Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary Plays the Female Supremacist Card
March 22, 2005 | Carey Roberts

Posted on 03/22/2005 2:53:28 PM PST by CareyRoberts

If you’re looking for a paragon of female virtue, don’t waste your time in Chappaqua, New York. Of all American politicians, there is no one who is more ethically-challenged or morally-tainted than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Do a Google search on “Hillary Clinton” and “scandal,” and your computer’s memory chip will choke, gag, and cough. Here’s just a partial list to wet your whistle:

-- 1978: Parlayed a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a sizzling $100,000 profit.

-- 1985: Accepted a $2,000 a month retainer from Madison Guaranty, a fact she later tried to deny.

-- 1993: Ousted the White House travel office and replaced it with World Wide Travel, Clinton’s source of $1 million in fly-now-pay-later campaign trips.

-- 1996: Attempted to conceal the fact that she had received $120,000 worth of free ghost-writing services for her Writing History book.

And just three months ago, Senator Clinton’s former finance director David Rosen was indicted on charges that he had lied to the Federal Election Commission about HRC’s campaign expenses.

Whatever else Mrs. Clinton may claim to be, she is first and foremost a fem-socialist. Mao’s Little Red Book instructs revolutionary-wannabees to vilify and malign their opponents. To Saint Hillary, the enemy is that vast penile conspiracy called the Patriarchy. Which means men are all considered fair game.

So at a recent address to the Vital Voices’ Women’s Global Leadership Summit, Hillary attempted to deflect attention away from her besmirched ethical resume’. Here she goes again:

“Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.”

Note Hillary’s effort to prop up a dubious claim by using the word “research” without bothering to mention the source of her information.

Hillary, supreme mistress of irony that she is, made those remarks about the impeccable ethical standards of women just two days after Martha Stewart wrapped up her five month stint in the slammer. Maybe Hillary forgot that Stewart had lied to federal investigators about her use of insider information to dump her biotechnology stocks.

One of the dogmas of radical feminism is that a woman can do anything a man can do. The logical extension of that belief is that women should represent 50% (or more) of all politicians, CEOs, scientists, and so on.

But in January, Harvard president Larry Summers committed a capital heresy. He suggested that innate biological differences might be part of the reason for the predominance of men in elite science departments.

That remark triggered a firestorm of protest. But the venomous denunciations backfired when persons around the country came to view Summers as yet another victim of Leftist intolerance.

A few weeks later Charlotte Allen wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times that commented on the dire shortage of female intellectuals. Allen blamed the problem not on sex discrimination, but rather because “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women’s writing.” [www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=726]

Predictably, that statement provoked another raging-hormones debate that is beginning to resemble catfight [www.slate.com/id/2114926/].

Then last week a 5-foot tall female police officer – a grandmother at that -- was assigned to accompany accused rapist Brian Nichols into an Atlanta courtroom. Nichols proceeded to wrest away her gun and went on a murderous rampage.

Now we are beginning to get an idea why there is a shortage of female scientists, intellectuals, and police officers.

Perhaps it’s time to expand the discussion. Why, 85 years after women were granted the right to vote, do we have only 14 females serving in the U.S. Senate?

To answer that question, consider a bill recently proposed by Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. They introduced the “Pregnancy Recovery Education Program for Women in the Military” act to help military moms during the 12 months following delivery.

And why should we spend $2 million for this latest example of feminist pork? According to the two senators, these downtrodden women “continue to serve actively while still physically recovering from pregnancy and the physical trauma of giving birth.”

So much for those lean, mean, fightin’ machine G.I. Janes.

Last week female attorney Devvy Kidd reached the point of exasperation with this you-can-never-do-enough-to-please-a-woman mentality. “Throw out all female members of Congress!” she demanded [www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43354].

No doubt taking aim at Her Royal Highness, Kidd charged, “these hormone-driven legislators are breeding generations of women who are not being ‘empowered;’ they are being turned into whining, gimmee-gimmee females.”

With utter disregard for the truth and common decency, female supremacist Hillary Clinton continues to stereotype and malign men, thinking this will somehow shore up her support with the female electorate.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: careyroberts; hillary

1 posted on 03/22/2005 2:53:28 PM PST by CareyRoberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CareyRoberts

2 posted on 03/22/2005 2:55:52 PM PST by John Lenin (What problem ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CareyRoberts

Saul Alinsky and the lessons he taught Bill and Hillary.

Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).

Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky says: "Here I propose to present an arrangement of certain facts and general concepts of change, a step toward a science of revolution." He builds on the tactical principles of Machiavelli: "The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-nots on how to take it away."

Rules for Radicals is concerned with the acquisition of power: "my aim here is to suggest how to organize for power: how to get it and how ot use it." This is not to be done with assistance to the poor, nor even by organizing the poor to demand assistance: "...[E]ven if all the low-income parts of our population were organized ... it would not be powerful enough to get significant, basic, needed changes."

Alinsky advises the organizer to target the middle class, rather than the poor: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is."

Alinsky is interested in the middle class solely for its usefulness: "Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority."

To accomplish this, Alinsky writes that the organizer must "begin to dissect and examine that way of life [the middle class lifestyle] ... He will know that 'square' is no longer to be dismissed as such -- instead his own approach must be 'square' enough to get the action started."

Rules for Radicals defends belief that the end justifies the means: "to say that corrupt the ends," writes Alinsky, "is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles ... the practical revolutionary will understand ... [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."

Altogether, Alinsky provides eleven rules of the ethics of means and ends. They are morally relativistic:

"The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's 'conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action'; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."

"The second rule of the ethics of the means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment." Alinsky elaborates his meaning on this point, saying that if you were a member of the underground Resistance, "... then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazi's. Those who opposed the Nazi's conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists ...." Rules for Radicals is therefore concerned with how to win. "...[I]n such a conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory."

"The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the ends justifies almost any means."

"There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father."

Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance (as opposed to behaving morally): "All effective action requires the passport of morality."

The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states "that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means."

Rules for Radicals provides the organizer with a tactical style for community organization that assumes an adversarial relationship between groups of people in which one either dominates or is dominated.

"The first rule of power tactics is: power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat."

"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."

"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract."

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."

Saul Alinsky urged the active and deliberate "conscious-raising" of people through the technique of "popular education." Popular education is a method by which an organizer leads people to a class-based interpretation of their grievances, and to accept the organizer's systemic solutions to address those grievances. "Through the People's Organization these groups [of citizens] discover that what they considered primarily their individual problem is also the problem of others, and furthermore the only hope for solving an issue of titanic proportions is by pooling all their efforts and strengths. That appreciation and conclusion is an educational process."

Rules for Radicals stresses organizational power-collecting: "The ego of the organizer is stronger and more monumental than the ego of the leader. The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which a man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator', to play God." Alinsky considered Hillary a terrific "organizer" and wanted her to become his protege. She declined. She had bigger fish to fry. She learned her lessons well. She and Bill have employed Alinsky's tactics probably better than anyone else.


3 posted on 03/22/2005 2:59:46 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (Sounds familiar doesn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

The reason we don't see many female intellectuals in the public sector is because they're at home - educating their children.


4 posted on 03/22/2005 3:08:50 PM PST by sageb1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CareyRoberts

I would vote for Hillary if I knew with certainty that she would close our borders and review our current immigration policy because Bush does not have the political courage to do so. But I can't be certain of anything she does or says so I won't vote for her and just stay frustrated with Bush.


5 posted on 03/22/2005 3:13:32 PM PST by auburntiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

Great post! Do you have a link to all that, or is it your own?


6 posted on 03/22/2005 3:29:45 PM PST by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: auburntiger

"I would vote for Hillary if I knew with certainty that she would close our borders and review our current immigration policy because Bush does not have the political courage to do so."

Don't think she doesn't realize that you're not the only one, either. VERY SCARY. ((shudder))


7 posted on 03/22/2005 3:30:32 PM PST by Fudd Fan (MaryJo Kopechne needed an "exit strategy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: auburntiger
Stalin closed borders & had a very restrictive immigration policy. The woman is an avowed devotee of Marx Engels and as corrupt as any Bolshevik can be.
8 posted on 03/22/2005 3:31:18 PM PST by Apercu ("Rep ipsa loquitor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: auburntiger

"I can't be certain of anything she does or says so I won't vote for her and just stay frustrated with Bush."

I don't think G.W. is going to be on the ballot in '08.


9 posted on 03/22/2005 3:32:41 PM PST by zygoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: auburntiger

I would vote for Hillary if I knew with certainty that she would close our borders and review our current immigration policy because Bush does not have the political courage to do so.

This is becoming a very common statement. By the time we vote for the next POTUS, we should really be feeling the effects of our current illegal immigration. If GW and the Reps continue to ignore this issue and Hitlery continues to promise to fix it, our party is likely to bite the bullet. Most of the illegals will be registered to vote by 2008 and they won't want to forego any social handouts. The Dems will no longer have to rely on the dead or felons to help them get elected.
Hitlery will play this like a fiddle.


10 posted on 03/22/2005 3:54:49 PM PST by conshack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conshack

Amen, brother.


11 posted on 03/22/2005 6:10:05 PM PST by auburntiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson