WHY HILLARY WILL NOT WIN

Not since the Days of Karl Marx and his friend Engels, when they published the Communist Manifesto in 1847, has there been such interest in "common good" from people running for the Presidency of the United States.

Senator Clinton, Barrack Obama and John Edwards all have made some Socialistic/Communist pronouncements in the name of "common good" as things they will do if elected.

But a study of Hillary Clintons advocacy positions in her campaign for the White House show an alarming similarity of her promises to those written in the Communist Manifesto.

Both Engels and Marx agreed that for the "proletariat to attain dominance over the Capitalistic system, "there must be first the destruction and replacement of individual rights through defined systems of taxation and the destruction of individual property rights.
To accomplish this they advocated the following :
"Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance of property, through abolishment of inheritence tax exemptions.
Transforming the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage -- the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
They also spoke directly to what must be done in America to establish their "Common Good".
"In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the Communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie(aka property owners), and use it in the interests of the proletariat -- that is, with the agrarian National Reformers." This is the redistribution of wealth to the "have nots" from the earners that have the wealth.
It doesn't take a superlative intellect to associate the statements of Hillary Clinton, and Marx /Engels, regarding her plans for her Presidency, God forbid, if she takes the seat in the White House.
Her program of extending insurance to illegal immigrants and others who aren't now insured will trigger a massive increase in the demand for medical services. The result would be a steep price rise that would force rationing of health care, particularly for the elderly. But she mustn't say any of that - so she pretends that her health-care prescription is just a band-aid to cover the nagging little problem of 50 million uninsured and that her solution won't bother anybody else.
Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? Certainly, she favors them. During her husband's administration, she helped kill proposals to ban them. In the Senate, she voted against prohibiting them. But she can't say so without seeming to be soft on terror, so she dodges the issue, expressing sympathy - but not support - for the plan.
A day after the other Democrats battered her over the issue in the debate last week she released a statement of "general" support for Gov. Spitzer's (New York) goal of making illegal immigrants eligible for driver's licenses. But, once again, a la Hillary, she sent confusing signals by stating that she hadn't studied it and wasn't "endorsing" any plan. So she's apparently for it but not for it. Get it?
The Alternative Minimum Tax? Bill Clinton vetoed legislation to repeal it in 1999. She voted against repealing it in 2006. She likely intends to limit or terminate it once she's elected, but only in return for other massive tax hikes in its place. But, again, she has to criticize the tax because of her need to attract middle-class voters and speak of opposing a "trillion-dollar" tax increase on them.
The preceding facts were obtained from the web page, "The Hillary Project", and illustrates that Senator Clinton is guilty of one of the most popular forms of the Communist/Socialist movement, duplicity".
Senator Clinton does the "two step" when ever she is asked a question that might reveal her personal opinion not that of her political persona.