But let's not forget who it is that Plain O' most closely identifies with and supports: --- wrong agian, zioboy. it was a fucked up poll ... and no, I do not and will not support Hillary ... the warmongering zionist pig or that you nork asshole Trump.
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 11:06:06 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > But let's not forget who it is that Plain O' most closely identifies with > and supports: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: plainolamerican <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM > Subject: Re: Your 2016 Presidential Picks > To: PoliticalForum <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > > Candidates you side with... > > 89% > [image: Hillary Clinton]Hillary Clinton Democratic > > on economic, domestic policy, healthcare, social, education, and > environmental issues. > compare answers > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556209> > > 82% > [image: Bernie Sanders]Bernie Sanders Democratic > > on environmental, domestic policy, healthcare, social, and economic issues. > compare answers > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556211> > > 61% > [image: John Kasich]John Kasich Republican > > on environmental and electoral issues. > compare answers > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:585676237> > > 56% > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201> > [image: Jeb Bush] > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201>Jeb > > Bush Republican > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201> > > on healthcare, immigration, and criminal issues. > compare answers > <http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1840736686:801556201> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> the problem with Hillary is that she is just as big a socialist as Bernie >> Sanders is >> --- >> she's also a zionist who will sacrifice American interest for israel. >> >> >> 172 >> shares >> >> <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2Farticles%2Fgop-went-zionist%2F> >> >> <http://twitter.com/home?status=How+the+GOP+Went+Zionist%20-%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2Farticles%2Fgop-went-zionist%2F> >> >> <http://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2Farticles%2Fgop-went-zionist%2F> >> >> <javascript:> >> A >> T >> he movement to isolate Israel may be in full swing on college campuses >> across the country, and Israel may be the subject of ever-louder >> international denunciations, but when it comes to a Republican Party riven >> by squabbles, the Jewish state has become a unifying glue. Support for >> Israel is all but unanimous among the party’s politicians in Washington, >> and in the presidential race, candidates vie to outdo one another when it >> comes to expressing their commitment to it; even the isolationist >> presidential candidate Rand Paul has gone to great pains to attempt to >> establish his pro-Israel bona fides. >> >> It was not ever thus. Indeed, the emergence of the GOP as the nation’s >> pro-Israel voice is an odd and fascinating element in the modern political >> history of the United States. For the first 45 years of Israel’s existence, >> the Republican Party was deeply divided when it came to the Middle East. >> Powerful forces inside the GOP had long been at best uncomfortable with >> Israel and at worst openly hostile. Those forces included big businessmen >> and oilmen with deep connections and interests in Arab lands and so-called >> foreign-policy realists who did not see why the U.S. should maintain a >> special relationship with a tiny, economically negligible country >> surrounded by 22 Arab nations that wished it would disappear. >> >> Old-line country-club anti-Semites played their part, as did a certain >> camp among America’s anti-Communists, for whom Israel was suspect in large >> measure because it called itself socialist and because Marx and Trotsky had >> both been Jews. >> As a practical political matter, there were few discernible electoral >> incentives for the GOP to support Israel, given that the Jewish community >> was so completely in the Democratic camp (save for many progressive Jews in >> the Northeast, such as Senator Jacob Javits of New York, who were members >> of the Republican Party because they loathed the role Southern >> segregationists played in the Democratic electoral coalition). >> >> Richard Nixon served as Eisenhower’s vice president and shared Ike’s >> views on maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East. When he >> became president in 1969, he wanted his administration to serve as a >> corrective to what Nixon believed had been the Johnson administration’s >> tilt toward Israel. Nixon also had a fraught personal relationship with >> Jewry and Judaism. >> >> The first Republican to serve as president after Israel’s founding was >> Dwight David Eisenhower, elected in 1952. Eisenhower was put off by >> Israel’s democratic-socialist ideology. Additionally, its tiny size, >> martial weakness, and lack of strategic resources of any kind marked it as >> an irritant. Eisenhower believed that his predecessor, Harry Truman, had >> only supported the creation of the state because of political >> considerations—the 1948 Jewish vote—not strategic calculations. His view >> was that the United States needed to preserve friendly relations with Arab >> states to maintain access to oil reserves and to keep the Arabs from >> forging stronger ties with the Soviet Union, which had begun to advocate >> for the Arab world against Israel in international forums such as the >> United Nations during Eisenhower’s first term. When Israel, France, and >> Britain invaded the Sinai to reestablish Western control of the Suez Canal >> after its seizure by Egypt, Eisenhower reacted with rage and forced the >> coalition to withdraw. >> >> The nascent conservative movement had a similar perspective on Israel. In >> 1957, an unsigned *National Review* editorial noted the importance of >> “reaching a friendly understanding with the surrounding Arab world” and >> warned against “sacrificing America’s primary strategic interests to >> Zionist pressures at home.” The magazine insisted that Arabs “must be fully >> compensated for the economic and social consequences of the Jewish conquest >> of Palestine.” There was one hint of changes to come, where the editorial >> went on to say that “the Israeli government, to be sure, deserves to be >> congratulated on its hardheaded firmness in staring down the busybodies of >> the UN.” This was an early planting of a seed that would help to grow a new >> GOP foreign policy—one that would emerge both from the evolution of the >> party’s intellectuals and from its grassroots. But the seed would take >> decades to cultivate, as the party’s standard-bearers continued on in the >> Eisenhower vein. >> >> One of those standard-bearers was Richard Nixon. He had served as Ike’s >> vice president and shared Eisenhower’s views on maintaining the balance of >> power in the Middle East. When he became president in 1969, he wanted his >> administration to serve as a corrective to what Nixon believed had been the >> Johnson administration’s tilt toward Israel. Nixon also had a fraught >> personal relationship with Jewry and Judaism. On the one hand, he was the >> first president to appoint a Jewish national-security adviser, Henry >> Kissinger, who would also become the first Jewish secretary of state. But >> the private Nixon spoke freely in bigoted terms about Jews and enjoyed >> poking at Kissinger’s origins. Once, when Kissinger expressed his opinion >> on an issue related to the Middle East at a National Security Council >> meeting, Nixon called him out by asking, “Now can we get an American point >> of view?” In his memoir *White House Years*, Kissinger recounts how >> Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir called Nixon “an old friend of the Jewish >> people” and then notes wryly that this “was startling news to those of us >> familiar with Nixon’s ambivalences on that score.” >> >> And yet, when Israel faced an existential crisis during the 1973 Yom >> Kippur War, Nixon showed little ambivalence. He saved the Jewish state from >> a devastating defeat at the hands of the Egyptians, armed to the teeth with >> Soviet weaponry. Operation Nickel Grass provided Israel with more than >> 112,000 tons of supplies. Nixon knew he would be criticized over the >> airlift, and this understanding helped steel his resolve: “We are going to >> get blamed just as much for three planes as for three hundred.” When the >> airlift wasn’t moving fast enough, he ordered his generals to “use every >> [plane] we have—everything that will fly.” >> >> Nixon’s decision to arm Israel in the 1973 war would have long-standing >> repercussions. One consequence was the oil embargo initiated by the Arab >> states in 1973, an economically devastating move—and one that convinced >> ordinary Americans who had to cope with the tripling of energy costs that >> the Arab states were hostile entities that deserved to be confronted rather >> than appeased, as the foreign-policy panjandrums of both parties had long >> asserted. Decades of American evenhandedness had failed to stay OPEC’s >> intimidation. Perhaps a different approach might prove more valid in the >> future. >> >> The war further clarified for the American people where the various >> Middle East players stood when it came to the Cold War. The Soviet Union >> had made it unmistakably evident that it was Israel’s enemy just as it was >> the enemy of the United States. And the war marked a turning point in >> Israel’s relation with the United States at a strategic level as well. >> Israel not only proved proficient at destroying Soviet weaponry used >> against it by Egypt and Syria, it also shared captured Soviet weapons, >> including the T-62 battle tank, with the United States. This was an >> intelligence coup for the U.S. military, and it demonstrated that oil was >> not the only strategic asset available to the United States in >> the Middle East. Israel, too, was an asset. >> >> Around this time, there was an emerging realization among some key >> foreign-policy thinkers that a coalition of Third World nations and Soviet >> allies was treating the U.S. as a punching bag at the United Nations. This >> was given full voice in Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s seminal 1975 Commentary >> essay, “The United States in Opposition.” Moynihan’s response to the >> rhetorical onslaught against the United States was simple: America should >> fight back. The essay led to his appointment by President Gerald Ford as >> U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1975 and 1976. And the most notable moment of >> Moynihan’s tenure came when he joined with Israel against the UN’s >> Orwellian declaration of Zionism as racism. >> >> Taking tough stands against Third World and Soviet critiques of the West >> put Israel and the United States on the same side and helped shake the >> longstanding view that America’s strategic interests required taking the >> Arab view of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Ironically, Moynihan’s actions >> would have their most lasting impact not on his own Democratic Party but on >> the GOP. As my brother Gil Troy put it in his history of Moynihan’s fight >> against the anti-Zionism resolution, “Moynihan’s stand against Soviet and >> Third World bullying in the United Nations helped inspire [Ronald] Reagan’s >> more aggressive approach there” in the 1980s. >> >> The same would prove true about the influence of another hawkish >> Democrat, Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Many of his aides—including >> Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz—shared his >> perspective, and it was in Jackson’s offices that the emerging >> “neoconservative” foreign policy was first laid out in Washington. Israel >> was not Jackson’s primary foreign-policy interest. Rather, his top priority >> was a strong U.S. stance against Soviet aggression. And because he believed >> the Nixon-Kissinger policy of détente was a capitulation, he pressed for >> increased involvement of Congress in international relations to counter the >> administration’s appeasement; his greatest success came with the passage of >> the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which linked U.S-Soviet trade to Soviet >> human-rights policy, particularly as regarded oppressed Soviet Jews who >> wished to emigrate. >> >> Jackson-Vanik was a landmark because it heralded a new era in which >> Congress would take a more active hand in the making and implementation of >> U.S. foreign policy. The rise of congressional independence in foreign >> policy meant that an individual member’s views on these matters became more >> relevant, tactically and strategically, and on Israel in particular. >> >> Pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC began focusing more effort on >> lobbying Congress, too. Lobbying is not just about applying pressure and >> raising money; successful lobbyists attempt to make the case to those to >> whom they appeal that the vote is right and just and will benefit them, >> their districts, and the country in general. AIPAC’s new focus on Capitol >> Hill was in part educational. Trips to Israel for members and their staffs >> became routine. The effort was extraordinarily successful. Aid to Israel >> became regularized. That began with the signing of the Camp David accords >> when the United States began to supply Israel with money it had lost from >> giving back the Sinai oil fields Israel had captured in the Six-Day War. >> Later, in 1985, U.S. military aid to Israel was converted from loans to >> grants; and an earmark for purchasing military equipment became part of the >> annual foreign-aid appropriation shortly afterward. >> >> Outside of Washington, another important trend emerged in the 1970s that >> would have a far-reaching impact on the GOP’s realignment with Israel: the >> rise of the evangelical vote. Staunch evangelical support for Israel meant >> that it was no longer mainly Jewish voters who cared where politicians >> stood. As these voters moved in large numbers to the Republican Party, >> beginning with the election in 1980, these pro-Israel Christians started to >> emerge as the largest and most important segment of the GOP base. >> Republican politicians started to take notice. >> >> Then–Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin also took notice, and took >> steps to encourage the burgeoning evangelical support of Israel. In 1981, >> Begin spoke to a gathering of 3,000 evangelical Christians in Jerusalem and >> issued a medal to Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell. After Israel bombed >> Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Begin even called Falwell to explain >> Israel’s reasoning. >> >> Begin stood in stark contrast to American Jewish leaders, such as Rabbi >> Alexander Schindler of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish >> Organizations, who told the *New York Times* in 1981 that he thought it >> “madness and suicide if Jews honor for their support of Israel right-wing >> evangelists who constitute a danger to the Jews of the United States.” >> Begin was also willing to work on less enlightened evangelicals such as >> Bailey Smith. After Smith notoriously said that “God Almighty does not hear >> the prayer of a Jew,” Begin met with him in Israel and helped turn him >> around, politically if not theologically. When asked about his work with >> evangelicals like Smith and Falwell, Begin aide Yehuda Avner said: “Israel >> will not turn aside a hand stretched out by a friend in support of Israel’s >> just cause. Jerry Falwell is one of the most vigorous and outspoken friends >> of Israel. We will not turn aside that hand of friendship.” >> >> It was not only conservative clergy who would be converted to the >> pro-Israel cause, but conservative legislators as well. The most important >> example was the evolution of North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. Helms was >> openly hostile to Israel for his first decade or so in the Senate, and was >> targeted for defeat by Jewish groups in a 1984 Senate reelection bid that >> he survived only by the skin of his teeth. The next year, AIPAC helped >> arrange a trip to Israel for Helms and his wife; Helms himself indicated >> that the trip was life-changing (though surely his near-death experience >> with voters had had a clarifying effect as well). Helms would go on to >> chair from 1995 to 2001 the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, where he >> would actively legislate on Israel’s behalf. >> >> Helms’s shift represented the confluence of forces that were remaking the >> Republican Party. The growing evangelical support for Israel had its >> greatest impact in the South, fast becoming the GOP’s stronghold. And it >> coincided with Ronald Reagan’s eloquence in support of the Jewish state. >> Reagan did not see eye to eye with the Israelis on every issue; he approved >> the sale of AWACS radar planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, criticized the >> Osirak attack, and was not supportive of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in >> 1982. But Reagan spoke and thought of Israel in a manner new to American >> presidents. He saw that Israel was a strategic asset to the United States >> in the struggle against totalitarianism. Reagan recognized the alignment >> not only of interests but foundational Judeo-Christian beliefs: “Israel >> represents the one stable democracy sharing values with us in that part of >> the world,” he said. >> >> He took the historic step of formalizing military cooperation between the >> United States and Israel. This strategic redefinition of the relationship >> had a number of salutary long-term implications for both nations. First, it >> helped improve the Israeli military by giving Israel access to U.S. >> technology, training, and tactics. Linking the American and the Israeli >> militaries established a connection between the two nations that went >> beyond the political vagaries of elections. The Pentagon also began to >> recognize the strategic importance of maintaining its joint activities with >> Israel, which could field-test U.S. weapons, strengthen intelligence >> cooperation, and serve as a base for U.S. equipment in a hostile region. >> >> Reagan’s perspective was plain: Reward your friends and punish your >> enemies. Stand up to the USSR, hijackers, and petro-blackmailers, and stand >> with people who were on your side. In this context, it made perfect sense >> for Republicans to back Israel, even if you belonged to a country club, >> worked for an oil company, or were an armchair strategist who understood >> the magnitude by which Arabs outnumbered Israel in population. >> >> Congressional GOP support for Israel became even more marked in the 1990s >> after the GOP took over both Houses of Congress. The outspokenly pro-Israel >> Speaker Newt Gingrich set up a contrast on the Israel issue between himself >> and the Clinton administration, which was pressing Israel for territorial >> concessions in the name of peace deals. >> >> Following Reagan’s lead and influenced by the neoconservatives who had >> gravitated to the GOP, pro-Israel voices became more confident in >> expressing their view of the ties that bound the United States and the >> Jewish state—the same monotheistic roots, which disposed them to an >> appreciation for human dignity and self-determination, and a shared belief >> in a covenantal founding of both nations. This view helped the GOP >> establish an ideological framework for foreign policy beyond the binary >> question of Communist versus anti-Communist. >> >> None of this was seamless. Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush, >> himself quite literally a Country Club Republican and oilman by birth and >> occupation and a foreign-policy realist by disposition. He famously >> complained about the Israel lobby, saying ludicrously that he, the >> president, was “one lonely guy” up against “some powerful political forces” >> made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” His secretary of state, >> James Baker, was even worse, earning the wrong kind of immortality with his >> line, “F— the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Even as these attacks >> were going on, there were signs that Bush had already become an anachronism >> in a rapidly changing world—most notably the fact that the Baker line was >> leaked to the press by his disgusted fellow cabinet secretary Jack Kemp, a >> key figure in remaking the party as pro-Israel. >> >> But Bush’s brand of hostility was not the only anti-Israel tendency >> within the rapidly evolving American right. Open anti-Semitism reared its >> head as well, in the personages of the writers Patrick J. Buchanan (a >> protest candidate for president in 1992 and 1996) and Joseph Sobran. When >> Buchanan called Congress “Israeli-occupied territory,” he was not only >> giving foul voice to a classic anti-Semitic theme but was accurately >> reflecting the fact that by this point, anti-Israel sentiment on Capitol >> Hill had become a mark of extremism in both parties. More important, both >> Sobran and Buchanan received a very public cold shoulder from the >> mainstream conservative movement. William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote a >> long indictment of his friend Sobran in *National Review* and consigned >> his and Buchanan’s brand of Jew-hatred to the margins of the conservative >> movement. >> >> Congressional GOP support for Israel became even more marked in the 1990s >> after the GOP took over both Houses of Congress. The outspokenly pro-Israel >> Speaker Newt Gingrich set up a contrast on the Israel issue between himself >> and the Clinton administration, which was pressing Israel for territorial >> concessions in the name of peace deals. In 1998, Gingrich visited Israel >> and was so expressive of his admiration and support for Prime Minister >> Benjamin Netanyahu that journalist David Makovsky called the trip a “love >> fest.” Palestinians noticed as well, and grumbled about what the* New >> York Times* characterized as “the lopsided support for Israel shown by >> Mr. Gingrich and the Congress.” >> >> Netanyahu would go on to play a key part in facilitating better relations >> between Israel and the GOP in another way as well. As prime minister in the >> 1990s and, more successfully, as finance minister from 2003 to 2005, >> Netanyahu embarked on a series of economic reforms that liberalized >> Israel’s previously socialistic and stagnant economy. Netanyahu made >> alterations in Israel’s welfare system, slashed government spending, >> privatized parts of the economy, and cut taxes. Unemployment and deficits >> went down, economic growth surged, and Israel developed its reputation as >> the high tech start-up nation. The reforms also opened the door to more >> support from the Republicans, as backing the Jewish state no longer meant >> having to apologize for propping up a socialist economy. Instead, >> Republicans could now tout a free-market Israeli economy, which was far >> more congruent with prevailing GOP economic theory. >> W >> hen the GOP took over the White House after Bill Clinton, the days of >> strategic ambiguity by GOP presidents toward Israel were long gone. George >> H.W. Bush and George W. Bush may have come from the same family, but they >> came from different Republican parties. The party that embraced the younger >> Bush was evangelically dominated, congressionally focused, and definitively >> pro-Israel. As Bush once told a Jewish leader: “The Saudis thought ‘this >> Texas oil guy was going to go against Israel’ and I told them you have the >> wrong guy.” >> >> As the story goes, when Bush went to Israel, then–Foreign Minister Ariel >> Sharon went out of his way to welcome the visiting governor, and Arafat >> gave Bush the runaround—after which he denounced Bush for refusing to meet >> with him. Sharon’s foresight would be rewarded, and Arafat’s >> shortsightedness would come back to haunt him. This became obvious during >> the Second Intifada, with Israel suffering from a barrage of >> Arafat-encouraged suicide attacks. At the time, America itself was >> recovering from the shock of 9/11, and the televised footage of >> Palestinians celebrating the attacks by handing out candy clarified issues >> in the minds of many Americans. >> >> Bush gave Sharon the leeway he needed to defend Israeli lives. Former >> White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer tells an instructive story in >> this regard. Following one Palestinian attack, Fleischer handed Bush what >> he called “typical” talking points that called for “both sides to refrain >> from violence.” Bush looked at the talking points and responded, “No, don’t >> say that. Just say this: ‘Israel has a right to defend itself.’ ” According >> to Fleischer, Bush’s preferred response “sent shock waves through the >> bureaucracy,” which was used to deliberately evasive, morally nebulous >> suggestions of “even-handedness.” >> >> In Bush’s view, and as a result of a generational shift in the GOP, >> Israel was our ally and was going to be treated as such. To be sure, Bush >> continued to push for the so-called peace process, especially in his second >> term. But Bush’s effort, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, >> featured none of the vitriol that would characterize the Obama >> administration’s push for a negotiated settlement. >> T >> hus, the tale of the transformation of the GOP into an unambiguously, >> proudly, and solidly pro-Israel coalition, 80 percent of whose >> self-identified members now tell pollsters they support the Jewish state. >> In 2014, Joshua Muravchik wrote an important book, *Making David into >> Goliath*, an account of how Israel went from being a widely admired >> nation in 1967 to one of the most reviled. In Muravchik’s telling, this >> development was not accidental, but the result of strategic action by a >> number of actors—on the left, in the Arab world, and in Europe—to >> delegitimize and damage Israel. But while the Jewish state lost many allies >> during this period, it also gained an important and reliable friend. At the >> same time that the world was learning to hate Israel, the Republican Party >> was learning to love it. >> >> >> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 7:07:52 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: >>> >>> >>> July 8, 2016 >>> >>> *The Problem With Hillary *By Thomas DiLorenzo >>> >>> The problem with Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate is not that >>> she is a corrupt and dishonest politician, as her critics have charged. >>> No, the problem with Hillary is that she is just as big a socialist as >>> Bernie Sanders is. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of >>> the common good,” she announced to a San Francisco audience in 2004, >>> echoing the *Communist Manifesto* mantra, “from each according to his >>> ability, to each according to his needs.” “We must stop thinking of the >>> individual and start thinking about what is best for society,” she once >>> proclaimed as First Lady. Such statements are a defining characteristic of >>> the socialist philosophy: attacks on individualism in the name of the >>> “common good” of “society” – always defined and enforced *by >>> politicians*, never by society as a whole. And like Sanders, she >>> threatens “the rich” with even more onerous taxes to be used to subsidize >>> the working class (“working families” in the neo-Marxist language of one of >>> her television ads). >>> >>> Hillary Clinton demonstrated her socialist credentials during the >>> Democratic primary debates with the proud, self-described socialist Bernie >>> Sanders. Whenever Sanders would excite the audiences of Democrats with >>> Santa Claus-like promises of “free” healthcare, education, housing, welfare >>> payments, and much else, Hillary’s response was to agree with him, >>> promising to increase federal spending by more than $1 trillion over the >>> next ten years. There was no disagreement over the principles of >>> socialism, only the details. >>> >>> A current fad among the socialists of Europe is to propose some kind of >>> “basic” government-defined income for the entire population. Switzerland >>> just voted down this latest money-for-nothing scheme. Naturally, Hillary is >>> all on board with it, having proposed giving every baby born in America a >>> $5000 account that would be invested and given to the child upon reaching >>> the voting age of eighteen. George McGovern proposed a similar, $1000 >>> “demogrant” in 1972, which was dismissed and ridiculed as socialistic >>> nonsense and may well have caused him to lose the election to Richard Nixon. >>> >>> In other words, Hillary is just as much a socialist as Bernie Sanders, >>> only she doesn’t use the “S” word for marketing purposes. She prefers >>> “progressive Democrat” instead, but that is not very convincing, even to >>> many of her supporters. During a televised interview >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqq5q11uK0M> with Chris Mathews, she >>> was asked repeatedly what the difference was between a Democrat and a >>> socialist. She refused to answer the question, implying to many that she >>> probably believes that there *is *no significant difference. >>> >>> In the early 1990s Hillary Clinton was the main architect of what came >>> to be known as “Hillarycare” – the Clinton administration plan to impose >>> Soviet-style central planning on America’s healthcare sector. This gives >>> us great insight into her vision of the role of government in the economy, >>> and how she would like to see more and more American industries run – by >>> dictates issued by thousands of anonymous bureaucrats paid for by the >>> biggest tax increases in history and enforced by the heavy hand of the >>> state. >>> >>> Socialist central planning, as such, has always been a perfect recipe >>> for the impoverishment of entire societies while at the same time enriching >>> and empowering a small political ruling class elite. How else could the >>> thirty-five-year-old daughter of the late Hugo Chavez, the onetime >>> socialist ruler of Venezuela, become the wealthiest person in that country >>> with a reported net worth of over $4 billion? >>> >>> Hillarycare was a bureaucratic nightmare that would have forced most >>> Americans to cancel their health insurance and obtain it from a government >>> bureaucracy. It would have forced everyone to purchase a full array of >>> government-defined benefits; it would have been managed from Washington by >>> a board of seven presidential appointees and thousands of bureaucrats; >>> access to physicians would have been restricted and controlled by >>> bureaucrats, not patients; and all outside insurance plans would have been >>> illegal. >>> >>> Price controls on everything from doctors’ salaries to MRI machines >>> would have caused pervasive shortages; the plan would have required massive >>> tax increases, mostly on the lower and middle classes, causing huge job >>> losses (600,000 in the first few years alone according to the Clinton >>> administration itself at the time); 59 new federal bureaucracies would have >>> been created with 20 others expanded; and hundreds of new regulatory >>> mandates would have been imposed on healthcare providers. >>> >>> Insurers would have been required to charge the same rates to everyone >>> regardless of age or health, making a mockery of the very word >>> “insurance.” Costly employer mandates would have forced employers to lower >>> wages and benefits and/or lay off workers; and state governments would have >>> been forced to become “purchasing alliances” for the federal bureaucracy’s >>> central planning scheme. >>> >>> Members of Congress and all federal employees were to be exempted from >>> Hillarycare, however. Only the little people (i.e., everyone else) were to >>> be corralled into socialized medicine. >>> >>> The bizarre thing about “Hillarycare” is that it was an absurdly >>> bureaucratic, Soviet-style central planning program that was promoted by >>> the Clintons barely three years after the final collapse of socialism in >>> the Soviet empire – a collapse caused primarily by the futility of >>> attempting to centrally plan an economy through government “planning” >>> instead of markets – just like “Hillarycare.” >>> >>> Perhaps “Obamacare,” which has resurrected parts of “Hillarycare,” has >>> been imposed on the American public because so much of it – primarily the >>> younger generation – is unaware of the grotesque failures of >>> twentieth-century socialism. They should look at the current economic >>> implosion of Venezuela – the latest darling-of-the-Left “socialist >>> paradise” – to learn some important lessons. >>> >>> >>> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/thomas-dilorenzo/real-problem-hillary/ >>> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
