Hillary Clinton- archives, comments, and opposition research

The purpose of this post is to begin providing links, tools, and tactics which we can all use to educate the public, fellow citizens, and neighbors about Hillary Clinton.

It is a work in progress- I have provided a starting point, but want others to chime in with more links, stories, and information.

It is the product of conversations with a number of other members, from which several salient tactical points emerged:

1- keep it as contemporary as possible- the old Whitewater and similar items are stale and dead to the public.
2- keep it civil, please- within the board guidelines, or better. We are trying to convert the mushy middle, and stridency puts them off. Badly.
3- source or reference everything. Authenticity is critical to such an effort.

Links from this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1035557/posts

Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 7 Dec 2003
Various big media television networks ^ | 7 Dec 2003 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces
Follows:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3923fdd07554.htm
Hillary's delegates spit on and taunt Police Honor Guard at her Convention
Politics/Elections News Keywords: HILLARY'S RADICAL SUPPORTERS
Source: Albany Times Union Posted on 05/18/2000 07:27:28 PDT by 1Old Pro

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032083/posts
Bagram G.I.: Troops Waited While Hillary Chowed Down
NewsMax.com ^ | 12/02/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022571/posts
..HILLARY & TERRORISM's plan to regain the White House..
J.R. NYQUIST Website ^ | 11/09/2003 | RICHARD ROBERTS

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003138/posts
PETER PAUL SUES BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON FOR FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Judicial Watch ^ | Oct 16, 2003 | Press Office

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1008003/posts
Hillary Stonewalls AP's Questions on Peter Paul Lawsuit
NewsMax.com ^ | 10/25/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962304/posts
Hillary Clinton's Biggest Cover-ups

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926091/posts
Hilary – great cartoons

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940060/posts
Hillary history

487 posted on 12/07/2003 12:06:47 PM EST by mathluv

HAL9000 has a great source; he works continually to keep it updated--

http://www.freerepublic.com/~hal9000/

I was going through my Word File and found this saved---

Hillary's Fascist Vision For America
Brooke's News (Australia) James Henry
Posted on 08/27/2003 8:06 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
Hillary's Fascist Vision For America
BrookesNews.Com
Thursday 28 August 2003

Nearly five years ago I wrote of the Clinton's fascist vision for America. The dreadful possibility of Hillary becoming president has forced me to revisit the subject.

The state of American education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable of recognising a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave 'social security', complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy — and the belief that the individual is responsible to the state.

This was Clinton's State of the Union vision, which is why those chowder-heads who call themselves journalists loved it and him. People cannot grasp that fascism is socialism because they have not been taught to distinguish between form and substance. They do not realise that once the state controls everyone's property that property now belongs to the state because control is ownership, no matter who possesses the deeds. In this situation, might is right.

The Clintons' audacious plan to confiscate the earning of Americans so that politicians like themselves (the couple that helped empty the Madison Guaranty in Arkansas) can use these earnings to gradually socialise the economy is a typical statist tactic and one to be expected from the Clintons and their leftist supporters.

This is no exaggeration. Just reflect for a moment on the Clintons' proposal to save social security by investing taxpayers' money in the stock market. By controlling a company's shares the state would come to own the company. It would not even have to control a majority of the shares. It would then dictate where the company would invest, in what it would invest and where it would invest.

This is precisely how Mussolini and Hitler ran their economies.
The term for this is central planning.

But America is different, or so our leftwing dominated mainstream media would assert. Does anyone imagine for a moment that the likes of Hillary would hesitate to use that power? The same woman who supported the suppression of the military vote in Florida and used goons to push people around.

Does anyone really believe that the huge bureaucratic machinery Hillary's policies would give birth to would not use its power?
(Just think IRS). Business funding for free-market publications, organisations, foundations and think tanks would quickly dry up, leaving the field of ideas completely dominated by the left.

Under this scheme — which Hillary is still nursing — investment would have become a function of the state, just as it was in the late Soviet Union.

Politicians and bureaucrats playing at being entrepreneurs with trillions of dollars. That such policies have always resulted in the destruction of liberty, economic collapses and mass poverty would not faze Hillary's Fan Club, particularly if they figured they would get slice of the action.

One only has to think of what the Clintons did to Arkansas.

That the Clintons' have only contempt for the mass of Americans was made clear by Bill Clinton's arrogant statement that "We [I love the Royal We] could give [the surpluses] all back to you and hope you spend it right . . . But if you don't spend it right" Social Security are shortfalls are "just 14 years away." Let us dissect this statement. He was literally telling Americans that they were too dumb to know how to spend their own money. (Perhaps his poll ratings gave him that idea).
This is what Adam Smith had to say about bill Clinton's view of the little people:

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption . . . in Kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people . . . Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."

So what is the Clinton Democrats' solution for a burdensome tax structure? Massive government intervention combined with massive increases — and I mean massive — in government spending.
Don't be fooled by cries of fiscal conservatism, particularly from the likes of Dean, Schumer and Hillary. As Brookes' economics editor, Gerry Jackson, pointed out: "A fiscal conservative is not defined by a belief in balanced budgets but by a responsible approach to spending and taxation. Would we call someone a fiscal conservative who taxed away 80 percent of your income in order to balance the budget?"

If you think Bush has been bad, and he has, just think of what Hillary Clinton would do. She agreed without reservation with her husband when he told the American people they were too stupid to know how to spend their own money. Yet Hillary drools at the thought of profligate proposals that would see trillions wasted on huge government programs. For these ideologues history has no meaning. It certainly is not something they intend to learn from.

Through sheer chutzpah the Democrats have been able to paint Clinton as a responsible economic manager. But if his spending programs had not been blocked by the Republicans they would have consumed not only every penny of the surplus but would have increased federal spending by at least 20 percent. And this would have happened during the boom. Once the inevitable recession hit the economy, as it did, the Clintons' actual deficit would have made Bush's projected deficit look like small change.

Adam Smith surely had the likes of Hillary Clinton in mind when he wrote:
"The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had the folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

Here's a "Mickey Kaus File" I also had saved, which is 100% clear and wonderfully thorough in describing her Mode Of operation. (She truly stands for nothing.)

Don't Push It, Hillary February 28, 2000

Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has expanded on her earlier claims of support for the controversial (and, so far, successful) 1996 welfare reform bill. Last weekend she told Joel Siegel of the New York Daily News:
"...I worked very hard to make sure the bill that came to the President after he vetoed it was one that could be signed and would actually move people from welfare to work. ... I was a strong voice inside the White House and was a strong voice with many of the interest groups on the outside, who were not in favor of welfare reform, of going ahead and [supporting] the bill..." [Emphasis added.]

As readers of this column know, I think Mrs. Clinton is probably telling the truth when she says she was a voice "inside the White House" for signing the welfare bill--although nobody on the outside knows for sure what she told her husband when they were alone. Hillary's also telling the truth when she says her opponent, mayor Rudolph Giuliani, opposed President Clinton's signing of the bill. (Click here and here and here for earlier items on these issues.) And it may even be true that before the bill was passed, Hillary worked to ensure it was one that could be signed--although if so she worked quietly, and her logical ally in the West Wing, Harold Ickes, actively opposed the bill.

But Mrs. Clinton is almost certainly not telling the truth when she says was a "strong voice" with "many" of the outside interest groups opposing the bill. I've talked with key opponents of the bill, and none of them remembers anything like this. "No way," said one. "She never did that." What did she do, then? After all, many of these outside groups arrayed against the bill, such as the Children's Defense Fund, were close to Mrs. Clinton (who had served on CDFs board.) This put the First Lady in a bind. "What she did," my source remembered, "was she avoided these people." This impression--that Hillary simply went AWOL, ducking meetings with her old friends on the left who were desperate to get her to intervene against the bill--jibes with what I was told at the time, and with what I've been told in the intervening years.

There's a larger point here. As Tish Durkin of the New York Observer has noted repeatedly, the problem with Mrs. Clinton is not that she publicly promotes any sort of sharp left agenda, or flip-flops from left to right. It's rather that "she simply fails to fill in." She's congenitally, banally vague, routinely getting standing ovations for speeches so contentless they'd make Orrin Hatch blush. The secret, hidden nature of her influence inside the White House--which first she denied, and now she brags about--didn't make it any easier to figure out what she really thought.

I always figured her speeches were vague, and her influence hidden, largely because people might react harshly against an outspoken, publicly influential political wife. But of course being enigmatic has another obvious advantage, which is that it lets you decide later what and how much to reveal about your role. If the 1996 bill had been a disaster, do you think Hillary would be boasting to the Daily News about her "strong voice" in its support? Or would she even now be telling us how she'd tried to stop it? All the vagueness and secrecy lets her keep her options open. And, if her current welfare tale is any guide, one of those options is dissembling.

(I'm always here to help! LOLOLOL)

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.