Posted on 10/02/2002 10:58:38 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Hillary Clinton and the Radical Left***If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.
That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.
That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.
If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty-then or now-to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.
Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual-both of which you despise.
It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem.
………. No matter how opportunistically the left's agendas have been modified, however, no matter how circumspectly its goals have been set, no matter how generous its concessions to political reality, the faithful have not given up their self-justifying belief that they can bring about a social redemption. In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which "social justice" prevails.
Because the transformation progressives seek is ultimately total, the power they seek must be total as well. In the end, the redemption they envision cannot be achieved as a political compromise, even though compromises may be struck along the way. Their brave new world can ultimately be secured only by the complete surrender of the resisting force. In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them.***
Sounds eerily similiar to the Clintons' departure, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Gore - "I believe that the Constitution is a living document."
Bush - "The Constitution is a sacred document."
How plain and simple can it get? We all see that the 'rats care only about the laws that are convenient to them and those that aren't are to be either ignored or changed to suit their needs. The second amendment debate is an excellent example of this. They say that there are people who shouldn't own guns if they've committed felonies. I say that if people have committed felonies, their rights are then terminated and they don't get them back; the second amendment wouldn't apply. But the 'rats are suggesting that felons should be able to vote?! Are they that desperate of losing their power -and isn't power what it's all about- that they must rely on cheating, lawbreaking and pandering to criminals and illegals?
I'm an American first. Conservative Republican second. I know where I stand and I truly believe that I am in the majority. We voting citizens of our great land must remember who our allies are and back them. Especially on election days.
Article 1
Section 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Note it doesn't state that "the State's Supreme Court may at any time by law make or alter such regulations"
Also, the "51 day" law being broken by the 'rats was passed by legislature, not by judges. Therefore, to assume that judges have the power to ignore laws that they didn't have any part in passing is absurd.
This is exactly why I think the Torch bowed out. "Don" Clinton made him an offer he couldn't refuse. ;-)
His Royal Podness
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.