Hitlary Struggles After Devastating Beating During Debate

[Patriot Games]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306531,00.html

Hillary Clinton Keeps Eye on the Prize Despite Attacks From Democrats
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

PHILADELPHIA - After weathering a withering two-hour bout with six
Democratic presidential opponents, Hillary Clinton went on offense
Wednesday, scolding the other candidates for their "politics of pile-on."

The Democratic frontrunner was jostled into responding to attacks from John
Edwards and Clinton's closest rival Barack Obama, saying they had abandoned
their initial strategies by going negative.

"With each attack, Senators Obama and Edwards undermined the central
premises of their own candidacies," reads a statement from the Clinton
campaign. "The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized
their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees
from candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls."

Shaking off the onslaught she endured during Tuesday night's debate at
Drexel University in Philadelphia, Clinton woke up Wednesday to field the
endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, giving her another leg up in her drive to assume a primary
victory and move toward the general election.

After a fired-up introduction by AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, in which
he called her a fighter, Clinton donned a pair of boxing gloves. She wore
them for a few seconds, saying, "When it comes to fighting for America's
families, I'll go 10 rounds with anybody."

With the gloves off, she said that together with the AFSCME, "We're going to
win the election and take our country back."

Meanwhile, her drive to win the Democratic primary continues to build its
momentum off what Clinton's campaign calls the "real target" - Republicans
and the Bush administration. Clinton recited President Bush's name 25 times
during the debate, more than all six of her rivals combined.

The constant redirection toward the administration didn't fool her
opponents, however, who seized on her ambiguity during the debate on what to
do about Iraq, Iran, Social Security and an array of other topics.

"Senator Clinton has clearly decided based on political calculation that her
campaign strategy is to tell the American people as little as possible,
avoid the difficult issues and try to blur as many differences as possible,"
reads a statement released Wednesday by Obama's campaign.

A Collective Assault on the Frontrunner

One of the most glaring trip-ups of the night came when Clinton seemingly
praised New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who has instituted a multi-tiered
system of driver's licenses so as to be able to give illegal aliens permits.

Asked about the New York plan, Clinton said she thought Spitzer was trying
to "fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring
about comprehensive immigration reform."

"We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New
York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our
roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or
others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability," Clinton said. "So
what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

But then Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator who frequently touts his
fluency in Spanish and work in the Peace Corps in Latin America, said he
disagreed with the idea of giving illegals driver's licenses.

"I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But
we're dealing with a serious problem here ... The idea that we're going to
extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and
I think the American people are reacting to it," Dodd said.

"We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the
attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are
here. But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different
opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a
privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view," he continued.

Clinton then said she didn't say driver's licenses should be given out,
which started a scrum with the other candidates. Clinton noted that the card
given to illegals won't have the same security status as other licenses
because it can't be used as identification for flying on airplanes.

Dodd called the approach "a bureaucratic nightmare." Edwards, the former
North Carolina senator, then questioned Clinton's honesty.

"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the
course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I
think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a
president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be
straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk
from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."

Obama, the Illinois senator, then added his two cents.

"I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was
for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things
that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that
we face. Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not
just looking backwards and seeing what's popular or trying to gauge popular
sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country," the Illinois
senator said, adding that Spitzer's plan "is the right idea."

Clinton called the assault a game of "gotcha." She then said that the
governor's plan "makes a lot of sense," before once more turning the issue
back on Bush, who took a lot of flak from many members of his party for
supporting a guest worker program for illegal immigrants.

"We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best
thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real
desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want
to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's
making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform,"
Clinton said.

The back-and-forth provided most of the few sparks of Tuesday night's
debate, but was not the only time that the candidates went after the White
House frontrunner. Obama started the evening with an attack on Clinton,
saying she has changed her positions on the North American Free Trade
Agreement, torture policies and the Iraq war.

Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, was even sharper at times,
saying Clinton "defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C."
He stood by his earlier claim that she has engaged in "doubletalk."

Clinton, standing between the two men, largely shrugged off the remarks and
defended her positions. She has been the focus of Republican candidates'
"conversations and consternation," she said, because she is leading in the
polls.

She said she has specific plans on Social Security, diplomacy and health
care. "I have been standing against the Republicans, George Bush and Dick
Cheney," she said, "and I will continue to do so, and I think Democrats know
that."

It was the Democrats' first debate in a month, and during that time Clinton
has solidified her frontrunner position, gaining in polls, taking the lead
in fundraising and dominating the agenda. The Iowa caucuses are scheduled
for Jan. 3, and the New Hampshire primary could be even earlier. The
caucuses and primaries are to choose delegates to the party's national
presidential nominating convention.

Clinton defended her Senate vote in favor of designating Iran's
Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Obama, Edwards and others have
said Bush could interpret the measure as congressional approval for a
military attack.

Edwards caustically challenged Clinton's claim that she stands up to the
Bush administration. "So the way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution
that looks like it was written literally by the neocons?" he said, referring
to the now pejoratively-used term "neoconservatives," which describes
advocates of military intervention in Iraq and Iran.

"In my view, rushing to war - we should not be doing that - but we shouldn't
be doing nothing," Clinton said. "And that means we should not let them
acquire nuclear weapons, and the best way to prevent that is a full court
press on the diplomatic front."

Clinton also was the main focus during a discussion of the Iraq war. Again,
Edwards leveled the toughest charges against the New York senator.

"If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq" without a
timetable for withdrawal, Edwards said, "then Senator Clinton is your
candidate." Edwards vowed to have all combat troops out of Iraq "in my first
year in office."

Clinton replied forcefully, saying "I stand for ending the war in Iraq,
bringing our troops home." She added, however, that "it is going to take
time," and some troops must remain to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq.

"I don't know how you pursue Al Qaeda without engaging them in combat," she
said.

Edwards, drawing a link between Iraq and Iran, pressed on. "What I worry
about is, if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we going to
hear: 'If only I had known then what I know now?"' He was alluding to
comments Clinton has made about her 2002 vote to authorize military action
against Saddam Hussein.

Some candidates expressed frustration that most of the questions were
directed to Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Seventeen minutes into the debate,
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich had yet to get a question and blurted out, "Is
this a debate here?" Minutes later, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson threw up
his hands in protest that he had not been called on either and exchanged a
frustrated glance with Kucinich.

Obama, alluding to the partisanship that bedeviled Bill Clinton's
presidency, told the former first lady: "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."

Richardson criticized his rivals for challenging Clinton so sharply,
rebuking their "holier-than-thou attitude."

But Edwards and Dodd cited Clinton's relatively high unfavorability ratings.

"Fifty percent won't vote for her," Dodd said.

On Social Security, Russert asked Clinton why she told an Iowa voter, in an
offstage comment overheard by an Associated Press reporter, that she was
open to raising the cap on payroll taxes when the proposal is not part of
her platform.

Clinton said she did not have a "private position" on Social Security. She
would convene a bipartisan commission to recommend ways to strengthen the
pension program, she said, and all the well-known suggestions "would be
considered."

Only briefly did the candidates aim their remarks at Republicans. Delaware
Sen. Joe Biden said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani "is genuinely not
qualified to be president."

Giuliani's entire message is "a noun, a verb and 9/11," Biden said, but that
he had "done nothing" to implement anti-terrorism recommendations by the
9/11 Commission.

Edwards, meanwhile, felt at least one jab. Kucinich, alluding to Edwards'
past financial dealings, said: "When people get money from New York hedge
funds and then they attack another person for getting money from Washington
interest groups, you know what? They're both right."

In the debate's lightest moment, Kucinich confirmed seeing an unidentified
flying object at the Washington state home of actress Shirley MacLaine. He
said, with a smile, he would open a campaign office in Roswell, New Mexico,
home to many alleged UFO sightings.

The debate, held at Drexel University, was aired by MSNBC. Organizers
excluded former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel on grounds that he did not meet
fundraising and polling thresholds.

 

[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