This revisit of one of my 2011 posts was occasioned by Hillary going “full Lenin” by claiming that corporations and businesses do not create jobs. This ejaculation was a timely reminder just what kind of a national disaster this woman is.
I recently read an opinion (can’t remember where – wish I’d bookmarked it right away) that if we absolutely positively had to have a Democratic President, it ought to have been Hillary Clinton.
I cannot agree.
I understand that this wistful notion is driven by the incompetence and willfully anti-American nature of the Obama régime, but I suggest that a Clinton régime would not have been much different.
Here are a few thoughts.
The “special” nature of this Chief Executive.
For a generation at least, the two chief “weapons of mass destruction” in the United States – indeed, in the Western world – have been accusations of sexism and racism. The reasonable and proper requirement that we purge racism and sexism from our body politic has long ago been overwhelmed by sophisticated, persecutory “professions” (quite lucrative, too) that routinely smear people and even destroy existences without regard to facts.
Obama is black. He is the first black President. As such, he is presumably exempt from opposition or criticism and must get his way in everything. Just ask Valerie Jarrett. He is a convinced Progressive: that is, he stands for what I have long called “feudalism with a populist face.” Any criticism or opposition – indeed any attempt to view him through a less-than-messianic lens – has automatically and often violently been labeled as racism. We must simply believe in him. Even after two years of such blundering that even his supporters have begun to wake up, it’s not easy to define Obama as the loony that he is without exposing oneself to attack.
Having decided to run for reelection in 2012, the very first line in his reelection ad is – you guessed it – “I’m asking you to believe.”
Hillary Clinton is a feminist woman. She would have been the first female President. As such, she would also demand exemption from opposition or criticism, and she must get her way in everything. Just ask the people who’d worked for her. She, too, is a convinced Progressive. Had she become President, any opposition to her and criticism of her would have been labeled as pathological ejaculations of Neanderthal white male sexists. Had she been elected, we would have been stuck with a lady of the manor who, like Obama, imagined herself wearing the cloak of infallibility. Believing in her would have been the only acceptable response on our part.
I see both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as prime dictator material. We see that side of Obama every day. His idea of “the most transparent administration ever” is the exact opposite. His notion of working with the opposition is embodied in his comment “I won.” He is the master of the proverbial smoke-billed back room where deals with friends are cut and the fate of the country is decided without input from anyone else. The way Obamacare was rammed through Congress is typical. Now, having lost the House, he seeks to rule by decree.
We have seen that side of Hillary Clinton throughout the years of the “two-for-the-price-of-one” administration. The most obvious case was the near-clandestine attempt to sneak Hillarycare onto the books. The stories of her rages are already the stuff of legend.
Obama and Clinton are both One-Worlders. Neither is interested in the well-being of the United States. Like Obama, Clinton would seek to “de-develop” our country. The submission (and I use that word advisedly) of the United States to the arbitrary will of a supranational dictatorial body like the United Nations (or the Arab League) would progress just as fast under her as it does under Obama. Like Obama, Clinton is deeply indebted to George Sörös and other self-appointed Guardians who see themselves as a permanent elite in charge of the New World Order in which national sovereignty is seen as an obstacle to be overcome. Like Obama, Clinton is very much beholden to Arab money (both Clintons are). And as with Obama, let no one think that there are no strings attached to these wide-open purses.
Clinton’s staff would not be all that much different from Obama’s. Same world views, same caressing of Mao and other mass murderers, same hunger for devastating the U.S. economy, same contempt for the “great unwashed,” same friendships with extreme leftists the world over, same overt memberships, over or covert, in extremist organizations like the Socialist International. There would be many more loony women than loony blacks. The proportion of SCREW males (SCREW=submissive, compliant, radical, emotive, white) might be about the same, but they would be more SCREWy than ever, in keeping with the old feminist dictum that if you have to hire a white male, make sure he toes the line. The staff’s detachment from, and contempt for, reality would be the same, but with a different surface appearance.
And last but not least…
We would get Bill Clinton back. Imagine America’s top sociopathic pair in the White House again…
Now, do we seriously want to indulge in wistful fantasies about Clinton 2.0?