More false claims against Hillary

‘The woman is a disaster!’: Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton


Hillary hasn’t suffered, says Paglia, because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’

Paglia voted for Bill Clinton twice before becoming revolted by the treatment meted out to Monica Lewinsky: My jaundiced view of her is entirely the result of observing her behaviour. And last election, I voted for Jill Stein’s Green party. So I have already voted for a woman president.’

Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright made it their business to castigate American girls who wanted Bernie Sanders, while Madonna has promised a blowjob for every Clinton vote. Professor Paglia does not seem to mind much if she makes herself violently unpopular with her contemporaries — she’s an expert at it. Currently professor of the humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, she first shot to fame in 1990 with the publication of Sexual Personae — a manuscript turned down by seven publishers before it became a bestseller.

Paglia’s feminism has always been concerned with issues far beyond her own navel and the Hillary verdict is typical of her attitude — which is more in touch with women in the real world than most feminists’ (a majority of Americans have an ‘unfavourable view of Hillary Clinton).

‘My philosophy of feminism, I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’

Paglia traces the roots of this belief system to American campus culture and the cult of women’s studies. This ‘poison’ has spread worldwide. ‘In London, you now have this plague of female journalists… who don’t seem to have made a deep study of anything…’

Paglia asserts that male/female relations are far more complex than most feminists insist. ‘I wrote a date-rape essay in 1991 in which I called for women to stand up for themselves and learn how to handle men. But now you have this shibboleth, “No means no.” Well, no. Sometimes “No” means “Not yet”. Sometimes “No” means “Too soon”. Sometimes “No” means “Keep trying and maybe yes”. You can see it with the pigeons on the grass. The male pursues the female and she turns away, and turns away, and he looks a fool but he keeps on pursuing her. And maybe she’s testing his persistence; the strength of his genes… It’s a pattern in the animal kingdom — a courtship pattern…’ But for pointing such things out, Paglia adds, she has been ‘defamed, attacked and viciously maligned’ — so, no, she is not in the least surprised that wolf-whistling has now been designated a hate crime in Birmingham.

Girls would be far better advised to revert to the brave feminist approach of her generation — when women were encouraged to fight all their battles by themselves, and win. ‘Germaine Greer was once in this famous debate with Norman Mailer at Town Hall. Mailer was formidable, enormously famous — powerful. And she just laid into him: “I was expecting a hard, nuggety sort of man and he was positively blousy…” Now that shows a power of speech that cuts men up. And this is the way women should be dealing with men — finding their weaknesses and susceptibilities… not bringing in an army of pseudo, proxy parents to put them down for you so you can preserve your perfect girliness.’

Professor Paglia is only lost when asked which younger feminists she would pass the baton to. ‘I would love to inspire dissident young feminists to realise that this brand of feminism is not all feminism…’ she says, before citing Germaine Greer as the woman she admires most alive, and Amelia Earhart and Katharine Hepburn as heroines alas dead.

As with Greer, it is Paglia’s power of speech that utterly devastates. Her collected works read like a dictionary of vicious quotations. (Leaving sex to the feminists? ‘Like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.’ Lena Dunham? ‘She’s a big pile of pudding.’) Paglia is pro-liberty, pro–pornography, pro-prostitutes and anti- any and all special treatment when it comes to women in power: ‘I do not believe in quotas of any kind. Scandinavian countries are going in that direction and it’s an insult to women — the idea that you need a quota.’ Which brings us back to Hillary and the so-called victory her re-entering the White House would represent: ‘If Hillary wins, nothing will change. She knows the bureaucracy, all the offices of government and that’s what she likes to do, sit behind the scenes and manipulate the levers of power.’

Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’

All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.
~
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/

She's wearing the Truckers Hat!

 

HILLARY’S RUNNING MATE TIM KAINE ON JAMES COMEY:

“Jim was in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the in the Eastern District of Virginia when I was the mayor of Richmond, and he’s somebody with the highest standards of integrity.”

https://www.americarisingpac.org/oops-tim-kaine-heaped-effusive-praise-wonderful-jim-comey-sunday/

 

That doesn't excuse this act.

One can wonder why it isn't consistent with a "highest standard of integrity".

 

One of the best statements this week for sure!!
Seriously, Dems! please explain how Watergate was worse then the nefarious activities Clinton is involved in CURRENTLY??? How does one look past these types of activities without being labeled a complete (no doubt about it) huge hypocrite??

 

You do realize that your OP appears very much simply like "damage control." Just accept that she is an evil person running for POTUS. Your defensive posture comes across where it should be labeled in a "desperation" category.

 

Boy you guys were REALLY excited about this +9 Hillary poll 3 days ago.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stressed-election-youve-company-poll/story?id=43024209

Now, statistical tie 78% of her "lead" gone. In just 3 days, and all this was before A. Weiner popped up again and the FBI reopened its investigation into her criminal activity.

 

"Dear Democrats, Doesn't Clinton Embarrass You?"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-28/dear-democrats-doesnt-clinton-embarrass-you

 

Nothing embarrasses them besides at this point what difference does it make

 

He could also hand in his resignation ... ?

 

Says the leftist who cheered when the Left OWNED Mainstream Media saturated bombed Trump for two straight weeks over a manufactured series of sex scandals; manufactured by the Left.

 

TIT FOR TAT

Where are the 5 million emails that Dubya's administration sent over the Republican National Committee's email-server during his administration and have since gone conveniently "lost".

Forgot about that story, have you? Then see here: Bush White House email controversy - excerpt:

 

So you agree she is guilty. Sweet!

 

Do you know how to read English? Do you understand English?

"Hoosier" is which planet in our solar system ... ?

 

Manufactured mainly by Mr (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) grabber himself, you mean. Trump said that himself, nobody else, though I realize the only reason he hasn't tried to put it off on Hillary is that would look really weird

 

Face it, you made a comparison to what you believe is hypocrisy. The problem is if you think Bush was guilty you would have to think Hillary is guilty.

Here is the problem with your comparison. The RNC wasn't running for president and the email rules were quite a bit different back then.

 

AMERICA AT WAR

There is not one bit of "factual evidence" to prove that Hillary has at any time in her career transgressed any laws or calumniated any person or institution.

And I defy anyone to seek and find any incident that refutes that statement.

Accusations abound, but "proof" (as in a court of law) is completely lacking. Which of course, to some, allows them to disparage her as a "devious person who gets away with lying!"

They are simply disparaging themselves in making such false statements.

From here: Why FBI director James B. Comey was able to defy Justice bosses on Clinton email announcement, excerpt:

So much for "building bridges" between the two major National Parties.

America is at war with itself ...

 

And what are the "email rules" that prevail today and not then?

Really, a tiresome excuse. A war was going on "then", and, if anything, the Replicants should have had a "sense of confidentiality" whilst conducting it. Anybody but anybody at the RNC-Washington could have infiltrated its server to transcribe confidential information from administration officials.

The rules in place today are the same as during the Dubya Administration. Moreover, I suggest you read this commentary on the FactCheck site, here: A Guide to Clinton’s Emails.

Hillary Clinton may have violated department policies and she was not the first State Department head to do so. But she did not break any laws. And the burden of proof that she did contravene the law is upon YOU and you alone ...

 

Storing classified information offsite in a private server is against the law and has been for quite some time.

 

Report: Trump violated law by doing business in Cuba

How Trump Gets Away With It - excerpt:

'Nuff said ... ?

 

The only claim about Hillary that I know is absolutely false is that she is being honest with us.

Outside of that, I think one would be hard pressed to think up anything negative about her character and conduct that would not have a high probability of being true. Being a lawyer, she well knows how to do dishonest things legally, and that seems to be the "true north" setting on her moral compass.

 

Ok, believe what you want to believe. I don't have it in me to argue. I'm sure there are others you can debate you today/tonight...just not me tonight my friend... been a long day.

 

Yes, been a long day ...

 

The email rules were no different, and the government certainly existed even if email was thought less dangerous for government officials.

Title U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1905

Text:

First passed in 1948. Yes, Hillary was guilty, but so was the Sec. of State under Dubya. Nobody made a big-deal of it then. And how many others have done the same since?

But yes, we mustn't let Hillary become PotUS, so out it comes!

Just like with all Replicants regardless of the situation - the ends always justify the means! ...