Hillary’s right, there is a war on women



And it’s going on in the heart of the democrat party.

As the 2016 election crystallizes into painful reality, Hillary Clinton predictably offers up a new book decrying the plight of women in America.

Hillary Clinton warns in a new book that the “clock is turning back” on women across America and offers a passionate argument for prioritizing the advancement of women and girls.

Clinton, the former secretary of state and possible presidential contender, is one of a slew of high-profile contributors to a new report set to be released Sunday compiled by author and activist Maria Shriver and the liberal Center for American Progress.

“[Fighting] to give women and girls a fighting chance isn’t just a nice thing to do,” Clinton writes in “The Shriver Report: A woman’s nation pushes back from the brink.” “It isn’t some luxury that we only get to when we have time on our hands. This is a core imperative for every human being in every society. If we do not continue the campaign for women’s rights and opportunities, the world we want to live in — and the country we all love and cherish — will not be what it should be.”

And to help prove her point, she points to her own suffering daughter, who is worth $15 million.

And to further bolster the argument that women are not treated properly, Hillary includes a female US Senator and the multi-millionaire Beyoncé as contributors.

All that’s missing is the billionaire Oprah as example of how women suffer in the United States of America.

But still, I think she has a point. There is a war on women within the democrat party. When it was “her turn” to be President, the democrat party threw the old white woman under the bus for the younger Obama.

And she’s pissed. She took names and now she’s looking to kick some ass.

Hillary and company kept a meticulous record of those who failed her:

As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”

And Hillary has a special place in hell for the “traitors”- those who really burned her. She created a treachery scale which ran from 1 to 7. Those scoring a 7, or the most treacherous were John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, Patrick Leahy, Chris Van Hollen, Rob Andrews and Baron Hill.

Sometimes the things said were positively hilarious:

When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

And sometimes it was nasty. Rep. Rob Andrews:

“There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me. … I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign … that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting.” (June 3, 2008)

That there was great anger and pain was not in doubt:

The book makes clear the depth of the wounds inflicted during the primary struggle.

“Years later,” Parnes and Allen write, Clinton aides “would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them. ‘Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,’ one said to another. ‘Ted Kennedy,’ the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, ‘dead.’”

At WaPo Nia Malika-Henderson tried immediately to dismiss the fallout from the book:

So does any of this matter to a potential 2016 bid for Clinton? The short answer is no. And the long answer is no. The Beltway will eat this stuff up, of course, and it does suggest that 2014 will be a year when Clinton’s record is highly scrutinized, often in salacious detail. But much of this 2008 campaign drama is water under the bridge for Clinton supporters and for Clinton, who is steadily rebuilding and repairing relationships as she mulls whether to run.

Does anyone have the least doubt of what Hillary will say when asked about this book?


A President Hillary Clinton would be an unending nightmare for political opponents. She would continue not only the Obama legacy of abuse of the IRS, but continue the IRS reign of terror her husband so frequently wielded.

An official with the Internal Revenue Service has admitted that legal opponents of former President Bill Clinton were singled out for tax audits, according to court documents made public this week.

“What do you expect when you sue the president?” senior IRS official Paul Breslan told Judicial Watch, the Washington-based legal watchdog group that had filed 50-plus legal actions against the Clinton administration and subsequently found itself in the IRS’s cross hairs…

“There were literally six witnesses in the room when Breslan told us we should have expected an audit,” Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman revealed to NewsMax.com. “Four of them were lawyers.”

The legal group became the target of an IRS audit in 1998, just four days after it filed an independent impeachment report against Clinton, based on years of investigation into everything from Chinagate to the Paula Jones case.

But Judicial Watch wasn’t alone. Witnesses bearing damaging testimony against the president were a favorite target of the Clinton IRS. Those singled out for audits include:

Clinton paramours Gennifer Flowers and Liz Ward Gracen, sexual assault accusers Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, and fired White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale.

The Jones case, which would eventually lead to Clinton’s impeachment, was of particular interest to the IRS, which apparently leaked her confidential tax returns to the late New York Daily News reporter Lars Erik Nelson.

In a September 1997 column Nelson revealed details from Jones’ filing to bolster claims that she was profiting from her sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton.

In a subsequent interview with NewsMax.com’s Carl Limbacher (then with the Washington Weekly), Nelson insisted somewhat implausibly that a “friend” of Jones had come across her tax return during a visit to her home and decided to go public with the secrets…

As the Judicial Watch complaint notes, the Clinton IRS also went after organizations and even media companies it perceived as politically hostile, including:

The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition…

Scary stuff, but it could be worse. Think Vince Foster. democrats clearly have a war on women going on, but a Hillary Presidency would be utter hell for the right and anyone who dared oppose her.

And that’s before we get to Spitzer, Menendez, Edwards and Filthy Filner. Just remember who threw the woman under the bus in 2008.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It takes a village to satisfy Willy the impeached.

Watch for it if Hittlary becomes Prez. That’s an increase in suicides and accidents in the immediate political sanctum.

This book, or report, “The Shriver Report: A woman’s nation pushes back from the brink,’‘ compiles feminist thinking on exactly what they say is the opposite of what they claim!
Hillary writes, “It isn’t some luxury that we only get to when we have time on our hands. This is a core imperative for every human being in every society. If we do not continue the campaign for women’s rights and opportunities, the world we want to live in — and the country we all love and cherish — will not be what it should be.”

But SHE fit her essay into her spare time.
Her ”core imperative,” doesn’t seem to have a word to say about girls getting shot for trying to get an education, for girls being doused with acid for refusing to marry, for girls getting their clitorises scrapped off in barbaric fashion.
Her ”core imperative” doesn’t stand up for females being ordered to stay inside, or cover up, never sit in a chair, never turn on the air conditioning, never answer a phone all on pain of death.
So, I guess, ”the world we want to live in, ” and, ”every human being in every society,” really only means mean old white men supposedly keeping a woman from rising to the top in their businesses.
But, who knows?
It is a collection of essays by many feminists.
Maybe one of them will get to the REAL women’s issues on earth.
Otherwise, what ”brink” are women on earth at the edge of?

I imagine what women will tend to remember are things like the 138 republican votes against renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, widespread regulatory efforts intended to restrict women’s access to reproductive health and abortion services, mandatory ultrasound regulations, resistance to efforts to address the problem of sexual assault in the military, state-level efforts to roll back enforcement of equal pay and workplace discrimination legislation, cuts in WIC funding, etc. A phrase like “war on women” doesn’t gain currency unless it has some basis in reality.

And where was all the feminist concern when vile attacks occurred against Gov. Palin?

Furthermore, where is the feminist concern about the millions of aborted females?

And probably not one single word about Dr. Gosnell’s Clinic of Horrors or Planned Parenthood who continued to refer women to him knowing full well how bad he was.

And why should women, or any special group, get special consideration in the law? Isn’t the law supposed to be blind to color, gender, race, orientation? Why should only women get these special protections – are they so inferior that they need special ‘short bus’ protection? Are you really making such a sexist comment?

@greg In Wasington, #9:

And probably not one single word about Dr. Gosnell’s Clinic of Horrors or Planned Parenthood who continued to refer women to him knowing full well how bad he was.

What evidence is there that Planned Parenthood had any knowledge whatsoever concerning Kermit Gosnell’s level of incompetence? The answer is simple: None.

Gosnell didn’t work for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood isn’t the regulatory agency responsible for licensing doctors, for investigating indications of malpractice, or for suspending licenses to practice if a doctor has become incompetent. Planned Parenthood isn’t the organization to which complaints about such things are directed.

There were at least 8 known prior complaints to Pennsylvania state authorities from 1989 through 2006. The 2010 raid that finally led to the guy being shut down was the result of a DEA investigation and was coordinated by the FBI. It took the federal authorities to finally get something done. The entire problem resulted from a failure on the part of state regulatory authorities. As a result of the investigation, fault was found on the part of the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine, the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and the Pennsylvania Department of State.

Planned Parenthood was in no way responsible for Goswell’s behavior. That, of course, didn’t keep opportunists like Sarah Palin from falsely linking Goswell to Planned Parenthood:

“Considering the role Planned Parenthood has played in looking the other way while the mass murdering abortion doctor Gosnell butchered babies born alive from his horrific infanticide procedures and abused his women patients, it’s perhaps not surprising that this same president sees nothing wrong with allowing his name to be so openly associated with this organization,”

Any “looking the other way,” was on the part of Pennsylvania state and local regulatory officials. No one had informed Planned Parenthood of a damn thing.

Why should only women get these special protections – are they so inferior that they need special ‘short bus’ protection? Are you really making such a sexist comment?

Such a comment reveals much. The fact that you don’t understand that it does also reveals much.