When Barack Obama squeaked by Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination back in 2007, some conservatives sighed in relief and said, “Well at least Hillary won’t be president,” or words to that effect. Of course, when they made that kind of comment, they knew plenty about Hillary but relatively little about Obama. I wonder if conservatives would make this kind of comment today. The functional question is this: Who is worse for America, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? I know what you are thinking. Why not just ask if the reader would rather be run over by a truck or a bus? To paraphrase Hillary Clinton: What does it matter?
The reason I bring up this unwelcome topic is that even with Benghazi on her record and even with her subsequent testimony in which she insulted the grieving families of the Americans who were abandoned and killed in that God-forsaken place, Hillary is still the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president. Provided she can stay out of jail over the Benghazi tragedy—and her record of legal slipperiness is well established—the next Republican candidate for the presidency will run against Hillary Clinton. Since this is the case, it behooves all Americans to consider Hillary’s beliefs as demonstrated by her own words.
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” These may sound like the words of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao (or Barack Obama for that matter), but they are the words of Hillary Clinton. She made this socialist statement all the way back in 2004, well before Barack Obama introduced the concept of redistribution of wealth as a normal plank in the Democrat’s political platform. In other words, Hillary was leaning toward socialism even before Barack Obama took up the cause. Don’t forget, before there was Obamacare there was Hillarycare. When it comes to socialized medicine, Obama just finished what Hillary started.
In 2007, Hillary made it clear that her leftwing philosophy had not changed when she said: “We…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” By “business as usual” Hillary meant free market economics in which people pursue opportunity, accept personal responsibility, work hard to build a better life, and enjoy individual and economic freedom. What red-blooded leftist would want this type of business as usual to go on? Not Marx, not Lenin, not Stalin, not Mao, and certainly not Hillary. The “something” that Hillary claimed must be taken away from “some people” is not just money in the form of coercive taxes but freedom—the very freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.
In the same speech in 2007, Hillary also said: “We have to build a political consensus that requires people to give up a little of their own…in order to create this common ground.” Quite a statement. Let’s parse her words and see what Hillary really means. She talks about building a “political consensus” but what she really means is a voting majority. In order to pass coercive tax laws that require “people to give up a little of their own,” Hillary and her comrades on the left will need a dependable voting majority consisting of people who will be on the receiving end when wealth is redistributed. After all, what sane person is going to willingly give up what he has worked hard to earn when the recipient is someone who not only has not worked hard, but does not intend to. In fact, not only do Hillary’s fortunate recipients of other people’s money not intend to work, they don’t even think they should have to. It’s called the entitlement mentality.
Barack Obama ranks right down there among the worst of America’s presidents. He is right in there with James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and even Jimmy carter. But even so, I am afraid Hillary will be even worse, provided of course she can win the presidency. It may be hard to imagine things getting worse than they have been under Barack Obama, but I suspect Hillary could manage.