gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 10
Hillary Clinton mouths an old communist bromide.
[QUOTE[
Elliott Abrams
At the height of the Cold War, when Ronald Reagan was president, the Soviets and their allies and satellites did not shirk human-rights debates with the West. They had their arguments ready. When American officials denounced the lack of freedom of speech or press or religion, or the absence of free elections, they did not whimper. Their replies went something like this: Its important to look at human rights more broadly than it has been defined. Human rights are also the right to a good job and shelter over your head and a chance to send your kids to school and get health care when your wife is pregnant. Its a much broader agenda. Too often it has gotten narrowed to our detriment.
No one would be surprised to hear that such words were spoken by Mikhail Suslov, the long-time ideological chief of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, or by Khrushchev or Brezhnev, or by Castro or Ceaucescu, or by any other chieftain from the socialist countries. But that quote actually comes from Secretary of State Clinton, in an interview this month with the Wall Street Journal. It is an astonishing revival of the old Soviet line.
Why is Mrs. Clinton repeating these old Soviet bromides? In all probability she has little idea what she is doing; she might even fire a few underlings if she found out whose old lines are being put in her mouth (one sure hopes so!). She is probably ignorant of the long effort the West undertook to undermine such positions. Back in the 1980s, when I served in the Reagan State Department, we spent a good deal of time countering such nonsense. For one thing, even taken on its own terms, the argument was ridiculous: The socialist camp did a wretched job of providing social goods such as jobs and housing and medical care. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the poor living conditions in the East became even more evident, and the Russian situation remains catastrophic to this day.
..................................But of course we did not take their argument on its own terms. We told the Communist officials that those arguments were offensive and baseless. No country is too poor to be free, as India was proving even back then, but many are too poor to provide adequate jobs, housing, hospitals, and the like.
.............................Nor is she alone: Dictators as well have taken to reviving the old Soviet line. Just before his visit to Washington, Egypts President Mubarak did an interview with Charlie Rose, who raised the issue of human rights (tepidly, it must be said). Mubarak was ready for him, having apparently opened the old Soviet textbooks Egypt used to have before Sadat broke with Russia. Look, please, Mubarak replied. Your concept of human rights is a merely political one. Human rights are not only political. You have social rights. You have the right to education. You have the right to health. You have the right to a job. There are many other rights.
....................It is another signal of the abandonment of the cause of human rights by the Obama administration. And its a new stage: Not only are human rights being ignored by the State Department and the National Security Council, but now the very basis ideological and intellectual of Americas support for human rights is being undermined.
[/QUOTE]
Elliott Abrams served as assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Reagan administration and as deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy in the George W. Bush administration.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College entitled There Is Only The Fight : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.
The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky. Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis. The work then went unnoticed until Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the White House as First Lady. Clinton researchers and political opponents sought out the thesis, thinking it contained evidence that Rodham had held strong radical or socialist views.
In early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley not release the thesis to anyone. Wellesley complied, instituting a new rule that closed access to the thesis of any sitting U.S. president or first lady, a rule that in practice applied only to Rodham.
Clinton critics and several biographers seized upon this action as a sure sign that the thesis held politically explosive contents that would reveal her radicalism or extremism.
Hostile Clinton biographer Barbara Olson (note, I read that biography and it wasn't very hostile, although it included items that weren't complimentory, it could have included much more detrimental material)gs
wrote in 1999 that Clinton does not want the American people to know the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.
In her 2003 memoirs, Clinton mentioned the thesis only briefly, saying she had agreed with some of Alinskys ideas, but hadnt agreed with his belief that it was impossible to change the system from inside.
Remind anyone of Obama??
A true Woodrow Wilson Progressive, eugenics and all. Hitlary's sad perverted view of the world is so tainted by her bitter defeats at the hands of the men she propped up. She only gives a crap about having real power and she is coming to the realization that she will never get her hands on it.
No one can hear her speak but think of the old lament, Balls cried the queen, If I had em Id be king.
Everything about socialism is sham and affectation - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850 Economic Harmonies
[QUOTE[
Elliott Abrams
At the height of the Cold War, when Ronald Reagan was president, the Soviets and their allies and satellites did not shirk human-rights debates with the West. They had their arguments ready. When American officials denounced the lack of freedom of speech or press or religion, or the absence of free elections, they did not whimper. Their replies went something like this: Its important to look at human rights more broadly than it has been defined. Human rights are also the right to a good job and shelter over your head and a chance to send your kids to school and get health care when your wife is pregnant. Its a much broader agenda. Too often it has gotten narrowed to our detriment.
No one would be surprised to hear that such words were spoken by Mikhail Suslov, the long-time ideological chief of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, or by Khrushchev or Brezhnev, or by Castro or Ceaucescu, or by any other chieftain from the socialist countries. But that quote actually comes from Secretary of State Clinton, in an interview this month with the Wall Street Journal. It is an astonishing revival of the old Soviet line.
Why is Mrs. Clinton repeating these old Soviet bromides? In all probability she has little idea what she is doing; she might even fire a few underlings if she found out whose old lines are being put in her mouth (one sure hopes so!). She is probably ignorant of the long effort the West undertook to undermine such positions. Back in the 1980s, when I served in the Reagan State Department, we spent a good deal of time countering such nonsense. For one thing, even taken on its own terms, the argument was ridiculous: The socialist camp did a wretched job of providing social goods such as jobs and housing and medical care. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the poor living conditions in the East became even more evident, and the Russian situation remains catastrophic to this day.
..................................But of course we did not take their argument on its own terms. We told the Communist officials that those arguments were offensive and baseless. No country is too poor to be free, as India was proving even back then, but many are too poor to provide adequate jobs, housing, hospitals, and the like.
.............................Nor is she alone: Dictators as well have taken to reviving the old Soviet line. Just before his visit to Washington, Egypts President Mubarak did an interview with Charlie Rose, who raised the issue of human rights (tepidly, it must be said). Mubarak was ready for him, having apparently opened the old Soviet textbooks Egypt used to have before Sadat broke with Russia. Look, please, Mubarak replied. Your concept of human rights is a merely political one. Human rights are not only political. You have social rights. You have the right to education. You have the right to health. You have the right to a job. There are many other rights.
....................It is another signal of the abandonment of the cause of human rights by the Obama administration. And its a new stage: Not only are human rights being ignored by the State Department and the National Security Council, but now the very basis ideological and intellectual of Americas support for human rights is being undermined.
[/QUOTE]
Elliott Abrams served as assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Reagan administration and as deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy in the George W. Bush administration.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College entitled There Is Only The Fight : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.
The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky. Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis. The work then went unnoticed until Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the White House as First Lady. Clinton researchers and political opponents sought out the thesis, thinking it contained evidence that Rodham had held strong radical or socialist views.
In early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley not release the thesis to anyone. Wellesley complied, instituting a new rule that closed access to the thesis of any sitting U.S. president or first lady, a rule that in practice applied only to Rodham.
Clinton critics and several biographers seized upon this action as a sure sign that the thesis held politically explosive contents that would reveal her radicalism or extremism.
Hostile Clinton biographer Barbara Olson (note, I read that biography and it wasn't very hostile, although it included items that weren't complimentory, it could have included much more detrimental material)gs
wrote in 1999 that Clinton does not want the American people to know the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.
In her 2003 memoirs, Clinton mentioned the thesis only briefly, saying she had agreed with some of Alinskys ideas, but hadnt agreed with his belief that it was impossible to change the system from inside.
Remind anyone of Obama??
A true Woodrow Wilson Progressive, eugenics and all. Hitlary's sad perverted view of the world is so tainted by her bitter defeats at the hands of the men she propped up. She only gives a crap about having real power and she is coming to the realization that she will never get her hands on it.
No one can hear her speak but think of the old lament, Balls cried the queen, If I had em Id be king.
Everything about socialism is sham and affectation - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850 Economic Harmonies
ost-4-1090547912: