[Rushtalk] How the GOP plan to loose to Hillary
Stephen A. Frye
s.frye at verizon.net
Mon Jul 20 05:45:17 MDT 2015
Depends upon exactly what we loosen.
What a mess it might be.
But remember Archie Bell and the Drells they had a song called The
Tighten Up, might just counter act the loosening.
From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com] On
Behalf Of John A. Quayle
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:46 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List; Rushtalk
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] How the GOP plan to loose to Hillary
At 12:40 PM 7/17/2015, Carl Spitzer wrote:
"Losing" to her would be bad enough, but "loosing" to her would be
How the Republicans Plan to Lose to Hillary
Cliff Kincaid July 16, 2015
No comments | Printer Friendly
A new survey <http://huelladigital.univisionnoticias.com/the-latin-vote/>
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
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 rate.
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 Partys 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 independent.
In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied
with Barack Obamas 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
dont bat an eye in regard to Obamas 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
<https://store.amren.com/product/books/white-identity/> s book by that name
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 morenot lessaction 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. Its 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 Obamas 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
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
<http://www.aim.org/aim-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
with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.
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 toremarkable 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 <http://www.forcingchange.org/> , 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 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-ZDz89Zg0> to a WFA conference in
a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world
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
Obamas 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.
Rushtalk mailing list
Rushtalk at csdco.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk