• Home
• Link
• Humor
• Votes
• Books
• Contact
• Pictures
• Clinton Legacy
• Quotes

Subscribe

What Hillary Meant: It Takes a Socialist Village

Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled her economic vision. Should she be given the power to implement it, we can say goodbye to the prosperity and opportunity we have enjoyed since the Reagan years.

In a speech at Manchester School of Technology in New Hampshire, Clinton said it’s time to replace President Bush’s “ownership society,” which she called an “on your own” society, with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

Doesn’t such a society already exist elsewhere? It’s called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn’t defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?

Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Clinton’s remarks came before students at a school whose purpose is to train high school kids for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. She told them, “We have sent a message to our young people that if you don’t go to college . . . that you’re thought less of in America. We have to stop this.”

Her assertion is bunk, but it is the typical class warfare bunk that comes from rich white liberals who want to take money from one group of people and give to others who didn’t earn it in hopes they will become loyal Democratic voters.

This is not the philosophy that made America what it is. This is not a land of equal outcome, but of equal opportunity commensurate with one’s talents, interests and drive.

In his “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith wrote: “It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. . . . (Kings and ministers) are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.”

I am not robbed by people who have more money than me. I am robbed by a government that wants to penalize my industry and give increasing portions of what I earn to people who do not emulate my principles, morals and ethics.

What have we come to? We once taught our young people the virtues of hard work, saving, personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions, chastity before and fidelity and commitment in marriage, honesty, integrity and virtue - not to mention the Ten Commandments (especially the one about not coveting that which belongs to your neighbor). We now teach them entitlement, victimhood, class envy and rights to other people’s money. When one robs a bank, it’s a crime. When government takes our money, it’s called a tax. Same result.

There is something else about Clinton’s speech that offends. She suggested that students at a technical high school are inferior to those of higher social rank. This, too, is typical white liberal bunk. Has it occurred to her that many students prefer technical careers - and some make an excellent living at them - to the jobs held by the elites and that some of those jobs (like politician) fit them for nothing of value and turn them into professional snobs?

Senator Clinton should consider the wisdom of a former president, who said, “The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. . . . The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.” (Calvin Coolidge inaugural address, March 4, 1925)

Now there’s a real economic vision!

Source: Townhall

Rudy Giuliani rips into Hillary’s socialist plans for ’shared prosperity’

Mayor Giuliani is labeling Senator Clinton’s plan to reverse President Bush’s tax cuts “an astounding, staggering tax increase” that would turn back the clock and damage America’s economy.

In a potential preview of next fall’s presidential contest, Mr. Giuliani, who is seen as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, directly attacked the leading Democratic candidate, Mrs. Clinton, over a speech she gave Tuesday in New Hampshire bemoaning the return of “robber barons” and promising to pursue “shared prosperity” by increasing taxes on Americans making more than $200,000 a year.

“This would be an astounding, staggering tax increase,” Mr. Giuliani told reporters yesterday after a visit to a restaurant on the edge of California’s Silicon Valley. “She wants to go back to the 1990s. … It would hurt our economy. It would hurt this area dramatically. That kind of tax increase would see a decline in your venture capital. It would see a decline in your ability to focus on new technology.”

Mr. Giuliani clearly relished the chance to engage with Mrs. Clinton on the tax issue. He was even armed with some research about her past statements on the subject. ” Mrs. Clinton, when she was in San Francisco a few years ago, was quoted as saying about the tax cuts, ‘We’re going to have to take more from you to give it to the common good,’” he said. “My philosophy is to give you a little more back for the common good.”

Lest his point be lost, the former mayor also painted himself as an unabashed devotee of supply-side economics. “The way I paid for preparing the New York City budget was by lowering taxes. I was collecting billions of dollars more from the lower taxes than from the higher taxes,” Mr. Giuliani said. “You can make money by lowering taxes.”

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, had no comment on Mr. Giuliani’s salvo. In her speech, Mrs. Clinton said the tax hikes would help balance the federal budget. She has also said the increased revenues could help provide health care to uninsured Americans.

Mr. Giuliani’s four-minute broadside against Mrs. Clinton came in response to a question from The New York Sun about his views on a statement by a former House speaker and potential Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, that GOP hopefuls will have to be critical of Mr. Bush in order to win the White House in 2008. “I think the way a Republican should run is toward the future. I think the Republicans should run for ‘What are we going to do in 2009, 2010, 2011?’” Mr. Giuliani said. “That’d be a very salutary thing for the American people. I think they would really like that if you talked about the future.”

Mr. Giuliani also went after another Democratic contender, Senator Obama of Illinois, attacking the health care plan he rolled out this week as “socialized medicine” that would also require tax hikes.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, called Mr. Giuliani a “cynic” who was returning to a tired political tactic. “Comments with that familiar Washington ring have created just the kind of atmosphere preventing Congress from moving forward to offer affordable health care to all Americans,” the spokesman said.

In Silicon Valley, Mr. Giuliani’s mantra that Mrs. Clinton would return America to the 1990s might not produce the horrified reaction he seemed to be seeking. That era was the heyday for many high technology firms, at least until the Internet bubble burst in 2000.

On the other hand, for some listeners the former mayor’s references to that time could conjure up the saga of President Clinton’s impeachment and other ethical imbroglios.

Mr. Giuliani said yesterday that he hoped the campaign would focus on policy, and not “personal issues.”

The former mayor also held a fund-raiser yesterday afternoon. Organizers said 200 people were to attend, paying $250 or more apiece.
The event was closed to the press, but one attendee, Patrick Shannon of Sacramento, Calif., said afterward that Mr. Giuliani displayed an impressive understanding of economic issues.

“Everybody knows he’s a law enforcement figure. But people aren’t as familiar with his record on meat and potatoes issues,” Mr. Shannon said. “He made a good case today.”

Mr. Shannon, who is a lobbyist and attorney, said Mr. Giuliani promised a concerted effort to prevent the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, but he offered no specifics. “I’d like to know how,” the donor said.

Mrs. Clinton was also scheduled to be fund-raising in California last night. She was scheduled to attend a fund-raiser in Beverly Hills co-hosted by a slew of A-list performers, including Christina Aguilera, Penelope Cruz, Mike Myers, and Jeremy Piven.

SOURCE: NY Sun

Did Page Six Kill ‘Numerous’ Items on the Clintons?

In the summer of 2005, Richard Johnson, the editor of the New York Post’s feared Page Six column, was having trouble getting a new passport to fly out to a party being hosted by Sean (P. Diddy) Combs in Saint-Tropez.

So he did what any citizen would do: He made a direct appeal to the office of junior New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

“Richard Johnson found the bureaucracy delaying his passport, and he appealed to Clinton’s staff for help, as any constituent would,” said Howard Rubenstein, who is a spokesman for the Post. “And he secured, in a legal and proper way, a passport that he was entitled to.

“There were no favors,” Mr. Rubenstein added.

(“While we’re very proud of our constituent services, we don’t comment on individual cases,” said Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Senator Clinton.)

The question of favors has been a big one lately at Page Six. Last week, the column pre-empted one of its former employees, Jared Paul Stern, in his efforts to make public a series of accusations about ethical lapses among the column’s staff, by printing an item themselves outlining all of the accusations.

They got hold of those accusations—which include the charge that Page Six stories deemed unflattering to Bill and Hillary Clinton were regularly killed at the newspaper—when Mr. Stern’s lawyer sent an unsworn affidavit provided by another former Post staffer, Ian Spiegelman, to their publisher.

Mr. Stern had been threatening to sue the New York Post for wrongful dismissal; last year, the freelance reporter was accused of attempting to extort money from billionaire Ron Burkle in exchange for “protection” in the column. The accusation sparked a criminal investigation, but no charges were filed against Mr. Stern. The affidavit was meant to put some muscle behind the lawsuit threat, and presumably provoke a settlement.

The part of the affidavit that concerns the former President and First Lady—and which Page Six printed in May 18 editions of the Post—is vague.

“Politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others in a position to grant Murdoch and News Corp. valuable concessions and favors were … fellated in print,” the affidavit reads in part. And, later: “Page Six was ordered to kill unflattering stories about Hillary and Bill Clinton on numerous occasions.”

Mr. Spiegelman confessed that he was unable to recall any particular story about Bill or Hillary Clinton that had been killed.

“I’m not a one-man database on what stories got killed when,” he told The Observer.

But speaking to The Observer on May 22 , Jared Paul Stern was less vague.

In the summer of 2005, he said, he was preparing to bust the publication date on Edward Klein’s then-forthcoming Hillary Clinton tell-all book, The Truth About Hillary.

“We had heard that there was some pretty juicy stuff in there; we had heard that he had gone into the lesbian kind of thing and that stuff,” Mr. Stern recalled.

Read More @ New York Observer

Dissecting Hillary’s Iraq War Vote

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Mark Murray

In the upcoming New York Times magazine, the authors of the new biography of Hillary Clinton — former and current New York Times investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. — have written an article, adapted from their book, on Hillary’s 2002 war authorization vote. The piece is already out, and so you don’t have to read the entire 18-page article here’s what caught our eyes or what we think is new:

– “Of course, Clinton was tough. And she was experienced. But according to aides and strategists, her insecurity about her public image and her nascent national-security credentials made it difficult, if not impossible, for her to vote no” on the Iraq war authorization.

– “Bill Clinton served as her main counsel on the Iraq war vote, longtime associates of theirs told us.”

– As the Washington Post noted earlier from the Gerth-Van Natta book, Clinton might not have read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before she cast her vote. “The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush’s claims more skeptically. ‘I was able to apply caveat emptor,’ Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ‘Most of my colleagues could not.’”

– “[O]n the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the [Bush] administration.… By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor.”

– “For all the scrutiny of Clinton’s vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization. In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn’t voting for ‘any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.’ Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting — and that she now says she had favored all along…. Clinton has never publicly explained her vote against the Levin amendment or said why she stayed on the sidelines as 11 other senators debated it for 95 minutes that day.”

– “In February 2005, Clinton took a second trip to Iraq and delivered a somewhat upbeat assessment about the progress being made and the chances for peace, despite mounting evidence that the insurgency was gaining momentum.”

– “Not surprisingly, the first signal of Clinton’s intention to tack [to the antiwar side] came via Bill Clinton, who had taken on the role of saying things that Senator Clinton was not yet prepared to say. Addressing students at the American University in Dubai on Nov. 16, 2005, the former president declared that the invasion was a ‘big mistake.’ He added that he didn’t ‘agree with what was done.’”

– Clinton surprisingly wound up co-sponsoring the 2006 Reed-Levin amendment. When it was introduced on the Senate floor, she wanted to be heard: “Clinton’s first words took some insiders by surprise: ‘I rise in support of the Levin amendment of which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor.’ ‘We were puzzled,’ the aide said, because no one had told them about Clinton’s sudden ascendancy to a leadership role on the measure. Indeed, just a few minutes earlier, Jack Reed, in his remarks, had not included Clinton in his list of sponsors.”

– “In early February, Clinton told the Democratic National Committee that she would end the war in Iraq when she became president. That definitive, forward-looking pledge is what she is counting on voters to remember in 2008.”

Source: MSNBC

Former Hawk Hillary Clinton Defends Iraq War Funding Vote

From CBS

White House hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday defended her vote against an Iraq war funding bill, saying she believes President Bush will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq soon.

The New York senator said she came to the conclusion while watching the president’s news conference last week in which he referred to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report and its recommendations for the administration.

“He talked about it favorably for the first time I’ve ever heard him talk about it,” Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview during a campaign stop in Las Vegas. “That was to me a big signal that starting in the fall and toward the end of the year we’re going to start seeing troops withdrawn from Iraq.

“My argument is, why wait?”

Among other things, the Iraq Study Group warned against sending more troops for long stints in the war zone and initially called for withdrawal by early 2008.

Read More

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Angry Clinton Supporter Declares McCain Will Be Next President

Advertisement

Never Forget

Latest Headlines

• Hillary Clinton will be Obama’s running mate. Wanna bet?
• Hillary Clinton attacks against Obama vanish on Web
• Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must ‘kiss my ass’ for his support
• Can you feel the unity yet? Neither can Bill
• Hillary Clinton’s demise was no surprise
• Hillary Clinton is her own worst debtor
• Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Ready To Haggle Over Money
• School District To Hillary Clinton: Please pay up
• Hillary for Veep? Check Back Later
• Obama and Clinton plan first rally together