Homophobia, Islamophobia and Other Perversions of the Left

The greatest task on the right, therefore, is to rescue the language of politics: to put within our grasp what has been forcibly removed from it by jargon. It is only when we have found again the language that is natural to us that we can answer the great accusations that are constantly thrown at our world from the left.  And it is only when we have found that language that we can move on from the one-dimensional left/ right, with us/ against us, progressive/ reactionary dichotomies that have so often made rational discussion impossible. (Scruton, Roger (2015-10-08). Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (Kindle Locations 6036-6039). Bloomsbury Publishing.  Kindle Edition.)

The current language of dichotomized politics, as the eminent philosopher Roger Scruton states above, demands a great deal of “rescue” work. We must aggressively dispute the use of the jargon that the left has insinuated into our political conversations and polemics, words that both distort reality and give the ideologues on the left undue power to manipulate, worse, to dominate the discussion of issues of great moral, political and social import.  With their jargon they exert their pernicious influence and constantly aim to impugn the motives of those who disagree with them.  Built into the language of the left is the ammunition for an insidious, sustained and long term campaign of nullification and character assassination.

Let us begin our rescue of political language with a repudiation of two of the most odious and egregious pieces of jargon now foisted on us (“thrown at our world from the left”) on a daily basis – “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.”

What in today’s common parlance is a homophobe?  For the polemicists and their censorious patrons on the left a homophobe is anyone and everyone who voices disapproval of homosexual activity and disputes the concept and legitimacy of homosexual marriage.  This disapproval often has religious grounds and, of course, because it is argued from sources and convictions of religious belief, authority or scripture it is considered by the secularist oriented Left as beneath serious moral and political consideration. Certain kinds of moral concepts are off-the-table, so to speak. Religious traditions, practices and values, that have for millennia shaped and informed our morals and social practices now with a with a snap-snap of a finger from these nouveau Jacobins are supposed to be discarded as we suddenly realize how unenlightened we’ve been, how virtuous they are and how much better the world will be with them in charge. 

The neologism “homophobe” was coined to make it sound objective and “clinical”, the sort of jargon used by psychologists and various “experts” to show that they have penetrated the fog and demystified the prevailing superstitions. They understand what the rest of us may at some later time hope to comprehend.  Thus, those unfortunate enough to be in the grasp of homophobia are, well, sick, sick in the sense of psychological aberration or derangement. Phobias are by their nature irrational, unfounded in reality, overreactions to fear, insecurity or anxiety. 

Phobia:  a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. 

There you have it: this is pretty much a common understanding of what a phobia is – in more parochial terms, phobic people are crazy. You don’t reason with crazy people.  Only trained professionals take what crazy people say seriously but only as it is symptomatic of mental aberration.  You do not have rational conversation and respectful exchange with a homophobic individual about homosexuality because he has no standing as a normal, thoughtful person. He is immersed in bigotry or “hatred” as the left prefers to describe the disapproval of behavior they condone. 

Where, however, is the phobia to be found in the so called typical homophobe? What is asserted does not match reality. They neither fear nor hate homosexuals and they don’t wish to interfere in their lives and punish them. Their aversion to homosexuality is not irrational: it is philosophical and theological. “Homophobia” is not a description of anything real: it is a label contrived to smear those who disagree: it is nothing more than an ad hominem argument in shorthand posing as received social science wisdom.

Homophobes, however, are not just sick: they are “intolerant”. Here is a word kidnapped by left and given a completely distorted meaning, that being: toleration = approval.  So, if you don’t approve of something, ergo, you must be intolerant. But if one considers the logic that should apply to the use of “tolerant” it follows that one can be only be tolerant of what one disapproves of: if you already approve of a behavior, creed or habit, you don’t need to tolerate it. There is considerable irony with all of this because the left disapproves of (despises and excoriates, actually) conservatives, right-wingers, and traditionally religious people (“bitter clingers” as Barack Obama refers to them) but regard themselves as the most open minded and tolerant people around. 

The fact that the “gay lifestyle” has been normalized in our increasingly secularized culture and that homosexuals live openly and prosperously, in some places proudly as “gay” would suggest that toleration is at least moderately in place and relatively widespread. However, the left, despite what they say, do not want toleration of homosexuality: they demand, and are intent on coercing, approval of it. Their dishonest and coercive strategy is to place anyone who does not embrace the complete normalization of homosexuality as a “lifestyle” outside the moral and political boundaries of American life. In our diverse multi-cultural society, since when, it seems fair to ask, does someone have the right to coerce someone else into approving of their morals?

Toleration is giving moral and physical space to someone you disagree with. “You leave me alone (with respect to our differences); I’ll leave you alone, and we’ll agree to disagree and go about our separate business.” The huge advantage of real toleration is the buffer of time that it offers.  Over time, toleration with its norm of respectful live-let-live disagreement helps to soften people on all sides and make them more understanding of each other. The gradual development of the norm of toleration beginning in 17^th century Europe over time enabled initially very hostile Christian sects to reduce their hostility and accept, though not necessarily approve of their differences. But of course for the left, if you disagree, you are to remain silent while your intelligence and character are impugned and your religious freedoms are extinguished. 

In moving from homophobia to Islamophobia similar ideological motives are masked by the use of language that, again, as Roger Scruton notes, attempts “to change reality by changing the way we describe and therefore the way we perceive it.” (Scruton, Roger. Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (Kindle Locations 4916-4917).

“Islamophobia” deserves a great deal of scrutiny as it is an attempt to change reality by the way we describe it.  The term has a short history, probably not more that 20 or 25 years.  Did Islamophobes suddenly come into existence a couple of decades ago?  If not, what were they and where were they before?  If so, what suddenly gave rise to yet another phobia the left loves to lecture us about? And, in light of what the militant followers of Islam have been about in the last few years, perhaps the fear that they have generated of Islam is not completely irrational.  Is it mere coincidence that Islamophobia emerged about the time followers of Islam, in the name of Islam, were engaged in horrific acts of terrorism all across the globe – the U.S., Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia. Is it also coincidental that during this time we have no record of Buddhists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons or Mennonites crashing airliners into sky scrapers, mass kidnapping and force-marrying young girls, making You Tube videos of beheadings and immolations and establishing by conquest a theocratic state? There are reasons why the word “Islamophobia” has been invented and not “Christanophobia”, “Mormonophobia” or “Buddhophobia” which have nothing to do with what those who coined and use this word want us to believe.

Just who are these Islamophobes who suddenly have sprung into being? Here is how the folks who know all about these things at UC Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender explain it:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure.  It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise).  Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.  (http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/islamophobia/defining-islamophobia)

So, this particular phobia is the product of a “global power structure”, which of course makes it all crystal clear if you are content with sheer vacuity.  And, what kind of a global power structure?  The “existing Eurocentric and Orientalist” one, which I guess is more menacing than one that doesn’t exist.  This is stated as if we are all supposed to know what precise meanings to attach to “Eurocentric” and “Orientalist” but these terms, like “Islamophobia”, are recent constructs, only intelligible to the ideologues who invented them and like the way they sound. They are vague terms of disapprobation rather than description. One can discover almost any kind of global power structure that readily fits one’s imagination and will bare the blame for the world’s many disparities – International Jewish bankers, the Tri-Lateral Commission, etc. The Berkeley “experts” are sloganeers, and here above is a medley of tropes that fill the left’s lexicon of agitprop designed to arouse those already indoctrinated. Nothing concrete, real or identifiable is doing the “fomenting” of fear and prejudice.  Even more preposterous is the claim that Islamophobia “reintroduces and affirms a “global racial structure …” etc.  How does an abstraction like Islamophobia bring a “global racial structure” into being? (Note the contrived parallelism of vacuous phrases: “global power structure” – “global racial structure”) What IS a “global racial structure, and what does Islam have to do with race?  It is a religion!

Any one of any race can be a Muslim.  This purported definition is a masterpiece of verbal smog and incoherence.  

      

“[T]he first concern of revolutionary movements on the left,” again to quote Roger Scruton, “has been to capture the language, to change reality by changing the way we describe and therefore the way we perceive it. Revolution begins from an act of falsification, exemplified equally in the French and the Russian Revolutions, as in the cultural revolutions of the contemporary campus.” (Scruton, Roger (2015-10-08). Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (Kindle Locations 4916-4917).

“Homophobia” and “Islamophobia” are not words that accurately describe people or capture any of their distinctive attributes or conditions.  They are perversions, means of falsification, as Scruton notes, language designed not to reflect reality and speak the truth, but to serve ideological purposes and the acquisition of power.  Anyone who wishes to participate in an intelligent, serious conversation on homosexuality and contemporary Islam should vigorously resist the efforts of anyone who uses these words as if they are anything other than the vehicles of their ad hominem attacks and obfuscation in the service of cultural revolution.   

Diversity-Speak: Animal Farm at Wright State University

When talking about race-relations in America these days one cannot overstate how corrupt the use of language has become. “Racism” is now a term of art reserved for demagogues, ideologues, character assassins and “professionals” who make a career of their race.  An honest, dispassionate discussion of race in America is verboten, and nowhere does the production of verbal smog with its semantic deformation and fake moralism on this subject rise more rapidly to match the level of Soviet-era, Pravda-style Newspeak than on the campuses of American universities.  

In most American universities there are now firmly entrenched “diversity” commissars -- here a Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion, there an Associate Provost of Multiculturalism, everywhere a PC zealot with a hefty title, a heftier salary, and a job description written in the indecipherable argot of "Diversity-speak."  These are people with no real jobs. Installed by craven university presidents they serve as scolds and busybodies, self-proclaimed authorities on whatever might hurt the feelings of those in the currently certified victim classes. Within their purview are micro-aggressions, trigger warnings, safe spaces and correct usage of pronouns in the service of transgenderism. Since these czars, are charged with conjuring into reality such elusive and nebulous abstractions like diversity, inclusion, equity, etc., who can ever remotely guess what it is that they are actually doing?

The language of academic Diversity-Speak is a subgenre of Newspeak. Its constricted vocabulary and closely regulated grammar make it into a straight jacket of ideological orthodoxy the constraints of which no one is supposed to break out of. The key words, in typical Orwellian fashion, are twisted beyond normal recognition. Everyone knows this: everyone pretends otherwise. 

The diversity VP at any typical university now serves as the institutional superego. He/she plays the role of the priest, a stern moralist who intones the politically correct incantations, but, most importantly, functions as the living symbol of the university’s vigilance against what must never be tolerated in even the slightest degree, racism and its spin offs – sexism, ableism, homophobia, the forced march on to infinity.  This is no small task since racism and its feral cousins are now so pervasive and manifest themselves in so much abundance, some of their forms so recondite, only to be discernible by the priest and his acolytes.  Thus: institutional racism, systemic racism, casual racism, overt racism, covert racism, legacy racism, environmental racism, economic racism -- on it metastasizes with an ever more complex taxonomy yet to be constructed and guaranteed job security for the well-paid necromancers.  

These high level diversity positions are steeped in perversity so glaringly obvious that the fact that no one can mention it (resistance is futile) suggests that higher education is now firmly in the grip of political extortionists and con-artists posing as moralists. The ludicrous perversity is that of the inevitable motive of self-interest built into the heart of the “diversity profession.” The more racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic an institution is (the more victims there are to attend to), of course, the greater the role, the higher the charge, the larger the entourage, the more power there will be for the officially anointed voices of the voiceless.  Attending to lots of victims requires lots of resources – increased personnel, more offices, bigger budgets for travel to conferences on diversity, the Diversity & Inclusion Conference & Exposition in San Francisco, October 2017, for example. https://conferences.shrm.org/diversity-conference  What chief diversity officer anywhere, even if he wanted to, would admit to a serious reduction in all the “isms” and “phobias” in the institution where he is employed?  Fewer “isms” and “phobias” mean fewer staff, diminished influence, less visibility, ultimately another line of work with more accountability.

But to return to the notion of the corruption of language, specifically Diversity-Speak, focus for a moment on the recent official announcement (below) of the appointment of a Diversity Chief at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. The announcement is worth parsing since it is so generic and tediously formulary that it could come out of almost any American university or college.  The language in the announcement, as should become obvious momentarily, is stereotypical, banal Diversity-Speak. Its design, ironically, is to say nothing that any remotely thoughtful and reasonable person would say depicts any aspect of reality. This is not language that is meant to reveal or describe anything but rather to soothe and misdirect.  

   

Matthew Boaz, Wright State University’s director of equity and inclusion, has been named to the new position of chief diversity officer….. Boaz is a nationally recognized leader in diversity, inclusion, equity and access. He has extensive experience in helping underrepresented students, strengthening recruiting efforts and coordinating Title IX policies. As chief diversity officer, Boaz will provide leadership in promoting a campus culture that supports diversity and inclusion, forging strong partnerships with students, faculty and staff. “One of my goals as chief diversity officer is to create and maintain an environment in which every member of the Wright State community will feel valued because of their unique identity and authentic self so they are proud of their experience with the university,”…..   http://webapp2.wright.edu/web1/newsroom/2017/02/21/matthew-boaz-named-chief-diversity-officer-at-wright-state/

To begin: “Boaz is a nationally recognized leader in diversity, inclusion, equity and access.” “Nationally recognized leader”?  Beyond a ten mile radius from Dayton, Ohio no one could be found who ever heard of this guy. This lead-off talking point is a throw-away line, sufficiently vague and ill-defined as to be meaningless. One might ponder the dubious premise behind this fake encomium and speculate that anyone with a ‘diversity’ title can rise to this stature since there are no recognized standards or measurement of achievement that could be offered in support.  

  

To continue: “He has extensive experience in helping underrepresented students….”  Who were these students? Where were they?  What did he do to help them? What did he help them do?  Why did they need help?  No clue (wink-wink, it is obvious, isn’t it?). All we are supposed to know is that he is a guy who helps people, well, the right sort of people. What else does one need to be to be a diversity VP?  Just string together a few more of those vague generalities and bolster the fiction that there is a large contingent of needy people who will flounder without him.   

On to “partnerships”: As chief diversity officer, Boaz will provide leadership… in forging strong partnerships with students, faculty and staff.  Ah, yes, the obligatory “forging partnerships”, another key filler phrase to signal how busy he will be but with no clue about what he will be doing.  What kind of partnerships? Why are they necessary? What have these partnerships achieved in the past that make them valuable?  

It gets worse: “One of my goals as chief diversity officer is to create and maintain an environment in which every member of the Wright State community will feel valued because of their unique identity and authentic self so they are proud of their experience with the university,” Boaz said.

Clearly, Mr. Boaz won’t be wasting his time on trying to appear modest.  The sum total of “every member of the Wright State community” if you count students, faculty and staff, would be in excess of 20,000 people, each with a “unique identity and authentic self”.  Unclear is how he will have time for any other goals, much less time for basics like eating, sleeping and finding the men's room  -- Oops, the gender neutral restroom. Still, given that Wright State University draws many of its students from the surrounding conservative rural counties, it seems reasonable to conjecture that some them might possess an “authentic self” (perhaps a traditional Christian self) that will not sit well with the pronoun-neutral apparatchiks in Student Affairs who warm the seats in (are you ready?) The Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Ally Affairs. One needs to twist furiously away on the Diversity hermeneutical-decoder magic ring just to decipher the meaning of the office title and to guess at how the people inside fill their days. Those members of the “WSU community” who can’t quite get the hang of transgenderism and its Talmudic pronoun assignment challenges might have to undergo a compulsory “attitude adjustment”, a correction to their not-quite authentic selves so as to emerge proud of their experience.  

This announcement is PR gobbledygook.  No one should take it seriously and it is likely that few people do.  It was written and issued no doubt with the hope that no one would pay it too much attention, and thus suggests how crude and cynical is the rationalizing of what diversity people are all about and how spineless the university administrators are who sic them on everyone else.  

Leonard Shapiro, a prolific historian of Soviet history and politics in attempting to distill the essence of Stalinist era propaganda wrote that “the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as jarring dissonance.” (The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Random House, 1971, p. 477) The above example of Diversity-Speak resembles the propaganda described by Shapiro -- no attempt to convince or persuade -- just a predictable uniform public utterance to discourage dissonant thinking and remind everyone that the right people are still in charge.   

---

The “Basket of Deplorables” – Long Reign the Trumpster

“Mao then turned on Jiang Qing: ‘You're someone who has grandiose aims but puny abilities, great ambition but little talent. You look down on everyone else.’”

Roderick MacFarquhar. Mao's Last Revolution (Kindle Locations 2753-2754). Kindle Edition.

------------------------------------------------------

Does this sound like another woman we all knew too well?  In reading this castigation by Chairman Mao of his crazy, radical wife during the Cultural Revolution one wonders if Hillary Clinton could have once endured a similar scolding from her President husband.  It would be difficult to render a more fitting and succinct tribute to her character and abilities.  

Case in point: on September 9^th Hillary Clinton was speaking at the LGBT for Hillary Gala in New York City on Sept. 9, 2016.  This was how the standard bearer for party of tolerance, compassion and inclusion chose to describe the rank and file of the opposition party.

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables …. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it….  Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/

Well, yes, “thankfully” she had all of those NYC transgendered folks around her to keep her grounded in the real America, not like, say, the coal miners she wanted to see unemployed and were enthusiastic about a candidate who did not want to turn them into welfare clients.

In more normal times, such a scurrilous, vicious smear from a major party Presidential candidate would have reverberated across the news outlets and media channels as a colossal blunder.  But these were not normal times and Hillary Clinton was not a normal candidate.  When I say “normal” I am not speaking of the usual boundaries of personality that typically circumscribe a nationally prominent political candidate. Trump  certainly broke the mold in that regard, and to the extent that Hillary had a personality at all it is hard to imagine that it was composed of anything other than the dueling banjos of ambition and avarice.

By a “normal” candidate I mean one who operates, broadly speaking, within the traditions and norms of American politics.  Instead this U.S. election with the suborning of the FBI and the unprecedented collusion between Clinton’s campaign and the organs of the mainstream media resembled more the sort of a sleaze-filled farce of shadowy fixers and fraudsters that you would see coming out of a fake Presidential contest in Argentina or Ukraine. 

In an article “No Consequences From Media Peers for Reporters Caught Colluding With Hillary” in Observer Politics Evan Gahr wrote:

“[I]f you’re a Politico or New York Times scribe or CNBC anchor John Harwood and hacked emails emerge that reveal you outright colluding with Hillary Clinton campaign—by giving advice or providing the communications director “veto” power over what to include from your interview with the candidate or allowing campaign chair John Podesta veto power over your stories … [y]our media friends will not censure you or even scold you—in fact, they don’t bother to contact you directly. Instead, you can hide between a crafty spokesman who won’t even answer specific questions but acts like he’s the publicist for some elusive Hollywood star and that a journalist determined to ask standard pointed questions is actually pining to profile him for Vanity Fair.” http://observer.com/2016/10/no-consequences-from-media-peers-for-reporters-caught-colluding-with-hillary/

Clinton was exempt from rules everyone else had to play by, was in cahoots with the top people running the news coverage for the campaign. The so-called guardians of the “independent” fourth estate were part of the Democrats campaign team.  Some of them ended up as moderators for the television debates, Hillary stooges who gave her a pass and beat up on Trump while pretending to be journalists.  They were carrying on the Candy Crowley tradition of openly flaking for whoever was the Democrat candidate.

Here is Howard Kutz from Fox News. “Carl Cannon, executive editor of Real Clear Politics—and no Trump admirer—says that if Clinton wins, “the 2016 election will be remembered as one in which much of the mainstream media all but admitted aligning itself with the Democratic Party.”  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/25/are-media-taking-victory-lap-over-donald-trump.html

This massive display of corruption and collusion seemed to have no negative fall out for the Clinton campaign. Of course.  This was news, and the news-people were in the bag for Hillary. Did Pravda ever blow the whistle on Brezhnev?  It turns out, however, that the mainstream media organs had soiled themselves so completely that their biases and distortions no longer  resonated. To experience schadenfreude like none other, look at some of the pre-election You Tube videos with mainstream media pundits giddy in their predictions of a landslide victory for Hillary, and then the shock and horror when Hillary's  victory turned into a cruel mirage. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5nPi85x4CA) When evidence of the doom of Trump's electoral victory became certain, watching the meltdown of certified fantasist, Brian Williams, and the usually smirking Rachael Maddow on MSNBC could not be more enjoyable.
 

Being one of those un-Americans in that “basket of deplorables” I have a good idea what she had in mind for all of us who are beyond redemption (the “irredeemables”) once she was in power -- the Platonic form of vindictiveness.

An unfettered Hillary Clinton in office would resemble the East German Stalinist, Erich Honecker. She had called the Republicans the “enemies she was most proud of”. (http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-has-no-regrets-about-calling-republicans-her-enemy-they-say-terrible-things-about-me-2/  What fetters or impediments could have possibly obstructed a President Hillary Clinton ? 

The Supreme Court?  Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer likely had their retirement letters ready and waiting for President Clinton, and with the vacancy of Justice Scalia’s seat, in a very short time the court would have been stocked with those sort of “progressives” to rubber stamp whatever depredations Hillary had in mind. A vastly expanded application of “hate speech” to rationalize an attack on talk radio and more generally to suppress dissent would have been put into place. We would have seen efforts at consistent law enforcement to be further undermined by an officially sanctioned “implicit racial bias” (every cop a presumed racist) creating a permanent “state of war” between minority communities and local police.  More rioting anyone? More Al Sharptons?

The Republican in Congress?  First of all, there would be fewer of them as Hillary would have flooded the red states with third world immigrants, more clients and voters for the regime.  Remember when Republicans used to be able to compete for the electoral votes in California? Not since 1984.  Did third world immigration over the last three decades have anything to do with changing that?  California would have been Hillary’s model for the entire country.  The 2020 Presidential election would be a Democrat landslide of 45 or more states. 

Second of all, the Republican establishment had turned out to be less of the “enemy” of Hillary than she may have thought, preferring the certainty of her corruption to the anti-establishment Trump.  Since they stabbed Trump in back and despised the rank and file who nominated him, those deplorables (a very large chunk of Republican voters) no longer trusted them and would no longer vote for them.  Why should they have? Since the Republicans would have had no serious constituency for the Democrats to respect or fear, Hillary and her cronies would treat them with the contempt and disdain they deserve.

The Press and the Media?  We now know what to expect from this bunch – trained seals who want to be cozy with the rich and powerful. 

The universities, academia, the intellectual class committed to the pursuit of truth and the sanctity of free expression?  Just kidding.

There would have been nothing in Clinton’s path and her revenge against the “basket of deplorables” would have had two broad features.

First, with the assistance of the media, the marginalization of political opposition.  The primary instruments used would have been a stepped up the “hate” smear campaign and relentless attacks with charges of racism, sexism.  “[Y]ou name it”, as Hillary said to LGBT faithful as she rattled off the list of the standard smears.  This would have been a lot more from where that came from. 

Hillary's strategy all along was to turn all potential opposition on the right into Klansmen or Nazis, stereotyped creatures of low intelligence and primitive animosities.  People like this, of course, have no place on the political spectrum other than the far fringes where they can be alternately ridiculed or ignored, or perhaps even, punished.  Hillary and her pitchmen were constantly trying to link Trump to Klansman David Duke, notwithstanding her friendship and expressed admiration for ex-Klansman, Robert Bird, Democrat Senator from West Virginia.  See: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/25/hillary-clinton-friend-mentor-robert-byrd-kkk/

Second, Hillary would ramp up the Progressive modus operandi of pathologizing her opponents' resistance to the massive encroachment of government into every aspect of social life and the progressive assault on religious freedom.  Homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, “you name it,” as she clucked to the trained seals in her transgendered audience. 

This proliferation of “phobias” is by design of the left yet another way to marginalize people who disagree with them.  Phobias are a kind of mental illness, and hence irrational. Irrational people cannot be taken seriously except as threats to themselves or those around them.  If you object to unrestricted immigration from the various hellholes across the world, you are a “xenophobe”.  If you have a traditional view of marriage, you are a “homophobe”.  If you think bringing a lot of young Muslim males into the country from places like Syria and Somalia is not a good idea you are “Islamophobic.”  You do not argue, debate or reason with phobic people. You ignore them, or, if necessary, repress them.  They “thankfully” as Hillary said are “not America”, that is that social-political part of America where people get to compete in making their case for their beliefs and their way of life. By being “sick” in this intended psychiatric-phobic sense, a person loses the respect and consideration for his wishes and opinions and potentially even the legal protection of his freedom and property.  Refuse to sell a wedding cake to gay couple and see what happens. Don't want your daughters to share bathrooms and shower with guys who like to think they are girls?  This was just the beginning. 

So, rather than watching Hillary waddle into the White House totting her 30 years of documented corruption and an unrelenting hostility toward what a lot of us still believe are great American values and traditions, in stepped the Great Refusnik, the Orange Man, Donald Trump.   “Clintonism” with its 3 “Cs” – corruption, collusion, coercion -- is in the dustbin of history. Long reign the Trumpster.