Americans Think Hitlary is Yapping Fish-Eating Socialist Tool

[Patriot Games]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/21/164717.shtml?s=lh

Will Americans Elect a Woman to the White House?
NewsMax.com Wires Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa _ A pair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's worst nightmares trudged
past a giant blue "Hillary for President" sign outside the Iowa State Fair
here with palpable disgust.

"Hillary can go to hell," said Alice Aszman, 66, a Democrat from Ottumwa.
"I'll never vote for her. I don't think a woman should be president. I think
a man should. They've got more authority."

Her husband, Daniel, 50, also a Democrat, agreed: "I think women should stay
home instead of being boss."

That's not what Clinton wants to hear from voters like the Aszmans, who
described themselves as "working-class." But there's also no question that,
even as Clinton, the New York Democrat, widens her lead in national polls of
Democratic voters, becoming the first woman president won't be easy.

Appealing to female voters as a sister-in-arms won't be enough to win the
White House, and a potentially worrisome gender gap has emerged in polls
between levels of male and female support for Clinton.

A July poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers by the University of Iowa
found that Clinton had 30 percent support among women and 18 percent among
men. By comparison, there was no difference in gender support for Illinois
Sen. Barack Obama, who got 21 percent from both men and women.

The same poll found that 32 percent of women strongly agreed that Clinton
was electable, while only 14 percent of men did. And 30 percent of women
strongly agreed that Clinton was the Democrats' strongest candidate, while
only 17 percent of men did.

Clinton brings special baggage to the campaign, demonized as she was through
the 1990s by conservative talk-show hosts haranguing the white male voters
whom Clinton must woo now. That's one reason why Clinton has the highest
"disapproval ratings" among Democrats, ranging into the mid-40s in national
polls.

She addresses the unique nature of her candidacy at every campaign stop:
"I'm proud to be running to be the first woman president, but I'm not
running because I'm a woman," Clinton tells voters. "I'm running because I
think I'm the best qualified and experienced to hit the ground running and
get the job done."

At several recent campaign events in Iowa, many male and female voters said
they didn't care about Clinton's gender.

"This country's in bad shape. I think it's going to take someone with
Hillary's ability to get things done," said Roger Davids of Council Bluffs,
a retired Army noncommissioned officer whose years of service showed on his
weary face, wiry frame, and the aged tattoos festooning his arms. "I think
she's a doer. It's not all talk."

Davids called the United States "long overdue" for a woman. "Look at
Margaret Thatcher. She did a good job."

Nevertheless, several voters conceded there is a subtext of gender bias
apparent.

Some of it comes from women: "Women are their own worst enemy," said Sheryl
McConkey, 53, an inventory manager from Council Bluffs who supports Clinton.
One female friend told McConkey, "How can she manage the country when she
couldn't manage her own husband?"

But polls show women are Clinton's "natural constituency ... much more
likely to support Hillary Clinton than men are," said David Redlawsk, a
political scientist at the University of Iowa. "Some of it is just who
Hillary Clinton is and people's responses to her. Some of it is ... some men
still won't vote for a woman, no matter what they tell a pollster."

Charles McConkey, 52, of Council Bluffs, is a maintenance mechanic at a pipe
foundry. He's undecided, but considering Clinton: "There's no doubt in my
mind" she's capable of being president.

But he added, "I know a lot of people who won't" vote for Clinton because
she's a woman. "It's just stupid. They won't come out and say it. But a lot
of guys are just stupid."

Dick Applegate, 63, a retired steelworker from Waukee, agreed: "I think
we're ready" for a woman president. "But there's a lot of `em against it. A
lot of `em don't think it's time. It's an element."

That may not matter much in preliminary rounds. In a caucus, candidates must
simply identify their most committed supporters and get them out. Turnout in
Iowa's Democratic caucus will likely be 20 percent or less of registered
voters, evenly split between men and women. A small subset of hard-core
supporters - that "natural constituency" - can take a candidate a long way
in a crowded field.

In New Hampshire, the first primary state, female primary voters outnumber
male voters by about 60 percent to 40 percent, so a similar gender gap there
is no problem, said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New
Hampshire Survey Center.

In a general election however, it could be a major problem, because men
traditionally vote for Republicans at a higher rate than women vote for
Democrats.

"She has to be careful the men don't split against her more than women split
for her," Smith said.

Clinton is trying to close the gender gap in several ways. She runs on a
theme of "strength and experience" aimed more for the general-election
audience.

"I think she's got the leadership ability. She shows that in the debates,"
said Arthur Henderson, 70, of Council Bluffs, a retired car maintenance man
for the Union Pacific Railroad. He's undecided. "She don't take the rear
seat to nothing."

Her meld of populism and responsibility also could appeal to wary males. Her
first television ad of the campaign, aired this month, swiped at the Bush
administration, claiming it ignores the daily struggles of average
Americans.

Her stump speech squarely targets economic angst, which cuts across gender
lines. She promises to end the "the steady and slow erosion of the American
middle class ... it's not rich people who made this country great. It's the
middle class!"

She offers no free ride, challenging listeners to "roll up our sleeves and
get to work. ... We are living off the investments and the innovations of
previous generations of Americans. What is it we will do to get our country
on the right track?"

Finally, Clinton's underrated retail politicking skills may help win over
skeptics of either gender. On the trail in Iowa, she won easy laughs by
displaying humor and empathy.

In Waukee, she impishly exclaimed "Ooh, I feel like Oprah," as she waded
into the crowd with a microphone. At the State Fair, she announced "I'm
gonna eat my way across the fair," and did just that, ingesting an
impressive array of Midwestern soul food.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Clinton supporter, said in an interview that
he thinks Clinton will be able to overcome gender-based doubts because of
the personal nature of politics in early-voting states such as Iowa and New
Hampshire.

"The more people get to touch her and see her and hear her, the more they
know she sees them," Vilsack said, echoing Clinton's TV ads. "There's been a
concerted effort to mischaracterize her. That's why when people do meet her,
they're so impressed, because she's nothing like what people have tried to
portray her as."

 

[Topaz]

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"German women, German men !
It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the
Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.
Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not
forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National
Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily
politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very
unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic
intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not
respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the
woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different
value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German
woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best
sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other
areas than the man.

The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but
also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in
the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices
and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best
suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless
devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.

The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the
past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea
of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread
winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the
man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is
not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her
talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the
frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men
were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to
the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men
always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all
great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination
have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually
loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the
woman.

It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must
be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our
attitude toward women.

The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in
government, politics, economics and social relations has not left
women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought
impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some
good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that
are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations
have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set
in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a
distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with
former ideals.

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.

German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade.

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in
our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now
the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most
evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's
birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without
emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The
government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the
resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental
change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is
responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying
about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our
national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The
national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation
on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the
woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends
to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of
our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our
blood is assured..."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html