CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL NEWS

THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO DIVORCE LAWYERS:

FEMINISM

BY LISA RICHARDS

NOVEMBER 6, 2007

The idea of feminism being great for traditional marriage sounds ludicrous. But in actuality, it’s true.

No, I have not lost my marbles. I am a feminist, just not a radical feminist like Gloria Steinem and the genderless Hillary Clinton. I’m a feminist in the fashion of Abigail Adams, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, the Women of Suffrage, Amelia Earhart, and Condoleezza Rice (though she is still single and waiting): the kind of women who believe in marriage, family, loving one’s husband, believing he’s the head of the house, yet having equality with our husbands through fidelity and respect.

The women above were and are career women who did and do things that inspire women to be great and feminine, not men. So how does feminism actually help marriage and ruin divorce lawyers; I’ll tell you.

When the 1960’s radical women’s movement took hold, Gloria Steinem and her followers told women not to marry, not to be beholden to a man, not to let a man pay their way. And Steinem’s followers believed her by emulating her actions. They stayed single…until Ms. Steinem got married in her forties, showing that all women, at some point in time, realize they want a husband—whether they can have children or not. And thus “Ms.” Steinem’s followers hit that certain age and followed suit, marrying in their forties as well.

And low and behold the feministas believe in fidelity and staying married!

What a contradiction to their lies. They love their husband—except Hillary—and their home life as married women. Hillary lives alone. And because feminists married later in life, they already had their fill of burning bras and trying to prove they could be men living like frat boys with no responsibilities to anyone but themselves. Frat life only lasted 20 years until feminists got tired of their own propaganda and became traditional women, thus putting divorce lawyers back in the hole.

Does that still sound odd? Prior to the 1960’s, divorce was virtually unheard of. Men and women married for love and stayed married. Their daughters became radical feminists decrying marriage as slavery, telling all women to remain single. Then these women aged and got lonely and went looking for what their mothers have: Mr. Right.

The problem this has presented divorce lawyers is more women today have remained single until their forties. Women have decided to go to college and achieve careers and travel the world. By the time these women turn 40, they’ve seen it and done it all and they’re bored with single hood, which holds only so much. Yet they are wise enough by age not to pick a low-life for a husband. That’s not to say some women haven’t chosen unwisely, but age makes them see their folly and helps them escape quicker than a young woman would.

Single hood until a women reaches her forties is actually a saving grace for marriage: when one reaches the age of 40, one can not function past 10 pm. Acting like a 20 year old is exhausting. Not to mention the dating scene has become wracked with disease. And quite frankly it’s geared for the youth, not someone who now automatically awakes every morning at 5 am and hits the sack at 10 pm.

Another factor plays in reasoning: as single women age, single women really know what they want. Single women who are single at 40 don’t have fairy tale expectations; they know what life is like and how hard it can be. They also have reached a maturity that makes them ideal wives because they know who they are, they are self-assured, they like who they are, they can’t be controlled by a man they fell in ga ga with at 20 and had no idea what marriage would be—two separate personalities living under one roof and sharing the same bed. Older single women understand habits because they have years of habits—they sleep with their cats and dogs, something only men over 35 can understand. These women understand what age does to the human body because their bodies went south when they hit 30. In other words, women 40 and older want real men, not the boys they would have wanted at 20.

Basically what I’m saying is, feminism inadvertently saved marriage and could make the divorce rate go down. Why; they told women not to marry young. They told women not to marry, rather get educations and careers. Women listened and after years of achieving, women are fulfilled and realize they can continue their work and be married at an older age to men of their generation who like career women with brains.

Another way feminism helped marriage was it made women wait for Mr. Right. As I noted, these women dated all through their twenties, then had no time in their 30’s due to the careers they worked hard to achieve. During the wait, women realized they are worth more than a role in the sheets and decided waiting for the right guy is worth it. It leads to a lasting marriage.

Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton may have thought they destroyed the idea of marriage and created a genderless class of women—well maybe Hillary and Rosie O’Donnell—but they failed. More and more women are waiting to get married when they are 40 and older because they want the real, lasting thing. They don’t want to end up divorced like younger women have. When women are older, they see the world as it truly is and know what is better.

Today, one in four marriages ends in divorce. But at the rate many women are choosing to wait—and that includes younger women who see that sleeping around and marrying and divorcing and marrying again only leads to heartache and disease—divorce lawyers might see a return to pre-1960’s traditional marriage. And they can thank feminism for telling women to stay single, get educations and have careers. Nothing makes women find their true self better than that. And nothing makes a woman a better person than learning who she is before she finds the right man and marries.

Divorce lawyers love young marriages: most never last. Divorce lawyers hate later-in-life marriages: those are the marriages that last. Divorce lawyers love rebound marriages and love at first infatuation marriages: they end in divorce. Divorce lawyers hate women who decide to stay single till their forties: their marriages work, because they know what they want and they know their husband, as well as them self, is not play dough to mold into an imagined image of childhood fantasies. Divorce lawyers love young and dumb: they hate older and wiser. They can thank feminism for that.

One of the most obnoxious movements of the 20^th century is the best thing that ever happened to marriage since God’s invention of it. Feminism inadvertently taught women they need to understand themselves before they can understand a man. It taught women to wait on God and be choosy. It taught women they have a lot to offer, so don’t throw it away on a jerk, especially when you have brains you worked hard to earn over the last 20 years.

So when you single, older women find Mr. Right, write Gloria and Hillary a letter thanking them for telling you to get educations and careers first. Tell them it made you wait for nothing but the best. Then watch the divorce lawyers re-mortgage their houses.

www.lisa-richards.com

lisa-richards@lisa-richards.com

IT’S 1979 ALL OVER AGAIN:

AND ONCE AGAIN LIBERALS DON’T CARE

BY LISA RICHARDS

March 30, 2007

How many of you remember the day our American brothers and sisters were herded out of the U.S./Iranian Embassy blindfolded and shoved like cattle into a crowd of mad, screaming Iranian student killers screaming for the death of America?

Remember the skinny bearded teenager in the lead; he is Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad and he’s at it again. Only this time he has taken 15 of our friends and allies hostage—the British Royal Navy and Marines. And once again as in 1979; liberals don’t care that innocent patriots to freedom have been cuffed and stuffed and forced to wear Islamic clothing while humiliated in to denouncing Britain and the West on national TV.

That’s because liberals hate the military and anyone loyal to their country as the American hostages were to America. Anyone who believes in the goals of freedom for all is evil in the eyes of Islam and liberals not protesting in the streets for the immediate release of the British military hostages.

Liberals want these men and women imprisoned for one reason; they support the war against terror and fighting terror in Iraq. Liberals believe Saddam should have been left alone to continue raping, pillaging and killing humanity.

Case in point; liberal fascist fatty and untalented ding bat in need of Lithium Rosie O’Donnell told The View viewers that “There were 15 British sailors and marines who apparently went into Iranian waters. And they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say. "Gulf of Tonkin!"

I have one thing to say to Barbara Walters; get rid of the Token village wacko who knows absolutely nothing about politics and foreign policy.

For those of you confused by the liberal lunatic’s comment; she was referring to the Gulf of Tonken where an attack occurred on an American ship in the 1960’s and Lyndon Johnson used that particular attack to push the Vietnam War into continuance.

Rosie O’Donnell is literally implying with deliberation, brainwashing lies to Americans to make the people believe Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush’s greatest Ally in the War on Terror and in Iraq, planned to have Iranians board and seize his British Naval ship, kidnapping his soldiers in an attempt to escalate the Iraq war for his and George Bush’s careers so they can make themselves look like heroes when they make a rescue.

That’s a little too late since Rosie and her liberalista friends in Hollywood and Washington have already disparaged Bush and Blair as Cowboy Satan and his British Nephilim.

But readers need to understand Rosie O’Donnell and other liberals. They hate America and Britain. Most of all; liberals hate the Military because it fights terror and frees the innocent whom liberals believe should have simply been aborted to save liberals the trouble of having to invent over population and global warming tales to control humanity.

Also, liberals don’t think Iran is evil. Liberals believe Iran actually has a conscience and taking humans hostage is a necessary evil for Iran to continue its rightful violence liberals believe in.

If liberals didn’t believe in violence, their anti-war “peace” marches wouldn’t be violent riots attacking innocent bystanders.

Even Madeline Albright is worried the U.S. Navy might escalate the war if the U.S. tries to rescue the 15 soldiers. As if a rescue would become the cause of Islam hating the West.

This is not another Tonken incident. Bush and Blair did not ask their enemy Ahmadinedjad to send his Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps goons to steal a ship and take some of the crew so the war could become more violent. Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad and Islam have done a fine job at terrorizing the world for 28 years without any help from anyone.

But again I ask you readers to look where the comment came from; a liberal who hates America, the military, and the president whom she claimed to love after 9/11 when she told Bill O’Reilly she proudly filmed the president—with tears in her eyes, feeling so patriotic—pitching the first ball of the 2001 World Series Game at Yankee Stadium.

Yeah, and I think Charlie Sheen is the most intellectual American since James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

The attack on the HMS Cornwall was due to Iran not wanting the HMS Cornwall to stop and inspect a DHOW freighter in Iraqi waters—not Iran’s waters. Iran has things to hide; not to give unless it’s a nuke in the middle of London and another in New York City in effort to kill tens of millions of Western Christians and Jews who have the unmitigated gall to believe Islam is evil and humanity should be free of the disgustingly vile religion and its followers hell-bent on world destruction.

As for territory and the coordinates of the Cornwall; it’s been proven the naval ship was not invading Iranian waters or doing anything illegally. Iran’s IRGC simply wanted to stop the Cornwall’s officers from discovering cargo heading to Mahdist terrorist forces provoking British and American military fighting the war in Iraq.

So here again we see the true mind of liberals. They don’t care Iran was shipping cargo to a violent force terrorizing the U.S. and U.K. military and the people they are trying to defend and keep free; all liberals care about is getting rid of soldiers any way, any how, anywhere possible so fascism can take over the world and Jane Fonda can finally become queen.

My entire beef with this attack upon our friends is that our government has not responded the way Tony Blair responded to all of us on September 11, 2001; “Whatever help you need; you’ve got it mates. Great Britain is on your side to fight and we’re joining you without you having to ask.” And Blair has been fighting along side us unfailingly for the past five and half years despite the fact it destroyed his political career and popularity completely. Tony Blair is a loyal friend and stand up guy who needs America’s help. We should do exactly what he did for us; “Need help; you’ve got it mate.”

Iran is holding our friends hostage, forcing our female military friends to wear dish rags and table cloths on their heads and bodies, making them look like subservient Muslim women while strong-arming Leading Seaman Faye Turney to denounce Britain in support of Tehran’s terrorism.

Faye Turney is a dedicated soldier to the U.K. and the War on Terror. Faye Turney is a hero. She would never believe what Tehran demeaned her to imply in the anti-Britain statements. Yet they can not declare war upon Miss Turney; she’s a woman and under Mahdi rules—the creeps holding her—making war upon a woman is useless to their cause because women are lowly slaves to men.

And we Americans must allow Gitmo detainees to pray five times a day to their hideous howling-over-the-loudspeakers-music-and-prayer crap they demand the U.S. military install for Islam prayer-time.

The U.S. must feed the violent killers of humanity special non-pork vegetarian meals cooked according to the Koran’s Islamic dietary rules. Meals which have made some detainees reach the body weight of 400 pounds because the food is better than Wolfgang Puck’s Spago menu.

I don’t know what Faye Turney was eating in that video feed the Arab networks are giving the West, but it looked disgusting and punishing like something akin to slop.

But Seaman Turney is a soldier devoted to freedom and the destruction of terrorism and the spread of humanity to all; so Seaman Turney deserves to be treated like a gas station dog.

The IRGC supported the attacks of 9/11 upon our nation. America has been fighting these thugs in Iraq who support taking over the entire Middle East for its headquarters. The IRGC is from Tehran, the place that took our people in 1979, and these terrorists support Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade—all Jew killing Palestinians.

And liberals like Rosie blame America; not the IRGC and the Mahdi’s.

Americans are not waking up and smelling the Uranium Tehran is planning to drop on us like an unwelcome relative for Christmas. Tehran has been planning to destroy the West since they took Americans hostage 28 years ago. Tehran never stopped and liberals are not willing to stop them because liberals feel America should be kind to Iran and sit down to coffee and cake, apologizing for being the land of the free and home of the brave.

That’s the same as attempting to pet a rabid dog into submission. The moment you put your hand out to pet and say nice doggie, it’s going to lunge for your jugular, killing you because you were dumb enough to think you could befriend the vicious killer.

If your dog is rabid; you kill it before it kills you and your entire family.

Tehran is a rabid dog with AK-47 Kalashnikov’s. And no doubt the supply comes from the land of invention—Russia. These rabid dogs are called the Partisans of the Mahdi. Mahdi’s are known as Twelvers who follow a cult that believes their leader the Invisable Mahdi disappeared long ago in Mesopotamia.

Which shows you how nuts these kidnappers are; they believe an invisible guy vanished. Need I explain? I didn’t think so.

These “Twelvers” or Mahdi’s, want to start an all out world war between all militaries in order to destroy the world and bring the Invisible Mahdi back who said he could not return until his followers brought hell upon earth to all Christians and Jews.

And liberals are not bothered by this group following some comic book-like terrorist.

But all who believe in Jesus, the visible guy who raised the dead and rose himself from the dead; are evil and must be shot in the head.

Iraq’s government is also ignoring the situation by declaring Iraqi fisherman said the HMS Cornwall was not in its waters. Prime Minister Maliki’s people stated “We were informed by [the] fishermen…that there were British gunboats in an area that is outside of Iraq control.” Then Maliki’s people went on to say they don’t understand why the British were there in the first place.

Because they’re trying to protect your nightie-covered butt from terrorists like the IRGC and Mahdi Twelvers who want to turn Iraq into the world headquarters for terrorism.

It has been over a week and America has not gone in to help Great Britain. I don’t think I have to tell anyone what Douglass MacArthur would have done to Iran for taking his allied friends hostage. Remember, MacArthur was the man who told his men to head into the Pacific “because today is the day we make the Japanese language extinct.”

And I need not explain what good ole’ Harry Truman would do.

I also don’t see the House of Commons and Lords demanding force be used against Iran for taking their military hostage.

When Neville Chamberlain declared Hitler to be a stand-up chap London paid a heavy price—they were bombed. Chamberlain, like today’s liberals did not believe the enemy of humanity would ever attack civilized people. Winston Churchill didn’t believe one word the enemy ever uttered and declared to British troops; “Fight on!”

In 1979, Governor Reagan insisted if he won the presidential election he would get the hostages back by the time he raised his right hand or Iran would be bombed. The day Ronald Reagan said “So help me God,” our people were released and on their way to Germany.

Iran released our hostages after 444 days of Carterism because Iran feared Roanld Reagan. Iran knew what Reagan would do to them if they didn’t comply. And even when they complied and released the hostages, Reagan got even. He struck Iranian forces in the Gulf. He struck Iran’s oil tankers and more even though they released the hostages. Why; because Reagan was not going to let Iran get away with taking Americans. Reagan did not reward evil; he got even with it in every way he knew he could hurt Iran.

So where are the Reagan and Churchill leaders now when we need them?

Picking their noses with their Earle Grey tea spoons and environmentally friendly Ed Begley Jr. approved juice box straws.

Washington and liberal Parliamentarians are cutting and running by not retaliating against Iran. Liberal leaders are allowing Iran to get away with murder by cowering behind Nancy Pelosi and Britain Laborites.

America and Britain have a chance to stand up to Iran and show Iran it’s not the world power. And America has a chance to defend its friend and ally as it did in WWII, showing Iran we will do to them exactly what Reagan did and worse when they do give up the hostages.

Iran will have to comply eventually, but the worst thing America and Britain can do is not retaliate and show the world we’re mad as hell and we are not going to continue taking Islamic lunacy anymore.

We’re Americans, patriots and the true fighters of freedom; let’s start acting like it and ask Tony Blair how many mega-tons he needs.

Copywite March 30, 2007

STATE OF THE MIND OF DEMOCRATS

BY LISA RICHARDS

January 24, 2007

It was an historical moment; the Democrat party loving, cheering and standing to applaud President Bush with accolade unseen since Jesus rode a donkey.

Hillary smiling and clapping with joy, Harry Reid nearly brought to tears as he looked upon the president standing in front of Congress, Ted Kennedy so happy he forgot to rearrange Capitol Hill Barricades. Yes, the Democrats were in love with a Conservative Republican, Evangelical Born Again Christian President; or so it would seem if you were a visitor from another planet seeing a State of the Union by George W. Bush for the very first time. Then you would assume Democrats love George Bush.

Yeah, and Russia serves up a fabulous bowl of soup.

That joy, that glee, that in-love-with-Bush moment was all for his announcement to the Congress: “Madame Speaker” in reference to Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House.

For a moment I thought the rapture was coming; then I realized I was watching a bunch of phonies with botoxed-in-place smiles clapping because their queen was officially introduced to the world they now control.

This was a State of the Union one didn’t have to watch very carefully to catch the sour-pussed looks on Democrat’s faces when Bush spoke of his new plan for Iraq which Democrats demanded Bush implement.

Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy have never smiled during an Address. To do so might actually hurt.

January 23, 2006 was no different when Bush delivered his seventh State of the Union. Democrats did not join Republicans in cheering and applauding. Republicans stood and showed support for everything Bush discussed; Democrats did so when absolutely necessary—when the cameras panned to their directions.

The Address was excellent. It was not as fired up as past speeches such as the 2002 Address several months after 9/11, or the 2004 Address after troops captured Saddam; nonetheless, the speech was top notch and brutally honest toward terrorism not ending any time soon when Bush stated: “Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause… we know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us—unless we stop them…in the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not…the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred.”

Bush made it unambiguously clear-cut the U.S. must fight the enemy on their soil in order to protect America from destruction.

Only Republicans stood and cheered that announcement. Democrats were as still as stagnant water. Democrats don’t want victory in Iraq as they didn’t for Viet Nam, which we only lost in Washington because Democrats don’t want anything good for America unless its totalitarian control.

Democrats don’t want the War on Terror to become a success; they want failure so they can say they told us so.

And today, January 24, 2007, Democrats voted down Bush’s plan for more military support in Iraq because Democrats not only want Iraq to go down in history as a failure of the Bush Presidency; Democrats have no patriotism toward the U.S. military they refuse to support.

The only thing Democrats truly applauded besides Nancy Pelosi was my only beef with the Address; the Immigration Reform Plan which simply means illegal aliens will continue living here with a chance to become citizens within five years of Olympic stunts.

Bush is wrong on immigration and borders. He’s too liberal and Democratic when it comes to allowing border-jumpers to sneak into America. Bush has the power to order Alberto Gonzales to order the FBI to round up every illegal and ship them home. And Bush has the power of the Executive Order to lock the borders but refuses and made that clear when he stated: “we cannot fully secure the borders unless we take pressure off the borders—and that requires a temporary worker program.”

That’s all nice and fine; I have no problem with migrant workers coming to the U.S. for work and going home when the season is over. But migrant workers are a thing of the past. Illegals enter the U.S. refusing to leave. They live off American tax-payer dollars and welfare benefits. Taking pressure off the border is the worst thing Bush could do to the American people and the nation.

My second “oh please” moment was Bush discussing global climate change—in other words, Global Warming. Since the sci-fi liberal agenda ceases existence, it’s ridiculous for Bush to kiss Environmental Kennedy/Gore butt on that issue. It’s not going to make him liked by Democrats.

Still, the Address was excellent and not received well by Democrats. What a big surprise.

Harry and Nancy practically trampled the press corps in the lobby to get their comments out after Bush left the House Floor where he was bombarded by Democrat suck-ups begging for autographs, patting him and the back and telling him “well done,” “Well said Mr. President,” “I jumped out of my seat for you to applaud; did you see me?” One phony asked the president. Even Jesse Jackson Jr. was suddenly a fan with words of praise as the president made his way off the Floor.

But Nancy and Harry were there to let the American people know; “while the president continues to ignore the will of the country (of California), Congress will not ignore this president’s failed policy (which Democrats in Congress voted for). His plan will receive an up-or-down vote in both House and Senate (who intend to screw him over), and we will continue to hold him accountable (by vetoing and refusing to vote up) for changing course in Iraq (even though we demanded he do so or else).”

Then the ever moral Virginia Representative Jim Webb whose hobby is writing pornographic novels about the wonders of father/daughter incestuous sex addressed the nation. Webb who delivered the formal response for the Dems condemned everything about the Address except Bush’s silk tie while regaling America with heroic tales of his Viet Nam years as a U.S. Marine. Webb looked into the cameras with a soap opera-esque, nearly-brought-to-tears look of liberal seriousness when he declared his son was proudly following in his foot steps.

All we needed was John Kerry to join in with valiant accounts of saving hamsters and we’d have had a Michael Landon saves the prairie moment.

The Democrats hate Bush. There’s no love or respect for a man who destroyed the Saddam Regime, tossed the Taliban out of power and freed 50 million people in two nations from absolute tyranny.

There is no high opinion for a man whose administration consists of whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans. No other administration ever had the diversity Bush’s Cabinet has, but he’ll never be given credit for being all inclusive to all Americans by Democrats.

There are no salutations for a man who had the gall to cut taxes to the lowest numbers since the Kennedy Administration and raise the economy to the highest level in over 40 years. Unemployment and inflation are at record lows, home ownership is the highest in decades and entrepreneurship has been quickly rising since Bush came into office six years ago. For that Bush is hated.

Last night’s Address was basically useless since nothing Bush does will ever please Democrats—except Joe Lieberman who defended the Address and the president with his continued support.

If Bush held a revival raising the dead, healing the sick and making cripples get up out of wheel chairs, he would still be hated. Yet, if Hillary Clinton were to rush down the center isle of Bishop T.D. Jakes’ church for a laying on of hands to get herself allegedly baptized in the Holy Spirit to grab the Christian vote; America would be on bended knee all the way to the polls.

Copywrite January 24, 2007

FREE SCOOTER; ARREST SANDY

BY LISA RICHARDS

January 18, 2007

Former Advisor to President Bush and Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney I “Scooter” Libby is set to go on trial for indictment in the CIA leek of operative Valerie Plame.

Libby is accused of perjury and obstruction of justice by lying to FBI agents seeking out the person who exposed Valerie Plame’s name to reporter Bob Novak.

During the trial, audio recordings may be released by the Supreme Court for the public to hear which is nothing but appeasement since there’s no reason that kind of evidence should be admitted to the public when it belongs solely inside the courts.

NBC’s Tim Russert is expected to testify since Libby allegedly spoke to the journalist and the discussion is said to be on the tapes.

Vice President Cheney will testify on behalf of his friend he has insisted over the past three years is innocent.

The feeding frenzy has already begun and liberals are just shy of calling for a public hanging they can video phone for the internet.

Here is the problem with this entire scandal; Scooter Libby is not the leaker of Valerie Plame’s name, Dick Armitage, the Former number 2 official at the State Department admitted in 2006 he is the person who exposed Plame’s name to reporters. Yet Armitage has never been indicted nor arrested for a crime he admitted to.

Joe Wilson who has spent three and half years insisting his wife was publicly outed because President Bush supposedly had it in for Wilson because he’s a former member of the Clinton Administration and told Bush Nigeria did not have “Yellow Cake” Uranium, has not once called for Armitage’s arrest.

Scooter is the fall guy Wilson and Democrats want fried and the reason I believe is because Scooter Libby was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and Democrats hate the former Halliburton boss they want imprisoned for once owning stock in an oil company he helped run.

Only Al Gore is allowed to own millions of shares in oil companies.

Here is one of the biggest conundrums I have with the entire Scooter Libby witch hunt: why haven’t Democrats called for the arrest and indictment of Bill Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger who admitted to stealing secret documents from the National Archive Vaults in 2003?

Berger entered the vault without a security guard which is illegal for anyone—even the President of the United States. No one can enter the vaults unescorted and unguarded, and no one is allowed more than fifteen minutes inside the Security Vaults. When entering, the person cannot bring anything but the cloths on their back. Any pencils or pens used must be left with the guard and anything a person writes down must be examined by Security guards before being allowed to leave with those notes incase the notes are too sensitive to be revealed.

Berger was alone in the vaults and the guard outside apparently never watched what Berger was doing. Or maybe the guard simply turned a blind eye. No one knows for sure why the guard did not hover over Berger as is required; only Berger, that particular guard and the reason for the stolen documents knows—former President Bill Clinton.

What we do know from Sandy Berger himself is, he entered the vaults to steal classified documents in connection to President Clinton and the 9/11 Commission which wanted to know what Clinton knew about Osama bin Laden. Berger claims he was able to sneak the documents out of the National Archives by stuffing them in his pants and underwear after shredding three of the documents with scissors. (Washington Times. April 5, 2005).

What is about the Clinton Administration and men’s pants?

Second question: since when is one allowed to bring scissors into the National Archives? Scissors can destroy or be used as a weapon. So how did Berger get that past the guard?

After Berger left with his briefs s lined with briefs, Berger claimed to have lost the documents which were immediately—after a given amount of time—recognized as “missing.”

At one point Berger claimed to dispose the documents he first claimed to lose. After that, the documents were always said to have been misplaced somehow with no remembrance of their locale.

Berger claims he was simply trying to help Bill Clinton’s testimony at the 9/11 Commission. When told of the theft, Clinton was reported to have laughed the incident off as “an honest mistake.” (Washington Times. April 5, 2005).

I guess stealing White House furniture and paintings was also an honest mistake.

The report Berger stole was a document written by Richard Clarke titled “After-Action.” It is a detailed report of the 2000 millennium terror plot against the U.S. and is considered to be so highly classified; no one can legally remove the document without it locked inside a handcuffed suitcase with a guard in tow.

Berger’s next crime was lying to the FED’s about the destruction of the three documents and the others used for panty liners. Berger told the Washington Times he was sorry; what he did was wrong. That was spoken in 2005, two years after the crime.

For Berger’s criminal offence, he was slapped with a $10,000 dollar fine and no jail time. Martha Stewart paid a fortune for lying to FED’s about a stock dumping; lost her CBS show and position at her magazine; went to prison and got house arrest time because she was a violent threat to all produce markets in America. Watch out fruit stands, this lady packs meat tenderizer.

The lady who lied about dumping $40,000 in stocks now has a criminal record for life. Sandy Berger committed treason by stealing documents about Clinton and possible connections to 9/11 and is considered non threatening to the U.S.

Berger publicly apologized more than Hugh Grant. Then suddenly, within a month’s time, Berger was “forgotten” in lieu of the Democratic National Convention, during which time, Martha Stewart was being crucified for lying to the FBI about a piddly amount of stock which quadrupled a year and half later after it fell and made millions for stockholders.

Ironically, John Kerry who called Berger his friend during the scandal, began sending out press releases during his campaign asking if Vice President Cheney and RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie concocted the entire scandal as political timing during the Democratic National Convention in order to “smear the Kerry campaign.” (Fox News. July, 22, 2004).

Yeah, Dick Cheney told Sandy the Burglar to go into the National Archives while Cheney turned his back and let Berger stuff his BVD’s. Cheney didn’t want anyone knowing Clinton’s reactions to terrorist threats; it might make Bush look good.

No one was hurt by Martha Stewart’s dumping stock and lying to FED’s except Martha who lost millions. Sandy Berger has hurt America by covering up something he wants no one to know about himself and his former boss’s comments made in Clarke’s 2000 documents.

What is assumed is Berger destroyed references that Clinton and his Administration made about terrorism in 2000 before leaving office. Richard Clarke states in the missing documents that he criticized Clinton’s approaches to handling terrorist plots against the U.S.

If any other member of Washington politics—President, Vice President, Senator, Congressman, government employee had committed Berger’s theft, that person would be in prison right now.

Has anyone noticed how Sandy Berger’s name came up during November and December of 2006 and Democrats never discussed his crime? God forbid Berger would have raided Ted Kennedy’s podium stash, Berger would be sitting in a Turkish prison.

Martha Stewart went to prison for nearly one year and served house arrest with an ankle bracelet. Scooter Libby is indicted for a crime Richard Armitage admits to committing. In the meantime, Sandy Berger gets away with something a president can be arrested, indicted, and impeached for violating.

www.lisa-richards.com

E-mail: lisa-richards@lisa-richards.com