The Problem with Hillary and Bernie

Brion McClanahan
|
Posted: Mar 01, 2016 12:01 AM
The Problem with Hillary and Bernie

President Hillary Clinton or President Bernie Sanders would screw up America.

Bank on it.

Some might be inclined to say it couldn’t get worse than Obama. It could, and it will if the Clinton machine reoccupies the executive mansion.

It would be like having the Cosa Nostra at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but with one difference. Those guys knew how to run a business.

Clinton would not screw up America because of her policies. They are horrible. Clinton would screw up America because she would gladly wield executive power in the way the founding generation feared most, as an elected monarch.

Just have a look at some of the “Issues” statements on her website:

“Hillary would rapidly ramp up our investment [in Alzheimer’s research] to $2 billion….” Unconstitutional.

“Hillary will appoint a top-flight team to oversee this initiative and will consult regularly with leading researchers to ensure progress toward ending Alzheimer’s….” Unconstitutional.

“Under Hillary’s plan, Medicare will cover comprehensive Alzheimer’s care-planning sessions, as well as the cost of properly documenting every diagnosis and care plan….” Unconstitutional.

“Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she’ll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders….” Unconstitutional.

“Hillary will ensure that every campus offers survivors the support they need—no matter their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or race. Those services—from counseling to critical health care—should be confidential, comprehensive, and coordinated....” Unconstitutional, but we know Hillary and Bill Clinton support the “confidential.” After all, she has always “tried” to tell the truth.

“Hillary has a comprehensive plan for making existing energy infrastructure cleaner and safer, unlocking new investment, and forging a climate compact with Canada and Mexico to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate clean energy deployment across the continent….” Unconstitutional.

This exercise could last for several pages. It has. Her website contains these gems along with dozens of other illegal and unconstitutional policy statements. And she openly admits, when Congress won’t act, she will. Where have we heard that before? Right, from other presidents who screwed up America, like Franklin Roosevelt.

Clinton is indicative of a larger problem in American political history, more of a symptom of the disease than the disease itself. The American executive branch has been moving along this trajectory for the last 150 years, but the last twenty-eight have been a perfect storm in how a president can use and abuse power at the expense of American liberty and the Constitution.

Like her predecessors, Clinton would take an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” She might as well take an oath to keep Bill from chasing interns.

If Americans are truly interested in a naked abuse of power, then the Clintons are your people.

And for those who think a President Sanders would be any better, I have two words for you: Fidel Castro.

“He educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society,” Sanders told a Vermont television program in 1985. Transformed society is correct…through firing squads. Viva la Cuba! We may not have those in America, even under a President Sanders, but the cultural Marxists would do their best to silence opposition. The recent wave of neo-political correctness on college campuses and in American political discourse is a fine example of this Orwellian totalitarianism.

Both President Clinton and President Sanders would unconstitutionally usurp legislative authority from Congress by using executive orders to legislate from the Oval Office. If anyone in the founding generation thought this was possible, they never would have ratified the Constitution, nor would the document have made it out of Philadelphia in September 1787.

Sanders, of course, champions the “softer side” of socialism. Sears tried this marketing tool in the 1990s. It didn’t work. People wanted to buy appliances and tools, not undergarments.

Unfortunately, the “softer side” of socialism seems to be catching on with younger Americans. Many American youth, in fact, have accepted the socialist moniker. I noticed this several years ago when the progressive Left stopped running from the term, at least those who frequented hard left websites. Sanders has tapped into this radical element and made it hip, but like Sears shoppers, his supporters will be left wanting more; Even if President Sanders tramples over any remaining shred of the Constitution—which he will do—the Left will still cry for more because they will only be satisfied by rampant unconstitutional government at the expense of American liberty, and Sanders would not be able to completely deliver. See Barack Obama.

Those who fear a President Donald Trump should he get the nomination must consider the alternative. Trump may not move the ball back to an original interpretation of the Constitution—none of the mainstream candidates would—but he would not continue the radical transformation of American society.

The same cannot be said for Clinton or Sanders.