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.

[185JHP]

Speaking of ugly - 2004 is the year. By 2008, she'll scare pets.

[185JHP]

Good thing we have an AG that has had personally damaging contact with vote fraud. I believe Mr. John will have plenty of watchers on duty in '04.

[185JHP]

IIRC the Hillary went to court five times during her time at the Rose Law firm - not much of a litigator as you attest. What kind of a jury would she have any appeal for?

[185JHP]

It was an Indian curse (feather, not dot Indian). It ended with Reagan, elected in '80, though he did take a bullet - a ricochet, with much less energy left when it entered his body. After the curse was spoken (reason, a treaty the US govt. broke) every President elected in a year ending in 0, died in office, til Reagan. I believe Reagan was protected because of his staunch support for Israel and the Jewish people. El Shaddai breaks curses.

[185JHP]

The bad news is, the second most powerful being in the universe will help them. You know what the Good News is...

[Marysecretary]

I have always voted because I feel it is a privilege to do so. and 99% of the time I vote Republican. Very seldom do I vote democrat except in a local election and if it's somebody who does a good job. That doesn't happen very often, however. I'm with you. Democrats on the whole are not the kind of people we need in government any longer.

[ought-six]

I am encouraged by your post. I do indeed hope there is some future for conservatives and Reps in Massachusetts. I also agree with your characterization of Schumer, who, in my opinion, is a VERY dangerous man who is bent on the destruction of the Constitution. Oh, by the way, I thought Massachusetts was one of only two states Mondale won in 1984 (I know it was the only state McGovern won in 1972). But, my memory is not as keen as it once was.

[ought-six]

"There will be NO ' uprising ', if ( heaven forefend !) Hitlery! gets elected president...no matter how she ' rules '. Won't happen, don't hold your breath, not even close to being part of reality. You and others talk big on screen; you won't do a damned thing in real life.
You don't understand perfectly clear English prose ?"

What the hell is your problem? If you read my post correctly you would have seen it was predicated on a big IF, which apparently is a qualifying condition you can neither grasp nor understand. Your comments strongly suggest you are a very little man, with a pronounced inferiority complex. Don't bother me again with your swill.

[ModernDayCato]

Do you want hillary to appoint these judges?
In the recent USSC case where the court found a section of the Constitution that tells Texas what it can and cannot legislate, here's how our side voted:
Renquist (Nixon): Against
Stevens (Ford): For
O'Connor (Reagan): For
Scalia (Reagan): Against
Kennedy (Reagan): For
Souter (Bush): For
Thomas (Bush): Against
Ginsberg (Clinton): For
Breyer (Clinton): For

So...our side put 7 out of 9 justices on the court. What difference does it make? How much 'worse' is a Ginsberg than a Souter?

The point you also miss is that while you are compromising to get your Souter you're allowing both parties to shift to the left (which is exactly what is happening).

What global future do you think the liberals have in mind?
Let's see...undefended borders, bigger and more intrusive government, curtailing of liberty...you know, all the stuff that is happening while the 'Republicans' control Congress and the White House.

here is a clear cut out and out case against liberal policies
Here's where we agree. Where we part company is that you defend those same liberal policies if someone with an R after his name embraces them. Sorry, no sale.

he signed CFR and bowed to Kennedy on education, and signed the steel tariffs. But there are many things that he has accomplished against the liberal tide
Ah, the meat of the argument. So...what exactly did Bush do that you feel was worth trading off the Constitution and the education morass?

I believe it is you, sir, who throws his vote away by rewarding the RINOs and Neos for turning back Conservatism.

[woodyinscc]

here is a clear cut out and out case against liberal policies Here's where we agree. Where we part company is that you defend those same liberal policies if someone with an R after his name embraces them. Sorry, no sale

I do not defend any liberal policies,I abhor them(which I have pointed out)The main point of my position is that I think the battle is against appointing activist judges. The liberals know they cannot advance their agenda through the constitutional process and their strategy is to use the courts to make law. To me this is the real assault on the constitution. President Bush has said he will appoint only strict constructionists, and I believe him! The SCOTUS is only supposed to determine if law legislated by the congress is constitutional, not make law out of their body. If we can get constructionists on the court we will see unconstitutional laws taken off the books!! This includes all the assaults against the tenth amendment!!

[Quix]

Welllllllll,

I hope the moving of plants and stuffs went OK and that it was again anticlimactic.

Would still be delighted for you to send some of that rain up to Northern New Mexico!

Blessings,

[Quix]

Quite so.

I think even tooo many Christians really underestimate the demonic component in Shrillery et al's power mongering tyranny efforts.

THANKFULLY, WE'VE READ THE END OF THE BOOK. GOD WINS! But then, it never was a contest from His perspective. Even satan bends to God's will, purposes, use.

Thanks.

[ModernDayCato]

Two things.

1. Look at Post #509. There are 'activist' judges on both sides, apparently, and it doesn't matter who appoints them.

2. Regarding President Bush's appointments. Do you support Gonzales?

[woodyinscc]

1. Look at Post #509. There are 'activist' judges on both sides, apparently, and it doesn't matter who appoints them.

The Framers are spinning in their graves, this was not their intent. I say get them off!!

Regarding President Bush's appointments. Do you support Gonzales?

I have read some of his decisions and have the feeling he is another Souter. I do not support his nomination.

[Radix]

Mondale did not carry Massachusetts. McGovern, on the other hand, carried only Massachusetts in 1972. McGovern also won the District of Columbia.

BTW, I actually voted for McGovern back then in my very 1st experience with voting. Boy has the world changed since then. LoL

[joesnuffy]

Remember Rush said in 2000, she wouldn't run for Senate and she did taking Rudy out along the way. She is evil and ruthless!

A plane crash of a certain Kennedy also helped her...

[thrcanbonly1]

The US of A does NOT allow dual citizenship!





I beg to differ the US of A does not recognize dual citizenship. I have both Canadian and American citizenship, by having been born in Canukistan with an American mother and a Canadian father. The US does not recognize my Canadian citizenship but Canada does, as well as my American citizenship. Hence I have dual citizenship.

P.S.(Please no Canucklehead jokes, I left that commie hellhole almost 20 years ago)

[thrcanbonly1]

The US of A does NOT allow dual citizenship!





I beg to differ the US of A does not recognize dual citizenship. I have both Canadian and American citizenship, by having been born in Canukistan with an American mother and a Canadian father. The US does not recognize my Canadian citizenship but Canada does, as well as my American citizenship. Hence I have dual citizenship.

P.S.(Please no Canucklehead jokes, I left that commie hellhole almost 20 years ago)

[185JHP]

It's been obvious for a long time "who's zooming who" with that bunch. I may have mentioned this to you before - I heard that X42, shortly after he knew he had won the '92 election, made a "sign of the goat" hand with his left hand, while standing on a podium. He was not smiling. "None so blind as those who will not see" - I'm glad some of us have our ticket for that "great gettin-up mornin'." FReegards

[Quix]

Would not doubt Dillbo's satanic leanings at all.

The "fruit" is too obvious and too stinky.

THANKFULLY, WE DO KNOW about THE BLESSED HOPE!

LUB,