The founders promised us "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" through individual freedom, initiative, incentive, and responsibility, not through government mandated regulations, taxes, and entitlements. But that is exactly what Clinton, Obama, and the Democrats have been promoting. Freedom is never free; it must be earned, or it means nothing.
The Democrats would
steal liberties from those who earn it and give it to those who don't. The "American dream" is not a government entitlement, nor is it a right. Our Constitution guarantees the right of freedom and opportunity for all citizens to achieve the American dream. It does not promise that if you don't work for it, it will be handed to you on a silver platter by the government. These are the ideals that separate conservatives from liberals today.
But the very term "Liberal" today is a complete contradiction as I have
“A theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard; a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.”
This is just the opposite of what so called "liberals" stand for today. They are not "liberals"; they are socialists, and I am becoming increasingly reluctant to refer to them as "liberals" anymore.
Perhaps that is why many of them now refer to themselves as "progressives" rather than liberals. The term progressive indicates a movement toward progress, but doesn't specify the goal of that progress or the direction it takes. Whether they call themselves liberals or progressives, the goal is anti-capitalist socialism.
Obama just calls it "change," but says very little about changing to what. Obama supporters never question the direction of that change, only that it's not Bush policy. They simply assume that because it's coming from a Democrat, it must be an improvement over the existing conditions. Few of them can actually tell you what Obama is talking about, but the Black Liberation Theology subscribers understand it quite well. The term "progressive" doesn't mean a thing in political terms.
And by the way, you have no doubt been hearing all of the speculation in the media of Mrs. Clinton being selected as Obama's VP. That isn't going to happen no matter how much the media tries to promote this scam. Obama certainly doesn't want to share the White House with the Clintons, who would be tramping around the place acting as if they owned it. He doesn't want to be awakened in the middle of the night by 3:00 am phone calls, or the incessant Clinton fighting. He doesn't want to play second fiddle to the Clintons, who would be trying to run everything, and he doesn‘t want to have to break up the cat fights between Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama.
No, Obama's owners in Chicago want to be the bosses of the White House, and they don't want any interference from the Clintons. The media can hype this speculation all they want, just as they hype global warming and all of their other speculation and media created news stories based on their own polling, but that isn't going to make any of it happen; not unless they can convince enough people to turn their speculation into reality, which is what they are hoping for. Never before in the history of this country have we had such a biased and one sided media engaged in propaganda to push a political agenda on the American people.
Since Obama cinched the nomination last Tuesday, Clinton has been touting her 18 million supporters as some sort of milestone and testimony to her popularity. But 18 million votes represents less than 13% of all registered voters, and less than 26% of all registered Democrat voters. Hardly what I would call “overwhelming support.” Then she suggests that she alone has “broken the glass ceiling” and that America is ready for a woman president, while conceding to just the opposite. She didn’t even win the nomination, let alone the election.
Mrs. Clinton showed up nearly an hour late to give her non-concession speech on Saturday, June 7th. No reason for her tardiness was given. We can only speculate that it was due to fighting over why Bill didn’t come home last night and where he was all night. (If the mainstream media can speculate, then so can I.)
I say "non-concession" because she did not concede. Instead, she simply said she is "suspending" her campaign (until the convention). “Today, as I suspend my campaign,” she said, “I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.“ She urged her supporters to give their support to Barack Obama, yet she refused, by her very word "suspend", to release her own delegates to him. The spin and hypocrisy in her Saturday speech was just astounding.
She went on to say: “I entered this race because I have an old-fashioned conviction that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their dreams.” That may be the case if your “public service” is in the capacity of a county social worker, but that is neither an “old fashioned idea” when applied to federal government; nor is it the job of the president. It is, in fact, a new idea promoted by socialists over the past 30 years - that federal government should assume these responsibilities.
Clinton then said, after asking her supporters to support Obama: “I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months.”
Clinton’s math seems to be a little faulty. To begin with, Obama has been in the Senate for only 3 ½ years. He
announced his run for president on January 17, 2007. Clinton announced her run for president on January 20, 2007. Both have been on the campaign trail ever since. Neither one has “served in the Senate” since the end of 2006. Therefore, Clinton has served with Obama in the Senate for only 2 years, not 4, and has “been in this campaign with him” for the past 18 months, not 16. In either case, it’s much too long.
Earlier I referred to “spin and hypocrisy” in Clinton’s speech. Here is an example of both in one sentence as Clinton panders to both capitalists and socialists at the same time.
We all want an economy that sustains the American dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries and still have a little left over at the end of the month,”
Ok, so far so good. We all want that, right? But then she continues with:
“an economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared.”
Oops, there’s that Marxist socialism rearing its ugly head again. You can’t have it both ways. Here we see Clinton’s complete hypocrisy and contradictory statements all in one sentence. How can we sustain the American dream, opportunity, and hold onto our earnings if the government is going to take it away and “ensure that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared?”
Can this statement leave any doubt about what the Democrats have in mind for hard working Americans? They want to take your hard earned money and give it to those with less, in their plan to redistribute the wealth, thereby removing the incentive for anyone to get ahead.
Clinton then gets into talking about healthcare. She says: This isn’t just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.
What if you don’t want or need health insurance? Should the government be violating our liberty and freedom by forcing us to buy insurance we don’t want? Sure, state governments do it with automobile liability insurance, but that is to protect the other guy you might hit with your car, and to protect you from paying lawsuits resulting from the accident. I don’t want to get off the subject here, but it’s quite different from healthcare insurance on yourself.
“We’ll have to work hard to foster the innovation that will make us energy independent and lift the threat of global warming from our children’s future. But on the day we live in an America fueled by renewable energy, we will live in a stronger America,” Clinton says.
Assuming that global warming is a hoax, we could be living in a stronger America now were it not for the Clintons and Obamas of the Congress preventing us from drilling for our own oil. This pipe dream of existing solely on the use of renewable energy may come to pass in 100 years. It is certainly not a high priority today while we still have 150 years worth of oil right here in our own country. The responsibility for high gas prices and our dependence on oil from people in the world who hate us lies solely on the shoulders of the Democrats who have put us in this position.
Moving on to Iraq, Clinton then says: “We’ll have to work hard to bring our troops home from Iraq and get them the support they’ve earned by their service. But on the day we live in an America that’s as loyal to our troops as they have been to us, we will live in a stronger America.” When will the Democrats start being as loyal to the troops as they have been to us? The hypocrisy is astounding.
She further said: “Now, think how much progress we’ve already made. When we first started, people everywhere asked the same questions. Could a woman really serve as commander-in-chief? Well, I think we answered that one. Could an African-American really be our president? And Senator Obama has answered that one.” Aren’t those premature assumptions? Neither one has yet been elected president and I find it doubtful that either one ever will be. This is laughable.
And in all her arrogance, she suggests that she has accomplished what has never before been accomplished and that the campaign of any woman after her will be insignificant.
“You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories … unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States. And that is truly remarkable, my friends.“
What is truly remarkable is that Mrs. Clinton or Barack Obama ever made it this far. She would never have gotten beyond the first debate were it not for the coattails of her husband, and Obama would never have made it this far were he not the only black Democrat candidate. That is a fact. On issues, he does nothing but recite the old party line with more emphasis on socialism.
Clinton says: “As we gather here today in this historic, magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead. If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House.”
Of course this drew cheers from all of the Clinton feminists in the audience. But it would be better for the country had we blasted Clinton, Maxine Waters, and about 48 other confused women in Congress into space. The logic and reason in Congress would improve dramatically. (I know, this applies to as many men in Congress as well, if not more.)
I can’t cover all of the spin and hypocrisy of Clinton’s speech in this article, but you can read the transcript at