Hillary's Stealth Socialist Manifesto

.
From the "here we go again" file...

Today, Sen. Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying the following to an audience of teenagers at a Manchester, New Hampshire vocational high school:

"(I)t's time to replace an 'on your own' society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity."

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "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."

"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

I see.

Why is Hillary able to get away with such sociailist-driven pablum, and nary a reporter nor colleague in the Senate bats a (well-coiffed) eyelash? Could it be that our institutions have so indoctrinated us to believe that what she describes is the basis for a "fair" society, that we cannot discern her real ideological roots?

Consider the following:

95% of American adults cannot answer 10 of the most basic questions about the U.S. Constitution --- yet nearly 70% now believe (or don't know if) it contains Karl Marx's communist principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (up from 45% in 1987).
(Center for Survey Research & Analysis, University of Connecticut, “The State Of The First Amendment, 2001”; Caravan Group’s 2002 survey of 1012 U.S. adults 18 and older, for Columbia Law School, cited in “Americans Don’t Know Their Constitution: Columbia Law Survey Finds Confusion Over Founding Fathers vs. Karl Marx”; “The American Public's Knowledge of the U.S. Constitution: A Hearst Report,” 1987)

81% of Democrats, 65% of Independents, and 46% of Republicans surveyed in 2003 agreed that the government “has a responsibility to guarantee food and housing” to all Americans.
(“The 2004 Political Landscape,” Pew Research Center for People and the Press, Part 4, 11/03)

American adults can correctly answer only 57% of the questions on a survey of basic economic concepts. For example, 42% are unaware that when the demand for a product increases, but the quantity supplied doesn’t, that prices will rise; only 34% can identify profits as revenues minus costs. 55% of adults, and 59% of high school students, do not understand that there would be fewer apartments available than people want to rent if a city government sets a maximum amount that landlords can charge in rent.
(Louis Harris & Associates survey of 1,010 U.S. adults, for the National Council on Economic Education, cited in “Standards in Economics: Survey of Students and the Public,” 7/99)

Next, consider what one of America's greatest Founders, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about economic freedom and individual rights (the basis of the U.S. Constitution, which is all but totally unknown to most Americans, and especially young Americans):

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association --- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

Lastly, consider Sen. Clinton's comments in relation to their indisputable sources:

The Communist Manifesto

Socialist Party USA

And it's a wonder why the teacher's unions and the entire public school-ocracy --- which is the single largest financial contributor to the campaigns of Democrats like Sen. Clinton --- are so deathly opposed to any proposal for school choice and vouchers. After all, this entrenched, tax-funded monopoly of incompetence and socialist indoctrination is a direct descendant of Marx, as is so abundantly evidenced in the stats I cited above... and is entirely dependent upon those "public minded" civil servants like Sen. Clinton for its very survival.

But alas, as in so many other instances pointed out here at JQWorld, if the MSM and others who report and comment on the news refuse to acknowledge the tyrannical philosophical roots of statements by our supposed and aspiring "leaders," like Sen. Clinton, does it really matter?

Yes, it does.

A lot.



Have a nice day.

=============================

UPDATE, MAY 29: A CLINTON IGNORING THE POLLS? UNHEARD OF!!!

After posting this story, I recalled seeing a recent survey that startled me, and even the leftists who conducted it, because its findings show some hope for the future of liberty in America --- precisely due to the fact that they kick the legs out from under Sen. Clinton's socialistic ideals.

On February 14-19, 2007, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research's "DemocracyCorps" unit conducted a survey of 1,014 likely voters, entitled "Getting The Public To Listen."

Select findings:

29% believe that government does more to help people get ahead in life ---
but 57% believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life.

34% believe government mostly stimulates the economy and job growth ---
but 54% believe government mostly gets in the way of the economy and job growth.

48% believe America is most successful when our government helps create conditions so that many can prosper, not just a few ---
but 46% believe America is most successful when we have a limited government that keeps taxes low so that businesses and individuals can prosper.

And when asked if the federal government were to receive additional money...
13% said the believed it would be well spent ---
but 87% said they believed it would be wasted.

Gosh. What we seem to have here is either (a) a case of a Clinton ignoring the polls, or (b) a case in which a Clinton acknowledges the state of the polls, but is intent to change them, through the inestimable influence they have on the entire mainstream media and arts industry in America.

Personally, I doubt it's the former: the Clintons are congenitally attached to polling like Teddy Kennedy is attached to shamrock-adorned shotglasses.

So I guess we can all look forward to the Clintons and their enablers in the MSM, and Hollywood, and beyond trotting out a whole new slew of propaganda to bamboozle Americans, once again, into believing that which --- were it explained to them accurately --- they would reject as ridiculous.

Ayyyup. And that's the way it is.

Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to jonquix@hotmail.com