Post by Wayne Hall on Dec 5, 2017 4:47:47 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton and the Left
One of the most controversial individuals that Hillary became entangled with was Saul Alinsky, a radical organizer and author of Rules for Radicals, described as “the left-wingers’ operating manual for revolution.” On the surface some may object that I’m contradicting myself, for how could Hillary aspire to become part of the establishment while at the same time catering to radicals? But as I said earlier, don’t be swayed by smoke and mirrors. Instead, ask yourself: with whom did Hillary eventually align herself – an establishment luminary like Vernon Jordan, or Saul Alinsky, who staged a “fart-in” during a Chicago protest? And believe me, the opportunity was there, if Hillary had so desired. “Alinsky offered her [Hillary] a job after she graduated, [but] she turned him down.”
Granted, “Hillary was involved in inviting Alinsky to speak at Wellesley,” while “her undergraduate thesis was an admiring paper on radical organizer Saul Alinsky.” [By the way, “Hillary’s thesis is under lock and key on the campus of Wellesley (because her husband’s) administration unilaterally cut off public access to the senior theses of all presidents and first ladies in 1993.” How convenient, don’t you think, and so typical of Hillary’s Big Brother tactics which we’ll discuss later.]
Still, despite this youthful infatuation with Alinsky, Hillary never forged a long-term bond with him because of their fundamental differences in how power should be obtained. In regard to the System, “Alinsky had a rule for pure attack: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
Alinsky also advocated the dictum: “Make the enemy live up to their own rule book. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”
The System is corrupt, but has Hillary Clinton ever tried to significantly change it? No, she’s instead become an intimate part of this very corruption. And rather than attacking the status quo, she’s embraced it; a thought which would have mortified Alinsky.
In the same breath, Hillary (along with “Dick Morris, an Alinsky protégé and New York street organizer turned political consultant) did learn some valuable lessons from this man. The following is how Tyrrell and Davis describe Hillary’s First Rule of Politics: “In the struggle for power, tactics take precedence over principles. As Rules for Radicals puts it, “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”
Alinsky also advocated (with eerie relevance to Hillary’s political career): “Power is the very essence, the dynamo of life… It is a world not of angels, but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies are always immoral; a world where reconciliation means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.” [Note: This reminds us of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” when reading these words and her feigned moral outrage when Bill got caught committing adultery against her yet again.]
Alinsky further declared, “Power is not static; it cannot be frozen and preserved like food; it must grow or die,” which ultimately leads to what may constitute the very essence of Hillary Rodham’s being:
Hillary’s Third Rule: The continuous struggle to win brings meaning to one’s life. Again, the locus classicus is found in Rules for Radicals: “Knowing that the mountain has no top, that it is a perpetual quest from plateau to plateau, the question arises, ‘why the struggle, the conflict, the heartbreak, the danger, the sacrifice? Why the constant climb?”
Is there any passage which could better describe not only the Sisyphean struggle that Hillary has undertaken over the past three-plus decades, but also her insatiable, cancer-like hunger for power which has laid not only countless careers (and lives) of others by the wayside like twisted wreckage but also decimated her own life and that of her family? Imagine the various scandals and humiliations Hillary has endured over the decades, beginning right from the start in Arkansas (a state which she despised). Why did she do it and why does she continue? An answer is forthcoming later in this book. But for now, please remember that even though Hillary didn’t accept Saul Alinsky’s against-the-grain philosophy, she did put much of it to political use during her career.
The final “radical” element in this section that must be addressed was Hillary’s association with the Black Panthers and especially a man named Robert Treuhaft, who “dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.” But prior to delving into this subject, it should be noted that by the time Hillary “spent the summer of 1971 as an intern in Treuhaft’s law office in Berkeley,” she had already been recruited into the CIA. Thus, did she travel to northern California because she so dutifully believed in the Panther/Communist cause, or was it to perform surveillance on these individuals? The answer will become apparent later in this chapter.
Ask yourself: would Hillary Rodham stake her entire political future on entities as tainted, taboo and marginalized as the Black Panthers and someone labeled by the House Un-American Affairs Committee as “among the thirty-nine most dangerously subversive lawyers in the country,” especially when the 60s were already kaput? [John Lennon officially put the R.I.P. stamp on the 1960s when he sang ‘The Dream is Over’ in 1970.] Flower power was dead and gone. Why would Hillary throw her entire career away over a failed pipedream? Considering how strategic, practical and cunning she is, the thought is inconceivable; and those who say otherwise are either severely myopic or they’re deliberately leading you down a dead-end road.
A more accurate description of events is that Hillary, after infiltrating and containing the anti-war movement at Yale for the CIA, was “repositioned” (so to speak) to do the same to one of the last fringe revolutionary groups still existing in America. Remember: the 1970 Kent State Massacre officially ended student mobilization in America. Now all that remained were splintered factions like the Panthers or Weather Underground.
Would Hillary stake her neck and future political aspirations on a group that was doomed to failure? Not a chance. She wanted to side with the victors! Granted, “By the winter of 1970, Hillary had been named associate editor of the Review. Most of that issue was devoted to the Black Panther trial. In this publication, “rifle-toting pigs, representing the police, [are] thinking: Niggers, niggers, niggers.”
If Hillary’s true motivation was to overthrow the System, the establishment would have washed their hands of her in a millisecond. Conversely, if she was put in place in an “official capacity” to observe and report back to her CIA handlers, then the matter takes on an entirely different complexion. On the other hand, both “Treuhaft and his wife, Jessica Mitford, were avowed communists, and Treuhaft for years served as the attorney for the Communist Party, USA.” Coincidentally, “Hillary’s involvement with the firm [Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein] wasn’t made public until San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen mentioned it in a column shortly after Clinton was elected president in 1992.” Consider: do these actions sound like they would originate from an avidly career-minded opportunist like Hillary Rodham, or simply a CIA cover job that had been revealed years after the fact?
Tellingly, when Hillary and Jessica Mitford crossed paths again in 1980 while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, the subject was seemingly a “liberal” cause celebre – the death penalty. But after corresponding with Hillary, then flying to Little Rock, “the visit ended on a sour note” when Mitford described Bill Clinton as being “too preoccupied with his own ambitions to care about prison reform.” Yes, when push came to shove, the Clintons always sided with the establishment and placed their own advancement above and before any other ‘cause’ or fringe affiliation.
So, by the early 1970s, Hillary Rodham, had clearly set her path in life, and it most certainly was not allied in any way, shape or form with faltering revolutionary groups like the Black Panthers or obscure communist lawyers in Berkeley. No, Hillary Rodham was then, and continues to be today, the dynamic force in her relationship with Bill Clinton; and if selling out the peace movement or Black Panthers for the CIA was part of the Faustian deal that had been made to get ahead (or being a Watergate snoop a year or two later), then Hillary was more than willing to sign her name on the dotted line. Tragically, although Hillary’s star was most certainly on the rise during those turbulent times in the late 60s and early 70s, she also became enslaved (maybe or so than any other political figure in history) to the Beast to which she had sold her soul.
From “Hillary (and Bill): The Sex Volume” (Part One of the Clinton Trilogy) by Victor Thorn (American Free Press, 2008) (pp.60-64)
One of the most controversial individuals that Hillary became entangled with was Saul Alinsky, a radical organizer and author of Rules for Radicals, described as “the left-wingers’ operating manual for revolution.” On the surface some may object that I’m contradicting myself, for how could Hillary aspire to become part of the establishment while at the same time catering to radicals? But as I said earlier, don’t be swayed by smoke and mirrors. Instead, ask yourself: with whom did Hillary eventually align herself – an establishment luminary like Vernon Jordan, or Saul Alinsky, who staged a “fart-in” during a Chicago protest? And believe me, the opportunity was there, if Hillary had so desired. “Alinsky offered her [Hillary] a job after she graduated, [but] she turned him down.”
Granted, “Hillary was involved in inviting Alinsky to speak at Wellesley,” while “her undergraduate thesis was an admiring paper on radical organizer Saul Alinsky.” [By the way, “Hillary’s thesis is under lock and key on the campus of Wellesley (because her husband’s) administration unilaterally cut off public access to the senior theses of all presidents and first ladies in 1993.” How convenient, don’t you think, and so typical of Hillary’s Big Brother tactics which we’ll discuss later.]
Still, despite this youthful infatuation with Alinsky, Hillary never forged a long-term bond with him because of their fundamental differences in how power should be obtained. In regard to the System, “Alinsky had a rule for pure attack: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
Alinsky also advocated the dictum: “Make the enemy live up to their own rule book. You can kill them with this, for they can no more live up to their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.”
The System is corrupt, but has Hillary Clinton ever tried to significantly change it? No, she’s instead become an intimate part of this very corruption. And rather than attacking the status quo, she’s embraced it; a thought which would have mortified Alinsky.
In the same breath, Hillary (along with “Dick Morris, an Alinsky protégé and New York street organizer turned political consultant) did learn some valuable lessons from this man. The following is how Tyrrell and Davis describe Hillary’s First Rule of Politics: “In the struggle for power, tactics take precedence over principles. As Rules for Radicals puts it, “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”
Alinsky also advocated (with eerie relevance to Hillary’s political career): “Power is the very essence, the dynamo of life… It is a world not of angels, but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies are always immoral; a world where reconciliation means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.” [Note: This reminds us of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” when reading these words and her feigned moral outrage when Bill got caught committing adultery against her yet again.]
Alinsky further declared, “Power is not static; it cannot be frozen and preserved like food; it must grow or die,” which ultimately leads to what may constitute the very essence of Hillary Rodham’s being:
Hillary’s Third Rule: The continuous struggle to win brings meaning to one’s life. Again, the locus classicus is found in Rules for Radicals: “Knowing that the mountain has no top, that it is a perpetual quest from plateau to plateau, the question arises, ‘why the struggle, the conflict, the heartbreak, the danger, the sacrifice? Why the constant climb?”
Is there any passage which could better describe not only the Sisyphean struggle that Hillary has undertaken over the past three-plus decades, but also her insatiable, cancer-like hunger for power which has laid not only countless careers (and lives) of others by the wayside like twisted wreckage but also decimated her own life and that of her family? Imagine the various scandals and humiliations Hillary has endured over the decades, beginning right from the start in Arkansas (a state which she despised). Why did she do it and why does she continue? An answer is forthcoming later in this book. But for now, please remember that even though Hillary didn’t accept Saul Alinsky’s against-the-grain philosophy, she did put much of it to political use during her career.
The final “radical” element in this section that must be addressed was Hillary’s association with the Black Panthers and especially a man named Robert Treuhaft, who “dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.” But prior to delving into this subject, it should be noted that by the time Hillary “spent the summer of 1971 as an intern in Treuhaft’s law office in Berkeley,” she had already been recruited into the CIA. Thus, did she travel to northern California because she so dutifully believed in the Panther/Communist cause, or was it to perform surveillance on these individuals? The answer will become apparent later in this chapter.
Ask yourself: would Hillary Rodham stake her entire political future on entities as tainted, taboo and marginalized as the Black Panthers and someone labeled by the House Un-American Affairs Committee as “among the thirty-nine most dangerously subversive lawyers in the country,” especially when the 60s were already kaput? [John Lennon officially put the R.I.P. stamp on the 1960s when he sang ‘The Dream is Over’ in 1970.] Flower power was dead and gone. Why would Hillary throw her entire career away over a failed pipedream? Considering how strategic, practical and cunning she is, the thought is inconceivable; and those who say otherwise are either severely myopic or they’re deliberately leading you down a dead-end road.
A more accurate description of events is that Hillary, after infiltrating and containing the anti-war movement at Yale for the CIA, was “repositioned” (so to speak) to do the same to one of the last fringe revolutionary groups still existing in America. Remember: the 1970 Kent State Massacre officially ended student mobilization in America. Now all that remained were splintered factions like the Panthers or Weather Underground.
Would Hillary stake her neck and future political aspirations on a group that was doomed to failure? Not a chance. She wanted to side with the victors! Granted, “By the winter of 1970, Hillary had been named associate editor of the Review. Most of that issue was devoted to the Black Panther trial. In this publication, “rifle-toting pigs, representing the police, [are] thinking: Niggers, niggers, niggers.”
If Hillary’s true motivation was to overthrow the System, the establishment would have washed their hands of her in a millisecond. Conversely, if she was put in place in an “official capacity” to observe and report back to her CIA handlers, then the matter takes on an entirely different complexion. On the other hand, both “Treuhaft and his wife, Jessica Mitford, were avowed communists, and Treuhaft for years served as the attorney for the Communist Party, USA.” Coincidentally, “Hillary’s involvement with the firm [Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein] wasn’t made public until San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen mentioned it in a column shortly after Clinton was elected president in 1992.” Consider: do these actions sound like they would originate from an avidly career-minded opportunist like Hillary Rodham, or simply a CIA cover job that had been revealed years after the fact?
Tellingly, when Hillary and Jessica Mitford crossed paths again in 1980 while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, the subject was seemingly a “liberal” cause celebre – the death penalty. But after corresponding with Hillary, then flying to Little Rock, “the visit ended on a sour note” when Mitford described Bill Clinton as being “too preoccupied with his own ambitions to care about prison reform.” Yes, when push came to shove, the Clintons always sided with the establishment and placed their own advancement above and before any other ‘cause’ or fringe affiliation.
So, by the early 1970s, Hillary Rodham, had clearly set her path in life, and it most certainly was not allied in any way, shape or form with faltering revolutionary groups like the Black Panthers or obscure communist lawyers in Berkeley. No, Hillary Rodham was then, and continues to be today, the dynamic force in her relationship with Bill Clinton; and if selling out the peace movement or Black Panthers for the CIA was part of the Faustian deal that had been made to get ahead (or being a Watergate snoop a year or two later), then Hillary was more than willing to sign her name on the dotted line. Tragically, although Hillary’s star was most certainly on the rise during those turbulent times in the late 60s and early 70s, she also became enslaved (maybe or so than any other political figure in history) to the Beast to which she had sold her soul.
From “Hillary (and Bill): The Sex Volume” (Part One of the Clinton Trilogy) by Victor Thorn (American Free Press, 2008) (pp.60-64)