Posted on 01/18/2008 9:22:43 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
If you want to know what a Hillary Clinton Administration would be like, her known history is a pretty good indicator. We know a lot bout the woman who now stands a good chance to become the first radical Leftist President of the United States.
As Hillary's long-hidden Wellesley college thesis states:
"A Radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and behaviors of men." (P 10)...
... While Hillary's father was a fervently anti-Communist Goldwater Republican, at Wellesley College, Saul Alinsky, a Marxist radical, became Hillary's father substitute. Switching from a Goldwater Republican to Saul Alinsky was her way of breaking with her real father and rejecting her younger self. She wrote:
"My senior year at Wellesley would further test and articulate my beliefs. For my thesis I analyzed the work of a Chicago native and community organizer named Saul Alinsky" Hillary's thesis was titled, "There is only the Fight, An Analysis of the Alinsky model" (italics added)
As she wrote:
"If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.
"The key word for an Alinsky-type organizing effort is ‘power.' The question is how one acquires power, and Alinsky's answer is through organization... For Alinsky, power is the ‘very essence of life, the dynamic of life' and is found in ‘...active citizen participation pulsing upward providing a unified strength for a common purpose of organization....'" (P. 7-8) What is the "social revolution" Hillary and the radicals-cum-insiders want? Hillary doesn't want to merely make law or implement policy; she wants to re-shape humanity in her own image. She explains:
"A radical is one who advocates sweeping changes in the existing laws and methods of government. These proposed changes are aimed at the roots of political problems which in Marxian terms are the attitudes and the behaviors of men." (p. 6)
"Alinsky: ‘In order to organize, you must first polarize. People think of controversy as negative; they think consensus is better. But to organize, you need a Bull Connor or a Jim Clark.'" (italics added) The Left adores Communists, but covers them up from public view. Alinsky was more willing to tell the truth:
"Alinsky told Playboy (Magazine), "I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work.... Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. ... I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days...I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party."
In the Playboy interview, Alinsky also describes his close work with mobster Frank Nitti and Al Capone's gang and his relationship with the emerging CIO and the Roosevelt administration. He describes how he used these connections to make a 1930s deal with then-Chicago Mayor Edward Kelly to deliver a meatpackers' union contract-one of his earliest "organizing" victories."
This is Hillary's adolescent hero. The pattern of working with corrupt and criminal figures to achieve radical aims also characterized the first two Clinton terms.
Hillary was raised in the Methodist Church, but at Wellesley her new religion became Leftism of the feminist variety. Thus she took an all-American girlhood and transformed it into its opposite, reworking the pieces to chart an oppositional life course. That is a very common pattern in the lives of Leftist radicals, going back to Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin.
Carl Bernstein explains,
"She chose Yale (in 1969) because ... it was an activist school that very much believed in the use of the law as an instrument for social change.... This was the year of the Black Panther trial in New Haven. ...
"That summer she went to work at the most important radical law firm in America at that point: Truehaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland. They defended the Panthers. Two of their partners were members of the Communist Party-including Bob Truehaft, who was married to Jessica Mitford. I talked to Bob Truehaft not long before he died, and he said he was certain that Hillary came there because she subscribed to some of the kind of law they practiced and the kind of clients they defended."
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is a guidebook for splitting the world into irreconcilable camps of Good and Evil. It is a war manual, with the clear and explicit aim to destroy and defeat the American nation and culture as we know it. People who find making war on their own culture attractive have a deep need to see the world in extremes of good and evil. There are no shades of gray in Alinsky's world, just as there are none in Hillary's. Such people start off with a need to find a lifelong enemy; any rationalizing they do comes after the fact.
As Dick Morris writes,
"She loves war. ... Conflict is the principle which permits her to organize her life. ... Like Richard Nixon, the politician she so closely resembles, she sees the world in extraordinarily simple terms: There are those who agree with her and support her and then there's the rest of the world. Those who don't agree with her are bunched together and known collectively as "the enemy" - that vast right wing conspiracy that must be vilified, beaten, and destroyed . . . whatever it takes. To Hillary, this easily quantifiable adversary is unquestionably the source of all evil. Therefore, any means of obliterating them is acceptable. She thrives on identifying, assailing, and defeating them. Her hatred for this ubiquitous enemy is actually a source of enormous strength -- it motivates her, energizes her, keeps her going and reminds her of her superiority. " That is what a revolutionary is, after all -- someone who has declared war to the death on his own society.
Years later, Senator Bill Bradley would tell Carl Bernstein that "At one meeting with Democratic senators, Hillary openly threatened to 'demonize' any member of Congress who opposed her plan..."...
... One explanation is that radical Leftists are malignant narcissists, who have an aching need to destroy things. They are compulsive iconoclasts --- needing to smash all existing idols and ideals, only to replace them with their own. The public narrative of the Left is always compassion and love, but in the end, the real agenda always turns out to be destroying and oppressing ordinary people in a cycle of failed efforts to control them. Whether it's overthrowing the rich, herding famers into communes, forcing them to produce more for less return, and controlling speech --- it's that need to overcontrol people that quickly leads to terror and mass executions. It leads to gigantic overexpansion of the state at the expense of other human enterprises. Hillary is exactly such a compulsively controlling personality....
... The unconquerable conviction that "I have the answer to all the ills of mankind" marks Leftist narcissism. Marx and Lenin had it; Pol Pot had it; Hitler and Mussolini had it; Hillary and Bill are possessed by it; the whole gang seems to suffer from it...
... But that is exactly what the Left continues to believe: Hugo Chavez thinks he can do it today in Venezuela. Unless she has suddenly learned shattering humility in last seven years, Hillary Clinton is still very much in the Hugo Chavez mold...
... So Hillary came out of her teenage years as a classic Leftist radical: Utterly convinced of her own rightness, entirely prepared to split the world into Good and Evil, and knowing with more-than-human certainty that other Americans were the incarnation of Evil.
Hillary was attracted to Saul Alinsky presumably because she had an emotional need to split the world in exactly that way. It helped her to navigate the 180 degree flip from an anti-Communist upbringing to the pro-Communist New Left...
... Watergate was the great Oedipal victory of the Sixties Left. It was revenge for Richard Nixon's successful anti-Communist campaign. The New Left thereby avenged the political defeat of the older Left, including Saul Alinsky himself. That is also why the Hollywood Left needs to constantly remind us of the "horrors" of Senator Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee five decades ago, even though Soviet archives have shown that McCarthy and HUAC were pretty accurate.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/hillarys_oedipal_problem.html
must the modern world engage in shrinking her head?
just what she's always wanted: the world all wrapped up in Her.
Not employees, but contractors.
It's a long article. did She really say this?
She’ll never get elected when this stuff starts to be known.
So many to inform and so little time. So many do NOT want to know.
Bump
I don't think she will either, because there are still enough thinking people in the US.
But what make me want to puke is how much support she can get from the gimme, gimme, gimme reprobates by bribing them with my tax dollars.
So many do NOT want to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seven words that say it all! If people wanted to know the truth Hitlery would not be running because she would never have been Senator, or first lady, or anything other than possibly an inmate.
“she’ll never get elected when this stuff starts to be known.”
you might be surprised that “this stuff” might be what locks her into the presidency. more than fifty percent of the “american electorate” have been radicalized unknowingly, thinking that hillary! represents decency and goodness “fighting” against cruel economic interests.
be prepared to say “president clinton” once again.
imho
such a long list. but she/they still are graced with the status of saints. they will never be recognized for being anti-establishment but fighters against evil seeking to bring paradise to the earth.
take a look around and watch who becomes venomously hateful at the mention of anything negative toward them. their supporters are all over the place and each one of them is a strident democrat.
(thank you for all that information. copy machine whirring.)
imho
No rpoblem rip, have at it.
Politics of Personal DESTRUCTION is the Clinton’s MO.....while they SAY the Republicans do it, this is called “Projection”...accusing your oppenent of doing (when they are not) exactly what you ARE doing.
Excellent post, one of your best.
It’s an indicator that an H. Clinton presidency will be entirely different from the W. J. Clinton presidency, lest people be falsely lured.
Excellent post, one of your best.
It’s an indicator that an H. Clinton presidency will be entirely different from the W. J. Clinton presidency, lest people be falsely lured.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.