It's all rigged. The vote in 2008 is a foregone conclusion in my mind -- Hillary v McCain so that we just here the TACTICAL differences and then back to "business as usual" wearing a dress with no cum on it. Same game, a slightly different sex "playing". "Ho, hum, I've dropped my nail file I am so bored."
No, not really I am a human rights activist and I am well and truly pissed off - and I have my own personal ax to grind about "this woman".
Paul Craig Roberts has drawn up the same conclusions I have.
Now go about yer business of discrimination and subjugating woman (slavery lives! Hoooorah for stoopidity!) and just forget about the Democracy experiment. Enjoy your television and gas guzzlers whilst you may . THE DYNASTY HAS ARRIVED and it'll keep giving retards like George W. Bush time after time and the mugging "codependents" that go with them.
George Bush supports Hilary and has said so - right on the boobtube. Palast says as many as 2 million votes are already caged. She wants NO debate with Dennis Kucinich on it thus showing her "true colors" already as to what she thinks about democracy, Her husband has SERIOUS conflicts of interest, she doesn't care if anyone's "liberties" are taken away and has done nothing about the Protect America Act fiasco nor Guantanamo nor the State Department's excess NOR the CIA war crimes .. and on and on and on!
Do I seriously mistrust her, yes. Have I had reason to distrust her since 1994, yes. Am I warning tomorrow's diplomats that the damage she will do will be enormous . yes, I am.
And at the bottom I am posting commentary on the Peter F. Paul scandal that the media won't cover - a reminder ONCE AGAIN - of the biggest campaign fraud ever run and full of SUFFERING.
Human rights ACTIVISTS, sharpen your pens and prepare for very long nights at your computers - that is if she lets us online.
See this link! http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.
Some of it is the land of "conspiracy theory" - some of it is just plain THE TRUTH. It is now 2007 - I was persecuted in 1994. My story remains "covered up" after I beat them in court! Now why is that?? This HERE will take you to tons of links covering Clinton corruption.
So all you American crackers and political-correct "feminists" keep on turning in those noon times shows and listening to the Bill O'Reilly's - they've been supplied their "marching orders".
Here is a report on doners to the Clinton Foundation. I am sure you wil note the AIPAC groups donations - and those from the telecoms, not counting Bill Gates (think internet clampdown) and all the other people of note.
Why do I not support the Green Party of Canada? They are cozy with Bill Clinton,
(although some branches do have scientology ties. The Scientologists are with Ron Paul. Read up on Operation Clambake.)
If polls are reliable, Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. The Democratic groups that prefer Obama are not sufficiently numerous to give him the nomination.
Of course, anything can happen in a political campaign, but the latest Field Poll of likely California Democrats and independent voters gives Hillary a 39 to 27 percent lead over Obama. This is bad news for Obama, because California is a progressive state where race is less likely to be a handicap.
Obama is favored by those who rank the Iraq war and foreign policy as the most important issues, by blacks, college graduates, and those with higher incomes.
Hillary is favored two to one by women, two to one by lower income groups and three to one among Latinos. Hillary has a further advantage. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention approximately 50 percent of the delegates were women. As Democratic delegates are invariably feminists, they are not going to miss the chance of putting a woman in the presidency.
Are the Democrats choosing Hillary because she has the moral integrity to stop an unjust war and to hold war criminals responsible for leading America into war based on lies and deception? Are they choosing Hillary because she defends the US Constitution from usurpation by executive power? Are they choosing her because she is public-spirited instead of personally ambitious?
No. The Democrats are choosing Hillary because of gender and race. Despite all the efforts of Democratic activist groups, the majority of Democratic voters are more concerned with race and gender issues than with their country’s reputation and their civil liberties.
If elected president, Hillary will bring no more change than did the Democratic congressional majority elected in 2006.
Obama might not bring any change either. But he is the only candidate in the running who has expressed concern over Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians and who voted against the Iraq invasion. Clearly, he is a better bet for change than Hillary. However, Democrats are more attuned to race and gender issues than to war crimes and loss of civil liberties.
This is not to argue that Republicans are an improvement. Their likely nominee is McCain, who has recently said that he is OK with a hundred-year war in Iraq. McCain is as willing to attack Iran as Bush and Cheney, and he would not be adverse to conspiring with Israel and the neoconservatives to pull off an attack. Republicans don’t even have a “change” candidate in the running. They have worked to marginalize Ron Paul precisely because he would be an instrument of change.
Even if Obama were elected and was sincere about change, what could he do? Probably very little. The pool of candidates from which he could staff an administration is not that much different from that of any other candidate. He can pass over a neocon architect of the Iraq invasion and settle on an architect of President Clinton’s bombing of Serbia.
Moreover, Congress will still be controlled by the same interest groups. If Obama were to appoint people opposed by the military-security lobby, the Israel Lobby or the offshoring lobby, the Senate would be unlikely to confirm them. No president wants to nominate people who cannot be confirmed. Presidents have to staff their administrations according to who can get the approval of powerful interest groups.
This makes if difficult to change the status quo. It only takes one senator to put a hold on an appointment. Change in Washington requires breaking many iron grips.
In the presidential race, Hillary would defeat McCain, who without any doubt is the war candidate. Hillary will get the women’s vote, the minorities’ vote, and the anti-war vote. McCain will get the vote of angry macho white males.
What Hillary has to worry about is a major terrorist attack, whether real or orchestrated, that would revive the 9/11 fears and send voters scurrying to put the presidency into the hands of a war hero. As Hillary is not regarded as a threat to Israel’s territorial expansion or to the interests of the military-security complex, the only wild card is some terrorist action that would require the failure of US security in order to succeed.
Of course, all of this ignores the salient fact: No one knows how the Diebold electronic voting machines programmed by Republican operatives with proprietary software will count the votes.
If it hasn’t become a stolen affair, the American presidency has become a family affair, one that is passed from a Bush to a Clinton to a Bush and back to a Clinton. The interest groups are satisfied, and nothing of importance changes.
After Hillary will we have Jeb?
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.