Hitlary Trying to Cheat America and Subvert the Role of Superdelegates!

[Patriot Games]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/superdelegates_hillary_ob/2008/02/17/73334.html

Hillary, Obama Feud Over Role of Superdelegates

Sunday, February 17, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The presidential race heated up Sunday after White House
hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton clashed with rival Barack Obama over how the
Democratic Party should choose its presidential nominee.

Trailing Obama in the nomination race after losing eight straight contests
to the Illinois senator, Clinton and her advisers suggested hundreds of
"superdelegates" -- party activists and elected lawmakers attending the
Democratic convention in August -- were not bound by the results of voting
in their states, US media reported.

"Superdelegates are a part of the process," Clinton was quoted as saying by
the Washington Post.

"They are supposed to exercise independent judgment," Clinton said on
Saturday while campaigning in Wisconsin, which holds primaries on Tuesday.

Clinton and her advisers made clear their view that the 795 unelected
superdelegates could clinch the nomination for her even if Obama prevails
among voters in primaries and caucuses.

Obama, who has won the popular vote so far, has argued that superdelegates
should back the candidate who wins the most delegates based on primaries and
caucuses in states across the country.

He now has a slight lead in pledged delegates after a string of victories
and hopes to extend his winning streak in Wisconsin and in caucuses in
Hawaii on Tuesday.

But senior Clinton aide Harold Ickes told reporters the superdelegates
should exercise "their best judgment in the interests of the party and the
country."

Ickes predicted that after all primaries are concluded on June 7, "she
(Clinton) will be neck and neck with Mr Obama ... Then she will wrap up the
nomination."

Ickes also argued the results of delegates from Michigan and Florida should
count even though the candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. The
national Democratic Party stripped the two states of delegates after they
flouted party rules and moved up the date of their primaries.

Obama's campaign promptly shot back, accusing Clinton of planning to
undermine the popular will of Democratic voters.

"The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result
of elections, not these say or do anything to win tactics that could
undermine Democrats' ability to win the general election," said Obama
campaign manager David Plouffe in an email.

The feud over how to select the Democrats' presidential candidate for the
2008 election came as Clinton struggled to regain the initiative amid
gathering momentum for Obama, who also now has the edge in campaign funds.

Both candidates campaigned in Wisconsin to woo the Midwestern state's mainly
white, working class electorate, which has shaped the outcome of previous
Democratic nomination fights.

Obama and the former first lady traded attacks over their voting records and
platforms on Saturday, with Clinton painting the silver-tongued Obama as
lacking substance while he portrayed the New York senator as hamstrung by
Washington's partisan ways.

Two polls gave Obama a four-point lead in Wisconsin, which has 74 delegates
at stake. Hawaii, with 20 delegates in play, also holds caucuses Tuesday
with Obama -- a native son who was born and raised there -- favored to win.

Obama has 1,296 delegates so far, compared to 1,238 for Clinton, according
to independent website RealClearPolitics. At least 2,025 delegates are
needed to win the Democratic nomination at the convention in Denver in
August.

With the race so tight, the superdelegates -- influential party leaders and
elected lawmakers -- have taken on crucial importance amid concerns the
nomination fight could spark a damaging row inside the Democratic Party.

Clinton, once the dominant front-runner, is counting on delegate-rich Ohio
and Texas on March 4 to halt Obama's surge.

Polls out this week have given her an edge in Ohio and Texas though similar
leads before previous contests later evaporated.

In the Republican race meanwhile, the Wisconsin contest could bring
front-runner John McCain one step closer to the 1,191 delegates he needs to
secure the party's presidential nomination.

McCain has taken big strides toward becoming the Republican nominee, with
825 delegates in hand. He faces the challenge of winning over more socially
conservative Republicans who oppose him.

Even though McCain appears to have an insurmountable lead, ordained Baptist
minister Mike Huckabee has remained in the race despite calls for him to
withdraw.

 

[AnAmericanCitizen]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:51:59 -0500, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/superdelegates_hillary_ob/2008/02/17/73334.html
>
>Hillary, Obama Feud Over Role of Superdelegates
>
>Sunday, February 17, 2008
>
>WASHINGTON -- The presidential race heated up Sunday after White House
>hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton clashed with rival Barack Obama over how the
>Democratic Party should choose its presidential nominee.
>
>Trailing Obama in the nomination race after losing eight straight contests
>to the Illinois senator, Clinton and her advisers suggested hundreds of
>"superdelegates" -- party activists and elected lawmakers attending the
>Democratic convention in August -- were not bound by the results of voting
>in their states, US media reported.
>
>"Superdelegates are a part of the process," Clinton was quoted as saying by
>the Washington Post.
>
>"They are supposed to exercise independent judgment," Clinton said on
>Saturday while campaigning in Wisconsin, which holds primaries on Tuesday.
>
>Clinton and her advisers made clear their view that the 795 unelected
>superdelegates could clinch the nomination for her even if Obama prevails
>among voters in primaries and caucuses.
>
>Obama, who has won the popular vote so far, has argued that superdelegates
>should back the candidate who wins the most delegates based on primaries and
>caucuses in states across the country.
>
>He now has a slight lead in pledged delegates after a string of victories
>and hopes to extend his winning streak in Wisconsin and in caucuses in
>Hawaii on Tuesday.
>
>But senior Clinton aide Harold Ickes told reporters the superdelegates
>should exercise "their best judgment in the interests of the party and the
>country."
>
>Ickes predicted that after all primaries are concluded on June 7, "she
>(Clinton) will be neck and neck with Mr Obama ... Then she will wrap up the
>nomination."
>
>Ickes also argued the results of delegates from Michigan and Florida should
>count even though the candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. The
>national Democratic Party stripped the two states of delegates after they
>flouted party rules and moved up the date of their primaries.
>
>Obama's campaign promptly shot back, accusing Clinton of planning to
>undermine the popular will of Democratic voters.
>
>"The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result
>of elections, not these say or do anything to win tactics that could
>undermine Democrats' ability to win the general election," said Obama
>campaign manager David Plouffe in an email.
>
>The feud over how to select the Democrats' presidential candidate for the
>2008 election came as Clinton struggled to regain the initiative amid
>gathering momentum for Obama, who also now has the edge in campaign funds.
>
>Both candidates campaigned in Wisconsin to woo the Midwestern state's mainly
>white, working class electorate, which has shaped the outcome of previous
>Democratic nomination fights.
>
>Obama and the former first lady traded attacks over their voting records and
>platforms on Saturday, with Clinton painting the silver-tongued Obama as
>lacking substance while he portrayed the New York senator as hamstrung by
>Washington's partisan ways.
>
>Two polls gave Obama a four-point lead in Wisconsin, which has 74 delegates
>at stake. Hawaii, with 20 delegates in play, also holds caucuses Tuesday
>with Obama -- a native son who was born and raised there -- favored to win.
>
>Obama has 1,296 delegates so far, compared to 1,238 for Clinton, according
>to independent website RealClearPolitics. At least 2,025 delegates are
>needed to win the Democratic nomination at the convention in Denver in
>August.
>
>With the race so tight, the superdelegates -- influential party leaders and
>elected lawmakers -- have taken on crucial importance amid concerns the
>nomination fight could spark a damaging row inside the Democratic Party.
>
>Clinton, once the dominant front-runner, is counting on delegate-rich Ohio
>and Texas on March 4 to halt Obama's surge.
>
>Polls out this week have given her an edge in Ohio and Texas though similar
>leads before previous contests later evaporated.
>
>In the Republican race meanwhile, the Wisconsin contest could bring
>front-runner John McCain one step closer to the 1,191 delegates he needs to
>secure the party's presidential nomination.
>
>McCain has taken big strides toward becoming the Republican nominee, with
>825 delegates in hand. He faces the challenge of winning over more socially
>conservative Republicans who oppose him.
>
>Even though McCain appears to have an insurmountable lead, ordained Baptist
>minister Mike Huckabee has remained in the race despite calls for him to
>withdraw.

 

[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

 

[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