Hypocrite Hillary D. Rodham's Senior Thesis

Hillary D. Rodham's (Clinton) senior thesis at Wellesley college was about the radical leftist agitator, Saul D. Alinsky.

In her (Rodham's) paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power. She also accepted his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. Alinsky felt the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography.”
Rodham wrote in reference to the War on Poverty, “A cycle of dependency has been created which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”

There you have it, what Republicans have been saying for years. Welfare creates a vicious cycle of dependency. No wonder the Clinton Whitehouse demanded Wellesley College prohibit public viewing of Rodham's senior thesis.

She further went on to argue against big government in a 1993 interview with The Washington Post. In a contradiction to her health care program under development at the time, the first lady characterized her college writing as an argument against big government, supporting Alinsky's criticism of the War on Poverty programs. “I basically argued that he was right,” she told the newspaper. “Even at that early stage I was against all these people who come up with these big government programs that were more supportive of bureaucracies than actually helpful to people. You know, I've been on this kick for 25 years.”

This is the woman who would become president of the United States admitting that the Democrat Party, her party, creates a cycle of dependency with failed policies. Some call this cycle of dependency modern day slavery. Once becoming beholden to the Democrat Party's welfare money, people give up on advancing themselves in life.

Her single goal is power and she will say and do anything to achieve power.

Some great programs. Some great party. Some great candidate.

John Edwards' Wife Is Stupid

John Edwards lives in a 29,000 sq. ft. home, certainly at the top of his "Two America's." The Raleigh, NC News and Observer did a story on the Edwards' massive home.

The interviewer said a question had arisen as to any contradiction (no, liberals would not be hypocrites! - ed) between their home big enough for 25 married couples with children and Edwards' pledge to reduce poverty and help the working poor. (what about the poor who have no jobs? -ed)

Mrs. Edwards said the 29,000-square-foot residence is a family home where they will live lives "not unlike our lives in smaller quarters for over 30 years, starting with John's apartment."

What?