Hillary Clinton: Forget About Feeding Third World’s Starving Babies, We Have to Fund Killing Unborn Ones Too

The Obama Administration seems to care more about furthering their liberal political agenda worldwide more than making sure women and children remain healthy in the some of the poorest parts of the world:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?

It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?

Indeed!

With Obama's Poll Numbers Tanking, Hillary Clinton Keeps Her Election Team On Stand-by

Over the last few weeks, Obama has been hitting new record lows approval number almost every day. His stimulus bill was very unpopular and getting more so everyday as it's ineffectiveness has become well known, and Obamacare and Cap-and-Tax are heading in the same direction. With all of this negative momentum, Hillary is quietly keeping the bulls-eye on Obama for 2012:

Hillary Clinton says running for office isn't on her "radar," but she still has an eight-person political team and sports two overflowing campaign war chests.

Her team transformed the former Democratic White House contender's massive campaign debts into a $3 million mountain of political cash, according to federal fund-raising records through the end of June.

Clinton's failed presidential bid is now $1 million in the black, and her old Senate campaign committee has $2.1 million in the bank, much of it transferred in from the presidential account.

With his numbers falling faster than a mobster swimming with cement boots on, Hillary is keeping the possiblility of another run at the White House within grasp. I don't blame her Obama's blood is starting to get into the water, and she's looking to take advantage, if given the chance. Her ambition is well-known, and I don't believe for one minute that she ever has taken her eyes off that prize. Obama's "Team of Rivals" are going to implode, if things continue as they have.

Hillary Clinton: Cheney's Not Reliable Source of Information

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Cheney pretty much had no idea what was going on while he was in office.

The topics of discussion before the House Foreign Affairs committee ranged from the $900 million in aid pledged to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to Dick Cheney's claim that classified documents prove the Bush administration's interrogation methods on suspected terrorists yielded vital intelligence.

"Well, it won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton said of the former vice president.

Um...He was the Vice-President of the United States. If Cheney isn't reliable, who is? Where is her proof that he isn't reliable?

That statement makes absolutely no sense to me.

Win A Date With Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton Tries to Pay Down Debt by Raffling Off Day With Her Husband

The secretary of state's long-shuttered presidential campaign is still trying to pay off a steep debt, and has launched a new fundraising pitch urging donors to give money and compete for the chance to win one of three "exclusive prizes." One of those is a day with Bill Clinton.
FOXNews.com Friday, April 10, 2009

Hillary Clinton is so eager to pay off her campaign debt, she's resorted to selling her husband -- for a day, anyway.

The secretary of state's long-gone presidential campaign still is trying to pay off a steep debt and has launched a new fundraising pitch urging donors to give money and compete for the chance to win one of three "exclusive prizes."

The most exclusive prize? A day of "adventure" in the Big Apple with former President Bill Clinton.

"A truly once in a lifetime chance: you and a guest will spend a day with President Clinton and a weekend of fun filled adventure in New York," the online promo says.

The other prizes are nothing to sneeze at either. One lucky winner and a guest with attend the "American Idol" season finale. The other gets a flight to Washington, D.C., for a weekend in the nation's capital, complete with a lunch with Democratic strategists and Clinton loyalists James Carville and Paul Begala.

Carville sent out an accompanying e-mail to supporters Thursday promoting the contest.

"I knew it was going to take an extraordinary effort to help pay off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt. But now, I think we can do it and have some fun at the same time!" the e-mail says. "Enter today to win one of three truly once in a lifetime opportunities and you will also be doing something great to help finish off Hillary's debt."

Anyone who donates money will be entered to win one of the three prizes, according to the rules. Requested donation amounts range from $5 to $2,300, which is the individual contribution limit.

Clinton ended her presidential campaign in June with a debt of more than $20 million, but as of the Dec. 31 financial report deadline, the debt still was $5.9 million. An updated figure was not available, but the campaign is filing a finance report again next week.

President Obama urged his finance team last year, when he was still a candidate, to help pay down Clinton's debt by encouraging donors to give. A representative for Clinton, though, could not provide updated information Friday on how successful that effort was.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/10/clinton-tries-pay-debt-raffling-day-husband/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

It's been quite a journey Hillary has gone on the past 12 months. She went from senator to presidential candidate to secretary of state, now, she is apparently trying her hand at being a pimp.

She better hope that a hot (based on his past interns maybe I should say living instead) woman doesn't win. Because of the way Bill is with women her status as a pimp will go from theoretical to concrete. She needs to think this through a little more.

Hillary Goofs Twice in Mexico, MSM Buries Story

Hillary's Mexico Visit Blunders Ignored by Old Media
By Warner Todd Huston
March 29, 2009 - 06:59 ET

Thus far, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made two diplomatic blunders during her visit to Mexico that the U.S. Old Media are shockingly uninterested in highlighting. One was a policy blunder and the other a cultural/religious one.

Clinton's first mistake was in imagining she is still a Senator that can make pronouncements on pending laws and policy plans instead of a mere envoy of the president, a mouth piece that hasn't the same freedom to invent policy prescriptions and laws that a Senator does. Last week, Clinton told Mexican officials that "we" -- as in the U.S. government -- are considering re-upping the so-called assault rifle ban because Mexico's drug violence is "our" fault.

When asked on March 27 about plans to return to the 1994 law banning "assault weapons" (a vague and illegitimate term at best), Obama's press secretary replied that he was unaware of "any plans" to reinstitute the ban.

Clinton obviously spoke out of turn making promises to Mexican officials that she was not authorized to make.

"Who painted it?"

The second Clinton gaffe concerned her abstruse question at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Thursday, March 26. Her question showed that Clinton was woefully uninformed about the most important feature of the church, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe enshrined there since 1531.

Catholic tradition holds that the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on a cloak belonging to Saint Juan Diego in 1531. As Monsignor Diego Monroy brought Clinton before the shrine, Clinton asked her blundering question.

"After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked 'who painted it?' to which Msgr. Monroy responded 'God!'"

Now, perhaps Clinton being so woefully ignorant of anything religious isn't such a surprise, but for a Secretary of State to be visiting one of the most famous and important churches in the region, one holding a much beloved religious relic, without even finding her staff informing her "who painted" the image reveals a shocking lack by professionalism of both the Secretary of State and her staff.

Add this to the "button gaffe" of March 7 where Clinton's staff failed to find out how to spell a simple word in Russian and we are seeing a Secretary of State failing in the simplest of tasks making a mockery of our "diplomatic" outreach.

Sadly, the Old Media is letting her off the hook with aplomb.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/03/29/hillarys-mexico-visit-blunders-ignored-old-media
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

None of this is any surprise to anyone. The Mainstream Media will do anything to protect the golden one from any embarrassment. It must be hard for them to keep it all under wraps. Obama's State Department and their foreign diplomacy is starting to look like a SNL sketch not a legitimate foreign relations team.

Clinton: Mexican Drug Wars Are America's Fault

Hillary Clinton: Sorry Mexico, Your Violence is All Our Fault
On her "Gosh We're Sorry" tour, Clinton assures Mexico it's all our fault...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, March 27th at 10:56AM EDT

Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.

And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.

So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.

Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.

For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.

It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.

Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.

Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.

And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?

“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.

“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.

“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.

Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.

This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.

Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/03/27/hillary-clinton-sorry-mexico-your-violence-is-all-our-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

How on earth is the fact that Mexico cannot control their own crime and government our fault? We aren't in control of Mexican police, military, or government. So, how is could be the US's fault?

I am in total agreement with Huston. I wonder why while we have the biggest amount of deficit spending ever, we are throwing $80 mil down the Mexican rat hole? It could be much better spent as he pointed out.

Mexico is in total shambles. Something must be done as it is bleeding into this country through illegal immigration. This isn't just a Mexican problem anymore. The war is taking American casualties on our soil as well. However, Clinton's approach of apologizing and taking guns out of the hands of those that need to defend themselves looks like weakness to the drug lords. Banning assault weapons isn't going to keep them out of the criminals just the law abiding victims. Liberals need to wake up and realize these facts.

Rahmbo's Saying Becomes Obama & Democrats' Governing Policy

Never waste a good crisis, Clinton says on climate
Sat, 07 Mar 01:44 AM IST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience Friday "never waste a good crisis," and highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy-intensive way.

Highlighting Europe's unease the day after Russia warned that gas flows via Ukraine might be halted, she also condemned the use of energy as a political lever.

Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament that global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening. "Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security," she said.

Europe sees the United States as a crucial ally in global climate talks in Copenhagen in December, after President Barack Obama signaled a new urgency in tackling climate change, in stark contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush.

Europe has already laid out plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions to about a fifth below 1990 levels in the next decade, while Obama has proposed a major shift toward renewable energy and a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions.

But with many countries in the grip of a punishing recession, some question whether businesses can muster the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to cut carbon emissions.

"Certainly the United States has been negligent in living up to its responsibilities," said Clinton, on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state.

"This is a propitious time ... we can actually begin to demonstrate our willingness to confront this."

Clinton said she was encouraged by China's stance on climate change during a visit there last month.

"It is very important that at the beginning of this effort, China has expressed a willingness to participate," she told reporters. "They realize they've just surpassed the unfortunate record that we just held of being the largest carbon emitter."

POLITICAL LEVER

Many politicians argue that the economic crisis, energy security issues and climate change can all be dealt with in a "New Green Deal," replacing high-carbon infrastructure with green alternatives and simultaneously creating millions of jobs.

"There is no doubt in my mind the energy security and climate change crises, which I view as being together, not separate, must be dealt with," Clinton added.

She attacked the use of energy as a political weapon, echoing Europe's worries after repeated spats between Russia and gas transit country Ukraine hit EU supplies in recent years.

"We are ... troubled by using energy as a tool of intimidation," she said. "We think that's not in the interest of creating a better and better functioning energy system."

Clinton is set to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for dinner in Geneva in the hope of improving relations after a post-Cold War low during Bush's presidency.
The latest cuts to Russian gas exports in January forced the closure of factories, hospitals and schools in Eastern Europe in mid-winter.

A new row between Ukraine and Russia appeared to have been averted Thursday after state-owned Gazprom said Ukraine settled payments at the heart of the disagreement.

But European leaders were rattled by the warning of cuts to supply by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/m/FullArticle/p.rdt/CENVIN/nenvironmentNews_uINTRE5251VN20090306
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

The Democrats seem to be exploiting all of our pain and hardship to advance their own agenda. Obama pushed the inevitable economic catastrophe to pass the porkulus bill. They're going to continue to use the politics of fear to try and transform this country into a liberal's paradise.

Obama Administration Has Desperate Need for Gift Czar

Wrong red button
By DAVID S. CLOUD | 3/6/09 1:18 PM EST

GENEVA—After promising to “push the reset button” on relations with Moscow, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton planned to present Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a light-hearted gift at their talks here Friday night to symbolize the Obama administration’s desire for a new beginning in the relationship.

It didn’t quite work out as she planned.

She handed him a palm-sized box wrapped with a bow. Lavrov opened it and pulled out the gift—a red plastic button on a black base with a Russian word “peregruzka” printed on top.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton said as reporters, allowed in to observe the first few minutes of the meeting, watched.

“You got it wrong,” Lavrov said, to Clinton’s clear surprise. Instead of "reset," he said the word on the box meant “overcharge.”

Clinton and Lavrov guffawed. “We won’t let you do that to us,” she said.

Despite the shoddy translation work on the U.S. side, Clinton and Lavrov emerged from their meeting a few hours later saying they had accomplished their initial goal—reducing the frostiness in U.S.-Russia relations that had taken hold by the end of the Bush administration.

At a joint press conference afterward Clinton and Lavrov called each other by their first names and said they had conducted wide-ranging discussions on Iran, missile defense, Afghanistan, and nuclear arms reduction. They agreed to intensify preparations for opening a new round of nuclear arms negotiations to replace the one that expires at the end of this year.

They each emphasized that major disagreements and disputes remain on matters such as U.S. support for Georgia, the former Soviet republic invaded by Moscow last year, and on an announced sale by Moscow of advanced air defense missiles to Iran. The improvement in tone was unmistakable compared to the icy encounters that Lavrov used to hold with Clinton’s predecessor.

But in a meeting largely devoid of concrete accomplishments, Clinton’s gift became a source of continuing amusement to everyone except her staff, who realized that flubbing a foreign language hardly made their boss, the nation’s top diplomat, look good.

When a Russian reporter asked her about the mistake, Clinton conceded that Lavrov had “corrected our word choice” and went on to gamely make the best of it. “In a way the word that was on the button turns out also to be true,” she argued Though Lavrov had said that word on the button meant overcharge, Clinton suggested that that peregruzka could also be translated as overload.

“We are resetting so the minister and I have an overload of work,” she said.

But Lavrov refused to let the matter rest there, bringing it up twice more during the press conference in a way that suggested he wasn’t completely unhappy at Clinton’s discomfort.

“We have reached agreement on how reset should sound in both Russian and English,” he announced at one point. “We have no disagreement here.”

A few minutes later, he referred to the gift again, noting that he and Clinton had pressed the button together—a move that summoned up thoughts not of easing tension but of launching a nuclear strike.

“It is a very, very large red button,” he said. “I do hope that Russia and the United States and other countries would never ever push any other buttons associated with initiation of destructive hostilities.”

He told Clinton he would put the button on his desk in Moscow.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19719.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Is it stupidity, carelessness, or apathy that this administration doesn't seem to put any thought at all toward the gifts that they give foreign leaders? Their gift choices have been beyond horrendous.

First he gives PM Gordon Brown 25 DVD's that he has probably numerous times. Then Hillary gives her Russian counterpart a red button that was supposed to say "reset" but instead says "overcharge". I wonder if it was a Freudian moment. Could "overcharge" symbolize the overcharging of America's credit Obama is using to pay for all of his liberal fantasies.

Hillary said they "worked hard" to find the right word. How hard is it to pick up a Russian to English dictionary? What about the many translator websites that they could have used? I know Obama has a Blackberry, and there is a language translator that he can get and use on his phone for free.

For a campaign that was flawless, it's amazing how much the actual governing looks like the complete opposite.

Iran's Invitation to Afghan Talks Should Get Lost in the Mail

US to invite Iran to Afghan talks

The new US administration has said it will engage with Iran on a diplomatic front [AFP]

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said Iran will be invited to a proposed international conference on the future of Afghanistan.

Clinton suggested the meeting at a gathering of Nato foreign ministers in Brussels on Thursday.

She said the conference involving "all the stakeholders and interested parties" should take place by the end of the month.

Clinton emphasised that all of Afghanistan's neighbours would be asked to attend the conference.

"If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbour of Afghanistan," Clinton told a news conference in Brussels.

US officials said no final decision had been made on a venue for the conference, but Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, told reporters it would probably be held in the Netherlands.

In a sharp turnaround from the previous US administration, Barack Obama, the US president, has said he wants to talk to Iran on a range of issues and the conference invitation would be the start of a diplomatic outreach to Tehran.

Obama has ordered a renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan, and plans to send an additional 17,000 troops to the region in an effort to turn the conflict around.

Policy review

The United States is said to be doing a review of their isolationist policies towards Iran, including whether to open a low-level diplomatic office in Tehran.

However, Washington remains at odds with Tehran primarily over its nuclear programme which Washington says is aimed at building an atomic bomb.

Tehran says its programme is for peaceful power purposes.

"Our task is to dissuade them, deter them and prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon," Clinton said.

She has said Iran's nuclear programme will be among items topping the agenda when she holds talks with Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, on Friday in Geneva.

The United States cut off diplomatic ties with Tehran during the 1979-1981 US hostage crisis, in which a group of Iranian students held 52 US diplomats hostage at the American embassy for 444 days.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/03/20093602055818590.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Inviting Iran to the table to discuss the future of Afghanistan is like asking the pyromaniac arsonist to come to a conference discussing the future of the fire department and how to prevent more fires.


I would assume that there would be plans talked about and made about how to fight Al-Qaeda and terrorism. Having the terror-sponsoring countries such as Iran discussing how to prevent terrorists from operating in another country is counterproductive.

The Obama administration has committed themselves to opening diplomatic relations with the hardline Islamic nation. As dangerous opening relations with the militant and borderline psychotic dictator is, starting talks in such a crucial setting that could have serious ramifications for not just the US and Iran but also Afghanistan and the rest of the world is absolutely insane.