Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrat presidential nominee. (Sorry, Bernie Sanders fans. You too, Martin O�??Malley fans – both of you.) Unless – and likely even if – she is indicted for her latest foray into self-defined ethics. She has in her past more than a quarter century of�?�questionable statements, decisions and actions – so it would appear nothing else in this vein will matter to the Democrat rank and file.

Mrs. Clinton is vying to lead the government that lords over our $17+ trillion economy. Which – given just one article she recently penned – is more than a mite disturbing. Behold: �??Being Pro-Business Doesn�??t Mean Hanging Consumers Out to Dry.�?�

What Mrs. Clinton does mean to do, apparently, is hang out to dry the facts and Reality. Her column is chock full of Leftist bromide talking points – which have time and again been totally disproven. But because the Left dominates the media – they live on. Fake Leftist �??facts�?� are like zombies. They are repeatedly slain – but again and again shamble away from their graves. Happy Halloween, All.

Let us examine just some of what the looming Democrat nominee has to offer. Steady yourselves – she actually starts out�?�quite well.

American capitalism built the greatest middle class in history. When it works the way it should, our system is defined by innovators constantly sparking new ideas, workers sharing in the profits they help produce, consumers enjoying ever-greater choices, and small business owners like my father, working hard to give their families a better life.

But that�??s the general election, �??I�??m a moderate�?� throwaway. (Though while in the Senate Mrs. Clinton was but 0.1% less Left than avowed Socialist Sanders.) Having done her electoral due diligence, she then predictably leaves the rails.

But sometimes, the system doesn�??t work the way it should and we need to fix it.

But WHY does �??the system sometimes�?�not work the way it should,�?� Mrs. Clinton? It doesn�??t work – when government sticks its enormous proboscis into businesses�?? business. Government is inherently a drag on the private sector. It drains away money, time and effort – all of which would be much better spent doing all of the great things Mrs. Clinton just listed (and then some).

At the root of just about every financial hiccup – let alone crisis – is government action. To cite but one: the 2008 global financial meltdown. Which was caused by our government mandating for decades that more and more home loans be given to people everyone knew couldn�??t pay them back. When the pile of bad paper was sky high – and the housing market dipped ever so slightly – everything collapsed.

Does Mrs. Clinton acknowledge even the possibility that government might be the problem? Of course not.

Some pharmaceutical companies recently have raised the price of medications that have been in use for decades by up to 5,000% overnight�??gouging patients on drugs that should be getting cheaper over time, not more expensive.

But that�??s because of ObamaCare, Mrs. Clinton. A huge government imposition – and thus a huge wound inflicted upon the private sector. Which you wholeheartedly support – and in fact want to make even worse by allowing illegal aliens to pile on.

Mrs. Clinton then swerves into the Internet Sector. She is here so wrong in so many directions – it is simply staggering.

Monthly prices for high-speed broadband are far higher on average in some major American cities than in Toronto, London, and Tokyo. In part, that�??s because most of our communities are subject to local monopolies for service.

Mrs. Clinton – it is local U.S. governments that create these monopolies and inflate these prices.

Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more (for building rights) than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction�?�. These (government) incumbents �?? the real monopolists �?? also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval. This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service.�?� The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments. It�??s a vicious circle�?�(A) system of forced kickbacks�?�.(also) includ(ing) ISPs�?�building out service where it isn�??t demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.�?� Video franchises are the revenue-sharing agreements that cable TV companies sign with local governments in return for the exclusive right to offer video services to customers.

Mrs. Clinton continues:

Three-quarters of US households have at most one option�?�.

Again, that would be government�??s fault – if it were true. Shocker – it�??s not. Mrs. Clinton only counts as access – hardline wired broadband. She doesn�??t count satellite service – or cellular.

Cellular wireless service is now so fast, you can watch seamless, streaming HD video – on your phone. Which is frigging amazing – and should certainly count as having access. Mrs. Clinton bizarrely doesn�??t think so. She in fact ignores these other options – so as to warp the numbers and thus trump up the case for more government.

But Pew Research this year found:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are now smartphone owners, and for many these devices are a key entry point to the online world�?�.(And only) 7% of Americans own a smartphone but have neither traditional broadband service at home, nor easily available alternatives for going online other than their cell phone.

So two-thirds of Americans have an Internet-accessing smartphone. And thus just about all of them have at least two access options – again putting the lie to Mrs. Clinton�??s absurd assertions. And many if not most of that mere 7% actually have access to home broadband – but choose not to avail themselves. In large part because their wireless service is so frigging amazing.

Mrs. Clinton goes on (and ON) – but by now we know not to waste any more of our time. She has nothing of value to say.

She is the Government Candidate – thus she will ignore the government-induced origin of our problems. And prescribe as their �??solutions�?� – ever more government.

Here�??s hoping next year we know – and do – better.