For a political construct with such an awful track record, Marxian Socialism has a remarkable capacity for reincarnation. From 1917 until the end of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” in China, estimates exceed 100 million souls lost to its bloody despotism, but such tripe is of no moment to post-modern America’s liberal/statist/elitist Left. The three stooges of Democrat presidential politics, Edwards, Obama and Clinton, are so close together in their fixation with the precepts of a state-controlled people and society, there is no shoe spoon skinny enough to separate them. Socialized medicine (that’s universal healthcare in their deceitful parlance), tax hikes on the “rich,” state control of energy production and use, and even the “progressive” disdain of the heterosexual, traditionally married nuclear family as now-obsolete are hallmarks of their respective campaigns, and a huge measure of America-hating and mindless pacifism also binds them together.
While all these intellectual light-weights have a fine grasp on the essential tenets of socialism as a form of governmental control, only Ms. Rodham really goes for the gusto with such consistency; her devotion to The Communist Manifesto is remarkable and undaunted. Only she is so brash — and one would argue, dumb — as to parade it before the masses consistently and without the varnish and attempted sleight of hand employed by others. Check out these remarkable statements, made by New York’s finest on the campaign trail:
"We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," she told a San Francisco audience in 2004.” The Washington Times February 22, 2007
“This isn’t the first time Mrs. Clinton has paraphrased Karl Marx. In June 2004, she said: "Many of you are well off enough that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Pittsburgh Tribune Review June 8, 2007
Shared Responsibility For Shared Prosperity. "It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Manchester School of Technology, Manchester, NH, 5/29/07)
"We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground." She also said that in order to deal with America’s dependence on foreign oil and the threat of global warming to "God’s creation," we cannot "just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people." Chicago Sun Times July 15, 2007 Sunday, Final Edition
There are many more, and it is hugely clear where she got it. From her first militant days in the Ivy League (where she was not a lesbian) until these surreal times where she makes such stunning disclosures about her contempt for private property and individual rights, the theme has not changed, only become ever-more strident; so much so that no other candidate — and really no other public figure in the mainstream of political discourse — so closely mirrors these dreadful and insane propositions. Governor Romney, upon hearing the one about replacing the “on your own” society with shared responsibility and shared prosperity, characterized her philosophy as “out with Adam Smith, in with Karl Marx.”
And of course, he was dead right. She makes her silly husband look like Ross Perot by comparison, so radical is her rhetoric and so intent is she on ushering in a new socialist regime in the likeness of Lenin, et al, minus the gulags — we hope.
But there is much more to this than just the self-evident truth that Ms. Clinton embraces a bundle of the worst ideas in human history; what we see in her worship of Marx is a clarion warning to all right-thinking folk, and particularly those still left in the Democrat party. From Al Gore to John Kerry and now the Three Stooges who lead the Leftist pack as candidates for the presidency, the old Democrat party is dead. No vestige of Truman or even of JFK remains, and in every quarter, at every opportunity, the most radical and most treacherous forces and ideas control that party. When the Dems in the House had a choice between Harold Ford, a young, moderate, black candidate, and Nancy Pelosi, arguably the most strident socialist in the building, they chose Marx. Likewise in the Senate, when they got back the leadership; they picked Harry Reid, the most militant, disagreeable and unscrupulous socialist they could find.
In truth and indeed, these national elections have become repeated referenda on capitalism, self-governance and even just plain old public decency. To ignore these realities is to tempt a fate that can and will produce a Jimmy Carter brand of economic and foreign policy chaos — and that assumes Ms. Clinton is not successful in her drive to implement the main ideas she learned at the knee of Marx.