Hitlary Refusing to Admit Defeat; Determined to Destroy DemocRat Party

[Patriot Games]

http://newsmax.com/politics/clinton_obama_campaign/2008/03/28/83904.html

Clinton: In the Race for the Long Run

Friday, March 28, 2008

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is feeling heat from pundits and party elders to
quit the race and back Barack Obama, you'd never know it from her crowds,
energy level and upbeat demeanor on the campaign trail.

"There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in
Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to
come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly
I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their
votes counted."

The former first lady weathered a two-pronged blow Friday, with influential
Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. endorsing Obama and another Senate
colleague, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, urging her to step aside. But to
hear Clinton tell it, it was just another day in an epic primary battle
whose result is still not known.

"I believe a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will
strengthen the eventual nominee," she said. "We will have a united party
behind whomever that nominee is. ... I look forward to campaigning over the
next several months."

Traveling across Indiana, the former first lady was greeted by large,
enthusiastic audiences who roared their approval at her proposals to help
fix the state's economic challenges.

At events here and in North Carolina on Thursday, Clinton raised the issue
of whether she should quit the race, only to have it firmly batted down by
her supporters.

"There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this
primary, we just ought to shut it down," she said in Mishawaka, Ind.,
drawing cries of "No, no!" inside a packed gymnasium.

In Hammond, she compared the state's struggling steel industry to her own
efforts to fight the odds.

"I know a little bit about comebacks," she said to cheers. "I know what it's
like to be counted down and counted out. But I also know there is nothing
that will keep us down if we are determined to keep on."

Yet despite the optimistic talk, there is no doubt that Clinton faces long
odds for securing her party's nod.

She trails Obama among pledged delegates and is not expected to close that
gap even with a strong showing in the 10 remaining primaries. She also
trails in the popular vote and probably cannot close the gap without revotes
in Michigan and Florida, whose January primary results were nullified
because they broke party rules. Neither state is expected to go through with
new contests.

As a result, the so-called "superdelegates" _ some 800 elected officials and
party insiders who can choose to support any candidate _ would risk
intraparty rebellion if they backed Clinton.

The New York senator reaffirmed her belief that superdelegates will base
their choice on which candidate would make the best president and would have
the best chance to beat Republican John McCain in November.

All the more reason to look forward to Pennsylvania's primary April 22,
Indiana and North Carolina's May 6 and the handful of others that follow,
Clinton insisted.

"There will be additional information that will inform those decisions that
will come from these upcoming contests," she said.

Dismissing concerns raised by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean that a prolonged contest would demoralize the party base, Clinton
pointed to a recent surge in voter registration and turnout in Pennsylvania.
Democratic registration went up by 4 percent in the state this year, while
it declined 1 percent among Republicans.

"Both Senator Obama and I have brought millions of new people into the
process," she said. "People are registering to vote for him and to vote for
me. They're part now of the Democratic Party."

Asked what she thought of Obama's comment Friday that the Democratic primary
race resembled "a good movie that lasted about a half-hour too long,"
Clinton smiled broadly and said, "I like long movies."

 

[Bret Cahill]

Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.

First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
McCain loses by 15+ points.

Second, even if Obama wins the nomination, Republiars won't have but a
couple months to swiftboat him.

How can rightards survive such a cruel experience?

No _wonder_ most Democrats want both Obama and Clinton to stay in the
race!


Bret Cahill


> Clinton: In the Race for the Long Run
>
> Friday, March 28, 2008
>
> If Hillary Rodham Clinton is feeling heat from pundits and party elders to
> quit the race and back Barack Obama, you'd never know it from her crowds,
> energy level and upbeat demeanor on the campaign trail.
>
> "There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in
> Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to
> come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly
> I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their
> votes counted."
>
> The former first lady weathered a two-pronged blow Friday, with influential
> Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. endorsing Obama and another Senate
> colleague, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, urging her to step aside. But to
> hear Clinton tell it, it was just another day in an epic primary battle
> whose result is still not known.
>
> "I believe a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will
> strengthen the eventual nominee," she said. "We will have a united party
> behind whomever that nominee is. ... I look forward to campaigning over the
> next several months."
>
> Traveling across Indiana, the former first lady was greeted by large,
> enthusiastic audiences who roared their approval at her proposals to help
> fix the state's economic challenges.
>
> At events here and in North Carolina on Thursday, Clinton raised the issue
> of whether she should quit the race, only to have it firmly batted down by
> her supporters.
>
> "There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this
> primary, we just ought to shut it down," she said in Mishawaka, Ind.,
> drawing cries of "No, no!" inside a packed gymnasium.
>
> In Hammond, she compared the state's struggling steel industry to her own
> efforts to fight the odds.
>
> "I know a little bit about comebacks," she said to cheers. "I know what it's
> like to be counted down and counted out. But I also know there is nothing
> that will keep us down if we are determined to keep on."
>
> Yet despite the optimistic talk, there is no doubt that Clinton faces long
> odds for securing her party's nod.
>
> She trails Obama among pledged delegates and is not expected to close that
> gap even with a strong showing in the 10 remaining primaries. She also
> trails in the popular vote and probably cannot close the gap without revotes
> in Michigan and Florida, whose January primary results were nullified
> because they broke party rules. Neither state is expected to go through with
> new contests.
>
> As a result, the so-called "superdelegates" _ some 800 elected officials and
> party insiders who can choose to support any candidate _ would risk
> intraparty rebellion if they backed Clinton.
>
> The New York senator reaffirmed her belief that superdelegates will base
> their choice on which candidate would make the best president and would have
> the best chance to beat Republican John McCain in November.
>
> All the more reason to look forward to Pennsylvania's primary April 22,
> Indiana and North Carolina's May 6 and the handful of others that follow,
> Clinton insisted.
>
> "There will be additional information that will inform those decisions that
> will come from these upcoming contests," she said.
>
> Dismissing concerns raised by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
> Dean that a prolonged contest would demoralize the party base, Clinton
> pointed to a recent surge in voter registration and turnout in Pennsylvania.
> Democratic registration went up by 4 percent in the state this year, while
> it declined 1 percent among Republicans.
>
> "Both Senator Obama and I have brought millions of new people into the
> process," she said. "People are registering to vote for him and to vote for
> me. They're part now of the Democratic Party."
>
> Asked what she thought of Obama's comment Friday that the Democratic primary
> race resembled "a good movie that lasted about a half-hour too long,"
> Clinton smiled broadly and said, "I like long movies."

 

[Shrikeback]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d6022328-960a-4ca4-a339-2d0cda6f600d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.

The only thing anyone is skeered of when it comes to
Hitlery is that the size of her ass will increase even more
and we'll all wind up subsidizing her flights on Air Force
One, which will drain Saudi Arabia's remaining reserves.

> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
> McCain loses by 15+ points.

Unless, of course, the conversation switches to tax cuts.
What possible reason would anyone have to vote for
Methuselah anyway, unless he cuts our taxes?

> Second, even if Obama wins the nomination, Republiars won't have but a
> couple months to swiftboat him.

You know, swiftboating wasn't the thing that killed
Kerry. Tax hikes were. LOL. And fags, of course.
But here in this blue state, where gay marriage lost
during 2004, Kerry won. So fags weren't the big
deal.

> How can rightards survive such a cruel experience?

How can anyone survive this cruel experience of
having such wretched selections? Oh well, it's
true:

"Since time immemorial, the choice has always been
between some Turd Sandwich and some Giant Douche."
-South Park

> No _wonder_ most Democrats want both Obama
> and Clinton to stay in the race!

Okay. I'm impressed now. Yee haw, we is all
excited about our choices, ain't we, little guy?
It's excitin' like a Hollywood Scifi movie.

The Gorezilla, having been released from the
arctic ice, will smash through downtown Kyoto,
until Hitlery dispatches Janet Reno to fry him with
that gigantic ATF microwage death ray beam.
Yes'm, and then Hitlery will level wealth with
her own gigantic microwage beam.

And Hitlery will declare victory in Iraq, and the
bases will stay as long as they did in Germany,
and that's a fact. Will that outcome be different
under Obama?

 

[Topaz]

The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University

Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...

The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>



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

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

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

 

[Immortalist]

On Mar 29, 10:51 am, "Shrikeback" <hewpied...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d6022328-960a-4ca4-a339-2d0cda6f600d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
>
> The only thing anyone is skeered of when it comes to
> Hitlery is that the size of her ass will increase even more
> and we'll all wind up subsidizing her flights on Air Force
> One, which will drain Saudi Arabia's remaining reserves.
>

After Bush's bungled invasion spawned a new terrorist army and gave it
a home base, why should he fear anything, LOL, he is scared of his own
shadow and it helps direct expenditures as he likes to. I see that you
are scared also by your vieled comments about the scary prospects for
Iraq.

When a student asked about America's climate of fear, Obama pounced.
"We have been operating under a politics of fear: fear of terrorists,
fear of immigrants, fear of people of different religious beliefs,
fears of gays that they might get married and that somehow that would
affect us," he declared. "We have to break that fever of fear ...
Unfortunately what I've been seeing from the Republican debates is
that they are going to perpetuate this fearmongering ... Rudy gets up
and says, 'They are trying to kill you' ... It's absolutely true there
are 30,000, 40,000 hard-core jihadists who would be happy to strap on
a bomb right now, walk in here and blow us all up. You can't negotiate
with those folks. All we can do is capture them, kill them, imprison
them. And that is one of my pre-eminent jobs as president of the
United States. Keep nuclear weapons out of their hands."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/opinion/18wed1.html



> > First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
> > McCain loses by 15+ points.
>
> Unless, of course, the conversation switches to tax cuts.
> What possible reason would anyone have to vote for
> Methuselah anyway, unless he cuts our taxes?
>
> > Second, even if Obama wins the nomination, Republiars won't have but a
> > couple months to swiftboat him.
>
> You know, swiftboating wasn't the thing that killed
> Kerry. Tax hikes were. LOL. And fags, of course.
> But here in this blue state, where gay marriage lost
> during 2004, Kerry won. So fags weren't the big
> deal.
>
> > How can rightards survive such a cruel experience?
>
> How can anyone survive this cruel experience of
> having such wretched selections? Oh well, it's
> true:
>
> "Since time immemorial, the choice has always been
> between some Turd Sandwich and some Giant Douche."
> -South Park
>
> > No _wonder_ most Democrats want both Obama
> > and Clinton to stay in the race!
>
> Okay. I'm impressed now. Yee haw, we is all
> excited about our choices, ain't we, little guy?
> It's excitin' like a Hollywood Scifi movie.
>
> The Gorezilla, having been released from the
> arctic ice, will smash through downtown Kyoto,
> until Hitlery dispatches Janet Reno to fry him with
> that gigantic ATF microwage death ray beam.
> Yes'm, and then Hitlery will level wealth with
> her own gigantic microwage beam.
>
> And Hitlery will declare victory in Iraq, and the
> bases will stay as long as they did in Germany,
> and that's a fact. Will that outcome be different
> under Obama?

 

[Topaz]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:51:57 GMT, "Shrikeback"
<hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>The only thing anyone is skeered of when it comes to
>Hitlery


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

 

[Patriot Games]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d6022328-960a-4ca4-a339-2d0cda6f600d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
> McCain loses by 15+ points.

McAmnesty: 46.0%
Hitlary: 44.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

> Second, even if Obama wins the nomination, Republiars won't have but a
> couple months to swiftboat him.

We don't need more than that, thanks to Rev. Wright.

> How can rightards survive such a cruel experience?

Caribbean rum, Cuban cigars, filtered water.

> No _wonder_ most Democrats want both Obama and Clinton to stay in the
> race!

Uncited personal opinion, disregarded.

 

[Patriot Games]

"Shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1lvHj.781$lV1.578@trndny06...
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d6022328-960a-4ca4-a339-2d0cda6f600d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
> The only thing anyone is skeered of when it comes to
> Hitlery is that the size of her ass will increase even more
> and we'll all wind up subsidizing her flights on Air Force
> One, which will drain Saudi Arabia's remaining reserves.

Have you noticed her ankles thickening?

AF1 might have to be a converted AirBus!

 

[Bret Cahill]

> > Second, even if Obama wins the nomination, Republiars won't have but a
> > couple months to swiftboat him.

> You know, swiftboating wasn't the thing that killed
> Kerry. �

True. The problem with Kerry is he thought that since he was a highly
decoreated 'nam vet, BOOM, he's right in the White House.

> Tax hikes were.

Kerry only spend 23 seconds on the economy. The rest of the time he
was talking about being a highly decorated 'nam vet.

If Kerry had been able to focus on the economy he'ld won. Most
Americans support tax hikes on the rich.


Bret Cahill

 

[Shrikeback]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:48d477b1-e4da-42f5-b580-3cf385246735@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > Second, even if Obama wins the nomination, Republiars won't have but a
> > > couple months to swiftboat him.

> > You know, swiftboating wasn't the thing that killed
> > Kerry. ?

> True. The problem with Kerry is he thought that since he was a highly
> decoreated 'nam vet, BOOM, he's right in the White House.

Nope. The only problem with Kerry was he wanted
to plunge the US back into recession by raising taxes.
Just like Tom Daschle.

> > Tax hikes were.

> Kerry only spend 23 seconds on the economy. The rest of the time he
> was talking about being a highly decorated 'nam vet.

> If Kerry had been able to focus on the economy he'ld won. Most
> Americans support tax hikes on the rich.

Keep living in your pre-1980 dreamland of high-tax
economic stagflation boom.

 

[AnAmericanCitizen]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:56:14 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:d6022328-960a-4ca4-a339-2d0cda6f600d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
>> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
>> McCain loses by 15+ points.

If Hillary were to win the nomination it will only be by nefarious means and most
likely the end of the Democratic party as we know it.....which might not be a bad
thing......AAC

 

[Bret Cahill]

Obama supporters are on the same side as Karl Rove.

'nuff said.


Bret Cahill


> >> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
> >> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
> >> McCain loses by 15+ points.
>
> If Hillary were to win the nomination it will only be by nefarious means and most
> likely the end of the Democratic party as we know it.....which might not be a bad
> thing......AAC

 

[MACK DADDY]

On Mar 30, 4:26

 

[Fred Weiss]

On Mar 30, 1:15 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:


>..Most Americans support tax hikes on the rich.

Not in NY.

http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NEWS01/803260366

"The trouble with the (millionaire) tax is it's a job-killing tax,"
said Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira. "In this state we seem to love jobs
but hate the people that create them."

The real trouble with the "millionaire" tax - or any other tax which
targets one group over another - is that it violates the 14th Amend.
"the equal protection of the laws" clause.

Otherwise we might just as well go back to a "poll tax" designed to
keep certain segments of the electorate away from the voting booth.

Fred Weiss

 

[Patriot Games]

"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsj70v3p8l1hb94helec2cvt158ekap26qh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:56:14 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com>
> wrote:
>>"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:d6022328-960a-4ca4-a339-2d0cda6f600d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
>>> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
>>> McCain loses by 15+ points.
> If Hillary were to win the nomination it will only be by nefarious means
> and most
> likely the end of the Democratic party as we know it.....which might not
> be a bad
> thing......AAC

Not bad at all....

 

[Patriot Games]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a3af67d2-020d-4804-bd01-75ee081c59ff@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Obama supporters are on the same side as Karl Rove.

Except they don't know it...

 

[Patriot Games]

"SMACKED DADDY" <pepsivanilla@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5973bef2-8859-43ea-ad29-0b84ec2918ba@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 4:26 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Obama supporters are on the same side as Karl Rove.
>> > >> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
>> > >> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
>> > >> McCain loses by 15+ points.
>> > If Hillary were to win the nomination it will only be by nefarious
>> > means and most
>> > likely the end of the Democratic party as we know it.....which might
>> > not be a bad
>> > thing......AAC
>The Repubrightards just can't stand the fact that their candidate,
>John W. McSame is so weak that even if it were a 3 way race in
>November Hillary and Obama would both beat McSame.

McAmnesty: 44.6%
Buckwheat: 44.4%

McAmnesty: 46.0%
Hitlary: 44.6%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Do yourself a favor and accept the painful truth that you're too stupid to
keep up with the adults.

 

[MACK DADDY]

On Mar 31, 7:49

 

[Bret Cahill]

> > >> Obama supporters are on the same side as Karl Rove.
> > >> > >> Rightists are_really_ scared of the Clintons.
> > >> > >> First, they are afraid Hillary will win the nomination which means
> > >> > >> McCain loses by 15+ points.
> > >> > If Hillary were to win the nomination it will only be by nefarious
> > >> > means and most
> > >> > likely the end of the Democratic party as we know it.....which might
> > >> > not be a bad
> > >> > thing......AAC
> > >The Repubrightards just can't stand the fact that their candidate,
> > >John W. McSame is so weak that even if it were a 3 way race in
> > >November Hillary and Obama would both beat McSame.
>
> > McAmnesty: 44.6%
> > Buckwheat: 44.4%
>
> > McAmnesty: 46.0%
> > Hitlary: 44.6%
>
> >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
>
> > Do yourself a favor and accept the painful truth that you're too stupid to
> > keep up with the adults.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Do yourself a favor and stop dreaming about McSame beating either
> Obama or Hillary. �It aint gonna happen, biotch! �This is a Democratic
> country!

The GOP will have a great big get out the bigot vote to defeat Obama.
There are millions of trailer trash bigots in the GOP that would
otherwise sit this one out because of amnesty.


Bret Cahill

 

[Christopher Helms]

On Mar 30, 6:15