Hillary Boo’d
Hillary! says we should support our troops…and the leftwingers in the audience boo her.
I think its a riot that it’s the Bill and Hillary faction of the Democrat Party that has help create these idiots and now she is having to deal their hostilities so she can pretend to be moderate.
Hillary and the Communist Movement
From Carey Roberts at World Net Daily:
A little theme music for this post!
[audio:http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/audio/28 Fortuna.mp3]
Last week, 400 people gathered in Washington, D.C., to witness the unveiling of the Victims of Communism Memorial. The speakers mourned those who had died at the hands of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And they warned of the threat of Islamo-fascism.
But little was said of the clear and present danger of communism itself.
Most people don’t make a habit of visiting the website of the Communist Party USA. But if you do, in the upper corner you’ll see the familiar hammer and sickle that symbolizes the union of the industrial workers and peasantry following the Russian Revolution of 1918.
But take a second look, because the traditional communist logo has been revamped. It now sports a gear, and the elements have been arranged in the shape of – no doubt about it! – the feminist looking-glass symbol. Is it possible that gender liberation ideology is rooted the manifestos of Karl Marx and tactics of Vladimir Lenin?
Keep looking, and you’ll see the platform of U.S. Communist Party proclaims, "Among the forms of oppression women experience are attacks on their reproductive rights; lack of quality, affordable day care; inequality in child rearing and household work; sexual harassment on the job; and domestic and sexual violence."
Now let’s pay a visit to the website of the National Organization for Women and compare agendas:
Reproductive rights? Yep.
Day care and child-rearing? Check.
Sexual harassment? Yes, of course.
Domestic violence? You bet!
Do you detect a scintilla of difference between the positions advocated by the U.S. Communist Party and the NOW? Neither do I.
Scroll down the home page, and you’ll bump into this headline: "NOW Political Action Committee Proudly Endorses Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton."
Then do a Google search that matches "Hillary Clinton" to each of the CPUSA demands. Is it a mere coincidence that the Communist Party, the National Organization for Women and Hillary Clinton are marching in lockstep with each other?
Of course this doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has followed Hillary’s career.
Carl Bernstein’s recent book, "A Woman in Charge" reveals that soon after the 1992 election, Hillary sat down with advisor Dick Morris to discuss her role in her husband’s administration –attorney general, chief domestic policy adviser or White House chief of staff?
In the end, Hillary decided that none of those positions could satisfy her talents or ambitions. Nothing less than the co-presidency would do.
In that role, she finagled to name Norma Cantu as head of the civil rights division in the Department of Education. Cantu, of course, was the architect of the socialist-inspired Title IX quotas that were imposed on college athletics, eventually leading to the demise of over 2,000 men’s sports teams.
A few years later Hillary wrote "It Takes a Village", revealing her admiration for the social welfare policies of France where "more than 90 percent of French children between ages 3 and 5 attend free or inexpensive preschools."
Then there’s Hillary’s longtime sponsorship of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which draws on the long-discredited Soviet theory of comparative worth to artificially jack up women’s wages beyond the levels determined by the market.
During a New Hampshire speech last month, Clinton said it’s time to replace President Bush’s "ownership society" – which she ridiculed as the "on your own" society – with one based on shared prosperity. Does anyone hear the echoes of Karl Marx’s famous dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
And if you want final proof of Hillary Clinton’s totalitarian vision, recall this promise at a 2004 San Francisco fund-raiser: "We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
So how did communism lead to the deaths of over 100 million persons around the globe? Simple – in its fanatical quest to achieve a classless and genderless society, it tramples on individual rights, resorting to intrusive, and eventually repressive, state power.
That’s why we should fear Hillary Clinton.
Here he comes to save the day!
Posted by Vince Foster
Play the mood music as you read this post.
[audio:http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/audio/mighty_mouse.mp3]
If Hillary Clinton was not married to Bill Clinton the vast majority of Americans would have never heard of her - what are her credentials without him?
Former President Clinton will campaign with his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Iowa next month, seeking to boost her bid for the Democratic nomination in a state where she trails in the polls. The former president will spend three days in Iowa with Sen. Clinton from July 2-4.
"The schedule is still being worked out, but it is the first time he’s joined the campaign," said spokesman Mark Daley. The Clintons have appeared together at campaign fundraisers.
Bill Clinton’s decision to join the campaign comes at a time when Sen. Clinton is struggling in Iowa, which opens the nomination process with caucuses in January. Although she leads national polls of Democrats seeking the nomination, recent Iowa polls show her trailing John Edwards in the state. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also is polling strongly in Iowa.
Late last month, an internal Clinton campaign memo urged the Democratic front-runner to bypass momentum-generating Iowa because of Clinton’s lackluster showing despite drawing large crowds — a memo she immediately disavowed.
In the memo, deputy campaign manager Mike Henry wrote that for Clinton, Iowa is "our consistently weakest state."
The campaign memo argued that winning Iowa would require a huge investment — as much as $15 million that could cripple the campaign later as it moved ahead to later states.
"I believe we need a new approach to winning the Democratic nomination," Henry wrote in the memo which revealed a split over Iowa strategy within the campaign.
The former president is enormously popular with Democratic activists in Iowa. Last fall, when it was announced that Bill Clinton would be the keynote speaker at the Iowa Democratic Party’s biggest annual fundraiser, the event sold out in hours.
| Help spread the word about nohillaryclinton.com Put one of these "ugly banners" on your email signature, blog, website or myspace site! Click examples to see selections |
|
 |
 |
Hillary’s Femi-nazi Problem
Posted by Vince Foster
(The Nation) This column was written by Lakshmi Chaudhry.
"I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!" exclaimed Nora Ephron in a 1993 Newsday interview. Three years later, she told the Wellesley class of 1996, "Understand: Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you." Come late 2006, however, Ephron was the one on the attack as one of the self-described "Hillary resisters" — those who believe that "she will do anything to win, who believe she doesn’t really take a position unless it’s completely safe," as she wrote on her Huffington Post blog, "who believe she has taken the concept of triangulation and pushed it to a geometric level never achieved by anyone including her own husband, who can’t stand her position on the war, who don’t trust her as far as you can spit."
This rather dramatic change of heart encapsulates one of the great ironies of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency. Many of the very same feminists who were her most ardent supporters as First Lady are now fiercely opposed to her historic bid to become the first female President of the United States. The woman once described by Susan Faludi as a symbol of "the joy of female independence" now evokes ambivalence, disdain and, sometimes, outright vitriol. The right wing’s favorite "femi-nazi" now has to contend with Jane Fonda comparing her to "a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina."
So what’s up with the Hillary-bashing? "Women don’t trust Hillary. They see her as an opportunist; many feel betrayed by her," wrote Susan Douglas in a May In These Times article titled "Why Women Hate Hillary." A month later, in her Newsweek column, Anna Quindlen declared, "The truth is that Senator Clinton has a woman problem."
Not exactly true, as it turns out. Hillary Clinton was the number-one choice of 42 percent of likely Democratic primary women voters in a recent Zogby survey, compared with 19 percent for Barack Obama and 15 percent for John Edwards. And her favorable rating among independent women is a whopping twenty-one points higher than among independent men.
Let’s be clear: Hillary has a "feminist problem," and more so with those who lean left.
Close Encounters of the Socialist Kind
Hollywood filmmaker Steven Spielberg has declared his support for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidency campaign.
The director is backing Clinton because he believes she is best suited for the top job at the White House and will bring America "back together."
He says, "I’ve taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House."
"Hillary is a strong leader and is respected the world over. As president, she will bring America back together, rebuild our prestige abroad and ensure our protection here at home."
Hillary Clinton Charisma/Bitch Virtue
In this conservative manifesto, New York Post columnist Podhoretz feeds the partisan flames with this splash of gasoline: not only is Hillary Clinton intent on running for president in 2008, but she has every chance of winning. Claiming that Hillary’s presidential aspirations represent "a colossal threat to the nation’s economic viability and its national security," Podhoretz lays out a plea and a plan for conservative action. With a blunt style and a knack for clear-eyed examination of the political horizon, Podhoretz stirs up conservative panic by explaining how Hillary’s "high negatives" can work in her favor (employing the old "there’s no such thing as bad publicity" angle), and how her distasteful feminism (as well as her distasteful husband) effectively innoculate her from criticism. Podhoretz offers a "Ten Point Plan" to beat Hillary in 2008, a strategy that involves forcing Hillary to go on the record in defense of unpopular liberal positions, resisting the splintering of the Republican party over delicate social issues, and nominating for president a moderate Republican with broad appeal-namely, Rudy Giuliani. Strident but incisive, Podhoretz warns that "Bush’s triumph in 2004 may be unduplicable," a statement that should mobilize conservatives to assure that the Clintons don’t get back into the White House.
| Help spread the word about nohillaryclinton.com Put one of these "ugly banners" on your email signature, blog, website or myspace site! Click examples to see selections |
|
|
|
Sandy Berger vs. Mike Nifong
I’d LOVE to see a reporter ask Hillary Clinton her opinion of the Sandy Berger case. Will it happen - don’t bet on it.
Mike Nifong has been disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar after a open disciplinary hearing, where he was confronted by his accusers, took the stand, and took his punishment.
Sandy Berger on the other hand accepted disbarment in lieu of an open hearing. I guess he (Clinton’s) didn’t want the details to wind up on YouTube.
Berger agreed last month to turn over his law license to the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility rather than submit to an investigation of his removing classified documents from the National Archives.
After countless cover-up explainations, lies, and distortions; Sandy Berger finally admitted to the deliberate destruction of National Security Archives. These documents related to the non action or action in response to Al Qaeda’s attacks on Americas interests.
Thank you President George Bush and Attorney General Gonzales for really putting the screws to this National Security Crime. I feel quite confident a President Hillary Clinton would do the same if Condoleezza Rice were to stuff Top Secret National Security documents in her dress, hose, bra, trying to hide unflattering information about your terrorism policies.
Your "New Tone" Policy is only hurting this country and helping the Clinton’s return to the White House. Shame on you!
| Part 2 |
| Part 3 |
| Part 4 |
| Part 5 |
| Part 6 |
| Part 7 |
| Part 8 |
