It was interesting at 8:30 pm Wolf Blitzer on CNN (Clinton News Network) declaired that “Obama was winning in the black states.” Interestingly by 9:00 pm he had won Minnesota, Utah, South Dakota, Kansas and Idaho. I guess he can win in “White States” too. Anyway it was a racist comment and if it had been made on Fox it would have been on the front page of the New York Times.

It’s also inrteresting how the Clinton’s (Hill-Billy) are defining themselves on race. They are saying, “we don’t need the black vote, we can get the latino’s instead”.

Good article, Major.

Terry McAullife has no thoughts worth printing.

OK MAJOR, HOW ABOUT LOOKING THIS UP AND REPORT IT ON TV.. WHY WOULD HILLARY HIDE THIS ACT THAT SHE GOT PASS INTO LAW , BACK DATEING IT ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHEN HER HUBBY WAS PRES..WHAT ARE THEY HIDDING..

OH YA, A FULL PARDON ON[edit] Criminal and Civil Prosecutions
Two provisions of the MCA

First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is “that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law.”[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:

The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the “war on terror” from prosecution.[33]
THE WAR THEY STARTED FOR MONEY……………

[edit] Criminal and Civil Prosecutions
Two provisions of the MCA

First, the MCA changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996, any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was considered a war crime and could be criminally prosecuted. Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act amended the War Crimes Act so that only actions specifically defined as “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 could be the basis for a prosecution, and it made that definition retroactive to November 26, 1997. The specific actions defined in section 6 of the Military Commissions Act include torture, cruel or inhumane treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily harm, rape, sexual assault or abuse, and the taking of hostages. According to Mariner of Human Rights Watch, the effect is “that perpetrators of several categories of what were war crimes at the time they were committed, can no longer be punished under U.S. law.”[32] The Center for Constitutional Rights adds:

The MCA’s restricted definitions arguably would exempt certain U.S. officials who have implemented or had command responsibility for coercive interrogation techniques from war crimes prosecutions.
. . . .
This amendment is designed to protect U.S. government perpetrators of abuses during the “war on terror” from prosecution.[33]

Nice spin job by McAullife. The fact is, Sen. Clinton said on the night of the South Carolina Primary that she was a National Candidate. Implying that Obama wasn’t. She also said with “great confidence” that Feb. 5 would be the day it would be clear who the nominee will be. While at the same time she and her husband attempted to minumimize his victory in South Carolina.
Now that Super Tuesday is over, the only thing that was proven was she is losing support. Obama is still in it and is leading in state delagates. He is also winning in over all states 15-13. She has the backing of the Super Delagates (The Establishment) which gives her a slim lead. Keep in mind her status and how this was just supposed to be her time and the only thing standing in her way were the formalities.
To use one of her phrases ” Coming back to reality”, it didn’t happen that way. She finds her self down in states and state delagates. Don’t get me wrong, Obama is not up but by 4 delagates. 3 if New Mexico goes to Clinton. On top of that, her campaign is running out of money while Obama is gaining money and momentum.
Her campaign is in trouble. The first sign of trouble is the lack of funds. For her to have to loan her campaign $5 mill says a lot. It says that she is losing support. A political sign that her campaign is in trouble is the fact that she is asking for debates. She knows that she has lost her edge.
Maybe she sees the hand righting on the wall. Maybe the establishments in both parties are seeing the same hand righting. “People want a change. We are fed up with the bickering and not getting anything done. We want our politicians to work out comprimises to get things done for the benifit of the American people”.
Obama and McCain aren’t “The Establishement” candidates. Yet, the American people are embracing the two of them any.

Major,

I heard on FOX that the prior campaign manager for Hillary is going to travel with Hillary. That woman is Latina so perhaps the plan if for that woman to help Hillary secure her Latino base in Texas. Exactily WHAT is that woman going to be doing from this point?

CH