Posted by: rotenochsen | November 24, 2007


Birds Of a Feather?

Reuters New Agency has reported that another politically involved woman has endorsed Hillary Clinton. No, Not a U.S. Senator, Mayor, or Governor. The endorsement comes from another kindred soul. Bernadette Chirac, a woman who like her husband Jacques left the Presidency of France shrouded in scandals involving her and her husband, Not unlike the situation the Clinton’s find themselves in today.

“Bernadette Chirac came out today in support of Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Chirac is the wife of former French President, Jacques Chirac, who just left office in May of this year.
Hillary must be pleased as punch at this endorsement. Is it the woman thing, do you think? Reuters offered no political reason, just this:
“From the first look, the first words, Hillary Clinton is a friendly, smiling person who never lets herself be caught out,” she said. She even expressed interest in attending the Democratic convention in Denver in August. “And if I can be of any use to her somewhere in the campaign, I’m available. I’d like to go with her and I’m going to suggest it to her.”

This is strangely familiar to the mutterings of Senator Kerry when he was running for President, and claimed he had the endorsement of the leaders of the free world backing his election.
The main difference and yet a similarity is the kindred spirit relationship between Madame Chirac and Senator Clinton. Both are accused of criminal activity!

Mr Chirac, who had one of the longest continuous political careers in Europe – twice president, twice prime minister and mayor of Paris for 18 years – has moved out of the comfort of State palaces for the first time in 30 years. But while he is lauded for his resistance to the war in Iraq and reconciling France with its history by apologising for Nazi collaboration, Mr Chirac has seen brutal appraisals of what critics call his wasted 12 years as the economy stagnated, public debt grew and youth unemployment and discrimination fed social unrest on housing estates. In a survey last week, 54% said his time in power had been “bad” for France.
For weeks before he left office, Mr Chirac’s staff at the Élysée were busy shredding personal notes and confidential papers. A special rubbish truck destroyed miles of video and audio tapes. Not unlike the Clintons.
Mr Chirac and his wife, Bernadette, move d into a luxurious flat on Paris’s left bank, with a view of the Louvre, lent by the family of Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese politician assassinated in 2005. Over the past month, furniture movers and officials have been transferring papers, works of art and cases of wine into the building. Sounds like the pilfering done at the White House as the Clinton’s vacated it in 2000.
But when Mr Chirac returned from a holiday in Morocco he found decades-old corruption scandals returning to haunt him.

Judges are said to want to question Mr Chirac as a witness in an illegal party-funding scandal involving fictitious jobs, which claimed his protege and former prime minister, Alain Juppé. But an official in the ruling UMP party said Mr Chirac, who denies all knowledge of several corruption rackets, was unlikely to face sanctions.
Almost 50 people employed by Chirac’s government, went on trial in Paris in the last few years, accused of involvement in one of the worst corruption scandals in French history.
Charged with rigging public works contracts in order to finance the country’s major political parties, their testimony threatens to “dynamite” the country’s political establishment and heap embarrassment on the French president.

These French scandals are very instructive in providing a lesson about a socialized economy, one that Hillary espouses that includes among other schemes, socialized medicine. This type system is very prone to bureaucratic and political corruption. Those who call for socialist policies in the United States, particularly in the Democratic Party candidates Obama, Edwards and Hillary, often tout the equitable nature of such a system.
For example, under a system of socialized medicine, everyone will allegedly have equal access and quality, whereas under a free-market system, the rich will have better medical care.
In reality, however, such is not the case. In a socialized system, bureaucrats and the professional political class control much of a given society’s resources. They and those who are connected to them have better access to the fruits of the society, including better housing and medical care.
In both systems, someone inevitably has more and better access than others. The difference, however, is this: under a free-market system, those who earned their wealth through hard work and ingenuity get to buy such access for themselves and for their families with their own resources. Under a socialized system, those who are elected or appointed to oversee the welfare of all gain access to the resources of the whole society, not resources of their own making.
Perhaps the Socialized philosophies of both Mrs. Chirac and Hillary are what prompted this meddler in our political system to speak out for Hillary.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: