Why Hillary Clinton Will Be Good For America, Conservatives might finally wake...

today's conservatives should love hilary clinton, or it should make them realize that they're all the same...

Why Hillary Clinton Will Be Good For America
Conservatives might finally wake up to the reality of the two party monopoly of power

Paul Joseph Watson | November 22 2005

From Battlestar Gallactica to The First Lady, the cultural zeitgeist is promoting the notion that the next President of the United States will be a woman.

The stage has been set for Condi vs. Hillary to be the next political football used to distract America from anything of real substance.

However, if Hillary Clinton is chosen as the next figurehead of the elite, it might actually be good for America. Myopic conservatives could finally wake up and realize that George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are two peas in the same pod.

Big government liberals should love George Bush. Let's take a look at his actual record and not his rhetoric.

- Bush is the first US president since James Garfield in 1881 to accept every bill Congress sends him, he hasn't vetoed one. Bush has stretched this record out over five years, Garfield was only in office six months.

- According to Stephen Slivinski of the libertarian Cato Institute, "[President] Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Mr. Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years."

- Bush's efforts to federalize relief efforts, eliminate habeas corpus and posse comitatus, along with endless other violations of the US constitution, make him and his administration the biggest threat to American liberty since King George.

- Bush has not only failed to enforce immigration laws, he has presided over a deliberate and unceasing attempt to open the floodgates to illegal immigration with his guest worker program. This even taken independently is an impeachable offense.

- Bush led America into a war on the orders of neo-Trotskyites based on fraudulent intelligence and outright lies. The foreign policy of the Neo-Con usurpers is an unprecedented 180 degrees from the Jeffersonian principle of avoiding foreign adventures and entangling alliances. The founding fathers advocated splendid isolation and a strong rearguard at home. Bush has split America wide open to untold illegal immigration while sending US troops to die on foreign soil for wars that have wreaked endless economic and moral turmoil on average Americans.

- Bush has betrayed his fake Christian ethic even more times than he's flipped off a television camera. His membership of Bohemian Grove and his abandonment of Roy Moore's Ten Commandments fight shows Bush in his true light.

Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr wrote,

"[W]hich recent president's term in office was characterized by support for the so-called assault weapon ban, a huge increase in deficit spending, bigger budgets for virtually every domestic program, including Americorps and the National Endowment for the Arts, and signing into law a massive increase in federal government regulation of political speech, whose administration would you suspect they were describing? That of Democrat Bill Clinton? Nope. [We're] talking about the first term of Republican President George W. Bush."

Hillary Clinton supports every Bush policy with as much if not more zeal.

She supported the war and recently again stated that American troops should be kept in Iraq as more sons, daughters, mothers and fathers return in body bags hidden from the media.

The Clintons and the Bushes are openly in bed with one another. George HW Bush describes Bill as one of his best friends on earth and every month they are photographed gallivanting around kissing up to each other.

Will mainstream conservatives discover their backbones and admit to themselves that George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are drinking from the same Kool Aid?

Will conservatives accept the fact that 'war is a racket' and always uses phony patriotism as a cover for global domination?

Will they finally open their eyes to the screaming reality that both parties are controlled and directed by a higher evilarchy?

If the answer is yes then President Hillary Clinton will be good for America.

She supported the war and recently again stated that American troops should be kept in Iraq as more sons, daughters, mothers and fathers return in body bags hidden from the media.

I'm no fan of Hillary but this statement is nothing less than a bald ass lie!! When the fuck did she STATE that....only on pissplanet folks!!!

State it how it is, Hillary stated that American Troops should be kept in Iraq until the Iraqi government is self sufficient. This two bit piece of shit journalist accuses the government of lieing at every opportunity and then prints this crap....get fuckin' real!!!

woman a president in the near future.... HAHAHAH YEAH thatll be the day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SporesDirect

woman a president in the near future.... HAHAHAH YEAH thatll be the day

---

GET HIM BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dance:

In my lifetime? You have got to be kidding me

It'll happen!!! Don't count out women at the polls. If the right candidate with the right platform comes along..........

I just don't think either Hillary or Condi is the one though! Would be nice to see Bill playin' in the White House again though....that dude makes me laugh! :thumbsup:

92% of all men will not vote for a woman, and about 50% of women polled lately would not either. Wish I remember my sources... so I guess without them It means nothing, but I did see that somewhere recently

Ya know, thinking about it...it might just be what this country needs. Look at it once....

Organizational skills, compassion when needed, disiplinarian of the household.
Kinda spells out mother and president to me.

Remember Thatcher, NOBODY fucked around with that lady and she had the worlds respect. Never know, could happen! :smokin:

Sorry Psycho but I would not vote for her if my life depended on it...
that does not mean that a woman could not do the job....
I just think she is weak and goes where the money is...and I do not agree with her on several issues. I am actually in favor of Barrack Obama and I hope he runs.

Agrees with Newt Gingrich that Iraq policy is a mess
Newt Gingrich said the administration has failed "to put the Iraqis at the center of this equation. The key to defeating the bad guys is having enough good guys who are Iraqis," he said. The administration did not send enough Iraqi Americans there after the war, Gingrich said.
Hillary Clinton, who recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, said she agreed with Gingrich. She blamed the administration for "miscalculation" and "inept planning" in Iraq. "I do think we need more troops" in Iraq, Clinton said. She said she believes in giving the chief executive the authority to wage war, as her husband did in Bosnia and Kosovo. "But I regret the way the president has used the authority." Clinton dismissed complaints that she should not have criticized President Bush while in Iraq and blamed a "right-wing apparatus." Clinton said she was merely responding to questions from U.S. troops. "I'm not going to lie to an American soldier," she said on CBS.

Source: Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, Page A07 Dec 8, 2003

Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel
LAZIO: When the US failed to use its veto, in the UN Security Council [which condemned Israelâ??s response to Palestinian protests] - that was one of the great mistakes of the last few years, and I spoke out immediately. Iâ??m sure that Mrs. Clinton had a chance to speak with the president about this, to urge him not to use that veto. I would love to know what the context of the discussion was.
Q: Did you urge him to use it?

CLINTON: That was what I urged my husband to do. He made a different decision

Source: (X-ref Lazio) NY Senate debate on NBC Oct 28, 2000

Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally
Q: In recent weeks, scores of people have been killed in the Middle East. In view of whatâ??s happened, do you think there should be a Palestinian state now?
CLINTON: Only as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. Thatâ??s always been my position, that [it should] guarantee Israelâ??s safety and security and the parties should agree at the negotiating table. A unilateral declaration is absolutely unacceptable and it would mean the end of any US aid.

LAZIO: Thatâ??s a change of heart for Mrs. Clinton, because back in 1998 you called for a Palestinian state. You undercut the Israeli negotiating position. The people of New York want to have somebody who has a consistent record. For eight years I have been consistent and strong in my support for the security of the state of Israel. Without equivocation. Without a question mark next to my name.

CLINTON: There is no question mark next to me. Thereâ??s an exclamation point. I am an emphatic, unwavering supporter of Israelâ??s safety and security.

Source: NY Senate debate on NBC Oct 28, 2000

Returned money from organization associated with terrorists
LAZIO [to Clinton]: When you accept contributions from people that support Hamas, when theyâ??re your guests at the White House, when you cavort with terrorists, you send a message to the Palestinian Authority that encourages violence to be used as a tool to achieve political ends.
Q: Wait a minute. Didnâ??t your presidential candidate, George W. Bush, also accept contributions?

LAZIO: Itâ??s absolutely wrong for all. The difference, though, on top of receiving the contributions, is that people who support the Hamas terrorist group, have been invited and courted at the White House, which I think is wrong.

CLINTON: I learned that an organization claimed credit for sponsoring a fund-raiser I attended; an organization whose members have made statements that I find offensive and have condemned. And as soon as I found out the facts, I returned all of the money that was raised because I did not want anyone to have a false impression about my strong support for Israelâ??s safety and security.

Source: (X-ref Lazio) NY Senate debate on NBC Oct 28, 2000

Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel
LAZIO [to Hillary]: Itâ??s very hard to accept a claim of consistency [on Israel] when you called for a Palestinian state with full military powers. Itâ??s difficult to accept that you are a consistent supporter when you stand on the sidelines while Suha Arafat issues a blood libel suggesting that Israelis have been orchestrating an attack on Palestinian women and children with poison. Itâ??s hard for us to imagine youâ??ve been a consistent supporter when you refused to support the law which says that we should move our embassy to Jerusalem, not next year, but right now. For eight years Iâ??ve wanted the embassy to be placed in Jerusalem. CLINTON: My positions for more than 20 years have been to do everything I could to support Israel and to increase the relationships between the US and Israel. Iâ??ve worked on everything from the National Council of Jewish Womenâ??s program to bring a preschool instruction program for children of the US, to speaking out, time and time again, about violence and terrorism.
Source: (X-ref Lazio) NY Senate debate on NBC Oct 28, 2000

US should have vetoed biased anti-Israel UN resolution
Q: Did the U.S. do right to abstain from the UNâ??s anti-Israel resolution?
CLINTON: We should have vetoed it. It was one-sided. It did not address the violence that I believe is fomented by Arafat. It did not address what Israel has tried to do, such as pulling out of Lebanon. Weâ??re seeing the capture of Israeli soldiers, the desecration of Josephâ??s tomb. Itâ??s imperative that Arafat end the violence and get back to negotiating. The US remains the guarantor of Israelâ??s security, and in the Senate, I would certainly be a strong voice for doing whatever was required. Iâ??ve also called for conditioning aid to the Palestinians on their willingness to end violence, on their willingness to rid their textbooks of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli statements.

LAZIO: I did issue a statement immediately expressing my strong disappointment with America not using its veto power. I do not support call for a Palestinian state. My record is one of 100% consistency for the security of the state of Israel.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

Pollard committed a crime, but use of secret evidence unfair
Q: Jonathan Pollard, the American naval officer who betrayed the country, was sentenced to life for espionage and treason. The secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the director of the FBI and the head of the CIA have all said do not pardon him. Do you support clemency for Mr. Pollard?
CLINTON: What Pollard did was a terrible crime against the US. It was a great breach of trust and national security and he plead guilty, was convicted and is serving a very long prison term. The question for me is around the due process issues concerning the way that he was sentenced. It is something that I have questions about and I believe that fair-minded people should ask similar questions. There was secret evidence put in before the court that has never been revealed.

LAZIO: The only person who is in a position to make that decision and the only person whoâ??s got the authority to actually issue a pardon is the president himself.

Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY Sep 13, 2000

Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace
Hillary Clinton supports a move [of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem]. She spoke more generally yesterday about what she called her longstanding respect for the country and its people. â??The United States has been and will be always there for Israel,â?� she said. â??And we will always support the Israeli government and Israeli people as they struggle to find a safe and secure peace.â?�
She stayed away from more controversial topics, such as whether there should be an independent Palestinian state. Mrs. Clinton angered many Jewish voters last year with when she voiced support for such a state. But the animosity felt by some in the crowd toward Mrs. Clinton was evident on nearly every block, with some holding signs recalling her embrace last year of Yasir Arafatâ??s wife, Suha.

Source: Associated Press in NY Times May 26, 2000

Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese
The message of Oslo [was]: How we can fulfill Rabinâ??s legacy by bidding farewell to generations of war and ushering in a new century of real and lasting peace? The same must be true on all of Israelâ??s borders so that the peace that now covers some will be a peace that extends to all-Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.
Source: Remarks at Tel Aviv Performing Arts Center Nov 11, 1999

Yugoslav involvement good on both moral & strategic grounds
Hillary Clinton called for the US to reject isolationism and aggressively engage itself in world affairs in the tradition of President Truman at the end of WWII. She cited American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of foreign engagements she favored on moral and strategic ground, but also suggested that Americans needed to consider becoming involved in solving crises that are not only military in nature.
Source: Dean Murphy, NY Times Oct 20, 2000

Urged president to bomb Serbians
On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: â??I urged him to bomb.â?� The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, â??You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?â?� The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
Source: Hillaryâ??s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 345 Dec 9, 1999

Kosovoâ??s unified message: We will not turn away
Iâ??ve met people who are determined to rebuild Kosovo with a sense of positive energy and not vindictiveness and retribution. This has been possible because our nations-our leaders and our citizens-stood up against evil. Now there are some who I know who would quibble with my use of that word, but I think it fully describes the conflict we have been waging these last few months. The many democracies that came together to wage this battle against Milosevic may have spoken different languages and even held different political views. But they have sent a unified message at the end of this century that says we will not turn away when human beings are cruelly expelled, or when they are denied basic rights and dignities because of how they look or how they worship. When crimes against humanity rear their ugly heads, we have to send such a message as an international community.
Source: Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France Jun 17, 1999

Voted YES on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:
$5.1 billion for security
$5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
$65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
$1.3 billion for veterans medical care
$10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.
Reference: FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan; Bill S1689 ; vote number 2003-400 on Oct 17, 2003

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.
Clinton sponsored the Resolution on bigotry against Sikh Americans:
Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.

Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR255 on Oct 4, 2001

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

It'll happen!!! Don't count out women at the polls. If the right candidate with the right platform comes along..........

I just don't think either Hillary or Condi is the one though! Would be nice to see Bill playin' in the White House again though....that dude makes me laugh! :thumbsup:

---

I agree with Psycho...:eek:

Many nations have already had a woman president or PM....why not the US?

but I don't think Condi or Hillary are presidential material.

O.M.G.....you didn't think I was endorsing Hillary do ya! It may be classic to see ol' Bill runnin' around again but she is DEFINATELY not the answer!!

92% of all men will not vote for a woman..

I'd like to see the source on that..it appears high to me..if it is true it doesn't say much for men does it?...I don't beleive it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueCat00

I agree with Psycho...:eek:

---

DAMN!!! LOL....Don't feel bad, I was in a state of shock too!! LOL :thumbsup:

the Clintons were both involved with the CIA and drug smuggling.
Ever notice how chummy the Bush's and Clintons are?

The Drugs Trade

The trade in hard drugs is very important to the Elite for a number of reasons: it provides a source of income to finance other covert operations; it creates a 'problem' for which the public demands a 'solution' of increased police powers and the erosion of personal freedom in an effort to stop the supply; and, by addicting large numbers of particularly the younger generation to hard drugs, self-respect and the ability to think independently are diminished.

The background to many engineered conflicts is illuminated by analysis of the drug implications. In Vietnam a Pepsi Cola bottling plant was a drug distribution point with CIA helicopters supplying it with drugs from the fields. Drugs were also smuggled back to the US in the body cavities of carefully labelled corpses.

In 1986, Bo Gritz, America's most decorated war hero was sent by the US government into Burma's infamous 'Golden Triangle' to report on missing US prisoners of war. He discovered a man named Khun Sa who is deemed to be the overlord of heroin in the world, sending an ever-increasing excess of 1000 tons of heroin into the 'free' world per year. He also discovered that the whole rescue mission of the prisoners was being prevented by the CIA because these soldiers knew too many details of the operation between Khun Sa and the CIA to traffic these drugs. Later, he was told by Jerry King, head of Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) in the CIA that

'â?¦we've been ordered to put operation Grand Eagle (the rescue mission) on the shelf as if it never existed. There are still too many beurocrats that don't want to see American prisoners of war come back alive.'

The conflict between the US and Panama was a result of Bush turning against Noriega who was a CIA asset while Bush was director and who had been paid to run drugs. However, having seized power in 1984, despite losing the democratic election and yet still being officially recognised by President Reagan, Noriega incurred US wrath by refusing to bow to their pressure for his country to invade Nicaragua. The US suddenly turned against the Panama administration under the pretext of drugs, corruption and a lack of democracy. In 1988, Noriega was indicted on drug charges all bar one of which pre-dated 1984, to a time when he was still on the CIA payroll. In order to arrest one man the US invaded Panama in 1989, killing 3000 civilians. Allegedly the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) paid him $4.7 million to keep quiet about CIA involvement and at his trial no CIA documents were allowed to be examined. A new government was installed by the US, headed by a president and vice-president involved with banks known for drug money laundering and under this new administration drug trafficking from Panama has increased.

Nixon and Reagan and George Bush have led public campaigns against drugs which unsurprisingly have achieved little. In association with the major drug cartels, the CIA has arranged small 'busts' to lend credibility to the campaigns but these are usually to remove insignificant players or larger ones who have outlived their usefulness. In 1981, during the Reagan/Bush administration, the CIA convened a meeting of Columbian dealers to form the Medellin Cartel â?? an infamous group of 200 dealers. There is also evidence to suggest that the Zapata Oil Corporation is a CIA front and that Zapata Offshore is involved in drug smuggling. Both of these companies were set up and are headed by Bush.

George Bush was succeeded in the White House by Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, whose drug credentials are on a par with his predecessor. Whilst Governor of Arkansas he created the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) which was to finance drug trafficking. All loan applications were handled by the Rose Law Firm, run by Hilary Clinton, and those which were granted were to Clinton's business associates for use in trafficking. For example, one loan was given to Web Hubbel of Park-O-Meter which manufactured retrofit nose cones for drug shipping. The loans were not paid back, but large donations were given to Clinton's election fund. Web Hubbel became acting US attorney general under Clinton, and some think he still fulfils that role behind Janet Reno.

During the Reagan/Bush anti-drug campaign, whilst Clinton governed Arkansas, the United State's biggest drug trafficking operation was set up in Mena Arkansas by a DEA pilot.

I use to live right on the border and have been told by more than one Immigration officer that our government arrest choice people for *show* they are the real drug dealers.

i dont vote for president anymore.


only voted once, but i also soon realized that the people do not elect the president, my vote is only hearsay on paper for my state representitive that says i who want THEM to vote for.


the PEOPLE do not vote, the state rep.s do.

and they OBVIOUSELY ignored the votes when bush was elected.


the popularity vote is the collective of all PEOPLE votes.

the electoral, the one that ELECTS THE PRES. is ONLY state representitives' votes.


your state governers are screwing you over when you vote.

i think the point is that hillary clinton is basically george w. bush...and that the neo-cons will hate hillary for the same reasons they love george w. bush....she's as much of a drug dealing murderer as her husband and his best friend, w's daddy...

do we really want 20+ years of the same two families running our country? is that a good sign?