Replies

LOL...... that is funny. Certainly people who talk about wanting to be president when they are right out of the sand box should be suspect! ;-)

By the way, I don't know if you ever kept this stuff for your use

********

Hillary is the FREAK she is for a few reasons, but a guy by the name of Rev. Don Jones is one major reason. He was the young "hip" youth minister at her First Methodist Church of Park Ridge (Illinois) who influenced her greatly.

From Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice ---

Another important older man entered Hillary's life that same year (1961), when she was hovering between thirteen and fourteen on the cusp of adolescence. He was a tall, blond, blue-eyed man who wore a crew cut and white bucks and tooled around town in a bright red Impala convertible. He was young and all the girls thought he was good looking. But Don Jones was also a true intellectual- Hillary's type. Twenty-six and fresh from divinity school at Drew University across the Hudson River from New York City, he succeeded three youth ministers who had been safe and traditional. Jones represented a radical change for the sleepy First Methodist Church of Park Ridge.

"New ideas were frowned upon in our community," says Patsy Henderson Bowles. "We hadn't been exposed to diversity. Don wanted us to think about where other people were coming from and to understand their problems."

Jones was the only alternative reality in town. On Sunday evenings in September of 1961, he would offer Hillary's church youth his version of the "University of Life" program. He had been outside the sterile world of suburbia and could offer a window onto the more exotic worlds of abstract art. Beat poetry, existentialism, and the rumblings of radical political thought and counterculture politics that were eventually to explode under the smug slumber of even the good gray burghers of Park Ridge."

If you haven't yet read 'Hillary's Choice', it's very helpful in understanding from where Hillary is coming.

******

Also:

If she throws herself into the race in 2008, the following paragraphs may go a long way to explain to your neighbors and friends who she really is and keep her out of office. Make some copies of it please, or save it for the future, because it goes right to her very inappropriate, controlling, socialist personality and plans. If she ever dives in, the lamestream media will go along and gladly paint a very positive picture of the "woman". Look for instance how Viacom removed the thunderous boos of the police and the fireman and their families at the 9/11 Concert in New York. This type of thing goes on every day to her benefit and at the same time to the injury to the country.

She will continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the media is quite willing to protect and promote her as in the past.

Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.

**********************

In the early 70’s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon panel of eleven ‘experts’ assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. Its mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Council’s book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s plan for the future of American families.

The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of the “universal entitlement state” was an inevitability, and the best thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival. Just as families in an earlier era turned their children’s education over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future should government assume responsibilities for many other areas of children’s lives. This being so, there was no reason to feel guilty about or harbor concern for the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the nuclear family need not be worrisome, because “schools, doctors, and counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.”

More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider outmoded. The chapter entitled, “Protection of Children Rights,” the section on which Hillary worked, observes that “it has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.” The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental notification, and preventing schools from “unilaterally” suspending or expelling disruptive students.

But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for developing a new class of “public advocates” who will speak for children’s interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment to race relations: “In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both children and parents need canny advocates."

The report goes on to suggest that “child ombudsmen” be placed in public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable individual children to hire “decently paid” private attorneys to represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would seem to be endless. For example the report says, attorneys could bring class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages their businesses might cause to TODAY’S children.

This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it really time for the government to take even more control and responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if Hillary jumps in.

In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the Children’s Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she advocated liberating our “child citizens” from the “empire of the father.” This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. (“There is no good father, that’s the rule,’ Sartre said. “Don’t lay the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.”)

In Hillary’s own words, “The basic rationale for depriving people of their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their position…….. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.”

sandbox ambitions

Certainly people who talk about wanting to be president when they are right out of the sand box should be suspect!--beyond the sea

Perfect.
If not their sandbox presidential ambitions, certainly their documented abuse of women--specifically, their rape of Juanita Broaddrick--and their willful, utter failure to confront terrorism, would, in a normal world, be automatic disqualifiers.
In a normal world, the clintons would be laughed off the stage. At a minimum.
As for their "for the children" demagoguery:

For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads

by Mia T, 7.14.05

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,

And welcomes little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws!

~Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

LUCINDA FRANKS: I think you're wrong because, after about two years of -- of working on this, you know, on and off, I think the president -- that the teenage culture caused the president's behavior in the way he behaved in -- with the oral sex.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you're crazy, Ms. Franks, with all due respect.

Fellating Kids and clinton Degeneracy: The Revisionism Begins

f missus clinton
is serious
about keeping
pornography downloads
from our kids,
she
and that... husband... of hers
will upload themselves
straightaway
to
Chappaqua... or wherever...
and stay clear of
the Oval Office
--and the public square--
forever.
LUCINDA FRANKS: I think you're wrong because, after about two years of -- of working on this, you know, on and off, I think the president -- that the teenage culture caused the president's behavior in the way he behaved in -- with the oral sex.

BILL O'REILLY: I think you're crazy, Ms. Franks, with all due respect.
Fellating Kids and clinton Degeneracy: The Revisionism Begins

"Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"
by Gail Wynand

Liberals have always had problems figuring out causation. They believe for example that because people who smoke (sometimes) have higher rates of cancer than people who don't that smoking CAUSES cancer, worse, they believe that if people get cancer it is the fault of the "tobacco companies" (i.e., caused by the manufactures of tobacco products). They further believe that the remedy for this fault is that billions of dollars in "damages" should be transferred from the wealth of stockholders in tobacco companies to a handful of plaintiffs lawyers including the First Lady's relatives and others closely associated with the Democratic party. And they believe, apparently, that if young people are now experimenting with sex at early ages and with more profoundly explicit practices than in past years, and that if the President of the United States decides to enroll a young intern in rendition of such services to his middle aged libido resultantly staining both her dress and America's reputation, that a spontaneous wave of teenage sex experimentation, sucked (sorry) the poor middle aged chief executive into its vortex.
Deducing causation in most events takes deliberate, focused, thought, insight, and a disciplined intelligence that doesnt skip foundational indoctrination (aka actually studying in school). Causation of the diseases associated with cancer is highly complex and to a large degree still unknown. That smoking is probably not healthy for you is well known. That a middle aged chief executive, Yale Law School graduate, former professor of Constitutional Law and State Attorney General should be responsible and accountable for his own actions including HIS perjury and obstruction of justice would seem axiomatic to all but a liberal who has the capacity to adopt causationally convenient theories based solely on tangential proximity to the event under examination rather than through any rational analysis of the importance or significance of the asserted cause to the event. Thus, "guns" are used in some murders therefore, to a liberal all "guns" should be either banned or kept in locked safes with trigger locks so as to disarm the law abiding public and eviscerate their legally recognized right to effective self defense.
Quite simply, one has to be pretty stupid or very corrupt or both to be a liberal, at least and for sure to be a Clinton supporter. But it is worse than that, one also has to deny the importance of human consciousness and free will. That is, a Clinton defending liberal apparently believes that childhood psychic trauma, teenage sex trends (remarkably and largely only rampant among the social classes targeted by liberals for social intervention for the past 40 years) and the power of "addiction" which used to be considered merely "habituation" in more stalwart times, are more significant than free will in determining human conduct.

Clearly someone should notify America's founders that they have erred... men are not deserving of self-government, because clearly self-government is nothing more than the aggregation of all our psychic traumas and libidinal confusions.. and look where that has gotten us...one Clinton leaving the white house and one aiming for the US Senate for the State of New York... perhaps the liberals ARE onto something? But no, study the last two Clinton elections carefully... this most shameless and shameful American President is the product of plurality (less than majority) votes obtained through the gile and intrigue of an elitist cabal of intellectually impaired and ethically corrupt media manipulators aligned in effect with the electoral tampering of one man, H. Ross Perot, who although he occasionally gave a good speech was still intelligent enough to know his only role was to twice deny the conservative majority of American voters a first choice for President. And now even as Evita determinedly grasps for the Security Power and Influence of the Senate seat, one sees in her early campaigning the overriding awareness that her only hope is the sowing of confusion and ignorance... the demonization of a long time public servant whose accomplishments are towering, the pandering to the lowest and most depraved and corrupt anti social organizations and figures (no not the mob, the teachers unions and Mr. Sharpton). Arm in arm this body of liberal enthusiasts march forth to assure that America continues to be contaminated and disabled by their control of government into the 21st century... arrogantly and in complete disregard of truth, rationality, or the notion of liberty... they pound at the very gates of freedom, threatening to burn (redefine to mean the opposite of what they say) the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and replace them with their own Orwellian Banners of "community" "children" "education" "fairness" and all the other focus group tested liberal-illogicisms. But the translation exists and when the alien identifying sunglasses are donned all of their slogans can be seen to read "Be Liberal, Live in Ignorance and Servitude"

The Wall Street Journal

EDITORIAL
October 18, 2000

Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?

thanx to WorkingClassFilth for the video
special thanx to Jim Robinson

The closest... Clinton has ever come to answering allegations... he raped an Arkansas woman in 1978 is a distance measurable only in light-years.
After Juanita Broaddrick made the accusation in 1999, [Clinton]'s attorney, David Kendall, alone answered, saying any such charges were "absolutely false."
Of course, attorney Robert Bennett believed... Clinton when he said he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky and defended the president then on no toss sturdy grounds.
Thus while lawyers can spare Mr. Clinton awkward moments at the podium in which he has to say, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" or "I did not fondle that woman, Kathleen Wlley" or "I did not rape that woman, Mrs. Broaddrick," their comments are, in effect, non-denial denials.
Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home.
.In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."
"What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?"
The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal....
EXCERPT
COMPLETE ARTICLE

In the event she runs in 2008, you and I owe it to the country to hand this out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence, and try to help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is.

She will continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the media is quite willing to protect and promote her as in the past.

Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.

beyond the sea

You make a critically important point. We must inform the electorate on a one-to-one basis. But I would not limit it to the undecideds. Democrats, by definition disinformed, misinformed and uninformed, are ripe for conversion.
Just the other day I was at the bank conducting business, speaking to an officer of the bank. Politics came up and I segued to the clintons. I told her about Broaddrick and the other women, told her about the terrorism failure. In detail. As we continued to speak, it was clear that this new information had changed her thinking.
I would also suggest choosing targets for these one-to-one talks strategically to maximize benefit. For example, I have in the past informed in great detail a very bright Latino gentleman about the clintons and the democrats. I chose him because the GOP needs the Latino vote and because he was very bright, ambitious and was a leader in his community. The last criterion is very important. As it turned out, he went on in '04 to flip a number of voters in his community from Kerry to Bush.
If each of us would flip, say 3 Democrats, can you imagine the landslide?
I am launching deletehillary.com specifically for this purpose. Not much there yet. Just the homepage image (the links aren't active yet) and infinitely looping quotes about the clintons. You might want to take a look.