Now that Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced her second attempt at becoming Our President, we should consider the implications of her support -- and the lack of accountability that she has come to expect. And we should definitely consider the consequences of her becoming Chief Executive.
At least one person associated with her has died under questionable circumstances. She has gleefully and repeatedly participated in attacking the much-younger women who dared to open their mouths about her husband using his position of authority to manipulate them into servicing him sexually. She has used insider trading to enrich herself while at the same time vilifying capitalism. She played a major part in throwing our foreign service personnel to the wolves because an upcoming Presidential election was deemed more important -- and then apologized for the American freedom of speech that was fraudulently held responsible for the savagery. She takes money from those who hang homosexuals and cut the noses off rape victims -- and yet is given credit for being Tolerant.
She comes off as cold and aloof. People close to her occasionally let slip anecdotes demonstrating that she can be petty and vindictive. What is actually on her mind and in her heart is absolutely inscrutable as she sports yet another perfunctory politician’s grin when on the podium.
Her supporters in the media have done everything they could to insulate her from exposure for what she has done and what she stands for. Yet, the rank-and-file in her Party stands by her no matter what. As a result, it is more than apparent that she considers herself above the law and that a different set of moral rules apply to her, because she is an Important Person. This, in turn, has served to embolden further toxic behavior that afflicts others.
What does she have to do that will shake this support [other than once-again running against someone who belongs to a demographic that makes them even more excited than hers]? How is it possible that such a person could have the slightest chance of becoming Chief Dog-Catcher, much less President of the United States?
Are her defenders stupid?
Nay, it is not stupidity that is driving support and defense of Hillary; it is a cult mentality that is a hallmark of her side of the political spectrum. There is nobody on the conservative/Republican side who enjoys this kind of blind support. Not even Ronald Reagan did in his day.
She is a High Priestess of the Left. The minions are not unaware; they are willing to overlook any demonstrable flaws in her character, because the worst of one of theirs is deemed better than the best of the Infidel.
If anybody starts bringing up the numerous betrayals of their own values -- particularly in the realm of how much harm she has done to women's empowerment -- the typical Leftist will shut down and tune out.
* As George Will had observed, you cannot reason someone out of a position that they were not reasoned into in the first place. *
If we want to effectively combat an adversary who is doing evil, we must understand their nature. They are not "stupid" because they stubbornly adhere to failed policies and those who preach them. The Left are True Believers and the only thing that can possibly shake their faith is to have them experience the consequences of their ideas put into practice. Even then, juvenile sociopaths that many of them are, their predisposition is to blame others for their own failures.
A major challenge is that the hard-core of the Leftist base dominates the media, academia and entertainment industry. They control information and at the same time are insulated from the consequences of collectivism. They also do not rub elbows with the poor and middle class who are made poorer by big government policies, so they are blissfully unaware of the suffering they impose upon the general population whom they smugly assure themselves they champion.
So the Left can wreak havoc and, without a shred of guilt or irony, still point fingers outward toward those who dare oppose their quest to poison society further.
This is why, in the aftermath of Obama's 2012 re-election, I was among those who advocated that all of the Republicans in both Houses of Congress vote "abstain" for the remainder of his term. There would have been no doubt as to who was responsible for the social and economic decay that has afflicted America under Obamanation.
And the best way to impede their cancerous ideas from spreading is exposure. That is why much of their energies are spent hiding what they stand for and what they intend.
Finally, it is critical that the candidate who is put up against the likes of Hillary Clinton unabashedly and unashamedly stands for the principles upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln was founded -- freedom, equality under the law and personal empowerment.
Playing to the squishy middle is a loser; Obama ran on a hard-Left platform and the “moderates” went along, partly because it seemed that he believed in his ideas more. The electorate will swing in the direction of someone who will actually do something and stands for what is right.
Hillary is at a disadvantage in that respect, because it is obvious that the only thing she believes in is power and saying whatever is necessary to get it. It is critical that she and the Party of Jim Crow are defeated in the upcoming Presidential election. If America hasn’t already been pushed past the tipping point into an impoverished, collectivist oblivion, another term of this broad-spectrum deterioration might be the final nail.
That is what hangs in the balance as America’s current trajectory sees its demise by the end of this century, if not sooner.
