Straw Poll Shows Massive Rift Among Democrats

Washington, DC (TLS). The Leftist mega-website Moveon.org recently held its much-touted straw poll of its readers, and the results show a curious massive rift developing among Democratic voters.

Up until now, Hillary Clinton was viewed as the heiress-apparent to the Democratic throne, the one to whom the Left has looked for years as their ultimate redemptrix who would usher in an era in America that would replace personal freedom and free enterprise with liberal social issues as the defining values of the culture.

Obviously, the faithful are running scared, however. Hillary has faltered in two key tests in recent days. First, despite her ability to raise well over 20 million in cash during the first quarter, the real winner was Barack Hussein Obama, who not only rivaled Hillary in fund-raising ability but actually posted more individual donors than Clinton. Second, Hillary came in 5th--yes, that's right, FIFTH--in the mega-straw poll conducted by Moveon.org.

Clearly, the momentum has shifted among the Democrats to Obama.

And while most if not all Democratic operatives would downplay the significance of the behind-the-scenes turmoil this scenario has created, there is absolutely no doubt that these developments show that a massive and serious rift is developing among the Party faithful.

On the one hand you have the Democratic Party traditionalists--liberal, pragmatic, and old-school. Hillary represents this segment of the Party. Her willingness to vote FOR the invasion of Iraq when she believed it was in the country's best interests is the perfect example of this liberal pragmatism. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are part of this segment in varying degrees.

No doubt Hillary is thoroughly liberal. She is a European-styled Socialist that carries a striking disdain for American free-enterprise and has made no attempt to hide it by her statements indicating she intends to 'take that money' from large corporations and their stockholders.

On the other hand you have the Democratic Party activists--liberal, idealist, and new school. Obama represents this segment of the Party. These ideological purists believe that pragmatism is a bad thing. Thus, war must be condemned and fought against no matter what the circumstances. These are the ones who voted against the Iraqi invasion and have tended to oppose every single use of American military power since the Viet Nam War.

These idealists/activists are also very liberal, but that liberalism is never tempered with reason. Thus, this segment of the Party is apt to forge ahead with anti-war protests that denigrate our troops in harm's way overseas, strive to implement stringent restrictions on industry and business--and thus change our entire way of life--because they are convinced that mankind is single-handedly responsible for 'global warming,' and, among other initiatives, remove the citizens' right to keep and bear arms.

Obviously, the traditionalists and the idealists share much in common. They are more alike than they are different. However, the problem is that Hillary and her supporters--Bill Clinton being 'ardent supporter number one'--believe that the power of the Presidency is rightfully hers, and thus, there will be little tolerance for those who claim otherwise.

In their view, Hillary has fought long and hard to get to this point. She is within reach of attaining a lifelong dream and ambition. She has spent years, perhaps decades, laying the groundwork for a victory. Her close friend and confidante, atheist billionaire Democratic operative George Soros, has spent millions of dollars helping Hillary and her husband.

And this, in and of itself, is a major source of the developing rift. Soros is hedging his bets. With Obama surging and Hillary faltering, Soros has begun putting money into the Obama bandwagon, in addition to funds given to Hillary.

No doubt Soros' penchant for playing both sides is sitting hard with Bill and Hillary. Hillary in particular, who is known for throwing tantrums and launching into extended tirades, has no doubt fumed behind closed doors about the current state of affairs. She would probably view Soros' funding practices as a betrayal, not to mention what she thinks of those who previously had pledged full support but now seem so willing to jump ship in favor of a political novice.

Hillary's woes do not end here, however. The most recent polls show her losing in head-to-head match-ups with both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain in the general election.

The fact that Hillary has a 35-million dollar war-chest at this point is no guarantee that she will do well in the early primaries next winter. As the Moveon.org poll showed, all the money in the world can't seem to buy her first place.

Thus, things are getting really interesting out there. So stayed tuned.

This Could Happen Here

Washington, DC (TLS). Germany persecutes parents who homeschool their children. Although homeschooling is allowed in most of Europe, under heavy government regulation, Germany on the other hand requires all children under the age of 16 to attend its state-run schools.

The German regulations on education date back to Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime when the Third Reich feared that citizens may teach their children anti-government views if allowed to teach them at home.

Apparently the Nazi mindset on education is still very much alive in Germany.

And woe be unto you if your reasoning for wishing to homeschool your children has anything to do with religion!

This mindset exists in the U.S. among the Leftist elites who view European Socialism as the model for American government. At least two of these sorts are running for President--Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.

Read the full story here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200703/FOR20070330b.html

Hillary Clinton Blasts the Profit Motive

Washington, DC (TLS). A major candidate for public office recently stated the following:

"The unfettered rein of financial profit is intolerable for the general interest," she said. "You told me simple truths. You told me you wanted fewer income inequalities. You told me you wanted to tax capital more than labor. We will do that reform."

Further, the candidate proposed to tax companies in relation to what share of their profits is reinvested in equipment and jobs, and what portion is paid to shareholders.

Sound familiar? It should. Last week Senator Hilliary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, and Democrat Presidential candidate decried the profits made by the oil companies, stating that she would 'take that money and put it in a federal pool to be invested in new energy technologies,' in an obvious endorsement of government-run energy monopolies and a slap at free enterprise, the basis of which is to make a profit for shareholders.

The problem is that Senator Clinton did not say the first set of quotations beginning with, 'The unfettered reign of financial profits is intolerable for the general interest.' She certainly could have said it, for it is entirely consistent with her remarks about the oil companies.

The person who uttered those words that began this article is a French Socialist--Ségolène Royal--who is the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of France.

As the nightmarish term of Jacques Chirac draws to a close, the French seem to be willing to at least consider an unabashed Socialist for President, although recent polls show Ms. Royal trailing her closest opponent in the race. The thing that is even more nightmarish is how closely Hillary Rodham Clinton's views mirror that of the far-Left Socialist candidate for the French Presidency.

Political pundit and campaign consultant Dick Morris, who once worked closely with Hillary Clinton and refers to her as 'the most dangerous woman in America,' has stated that Hillary is a European-styled Socialist from the get-go. Despite her attempts to appear 'moderate' or to appeal to more conservative voters, Morris claims it is a fatal mistake to assume Hillary's views are anything but ultra-Leftwing. Her core values are that American free enterprise is not a good thing. The profit motive is evil (despite the fact that she herself personally benefited from good old capitalistic profit--more evidence of the elitist hypocrisy of the far-Left that maintains the ruling class doesn't have to live by the same rules they dump on everyone else).

Therefore, in Hillary's playbook, capitalism must be dismantled and replaced by a massive nanny state that gives away the freebies like Santa Claus from the cradle to the grave. The problem being, of course, that there is no such thing as a 'freebie.' What is free for one person has been paid for by someone else. And in this case, the freebies come at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Thus, if you want to see where a Hillary Clinton Presidency would take us, study France. If that's not enough to sober you up, nothing will.

To see just how closely Hillary's candidacy mirrors the French Socialist candidate, click here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/11/news/france.php