[Rushtalk] How the GOP plan to loose to Hillary

Carl Spitzer lynux at keepandbeararms.com
Fri Jul 17 10:40:39 MDT 2015

How the Republicans Plan to Lose to Hillary 

Cliff Kincaid  —   July 16, 2015  
No comments   |   Printer Friendly 



A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network,
demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic
voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary
Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36
percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush,
who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision
reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of
amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the
Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been
successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the
presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly
continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of
whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of
Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said
they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were
satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office.
Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears
that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what
matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and
traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white,
conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs
the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After
all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared
Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This
is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is
a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base,
which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that
they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico.
Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters
“crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather
jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like
McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked
Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP.
It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay
marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate
press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national
dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco
Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many
whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative
and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the
White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain
and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian
voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned
to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in
the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill
are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will
empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP
voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the
Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an
open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left”
for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged
demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create
the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on
the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky,
understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on
Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That
is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist
dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky
disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that
Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on
Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in
Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very
important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy
actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes
Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a
place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base.
Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a
supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever
existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same
gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an
active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that
Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for
Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of
Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the
left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been
“committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked
for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill
Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the
Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political
power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her
connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her
relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has
pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not
answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does
not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such
little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary
meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,”
the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in
the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing
anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with
communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague
Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the
1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association
with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was
given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating
with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to
Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for
the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament”
and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a
WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a
supporter of world government

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is
the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world
federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by
advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing
the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in
the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican
presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out.
Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a
losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20150717/8268fb70/attachment.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list