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.

[sweetliberty]

"I think Hillary running for president 2004 is pertinant to whatever is going on."

Being out of power they do not have the control over information that they had when they were IN power. I can't even guess how many leaks the Clintons have had to plug to keep their crimes under wraps, but there comes a point where enough leaks, even plugged ones, compromise the stability of the structure and sooner or later the dam will burst. Maybe they are afraid that some witness or some piece of evidence can't be depended on to remain airtight until 2008 and they can't take that chance. If they can just seize the reins of power again, they would be in a better position to once again run damage control.

[sweetliberty]

"they beckon the queen to save the party."

The RATs aren't complete idiots though, at least not the ones with power. They have to know that a Hillary candidacy is a two-edged sword. She might be the salvation of the party, but she could just as easily be their undoing.

[sweetliberty]

"I still don't see her winning anywhere in the south"

I'm inclined to agree with you for the most part, but I must say, I have seen some of the people I work with just fawn over her, in awe of her. It's sickening and pathetic, a testament to the level of ignorance at play in a certain segment of the population. I am not very subtle in my criticism of the Clintons, and another "defense" I sometimes hear is "all politicians are crooked" or "everybody does it", like being a politician, by definition, makes it okay to be a criminal.

[sweetliberty]

"I think Philly had a 110% voter turn out in 2000 and take a guess who that city went for?"

The urban RATholes are definitely a BIG problem when it comes to voter fraud, and sadly, nothing is going to change it until there is genuine election reform, which is something the RATs are never going to allow. The boundaries of electoral integrity are as porous as the U.S. borders and with about the same political will to fix it.

Another big problem area is, as we should all be well aware of after the last election, are counties densely populated with ethnic minorities who are under the direct influence of democRAT operatives and organizations with a vested interest. Arkansas and South Dakota are good examples and certain counties in those states are hotbeds of election fraud and the RATs actively promote legislation that prevent reform.

[Slyfox]

WHO is behind the Clintons?

Interesting comment. I seem to recall, back in Little Rock, when the Clintons had established their 1992 campaign headquarters, that they didn't do as the regular democrats did and set up shop in Washington DC, because Hillary wanted complete control. This fact really irratated the powers that be. In fact, they were cut out of any influence they might have had. The kind of influence that was their right, or so they thought.

Hillary has been a supreme, one-woman, ramming machine like no other in recent memory. She takes people on board if they cotton up the way she likes, if she can see where their influence will get her to where she wants to go. And, heaven help you if you cross her. Hillary is a user par excellence.

The better question would be 'who is under the Clintons?'

[sweetliberty]

"See the danager I'm talking about"

And don't forget that in Hillary's first remarks as NY senator, she stated that it was time to get rid of the electoral college, which is basically the only thing protecting the people at all from RAT tyranny.

[BradyLS]

Cardinal, I agree with you 100%. Were the election today and the choices are GWB and Hitlery, it's GWB hands down.

I think the Republican leadership takes our vote for granted. And in the case of Bush the Elder, disasterously so. I voted for Perot in 92 and Dole in 96. Buchanan did the right thing and put his support (however reluctant he was privately) behind the primary winners in both of those elections. We still lost.

I've learned that, in politics, it ain't over till it's over. And even then, the courts may be called in to decide. And then there is the possibility of recall or impeachment. So it's never REALLY over.

So if Republicans collect my vote uncontested and then "steal" the issues of Dems while in office then who's doing whom the service? Who's the big loser? I hate backing a "winner" and winding up the loser while real candidates with conservative bona fides take a back seat in the primaries.

[reformedliberal]

I agree. NewsMax has patented a breathless style of hype to sell books, tapes and seminars.

I live in flyover country, but have friends who are considered part of the *cultural elite*, die-hard liberals w/FSO,intelligence agencies and journalism on their resumes.

They will NOT vote for Hillary. They are beginning to back away from support of Bill's record. Several active Dem organizers locally have expressed total depression and some anger w/the party as a whole. They feel that no one on the Dem ticket is electable and they blame the leadership for *not standing up* to Bush. This means that all the attacks have been seen on their internal polls as not effective at all.

The Bush team is politically brilliant. Someone posted yesterday (sorry, I can't recall if it was an opinion from a FReeper or a news article) that the genius of the Bush team was to keep so many issues in the pipeline that the Dems are
forced to constantly respond and never get a chance to be ahead of the curve, politically.

Bill Clinton may or may not have world domination fantasies; I certainly don't know, but one point in favor of Ireland is all income derived from art (includes writing) is tax-free there. Neither the UN nor the EU has any money, a standing military force or the ability to force the USA to relinquish
sovereignty.

I think we should always run as though we are 20 points behind, but Hillary has high negatives, nationally. In every poll that pits her against Bush, he wins significantly.

As for the vaunted FBI files: how many of the subjects of those files are still in power or even still alive? Just wondering, as it seems to me that if there was anything really potent there, it would have been used in 2002, when we won, deeply and across the nation.

The poster who mentioned poll watchers is right on. I think that in 2002 we saw our wins because of the international poll watchers. There were many stories about Dem fraud from many States. Even in SoDak, where we lost (IMO due to Libertarians), the negative publicity did not do a thing to improve the Dems standing. In places where we lost closely and Dems got elected/re-elected, it seems the Republicans are committing resources and at least trying to present viable, well-financed alternatives.

This flap over the SOTU speech and WMD is not resonating in the polls, no matter how they are spun in headlines and presented in the media. The CNN and NYT and LAT scandals that have been exhaustively discussed on the cable shows has, IMO, lessened the impact of those media outlets. I can recall at least a couple of times where the WaPo was used as an excuse by Daschle when he was caught out in a lie he backed up w/a WaPo article.

As to Dem TPs: I have just been laughing in people's faces and challenging them on their hype and lies. I tell them that THEY have the responsibility to change MY mind and they cannot do it with lies. They get angry, and then they slink away, later to emerge and whine about personal depression.
Many will sit out the primaries and the election.

The female and youth demographics have been shown over the past several years to be moving towards Bush. I am unsure how much this represents a switch in party and how much is due to personal responses to Bush, but, at least for the upcoming election, I think he will win and I think he will, at the very least, approach landslide territory. The Dems are fractured along ideological lines, Nader is not making any deal with them and even a single-digit pick up in support from traditional Dem constituencies will ensure a Bush win.

IMO, it is imperative to win big in the Senate. THAT is where the real battles have been and that is what we need to allow Bush to implement policy.

In the runup to 2002, my liberal friends had reams of TPs that clogged my email purporting to prove that Republicans could not win. On the day after elections, I received emails that simply said *congratulations* in small type. No one even tried to denigrate the importance of the depth of Republican wins. As of today, I am not even receiving the TPs and the same people are concentrating on the *guerilla war* in Iraq. Some are praising Bremer. The main criticism is of the intel/security agencies and not just those of the USA.

Take a deep breath, folks, and concentrate on your local Senate and gubernatorial elections. Bush needs that support as much as he needs our votes for President. OTOH, the Clintons do mobilize the base!

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post and ping.
A thousand pardons if you're already seen this or been pinged to it.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[sweetliberty]

"What I would like to know is why the 6-foot under crowd always votes for RATs?"

Probably has something to do with their creative "get out the vote" efforts.

.

[Slyfox]

You will see the biggest turnout ever in this party of the Country and they will not be voting for Hillary!

I recently went to a barbecue where my brother had a bunch of his co-workers present. At least 5 of them were diehard democrats. I took my chances and asked each one of them, separately, if they were planning on voting for Hillary if she runs for president. These were the answers:

"HELL NO!!"

"Are you kidding?"

"I wouldn't vote for that bitch if she was the last democrat standing!"

"No. If she runs, I'm voting for Bush."

And one long hard look from a guy, holding a 22 as he was target shooting, "What do you think?"

Now, they were all Texans and most were wearing cowboy hats and none of them claimed to have never voted for a Republican. I'm sure they didn't re-act like that just cause we supplied the barbecue and the keg.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Absolutely. At the rate the media world is changing, they will be outsiders by 08, an ugly memory by 12.

I believe this is what will drive her to make her move now.

If she loses big, she'll be done. If she doesn't move now, she's done. If she steals a win, we may have to make some hard decisions.

What fun!

[BradyLS]

Absolutely. At the rate the media world is changing, they will be outsiders by 08, an ugly memory by 12.

They won't be outsiders if she can hang on to her seat in '06. They have much more media influence out of office than any ex-prsident in history, IMO. Hitlery can build capital and wax credibility in her party from now until '06 and the springboard into '08. If Bush can bring home DNA proof of Osama or Saddam before the elections in '04, Hillary almost certainly wouldn't win, but could still have shot in '08.

[Dolphy]

Here is an opinion on Tenet that is interesting. Note, it mentions a CIA leak regarding September 11 that proved to be embarrassing to the President and a criticism over the use of diplomats (connect to recent uranium information). Tenet Must Go

Then there is his appearance before a Senate Intelligence Committee in February, 2000. Notice his view of Iraq despite the fact that, at that time, there were a number of Senators who for years had advocated regime change and highlighted the threat Iraq posed. Given the date and allegations that Tenet had a propensity of supporting Presidential policy it is a rather interesting read and possibly close reflection of Clinton's worldview. Testimony

I am neither a Tenet supporter or detractor, but it has been clear to me that he has serious detractors among Republicans and the recent State of the Union snafu rekindles my interest.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[sweetliberty]

"Does anyone remember the 'legend' of the presidents elected in the years ending in 0?"

It is called Tecumseh's curse. Some folks believe that the curse of Indian chief Tecumseh has killed every U.S. President before the end of their term in office, if they were elected in a year that ended with 0. The first victim of the curse was William Henry Harrison, whose troops killed the Indian chief in 1813.

• 1840: William Henry Harrison (died in office)
• 1860: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
• 1880: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
• 1900: William McKinley (assassinated)
• 1920: Warren G. Harding (died in office)
• 1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in office)
• 1960: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
• 1980: Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt)
• 2000: George W. Bush ????????????

[knak]

If Hillary Clinton runs, it will be the nastiest and dirtiest campaign ever filled with lies and falsehoods from the left and some people that claim to be conservative who don't seem to mind a DemocRAT in the White House!

I'm afraid you're right, but forgot to mention the massive VOTING FRAUD that will happen!

[sweetliberty]

You failed to figure Nader into your equation, who is also making noises about running again.

[Radix]

Keep in mind that some of the great Houses of the USA also gain from a divided nation. The Kennedy's, Ford's. Rockefeller's, and a host of others are immune to certain legislation. This is why they can actually support taxes and laws which would appear on the surface to be contrary to their best personal interests.

On the day that fat boy Teddy finally croaks, the tax man will not be cleaning out his bank account. He does not have one of substance. These effing hypocrites are nothing more than feudal lords with plantations and compliant servants who are willfully ignorant. Those who support such creeps and do not care to learn just what is in their personal best interests are destroying America. They are doing serious damage to the generations who are yet unborn.

These wealthy families are protected from the death taxes that they impose upon successful people by virtue of the fact that they keep all or most of their assets in their Foundations. The very oppressive taxes that they support are exactly designed to keep them and their progeny in positions of perpetual power and influence.

Gosh, it almost sounds like Communism when I talk about the super rich. They have been so succesful at manipulating the media, politicians, and the general public for so long that it almost feels indeed like an Orwellian book has come true.

[cardinal4]

I have to wonder as well, if the liberal points that GWB has adopted now, will go the way of the dodo after 2004. I hope so anyway.