Archive for the Hillary Category

Hillary’s First Hundred: Still Running Against Bush

Posted in Elections, Hillary, politics, taxes with tags on April 15, 2008 by Randy Streu

Hillary Clinton outlined a plan for her first hundred days in office.  Included in the plan: immediately begin withdrawl of troops from Iraq (is it me, or does she keep changing her mind on this subject?), roll back the bush tax cuts, un-veto bills for the expansion of embryonic stem cell research and create more government-funded healthcare for citizens.  In short, she says, “starting from Day One, the Bush-Cheney era will be over in name and in practice.”

In other words, she’s working as hard as she can to prove she’s really a liberal, but still avoiding running against Barack Obama or John McCain.  Instead, as she’s been doing from Day One of her campaign, she’s running against George W. Bush.  Somebody ought to tell her that some people understand you only get two terms in office –no matter how hard those nastolgic for the Return of Slick Willy might hope. 

Clinton also hopes to close Gitmo (what?  Another Clinton wanting to close US military bases?  You’re kidding!), end torture (waterboarding, which, no matter what the politicians say, just isn’t torture) and put a stop to White House secrecy.  Right.  Transparency is Hillary’s middle name.

In short, cripple the US military, bring known terrorists to US shores, start asking our enemies nicely to give up tactically important information instead of using a demonstrably useful interrogation method, and pretend there’s no such thing as Executive Privelige, though she herself will undoubtedly find it extremely necessary.

Clinton has never been anything more than a political panderer, frankly, and her “first hundred days” speech is more of the same.  From outright contradictions of earlier policy statements, to her continued insistence on running against the Bush Administration, she proves, as always, that she not only has nothing new to add to the National conversation, but would probably be as inefectual a President as she was a First Lady.  It’s hard to sign legislation with your finger in the breeze.

Though, at this point, it would take either a miracle or outright theft for a Clinton nomination this go-round, it is only prudent to remember who we’re dealing with.  Her current theme is topping (or at least matching) Obama in liberalism.  Until now, she’s been considered the more centrist candidate by some pundits.  Now that she’s losing to Obama, she sees that this is not the right tactic.  At least for now.  I would imagine, should said theft or miracle occur, we’ll see another face of Hillary emerge before November.

Hillary Clinton and the Socialization of Energy

Posted in Constitution, Economy, Elections, Hillary, News, politics, taxes with tags , , , , , , on March 15, 2008 by Randy Streu

Hillary Clinton stopped off at a gas station on Friday to talk about her energy proposals, purporting to lessen the burden on Americans.  As usual, her proposals sound like they make sense, until you understand that what she’s talking about will cost money, which will raise taxes, which will, ultimately, increase the burden on American taxpayers.

This time, though, she claims to have a way around that: make the big, bad oil companies pay for it.  According to Reuters, Clinton would mandate that oil companies either invest in alternative energy research and development, or be forced to pay out some of their profit toward such research.  In other words, either you invest, or else we’ll make you invest.  This is actually the gist of most of Hillary Clinton’s plans: either do what I say, or I’ll make you.  But she’s not a socialist.  Honest.

Now, no sane person would deny that it would be intelligent and responsible for an oil company to diversify into alternative energy sources.  Certainly, doing such research and making such investments could do much to further profits, as diversification often does.  Companies that do so, such as BP, increase not only profits, but their chances of being a viable energy company in the futre.

However, such investments must be the decision of the individual companies, based not on government mandates, but on their own business plans, profit margins, etc.  Because these businesses know their own resources better than Hillary Clinton (or anyone in government, for that matter), they themselves would best know if, when, where and how much to invest. 

Further, when private companies do the research and make the investments, there is greater incentive to do it right.  Right now, many alternative fuels are just as expensive, or more so, or perhaps just as harmful to the environment, or more so, as petroleum.  When the government mandates a minimum investment of time and resources, they get the minimum.  There is no incentive for companies to provide more. Because of this, a government-based program will fall short of perfection.  If there is an end-product, it will be more expensive and less useful than what was hoped for.  When companies are allowed to make the decisions for themselves, however, competiton breeds excellence.  Cleaner, cheaper more abundant fuels can be found by allowing the market to work, and businesses to lead.  Historically speaking, adherence to this approach made us a world power and a production leader.  Our drift away from these values and toward socialism has, perhaps in spite of the “best intentions” of those responsible, resulted in the decline over time of our economic superiority.

Beyond these obvious considerations, though, you have the even more obvious fact that this is the United States of America, a Constitutional Democratic Republic built on a free market economy.  You may not like what some of these companies do.  To you I would say, buy from BP.  You make your purchasing decsions based on these things.  If enough people do, maybe some of those companies who have been slower to look to alternative fuels will take it a bit more seriously.  And if not, then at least you have the satisfaction of knowing your money is being reinvested into something you care about.

Every time Clinton speaks, she proves herself a socialist.  For those with a brain to understand, socialism is and always has been a failure; it is antithetical to the values of personal and financial liberty; it is fodder for corruption.  These are historically verifiable facts about socialism.  Hillary’s determined backstroke toward this system ought to be a wake-up call; not a rallying cry.

-Streu-

A Picture Worth A Thousand Words

Posted in Hillary, humor, News, politics, taxes with tags , on March 7, 2008 by Randy Streu

hillandsatan.jpg

A most-emailed photo from Yahoo! News.  This had to be a great day for this photographer.  You know, until she found out and sucked out her soul.

-Streu-

Superdelegates, TRANSFORM!

Posted in Elections, Hillary, News, Obama, politics, taxes with tags , , , , on March 1, 2008 by Randy Streu

The fate of the Dem. party is in the hands of the 796 SuperDelegates.  These individuals are presumably so-named because, as elected politicians, they are just better and smarter than the Democrat voters en masse.

 Actually, I’d probably agree that they’re at least smarter.  When power-hungry elitists manage to manipulate about half the population of an entire country into believing that a few suits, most of whom have never actually even seen a hammer, know how to run your life better than you do, I think that certainly does say something about the relative intelligences of the two groups.

And as if that didn’t prove their point, you have also the simple fact that there exists a group of people called “Superdelegates,” which pretty much in and of itself should tell an intelligent voter, “psst… we think we’re smarter than you” — and those Dem voters who even notice, are by and large just nodding along.

Of course, what I find extremely amusing is that, though this elitist Superdelegate attitude is being espoused and encouraged by Hillary Clinton because she thinks that people who “know best” will vote for her — they are, in fact, turning more and more over to Barack Hussein Obama.

Not that BO doesn’t scare me a great deal, but you have to appreciate the subtle irony.

-Streu-

Yellow Journalism and The Non-issue of McCain’s Citizenship

Posted in Constitution, Elections, Hillary, John McCain, News, Obama, politics, Stupid Media with tags , on February 29, 2008 by Randy Streu

The New York Times has recently published an article questioning John McCain’s constitutional ability to become President, based upon the fact that he was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone.  Oddly, though the headline on the Times article says McCain’s off-shore birth “prompts queries,” the article doesn’t mention anybody as actually bringing up the subject.  Indeed, the “queries” seem to come from nobody other than the Times themselves.  Yellow journalism at its finest.

First, for clarification, I understand that there are many people who believe themselves to be intelligent, but haven’t managed to pull their heads out enough to understand the fairly simple language and intentions of the Constitution on this matter.  Even the Times, though it repudiates it as being “potentially unconstitutional,” mentions a measure passed by the first congress which indeed takes the pains to define the “natural-born citizen” clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  A natural-born citizen, according to this measure, includes those children of citizens “born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States.”

Even without that measure as guidance, common sense ought to rule the day here.  Clearly, the children of citizens are, themselves, citizens.  If a group of missionaries have a baby in Africa, that baby is, in fact, an American citizen.  If a soldier and his wife have a kid in Germany, that child is legally American.  This is fairly clearly the definition of “natural-born.”    I would further suggest that the only reason this definition would ever be called into question is as a distraction from actual campaign issues. 

One wonders if the New York Times would be so quick to post this question if it had been Barak Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton born on a military installation.

Point number two: an American military base is, in fact, American soil.  Just the same as a United States embassy is considered American soil.  This is an internationally recognized convention.  An individual questioning the “Natural-born” citizenship of a person born on a Panama military base might just as well question the status of a person born in Alaska.

The truth is, only an idiot would consider this anything but a frivolous issue.  Only a complete moron would honestly believe that McCain ought to be disqaulified from the race based on this fact.  It’s simple logic.  So, the question we have to ask is, why is the New York Times so interested in it?  Simply put, they aren’t honest. 

The New York Times has no scruples, when it comes to seeing their desired outcome in this election.  They backed McCain as Republican nominee, hoping to weaken the conservative base — and, given the timing, keeping this and that other little gem just waiting on the backburner.  The Times has known what they were doing this whole time.

And you have to hand it to them.  It would seem that there are still plenty of people stupid enough to believe them to be anything other than a glorified tabloid with an agenda.

-Streu-

What’s a Conservative to Do?

Posted in Economy, Elections, First Amendment, Fred(!), Hillary, immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney, politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , on February 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Fred Thompson bow out of the race.  A heavy heart as I finally made the decision on Super Tuesday to vote for the nearest candidate left to a true conservative: Mitt Romney.

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Romney get his ass handed to him on Tuesday, and then read his concession speech today.

It was with a heavy heart that I read John McCain’s speech to Conservatives, and began to understand that this arrogant SOB is the only chance we have left against a Dem-led White House.   The speech in which he acknowledged his differences with Conservatives on particular issues, but then dismissed those issues as unimportant.  Issues like the First Amendment and border security.  Issues like the Bush tax cuts. 

To his credit (I guess), McCain did not apologize for his decisions in these matters — merely acknowledged that they failed to line up with the views of the Conservative base.  He still believes the Conservative base is wrong on these issues.  He fails to see how McCain-Feingold attacks the fundamentals of Free Speech.  He promises constructionist judges — but won’t say how he will find judges who are both “strict constructionists” and will uphold McCain-Feingold (because such individuals don’t exist — the two are mutually exclusive.  This leads one to wonder, then, which ideal will be the guiding principle).  He promises to secure the borders first, if elected, but will not backtrack on McCain-Kennedy amnesty for those already living illegally within our borders.  He has not acknowledged any wrongdoing regarding his blatant and false smear against Romney on the Iraq issue.

Today, he said the right things.  I am not convinced — and don’t expect I will be — that he is the right man.

But, we conservatives are told, now is not the time to “abandon” the Republican party.  Now is not the time to let our principles stand in the way of a Republican victory.  There’s a war on, after all, we’re told.  An economy that threatens to collapse.  Could we be so callous, so … so selfish, that we would sacrifice the US to the will of the Democrat party, simply to “make a point?”

So, with a pat on the head (or a smack on the face), we’re told to hang on to those principles until 2012, perhaps.  Or maybe 2018.  The Republicans haven’t abandoned Conservatism, we’re told.  But we really need a win right now.  And if we Conservatives weren’t so damned picky, we could have this thing in the bag.

Fine… so we hang our ideals and vote for McCain.  We beat the Democrats.  And then what?  When do the Conservatives get their party back?  When do get to fight for our own values without being labeled as “traitors” to the party that is even now betraying us?  When do we get to fight the leftward motion of the Republican party, or failing that, leave?  2012?  Assuming there isn’t a similar crisis that demands our loyalty?

McCain spent the last few years of his career betraying Conservatives.  Now he’s asking for our loyalty?  How many times does this dog have to bite before we’re allowed to put it down?

I haven’t yet made up my mind about whether McCain gets my vote in November.  I know he’s not getting my money.  He hasn’t earned my support.  He hasn’t yet earned my vote.  A few paragraphs of pretty words and a call for Conservatives to make nice doesn’t undo McCain-Feingold, or the Gang of 14, or his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or McCain-Kennedy.  The looming spectre of a Democrat president may well be enough to scare me into pulling the McCain lever.  But neither McCain nor his supporters should make the mistake of taking the vote as anything other than that.

It’s not a mandate to continue pulling the crap he’s been pulling.  It’s not an invitation to urinate all over Conservative principles in the interest of “bipartisanship.”  Conservatives aren’t voting for the Maverick.  They’re voting against the Democrats, plain and simple.  It’ll be a hollow victory for all involved, if victory it is.  A marriage of convenience with divorce looming ever-so-near on the horizen.

So congratulations to John McCain.  He may or may not get my vote, but he has effectively won the nomination.  He hasn’t won my mind.  He hasn’t won the heart and soul of the Republican party.  In spite of the fact that most Conservatives can’t stomach the man, he has a victory.  Maybe it’ll be enough.  Maybe fear of Hillary and Obama will be enough to unite and mobilize the Republican voters.  It’ll have to be.  Because McCain isn’t.

Hillary Supporters: I’m Tired of Being Nice

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, healthcare, Hillary, News, politics, taxes with tags , , , on February 7, 2008 by Randy Streu

As Hillary Clinton nears hysteria in forcing her healthcare plan down the collective throat of the US, she has finally admitted that she will do “whatever it takes” to get 100% compliance, whether you want it or not, even if that means garnishing wages.

In her own words to ABC This Week’s George Stephanopoulos, “about 20 percent of the people who don’t have health insurance in America today could well afford it… So what we’ve got to do is have shared responsibility. Everybody has to pay something, but, obviously, on a sliding scale.”

And she says it’s not socialized healthcare.  Somebody… anybody… please — if this is not socialism, what the hell is it?  And while you’re at it, just why the fuck does “everybody have to pay something?”  Who is Hillary Clinton, or her supporters, for that matter, to make the moral decision about other peoples’ money? 

Here’s the truth; ready?  I am willing to help out anybody, financially, spiritually, whatever, when I can.  It’s called charity.  But I don’t owe you a damned thing.  I don’t owe you a living.  I don’t owe you health insurance.  I don’t owe you a house.  And nobody owes me. 

For the government to play the role of Robin Hood (albeit a twisted and stupid Robin Hood) is the height of injustice.  Disagree if you want; it’s a free country.  But you’ll be wrong.  And I’d really appreciate it if you wouldn’t fuck up my country with your political ineptitude.

-Streu-