Skip to comments.Do as I say - and I'll say as I please! (Hitlery & the Treehuggers)
Posted on 05/06/2007 12:47:50 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Uh-oh. Dont look now, but somebody who wants to be President forgot to take their medicine.
It remains uncertain as to whether the failure to follow the prescription will be politically costly. But the Senator formerly known as Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be caught in another little conflict, and this one could be a problem with, shall we say, the faithful.
By the faithful, I mean the left-wing contingency within the Democratic Party that long ago abandoned any historic, western understanding of the relationship between the human person and the earth (an understanding that is so commonplace for most of us that we just think of it as "normal"), and dogmatically clings to an essentially eco-centric worldview.
Were talking here about folks who listen to the Academy Award Winning Al Gore say trumped-up things about "global warming" like the debate is over," and the earth has a fever, as he peddles his so-called "carbon offsets" from his own corporation- - and they believe it, every word of it, without question.
The prescription, of course, frequently emanates from Hillary herself. Its about the moral imperative incumbent upon all of us to curtail our consumption of natural resources, especially energy resources, and to reign-in the levels of pollution we create.
Of course Hillary has been issuing this prescription to other people for a long time. Even as far back as the 1980s while Mrs. Clinton was serving on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, she was an outspoken voice challenging Sam Walton to boost the companys sales and usage of recycled materials and other products that she determined to be green.
Back in February of this year, a day after the Exxon corporation declared its biggest profit ever ($39 billion), Hillary used the occasion to both preach to the faithful AND take a shot at the entire petroleum industry (note: eco-centrists generally despise for-profit companies, especially oil companies).
After describing Exxons news to an audience from the Democratic National Committee, she said I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence
Now, it should be sufficiently alarming to any freedom-loving American that a major candidate for President actually believes that the profits of a private corporation are the Presidents to take. But we can address Hillary's Hugo Chavez-style economic philosophy later. The point here is that as recently as three months ago, Hillary was reassuring the faithful of her desire to usher in an era of alternative energy sources (a vision put forth by President Bush in his past two "State of the Union" addresses) - - shareholders of oil corporations be damned.
It's really nauseating how she can say this stuff without fear. People believe it should be OK to take money from people they decide just shouldn't be that rich.
I think all of these jokers should resign their current offices during the presidential race. Or start the campaign later (and subsequently, the primaries). Like, you know...in 2008! Of course, noone in the field has the balls to do that, it’s all about a power play, nothing more.
We need to keep track of all the things she wants to take away from the people ...
for our own good...
Use what she is saying against the backdrop of the video The truth about Venezuela : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S96o6RfiRIk
If we don’t start taking action against people like her and their philosophy we will end up just like Ayn Rand discussed.
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
The beginning of the new Marxist revolution began with the dumbing down of our schools. The dumbing down began in the 1960s.
If we took $39 of tax money and invested in it private corporations through grants and similiar vehicles the pay off would be much much much greater.
Things get lost in translation, but this remark just reeks of handwringing.
Is there no such thing as a counter-revolution?
Must we all sit and whine on FR?
Actually, it goes back about 100 years. Read The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. She chronicles the effort by following the paper trail of "education reform" dating back over 100 years. It's a real eye opener.
If you want to know what this harpy is really all about, listen all the way to the end of this short clip for her remarks at a past Dimocrap convention.
But, but Hollywood films never show a "profit" (See Shakespeare in Love and other industry sources).
But given her public history of “prescriptions” - - for Wal-Mart, for Exxon, and for you and me - - what’s up with Hillary’s private, personal choices with her own consumption of petroleum products? The news that has emerged in the aftermath of the Democratic presidential debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina sure smacks of eco-centric "heresy."
After flying from D.C. to the Thursday Orangeburg debate aboard a chartered Gulfstream II aircraft, Mrs. Clinton was then flown back to D.C. Thursday night after the debate concluded, aboard the same aircraft. After dropping-off Mrs. Clinton, the Gulfstream II was then sent back to Greenville - - with no passengers in it - - to await her return to South Carolina the next day.
After a Friday morning speaking engagement in D.C., Mrs. Clinton boarded a private Hawker 800 jet, flew to Greenville, climbed back on board the Gulfstream II that had been waiting for her in Greenville since the night before, and took a short flight from Greenville to Columbia. Upon arriving in Columbia, Mrs. Clinton then boarded a Gulfstream III aircraft that she had ordered as an upgrade (“she didn’t like the configuration of the cabin” of the Gulfstream II), and flew from Columbia to California, while the Gulfstream II that she didn't like returned to D.C. - - again without passengers.
Okay then. So, running for President is tough. And hard working candidates like Hillary need to be comfortable, aesthetically, physically, and otherwise, and they need to stretch out and relax in the air. Maybe even talk candidly and privately in between the campaign stops. That’s all perfectly understandable.
But the question is this: can Hillary Rodham Clinton, suffering as she is with a “I’m not charming like my husband” problem, afford to continue alienating the extreme left-wing of her own party?
She is already paying the price with the anti-war contingency for refusing to renounce her vote for the use of force in Iraq.
If Mrs. Clinton continues to ignore her own eco-centric orthodoxy, and refuses to allow herself to be even a slight bit inconvenienced for the sake of the greater environmental good (as she asks the rest of the country to do), she could find that her political future may very well NOT lead her to “greener” pastures.