English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please don't. If she runs in '08 there isn't going to be much of a change. Our rights will still very much be in danger. This is only one of my many concerns but is an important one.

http://www.factcheck.org/article416.html

There are other choices. Thanks!

2006-08-17 02:58:32 · 7 answers · asked by DEP 3 in Politics & Government Politics

7 answers

bill wont even support her

2006-08-17 03:03:04 · answer #1 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 0 2

Hillary is a Illuminati, and a danger for society !!!!


They are the Illuminatis, and they own you,
This is the New World Order, and it is your future if the world don't wake up :

And this is what Bush’s minions had to say in 2000;-
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Project for the New American Century (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Confessions (Nuremberg Diary)
http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/goering.htm

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller: Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with other around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefellers memoirs (2002)

Make you investigations about Jesuits, the New World Order, the Illuminatis, the Free-Masonery, the Death Clan. They plan a world reduction of population of 80%...Far worse than Hitler...

1. Monetary and sex bribery was to be used to obtain control of men already in high places in the various levels of all governments and other fields of endeavor. Once influential persons had fallen for the lies, deceits, and temptations of the Illuminati, they were to be held in bondage by application of political and other forms of blackmail, threats of financial ruin, public exposure, and physical harm, even death to themselves and loved members of their families.

2. The Illuminati who were on the faculty of colleges and universities were to cultivate students possessing exceptional mental ability and who belonged to well-bred families with international leanings, and recommend them for special training in Internationalism. Such training was to be provided by granting scholarships, like the Rhodes Scholarship, to those selected by the Illuminati. All such scholars were to be first persuaded and then convinced that men of special talent and brains had the right to rule those less gifted on the grounds that the masses do not know what is best for them physically, mentally, and spiritually.

2006-08-21 02:51:01 · answer #2 · answered by The Patriot 4 · 0 0

I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination and its just her against the Republican.

Otherwise, I'm hoping for good alternatives to crop up in the primaries.

2006-08-17 10:12:59 · answer #3 · answered by brian2412 7 · 1 0

Nope

2006-08-17 10:16:56 · answer #4 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 0 1

I think people don't like her because she posesses precisely the same qualities we admire in male leaders.

But I don't like her much because she's been far too conserrvative in her voting.

2006-08-17 11:29:39 · answer #5 · answered by Steve 6 · 0 0

Not for president. I don't believe she's electable.

2006-08-17 10:03:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I know I won't be.

2006-08-17 10:03:51 · answer #7 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers