Hillary’s Sugar Daddy Socialism Is Fair Game

It’s now officially sexist to hold someone accountable for her legacy of failure – as long as she is a liberal. Nonsense. Rand Paul was absolutely right to declare open season on Hillary’s track record of actively enabling Bubba’s grotesque satyrism.

Naturally, her mainstream media cover-up crew swung into action, decreeing that examining her record is verboten. It’s adorable how, in the age of the internet, these has-beens still think they get to decide what we can and can’t discuss. Give it another year or so until these dinosaur hacks are at the bottom of off-ramps with signs reading, “Will gatekeep for food.”

Hillary proves the old adage that a liberal feminist needs a man like a fish needs water. We just aren’t supposed to say that either.

Ah, the wonders of liberal feminism. What can’t it do – besides actually improve the lives of women who don’t manage to hook up with a powerful man who will hand them a career? Here’s the cold, hard truth: If Hillary hadn’t kept her part of the bargain with Bill Clinton by putting up with his serial abuse, she’d be just another grim liberal matron scowling at the thought that somewhere, out there, a man isn’t apologizing.

Liberal feminism was always about the liberalism, never about the female. Like every liberal pose, it is based upon a lie. Women, to liberal feminists like Hillary, are simply a means to an end. Hillary’s end was personal power, and all she had to do was destroy the occasional Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey if they protested being her hubby’s glorified sex toys.

We aren’t supposed to talk about how liberal feminism messed up our culture for women who aren’t married to a rich former presidents, and we aren’t supposed to mention that Hillary embodies liberal feminism better than almost anything except Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.

Real feminism should be concerned with women having the same opportunities as men. But liberal feminism is only concerned with turning women into a perpetual left wing voting block. The left doesn’t woo them by promising to build a society without arbitrary discrimination where, with hard work, they can realize their ambitions. Instead, liberals promise to hook them up with Uncle Sam – he’s older and not so hot, but he’s got a lot of dough and will take care of all you helpless Julias!

Lisa De Pasquale of Townhall illustrates the collateral damage in her new book Finding Mr. Righteous. Lisa (a friend who shares my agent and publisher) writes about her life as a single women in modern America with agonizing honesty. As she goes from guy to guy, we see that women today have career opportunities but not the traditional structures that create opportunities for personal happiness.

But hey, ask liberal feminists, who needs traditional structures? Well, we do – something else we’re not supposed to say. Where is the social structure that protected and enabled women – and that gave purpose to men? In its place, as Lisa shows us, is a world of young people who spend an extraordinary amount of time alienated and alone. Much of her human interaction is actually electronic, even her intimate interaction. If Helen Reddy wrote her big hit today, it would be called “I Am Women, Hear Me Sext.”

Helen Smith’s Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters showed us the cultural forces – many of them spurred on by liberal feminists like Hillary – that incentivize males to remain man-children. The men in Lisa’s world (at least until the end of the book) seem largely beaten and weak, drained of confidence and ambition – in other words, they turned out exactly as feminists hoped. Lisa shows us how this impacts women. The gallant Knight in Shining Armor is now a patriarchal relic; here comes the broke Dude in Torn Cargo Shorts asking if his date can spot him $25 for dinner because his mom finally started making him pay rent.

And when they try to act like men, it’s often only a parody of masculinity that confuses the kind of seedy priapism exemplified by Bill Clinton with true manhood. After all, Hillary and her fellow feminist enablers gave such cheesy sexual aggression a big thumbs up, and Lisa demonstrates that young men were watching. There are no cigar antics, thankfully, but Lisa’s no-holds-barred peek into reality is quite terrifying. And I know terrifying – I watch Girls.

Maybe Lisa should have done what Hillary and her pal Wendy Davis did – latch onto a successful guy and had him create a career for her. It’s totally empowering.

No, we’re not supposed to comment on how Hillary has accomplished absolutely nothing by herself, except Benghazi.

Wanna see a liberal squirm? Ask him to name Hillary’s greatest success as Secretary of State. You’ll get: “Uh, she raised awareness of women’s issues around the world.” Apparently, until she dumped a zillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere jetting around from “Reset” fiasco to Arab Spring disaster, the world was unaware of women.

As Secretary of State, foreign potentates understood her as a mere flunky. But if the American people elect this empty pantsuit president, how will they treat her? They know Bill used her like a doormat. They will too. Why would anyone have any respect for her – or fear of her?

You won’t hear that from the slobbering sycophants of solidarity in the mainstream media. After all, when it comes to protecting Hillary’s façade of accomplishment, it takes a takes a Potemkin Village.

From David Shippers' book, "SELL OUT"

[Kathleen]Willey discussed what to do with her lawyer and friend Daniel Gecker. He knew about the groping incident and warned her that anything she wrote would need to be completely innocuous, without the remotest suggestion of a backmail, extortion, or veiled threat or suggestion that she wanted a job in exchange for keeping quiet. Kathleen understood. To ensure that nothing she wrote could be misconstrued as a threat, Willey had Gecker review and approve the letters.

In 1994 Kathleen was invited to attend a World Summit in Copenhagen, and in 1995 she represented the United States at a biodiversity summit in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was totally unqualified for either position.

But bad things happened after Willey was subpoeaned to give a deposition in the Paula Jones case. This story was even more shocking than the President's alleged assault on a married woman.

On July 31, 1997, Gecker received, without warning, a fax from the office of the President's attorney. Both Willey and her attorney, who was present during our interview, confirmed to us that it was a document entitled "Statement of Kathleen Willey" and that it came with the instruction that she was to read it as a public statement. It said: "The President of the United States never sexually harassed me in any way, and I have always considered myself to be on excellent terms with him." She ignored the request.

In August 1997 the groping incident was reported in the Drudge Report and Newsweek. Around this time she received a phone call from an acquaintance who was a major financial donor to President Clinton. He told her to avoid giving a deposition if she was subpoenaed in the Jones case and to deny that anything had ever happened because only two people knew and "all you have to do is deny it, too."

Willey was subpoenaed in the fall of 1997 but wasn't actually called to testify until January 10, 1998. Shortly after she received the subpoena, Gecker was visited by one of the President's lawyers. Gecker told Kathleen the gist of the meeting: Clinton's lawyer was suggesting she avoid testifying by taking he Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Gecker told Clinton's attorney that his client wouldn't take the Fifth because she had done nothing wrong.

A short time after that initial meeting, Gecker told us, he received an unsolicited package from the President's lawyers. It contained a form affidavit, a form motion to quash the deposition subpoena, and a memorandum of law in support of the motion to quash.

A short while before Willey was scheduled to testify, Gecker received another visit from the same lawyer. This time Gecker was told that he was only "a real estate lawyer" and that Kathleen Willey should really be represented by a top criminal attorney. Gecker responded that he was perfectly capable of handling a deposition and that he could not see any possible reason that Kathleen needed a criminal lawyer. Gecker added that even if she wanted such a lawyer, Willey was broke and could not afford the fees charged by top Washington criminal lawyers. The President's attorney offered that she wouldn't need to worry about fees because "we will take care of that."

After that conversation, Gecker reported, he received a call from one of the best criminal lawyers in Washington about representing Kathleen Willey. When Gecker again mentioned that she had no money, the lawyer replied that there would be no fees to pay.

Gecker conveyed this to Willey. She was frightened and convinced that if she testified she would be indicted by Janet Reno's Justice Department. She had seen how Billy Dale of the White House Travel Office had actually been indicted and tried for crimes he had not committed, reportedly because he had gotten in the way of the Clinton administration. She had seen the smears and attacks on Paula Jones. To add to her fears, she felt intimidated by events that followed.

Shortly before her January 10 deposition, Willey came out of her Virginia home to find all of her tires flat. Her mechanic asked, "Who the hell did you tick off? Your tires were flattened with a nail gun."

In another incident, a man called -- supposedly from the local electric company -- saying her electricity would be turned off that evening so they could run some tests. Later that afternoon, she called the electric company to find out how long the tests would last. She was told there was no plan to interrupt service and no record of anyone calling her.

Kathleen lives in a semirural area. The anonymous caller was reminding her that she was vulnerable and alone.

As the deposition of Kathleen Willey got closer, the intimidation increased. One day her cat, Bullseye, disappeared. On January 8, two days before she was to testify, Willey was walking her dogs in a secluded area early in the morning. A man in a jogging suit approached her.

JOGGER: Good morning, did you ever find your cat?

WILLEY: No, we haven't found her yet.

JOGGER: That's too bad. Bullseye was his name, wasn't it? [This shocks Willey, because she has not revealed the cat's name to anyone.]

JOGGER: Did you ever get those tires fixed?

WILLEY: They're fine [Kathleen starts to edge away and look around for help.]

JOGGER: So,---and---[Willey's children's first names]? [Kathleen walks faster toward her house.]

JOGGER: And our attorney, Dan, is he okay?

WILLEY: He's fine

JOGGER: I hope you're getting the message.

Willey was terrified. She turned and ran. The jogger called after her, "You're just not getting the message, are you?"

As a result of that meeting, Kathleen feared that she, her children, and her lawyer were at risk of physical harm. She told Gecker about the jogger but didn't mention the not-too-veiled threat against Gecker himself. As she put it, "He was my only hope--I didn't want to lose him." Willey confessed that even during the deposition she was contemplating whether to lie or to tell the truth and possibly suffer terrible consequences.

The deposition began as scheduled. However, before the questioning began, the President's lawyer said, "You know, I've talked to the President, and he just thinks the world of you. You don't really think this was sexual harassment. It wasn't unwelcome, was it."

"Not only was it unwelcome, it was unexpected."

In the room during the deposition were the court reporter, the Jones attorneys, the President's attorney, Daniel Gecker, Kathleen Willey, and the presiding judge.

Gecker saw that Willey was nervous. When the Jones attorneys asked about the incident in the Oval Office, she looked terrified. Gecker asked for a short recess to consult with his client. He took Kathleen aside and told her they were about to go into the heart of the subject.

"Kathleen, there is no turning back, what are you going to do."

"I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth," she answered, with tears in her eyes. She went back and answered every question put to her.

The next morning, Willey stepped outside to pick up the newspaper. There on the porch, within a few feet of the front door, the skull of a small animal lay facing her.

I asked Willey if she would be willing to testify. As she looked at Gecker, I could see real fear in her eyes. He said it was up to her.

I confessed that we couldn't vouch for the tactics of the President's lawyers, but we would not embarrass her.

Okay, if I'm subpoenaed, I'll testify."

Waco was also Hillary’s operation and it was Hillary that decided when the bombing in Kosovo would start.

You are right about Benghazi.

Hillary came up with the “spontaneous” lie. It’s a repeat of what was done before.

In January of 2006 the ACLU, with the help of al Jazeera and Osama bin Laden putting out a tape, tried to concoct a version of the “spontaneous” lie to explain away an al Qaida document recovered in Afghanistan, and a “coincidence” with the terrorist attacks.

In the doc OBL says the media is 90% of the PREPARATION for the battle.

Since the 1st WTC bombing, prior to each and every terrorist attack, attempted attack, or threat of an attack the left will always gin up civil unrest, attempt to gin up civil unrest, or have a plan to gin up civil unrest. In almost every case the left gins up the civil unrest by dragging up the R King case.

That is where the protest over a video leading to the attack came from. To try and create an explanation as to why terrorist attacks always follow when the left gins up civil unrest by comparing something to the R King case.

The “spontaneous” lie, and it’s several versions, was concocted to try and convince people the terrorist are simply picking up on a news story and “spontaneously” planning an attack around the news story and the left in this country aren’t orchestrating the news as part of the preparations for the attack.

In 2006 when the first attempt at the “spontaneous” lie was concocted, the ACLU had passed out video cameras in St Louise to try and recreate the R King video of 1991.

Amazingly it was 1991 when the planning for the 1st WTC bombing started.

The reason Zippo and company kept repeating over and over that the video protest caused the attack is nothing more than a cheap attorney’s trick that is commonly used on juries to manipulate their thinking.

It’s called “conditioned response”.

During a trial an attorney will make an obviously false or misleading statement and repeat the same thing to the jury over and over never expecting the jury to believe it, instead the attorney wants the jury to know it isn’t true and come to their own conclusion what the truth is ultimately leading the jury to a false conclusion.

In this case they repeated over and over the video protest caused the attack so the American people, which would be the jury, would come to the conclusion THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE VIDEO PROTEST AND THE ATTACK.

The truth is the attack was planned THEN the protest in Egypt was planned for the purpose of CREATING the spontaneous lie.

Stevens and company were never supposed to be killed they were supposed to be taken hostage just like what happened during Carters term.

With the “media” being 90% of the preparation for the battle, just look for an orchestrated news story that fits with the “hostage” story.

The orchestrated news story is simple.

Immediately prior to the attack the dems. praised Jimmy Carter at their convention.

The republicans obviously compared Zippo to Jimmy Carter.

Hillary’s plan was simple. She was going to recreate the “October Surprise”.

They planned the attack, where Stevens and company were supposed to be taken hostage.

Then they planned the protest in Egypt to create the “spontaneous’ lie that the attack was because of the video.

Nobody was ever supposed to believe the “spontaneous” lie, instead Hillary’s rumor mill would start a campaign that Mitt Romney and the republicans had collaborated with the terrorist to make Zippo look like Jimmy Carter.

The republicans would then be put in the position to come up with some acceptable story for the American people to counter Hillary’s rumor mill that repubs had collaborated with terrorist and planned the attack.

They couldn’t tell the truth that it was Hillary collaborating with terrorist and planned the attack because they would end up sounding like Hillary’s rumor mill nuts.

The story the repubs were supposed to come up with

The terrorist are so in tune with the news the terrorist are simply picking up on news stories, in this case dems praising Jimmy Carter, and planning an attack around the news story in a relatively short period of time.

It would be the republicans that came up with the explanation as to why a terrorist attack always follows when the dems. drag out R King and gin up civil unrest.

The main reason for needing to create an explanation for the terrorist following the dems talking points is the attempted car bomb in NYC in 2010.

The dems had started a talking points campaign, which was also echoed by the MSM, that the TEA Party were a bunch of ultra violent, right wing extremist, racist, Tim McVeigh wannabes out to overthrow the govt.

Not too long after the dems started there talking points campaign against the TEA Party there was the attempted car bombing in NYC.

The bomb was a fertilizer bomb like Tim McVeigh used, so the left all jumped with joy and proclaimed their talking points about the TEA Party being a bunch of Tim McVeigh wannabes was correct.

There is 4 possibilities

1. The dems orchestrated the talking points/news for the attack to blame the TEA Party for the attack.

2. The terrorist are so in tune with the news they picked up on the dems talking points in the news and planned the attack accordingly.

3. The TEA Party actually did it.

4. It all one giant coincidence the terrorist matched the dems talking points in planning the attack.

Had Benghazi gone as planned, the republicans would have ended up explaining it away for the dems with choice #2.

Making the claim the terrorist are simply picking up on the news and in a relatively short period of time planning an attack.

Hillary’s rumor mill would stick with choice #3, the TEA Party collaborated with the terrorist and did it.

Benghazi is nothing more complicated than a 2bit attorneys strategy at CYA that she is collaborating with terrorist to kill Americans as her path to power.

I don’t believe Zippo was ever supposed to be reelected until Benghazi made it necessary for him to be reelected to orchestrate the cover up.

Just look at a the “failures by design” orchestrated by the Obama adm that were all supposed to take place after January 2013.

Phony jobs numbers, Trayvon Martin case, Red Line in the Sand with Syria, Obamacare, Feds pumping money to prop up the stock market.

Once the phony jobs numbers was corrected it would be Romney’s fault unemployment was going up.

G Zimmerman was found not guilty and the DOJ didn’t purse the civil rights case because of republican racism.

Red Line in Syria, Obama said it himself, it wasn’t his credibility on the line it was the credibility of the US. True statement had Obama not been reelected.

Obamacar, if Romney got it repealed republicans wanted to deny you healthcare. Don’t repeal it and republicans had sabotaged it’s implementation.

Romney appoint someone to the Fed and stop pumping money into the market, market goes down. Continue pumping money and you get inflation.

As a one term president, forced out by republican dirty tricks, Obama would be seen as a martyr.

Two terms and he is seen as a complete failure and should have never been elected to begin with.

There is no way Hillary or anyone else can ride Obama’s coattails into the WH with “Continuing the Obama legacy”.

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.