Posted on 10/14/2006 7:42:40 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
Even slow learners are beginning to notice that America keeps moving to the left no matter who controls the White House and Congress. Despite supposed political differences nothing much ever seems to change when power shifts. Gaines made by the left always seen to remain in place. During the terms of Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, the economy, with a few spikes and valleys, muddled on. Our foreign policy stayed on the same imperialist track. The war on terrorism continued to be handled mostly like an internal police matter. Federal courts kept ruling by judicial fiat. America continued as Red China’s retail outlet. Government grew larger in size and reach every year. On the whole, taxes steadily increased as deficit spending remained the accepted way of “balancing“ the annual budget. Obvious dangers to America, such as the United Nations, the illegal-alien invasion, energy dependence and the erosion of the Constitution went seemingly unnoticed by one administration after another no matter how loud the cry for reform. It’s almost as if there is some behind-the-scenes force keeping both parties on the same converging paths. All would be well if both paths ran parallel with Constitutional rule-of-law, individual responsibility, personal liberty, and the capitalist free-enterprise system. Unfortunately the road is clearly veering toward some kind of elite-ruled regional or world government based on a collectivist ideology. What gives? Carroll Quigley, professor of history at Georgetown University, wrote a 1340-page book in 1966 called Tragedy and Hope. In it he frankly and approvingly explained how prominent figures, non-government think-tanks, and semi-secret organizations work to maintain a consistent trend toward the Left. Quigley wrote: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposite ideologies, one perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. “Instead,” Quigley said, “the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy.” In other words, let “them” kick one of our guys out leaving the other in place to keep things going in our direction.
I can sense knees beginning to jerk at the suggestion that there is anything but random chance driving our destinies. Call them “String-Pullers,” “King-Makers,” “The-Boys-in-the-Back-Room,” “The Establishment,” “The Insiders,” or whatever you like. But is it really so surprising that there are people of great wealth, influence and power who form groups to exert various degrees of pressure on governments? Ever hear of the Rothschilds? The Rockefellers? The Lippo Group? The Trilateral Commission? Henry Kissinger? The United Nations? The Council on Foreign Relations? George Soros? All of which is a ‘round about way of considering the question: will Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) run for president in 2008? The world wonders. (I’ll connect the dots shortly.) Clinton is being coy about what she is understandably aching to do; become the first woman president. Is she waiting for the nod from someone, as Quigley suggests? The timing could hardly be better for Senator Clinton. She has a number of significant pluses going for her besides having a solid political base and being in virtual control of her party. First, Clinton has the most valuable asset a candidate can have; instant celebrity name recognition. Studies show that a large percentage of voters vote for the name they most recognize on the ballot. Hillary Clinton is arguably one of the best-known names in the world today. Second, she has already raised more money than would be needed to win re-election to her unopposed senate seat. Third, she could take for granted the vote of the usual blocs and special interests who automatically support Democrats. Fourth, the leftist media would go to war to see her in the White House. Why doesn’t she declare? Despite her outward show, Clinton’s many heavy negatives might be giving her pause. They are almost certainly causing the string-pullers to hold back. In addition to the scandal-ridden years with Bill in Arkansas and in the White House that would all be revived, is the fear that if she were elected president she would immediately stampede for socialism like a bull in the china closet. Hillary’s rush to socialize, such as her unsuccessful attempt to socialize health care during her husband’s first term, might backfire and upset too many time-tables. The Insiders know that radical changes in society must be made gradually. For example, it took several decades to get Americans to accept the welfare-state, income redistribution, and the Global Village. Hillary would be impatient and would throw a lamp (or worse) at anyone who tried to slow her down. Accordingly, I don’t think that she will get the Insider’s approval that Professor Quigley talks about. Without it, she wouldn’t stand a chance of winning. At this point I believe Hillary will not run but will back someone less known and less likely to have the Democrat’s negatives and loser image. With Hillary, the Insiders, and the media fully behind him, almost any unknown could win. Remember Jimmy Carter, another unknown, won with only Insider backing. With a Democrat in the White House Hillary could settle for Secretary of State and fly around the world in Air Force 2 speaking for the only Superpower on Earth. Not bad for a mousy little Sixties’ Marxist.
Jack Chesney
"Insiders snubb Hillary"
I wouldn't be in the same room with her. What a disgusting woman(?).
Do you have a like for this article?
Thanks
Hillary is so atrociously ugly.
"Even slow learners are beginning to notice that America keeps moving to the left no matter who controls the White House and Congress."
I couldn't read past this. Big lib publication.
Who's more disgusting-Kerry or Clinton? I have to think about that one
Actually, AMERICA IS NOT MOVING TO THE LEFT.
The truth is .. A PORTION OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS MOVING FARTHER TO THE LEFT.
America is actually returning to it's roots - family values and pride in America.
haha! That's what her hidden "picture of Dorian Gray" looks like!
Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President of the United States.
Studies show that a large percentage of voters vote for the name they most recognize on the ballot
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Typical liberal BS. This generalization might possibly apply to some local offices, but hardly for POTUS. Anyone in the booth is very familiar with both names and will vote for the one the feel best about.
///////////////////////////////////
"Even slow learners are beginning to notice that America keeps moving to the left no matter who controls the White House and Congress."
I couldn't read past this. Big lib publication.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
I read past it and it got worse.
"Even slow learners are beginning to notice that America keeps moving to the left no matter who controls the White House and Congress." '
It's not a question of America moving toward the left. It's a question of the leftist elite having seized most of the levers of power.
A generation of leftists seized control of academia, the public schools, the judiciary, the media, the entertainment industry, the mainline churches, and the bureaucratic infrastructure of the Catholic Church, and they are using their privileged positions of power desperately to maintain control.
Where they can be voted out of power, they have been voted out, except in the big coastal cities where their captive welfare clients keep them in office. But since they control the organs of opinion shaping and mind formation, with education, Hollywood, the music industry, and the media, it will be exceedingly difficult to pry their fingers off those levers of power.
Unless she decides her best political advantage would be to vie for Harry Reid's position in the Senate, she has nothing to lose by running for the WH in 08.
Her Senate reelection in 06 is almost assured.
Thus, if she decides to try, she can run in 08. If she wins, she gets the big office. If she loses, she has 4 remaining years to repair any damage and retain her Senate seat.
Unless she absolutely thinks Senate Leader is a more powerful position, she will run for the White House. Unless she weighs the baggage and finds too many negatives against her, she will run for the White House.
If she decides to take the last politically charged route, she may vie for Senator Leader. That would give her a long term power position without her having to fight through the Democrat primaries and the November 08 election.
Decisions, decisions.
The 06 election should make up her mind. If the Dems take the Senate, she will challenge for the Senate Majority Leadership position. If the Dems don't make much headway in taking the Senate, she will vie for the WH. [Because a lost for the WH would not affect her Senate tenure. A win-win for her.]
Both political parties are moving leftward.
As the Dems move toward radicalism, the GOP is moving left to fill the gap the Dems are leaving.
The leadership of both parties is very leftward of center.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.