I find it curious that there aren’t more folks of the opposition bringing this subject up as well. Oh. Wait. That wouldn’t be politically correct, would it? Calling a spade a spade might get the spade angry. Calling a spade a small shovel might make the spade angry also. So, what do we call the spade? To be multicultural about it, we could say that the spade, being a small shovel, could be called a shovel. There. It is no longer what it is and it is no longer classified as being “smaller” than any other shovels.
But what of the shovels that are larger than the smaller shovel? Why should a spade be called what they are and have been? Isn’t that unfair to the large shovels? Who is watching out for the large shovels while the small shovels are now indistinguishable? Alas! I digressed.
Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled her economic vision. Should she be given the power to implement it, we can say goodbye to the prosperity and opportunity we have enjoyed since the Reagan years.
Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
Doesn’t such a society already exist elsewhere? It’s called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn’t defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?
Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
It is time to put this dying horse to sleep, Hillary. We see through your facade and find you incredibally disingenuous at best. At worse, you Hillary, are a fraud.