« The Male Teresa Heinz | Main | Sleep With The Fishes »

January 23, 2008



I know you think you are an expert on presidential history, but you are looking at it with tunnel vision.

First of all, 42 men have been president, not 43. Grover Cleveland had non-consecutive terms so he has been counted twice.

Second, Clinton is not the first president to still be involved in politics after his term is over. Teddy Roosevelt is considered one of our greatest presidents, but he got right back in the fray when he was not happy with how his successor, Taft, was conducting himself. TR even ran for president again. When his own party wouldn't nominate him, he created the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party). I know how you all hate that word "Progressive".

TR continued to be active in politics, criticizing Woodrow Wilson brutally.

Hoover was also active after his presidency, writing articles criticizing FDR.

So I don't know why some people assert that there is some tradition where former presidents stay out of it. It's just not true.

Bill's wife is running for president. If he was just sitting in Chappaqua not participating, people would criticize him for his failure to get out there and work for his wife's campaign. Instead, he is out there, doing what he does best. And, let's face it, he owes her big, so he should be working for her.

And, Monica, you really should be careful when you say that Clinton sullied the presidency not to bring up Nixon as an example of virtue in the same article. Come on. Don't be absurd.

J. Pierpont Finch

We know that the perverse mainstream media are in cahoots with the Democrat Party because they remain silent about Hillary's past described in the below article. You have to ask yourselve why these fools embrace candidates who embrace the failed policies the Eastern Europe, Russia, and other socialist countries are leaving behing as they march into the future. There is only one answer. Liberalism in the extreme is a mental disorder!


By Carey Roberts
December 21, 2007

When Hillary Rodham arrived at Yale Law School in the fall of 1969, the long-awaited Revolution seemed to be at hand. Students declared a “liberated zone” on the main quadrangle and erected tents for endless teach-ins. The university was forced to adopt pass-fail grading. And the pungent scent of sweet-smelling marijuana was redolent in the autumn air.

Within months of her arrival, Hillary signed on to the board of editors of the newly-established Yale Review of Law and Social Action. The Review’s purpose was “to present forms of legal scholarship and journalism which focus on programmatic solutions to social problems.” The cover photo of the first issue depicted police brandishing weapons to illustrate an article on “University and the Police: Force and Freedom on Campus.”

One of Hillary’s closest faculty mentors was Thomas I. Emerson, a constitutional scholar affectionately known as “Tommie the Commie.” It was in his class that Hillary first laid eyes on a bearded William Jefferson Clinton. She sported Gloria Steinem glasses and board-straight long hair – the former Goldwater Girl had turned iconic hippie.

That spring Rodham signed up for Emerson’s civil liberties class, notes Carl Bernstein in A Woman in Charge. The course entailed monitoring the local trial of Black Panther Bobby Seale who had allegedly murdered a former Panther-turned-police-informant. Hillary was charged with scheduling the student watch-dogs so every minute of the trial would be scrutinized. After all, who could trust White Man’s justice?

A subsequent edition of the Review of Law and Social Action was devoted to the Black Panther trial. The issue featured drawings of policemen depicted as decapitated and eviscerated pigs. By now Hillary had been promoted to associate editor of the magazine.

Interesting note, Hillary’s personal involvement with the Black Panther trial or the Review of Law and Social Action is never mentioned in her autobiography.

Barbara Olson, writing in The Final Days, reveals how Hillary studied the Critical Legal Studies school. Unabashedly Marxist, Critical Legal Studies uses a “deconstructionist” model to subvert the law and engineer social transformation.

During this time Rodham met Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund who soon became Hillary’s confidante. Hillary spent the summer of 1970 in Washington DC working at her side. Edelman would later admit to the truth of her duplicitous agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.”

Beginning her second year at Yale, Hillary devoted herself to the cause of abused and neglected children, once helping a local hospital to develop legal procedures to deal with suspected child abuse. Another time she helped represent a foster mother adopt her two-year old ward.

Those experiences led Rodham to publish “Children under the Law” in the Harvard Educational Review. That article ridiculed the antiquated notion that families should be seen as “private, nonpolitical units.” Making the over-the-top comparison that, “Along with the family, past and present examples of such [dependency] arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system,” Rodham argued for the need to “remodel” the family and grant children a legal right to sue their parents.

The summer of 1971 Hillary traveled to California to work at the Oakland law office of Robert Treuhaft, described by the New York Times as a “radical law firm that specialized in fighting every kind of discrimination and social injustice.”

Treuhaft was a former member of the Communist Party USA, leaving the party only after Khrushchev’s revelations about Stalin’s massacres. Treuhaft later confided that Hillary “certainly … was in sympathy with all the left causes.”

The following summer Hillary found herself working for the George McGovern presidential campaign in Texas. McGovern, the anti-war candidate, had earlier headed the Democratic commission that mandated quotas for women and Blacks in state delegations.

By the end of her stint at Yale, friend Sara Ehrman described Hillary’s politics as “liberal, ideological.” Representative Dick Armey was more candid: “Her thoughts sound a lot like Karl Marx. She hangs around with a lot of Marxists. All her friends are Marxists.” Author Barbara Olson put it this way: “Hillary was a budding Leninist, Menshevik, Bolshevik, Trotskyite … What really mattered to Lenin – and what Saul Alinsky taught Hillary to value – was power.”

Pinch yourself -- this is the same Hillary Rodham Clinton who is now serving as the honorable senator from New York, who aspires to the United States presidency, and who seeks to “remodel” our families to conform to a socialist utopia.

© 2007 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved


Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, RenewAmerica.us, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, researcher and consultant.


It's impossible to compare Clintonian sleaze with Nixonian skulduggery. It's like comparing rotten oranges with rotten apples, even if the liberati think they're the same thing.

Self-styled "progressives" can't believe that anything Clintonite could be as venal, i.e. "un-progressive" as a third-rate burglary at Watergate done by the henchmen of a man they longed to destroy for his life-long attacks on Communists and other "progressives."

Nixon's "moral majority," i.e. ordinary folks who work for a living, remain deeply estranged by this "sophistication" that now dominates a once somewhat Puritan society. Turning the Oval Office into a massage parlor offends them deeply. Au contraire, your "progressive" smiles about The Deed and thinks, "There but for the grace of Sigmund Freud go I."

You just can't compare different kinds of rotten fruit, and how people comprehend sleaze and national dignity.


Bill Clinton's conduct is shocking, if that is now possible. Ex-Presidents certainly have the right to get involved in politics and there is historical precedent for this (as Fred pointed out). The best example is John Q. Adams who served 17 years in the House of Representatives after serving a term as the Sixth President.

However, one would expect an ex-President to maintain a certain level of decorum and dignity. When Bill Clinton gets involved in whether or not citizens of Nevada vote in casinos, or whether a Presidential candidate (Obama) is telling the truth about his position on Iraq and calling his statements a "fairy tale), he is reducing his historical position in history to no more than a political hack rout his way back into the seat of power on his wifes' petticoats. When he lies about his position on Iraq (that he was against it from the start) his reputation bottoms to the level of just another Washington partisan.

He disgraced the office of President when he was there with his affairs and assault on women, and he is now disgracing his legacy and the Office with his partisan political campaign to get back in office. It's pathetic and disgusting.


Now parents tell their kids that if they work and study hard they could grow up NOT to be like George W. Bush.


Does anyone here *really* find Bill Clinton's activities in this campaign "shocking"? I doubt it. They don't rise to the level of a Karl Rove. He's vigorously supporting his wife's for president. He's criticizing her opponents. He's not exactly assassinating anyone's character.

If this was a Republican supporting his wife's campaign, everyone here would be cheering him on. You want to try to tell me I'm wrong?


Now parents tell their kids that if they work and study hard they could grow up NOT to be like George W. Bush.

Where have you been? Don't "progressives" yet understand that Bush is over and they're bashing air? The Clinton two-headed monster has always been seen by the kiddies as "cooler." American kiddies are under massive Bubba influence. It's glaringly obvious in the coast-to-coast reports of high school and not-so high school "liberation," with or without the girls borrowing knee pads from the basketball team. In fact there are even reports now of rapes in elementary school. The "progressives" who mock those who condemn Clinton sleazoids, "Hey, it's only sex, you puritanical idiots!" got what they wanted: The pornification of America, now coming to you 24/7 from "Progressive" Hollywood/media/Internet etc.

"Progressives" may not want to focus on consequences of the "Make Whore, Not War" they have infected the nation with, but the medical community can't ignore it as easily as "progressives" can.

Of these infections, the rising chlamydia rate may be the most alarming. That’s because chlamydia, much like HIV, is often a silent disease. Most infected people will have absolutely no symptoms (or very mild symptoms) and can carry the infection for years without knowing it. However, during this time women can still develop serious long-term health consequences including infertility, chronic pelvic pain and ectopic pregnancy, which can be a life-threatening medical emergency. For men, long-term infection can also cause serious health problems, but, like many STIs, chlamydia poses disproportionately more health risks for women.
The Bad News

What is truly alarming about the rising number of reported chlamydia cases – which rose 74 percent from 1997 to 2004 – is that these cases only represent a fraction of the people that are actually infected. Because more than half of all cases of chlamydia will have no symptoms, or will only be treated after long-term symptoms appear



For the kids growing up today, Bill Clinton is a figure out of history. If you are 16 now, you were 8 when he left office.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent to suggesting that when I was 16 in 1984 and Reagan was president, I was influenced in my behavior by Nixon's misbehavior from 1969 to 1974.

You are also looking at social behavior with blinders on if you think that kids having sex and getting VD is because of Clinton's dalliances and whatever it is you think that liberals and progressives do. Kids having been having sex and getting VD way before Clinton was president. Unless you think that Clinton invented sex and pubescent exploration, but I'm pretty sure he didn't.

You want to blame Clinton and progessives for the sexual imagery in this country? Republicans have had their share of sexual scandal to add to that (remember Larry Craig?).

Could it be that kids get more exposure to sexual imagery because their parents are not around? If you only have one parent living with you, that parent has to work, and if you have two, they probably both have to work to make ends meet. That's the economic reality for a lot of people. The result is kids with Internet access and no supervision. This is just a theory, but consider it.

Bush has been a horrible president. I'm not beating air. I'm lashing out at this incompetent moron that you all voted for. I will continue to spit venom at him until he is gone in less than a year (hooray!). He is the greatest example of what is wrong with this country. He is a failure and a liar, and he leaves office with no successes. I hope he disappears when he leaves office, but he will probably continue to talk, thinking he actually has something to say. So I will continue to spit venom at him. Probably until the stupid b*st*rd dies.


Clinton Memorial



This is a link to the role Bill Clinton is playing in his wife's campaign. Cerberus the many headed dog who guards the gates of hell. Great Graphic.



Who is this "Chickaboomer" and why should I care what she says about anything?


Ex-progressives like David Horowitz and Michael Savage, who knew the type intimately, do tend to savage them. David documents them as liars and hypocrites, dedicated to the destruction of the USA, not to mention being craven cowards quick to attack Christianity (safe for them) while bending over for the muslims. Michael has written a whole book about their "mental disease."

But this could be just overkill, no? Too much exagerration to make a point? Might it not just be a mental quirk, an emotional peculiarity, a childhood formation (maybe a rough time with boys in the schoolyard) rather than a mental disease?

The "progressive" apparently thinks he's rational and logical, if anything. This gives him the superiority he feels while trumpeting the equality he advocates. Surely he's being sincere in this belief. Surely he's not really, as Michael Wiener Savage, with a PhD seems to insinuate, a head case?

The progressive distinguishes himself from what he sees as the mushy-minded "religionists." He uses logic. He reasons. And the result of his ratiocination? Despite the overwhelming evidence that liberals, via their schools, their lawyers, their judges, their ACLU, their Hollywoodniks etc, have opened the floodgates of Sodom, and maybe Gomorrah too in the USA, he thinks that examples of private behavior among so-called conservatives, wife-swapping preachers or a Republican Congressman doing a wide-stance in a public toilet, obviates the point. He actually believes that the fact of a Republican pedophile relieves the progressive of political responsibility for turning the corn belt into the porn belt. He doesn't care if the Republican has voted against every ACLU-inspired attempt to open the floodgates of Sodom as wide as possible. He dismisses that as "hypocrisy." Like a crafty lawyer, he's got his piece of flesh. He knows how to obfuscate the issue.

Is the progressive really incapable of understanding the difference between private peccadillo and the socialist-inspired ACLU's institutionalizing of Sleazoid America?

Is it a question of stupidity?

Of being disingenuous?

Michael Savage is not really on to something, is he?


Wow, Gringoman, you are beyond conventional help. You need a team in Vienna to solve your problems.


The "conservatives" who mock those who condemn Bush sleazoids, "Hey, its only 3,931 dead American troops and 655,000+ dead Iraqi citizens, you puritanical idiots!" got what they wanted: Dead innocent people, now coming to to you 24/7 from "Conservative" towns near you.

"Conservatives" may not want to focus on consequences of the "I kill innocent citizens, but I don't sleep with interns" mantra they have infected the nation with, but the families of the troops can't ignore it as easily as "conservatives" can.


You seem to make good points, Paco, but, as a liberal, I'm so busy advancing the pornification of America that I don't have time to carefully read everything posted here.

Now excuse me while I attempt to get some pubescents to have meaningless sex and spread chlamydia. Whew. Hard work. Good thing I have Bill Clinton to inspire me . . . Right, Gringoman!

The comments to this entry are closed.