Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > Current events > The Archives > North America
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-20-2015, 09:25 PM
redrat11 redrat11 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,273
Default Re: American Politics-2014-2016???

Hillary Rodham Clinton-And the "Third Wave" over AmeriKa-Left, Right,--->Communism

Democrats In Drag — Steve Farrell

By Steve Farrell

Democrats In Drag, Foreword

When I began this project a decade ago, I recognized the title I chose, “Democrats in Drag,” would be provocative and controversial, offensive and humorous, hated and praised, cursed and hallelujahed. I also knew it was marketable. Yet the bottom line is the title was chosen because it reflected an issue I felt passionately about, namely: The Republican Party speaks conservative, but legislates liberal, gets all dressed up for church, but drives down to the brothel.

If there ever was any truth to the claim that the Republican Party was conservative, constitutionally based, and morally sound, its 1990’s flying leap into the arms of Progressive Government and the Third Way, and it’s follow on act in the 21st Century with Compassionate Conservatism, insured that honest men would soon come to believe otherwise. Yesterday’s defenders of the Republic are today’s champions of the New World Order and the corporations that figure to cash in most on the megalomaniacal prize.

In claiming this, I am not indicting the whole crew of Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, as co-conspirators against our country, nor making a case for such—though conspiracies always have and always will exist whenever power and men cross paths. Jefferson and Madison’s instructive that “men are not angels” should be warning enough that almost all men, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, given their day in power, thirst for more, and sad to say more than a few betray their country along the way. But that is not my aim, I write about principles, and in this case an expose on the principles of Compassionate Conservatism (or Centre Right/Conservative Futurist/Third Way) as the perfect answer for the grasping politician as well as the political revolutionary, for the Democrat as well as the Republican—for it is the ‘safe’ middle ground, both conservative and progressive, communist and capitalist, moral and amoral, tolerant and intolerant, friend of local government and friend of the United Nations. It is everything and anything. It is never what it seems to be and always what it seems to be. It is the master of double-talk and the partner of deceit. And, as such, come election time, it is wisdom’s path, so say the campaign agencies, for both the stouthearted statesmen and the pussilaneous panderer to get elected.

Would to high heaven that such a safe middle ground was Wisdom’s path; but I suspect, and I feel you will as well, that the path is more like Marx and Lenin’s, Mao’s and Keynes, then Wisdom’s.

Throughout this series, I will initially use the term Third Way and later, Compassionate Conservative when referring to this philosophy, and I do this knowing full well that the fascist cat is out of the bag, thanks to U.S. President Bill Clinton calling it his own in 1999. By so doing, President Clinton put on ‘red alert’ a few conservative writers and commentators (this one included) who immediately and effectively blew the whistle, loud and clear, on what The Third Way was—and what it was not.

On the other hand, this fascist cat only really came out for a brief flash and then scurried back whence it came. The reason was that with few exceptions, blind partisanship and hatred for Bill Clinton were the chief motivating factors for the investigation into the Third Way, not purist interest, not a desire for an honest probe into Third Way politics on both sides of the political aisle. With Mr. Clinton gone, the prevailing wind blasts in our ears, ‘Who cares!’

But we should care, all of us.

Political insiders know full well that Clinton’s torrid romance with the Third Way was preceded by a far more lengthy and scandalous affaire d’amour between Republican Party conservative icon Newt Gingrich and Third Way spokesman Alvin Toffler. Had the red alert been truly sounded by dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, then the Contract With America, the Republican Revolution, and the party’s ‘efforts’ to squelch Mr. Clinton’s radicalism would have been put under the microscope too, and the party and our country might now be on a more constitutional course.

As it is, Bill Clinton and Republican opposition to Bill Clinton only gave the Third Way what was a short-lived bad public name. That is all. Meanwhile, the Third Way’s compromising, anti-constitutional agenda goes forward on schedule. Today its advocates left and right have only switched designations, calling themselves progressives, centrists, right-of-center centrists, left-of-center centrists, bipartisans, defenders of ‘civil society,’ believers in ‘good governance,’ and most recent and popular of all, ‘compassionate conservatives.’ A few, mostly in Europe and in the Democratic Party’s Progressive Policy Institute, still cling to a public confession of faith in that halfway house between communism and capitalism, the Third Way.

But we should not overly concern ourselves with this or that name of the day. Better we focus on defining just what is the Third Way, what is Compassionate Conservatism, so that having done so we can more readily uncover it no matter how the pretenders are dressed—whether as Pink Donkeys or Blue Elephants

That is the hope of this series: that politicians, parties and political movements within those parties be known for what they are and not what they appear to be, so that with blind partisanship set aside, our Constitution, our rights and our way of life may advance, not retreat in the face of the gathering storm.

Part 2

Democrats In Drag, Part 1, “Technology, Sovereignty, and the Third Wave,” raised a justifiable flap about the hush-hush history of that Tsunami for political and sociological change called the Third Wave or the Third Way. It presented the first layer of evidence that the 1990’s famously popular Third Way, like its 1999-2008 twin sister Compassionate Conservatism, emerged like a creature in hiding from the socialist badlands of communism and fascism.

Among the plotters who laid the foundation for this modern mistake were Plato in his manifesto for a pre-Christian communist tyranny, “The Republic”; Karl Marx in his 19th century “Communist Manifesto” and sundry other works; and Adolf Hitler and his 20th century plunge into fascism which he deified, Third Way-like, as a safe alternative between the two extremes of communism and capitalism.

It’s a dark account, and assuredly Third Way/Compassionate Conservative proponents would be hard pressed to admit the connection. But then, who would? Socialism, communism and fascism are deservedly four-letter words in anyone’s common sense and political vocabulary. So, roughly every decade, in some cases every few months, their supporters are forced to search through the archives for a new name for old tyranny.

The Third Way just happened to be the next in line.

Disturbingly, consideration of the “progressive” Third Way presents not only links to the old and the foul, but to the new and the acceptable. It also introduces the unsettling possibility that the fall of communism and socialism were less the result of the victory of capitalism or Reaganism and more a sign of communist confidence that the West was dumbed-down and disarmed, ripe and readied for the long ago predicted “comfortable merger” under the United Nations.

The Third Way, its twin, Compassionate Conservatism, and the establishment engine which drives them, want this merger, and want also a removal of governmental gridlock in favor of a fast track radical new approach to government; one fit for a high-tech., swift-paced, rapidly changing world.

Parts 2 thru 8 continue at link below


Overview of the Third Wave

Posted by johnhouk on Dec 09, 2011
John R. Houk
December 9, 2011

Kelleigh Nelson wrote a two part hit article on Newt Gingrich entitled “The Phony Right-Wing & Who is Selling Us Down the River? – Newt Gingrich: Part One & Two”.

Nelson begins Part 1 by describing Newt’s ten years in Congress as a closet communist by comparing Newt’s Congressional agenda to various Marxist ideologies. At this point Nelson calls Newt a Neocon. Evidently she considers Neocons as closet Communists because many of them actually came from a Communist background. The problem with her closet Communist assessment is that Neocons that were former Leftist Liberals abandoned Communism recognizing the utter failure of the Marxist based ideology. My perspective on Neoconservatism is that they are people that support Conservative values domestically and American Exceptionalism in relation to Foreign Policy and Foreign Relations. It is the less government – more government paradox. Neocons have rejected Big Brother control of the populace hence the less government domestically. Neocons see two objectives that need to be sustained (yes I know “sustained” is an evil word among Conspiracy Theorists). One objective is to promote any policy that protects American sovereignty as the world’s exceptionally best nation. The second objective is to spread American values internationally at all costs to promote a world that is more for us than against us. I realize these two objectives I have thought up are quite subjective and I am certain that intellectual Neocons could list quite a number of specifics; nonetheless in a nutshell I believe this is an easy to comprehend summary of Neoconservatism. Both objectives lean toward big government to maintain American Exceptionalism. Libertarians and Paleocons (i.e. more traditional Conservatives) have a problem with big government of any kind.

Is Toffler a Communist? A Free Republic blogger quotes a New American article in which Toffler’s thoughts run like this:

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as "a conservative futurist". He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America's "founding parents," in which he said: "The system of government you fashioned, including the principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented---a democracy for the 21st century." He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that "served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced."

full article below




How foreign donations to Clinton Foundation add up to baggage for Hillary (+video)

Questions about the influence of foreign donations are legitimate and Hillary Clinton needs to address them forthrightly or she may find that they don't go away.

By Doug Mataconis, Voices contributor APRIL 20, 2015

A book that isn’t set to be released for another two weeks is already starting to shake up the presidential campaign, and could pose problems for Hillary Clinton going forward:



Clinton Foundation to keep accepting donations from foreign governments

Published April 16, 2015FoxNews.com

The Clinton Foundation said late Wednesday that it will continue to accept donations from foreign governments during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, despite concerns that such gifts will create a conflict of interest for the Democratic front-runner.

The foundation's board said that donations directly to the foundation would only be allowed from six governments — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. However, other governments could continue to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a subsidiary program that encourages donors to match contributions from others to tackle international problems without direct donations to the charity.




By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and
"Global Censorship of Health Information" and
"Restore The Republic"
April 20, 2015

Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, you should be troubled by the fact that Hillary Clinton in each campaign has remade herself fundamentally, adopting a new persona each time in an effort to capture the changing electorate. True, all candidates hone their messages, but Hillary’s transformations are radical make-overs. Given the number of iterations of Hillary Clinton over the years, we really should ask: Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up?

Since leaving the White House as First Lady, Hillary has amassed a very large fortune. Hillary’s world is far different from the typical American’s. That would not be a problem were she to own up to that fact, but she chooses to obscure that reality. Consider, by contrast, the Kennedys. Democrats Jack, Robert, and Ted never hid their family’s opulence and, instead, actually harbored intellectual values and ran for office predicated on well-defined liberal values. While I do not agree with the Kennedy’s political creed, I nevertheless respect them for having one that was intellectually developed and not bereft of foundational substance. The same cannot be said for Hillary. There is no well-developed intellectual foundation for each of Hillary’s positions, no explanation of her core beliefs and how her public service has been consistent in its advancement of those core beliefs.

Hillary is a liberal Democrat, but she has always avoided any clear articulation of her policy positions on a host of key issues. Her present run endeavors to make her out to be more of a centrist than she has been in the past. She has a very narrow group of elites advising her, but she is desperately trying to fashion herself as a populist, as every man, fully appreciative of what it is like to work a 9 to 5 job for a minimum wage. She feigns familiarity with the common struggles of those in the service industry, who work in fast food restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores, hotels and shopping malls, but her lifestyle is that of a jet setter and her society is with national and international figures.

This duplicity is rather transparent, so one wonders why she thinks the public so fickle or ignorant that it will buy into her latest remake. There is in the latest remake a rather disturbing condescension. By not projecting an image of herself that is, well, herself, and by choosing instead to feign fraternity (sorority?) with the common man, Hillary is in fact preying upon what she perceives to be the ignorance of those who receive her. In other words, she thinks the average Joe and Josephine will accept her as a populist with intimate knowledge of their needs and interests and not view her as an elitist out of touch with their daily travails.

The fact is, however, virtually every Joe and Josephine knows Hillary is not at all like them. She comes from privilege, having been First Lady and having amassed a fortune since the old days in the Arkansas Governor’s mansion with Bill. There is nothing wrong with wealth in a capitalist society, of course, unless you think (as Hillary does) that capitalist society is itself evil and that government should divide the nation based on income, redistributing it from those who have to those who have not. The Robin Hood argument (take from the rich and give to the poor) has a rather hollow ring to it when you discover that Robin Hood is as wealthy as King Richard the Lionheart. Aware of that, Hillary tones down the jewelry, eats a burger and fries, and shops at J.C. Penny’s for campaign season.

Because her campaign aims to encourage Middle Class and poor Americans to think of her as one of them, her current remake aims to cast her as a soccer mom, a kind matron from the neighborhood, a person like you, and not a rich former First Lady whose shoe collection and wardrobe is worth more than your annual salary. If she were to represent herself as she truly is, and bring out the expensive jewelry, clothes, cars, and dining preferences, she fears that the average American would have a hard time accepting that she is sincere. So, she painfully leaves the private jet and travels about the country in a van. She abandons her favorite dining preferences and pops up with small groups of every day folks, rubbing elbows, eating rubbery chicken, and trying to engage in small talk. Why shouldn’t we be disgusted with a phoney? The Kennedy approach is far better. They never denied their wealth, never gave up the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port in favor of a one bedroom condo in Spanish Harlem, never eschewed Catholicism despite public attacks. They did the hard thing. They tried to convince people that they were right. Hillary is not of that stature. She tries to persuade you that her way of thinking is like ours, that she is one of us.

She does not appreciate the dangers associated with duplicity in politics because, so far, she has gotten away with it. But for a few embarrassing moments, she has found redefinition far easier than resolute defense of core beliefs. That is not especially difficult for her, because, truth be told, she really does not think there are any immutable truths or core beliefs incapable of being modified or tweeked for political advantage.

Her willingness to remake herself again and again presents a major problem in the general election. Her campaign is likely to be one of pronounced contrasts, not with others per se but with herself. I can see opponents running split screen images of her in campaign ads, wherein on one side of the screen she makes pronouncements from moments in her long political career that conflict with her pronouncements today. The contrasts between the Hillary of yesterday and the Hillary of today will likely be numerous and profound. She cannot today praise unreservedly the politically unpopular Obamacare but she did so in the past and, indeed, she advocated an even more intrusive and oppressive version of it in the form of a single payer socialized government health care system. She cannot be the champion of Obama’s foreign policy which she as Secretary of State helped create, a foreign policy that is largely incomprehensible, because a clear majority of the American people reject that foreign policy as weak, fickle, and harmful to American interests around the world. She cannot advocate transparency in government today when she herself has kept from congressional inquiry key facts and circumstances surrounding the Benghazi tragedy and her own private/public emails. She cannot portray herself as truly compassionate, one whose every effort is that of humanitarianism, given the cavalier manner in which she rejected pleas for help from the U.S. embassy in Benghazi or the horrible mistreatment she caused the poor folks in the White House Travel Office to suffer (whom she helped vilify and falsely accuse of embezzlement to rid them) in favor of Clinton cronies who wanted the travel office job.

article at link



Chelsea Clinton's Husband Suffers Massive Hedge Fund Loss On Greek Investment

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/03/2015 23:28 -0400

Despite having Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as an investor and being Bill and Hillary Clinton's son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky (and two former colleagues from Goldman Sachs who manage Eaglevale Partners hedge fund) told investors in a letter sent last week they had been "incorrect" on Greece, helping produce losses for the firm’s main fund during two of the past three years. By 'incorrect' Chelsea Clinton's husband means the Eaglevale fund focused on Greece lost a stunning 48% last year and, as The Wall Street Journal reports, is impacting the overall returns of the roughly $400 million fund which has spent 27 of its 34 months in operation below its "high-water mark."



5 ways 2008 Hillary Clinton clashes with modern Democratic Party

By Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny, CNN
Updated 8:11 PM ET, Mon April 20, 2015

(CNN)The Democratic Party has changed since Hillary Clinton last ran for president, forcing the 2016 favorite to play catch up on a number of issues that are important to her party's liberal base.

But some of Clinton's newly outlined views are different than ones she backed during her 2008 run, causing Democratic critics to call her out for "hedging" and flip-flopping on the issues.

Here are five issues where Clinton's 2008 views are out of step with the current mood of her party.


Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama supported same-sex marriage in 2008, but Clinton has been slower than most Democrats to fall in line with the majority of her party who see same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

n 2007, Clinton argued in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, but said that the right to marriage was something that should be left to the states. She reiterated that policy last year, after four years removed from domestic politics atop the State Department, telling a National Public Radio host that same-sex marriage was "a matter left to the states."

But last week, while traveling through Iowa on her first campaign trip, a campaign aide said in a statement that Clinton now views same-sex marriage as a "constitutional right."

Clinton's personal shift on marriage mimic the way popular opinion has shifted on the issue. In 2008, according to a Gallup survey, 40% of American supported recognizing same-sex marriage, while 56% said they should not be. Those numbers had flipped by May 2014, when 55% support same-sex marriage and 42% did not.


A majority of Americans -- not just Democrats -- support legalizing marijuana. And according to Gallup, 73% of self-identified liberal Americans said it should be legal in their 2014 poll.

Clinton doesn't agree. The former secretary of state backed medical marijuana in a CNN town hall last year, but told Christiane Amanpour that she wants to "wait and see" how legalization goes in the states before making it a national decision.

Later in the year, Clinton labeled marijuana a "gateway drug" where there "can't be a total absence of law enforcement."

During her 2008 run, Clinton was for medical research into the benefits of marijuana, but not decriminalization.

"I think we should be doing medical research on this," Clinton said in October 2007. "We ought to find what are the elements that claim to be existing in marijuana that might help people who are suffering... I don't think we should decriminalize it."

This could present a problem for Clinton. Marijuana legalization provided some of the only wins for Democrats during the 2014 midterm elections and many in her party's base want to go big on the issue in 2016.

No other issue has loomed over the Clintons' relationship with liberals as much as trade has.

Much to the ire of labor leaders, former President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. Union members, though generally supportive of Clinton's presidency, see this as the moment when blue collar wages began to stagnate.

Clinton has been unclear on trade in the past. She supported NAFTA as first lady and wrote glowingly about it in her 2003 memoir "Living History."

But during her 2000 run for Senate and her 2008 run for president, Clinton began to sour on free trade and NAFTA.

"NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers," she said during a 2007 AFL-CIO forum. "Clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade."

Years after NAFTA, now liberals are activated by an even bigger trade deal in the works -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

As secretary of state, Clinton supported passage of trade pact as a tool for connecting the United States to developing nations like Vietnam. During a trip to Korea in 2011, she called for "as few barrier to trade and investment as possible."

Clinton, however, has seemingly backed away from those statements. On Friday, her spokesman put out a statement that took a wait-and-see approach on the deal, stating that Clinton will be waiting to see if the trade agreement passes a number of barriers free trade deals must meet.

article at link



Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street backers: We get it

Populist rhetoric, many say, is good politics — but doesn’t portend an assault on the rich.
By Gabriel Debenedetti, Kenneth P. Vogel and Ben White
4/15/15 7:30 PM EDT


Last edited by redrat11 : 04-21-2015 at 04:43 PM.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.