Monday, March 22, 2010 

Top Ten Reasons to Fire Pelosi and Vote Republicans Into Congress

There Are Many Reasons The American People Should Fire House Speaker Pelosi, Here’s The Top Ten

1. Pelosi Called Opponents Of Government-Run Health Care Experiment “Un-American.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Rep. Steny Hoyer, “'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate,” USA Today, 8/10/09)

2. Last Night, Pelosi Once Again Ignored The Will Of The American People And Voted Again To Pass Their Government-Run Health Care Experiment. (H.R. 3590, Roll Call Vote #165, Approved 219-212; D 219-34; R 0-178, 3/21/10)

3. Yesterday’s Vote Came Just Four Months After Pelosi Rammed Through $1.2 Trillion Health Care Bill On A Saturday Night. (H.R. 3962, Roll Call Vote #887; Approved 220-215; D 219-39; R 1-176, 11/7/09)

4. Leading Up To The Vote, Pelosi Made Clear Once Dems “Kick Open That Door … There Will Be Other Legislation To Follow … We’ll Take The Country In A New Direction.” (Greg Sargent, “Pelosi: Passing Health Reform Will Set Stage For Great Debate With GOP,” The Plum Line, 3/15/10)

5. Pelosi Claims To Be Unaware Of The Behavior Of Disgraced Former Rep. Eric Massa, And Continued To Defend Rep. Charlie Rangel Despite Ethics Committee Admonishment. (James Hohmann, “Nancy Pelosi Defends Charlie Rangel, Again,” Politico, 2/26/10; MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” 3/11/10)

6. In June, Pelosi “Laid Down The Gauntlet” To Rush Through Cap And Trade National Energy Tax. (Steven T. Dennis and Tory Newmyer, “Pelosi Flexes Muscle,” Roll Call, 6/24/09; H.R. 2454, Roll Call Vote #477; Approved 219-212; D 211-44; R 8-168, 6/26/09)

7. In February Of Last Year, Pelosi Passed President Obama’s $862 Billion Stimulus, Promising To Create Jobs; Yet Since Then, America Has Lost 3.3 Million Jobs. (H.R. 1, Roll Call Vote #70: Passed 246-183; R 0-176; D 246-7, 2/13/09; U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics,, Accessed 3/5/10)

8. Pelosi Has Failed To Run House In Spirit Of Bi-Partisanship, With Democratic Members Being “Explicitly Told Not To Work With Republicans.” (Rep. Jim Cooper, “Reconciliation Rules - Not Bipartisanship - Will Kill Health Care Reform,” The Huffington Post, 6/18/09)

9. Despite Pelosi Promising “The Most Open And Honest Government In History,” Even Dem Member Admits “Caucus Is A Real Disappointment” Because They “Aren't Transparent.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, "Pelosi: ‘We Will Create the Most Open and Honest Government in History’" Press Release, 1/18/06; Glenn Thrush, “Sestak Blasts Pelosi, Obama On Transparency,” Politico, 1/7/10)

10. Pelosi Accused The CIA Of Lying To Her And To Congress On Use Of Interrogation Techniques. (David Espo, “Pelosi on CIA: ‘They Mislead Us All the Time,’” The Associated Press, 5/14/09)

Tuesday, September 08, 2009 

Fire Blanche

A new website has come online calling for Arkansans to Fire Blanche Lincoln. We think this is a great idea!

In case you missed it on Saturday, a plane was seen over the Arkansas game with the banner. Check out the story here.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 

Baker Leads Lincoln in Latest Poll

With an approval rating of 36%, Senator Blanche Lincoln appears to be in dire position to win re-election in 2010. The latest polls show state Senator Gilbert Baker with a 42-40 lead to win the seat.

The same poll shows that 44% of Arkansans believe Senator Lincoln is failing to do an adequate job of representing the state.

By aligning herself with the liberal nature of the national party, Lincoln appears to be disappointing many of the state's conservative democrats. In fact, only 62% of democrats now view Lincoln as doing a good job.

With the recent announcement of a projected $9 TRILLION deficit (THAT'S TRILLION WITH A 'T'), it is clear Arkansans are ready for a change.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 

Is Blanche Lincoln Vulnerable?

By now, we've all seen David Sanders latest article where he seems to be campaigning for Senator Lincoln. However, some of the very issues he raises as making Senator Lincoln "powerful" as he puts it, are the very same issues that prove she only chooses to represent Arkansans during an election year.

Lincoln is no conservative. She is no friend to the very businesses that create jobs. In fact, she is nothing more than a washington Democrat who comes home to Arkansas and changes her clothes and pretends to understand the needs of the state.

Her election year conversions are too obvious and given the growing movement of the tea parties, her vote on the bailout, H.R.1424 [Title: A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers.] , will rally conservatives around her opponent, whoever that may be...

At least we know she will get one vote: David Sanders!

Wednesday, March 04, 2009 

Is Lincoln shifting on EFCA?

Is Lincoln shifting on EFCA?

By David J. SandersColumnist, Stephens Media
March 4, 2009

With tensions mounting in Washington as business and labor groups increase pressure on Arkansas’ two U.S. senators in anticipation of vote on the Employee Free Choice Act, there are subtle hints that Sen. Blanche Lincoln may be preparing to vote “no.”

And, Arkansas’ lawmakers may soon enter the fray by weighing in on the controversial legislation in an attempt to turn up the heat on the state’s congressional delegation.

If passed, EFCA, also known as “card check,” would allow union officials to bypass existing laws governing the process of how and when a union can be established, and allow them to set up a union by simply obtaining signatures from a majority of workers on authorization cards.

Supporters contend the current labor law, which requires a secret ballot vote by workers to form a union, is outdated. Opponents counter that changing the law would open the door for union officials to coerce workers into signing the cards and, in turn, lead to mass unionization of the country’s businesses and industries.

In spite of Arkansas’ right-to-work status and its insignificant union membership, Sens. Mark Pryor and Lincoln have emerged as two of the swing votes that will either help or hinder Majority Leader Harry Reid’s effort to reach the 60 votes needed for passage. Reid and other Democratic leaders promised labor unions quick action on the EFCA, but that could be in jeopardy.

Even though Lincoln hasn’t officially signaled which way she intends to vote, she may be edging closer to voting against it.

The senator’s campaign staff has been busy making phone calls trying to round up support for her second re-election campaign in anticipation her March 14 fund-raiser with Vice President Joe Biden. At least two times when individuals who were called expressed apprehension about Lincoln’s indecisiveness on EFCA, they were told in response not to worry about that.

Lincoln’s possible new direction makes sense. The co-host committee for her re-election kickoff reads like a virtual laundry list of business executives from industries opposing EFCA. A “no” vote from Lincoln would be major blow to the Democratic leadership and the White House, which strongly supports the legislation.

As for Pryor, after being a co-sponsor in the past, he said would not attach his name to bill this time around. Pryor believes a compromise bill that both business and labor could agree to should emerge.

While Lincoln and Pryor are publicly uncommitted, members of the state House of Representatives will soon have an opportunity to go on the record.

State Rep. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, will file a resolution calling on his colleagues to oppose “‘Card Check’ and Forced, Compulsory Binding Arbitration in Union Recognition Elections,” as stated in the title.

Even though the resolution wouldn’t require Gov. Mike Beebe’s signature, don’t look for the governor to mirror Washington Democrats. Beebe’s position, according to his spokesman, is that “now is not the time to address the card check issue given the current state of the American economy.”

King, the Republican leader in the House, has all of his GOP lawmakers on board, but he also has 12 Democratic co-sponsors for his toughly worded resolution. If passed by the House, the resolution would provide Lincoln more needed cover from her Democratic leadership and out-of-state unions. And, coming out against EFCA also could help her to fend off a potentially strong Republican opponent – something she likely has thought about.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 

Arkansas Democrats Allow Vital National Intelligence Legislation to Expire

Arkansas Democrats Allow Vital National Intelligence Legislation to Expire

Last week, Democratic members of Arkansas' Congressional Delegation joined in lockstep with their liberal leadership and left Washington without renewing the Protect America Act, which expired at midnight on Saturday. This important national security legislation gave our intelligence professionals the tools they needed to monitor threats to America's security, specifically terrorists' communicating and plotting abroad.

"The Senate was able to reach a bipartisan agreement, the President said he was willing to postpone his trip to Africa, and yet Democrats in the House like Congressmen Vic Snyder, Marion Berry, and Mike Ross thought it was more important to go on vacation than to renew the Protect America Act," said Dennis Milligan, Chairman of the Republican Party of Arkansas. "These Democrats claim to be representing the people of Arkansas, yet they continually vote with the left wing of their party."

The Congressional Democrats' inaction leaves the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence unable to authorize new certifications against foreign intelligence targets, including international terrorists, abroad. Private companies assisting the United States in the surveillance of terrorists will now be exposed to legal liability, and our intelligence community will be stripped of the power to compel the assistance of private companies that are not already helping monitor terrorist communications.

"It is time for Congressmen Snyder, Berry, and Ross to reject the political games being played by the Democratic leadership and their candidates for President," continued Chairman Milligan. "Some things are more important than politics. I call on Arkansas Democrats to do the right thing and give our intelligence community the tools they need to keep our nation safe."

Thursday, February 07, 2008 

This Just In: Protect America Alert

For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office
February 7, 2008

RNC Posts New Web Video: “Protect America Alert”
WASHINGTON – Today the RNC released a new web video, titled “Protect America Alert.” The video highlights Congressional Democrats’ failure to permanently update America’s 30-year-old terrorist surveillance law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 2007, Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid all voted against providing our nation’s intelligence community with the vital tools it needs to track and fight potential terrorists.
“Protect America Alert” can be viewed by clicking here.

Monday, December 10, 2007 

Mark Pryor's Obstruction Costs Americans' Jobs During Christmas Season

Democrat inaction may lead to thousands of "Pink Christmases"

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Cost of Democrats is adding up and this year, it may lead to thousands of Army civilians and contractors having a "pink Christmas."According to a senior Army officer quoted in a story on, "[i]nstallation operations and quality of life programs for soldiers and their families would be affected worldwide if the Army doesn't receive additional funding from Congress soon ..." (, 11/30/07)

The necessary additional funding is being held up by Mark Pryor and Democrats in Congress who continue to insist upon adding troop withdrawal timetables to the emergency spending legislation for the military. The President has said he will veto any legislation that contains a withdrawal timetable and Democrats refuse to budge.

According to the article, "[a]bout 200,000 Army civilians and contractors worldwide could be furloughed or temporarily laid off if the funding isn't provided..." (, 11/30/07)

As a result, thousands of Americans might have to explain to their families why they are getting a pink slip rather than Christmas presents this year. "Mark Pryor and Senate Democrats are so concerned with appeasing extremist organizations such as Code Pink and that they are willing to turn their backs on our troops and the civilians and contractors that provide them with support," NRSC Communications Director Rebecca Fisher said. "How does Mark Pryor plan on explaining to voters in Arkansas that since Democrats have put thousands of Americans out of work, they might not be having Christmas?"


Tuesday, November 20, 2007 

ABC News: Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List

ABC News: Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List
November 19, 2007

Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.

Yet the Blotter on has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.

An employee of Walter Karl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told that the company made a list of more than 38,000 donors to the Clinton presidential library available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May 2007. A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.

There is no legal requirement for presidential libraries to disclose the identities of their contributors. Donors, including corporations and foreign governments, can give unlimited amounts while the president is still sitting in office.

"This is one of the few places that remain under the veil of secrecy, and there is really no good reason for it," says Krumholz. "Disclosure is important because the money is often being raised while the president is in office, and in this case and with the Bush family, they can be given for currying favor with persons other than the president being honored."

"I don't think I should disclose it unless there is some conflict of which I am aware of, and there is not," said former President Bill Clinton at a news conference in September after his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, was questioned about the donor list at a presidential debate. "A lot of people gave me money with the understanding that they could give anonymously. And if they gave publicly, they would be the target for every other politician in America."

The Clinton Foundation did not return calls requesting comment for this story.

The former foundation chairman Skip Rutherford says that when the foundation started soliciting funds, it adopted the policy of the Reagan library to leave disclosure up to donors.

"People were told that we would not disclose their gifts," said Rutherford. "Disclosure was up to the donor; if the donors chose to do so, it was their prerogative. Some did; others didn't."...
"Most of those lists are people who have given $100 or $200 or less," he said.

The little that is known about the identities of the donors to the Clinton library was reported by the New York Sun in 2004, after a reporter discovered the names on a touch-screen computer on the third floor of the library after its opening.

Members of the Saudi royal family, Arab businessmen, the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Taiwan, and Hollywood celebrities, were among the 57 individuals or foundations who gave $1 million or more to the library, according to the Sun.

The computer with the list of donors was disconnected after the Sun article ran. At the time, Clinton officials said that a permanent list of donors contributing $100,000 or more would eventually be installed on a wall at the library.

Bill Rollnick, the former chairman of Mattel and a longtime Clinton supporter who was among those contributing $1 million or more, said he didn't think the donor list was "anybody's business."

"If they want to make it public, that's their business," said Rollnick. "There's nothing nefarious about it -- it's just a library."

Another top donor, Patricia Hotung, was dismayed to learn that the list had been for sale.
"It should be kept private to protect people's privacy," said Hotung. "They shouldn't be selling it."

A contribution from Hotung to the Democratic National Committee generated controversy in 1997 when it was reported that Democratic officials had arranged for her husband, Hong Kong businessman Eric Hotung, to meet with President Clinton's top national security advisers after she contributed $100,000 to the committee...

To view entire article, please visit:

Wednesday, November 07, 2007 

What Is Hillary Clinton Hiding Now?

Clinton Papers Won't Be Released Until After Election

Diane Blair Papers Detailing 1992 Clinton Campaign Won't Be Released Until 2009


Nov. 6, 2007 — Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has been taking heat from her Democratic and Republican opponents for the reams of papers detailing her various activities as First Lady that the National Archives has yet to release from the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library.

And now questions are being raised about why another set of papers relevant to her political career at yet another Arkansas library will not be available to the public until well after election day 2008, despite earlier indications that the papers would have been released by now.
Those papers were written by Diane Blair, a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who taught and engaged in Arkansas politics until her death due to lung cancer in 2000.

As a trusted friend during then-Gov. Bill Clinton's successful presidential run in 1992, Blair was permitted to extensively interview 126 senior and junior Clinton campaign aides, which resulted in four enormous binders full of information.

The information was to be published in a book that Blair, a historian and author, ultimately never wrote.

Only two copies of the Blair Report were ever made; one was given to the Clintons, the other remained in Blair's custody until after her death, whereupon the books were given to the University of Arkansas Library.

Last month the University of Arkansas announced that the Blair Papers would not be made public until 2009. Andrea Cantrell, the head of research services at the university library's Special Collections, told reporters that the Papers were not yet processed.

But that claim seems questionable, according to statements the Library itself has made obtained by ABC News.

In its 2005-2006 University Libraries annual report, for example, the University of Arkansas reported that the process was almost done. "Archivists were hired to process both the Diane Blair Papers and the records of former third district Congressman Asa Hutchinson, and both collections are nearing completion."

Moreover, while in November 2005 the University appointed Kerry Jones the "Diane Blair Papers Archivist," the University Of Arkansas Library Newsletter one year later, in 2006, implied the job has been completed, describing Jones as having "previously processed the papers of the late Diane Blair."

Jones was desribed as taking on a new task, as part of the Special Collections Department team "gearing up to begin processing its largest manuscript collection, the papers of former U. S. Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt."

"All I can say is that was a preliminary estimation and neither of the collections that were reported on are finished, neither Blair nor Congressman Hutchinson's papers," Tom Dillard, head of the Special Collections Department, told ABC News. "They're just not ready."

Dillard acknowledged that while "there has been a preliminary processing," and that Jones "did his part," the Blair Papers require much more "quality control" work.

"The big problem are the oral histories," he said. "Those require a lot of legwork. The other process is going through it box by box and making sure the contents of what's in the file folders is what they're supposed to be. There is a lot more work that needs to be done."

A spokesman for Clinton's Senate office, Philippe Reines, told ABC News that no one from Clinton's Senate office, her campaign, or from the office of former President Clinton have had any contact with the University of Arkansas about delaying the release of the Diane Blair papers.

"It's not a conspiracy," Dillard told ABC News. No representative of the Clintons has been in touch with the Library, he said. "No, absolutely not. No political campaign has been in touch with us. Nor have any individuals been in touch with us asking us to do anything different from what we would normally do."

The library newsletter indicated that two years ago Jones had extra help in processing the papers.

"Visitors to the Library's Special Collections Department might notice two students working diligently processing the papers of the late Professor Diane Blair," wrote the University Of Arkansas Library Newsletter in 2005.

"These students are the first two Diane Blair Interns appointed by the University Honors College in a collaborative venture with the University Libraries."

Intern Lindley Carruth Shedd "commented that she finds her work in the Blair papers fascinating, and she believes the Blair collection "will be a great resource to those who want to study women's issues, state politics, or Bill and Hillary Clinton."

Two biographies of Clinton released this year and criticized by the Clinton campaign -- Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s "Her Way" and Carl Bernstein's "A Woman In Charge" -- reported on the Blair papers as a treasure trove of information about the 1992 Clinton campaign.

Blair's "questions, based on extensive preparation," wrote Gerth and Van Natta, "elicited candid remarks from aides who trusted her. She chronicled the highs and lows of a dogged campaign and quickly generated a mountain of insightful information.

In the end, she compiled her lengthy report -- the introduction alone numbered thirty pages -- into 'big bound volumes.'" Bernstein was able to interview Blair before her death and see the papers.

Dillard said he did not know when the Blair Papers would be made available, and he said the Library would not release her 1992 report separately since it was not customary.
"We always open a collection in its entirety because individual component parts do not always make sense," he said.

Despite Clinton's suggestions that she would support a more transparent government as President, Newsweek first reported , that in November 2002 former President Bill Clinton specifically requested that the Archives "consider for withholding" various "confidential communications" including those pertaining to "sensitive policy, personal or political" matters as well as "communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature."

The term "withhold" is a term of art relating to presidential papers not necessarily meaning that the papers be kept from the public, but rather that they be reviewed before release.
Historians have complained that while the decision of what to release is ultimately up to the National Archives, Clinton's letter at the very least doesn't expedite the process and may even be delaying it, though the former President disputes that.

The National Archives controversy, as well as questions about the release of the Blair Papers, touch on a murky and well-traveled ground where politicians insist they are releasing information while historians and reporters suspect forces at play delaying immediate disclosure.

Information as yet un-released from the the days of her husband's presidency stored at the Bill Clinton Library constitutes more than 99 percent of 78 million pages' worth and 20 million emails worth of documents, according to the National Archives.

In response to questions about papers not yet released by the Clinton Library, Sen. Clinton told Radio Iowa, "I think it's like people think we have boxes of records in our basement and why don't I just go and get them and hand them over. And you know my husband has never blocked a record ever. He has been the most forthcoming of all presidents."

Bill Clinton's 2002 request and Sen. Clinton's confusing answer on the subject when asked about it at last week's debate, have fueled attacks from Clinton's Democratic and Republican opponents that the Former First Lady is, if not hiding something, not willing to completely disclose everything.

"We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, during the recent Democratic debate "And not releasing, I think, these records -- at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience -- I think, is a problem."

View this text:

Monday, October 29, 2007 

Tim Griffin To Be Featured In Southern Living...

Tim Griffin, former US Atty, in little rock and his wife Elizabeth Griffin are featured in the november southern living in a 3 page recipe filled Christmas article. Tim is joined in a picture by boyd and lynn corley of little rock. Boyd is the owner of bell-corley construction. We found it on page 120.

Thursday, October 18, 2007 

McDaniel in Clinton's Pocket?

AR Dem Gaz: McDaniel calls request 'cheap shot'; He says GOP chairman baiting him with call for Hillary Clinton inquiry

NOTE: Milligan replied that McDaniel “might be too blinded by his role as Clinton’s campaign guru to recognize her calculating political motives, but voters in Arkansas are not.”

“The fact that Hillary is willing to listen to conversations by political opponents instead of conversations by terrorists plotting to kill Americans is inexplicable,” Milligan said. “If McDaniel wants to have a debate on Hillary Clinton’s weakness with national security, we welcome it.”

McDaniel calls request ‘cheap shot’He says GOP chairman baiting him with call for Hillary Clinton inquiry
By Michael Wickline (Contact)

LITTLE ROCK — Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said the state Republican Party chairman took “a cheap shot” in asking him to investigate whether then-first lady Hillary Clinton violated state law during her husband’s presidential campaign in 1992 by listening to a recording of a phone conversation.

McDaniel, a Democrat who is co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign inArkansas, said GOP Chairman Dennis Milligan “wanted ... to get me to make some sort of comment that in some way blurred the lines between my job as attorney general and the fact that I am supporting Hillary.

“They know that this was a bogus allegation of doing something that wasn’t against the law at the time it happened, if it happened,” he said Wednesday in an interview after he spoke to the Political Animals Club at the governor’s mansion in Little Rock.

“If it was against the law, the statute of limitations ran [out] 17 years ago and, if the statute of limitations hadn’t run [out] 17 years ago, the prosecuting attorney is the one to handle it,” McDaniel said. “So it was either gross incompetence or a calculated political move to send it to me in a press release and I was not going to take that bait, even if I just did.”

Milligan replied that McDaniel “might be too blinded by his role as Clinton’s campaign guru to recognize her calculating political motives, but voters in Arkansas are not.”

“The fact that Hillary is willing to listen to conversations by political opponents instead of conversations by terrorists plotting to kill Americans is inexplicable,” Milligan said. “If McDaniel wants to have a debate on Hillary Clinton’s weakness with national security, we welcome it.”

In a news release Tuesday, Milligan of Bryant pointed to one paragraph in the book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by The New York Times reporters Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth.

“Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty,” the book stated. Among other things, the book said that, “she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton criticsplotting their next attack,” the book stated.

The complaint offered no more details about the purported conversation or the circumstances of the purported taping or the purported listening.The GOP’s news release referred to an Arkansas law enacted in 1993 that says certain actions are Class A misdemeanors, which are punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney Larry Jegley said the statute of limitations for such misdemeanors is one year.

Jegley, also a Democrat, said late Wednesday that his office has not received a complaint.

That law, Arkansas Code Annotated 5-60-120, says, “It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wirelesscommunication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception and recording.”

McDaniel told the Political Animals Club that he’s proud to be co-chairman of Clinton’s campaign in Arkansas.“

I believe when I look at my little girl it’s important that we have a president who cares about the future, who has a vision for improving America, someone who knows that surpluses are better than deficits, someone who knows that peace is better than war, somebody who knows that hope is better than fear, someone who knows how to pronounce nuclear,” he said.

He said it’s important that the state’s Democratic elected officials feel connected to Clinton in her bid to carry Arkansas.McDaniel recalled that when he was running for the state House in 2004 “people would say to me all the time, ‘I am voting for you, but I am not voting for that [Democratic presidential nominee] John Kerry.”

He said he and Rep. Ray Kidd, D-Jonesboro, looked at such people and said, “‘Fine with us.’ We were worried about our own hide.” Both men were elected in the state House in 2004. Kidd was re-elected last year while McDaniel was elected attorney general.McDaniel referred to the GOP allegation as “these bogus allegations.”

“There has never been anybody that has been more investigated or more thoroughly vetted for anything than Hillary Clinton,” he said.

This article was published Thursday, October 18, 2007.Arkansas, Pages 13, 22 on 10/18/2007

Thursday, August 30, 2007 


Amazing at how wild the media went upon Dennis Miligan's statement, yet doesn't even cover a Presidential Candidate's statement. I agree, Dennis Miligan is far more newsworthy then Hillary Clinton...



August 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.

Thursday, August 02, 2007 

Hatch Speaks the Truth About U.S. Attorneys and Democrats

This is so perfect, we don't even need to comment:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts: Peter Carr (202) 224-9854
August 2, 2007 Jared Whitley (202) 224-0134

Statement of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
before the Senate Judiciary Committee
“Scott Jennings Testimony about U.S. Attorneys”

Mr. Jennings, under the current circumstances, I am not sure what it means to welcome you to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

You should not be in the position you are in today, between a rock and a hard place as you described it in your statement. You have made it clear that you are willing to talk about these issues under the right circumstances. I believe you, Mr. Jennings, and I wish those circumstances had been allowed to exist so you could do just that.

The Senate should not be in this position. We are in this position, involving the clash between congressional subpoena and executive privilege, because my Democratic colleagues have put us in this position.

They chose from the beginning to ignore the separation of powers that gives authority to remove U.S. Attorneys to the President.

They chose to insist that the President’s reasons for exercising the President’s own authority must somehow satisfy Democratic Senators.

They chose to insist that the executive branch’s internal communication and decisionmaking about exercising the executive branch’s own authority is somehow a legitimate subject of congressional oversight.

They chose to make demands they knew the executive branch would resist, demands my Democratic colleagues would resist just as fully if the roles were reversed.

They chose to ask questions they know witnesses cannot answer and then to yell about a cover up.

They chose to cast mistakes or mishandling first as inconsistencies, then as improprieties, and even as illegalities.

They chose to drag this process on for nearly nine months, now pulling it from the political into the legal arena.

They chose to do all of that, and those choices are why we are in this position today. I wish they had made other choices, I wish they had followed another course.

It would be incorrect to say that my Democratic colleagues have absolutely nothing to show for their efforts. Congress said that allowing the Attorney General alone to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys could avoid Senate confirmation. So we replaced that with allowing Attorney General and a district court judge to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, which equally can avoid Senate confirmation.

But in addition to that legislative triumph, there is the trashing of reputations and undermining of careers of hardworking public servants. And the misleading of the American people about the proper relationship between the legislative and executive branches.

And, of course, there is the enormous and growing expense of this fishing expedition. Every time that net comes up empty, my Democratic colleagues say they just know the fish are there, they just need one more cast of the net, they just need a bigger net, they just need to go deeper into the political ocean, or a step higher on the political food chain.

Is it any wonder that the American people’s disapproval of our job performance has gone steadily higher as this sorry tale has continued, from 52 percent in January and February, 56 percent in March and April, 60 percent in May and June, and 65 percent today. That is a real record of accomplishment.

So Mr. Jennings, I do not want to add to your untenable discomfort by asking questions that, at least under the current circumstances, I know you cannot answer. I just wanted to come here today to thank you for your service to this President and to the country.

I want to thank you for your sincere desire to cooperate with this committee under the right circumstances. My Democratic colleagues have chosen not to let those circumstances exist and I once again urge them to reconsider the path they have chosen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

# # #

Monday, July 30, 2007 

Who Will Be The Nominee?

John McCain, the early frontrunner has imploded. Fred Thompson, thought by many to be the Republican savior, had a very disappointing June fundraising total it will be announced tomorrow. Mitt Romney has the money, is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, but faces many questions from the Republican base about his faith as a mormon. Rudy Giuliani, isn't making waves as he fights his liberal positions on key issues. Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee isn't raising enough money yet to compete on Super Tuesday.

So, we ask who will be our nominee? The Truth sees this election as possibly the most critcally important election of our lives. If Hillary or Obama were to become President, we would have the single most liberal President in the history of America.

A recent AP poll showed that more Republicans are supporting "None of the Above" than supporing the frontrunners. Will a strong showing in Iowa vault a relatively unknown candidate to the top tier or will we be split on our nominee?

Questions remain, but one thing is for certain: we MUST defeat Hillary in 2008!

Click here to meet the REAL Hillary Clinton!

Saturday, July 21, 2007 

Marion Berry Cashing In on Federal Service

Recent coverage about farm subsidies for minority farmers got us thinking. Where is the outrage over Marion Berry cashing in on his position in Congress?

Consider if you will, between 1996 and 2000, farm and land-holding companies that Berry owns with relatives in eastern Arkansas have received $750,449 in federal crop subsidies, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture records.

I wonder if it is a coincidence that Berry was elected in 1996 and has served on the Agriculture Commitee ever since. I just don't see why no one has investigated this clear conflict of interest?

Of the three branches of the federal government, Congress has the fewest prohibitions on conflicts of interest and acts of self-dealing. Officials in the execu­tive branch and judiciary are required to divest them­selves of any investment in or ownership of for-profit entities that may be within the purview of their agency or court. They are also under strict limits on the extent to which members of their immediate fami­lies may benefit directly from their position.

In contrast, Members of Congress are not required to divest themselves of any financial inter­est, even if that interest is subject to their official oversight and influence. Nor are they required to recuse themselves from voting on issues that may harm or benefit the personal investment interests of themselves or their relatives.
Funny how the Democrats in Congress are always pointing the finger at the Bush Administration when in fact it is Congress that has such loopholes in profiting of their service.
I just don't see how it is legal or ethical for a Congressman to make a fortune off his own votes?
Why are Congressmen free to push legislation that makes them rich?


Thursday, July 19, 2007 

Note to Senate Democrats: Support Our Troops!

“I saw a bumper ticker the other day that said, ‘Support our troops, not poor leadership.’ I agree.” (Sen. Tom Harkin press release, 9/7/06)

To recap here are a few items that the Department of Defense Authorization Act would do:

A 3.5 percent pay increase across-the-board for all service members and would guarantee a pay increase for members of the American Forces

$50 million for the Defense Health Program sustainment account for health care facilities, particularly at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

An increase in the authorized payment from $12,000 to $100,000 for Defense Department military personnel who die while working in a combat zone.

An additional $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.

To recap here is what Democrat Senators have said about the troops:

“We've all made a promise to our servicemen and women that while their away protecting us; we would be in Washington protecting them and their families. We should not let partisan judicial politics stop us from keeping that promise.” (Sen. Mark Pryor, Senate Democrat Conference Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

“Our first priority should be to ensure that the men and women who honorably serve our country are given the resources they need to succeed both on and off the battlefield.” (Sen. Dick Durbin’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

"As part of the Defense Authorization bill this week, I will introduce an amendment making it clear Congress will provide every dollar and every authority needed to build vehicles resistant to roadside bombs and shaped charges. As long as we have a single soldier in Iraq, we must do whatever it takes to provide them the best protection possible. This must be a national priority. (Sen. Joe Biden press release, 7/16/07)

“…it is extremely important to make sure our troops continue to know we support them. The president was right to commend the troops for their tremendous efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but honoring them with words is not enough. It’s critical that our troops have the proper equipment they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller press release, 1/20/04)

“As long as our nation's policies put them there, our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them.” (Sen. Carl Levin Washington Post Op-Ed, 6/21/07)

“We are here to say that, yes, we're going to fight hard for all of what government can do -- the needs that they [soldiers] have, the financial needs, whether it's health care needs, mental health care needs, equipment and everything.” (Sen. Mary Landrieu press conference, 7/11/07)
The first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who’ve worn the uniform of the United States of America. Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families-whether they are on active duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans. (Sen. John Kerry’s Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

We must ensure that our troops at home and abroad have the tools they need to protect freedom and democracy across the globe. I'm committed to working together to ensure our military and our men and women in uniform have what they need to do their jobs.” (Sen. Max Baucus’ Web site, accessed 7/19/07)

Yet when it came time to vote on legislation to increase troop pay, to increase money for military healthcare, to increase benefits for military widows and families, to increase the safety of our troops; Democrats staged a self-described stunt and when that failed to even impress their own liberal base, they throw a temper-tantrum and pulled the bill from the floor.

If Democrats really supported the troops they would call on their leadership to quit pandering to the left and pass legislation that actually does support our troops.

Support out troops, not poor leadership!!!

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 

Mark Pryor and Immigration?

On June 28th, Mark Pryor's office released this statement on immgration. Pryor asserts that he opposed the President's bill because "enforcement measures are inadequate and the bill fails to effectively address the individuals who are already here illegally."

Well we think that Pryor should consider his words very carefully when talking about illegal immigrants. It is hard to have credibility when you haven't fully answered the questions about your own hiring of an illegal immigrant.

As you may remember, in 2002, Mark Pryor was dogged by claims he hired an illegal alien to work as a maid at his house. He claimed that she was legal and that he didn't have to pay social security or payroll taxes for her. He even brought a "signed affadavit" claiming she was legal.

According to KAIT News in Jonesboro, shortly after Pryor won re-election and he was in the clear, the maid, Hortencia Osorio told the spanish speaking newspaper El Latino that she signed a false affadavit and was in fact an illegal immigrant while she worked for Pryor and that she was paid $70 a day for work which would have required the Pryor's to make tax payments.

We believe that the media let Pryor off the hook on this and as the immigration debate continues we will continue to investigate the matter (although we have been told that Osorio was deported to Mexico).
Many believe it is the employers of illegal immigrants who should be held responsible for encouraging illegal behavior. Interesting thought, huh, Mr. Pryor?


Saturday, July 14, 2007 

Beebe, McDaniel Sell Out To Gas Companies...

During the campaign, we brought you a series of Mike Beebe's cozy relationship with the utilities companies. At the same time he was supposed to be regulating them, he was receiving thousands of dollars in donations.

Once we brought attention to obvious conflict of interest, Beebe began backpeddaling. He even went as far as to say:

"My office is dedicated to protecting the rights of Arkansas consumers and ratepayers and will be vigilant in assuring that increases are kept to a minimum," Beebe said.

His office was committed to protecting consumers during the campaign.

Now that he is Lord Governor of Arkansas, his minions Paul Suskie at the PSC and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel approved a 3.4 percent rate increase for Arkansas Western Gas customers.

This rate hike is expected to generate over $5 million in revenues for the energy company. Not a bad investment for Arkansas Western Gas. Give a few thousand dollars worth of political campaign contributions and receive a $5 million payout on the other end.

Arkansas residents should be outraged of the back room politics surrounding this rate hike. With fuel prices at an all-time high, why are our politicians helping gas companies get richer as hard working Arkansans struggle to pay the bills?

Mike Beebe, Paul Suskie and Dustin McDaniel have a lot to answer for on this one...


Thursday, July 12, 2007 

More Mark Pryor Pandering...

We all know that Mark Pryor is up for re-election. So Pryor thought he could score some points with the black voters in Arkansas when he called on the Bush Administration to nominate a black person to the open federal judgeship.

Does he not realize that he is urging the Bush Administration to select a judge based on the color of their skin?

Since when did it become okay to hire someone based on the color of their skin? What would happen if I was looking to hire someone and the ad read: BLACKS ONLY!

More importantly, this is a slap in the face to the former judge, George Howard Junior, Arkansas' first black federal judge. Pryor's call to pick only a black judge leads one to think that maybe Judge Howard was only selected because he was black and not the most qualified. I am sure the Judge would reject that notion.

So why do we settle for race politics now from our Senator? Why shouldn't we select the best judge possible whether they are black, white or green?

Using race as a tool to win an election is wrong, although it is something we have come to expect in Arkansas.

We urge you to call Senator Pryor and tell him to support the best man or woman for the job, regardless of the color of their skin!

Powered by Blogger