A DNA test of Monica Lewinsky's dress
was traced back to Hillary's hair gel
[Disclaimer: Looks like I was wrong about Hillary getting the nomination; please ignore the following smug predictions]
She's been endorsed by the Rothschilds, enjoys cozy relationships with every elite power group that matters like the CFR, the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission through her husband, who is a member of all three, and has won the financial support of defense contractors, most of the US weapons industry and the military industrial complex at large. She's been wooed by uber-Zionist Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful media mogul on the planet, and to top it all off, she's Wall Street's favorite, raking in the lion's share of support from investment banks and other powerful corporate interests.
Hillary knows how to play politics - that is to say, she knows where the money is, and she knows how to suck up to AIPAC. She secured massive dollar-support from pro-Israel organisations last year, and you can bet that AIPAC is instructing its Zio-PAC underlings to funnel their cash her way this year. As a side note, many of these pro-Israel PACs are actually operated by AIPAC directly, as the Wall Street Journal reported in June 1987:
despite AIPAC’s claims of non-involvement in political spending, no fewer than 51 pro-Israel PACs—most of which draw money from Jewish donors and operate under obscure-sounding names—are operated by AIPAC officials or people who hold seats on AIPAC’s two major policymaking bodies. [source]
Hillary learned not to mess with the lobby in November 1999 when she hugged and kissed Suha Arafat, wife of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, at a function she attended in the West Bank when she was still the First Lady. The lobby spat the dummy over this outrageous faux pas, and by the next day Hillary had totally changed her mind about Suha and her "inflammatory rhetoric". By October the next year she was telling a reporter from Jewish Week that the whole thing was a big mistake and she shouldn't have gone to the West Bank at all, adding that it led to "a misimpression [sic] about my strong feelings and support of Israel."
She raised the ire of the Israel lobby again in 2000 when she accepted a $50,000 donation from the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) during her bid for election to the US Senate. When the lobby huffed and puffed and got all upset, she fell over herself to return the cash, saying "All $50,000, every penny of it, is going back." She even insulted her Muslim benefactor by adding that she was offended by remarks allegedly made by members of the organisation, remarks that were supposedly 'antisemitic'. She went even further and gave back $1,000 donated to her by an American Muslim Council official who had nothing to do with the AMA fiasco, just for good measure. She may have overdone it in her rush to appease Jewish voters and the lobby at large though: later she was forced to apologise to the Muslim community, assuring them that she didn't mean to offend anybody, it was 'just politics'.
Hillary the Zionist is about as fervently pro-Israel as they come. Hillary, like fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi, is an AIPAC girl. She has a Jewish step-grandfather [source], and her voting record on pro-Israel issues is flawless. She believes that Jerusalem is the “indivisible eternal capital of Israel" and supports a proposal to move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, despite the fact that East Jerusalem is occupied territory and belongs to the Palestinians. She supports the apartheid wall or "security fence" that snakes through Palestinian land, land which has been illegally confiscated from Palestinian ownership, effectively making the day-to-day lives of West Bank Palestinians a living nightmare by dividing the land and separating towns and families. The wall violates international law, something Hillary is "deeply disappointed" about. That is to say, she's disappointed in the law, not the illegal wall. In her own words, she has "taken the International Court of Justice to task for questioning Israel's right to build the fence." In Hillary's callous opinion, the wall "is not against the Palestinian people," but "against the terrorists," which demonstrates how little she knows about Palestine, or how little she cares. Hillary has visited Israel more than six times [source], but since most congressional visits are funded and arranged by AIPAC's sister organisation, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), she's been thoroughly brainwashed and conditioned over the years to be sympathetic to the Israeli position, which may have played a part in making her the Zionist she is today. From an article by former United States Senator Jim Abourezk:
These trips are defended as “educational.” In reality, as I know from my many colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation was created, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit important truths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinian territories.
What the pro-Israel lobby reaps for its investment in these tours is congressional support for Israeli desires. For years, Israel has relied on billions of dollars in US taxpayer money. Shutting off this government funding would seriously impair Israel’s harsh occupation.
One wonders what policies Congress might support toward Israel and the Palestinians absent the distorting influence of these Israel trips - or if more members toured Palestinian lands.
Last year Hillary lashed out at the Palestinians by claiming that the PA was using "hate-filled" textbooks with which to teach Palestinian school kids. The only problem with that claim is that it wasn't true. The source of the allegations was a hardcore Zionist propaganda outfit with ulterior motives called the Center for the Monitoring of the Impact of Peace (CMIP), led by an associate of arch-Zionist Lukidnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Outraged that the Palestinians might be teaching their kids to hate Jews, Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at George Washington University, looked into the matter and found that the claims were almost totally unfounded:
"[W]here do persistent reports of incitement in Palestinian textbooks come from? Virtually all can be traced back to the work of a single organization, the "Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace." The Center claims that its purpose is "to encourage the development and fostering of peaceful relations between peoples and nations, by establishing a climate of tolerance and mutual respect founded on the rejection of violence as a means to resolving conflicts". Critics charge that the Center’s real purpose is to launch attacks on the Palestinian National Authority, and it would be difficult to contest such a conclusion... The Center’s own reports suggest such suspicions are well-founded ... the purpose is clearly to indict the textbooks and the PNA rather than analyze and understand the content of the books."
There's much more to that story: you can read an excellent debunking of the "hate-filled" textbooks claims at Lawrence of Cyberia, but in instances like this, the truth is only a quiet follow-up to the deafeningly loud propaganda circus that precedes it, and has no chance of undoing the damage done once the Zionist media decides to make a public issue out of complete falsehoods. Of course, Hillary continues to be hailed as a "leading voice against antisemitism" for her efforts. Good job, Hillary. In any case, the true Semites of Palestine are totally justified in teaching their children that Zionism is the enemy and that Israel has no right to exist on their land, but Hillary the Zionist doesn't think so. Hillary will stand with the Israelis all the way, and will not force Israel's hand to act justly on the Palestinian issue as president of the United States. Most of what you need to know about Hillary's position on Israel is here.
In her May 24, 2005 speech to AIPAC, Hillary said, "Israel is not only, however, a friend and ally for us, it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean." Now that one's a crack-up. Israel is a racist, apartheid, exclusivist Jewish state that treats its Palestinian population like cattle, denies them equal rights and (joyfully) tortures and slaughters them - not exactly what a democracy "can and should mean." If Israel is Hillary's idea of a democratic utopia, I hate to think what she'll do to America as the next US prez, and to the world, for that matter.
When Americans go to vote in November 2008, they'll have a 'choice' between Democrat and Republican, probably Hillary and McCain. The Bush regime has totally stuffed it for the Republican party, so it's a safe bet that the Democratic candidate will win. The Democratic candidate will be Hillary. The American people don't like where their nation is headed and they're sick of war. They want change, and Hillary represents that change. The only problem is, Hillary won't be the change they're looking for.
Hillary's campaign committee is a recycled offering of the usual suspects, the same old CFR Zionists that have been here all along and that together constitute exactly what America doesn't need right now. Hillary belongs to AIPAC, the CFR, the MIC, and the rest of the Zionist elite, and will repackage the status quo and sell it to the American people as 'change'. Despite Bush's massive increases in military spending, Hillary believes it's not enough. Hillary the Hawk beats the war drums for a strike on Iran even harder than Bush does, and has even criticised him for being 'soft on Iran'. Along with the other Democratic 'front-runners' like Obama and Edwards she insists that "no option can be taken off the table", scaring the shit out of us all with the spectre of nuclear war, but unlike her colleagues, she was the only Democratic candidate to vote in favor of a resolution to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a "terrorist organisation", a stunningly ridiculous notion. She voted in favor of the Iraq war, refuses to acknowledge that it was a mistake, and doesn't support a full withdrawal from Iraq:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
She said ... that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”
Ah, of course, Israel's interests. I forgot about Israel for a second there. Maybe it's time we forget about Israel's interests, since it was Israel that got us there in the first place.
A recent (February 8, 2008) article from the Sydney Morning Herald tells us that which is already blatantly obvious: that 'Hillary has won the tacit support of the Israeli establishment.' It reports that Danny Filc, a political scientist at Ben-Gurion University, believes that the majority of Israelis would like to see Hillary take the presidency, and Gabriel Sheffer, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says the Israeli government probably feels the same way:
"Nobody will say anything openly, for diplomatic reasons, but I'd assume that the Israeli Government would like to see the general election being fought between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, rather than McCain and Barack Obama, and I think of those two they'd prefer Clinton."
The Palestinians know who runs the show in Washington. Again, from the article:
Mustafa Barghouti, an independent Palestinian politician, said he believed whoever won the US election, the power of the Israel lobby would ensure that US policy was largely unchanged.
Hillary brings no answers to the table, only frightening "options". She has nothing to offer except more of the same, and maybe worse. People who cross the Clintons have a strange tendency to wind up dead, and we could be next, after most of the population of Iran, that is. Everyone that matters is backing Hillary Clinton in this race, and by all indications, she will be the next president of the United States.
Hillary's Secrets: Israeli Spying, Iran Contra and the CIA Drug Smuggling Connection
Clinton Flogs Alleged Iranian Role in Iraq - Even More Than Bush
Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency
Rothschilds choose Hillary Clinton to be the Next U.S.President
Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
Rupert Murdoch backs Hillary Clinton: by their friends you shall know them
Rupert Murdoch and Hillary Clinton: New Odd Couple
Hillary's Presidential Campaign Committee reads like a who's who of the CFR
Hillary Clinton celebrates Israeli war crimes
Hillary - "a true friend of Israel"
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess
Clinton Wins Tacit Support of Israeli Establishment
Hillary Clinton's Junket to Israel
10 Things I Hate about Liberty, starring Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
Hillary in the Holy Land
What Hillary Clinton Doesn't Know About Palestine
Hillary Clinton Defends 2002 Iraq War Vote On Meet The Press
Hillary Clinton Rakes in Cash from the US Weapons Industry
Mama Warbucks: Hillary Clinton Brings Home the Dollars for New York's Defense Contractors
Hillary Returns pro-Palestinian Cash
Dear Senator Clinton: About Those Palestinian Textbooks...
Hillary's Blackwater Connection
Hillary Clinton on Military Policy
www.senate.gov: Senator Hillary Clinton's Position on Israel and the Middle East
Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Windfall
Hillary Exposed, (YouTube)
Mena Connection: Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA (Google video)
The Clinton Chronicles: A Criminal Investigation (Google video)
View it here on large screen
View it here on large screen