Hitlary Should Quit, Americans Would Rather Eat a Turd Than Vote for Her Immoral Thighness

[Patriot Games]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hillary_Attacked/2007/10/31/45583.html

Verbatim: Hillary Attacked

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals ganged up on her at Tuesday night's
presidential debate, taking her to task on a range of issues including the
Iraq war and Social Security - and for what they clearly characterized as
Hillary's flip-flopping.

Chief rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards were particularly harsh on the
New York senator during the MSNBC-sponsored debate at Drexel University in
Philadelphia. They were joined by Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joseph
Biden and Dennis Kucinich.

Even moderators Tim Russert and Brian Williams showed Clinton no mercy,
peppering her with tough questions that put Hillary on the defensive.

Here is a sampling of the anti-Hillary exchanges:

Obama: [Bringing about change] does not mean, I think, changing positions
whenever it's politically convenient. And Senator Clinton, in her campaign,
I think has been for NAFTA previously. Now she's against it. She has taken
one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has taken
a different position.

She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later
said this was a war for diplomacy.

I don't think that it - now, that may be politically savvy, but I don't
think that it offers the clear contrast that we need. I think what we need
right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the
country. That's how I'm trying to run my campaign. That's how I will be as
president.

Edwards: Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for
change, but she defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C.

She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she'll keep combat
troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.

To me, that's not ending the war, that's a continuation of the war.

She says she'll stand up to George Bush on Iran. She just said it again.
And, in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step in moving
militarily on Iran - and he's taken it. Bush and Cheney have taken it. They
have now declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization
and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

I think we have to stand up to this president.

And then, finally, she said in our last debate that she was against any
changes on Social Security - benefits, retirement aid, or raising the cap on
the Social Security tax - but apparently, it's been reported that she said
privately something different than that.

Russert: Senator Clinton . because in terms of your experience as first
lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment
about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the
documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives
not to do anything until 2012.

After Hillary evaded giving a direct answer, Obama jumped in.

Obama: We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations
in our history.

And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that
you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think,
is a problem.

Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back to participate
in their government again. Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in
our government again.

And that means being open and transparent and accountable to the American
people. And that's one of the hallmarks of my previous work in the state
legislature, in the United States Senate, making sure that Americans know
where our money is going, what earmarks are out there, what kinds of pork
barrel spending is being done, who's bungling money for who.

And that, I think, is part of the job of the next president, is making
Americans believe that our government is working for them; because right
now, they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working
for special interests and it's working for corporations.

One last point I want to make - part of the reason that Republicans, I
think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're
very comfortable having. It is the fight that we've been through since the
'90s.

Edwards: Another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about
Senator Clinton is, Senator, they may actually want to run against you, and
that's the reason they keep bringing you up.

What I would say is, Senator Clinton just said that she believes we
desperately need change in this country. And I agree with that. I actually
think we have a system that's broken; it's rigged; it's corrupt. And it does
not work for the American people.

And it's time we start telling the truth about that - too much influence
from entrenched interests, insurance companies, drug companies, oil
companies, too much influence from Washington lobbyists.

And so the question, I think, that voters have to ask themselves is: Do you
believe that the candidate who's raised the most money from Washington
lobbyists, Democrat or Republican, the candidate who's raised the most money
from the health industry, drug companies, health insurance companies, the
candidate who's raised the most money from the defense industry, Republican
or Democrat - and the answer to all of those questions is: That's Senator
Clinton.

Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You
know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't
think that's going to happen. I really don't.

And I think that if people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your
candidate. That's what I believe. If they want real change, then they need
somebody who tells the truth about a system that doesn't work, who believes
that this may actually be the first generation we're all worried about. This
being the first generation that doesn't leave the world and America better
for our children, unlike 20 generations that came before us.

Russert: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the
issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you
would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising
more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you
the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no."

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a
conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps
above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying
that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Clinton: Well, Tim, I don't.

 

[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