“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 9th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment