Lucifer B. Satan (D)
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
She doesn't need them.
She has all the money and FBI files she needs.
If there are no changes in the Supreme Court Hillary would still like to make a deal to be appointed to it.
She might like it even if a liberal left and she would be in the minority, although I'm not so sure about that.
Exactly.
And when 'they' see that she might succeed, they will flock to her in droves.
Mark Warner's announcement this week suggests, portends, or confirms, that the powers that be in the DEM party have decided that the Clinton machine is the way to go, (same as they did for Kerry, a sure, self-financing loser, on purpose) and have already begun to clear her path.
I expect they will succeed and Hillary as "unitary executive", assisted by the now permanent Patriot Act, will provide the GOP with the necessary rationale for returning to it's proper conservative roots.
It makes a kind of weird sense that after Bill did his JFK impression and W emulates LBJ, that we should get another Nixon.
Be prepared, for Hillary is most certainly "Tricky Dick-less".
They would flock to Satan if it meant control of the White House.
I totally disagree with you!
If that were true .. the repubs in the House would not have passed all the CONSERVATIVE legislation.
Lucifer B. Satan (D)
True.
That is why corporations donate to both political parties.
That is why lobbyists wine and dine members of both political parties.
We have the best politicians money can buy.
And the worst!
The only superpower Hillary would ever speak for is herself.
We here in Mississippi say that she is just 'plain ole ugly'!
I truely believe that she and Bill have a compact with the devil.
bump
You know, Will Rogers (Comedian-Oolagah,OK) made that remark in the late 20's. But I'm not at all sure it's true. Surely money could buy better politicians that most we see in the Congers.
I remember hearing the activist CCUM (Catholic Center for Urban Ministry) brag about how they took over a major Catholic appeal to get the funding they wanted. Their CCUM meetings at Notre Dame were great networking opportunities for Leftists.
Your post rings of the truth. The leftist elite have seized most of the levers of power during/after LBJ's plan for a Great Society. Decades of having the leftist elite in control has left our American society riddled with drug problems, broken families, and some Americans viewing a welfare society as an acceptable way of living. The leftist elite have added more problems to American society in their attempt to form the perfect utopia.
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."
That is just parroting the Republican establishment party line. You can say it; but it isn't true.
The R's have voted for massive Pork Barrel budgets and budget deficits; nominated judges and approved Supreme Court nominees who approve legislation that clearly violates the Constitution and who refuse to consider the direct Constitutional issues involved in abortion. The R's refuse to address the border problems; and refuse to make repeal of the Death Tax permanent.
McCain Feingold is a blatent transparent imposition on the First Amendment and Free Speech for the sole benefit of incumbent politicians of both parties, primarily Liberals. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional on its face and positions any administration including a successor Dem administration to invade the Constitutional rights and privileges of all Americans and more important does nothing to improve our security.
We continue to be threatened by military action in North America because the Administration refuses to take effective action against the enemy. We don't declare War on the real enemy for reasons of political opportunism. And Rumsfeld is managing the ground war exactly the same way McNamara managed the war in Vietnam with exactly the same kinds of problems McNamara had. We are losing--not the fault of our fine young men in uniform but the fault of an incompetent administration managing the war effort and a poorly thought out foreign policy foundation. We are only now moving to a policy solution I suggested on these pages several years ago--breaking up the area we call Iraq into several governable states.
Torture violates the Judeo Christian moral and ethical principals on which our country was founded. There may be a unique situation in which it is justifiable but approval of its use on a routine basis is immoral.
The trend continues to favor expansion of and public support for, any belief system other than Christianity and a public eduction system that is outright antagonistic to the fundamental values on which the Country was founded.
Tell me again, what policies or action by the administration or congress, can we see that would have been different under a dem administration--maybe even of a John Kerry; certainly of a Joe Lieberman.
And you say: "To: TomGuy
I totally disagree with you!
If that were true .. the repubs in the House would not have passed all the CONSERVATIVE legislation."
Which "conservative" legislation do you have in mind? I don't know of any. A couple of pieces of conservative legislation I do know about would have made repeal of the Death Tax permanent and would have closed the Borders and kicked the illegals out--those didn't pass.
Not if there was an "al Qaeda" attack on the state of the union address like one of the Clancy novels and the president, VP, and speaker of the house were killed. (If the speaker made it through the attack, he/she could be heart attacked due to the trauma.)
Next up is President pro Temp of the Senate (which she could easily get if they got a majority) and next is SecState.
And she wouldn't even have to endure a campaign or get enough votes.
Not in person, no.
So, here's the smartest woman in the world being outsmarted by a 21 year old Intern and married to a known liar and "sexual pervert" and wants to "protect" my kids and and grandkids from perverts.
Who was watching out for Chelsea. Imagine Bubba coming home after leaving Monica and giving his 9 year old daughter a hug. Would YOU want him near her?? Not me!! Stand by your man. He's a perv for cripes sakes AND A LIAR.
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.