Hillary's Plans to Take the White House

Conservative Book Service ^ | 12 July 2003 | Conservative Book Service Email

[PhiKapMom]

Today's CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message for xxxxxx xxxxxxx from Conservative Book Service:

Hillary's Plans to Take the White House

Your worst fears may be about to come true. Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House exposes the Clintons' long-range, highly detailed plan to make Hillary President of the United States -- and yes, despite her official denials, she's still mulling over a run in 2004.

In shocking detail, investigative journalist Carl Limbacher here blows the lid off the New York senator's plans for a grand political coup, something she has been carefully and quietly plotting for more than 20 years. With a patience, doggedness, and thirst for the truth that few reporters have displayed, Limbacher got the full story of Hillary's plans by conducting extensive research into Hillary's past and securing exclusive interviews with Clinton insiders. He even questioned Hillary herself! Limbacher uncovers the juicy morsels, backroom deals, and insider wrangling surrounding Hillary's presidential ambitions -- the hidden details that the mainstream press is too intimidated by (or enamored of) the Clintons to tell you about.

Think that Hillary doesn't stand a chance to become President? Limbacher shows how they'll get around potential and real scandals of a magnitude that ended the careers of many politicians less resourceful and ruthless than they are. He explains how the Clintons' approach to issues that could derail their plans -- such as Whitewater and Bill's thirst for bimbos -- has been consistently characterized by a brazen disregard for the rule of law and even for common decency. With startling precision, Limbacher also draws parallels between today's political environment and that which existed in 1992 -- the year George H. W. Bush lost the race to an upstart governor from Arkansas.

Limbacher reveals the real answers to questions Hillary avoids in public -- and much more, including:

• Why Hillary is not likely to wait until 2008 to enter the race for President

• How Hillary torpedoed Al Gore's chances for a rematch with President Bush

• The Clintons: why they're the most calculating and cold-blooded political team America has seen since John and Robert Kennedy

• Compelling evidence that Hillary has accepted money from Muslim groups with open sympathy for terrorists

• The eleventh-hour dirty tricks machine that beat Bush the father in 1992 and almost beat Bush the son in 2000 -- a machine that Hillary is ready to use again when she runs

• Conclusive evidence of bribery in the last-minute pardon frenzy just before Bill Clinton left office

• Remember the furor over Hillary's calling an aide a "Jew b-----d"? It wasn't the only time she has indulged in vicious slurs

• How the Clintons have effectively silenced publicity about Bill's philandering (including details about the stash of explosives discovered in a Clinton security agent's car)

You don't even have to be a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to be concerned about what Hillary in the White House would mean for the presidency, the Constitution, and America as we know it. Get all the facts that she and the media don't want you to know in Hillary's Scheme.

[Mo1]

I hope you are right. But let's not forget that no one, not even The Democrats, thought Bill had a snowballs chance in hell of being elected president.

Exactly .. I hope alot of people remember the 92 elections

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting! That is some read!

[CyberAnt]

"take her out"

Hmmmm? x42 could do that all by himself ..!!

[fish hawk]

Shouldnt be too hard for her to take the White House hell, she already has the silverware, dishes, couches etc.

[Mo1]

I don't see her getting two shots on the big prize, it will be one and out.

Yes it will be her only and it will be nasty

[PhiKapMom]

I remember that post and glad you posted it here. I believe you are right!

[longtermmemmory]

There was this opera written about Nixon's historic trip
to china. Yes I said opera. It was very good.

There is one segment where there is a song entitled
"I am the wife of chairman mao" Basically a woman deluded with
self importance. Somhow it goes with this.

[blackbart.223]

"Exactly .. I hope alot of people remember the 92 elections."

I hope a lot people regaind their senses.

[armed_in_sydney]

Can someone fill me in about the relative popularity of Hillary Clinton in the eyes of mainstream America?Would she likely draw more votes than say,Howard Dean?

[doug from upland]

I should have finished that novel. All the pieces are coming together as I was writing it three years ago. Hillary could threaten and blackmail any RAT candidate to get off the ticket and open it for her. There is nothing she would not do.

[Dolphy]

Yes it will be her only and it will be nasty

Yes, it will be nasty, she does not play to lose or by any rules (except when the rules are about how she is to be treated). Still, it is counter-intuitive, why would she put it all on the line, her decades old ambition, in 2004 when all political logic says 2008 would be her best chance?

[PhiKapMom]

I am torn in two directions. I believe the Chinese have bought and paid for Hillary and Bill for 20 years, but I also believe they have ties to the Russian Mafia through Marc Rich and to Russian Communist from Bill's days at Oxford and his trip to Russia. The Clintons pick a VP Gore that has ties to Armand Hammer -- a known communist. That to me is suspect in itself.

Something that always bothered me was that when Clinton went to countries that had been Communist until the wall came down, he was always friends with the "former" communist leadership that pretended they saw the light. My Mom used to say that Bill Clinton never met a dictator that he didn't know!

Wish I had the answer just who is behind the Clintons pulling the strings, but I would venture to guess that it is Communist whoever it is with a ton of money!

[Jumper]

The real campaign strategy is to get either China or North Korea to lob a few missiles at California, these missiles can be duds, or conventional - either way, the voters will drum the liberals right out of office along with their agenda(s).

[BradyLS]

I remember that quite well. Rush was supporting Buchanan for a period of time during the primaries. Took a lot of wind out of 41's sails that he never regained. Then came Perot...

I think something is missing from your analysis. Bush 41 was an incumbent President with a 90% public approval rating going into the late campaign season. Why did it matter that a radio talk show host would support Buchanan and a coporate maverick that eveyone lampooned be in the race?

[PhiKapMom]

WOW! I would love to have seen that book.

Maybe it is time that we take the bull by the horns on Free Republic and put this puzzle completely together. Probably some of the best researchers around are right here and time to get prepared if she does run in 2004! We cannot get complacent and say it won't happen.

[Radix]

Jim Rob made it clear why he banned TlbShow.

I do not know that former FReeper, nor do I care to defend him. I do not think that people should be banned for silly or spurious reasons, but in a place such as this, you are going to have people banned. That just makes sense. I saw that TBL guy around the site a few times, and it is clear that he made a few waves. The fact of the matter is, I sometimes make waves too. I happen to think that that is healthy and not neccesarily a bad thing.

Someday, I may start my own popular website, and I would hope to manage it the way that I think it should be done. In the interim, I post on FR.com, and I try to abide by the constraints imposed by the initiators of the site. It is their yard, and they certainly are entitled to make the rules. The rules may suck sometimes, but we are all free to create our own little on line republics if we are so inclined.

Meanwhile,on this web site that allows me to express ny sometimes contrary opinions, it seems to me to be a bit onerous that you would present a purported dialogue which includes a banned FReeper. I do not think that it is a nice thing to hit a man when he is down. That is just me though. I might just be deviant.

[Calpernia]

>>>You are spot on!(IMHO)The Hildebeast and the real liar have come to the conclusion that they cannot wait until 2008.

I agree 100% with this statement. But I'm only 60% sure as to your reasons (not that they aren't true...they are) but I have a gut feeling there is more behind the scenes that we don't know. I think there is/was something else in the making that got halted by Bush. It is there in the research...I can feel it; but have yet to see it blatantly.

I think Hillary running for president 2004 is pertinant to whatever is going on. The point is crucial. But I can't find it/well blatantly. I feel it...especially while reading www.iraqwatch.org. But there is something not being said.

Dolphy...this is in response to your: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944614/posts?page=80#80

[MJY1288]

I don't disagree with you about that, but demonizing someone who isn't conservative enough for your taste is a sure way to get a liberal elected. I'm a realist and by being so, I understand that there will never be a so-called "true" conservative elected in this country, as well as there will never be a so-called "true" liberal ever elected in this country.

That being said, If Rush Limbaugh wasn't driven by his wallet, he would be calling for people to get involved in the process by calling our represenatives or writing them, instead he stirs the pot and if it stirred enough, we get divided and what happened in 1992 will happen again.

We can not afford another Bill Clinton, if it means puting up with a republican President who caters to the middle to get re-elected I'm all for it just as long as he nominates conservatives to the Judiciary and impliments conservative policies for which has control of. George W. Bush is far more conservative than his father when it comes to foriegn policy, he is politically motivated on domestic issues, and must be in order to get re-elected. I feel as long as he is slowly changing the direction of the country while doing so, I'm all for it. Anything else will bring us another Bill Clinton at this time in our history

[I_dmc]

LOL

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629