New Page 0

The Billary Page

"What?! How can Osama, I mean Obama, say that I'm too polarizing a figure for the nomination?! Why wouldn't people like me?! People &%%$#& LOVE me!" Click the image for audio. Brace yourself first.

C'mon, admit it. Even you Hill-Billys out there said "Yikes!" when this picture came up.

Of course, there will be folks who (start to) read this article who will say I'm just too "under-evolved" to accept a woman of power. Others of you will say "well who are you anyway?" To the latter, I say "I'm nobody, but this is my website." To the former, I say that's a simplistic way to try and dismiss the concerns that so many people have about Billary. Ironically, that criticism says alot about such people's conception of what's relevant to politics. Personally I cringe when people start to talk about a candidate's gender, or ethnicity, or hair. It reminds me of how (sadly) "pop culture" most people are about something as important as politics.

Mrs. Clinton, you're no Margaret Thatcher or "My Obligatory-Nowadays; Politically-Correct, I-Really-Do-Like-Smart-Women-and-am-not-a-meanie" disclaimer paragraph": I think the country would be more than ready for a decent female candidate. Speaking for myself, one of my personal heroes is Margaret Thatcher, whom I studied and wrote about extensively when I was in school...to the extent that I spent a summer in England to further my studies and even shared one of my papers with her personally. Prime Minister Thatcher had the love and respect of even the quintessentially hardened SAS men; and she had my respect because she was a Conservative. No, that doesn't mean she wanted to force you to pray. But more about that in a minute.

So what's my beef with Hillary? My gosh! Where to begin? First know that - because I diverge with her on substantive issues rather than personality - I cannot talk about my problems with her without talking to some extent about my problems with the Liberal / Socialist ideals she espouses, so I will do that throughout this article. But before I even get into that, let's just start by mentioning the well-documented track record that she and her husband have of lies, personal destruction of their rivals (that goes way beyond professional differences), and the just plain vile nastiness as a human being that everyone who encounters Hillary specifically talks about. The campaign of late between her and Senator Obama has revealed that she is not as good or slick of a liar as her husband, and I hope that will be a part of what trips up her bid for the White House...if the American people can even be made to care more about that substantive concern than they do about her being "the first woman to ever..." I mean, this string of falsehoods that keep coming out in the news is nothing new from a woman who cannot even be honest about something as simple as her name. Do you remember when she claimed that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, who summited Everest first in 1952? Her birthday didn't jive with that claim, and she got called on it. But, people forget such things easily, and many people are willing to chalk that kind of thing up to her "being a politician" as if lying is part of the job description for politicos. Friends, that will only be true as long as we allow it. I get sick and tired of the low standard to which we hold those who occupy the offices that wield so much control over our lives. Only when we start voting such people out will that standard rise. Let's start with Hillary, shall we?

I have been following Billary's career since their first 1992 Presidential election, when I was a Poly Sci student hosting a weekly radio show that covered the election. (Gawd! That show was an embarrassment to me, by the way). I started researching their Arkansas record at that time and, friends, it looked nearly identical to their scandal-ridden Presidency. So no one should have been surprised at what we got under Billary the President(s).

Always a Victim: Hillary spends a lot of time trying to sell people on the idea that she and Bill are victims (liberals think in terms of victim-hood, after all) of a "vast right wing conspiracy." That's her own phrase, by the way, that she coined when she was trying to explain why those mean people were accusing her husband of being a(n) (under oath) liar about the Monica Lewinsky affair. Of course, that all turned out to be true after all. So did so many other scandals (see links below).

The Politics of Personal Destruction: Billary does not discuss ideas, (s)he discusses and ravages the people who criticize Billary. They have viciously attacked people on a personal level when they have dared to question The Clinton. Note the way they demonized Ken Starr, despite the fact that everything he investigated turned out to be true. And the complicit, biased network media was happy to go along, and never apologized to Mr. Starr or retracted after it was all over. Ken Starr was just one of the hundreds of such people whose lives were ruined in this way by the Clinton Machine.

Despite all the noise she makes about female empowerment, she's never accomplished anything besides marrying a powerful man. That's why I keep calling her names like "Billary." I do not separate the two because she doesn't. She is running on her 'experience' as Bill's Little Helper during the Clintonian era. No, getting elected to the Senate is not an accomplishment. Better to look at what leadership, if any, she has shown once there. Note: I would say the same thing about Obama's "accomplishments."

With or without credentials, a person can get elected to a high office on name recognition alone in our pop culture. Need an example? I'll give you four, without using my life line: Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, "Cooter" from The Dukes of Hazard, and "Gopher" from the Love Boat. All of them served in Congress (except professional 'rastler...he "merely" became a whole state's governor).

Worse, Hillary's not above playing the "stop picking on girls" card when the heat gets hot enough. Hardly Presidential, or a good choice as an example of "a worthy woman" for the NOW gang to emulate or celebrate. The heat will, of course, only get hotter as the general election gets closer, so it should be interesting to watch.

Personally, I do not believe Hillary is elect-able. I hope I am right about that. If you notice, for her whole "career" up to this point she has said very little in public. Partly this is because she doesn't "play" well. Her angry voice and her vapid ideas grate on people and that is not a very good quality in a Presidential candidate. The more she speaks, now that she has to, the more polarizing she will become. And her ideas do not have enough logical foundation to hold up to the inevitable scrutiny they will now have to bear. Of course, that is true of most Liberal ideals, which is why Liberal talk shows never last...they cannot take the heat from callers the way Conservative talk radio can. But that's another article.

I believe that the Clinton Gestapo Machine will get her the nomination from the Democratic party no matter what happens against Obama in the primaries, but I don't think she can survive the General Election. Even in her own party, she is getting her clock cleaned in the primaries by a young upstart who has done even less than she has; and who speaks with the succinct eloquence of a bumber sticker but says nothing of substance. (Did he learn this from Jessie Jackson?) The Obama threat says a lot about Clinton fatigue even among the disciples within her own party. And the reports of life within her inner circle are brutal these days. She's even less fun to be around. After all, this was supposed to be the Coronation of her as the inevitable next President. She has put up with being married to Bill all these years just for that chance. What's happening to her New Camelot?

The Death of Outrage: There was a book published after the Lewinsky affair called "The Death of Outrage" where the author talked about how the public will put up with, and eventually have total amnesia about, anything these days. And anyone who has the mean-spiritedness to point out an undesirable candidate's actual track record is just "playing petty politics." I guess that makes the most sense when I think about how the Clintons have managed to survive and thrive despite all their easily verifiable negatives. Personally, I am amazed that either of them can find the gall to step out their front door every day. Anyone with a half-developed sense of honor or decency would have felt enough shame long ago to lay low and not call any further attention to themselves.

Despite all of the objections she has to being criticized, Billary have fully earned the heat they get. Of course I realize that any of us - especially me - would deserve a lot of heat too if they lived in a fish bowl. But I am not talking about the kinds of "embarrassing truths" that we all have in our past. I am talking about a track record of fraud, perjury, personal destruction of enemies, rape, harassment (sexual and otherwise), influence peddling, dealing with our country's enemies for personal profit, indecent exposure, cover ups, rape, tampering with evidence, blocking investigations, rape, etc etc. Contrast that with Nixon, who had the afore-mentioned sense of shame to own up to his misdeeds and resign over what was - by comparison to the Billary legacy - a college prank. And the Clintons, in the face of that legacy, now have the gall to expect us to ask them for eight more years of it!

(right) Okay, I'm almost sorry for posting this one...so unsophisticated of me. But I just coudn't resist. Oh lighten up...it's pretty funny

Three Main Problems I Have with Billary

My problems with Hillary and her husband have little to do with their party affiliation or her personality (although there's alot to criticize in both those places too). As a Conservative, my (first) problem with Hillary is that she is a big government socialist. We can't really talk about her without talking a little about the evils of big governent, so here goes...

Hillary and other Socialists believe government is a better regulator of our lives, and of the free market, than are each of us. Socialists fear the kind of rugged, Capitalistic, pioneer individualism that makes America great. They fear it because to have people be independent makes them less reliant on those of them in government positions. So they tell us - like Lenin and Marx did - that individualistic greatness is selfish; and that a "more progressive" greatness comes from government and from "collectivism" instead of your personal ingenuity and hard work. It's also what (the openly socialist in his first couple of books) Obama means when he says "We are our brother's keeper." Sends chills up my spine every time I hear him say that. Do you want to be responsible for that dead beat next door when he misses his isurance payment because he made the personal choice to buy beer with the money? That is what socialism thinks should be the way we operate.

Note: I know you Libs out there better than you think I do. I heard your brain say after you read my last paragraph that "not all people (I love that phrase in a debate) who can't afford things are buying beer with their money. Some people just have it rough, you meanie." To that I say this: all of us are in the boat we are in as a result of our personal choices. I too have been in temporary dire straights as a result of bad choices, but I didn't make it a permanent lifestyle. People are "poor" too because of the choices they make...i.e. getting a fast food job instead of finishing school; or having a baby before they have the means to care for him. Yep, even that is not not something that "just happens." It is the result of a conscious choice. I am compassionate about helping people who make mistakes, but I do not believe in strapping the burden for that person's bad choices on their neighbor. Government can only help someone like that by taking from someone else who is more responsible about providing for his (or her, okay okay, take it easy) family.

Do we all make mistakes? Of course. Don't many of us need help at some point in our lives? Yep again. But I'd rather see that help come from family or a local Church or charity. Believe it or not, those agencies are very strong and active in our communities, and many people give willingly to those agencies in order to provide help. These agencies have to work efficiently and build a good reputation before people will give to them. Not so with government, which has no incentive to perform well or wisely when they take your money for their programs. As an example, in Atlanta, tax money is used to remove tattoos so "the poor" can get better jobs. I could go on and on with such examples of governmental "aid" that's paid for with our money.

Billary and Other Socialists are All About Inciting Class Envy - Just like the Bolshevick's did

And aren't we being "mean" if we take issue with our kid's college money being spent foolishly on the poor? After all, the affluent should feel "lucky" to be successful and they should want to "give back" right? Well, the problem with that is twofold. One: they don't have to "give back" because they didn't "take" from anyone in the first place; and two: they aren't "lucky" to be where they are...it's the result of hard work, preparation, sacrifice, and the choices they made along the way. I'm not even going to start going on about how they are the ones who create all the jobs and do all the giving to charity. How much do you think "the poor" give to charity?

And did you know that their spending makes up the vast majority of our economic power? Yes, even when they buy Ferraris and yachts they are employing sheet metal and fiberglass workers. Not that I feel I have to say that to justify their affluence, but I was just pretty sure that this fact had somehow not occurred to many people who might be reading this. Kinda casts a different light on those mean rich people doesn't it? And for those of you who think that the Bush tax cuts are "just for the rich, here's the stats. Tax cuts are for everyone, and they always boost the economy, so they should be permanently lowered.

I love the idea of providing temporary help to the needy as long as it is not forced on us by government through taxes; and as long as it is not open-ended help...because when help becomes permanent it becomes an "enabler" of the destructive lifestyle that led to dependency in the first place. Just like with a dead beat family member, you would never agree that grandma should keep sending him money and giving him a rent-free place to live. Same rules apply. Politics is just your own common-sense understanding of "neighborhood" extended.

Hillary Thinks of People Only as Members of Groups

Collectivists like Billary think of people in terms of what group or category within which to place them...that's why they talk about "the black vote" or the "female vote" as if the individual people there cannot think for themselves. Socialists do not believe that you can think for yourself outside of your group's peer pressures. Of course, part of the reason that such people think this about the rest of us is that that is how they operate.

Hillary Wants You to Feel Governmental Dependency Because she is an Agent of Government

Voters in America believe they are entitled to health care, just as they feel entitled to education, shelter, and food. These are not entitlements folks, they are things we have to work for. Even the Bible, with all its massive emphasis on help for the poor, says that if a man does not work, then neither should he eat. Apparently even the Bible makes a clear distinction between the poor and the lazy...and tells us to work for what we need.

Our only rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, we should have the freedoms we need in order to have the oportunities to provide FOR OURSELVES the other things we need. To look to government entitlements for these things is to feed at a trough inside a pen, and "plunder tax" our hard-working neighbor to pay for it. That's not freedom - especially for your neighbor and, if you think about it, it's not too compassionate either....because it says to everyone that there is a limit to how successful you will be allowed to become. Socialists say "If you get too successful, we're just gonna loot you to be fair to your neighbor." So confiscatory tax burdens actually place limits on how well you can provide for your family. Sound like the American Dream? No, it sounds like Russia sometime around 1917, when successful merchants and store keepers started getting looted and eventually even killed as "class enemies" by people who felt "entitled" to the things they had worked for. If that sounds extreme to you, consider that this has happened often enough in history that it is seen as part of an inevitable cycle by the likes of Alexander Tyler, who said over a hundred years ago

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Of Course, we Gotta Talk About Her Socialized Health Care Plans:

(left - appropriately) Hillary with her senior health care advisors

Socialistic people want more and more regulation and government control over all of our affairs and our own hard-earned money, which inevitably means more taxes. Socialists also encourage you, when you see a wrong in the world, to say "why doesn't the government do something about that?" That's precisely what is going on when Hillary talks about socialized health care. She tried to get it passed once before when she was an unelected First Lady, but we derailed her on it because the idea scared us. Why? Were we just being mean? No. It's because we can look around the world and see socialized medicine "at work." British citizens often pull their own teeth rather than try to get a simple dentist appointment. The beauracracy and the waiting lines are just too much to cope with. Canadian citizens come to America and pay out of pocket for private doctors even after they have been taxed for "all their health care needs" back home. Again, friends, government cannot pay for anything on it's own...it has to use our money, taken by force (just try not paying your taxes). Nothing from them is "free."

If you think Health Care is expensive now, just wait until it's free!

I knew a Canadian when I was in Kenya who had to fly back home for an MRI he had waited over a year to get. When I commented on the travel expense, his response was "I have to go, might not get the chance again." And yes, it was a dire need....but he still had to wait for it.

Despite all these plain facts, Hillary's back with her universal health care plan on the campaign trail. She knows the facts too but that's less important than the PERCEPTION that "she cares" in the mind of the voter. To a Liberal, intentions matter more than results - or lack of them

Hillary tells us that government can do a better job of managing your health than you and your personal physician can. Despite government's proven track record of waste and inefficiency (always the result of a lack of private competition) they actually want to let the government control your doctors. Take the example of the Department of Motor Vehicles: Isn't that a place you absolutely DREAD having to endure once a year or when you renew your license? Now imagine that kind of system when you visit the doctor. Trust me, folks, I am in the Army and already have governmental health care, and it is EXACTLY like being at the DMV.

Socialist Democrats still want us to believe that government is the answer, instead of the problem, all evidence to the contrary. I believe that Hillary as a politician knows better than this at heart, but that she is motivated to increase governmental power anyway simply because she wants to be the head of the government. For the record, other people have also tried to sell this idea throughout history: Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Hussein, Hitler, and Mussolini, just to name a very few. Those guys were true believers, of course, but the effect is the same. Of course, Hillary has been seen out in public more than once in some very Mao-suit looking ensembles. I may have to rethink whether she's a true believer in The Movement. I'll get back to you on that one.

Fascism?

Whoa! Did I really just drop the F-Bomb? Fascism, in fact, is a Liberal idea, despite the success the modern media has had labeling Conservatives as such. Of couse, most people couldn't define Fascism if asked, and would probably be surprised to learn that Fascism is when the government has the ultimate control over privately owned enterprises. The very opposite of the Free Market, Capitalistic, Private Enterprise that Conservatives strive for. There's something to make you say "Hmmm."

"Big Business" is a Dirty Phrase to a Socialist Like Hillary

Social-Democrats talk about "big business" like it's a given that that's a dirty phrase; instead of the engine of everyone's livlihood. To call business the enemy is a socialistic way to look at the world, folks. That's also why Liberals / social-democrats love the global warming hoax, because it is a tool they can use to place governmental restrictions on those mean ol' selfish Capitalists. Hillary has more than once talked about how she will "take profits" from big companies - especially Big Oil. I wonder what effect she thinks that will have on their employees and shareholders? Whose fault will it be, in her worldview, when the layoffs happen to the "little guy." And I wonder whose fault it will be when "alternative fuels" are forced onto the market by Al Gorians before the science is solid. Such artificial intervention by government into market forces could significantly hamper the oil industry which - like it or not - is the driving force behind the entire world economy.

It is not the job of a President to control the economy...that's what dictators do

I won't bother to go into right now the fact that it oil a naturally occuring substance, and thus - ahem! - pretty Green. What? I see a hand up in the back. Fossil fuel emissions? Better shut down all the volcanoes first, then. Just one of those eruptions releases more fluorocarbon emissions than all the cars ever driven - even Hummers and the private jets that Al flies on when he's inventing the internet. But those inconvenient truths - again - don't matter as much as the PERCEPTION that "something" is being done....even if the threat has to be trumped up.

Do most voters not know that much of the dialogue over the nature of government revolves around its need to create windmills at which to tilt?

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." [H. L. Mencken]

and another...

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

Where Did All the Overt Communists and Socialists Go?

Don't you wonder why you never see people carrying Marxists signs anymore? Do you think those people all just went away? No, they realized that that idea wasn't selling anymore, and that they could better restrict Capitalism with environmentalist outcries. After all, only a real pig would question those motives, so it's a safer cover for them. Look at Liberalism's history. Why do they have to keep changing what they call themselves every ten years or so? In the 60's they were calling themselves Marxists and Socialists; then they were Democrats and Liberals; now they are Progressives or Environmentalists...or Democrats. Could it be that they have to reinvent their label and the perception of their ideas after every clear failure to popularize them? That's why a Liberal will never call herself that...they have to be vague so that the people won't catch on to who they really are. Conservatives do not have to do this...because we can tell you exactly why and where our ieas have worked, and can logically explain them. Liberals, by contrast, rely on hollow emotional appeals, and empty perceptions of hope and change. And if you ask them to be specific or show you where it has worked, they will get emotional and tell you how mean you are to question their intentions....even after they have failed. Crazier still, even their failures are seen in their victim-centered worldview as evidence of their commitment and their plight...again, to them their intentions - even after failure - justify the mess they made.

Even worse would be if they suceeded, of course. Because the only thing a politician has to offer has to be confiscated from someone else. That's why Conservatives hate entitlements and welfare programs.

Somebody Tell Billary: Government is the Problem, Not the Answer

Friends, the government will always cause more problems than it will ever be able to solve. That's one reason I am not a conspiracy theorist...I don't think government could get their act together enough for a good cover-up or an effective conspiracy. Again. government behaves like the DMV office or a unionized company...with asinine regulations and mediocrity-perpetuating beauracracies that no self-respecting privatized company would tolerate. If they did, they wouldn't last because their competition would do it better. That's why Conservatives are conservative about how much government we want and how little we want government to butt into our personal lives. As such, Conservatism could not be fundamentally about same-sex marriage opposition and the other issues that the media try to tell you we are all about. We are about keeping the government small enough to manage the very few functions we clearly need them for - like Natonal Defense or International Treaty ratification. Most everything else - like education - should be left to more local government, or better yet, to the private sector where competition will make products and services better for all of us.

Conservatives Are More Liberal Than Liberals

It's true, a Conservative - with his emphasis on LESS regulation and governmental meddling - is more for personal freedoms than Liberals can ever be. Yet that's not the perception perpetuated by pop culture about Conservatives. They'd sooner have you believe that our single issue is whether or not you can buy beer on Sundays.

Don't know what I mean? Look at the Huckabee campaign. His biggest issue that gets him the biggest applause at every stump is The Fair Tax. Yet that's not what's reported. The media keep telling us that his support only comes from Evangelical Christians. That is what the media thinks Conservatism looks like. They don't want to talk to us about any of our small government ideals, because they are fixated on the "right winger" paradigm they have for us. I don't expect objectivity from anyone but I would like more open-minded-ness from people who probably consider themselves intellectuals on the cocktail party circuit.

The Second Problem I Have with Hillary

is that she is defined by lies and scandals - just like her husband is. She has been a corrupt political animal so long that she doesn't even know the truth.

My Third Problem with Hillary

is that she and her husband just WILL NOT GO THE *^&%&^%%$% AWAY! Often Conservatives are accused of being "obsessed" with our opposition to the Clintons. But most of us would LOVE to stop talking about them. We would love for them to fade away into irrelevance, but they just will not. So here we are again.

Need Specifics about their record? There are better folks than me to give you the list of grievances. To be honest, there's so much to sort through when you try to list her negatives that I had to just selectively choose a few and put them here. If you want more, or if you don't want to take my word for it, then just Google "hillary scandals" or "hillary lies" or "hillary voting record" and see for yourself. Be prepared to make a day of it.

Questions? Um-hum. What's that? Oh yes, it is certainly true that Bush is pretty "big government" too. Most politicians are. But, you...are aware that he's not on the ballot, aren't you? No, I don't think Laura is planning to run.

I have half a mind to vote against McCain and suck up having to endure having President Obama for the next administration just so the republicans don't think that nominating a "centrist" is the key to the Oval Office, leading to more of the same. If Senator Obama, or Billary, wins, then their socialist policies would make such a Carter-esque mess of the economy and international relations / conflict resolution that a new Reagan who returns us to actual Conservatism would have to be found.

I would take my chances and hope for that to happen four to eight years from now, and cast my vote for Senator Obama, if it were not for the Global War on Terror. Terrorism's threat is too immediate for me to approve of a candidate like Senator Obama who says openly that he will "get us out of Iraq." To do that is to appease and allow us to lose. That would embolden the terrorists to wreak even more havoc, just as Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler did. Weakness invites aggression when dealing with such people. If Chamberlain had instead opposed Der Fuhrer when he was a smaller potato(e), there's a very good chance that the whole world would not have been dragged into WWII. Similarly, Clinton's cut-and-run in Somalia when things got messy told the animals of Al Qaeda that we could be made to lose our resolve if we incur enough damage. The weak-knees we showed in Somalia emboldened terrorists to commit 9/11's atrocities. You think it's bad to be fighting in Iraq? Friends, it looks that way to you because you are civilized and do not understand that not everyone is. Many people out there are still operating by the rules of a pack of dogs, who attack only when our backs are turned. If we weren't fighting in Iraq, we'd be doing it here on our own streets as we did on Sept 11, and we'd be on the defensive. We'd be giving our enemy the initiative and would be merely reacting to each inevitable attack. That is no way to beat an enemy.

What Would Hillary do in Iraq / Afghanistan?: I think Hillary has to say during the campaign that she would get out of Iraq and Afghanistan so that she can please the Berkeley-esque kook fringe that is running, and voting for, the democratic party these days. But she has voted in favor of many of the the war resolutions so I think she understands the need for fighting. I think that if she does steal the nomination at the Convention and somehow get past the ire she inspires and get elected (never count a Clinton out, after all...we all know that) then what will happen is she will get into office and tell all of us that she "didn't realize what a mess everything really was as a result of eight years of Bush; and that now we have got to stay and fight after all." That's what she did in running for President too, just like we all knew she would. She has always said that she would never run for President....especially after she was sworn to the good people of New York as their senator. But then she says she looked around and thought "well, it turns out that things are so dire after all that I feel compelled to run." She would not pull us out of Iraq / Afghanistan the way Obama probably would, but of course she cannot be honest about that right now to her camp followers.

More about this at my Military page.

P.S. Do you know how hard it is - when you are not talking about Socialist-Democrats - to use the word "vapid" in a sentence? I've been trying all week!

P.P.S. Billary's attitude towards the military that makes her life possible doesn't endear her much to me either. That's why I love this guy (the pic is not a fake, btw)...

Her Voting Record

Some Facts About "Big Oil" from www.Boortz.com. Hillary - like a lot of socialists - talks alot about the evils of "profiteering" and about their favorite ol' bogey man "big oil."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULt_WuCG_yQ

Billary trying to speak ebonics in Selma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FlpbRFXC9E

The Case Against Hillary On World Net Daily

http://www.hillaryproject.com/ dedicated to keeping them from getting back into office

http://prorev.com/wwindex.htm Featuring links to the actual news stories from the time of many of the scandals

Book, click left (see the Mao suit??)

Okay, just so you can't say I didn't post a nice picture of her..she looks almost pretty good here (To quote Paulie from Rocky 3). Feel better?

Comment on this at http://marconhillary.blogspot.com/