Numerous readers of the Monster are not going to like what I have to say, and after all the research I have done on these two, I do not have any doubt that my theory would hold water.

We have been played folks; we have been played by the ultimate good cop/bad cop duo, and I have to give credit where it is due; these two gave a performance worthy of an Academy Award.

I know, I know….I’m going to be pissing off even more PUMAs by what follows, but at some point the PUMAs need to realize that the Democratic Party, (which Hillary never left), has left them behind, and they are destined to become a marginalized fringe group if they do not start facing the awful truth that Hillary, The One, and the DNC were in this together from the start, and the plan was just adjusted as they went along. This has always been about putting Senator Clinton where she could further her agenda; the Presidency or the SOS.  The DNC was not stabbing her in the back; I theorize they were following her orders.  How else could she and her campaign staff just make the mental and emotional shift we saw to supporting The One so passionately after she continually said that The One was not qualified and that she would fight to the end for us?

Look at Hillary’s actions since the end of the primaries with her performances at the convention, and the over-the-top campaigning and fundraising.  Look at the DNC’s decision to not give sanctions to Florida and Michigan for their early primaries.  Look at The One NOT paying off her debt while he is rolling in cash.  It all leads me to believe that Madame Secretary has always been in charge of her agenda, and that agenda is about global socialism.

Take a huge emotional step back and look at the past year logically.  This whole election cycle was staged to place The One in the White House, (because you know you feel better about making history with the first black president), and putting Hillary where she could further her real agenda.  The DNC knew that Americans, (not just Dems), would vote for a black man before they would vote for a Clinton.  All the emotional seesawing that we have seen has been to make The One look even better with each passing day.  If The One could beat a Clinton, he must have it going on.  She beat the hell out of him to give him street cred, all the time knowing that this was the eventual outcome, and don’t you feel better that she isn’t being passed over again?  Isn’t this a fantastic way of getting the rest of the PUMAs on board the unity pony because of your faith in her, and now The One by association? I know the stock market reacted very favorably to the announcement today.  I could almost here them saying “Finally, somebody who knows what the **** is going on.”  Do not be fooled by the MSM, the markets uptick today had nothing to do with The One’s Treasury pick.   This all has the look and feel of more psychological warfare.

Look at all the unanswered questionable actions we saw over the last year.  We saw Nancy Pelosi changing her mind about who the superdelegates should back almost as much as she changes her mind about what is on or off the table.  We saw the RBC break the trust with voters.  We saw the MSM treating Senator Clinton in the most demeaning and misogynistic terms, and The One being treated like the Messiah.  All of these situations created a rollercoaster, fever pitch of emotion with the outcome being more and more free publicity for The One, with barely a nod from the also ran Republicans.   I have heard over and over again that this election cycle was like none ever seen, and now The One is filling his cabinet with Clintonistas; Change You Can Believe In?  I know the “Left” is already grumbling; I do believe the roar is going to be deafening sooner than later.

I ask you to open your minds, follow my line of reasoning, and see if you agree, but you must suspend your hero worship of Hillary Clinton for any of it to make sense.  Let’s go back to Occam’s Razor:

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”

The simplest answer to the question of why would Senator Clinton give up her Senate seat where she could make a bigger impact on her expert issue, universal health care, and become the Secretary of State is because she agrees with The One, or is it the other way around; The One agrees with her?  Who has been studying Alinsky’s methods longer?  Which one has been the protege of the other?

What follows is information from Senator Clinton’s profile at DiscoverTheNetworks:

Hillary Rodham grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, a solidly Republican suburb of Chicago. In 1964 she supported Republican conservative Barry Goldwater for U.S. President. The following year, she enrolled at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, where her political views would undergo a radical transformation.

Rodham was deeply influenced by a 1966 article titled “Change or Containment” that appeared in Motive, a magazine for college-age Methodists. Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence. Its thesis was that “certain cultural settings” (most notably American capitalism) were inherently inequitable and oppressive, and thus caused people to feel “pain and rage” that sometimes erupted into violence — like that of “the rioters in Watts or Harlem” — which was “reactive and provoked” rather than evil or malicious. Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweek reporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.[1]

Following the June 1968 assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, Hillary Rodham ended her affiliation with the Wellesley campus Young Republicans and volunteered in New Hampshire to work on the presidential campaign of antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy. When McCarthy later dropped out of the Democratic primary, Hillary threw her support behind the Party’s eventual nominee, Hubert Humphrey. From that point forward, wrote Barbara Olson in her 1999 book Hell to Pay, “Republicans were the enemy and the enemy was allied with evil — the evils of war, racism, sexism, and poverty.”[2]

While attending Wellesley, Hillary Rodham participated in a number of antiwar marches in the Boston area.

In 1969 she wrote her 92-page senior thesis on the theories of radical Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals (1971) and Reveille for Radicals (1947). A great admirer of Alinsky’s ruthless activist tactics, Hillary personally interviewed the famed author for her project. She concluded her thesis by stating: “Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs [the five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President] or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”

Hillary would maintain her allegiance to Alinsky’s teachings throughout her adult life. According to a March 2007 Washington Post report, “As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.”

Ultimately, Hillary’s investigation of Alinsky’s methods and ideals led her to conclude that the Lyndon Johnson-era federal antipoverty programs did not go far enough in redistributing wealth among the American people, and did not give sufficient power to the poor.

When Hillary graduated from Wellesley in 1969, she was offered a job with Alinsky’s new training institute in Chicago. She opted instead to enroll at Yale Law School.

In May 2007, Clinton outlined an economic vision of “shared prosperity” that would focus on the redistribution of wealth by raising the incomes of, and benefits for, lower earners. She lamented the “economic policy dynamics [that] are generating rising income inequality,” and expressed her desire to make “corporations pay their fair share of taxes.” She did not note that corporate taxes in the U.S. are already among the highest for OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. Moreover, her claim that “the percentage of taxes paid by corporations have fallen” was incorrect. In fact, the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was 11.5 percent in 2006, considerably higher than the 8.2 percent figure for 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Also in May 2007, Senator Clinton declared that she deemed it vital to replace the conservative notion of an “ownership society” with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity. She lamented that the contemporary American economy leaves “it all up to the individual” in “the ‘on your own’ society” that increases the income gap between the “rich” and the “poor.” Though Mrs. Clinton depicted the American middle class as a shrinking entity, Democratic economist Stephen Rose notes (in his 2007 book, Social Stratification in the United States) that once people outside their prime working years – i.e., the elderly and the young — are excluded from the equation, the median income of American families is approximately $63,000.

Mrs. Clinton has close ties to the billionaire financier George Soros and his so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or Shadow Party. This term refers to a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks that actively campaign for the Democrats and leftist causes. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic Party left.

Like Media Matters, Hillary Clinton supports the re-establishment of the so-called Fairness Doctrine (which was repealed by Congress in 1987), just as she did during her years as First Lady. This Doctrine would dilute, restrict, or limit the message of influential conservative broadcasters and, consequently, influence the thinking and the voting decisions of the American people.

David Horowitz has provided the following incisive analysis of Hillary Clinton’s broad agendas and the tactics she employs in pursuit of them:

“It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one’s agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. … New Left progressives [such as] Hillary Clinton … [share the] intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them … For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal — ‘social justice’ — is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. ‘Social Justice’ for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself. … In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which ‘social justice’ prevails. … In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them. … The focus of Hillary Clinton’s ambition … is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one.”

Senator Clinton and The One’s socialist thinking is one and the same, with the added benefit that Senator Clinton has been around the block a few times and she has the power, connections, network and global thinking that The One does not possess.  Is it any wonder she wanted to be Secretary of State instead of VP?  Will American do better with a globally minded socialist as our emissary to the world?  What price will we have to pay for their agenda?  If you thought Bush’s policies screwed up the economy, you really need to do your research.  The Community Reinvestment Act enabled Fannie and Freddie to create the housing market collapse, and the resulting economic collapse.  The changes in the CRA were brought to you by the Clinton administration.  The liberal left wing of the Democratic Party is trying to turn our Capitalist Free Market America on a dime into a Socialist EU state, and now with The One as President, Senator Clinton as SOS, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, it may just happen.

We have not seen anything yet….

Further Thought (11/23/08): Take a moment each time an event, an action or a person is announced that has something to do with The One’s transition and presidency and run the event through the lens of this theory and see if it continues to track.  Former President Bill Clinton receiving an appointment with global effects would be the next event I am expecting.  Also, HRC being able to pick the foreign advisory team tracks with the theory.

Bad Behavior has blocked 3229 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: