As promised, here's the research on Hitlery's proposals as outlined on her web site. A few notes about this research, as this site was much easier to navigate and was much better in its presentation than that of Barack Hussein bin Obama. The numbers were very surprising, though this could be blamed either on the redundancy of Obama's presentation OR the simple fact that Hitlery is very smart in the way she presents things so as to make her candidacy seem good for America when the reverse is true.

I grabbed a quote or two that I found interesting. These two quotes were presented in the context of ripping President Bush for his understandable opposition to embryonic stem cell research, but it doesn't take a very close look to see the disingenuousness in the statements. Simply apply them to her position on AIDS or, more obviously, man-made global warming, and you get the picture.

[Clinton will] ban political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications.

This will be true ONLY as long as those "scientific conclusions and publications" are in sync with whatever she believes (or better, believes will increase her power).

It is important to ... ensure that the President receives objective, fact-based advice.

OK. I'm going to cut in early here. The quote continues below. Again, what if the President gets objective, fact-based advice (Lord knows there's already plenty of it out there) that suggests that there is nothing to worry about with regard to "global warming", and that it's not necessary to do anything to try to stop something that's either not happening at all or, at least, is not being influenced by human activity? Do you really believe she's going to accept that as "objective, fact-based advice"? I can answer that with two words: FAT FUCKING CHANCE (OK ... three words. Who's counting anyway?)

Hillary Clinton will reverse the Bush Administration's irresponsible politicization of science.

and we are to believe this because? We've had eight years of a Republican president who has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reverse prior administrations' blatant, irresponsible, and frankly disgusting politicization of science vis-a-vis AIDS and "the environment". Are we really to believe that Hitlery, who could have influenced her ex-President husband to do just that (and didn't) is going to change this? BULLSHIT.

And this research, unfortunately, only reviews the constitutionality (read that LEGALITY) of those things shown on her website. Her prior assaults on the First and Second Amendments and how she would continue them are curiously omitted. So, how does her platform stack up against the Constitution of the United States of America? It comes in at 68% unconstitutional. More than two thirds of the things she admits to advocating are blatantly illegal under the limitations placed upon her as president, and frankly, as senator - the office she currently holds.

Is she more dangerous tha Barack the Schlock? Not likely. Her convenient omissions would definitely play well with the socialists in Congress, particularly Pelosi and her minions. None of them give a rat's ass after a cheese shit what the Constitution says their limitations are. Barack at least tells you what he's about on his website, even if he never mentions it in public. There could be omissions there, but who would expect that from a guy who keeps saying the same things over and over and over? Besides, we have had eight years of a president whom we elected for that very reason, and the only real benefits were healthy tax cuts and a strong stand on terrorism. No Child Left Behind? Please.

Just more proof that no liberal is fit for office in the US government. Next up: Johnny McShitPie

RWR

Related:
Barack Obama - 84% Unconstitutional - 2/7/2008