Posted Feb 4, 2008 by 
mlh in Politics | 6 comments | 188 views
It has been long known that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a socialist. She can call it anything she wants to but it is socialism all the same. The American Liberal has changed their label to “The Modern American Progressive”, a cute turn of phrase.
The self-imposed label Modern American Progressive gives the appearance that the socialists want to progress towards an ideal, a mantra, a goal. The issue is this; what is it they are progressing to or towards? Do they not know that socialism and a federal republic cannot coexist? Or do they? DO they not know that the two concepts are diametrically opposed and sooner or later, the two clash and that clash could very well be violent? Or do they? This all remains to be seen.
In studying Hillary Rodham before she became a Clinton, one will find that her steadfastness and adherence to socialism started long before she had political aspirations. If all there was to arrive at this conclusion was the Alinsky Thesis that alone would be all there was to need to know.
I find it interesting that the news media published an article discussing the statement of Hillary Clinton would even consider garnishing the wages of her possible subjects to pay for health care for every citizen as if it was the most logical path to follow. The first warning flag that rises is the constitutionality of such a program. Which amendment would that be and which Bill of Right honors and authorizes such a concept?
Having Aunt Hillary getting control of health care is not the answer. If government gets involved, the costs of health care will reach new heights and the quality of health care will drop like whale dung. For comparisons, check Canada and England to see the lack of proper care and the long waiting lists for serious required surgeries. Does Hillary want to degrade an already stretched health care system?
Hillary is addicted to socialism and she lusts after that power and control and she strongly desires to create more and more government dependency of the people. The problem there is this: there will be no cure for the addiction. Hillary’s plan will require a massive tax increase and that tax increase will further suppress the nations’ economy. Hillary Clinton is an entitlement socialist Democrat and that almost the worse there is.
The other puzzling part of health insurance debate is how it changed into who should be paying for health care and who should not. I haven’t heard any of the political aspirants address this point.
Barak Obama is no better and in some cases, is quite worse. His pathetic “We Can” video is indicative of a devious mind set. Obama has a very difficult time explaining The How of his aspiring Marxist rhetoric. He has been declared the most liberal Senator in Congress. Some say that he is;
The irksome part of this to the Clintons is that MoveOn was formed and organized to defend Bill Clinton during his impeachment ordeal. One thing can be most assuredly questionable in regards to Onbama...when Al Jazeera endorses Barak Obama, the rats are gathering.
The most curious about the two socialist Democrats aspiring to be the new Czars of the United Socialist States is that they both compare themselves to JFK. As can be seen in the video on top of this entry, there is no comparison. Actually, historically speaking, JFK was more Conservative than Richard Nixon.
Voters beware. Touchy-feely sound-goods are hazardous to ones' common sense.
Vote it up at Digital Journal
The self-imposed label Modern American Progressive gives the appearance that the socialists want to progress towards an ideal, a mantra, a goal. The issue is this; what is it they are progressing to or towards? Do they not know that socialism and a federal republic cannot coexist? Or do they? DO they not know that the two concepts are diametrically opposed and sooner or later, the two clash and that clash could very well be violent? Or do they? This all remains to be seen.
In studying Hillary Rodham before she became a Clinton, one will find that her steadfastness and adherence to socialism started long before she had political aspirations. If all there was to arrive at this conclusion was the Alinsky Thesis that alone would be all there was to need to know.
I find it interesting that the news media published an article discussing the statement of Hillary Clinton would even consider garnishing the wages of her possible subjects to pay for health care for every citizen as if it was the most logical path to follow. The first warning flag that rises is the constitutionality of such a program. Which amendment would that be and which Bill of Right honors and authorizes such a concept?
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.Since when is it the governments’ business to force people to pay for that which they have no desire to have? Some are not insured by choice. Some are not insured due to costs. The answer is to make health care more affordable. What is it that drives the costs up to sky rocketing levels? Answer that question and we may have the answers. This automatic enrollment is unacceptable in a free society.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC’s “This Week,” she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.”
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, “it will be affordable for everyone.”
Having Aunt Hillary getting control of health care is not the answer. If government gets involved, the costs of health care will reach new heights and the quality of health care will drop like whale dung. For comparisons, check Canada and England to see the lack of proper care and the long waiting lists for serious required surgeries. Does Hillary want to degrade an already stretched health care system?
Hillary is addicted to socialism and she lusts after that power and control and she strongly desires to create more and more government dependency of the people. The problem there is this: there will be no cure for the addiction. Hillary’s plan will require a massive tax increase and that tax increase will further suppress the nations’ economy. Hillary Clinton is an entitlement socialist Democrat and that almost the worse there is.
The other puzzling part of health insurance debate is how it changed into who should be paying for health care and who should not. I haven’t heard any of the political aspirants address this point.
Barak Obama is no better and in some cases, is quite worse. His pathetic “We Can” video is indicative of a devious mind set. Obama has a very difficult time explaining The How of his aspiring Marxist rhetoric. He has been declared the most liberal Senator in Congress. Some say that he is;
“salivating at the thought of his brand of Marxism being wrought onto the masses of the United States. Maybe some added taxes to your pension to pay for reparations or some other Socialist crapola. One thing is for certain, any person who gets the endorsement of MoveOn.org is someone who should never get the Presidency.”And, what of that endorsement by MoveOn? Is it because Hillary once voted for war authorization, changed her mind and then changed it back and Obama has stated that he was against it from the very beginning? Could it be that since MoveOn has been on the wrong side of the War In Iraq issue from the onset and, so was Obama, that birds of a feather flock together?
The irksome part of this to the Clintons is that MoveOn was formed and organized to defend Bill Clinton during his impeachment ordeal. One thing can be most assuredly questionable in regards to Onbama...when Al Jazeera endorses Barak Obama, the rats are gathering.
The most curious about the two socialist Democrats aspiring to be the new Czars of the United Socialist States is that they both compare themselves to JFK. As can be seen in the video on top of this entry, there is no comparison. Actually, historically speaking, JFK was more Conservative than Richard Nixon.
Voters beware. Touchy-feely sound-goods are hazardous to ones' common sense.
Vote it up at Digital Journal
|