? Poor little Elisabeth is not poor little Elisabeth.

 

O'DONNELL: That's right. That's why I'm not going to fight with you anymore because it's absurd. So for three weeks you can say all the Republican crap you want.

 

HASSELBECK: It's much easier to fight someone like Donald Trump, isn't it? Because he's obnoxious.

 

O'DONNELL: I've never fought him. He fought me. I told a fact about him --

 

BEHAR: How did I get out of this conversation? I was in the middle of this conversation.

 

HASSELBECK: I gave you an opportunity to clarify.

 

O'DONNELL: You didn't give me anything. You don't have to give me. I asked you a question.

 

HASSELBECK: I asked you a question.

 

O'DONNELL: And you wouldn't even answer it.

 

HASSELBECK: You wouldn't even answer your own question.

 

O'DONNELL: Oh Elisabeth, I don't want- you know what? You really don't understand what I'm saying?

 

HASSELBECK: I understand what you're saying.

 

BEHAR: Let's go. Come on that's it!

 

[Applause]

 

HASSELBECK: I think it's sad. I think it's sad because I don't understand how there can be such hurt feelings when all I did way say, "look, why don't you tell everybody what you said?" I did that as a friend

 

O'DONNELL: All you did is not defend me. I asked you if you believe that I thought--

 

HASSELBECK: You didn't answer your own question. I don't believe that you're defending-

 

O'DONNELL: Elisabeth, every day since September I have told you I support the troops.

 

HASSELBECK: I have done the same for you.

 

O'DONNELL: I asked you if you believed what the Republican pundits were saying.

 

HASSELBECK: Did I say yes?

 

O'DONNELL: You said nothing and that's cowardly.

 

HASSELBECK: No, no, no. Do not, do not call me a coward. Because number one, I sit here every single day and open my heart and tell people exactly what I believe. Do not call me a coward, Rosie. I do not hide. I was not cowardly. It was honest.

 

O'DONNELL: It was.

 

HASSELBECK: What is cowardly?

 

BEHAR: Is there no commercial on this show?

 

[Applause]

 

HASSELBECK: Asking, asking, I'll tell you what's cowardly. Asking a rhetorical question that you never answer yourself.

 

BEHAR: Who is directing this show? Let's go to commercial. Let's go to commercial.

 

HASSELBECK: I need a drink of water. Let's go to commercial.

 

BEHAR: Man oh man.

 

SHEPHERD: How is the baby? Is the baby-

 

HASSELBECK: The baby's fine.

 

 

Revolution

Immigration reform is in the news again, primarily because the new Congress
(that was supposed to have solved all of our problems by now) can't manage
to do anything else and has pretty much made a complete and utter ballsup of
their victory and all that was supposed to do, to rescue the constitution
and the country and end the war just by quitting. And let's be clear on
that. They aren't talking winning. They're talking losing... already lost in
fact, and uh.... we're just gonna quit. And that's supposed to be a good
thing. Don't get me wrong. I hate the fact that we're there. I hate the fact
that our soldiers are being slaughtered over there and their parliament can
take a vacation! Hello! Our blood is buying you time to fix your country.
You don't have time for a vacation! So yeah, I hate that we're losing a
generation of brave people. It really breaks my heart. But we made the damn
mess. We have to fix it. Quitting may get you reelected (and that's all
you're trying to do, isn't it?), but just as with all liberal policies,
somebody else pays for it later. You can't take the easy way out and expect
it to really work. You don't have a plan for the war or the country. You
have a plan to get some power and keep it. That's it. Nothing more. And so
yes, how about immigration reform. Well that's a case where you can appeal
to your voters/slaves, take the easy way, PC way out... and actually take
the best course. And that's because this country has, for so long, ignored
the flood of illegal immigrants, primarily from Mexico, and now we've got a
problem that won't be solved by doing what we should do. Twelve million
illegal immigrants (each one insisting that they aren't criminals. Please
explain that to me. How do you break a law but not be a criminal?) are now a
part of our economy. We need them. And even if they weren't a large part of
our economy, the sheer logistics of forcibly removing twelve million illegal
(non-criminal!?) immigrants makes the idea impractical. Probably impossible.
We'd need all the troops back from both wars to go through every state in
the union to go house to house checking for paperwork that is probably
forged anyway, and marching the illegals back where they came from. It is
impossible. So the best we can do is offer them a good enough deal so that
they'll present themselves for documentation. Then they go on a program that
puts them on a path to legality. Citizenship? Hell no. My wife is from New
Zealand, and she is jumping through hoops just to get a work permit. No way
in hell some criminal gets any easy way to citizenship. Amnesty? Hell no.
You broke the law. Admit it. Why is it you can't say the word ILLEGAL?

Really, what we need to do is look at why millions of mexicans are streaming
across the border... with the aid of the Mexican government. As a country,
Mexico is ridiculously rich, but the government is so corrupt that the
people do not benefit from that until they're trying to leave. It's an
absolute crime, and they've demonstrated through successive administrations
that it doesn't matter who is in charge. Nothing will change. How in hell
they can complain about US immigration policy is beyond me. That's like
Hitler complaining about how easy it was invade France. The fact is that
what needs to happen is a complete militarization of the southern border,
and then a change in Mexico. Not another election that changes nothing, but
in fact a bloody bloody revolution that really changes the country. The
Mexican government does nothing whatsoever to discourage its people from
running away... and they won't, because they're getting rich from that mass
evacuation. Shame on you, Mexican government. And Viva La Raza!

Visitors....

I have to say that I am fascinated to see where readers come from. I see that I have a viewer from Beirut, Lebanon. Please tell me how you found my site, and even if you disagree, what you think of what you see. Communication is really what makes things work in the world...


Kapact

What? He can't be a bigot!!!

Here's something for anyone who thinks that any liberal is a saint, or that a black person... (oh! Excuse me! An "African American"!) Can't, by definition, be a bigot.... It all comes from CNN... I didn't write it. But you should read it. 

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who led the charge to have radio host Don Imus fired for making racially insensitive remarks, is now under fire for a comment about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

During a debate on religion and politics at the New York Public Library with atheist author Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that. That's a temporary situation."

On the campaign trail in Iowa Wednesday, Romney fired back, calling Sharpton's comment "terribly misguided." (Watch Romney call Sharpton's words 'bigoted' )

"It shows that bigotry still exists in some corners," Romney said. "I thought it was a most unfortunate comment to make."

Asked if he thought Sharpton is a bigot, the former Massachusetts governor said, "I don't know Rev. Sharpton. I doubt he is personally such a thing. But the comment was a comment which could be described as a bigoted comment.

"Perhaps he didn't mean it that way, but the way it came out was inappropriate and wrong."

Sharpton said his remarks were being taken out of context and that he was responding to an attack by Hitchens, who, he said, had charged that the Mormon Church supported segregation until the 1960s.

"In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon Church when I responded that other believers, not atheists, would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons," Sharpton said in a written statement.

He also accused Romney's campaign of engaging in "a blatant effort to fabricate a controversy to help their lagging campaign."

Sharpton told The Associated Press that "[Mormons] don't believe in God the way I do, but, by definition, they believe in God."

Sharpton was licensed as a minister in the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly black Pentecostal denomination, at the age of 9, according to a biography on the Web site of his National Action Network. He became a Baptist in the 1980s.

His debate Monday with Hitchens -- who is on a tour promoting a new book that rejects God -- revolved around religion and politics. Minutes before Sharpton's controversial comment was made, the discussion turned toward the idea of a Mormon running for president, then moved to a conversation about the role of faith in politics.

Romney is a member of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known informally as the Mormon Church. If elected, he would be the first Mormon to serve in the White House.

His religion has come up as an issue in the 2008 campaign because many conservative and evangelical Protestants, who make up an important constituency in the GOP base, do not consider Mormons to be Christians, because of their unique beliefs.

The LDS Church was founded in the 1830s by Joseph Smith -- revered by members as a prophet of God -- who taught that a new book of scripture, the Book of Mormon, had been revealed to him by an angel. Adherents eventually relocated to Utah in 1847, after Smith was killed by a mob in Illinois.

Some church leaders practiced plural marriage in the 19th century, but the church officially ended the practice in 1890 and has since excommunicated polygamists from its ranks.

The church has about 5 million adherents in the United States.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll last year found that 34 percent of Americans considered the LDS Church to be Christian, 35 percent did not and 31 percent were unsure. In a Gallup/USA Today poll in February, 72 percent of Americans said they would be comfortable voting for a Mormon for president, but 24 percent said they would not.

"I think it's sad, honestly," Republican strategist Ralph Reed said of the Sharpton controversy on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "I don't think there's any place in politics for religious intolerance in any of its ugly forms.

"And I think if Gov. Romney took it that way, then whatever Al Sharpton meant, then I think the best thing to do and the most healing thing to do, so that we can have an uplifting dialogue about faith in the political and civic process, is for Rev. Sharpton to apologize."

Democratic strategist James Carville told Cooper he believes Sharpton when he says he didn't mean to disparage the Mormon faith.

"The main point here is that Mormons have served this country honorably and with integrity for a long, long time, and ... it would be a very big mistake not to vote for someone based on their faith -- Mormon faith or any other faith," Carville said.

Romney said Wednesday that he hears little concern about his religion from voters on the campaign trail.

"Overwhelmingly, the people I talk to believe that we elect a person to lead the nation not based on what church they go to, but based on their values and their vision," he said. "I received very little comment of the nature coming from Rev. Sharpton."

Hello New Zealand?

I've had very little contact from friends in New Zealand, which bothers me.
My relationship with that country has been at times a bit edgy, but I really
love that country and it's people. For those of you silent multitudes out
there who don't know, I'm an American married to a Kiwi lady. I was down
there for almost three years, Sadly for me, it was when America invaded
Iraq. And at the time, a girl I worked with asked me if I hated all Iraqis.
I said I didn't know them, so how could I hate them? I said it was a
decision by my government, really for the purpose of taking out a murderous
dictator and freeing the Iraqi people. She seemed to understand that. But
then there were idiots who threw food at me and swore at me... because of my
accent. My accent. Others backed me up in public and demanded to know how I
voted. There was even a Pastor who accepted an invitation into my home
before launching into a tirade against America and Americans. This was a
religious man. Do you see what I'm saying? I invited the man into my
home.... gave him a cup of coffee and a biscuit just so he could insult me
and my country. I even tried to agree with him, just to settle him down. All
it did was spur him on. And this enlightened, laid back bastion of liberal
love and tolerance treated me like a criminal based upon nothing but my
accent. And even so, I met lots of really nice people, and I'd love to go
back there. But I don't hear from my friends there. C'mon New Zealand! Don't
you have a comment? See, I worry that my rants have alienated my friends in
New Zealand. And I really believe that Islam is going to hit New Zealand,
and in a big way. Its already there, in Palmerston North. You could say that
a Mosque is harmless, but Islam has more than a Mosque in the south pacific.
The Bali bombings weren't accidents, and there were Kiwi's killed there. So
you know, they're close and getting closer. It's come out recently that some
bombings had been averted in Australia. So how can New Zealand just sit
there and ignore the threat that Islam openly presents? Really, what will it
take? Is it going to take a car bomb in Auckland to wake you up? Al Zawahiri
has been in your country. Some of the 9/11 hijackers trained in Palmerston
North. They've already killed some of you. So what will it take? An Air New
Zealand flight taking out the skytower? Al Qaeda bought an election in Spain
with a few explosives in a train station. Is that in the plan for New
Zealand? I'll tell you something that bothers me about what I see there, and
what I see here. At the same time we are really bending over backwards to
appease (and that is the word you should remember.... Google 'Neville
Chamberlain' and 'appeasement'. Toss in 'Adolf Hitler' while you're at it)
Islam, we are pre-judging (Google 'prejudice' too) Christians who are doing
nothing worse than alerting people to a grave threat. David W, you should
know that the Dannevirke News totally discounted your feedback to my column,
based on nothing but the fact that you're a Christian. I guess if you were a
Muslim they'd care about what you have to say. I guess if you preached an
intolerant religion that tells its followers to kill anyone with different
beliefs, you'd be worth acknowledgement. Take heart, Dave. New Zealand
hasn't been overrun. Yet. But the more silence the rest of the world gets
from New Zealand, the less time you have before a bomb goes off on one of
the islands. I will make a prediction, though. When the first bomb goes off,
Islam will not be blamed, even if they claim responsibility. Blame will be
pointed at the average Joe Blog, for not being more sensitive to the needs
of this 'peaceful religion'.

So. New Zealand... what do you have to say to that?

Why We Can't Believe Hillary...

 

 

            [The Houston Chronicle, 1995]

 

            Taking a weekend break from official duties on her Asian tour, the
            first lady escaped already-remote Katmandu and traveled two hours by
            prop plane, land rover and rowboat to the Tiger Tops Jungle Lodge.

 

            Later, she got to meet Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach
            Mount Everest's summit in 1953.

 

            Sir Edmund Hillary, a frequent visitor and benefactor of Nepal since
            his historic trek, had a brief Hillary-to-Hillary handshake at the
            Katmandu airport before Clinton departed Sunday for Bangladesh.

 

            The first lady said her mother had read about the famous climber and
            knew his name had two L's.

 

            "So when I was born, she called me Hillary and she always told me,
            'It's because of Sir Edmund Hillary,'" Hillary Clinton reported.1

 

 

 

            [The New York Times, 1995]

 

            For her part, Mrs. Clinton confessed that her mother, Dorothy
            Rodham, had read an article about the intrepid Edmund Hillary, a
            one-time beekeeper who had taken to mountain climbing, when she was
            pregnant with her daughter in 1947 and liked the name.

 

            "It had two l's, which is how she thought she was supposed to spell
            Hillary," Mrs. Clinton told reporters after the brief meeting on the
            tarmac, minutes before her Air Force jet flew past the peak of
            Everest itself. "So when I was born, she called me Hillary, and she
            always told me it's because of Sir Edmund Hillary."2

 

      Origins:   During a stop in Nepal while on a south Asian goodwill tour in
      April 
      1995, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a brief (and reportedly
      coincidental) meeting with Sir Edmund Hillary (who, along with Tenzing
      Norgay, became the first person to reach the summit of the world's highest
      mountain, Mt. Everest, in 1953) and told reporters she had been named
      after the famed mountain climber. The notion that Ms. Clinton's given name
      was inspired by the man who conquered Everest was almost certainly a bit
      of fiction invented for political expediency (as many critics have noted,
      Edmund Hillary didn't become world-famous until six years after Hillary
      Rodham was born), but there are some subtleties to this claim which should
      be considered:
        Hillary Clinton said her mother, Dorothy Rodham, "had read an article
        about the intrepid Edmund Hillary, a one-time beekeeper who had taken to
        mountain climbing, when she was pregnant in 1947 and liked the name."
        Although it is true that Edmund Hillary did not perform the feat that
        made him a household name throughout the English-speaking world until
        1953 (by which time Hillary Rodham was already six years old), it is 
        not true, as many skeptics have asserted, that Edmund Hillary was
        nothing more than an obscure Auckland beekeeper until then. Even before
        World War II he was already a serious mountain climber who boasted to a
        friend that "some day I'm going to climb Everest," and by 1947 he was
        honing the necessary skills on the peaks of the Southern Alps. It's
        certainly possible young Edmund was profiled in some periodical as far
        back in 1947.

 

        However, how likely was Dorothy Rodham, a Chicago housewife, to have
        seen an article about a New Zealand mountain climber? We performed a
        comprehensive search of several major American newspapers (including the
        Chicago Tribune) and found that none of them made any mention of Edmund
        Hillary whatsoever prior to June 1953, so it's fair to say that the
        American media paid him little note prior to his successful assault on
        Mt. Everest that year.
        Whether or not Dorothy Rodham might have come across mention of Edmund
        Hillary in 1947, the story about her daughter's name doesn't quite jibe
        with the circumstances. Depending upon how one interprets Hillary
        Clinton's claim, either seeing Edmund Hillary's name in print inspired
        her mother to name her 'Hillary' (even though she came across it being
        used a surname rather than a first name), or it inspired her to use the
        less-common spelling of 'Hillary' rather than 'Hilary' when naming her
        daughter. However, 'Hilary' (spelled with one 'l') was a common woman's
        name which Dorothy Rodham would undoubtedly already have seen and heard
        hundreds of times before reading about Edmund Hillary, and the two-l
        spelling, while less common, was one she was far more likely to have
        encountered reading about persons (both male and female) much more
        prominent than Edmund Hillary in 1947, such as film actress Hillary
        Brooke and Cornell football and basketball star Hillary Chollet.
        The tidbit of information that Hillary Clinton was named for Edmund
        Hillary does not appear in any news stories about the First Lady written
        prior to her 1995 south Asian tour, and every appearance of it in news
        articles since then refers to that single 1995 account. If Hillary
        Clinton thought an anecdote about the origins of her name was
        entertaining enough to repeat to the press when she met Sir Edmund
        Hillary in 1995, how come she never mentioned it at any other time,
        before or since?

 

        Moreover, none of the many Hillary Clinton biographies we checked so
        much as mentioned the story, not even Living History, her 2003
        autobiography. A staggering amount of information has been published
        about Hillary Rodham Clinton in her lifetime (going all the way back to
        her days as a Wellesley College graduate in 1969, when she was featured
        in Life magazine); that she disclosed a basic fact such as how she got
        her name only once in all that time is rather incredible. (The only
        other mention of Hillary Clinton's connection to Edmund Hillary was made
        by her husband, former president Bill Clinton, in his 2004
        autobiography.)
      We opined back in 2003 that Hillary Clinton's claim about being Edmund
      Hillary's namesake might not have been completely false since she didn't
      say she was actually named for the mountain climber, but rather that her
      mother told her she was named for him — a minor but important distinction
      given how often parents make up harmless little fibs to amuse their
      children or misremember past events. Indeed, in October 2006 this was the
      excuse a spokesperson for her campaign provided in officially discounting
      the story:
      For more than a decade, one piece of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's
      informal biography has been that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the
      conqueror of Mount Everest. The story was even recounted in Bill Clinton's
      autobiography.

 

      But yesterday, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said she was not named for Sir
      Edmund after all.

 

      "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her
      daughter, to great results I might add," said Jennifer Hanley, a
      spokeswoman for the campaign. 3
      We still find this explanation rather incredible. In order to accept it,
      one has to believe that only after Hillary Clinton was nearly 60 years
      old, and only after she had been pilloried in the press for more than ten
      years for claiming she had been named after someone who was virtually
      unknown in the U.S. at the time of her birth, and only after her husband
      had unknowingly presented the fictitious story as true in his own
      autobiography, did her mother finally confess that the "sweet family
      story" she told her daughter wasn't the truth. (Hillary Clinton doesn't
      have the excuse that other people were spreading a falsehood about her, as
      she herself was the one who initiated the claim back in 1995.)

 

 

     

Reagan Wannabes

I saw on the news today that the Republican presidential hopefulls are
holding a.debate at the Reagan library. This is wonderful symbolism... and
worthy of their liberal apponents. They are all claiming the Reagan legacy,
but none of them really seem to understand what it was about Reagan so
great. The Republican party that Reagan took to greatness is not the
Republican party of today. Reagan had courage and vision. He loved this
country, and he loved democracy. He was brave and bold and unapologetic. He
knew that the only way to succeed is to shout your beliefs from the
rooftops, and to have no time for your opponent's attempts to cut you down.
He also understood that even though we may disagree, we are all Americans.
We are all a family, and we all deserve respect from each other. Reagan may
have done battle with his liberal opponents, but he left the fight at the
office. He understood and appreciated the dignity that went with the office
of the president. He looked and acted like a president. He was worthy of the
presidents before him. And I'll tell you something else. He understood how
the world worked. He understood the concept of attacking our enemies
ruthlessly... but effectively. He understood Sun Tzu. Ultimate excellence
lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever
fighting.