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
You're entitled to your opinion .. I just don't agree with what Tom said. This country is NOT MOVING LEFT.
And .. if you really believe that just because a certain piece of legislation - that you think is important - didn't get through congress means the jig is up and we've all gone over the cliff to the left .. well good luck with that theory. I bet you're one of those who wants to us PUNISH THE REPUBS BY STAYING HOME .. huh ..?? I thought so!
Well .. you can have your defeatest attitude that repubs are all bad all the time theory .. but I just don't agree with you.
While I might not be happy with the repubs spending so much money - LOOK AT THE DEFICIT - IT'S BEEN CUT IN HALF IN 4 YEARS - 3 YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. Please explain to me how the repubs wild spending caused that ..??
Oh yes, and what about all those things we spent money on - just what did they actually do - THEY TOOK THE ISSUE AWAY FROM THE DEMS AND HAVE LEFT THEM WITH NOTHING TO RUN ON - and the dems still haven't figured it out ..??
Sorry .. you can have your "feel sorry for me because my party is going left" atittude and put it where the sun don't shine!!
Why isn't anybody investigating this???
The American voter is ' Not ' moving to the left . The Trend of the past several elections point to the opposite .Poll,s indicate her approval numbers are actually Poor .The current Democratic Part is Sick . And H Clinton is no Doctor .
Correction: "Some slow learners."
Ditto,
He's a shill for someone else who might not want Hillary running....bit shill....
I earnestly wish you were right. In fact America's family values and traditions are being ripped out by the roots by multiculturalism, liberals and the massive demographic population shift coming across the Mexican border.
It's one thing to be optimistic, another to be in denial.
You're correct .. Hillary is not polling well even among dems. A lot of dems believe she has way too much baggage and her husband presents a special problem. I even heard a rumor lately that she was planning on appointing him Sec of State - which would allow him to travel around the world humping women everywhere. What a great prospect that is - NOT !!
I like this statement: The democrat party is sick and Hillary is no doctor! Great thought!
You make some good points. But as far as "trends" are concerned, since the Republicans have been in control of Congress and the White House taxes have continued to go up overall, upwards of an estimated 30 million illegal aliens are in the country, and the numbers continue to grow daily, spending has skyrocketed, the welfare state remains in place, government has grown even larger, individual responsibility has declined and voters are at the frustrated point where they might elect the most evil of the two evils. I could go on.
"I read past it and it got worse."
Me too. Choked and turned my computer off.
Well .. suit yourself!
"Hillary is so atrociously ugly."
Her true ugliness is on the inside. Inner darkness is what I see reflected when I look at her face.
You could take any other person, with the same physical features, and if that other person was truly filled with life, and with warmth and a desire to be a boon to those she is serving,....well, then the physical features which are less than perfect, would not be noticed.
Hillary is a thoroughly nasty, hate-filled, woman. My opinion, of course. ;>)
pattyjo
Well .. you can have your defeatest attitude that repubs are all bad all the time theory .. but I just don't agree with you.
Sorry .. you can have your "feel sorry for me because my party is going left" atittude and put it where the sun don't shine!!"
Well no I don't feel sorry for myself--I have a remedy. And no I don't intend to stay home to punish the Republicans, I intend to go to the polls and vote against most of them as I did against George I (H.W.Bush).
In the case at hand in Washington, I might not have to vote for Cantwell to vote against McGavick because there is a fine Libertarian in the race I like and can vote "for".
In the case of my Congressperson, I am just going to vote for the Dem because I don't see any difference between the two candidates.
"I know the feeling. The same thing happened to me after shaking hands with Senator Clinton."
You can do whatever you want .. but not one word of whining when Pelosi raises your taxes and Rangel defunds the war .. the we are overrun with terorrists like Israel used to suffer.
Hope you enjoy your victory! You didn't punish the repubs - YOU JUST PUNISHED ME!! You can't get more stupid than that!!
First, it is outside
my pay-grade. Second, someone
who can execute
secret service guys
could make me disappear while
they ate their breakfast . . .
Inside and out, that woman needs a whole new class of ugly named after her.
I agree...when I talk about her being ugly, I'm talking about the hateful, nasty person inside. The inside, however, leaks through to the outside in her outward attitude and presentation.
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.