The True Nature Of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party

Before a group of students in
New Hampshire the other day, Hillary Clinton let it slip what her vision for the future of the country portends; in a word it is socialism.
Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none; privilege for none except the politically powerful of course.

 

As Cal Thomas points out in his article on townhall.com,
Clinton seems to be giving a new twist to the Marxian axiom, “from each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs.”  Actually the words spoken by Hillary Clinton are those that every true blue, I mean red, liberal espouses. It is no different than John Edward’s Two Americas where society is divided between winners and losers; not evenly divided I remind you, but between many losers and a few winners. In his 2004 Democrat national convention speech, Edwards stated the following:

 

John Kerry and I believe that we shouldn’t have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life, they know their kids and their grand-kids are going to be just fine; and then one for most Americans, people who live paycheck to paycheck. You don’t need me to explain this to you do you 

In a word the liberal, progressive, socialist, or any nomenclature for those who stand under the collectivist banner view the world through static vision. They see the lives of individuals as has been and always will be. The past, present, and future are one in the same.  According to Edwards from the aforementioned passage, without the intervention of government, the poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.  This viewpoint can no better be illustrated then by the comments made during the debate over minimum wage legislation. Proponents for raising the minimum wage argued that those who earn this rate of pay had not received a raise in many years. It is as if they are saying that those who worked for the minimum wage twenty years ago are still today working at that rate of pay.  This line of thought totally ignores the reality that the minimum wage job is the first real work experience for those entering the job market, including a great majority who are young.  These jobs are just the beginning of a climb up the ladder of financial security. It never occurs to the progressive mind that the captains of industry today started out in minimum wage jobs. No, they see those on the bottom rung as always on the bottom rung and those on top as always on top.

 

One’s stature in life [happiness to the collectivist is always relative to others] is not a matter of life choices; but is dependent upon the cosmic roll of the dice. There are two kinds of people in
America; the lucky and the unlucky, the blessed and the misfortunate, or the evil and the victim. It is never thought in terms of good decisions and bad decisions, hard work and laziness, or learning and ignorance. The two
Americas are starkly pictured as a country that is bisected by a line, over which few can cross, which divides the winners and the losers. Under this scenario, every human relationship and interaction is seen as one party winning and the other party losing. Outcomes are arbitrarily measured as unfair or fair. In the collectivist world, it cannot be imagined that transaction are executed as a result of mutual benefit, nor can failure or losing be a foundation for future success.  When prices rise for example in what we pay for fuel or healthcare it is deemed that the provider of these products wins while the consumer loses. Business profits become a measurement of how much individuals are being ripped off. Of course this viewpoint ignores any notion of economic law and the role that the consumer plays in the establishment of prices and profits neither of which would exist without the demand side of the equation. Furthermore, businesses that operate absent of profit do not exist for any length of time or provide the opportunity for employment. In terms of employment, jobs are again divided by an arbitrary line which separates the good jobs from the bad jobs. When politicians speak of good jobs are they in essence touting the belief that all of us possess the same skills? If we all had “good jobs”, then who would do the bad jobs which provide necessary services; who would pick up the garbage? Do people take bad jobs because there are not enough nuclear physicist openings available?    And what wage constitutes a good job?  Judging winners and losers require a standard of measurement; a fixed point of reference upon which the outcome of an economic transaction whether it be prices or wages can be judged. **

 

A fixed point designated by government and judged by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez and now Hillary Clinton and the lot who tout modern day liberalism and collectivism. Unfortunately this philosophy is not exclusive to the party on the left, there are many in the Republican Party who see validity in all of this.

 

**excerpt from a book in progress

 

Time Off

Hiatus is the M.O. for the time being….

Actually, I am reveling in Dr. Reisman and other pressing matters when I get the time. His recent postings are required reading.

GOP: RIP

The Republican Party once stood for smaller, less intrusive, government; implicitly lower taxation; non-interventionism abroad; protection and promotion of capitalism and its implicit foundation of private property; and most profoundly, the promotion and expansion of individual liberty. Under this solid base one could clearly see a link to a great but profoundly limited moral purpose of a just government: guaranteeing the protection of life (health), liberty, and private property against violent attack – the pursuit of happiness being implicit.

What should have been at the very worst an attempt (irregardless of the undeclared war on Islam) to stop the expansion of the federation has resulted in the exact opposite. The last seven years have resulted in a far larger, incredibly more intrusive government (federal, state and local); higher effective taxation at most levels of government (including at the federal level due to federal debt management policies by the central bank); manifestly interventionist foreign policy revealed by a principle of pre-emptive engagement premised not upon destruction and humiliation of a directly threatening enemy, but purely upon American sacrifice; zero support for the expansion of policies to support laissez faire economics; far reaching court decisions (Kelo) which degrade rather than enhance private property; and lastly, the imposition of an incredibly large new layer of federal bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security.

The great irony to date is that, notwithstanding the fact no large scale terror event has occurred here since 2001, Homeland Security has had its greatest impact domestically in consuming vast resources while limiting and threatening the liberties of regular law-abiding Americans, rather than diminishing the greatest and most obvious threat to real homeland security (and the rule of law) – the unimpeded illegal entry by foreigners simply walking, running, driving, swimming, or boating through our borders. And once here, zero courage to send the criminals back!

All of this without one Federal department (such as Education, Energy, or EPA) severly downsized, let alone eliminated. The President has issued two vetos in seven years, and his most recent was not in opposition to the money grabbing ear marks associated with the bill but rather the fact that his “Selfless War” would be placed into jeapardy. Clearly, with his track record, had the bill that he vetoed not contained the call for a pullout timetable he would have signed it gladly – ear marks notwithstanding. His justification: sacrifice. Not for Americans, but of Americans. Not of Iraqis, but for Iraqis. A philosophy of sacrifice knows no end, it is only limited by the degree of guilt that can be imputed on otherwise innocent people through the creativity of its promoter. In this case, George W. Bush.

Rudolph Guiliani, the current front runner and apparent victor of last night’s debate, speaks of 3,000 innocent Americans lost on 9-11 as if their death justifies the deaths of 3,500 American soldiers as yet another sacrifice – to the Iraqi people. You don’t hear the arguments being made that this sacrifice is for liberty, the concept that is bandied about ceaslessly is democracy. It’s not about our liberty anymore, it’s all about others democracy. Does anyone out there see the incredible incongruity in all of this? At what point of marginal grief would every one of those people who died on 9-11 say STOP the madness. We cannot justify the sacrifice of one more American over there to rebuild someone elses *&$^@^^ government sewage system, government school, mystic mosque or interventionist bureau of Iraqi diversity training. Their gain of interventionist democracy is at our loss of liberty – it has become axiomatic.

When any one of those candidates for President throw around the 9/11 badge of honor and dare speak for the dead as a collective, I just wish Britt Hume or Chrissy Matthews would ask that candidate this: “do you really think you can speak for all of those who perished in the attacks?” The answer would be terribly revealing.

So it is, reality is real – a thing is itself and, as the great Aristotle stated, “A is A.” The GOP has delivered government that is bigger and more intrusive, aided and abetted a nation consumed by and premised upon foreign holding of debt, stood by and often times helped private property to be seized for the most outrageous of justifications, the resultant enhancement of government revenue. Moreover, they have justified reductions in individual taxation and massive increases in government debt not by the ability of those measures to increase individual freedom and liberty but by, again, the worst of all justifications – increased revenue to itself! And the President and other members of the GOP state this fact openly and often. And worst of all, layer upon layer of fog and revisionary thinking has been placed over the founding vision of this once great nation.

It is once again time in America to stand up for the individual’s primary right and to demand the subordinance of all levels of government to the individual and those inalienable rights of life, liberty and property. In this matter, the GOP has proven itself inherently incapable and a clear impediment.

Rest in peace GOP, you’ve done enough damage to liberty already.