Anyone Notice Hillary Is Selling Socialism?

Despite being the clear candidate of Wall Street, Clinton peddles rhetoric borrowed from Sanders in general election

Judge Jeanine Pirro, in a recent Fox News vent about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton concluded with this interesting warning to voters: “She’s gaming you, folks.”

Well, that’s true — but in ways that go deeper than they appear. Clinton may carry baggage from Benghazi, she may be plagued by scandals from her email server, she may have pay-for-play allegations nipping at the Clinton Foundation’s heels — she may, as Pirro noted, be married to a husband with a lecherous past she’s been accused of covering. But the real reason why America shouldn’t vote for Clinton is because she’s a socialist at heart, and unlike Sen. Bernie Sanders, who waves that banner while boldly proclaiming association and affiliation with democratic socialists, she masks her love of government take over of all things free-market under a cloak of populism and progressivism.

This is how [Clinton] envisions herself — as the conductor of the country, playing her socialist song to an audience of voters who’ve been captivated by the lyrics of “fairness” and lulled by a message of equality.

In other words: She’s gaming you, folks.

Just look at her disguised calls for socialism, starting with her presidential face-off against Donald Trump on Sept. 26, where her main theme, in a word, seemed to be  “fairness.” She swept through her mantra of platforms with short thrusts and parries at Trump’s comparative wealth and wealthy upbringing by telling a tale of middle-class youth with a cloth manufacturing father before transitioning into a call for “fair” trade, then for a “fair” tax system, then for “fair” growth.

“I want to raise taxes on the wealthy,” she said at one point. “We need fairness.”

[lz_jwplayer video=hvHHpG1X]

Fast-forward a week or so to Toledo, Ohio, where Clinton delivered more of the same, characterizing this election as a chance to “level the playing field” for all Americans.

Among her remarks?

“Corporations that benefit from everything that America has to offer should feel some sense of responsibility, not just to their biggest shareholders, but to their workers, to their customers, to their communities, and yes, to our country, to the United States of America,” she said.

And this: “Our goal is to make it easier for everyone to do better.”

And this, a vow for her administration, if elected: “Wall Street [will] start paying their fair share of taxes.”

While concluding, Clinton even promised a “new strategy for employees” who aren’t schooled or trained in the collective bargaining and unionizing processes — an as-yet unexplained strategy that nonetheless seems aimed at strengthening unions while diminishing states’ rights, the private sector, the concept of the free market, and individual choice.

“Right-to-work is wrong for workers and wrong for America,” she said.

Go back a few weeks and the headlines following Clinton’s campaign read similarly.

National Review in early August published a piece under the umbrella of “Hillary Clinton — Socialism & Transforming America,” that spoke volumes on the candidate’s “frightening speech,” as writer Dennis Prager put it. The Washington Times in July opined about “Hillary Clinton’s socialist makeover complete.” And Fox News reported in January how “Clinton struggles to explain difference between Socialist, Democrat.”

But are voters disturbed? Polls show — maybe not.

The concept of “fair” is tough to define — and that’s what makes the free market so genius, because it allows an honest appraisal absent special interest tinkering to decide such matters as “fair” price, “fair” deal, “fair” trade, “fair” salary, “fair” employee benefits, and so forth. But Clinton’s use of the word comes from her belief in the greatness of government, and her vow to use her government powers to impose fairness.

Sadly, the only way government can do that, at root, is by taking from one and giving to another.

But Clinton sells this vision of fairness masked in a form of left-wing populism borrowed from Sanders — by making enemies out of the true victims of theft, whom she defines as the perpetrators, and heroes out of the recipients.

[lz_related_box id=”217782″]

In Clinton’s world, business, big and small, is bad because it gets tax breaks designed to spur growth; private enterprise is unfair because unskilled laborers are paid lower rates than the bosses; and even innovation and entrepreneurial development is suspect because if it weren’t for the working class — the day laborer, the migrant, the uneducated, and under-educated — nothing could be produced.

That logic is killing off American ingenuity.

Why? In Clinton’s world, there’s no such thing as individual accomplishment. There is only the collective, with a success or failure rate that depends on all working toward the same. But every group needs a leader; every orchestra needs a director.

This is where Clinton comes in — this is how she envisions herself — as the conductor of the country, playing her socialist song to an audience of voters who’ve been captivated by the lyrics of “fairness” and lulled by a message of equality.

Snap out of it, America. When government holds such reins, it’s not compassion, but control — in a word, socialism. Remember the Constitution; recall the founders who fought. In America, rights come from God. They’re not bestowed, determined, or defined by government.