jump to navigation

Hilary Clinton Campaign, Some Observations November 1, 2016

Posted by Daniel Downs in news.
Tags: , ,

By Daniel Downs (2008)

A careful examination of Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign reveals she learned her game plan from husband Bill. With the a few million dollars and a media advertising experts, Bill convinced enough Americans he was a real conservative liberal. He was not really more successful than the liberal conservative Richard Nixon. The only difference was Clinton did not resign,but then Hilary is not Bill.

Hilary is marketing herself as a centrist. Like her husband Bill, Hilary’s centrist strategy seeks to win votes from the 70% to 80% of Americans who tend to be centrists at heart. Remembering Bill Clinton actual political record, it should be obvious to Americans with a long-term memory that many politicians seeking to win an election will say almost any thing in order to achieve the goal. When it comes to die-hard liberals like Hilary, it should be equally apparent that the centrist strategy is meant to deceive most Americans. The trick is to convince as many Americans into believing that Hilary is mostly conservative on key issues.

Her air of confidence, congeniality, and superiority doesn’t hurt either.

Millions of campaign dollars made it possible for the media present false advertisement about Bill Clinton’s past. Being marketed as a ‘once upon a time’ pot smoker, the media made it appear that he was just like millions Americans who tried some marijuana. Documentary evidence shows he and his cronies were actually cocaine inhalers. They were a bunch of real high-class partiers.

In case you are wondering what’s the big deal let me remind you that buying and taking pot or cocaine is against the law. Because it was presented as a thing of past, which most people believed, it was not a big deal. Nonetheless, Americans bought the false advertising of Bill Clinton. Is Hilary’s campaign going to be any less false?

Hilary’s centrist strategy seeks to convince Americans that she is a conservative as she is liberal. If we look at the issues, it will become apparent that Hilary’s conservative rhetoric is more hype than substance. Consider the issue of partial birth abortion. Most conservatives are opposed to partial birth abortion, but, just like Bill, Hilary is a zealous defender of killing babies already out of the womb.

Hilary is also pro-gay rights. Although many conservatives believe gay rights is somehow constitutional, it is not. Gays rights are illegal because gay rights give special rights to a group whose unnatural behavior is being made equal to inherent human traits like race and gender. That is not to say the sex drive is unnatural; rather, it is their expressed behavior of it. The issue is making behavior equal to those inherent human traits mentioned in the 14th, 15th, or 19th amendments. People of different races and genders are included in “all men and women are created equal” whose rights are guaranteed under the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, the previously mentioned amendments, and Civil Rights Act do not mention anything about behaviors being equal or protected against discrimination by law. As human beings, gays already have the same rights as all others. Giving special rights to gays is destroy equal rights. Making criticism of gay behavior a hate crime ends Free Speech rights. Making business owners unable choose whether to hire or fire gays is to end all First Amendment and property rights. That is the plan of gays and liberals and Hilary Clinton.

Hilary and Bill are also dedicated globalists. Bill should have been impeached on the grounds of attempting to make our nation subject to United Nations Criminal Court jurisdiction without Senate approval. Also by executive order, he attempted eliminate state rights under the 10th Amendment. He never rescinded that order, which still exists for Hilary to utilize or any politician with the dream of being America’s dictator. How different would Hilary be if President? If her performance in White House with Bill is considered, her pre-investigation knowledge and documentary cover up of Foster’s death and litigation against her for campaign finance fraud casts a large shadow of doubt. It is likely Hilary would continue to drive to make America one nation of federal big government of socialism without state rights.

Unlike liberal Hilary, conservatives tend to resist big government globalism and stick to limited government and state rights. They attempt to adhere to the original intent expressed in the ratifying conventions of the Constitution. Conservatives defend free market capitalism while Hilary tends to uphold the socialist economics the regulatory welfare state.

Here is a major clue to understanding how liberal centrist and non-centrist get away with breaking the law. They believe their own lies in the process of deceiving the public. The key is belief. They have convinced many Americans that abortion, gay rights, welfare, federal involvement in education, separation of church and state is all right, legal, and constitutional. They claim many of the statements in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights are so vague, subjective, and archaic that it is difficult to know what the early Americans actually intended. The moral of the story is do not believe liberal politicians, lawyers, or judges who say what the framers meant cannot be known with certainty. The reason historical records of the making and ratifying debates exist is so that we can know what they intended.

Another issue by which to evaluate the reality of Hilary’s centrist conservativism is church-state separation. Real conservatives are not strict separationists for good reasons. One is they do not believe the liberal concoction about the wall. The only reason any one ever knew about Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist was because it was in Jefferson’s files. Historians show the Danbury Baptist Association disregarded that letter. Its use by the Supreme Court was a farce because Jefferson’s view also contradicted the majority of Americans and those in Congress. Congress rejected the idea of separation during the Constitutional convention. A second reason already mentioned is the historical and legal record prove it is another lie enabling liberals to violate the actual meaning of the First Amendment–otherwise known as breaking the law or violating constitutional rights. A third reason is that conservatives are not good secularists. They are not die-hard secularist because secularists are socialists, Marxists, humanists, evolutionists who reject the importance of religion, morality, and God to society. At best secularist or modern liberals at best give religion and morality mere lip service.

If you listened to Hilary’s responses to questions on religion and faith, she does really say much, which reminds me of John Kerry. She is the exact opposite of John Edwards on religion.

Hilary also is a proponent of illegal immigrant legislation. One of the important issues of recent immigration legislation is the blatant disregard of current law. Instead of creating effective means of enforcing law prohibiting and prosecuting illegal immigrant, liberals seek to legalize the illegal. Liberals claim it would be too costly to actually enforce the law. In a previous article, my research shows it already has and will cost America much more by not removing illegal aliens from our nation. To the many legal immigrants, liberal laws are a blatant travesty of injustice. I have written on this issue in greater depth. Here, it must be observed that liberals like Hilary seem to have little regard for law, which I know is an ironic statement seeing they create laws.

Then there is the issue of HillaryCare. According to the editor of the Opinion Journal, “most of the national press corps has already assumed “universal” coverage will both carry Hillary Clinton to the White House and march easily into law.” The problem is most do not like the expensive price tag proposed by the sin tax on low-income smokers. Many people are actually intelligent enough to see the paternal plan of Hillary is not so benign. Supposing many low income people quit smoking because of the prohibitive price of tobacco products, the $35 plus billion would have to be raised by some other tax measure. Unless Hilary and Company learns how to grow money without raising taxes.

]It is true liberal lawmakers like Hilary have the right to levy taxes. The question is do they have the levy taxes for the the good of the poor and not for all Americans. No such right is enumerated in the Constitution. The power to levy taxes on the poor to pay for health benefits of the richer is not either, but then neither is universal health care. In fact, the economic rights presumed by liberal welfare state are not found in the Constitution. Those issues were intentional left to the states under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Hilary Clinton’s campaign rides on the waves centrist rhetoric and a shredded Constitution, but then so do most Democrats. Maybe that is the reason so many Americans find politics so distasteful. Resisting the tides of lawless disregard for the Supreme law of the land is not exactly gourmet.

Has her campaign changed since 2008?


No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: