Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

“White Privilege”? The Only Privilege I See is “Liberal Privilege”

The liberal press has made much ado recently by coining the phrase “white privilege” to account for there being more white people firmly in the middle class than black or brown people (of course liberals ignore the fact that Asians, as represented by their share of the population, greatly out-represent whites in the arena of earnings).  But what is most evident is the massive privilege given to anyone of the liberal stripe, and here are a few examples:

 

Liberal Political/Economic Privilege

Just out of college Chelsea Clinton gets a six-figure income from NBC and now has a 10 million dollar Manhattan penthouse. Did she work and earn this lavish living?  I thought Hillary was going to put a halt to this unfair high living for those in a position of influence with powerful people.

 

Liberal Environmental Privilege

Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons and their liberal pals in the United Nations and elsewhere get to own multiple homes and fly around on private jets while being considered saviors of humanity, while everyone else is told to live in cramped quarters and take the bus or walk.

 

Liberal Governmental Privilege

Hillary can disobey the law and destroy government emails from her illegal server and no one in government shows any concern, and the press just moves on to Rubio’s parking tickets.

Bill Clinton can abuse women and lie about it under oath while he’s occupying the Oval Office and it’s a ho-hum event.

Hillary’s lack of attention to security in Benghazi as Secretary of State got four American employees of hers killed, but never mind.

 

Liberal Trans-Race Privilege

The white Rachel Dolezal uses her abilities to pretend to be black and take charge of an NAACP branch, thereby denying real blacks a chance to get recognition and advance themselves.  But being a liberal protects Dolezal from any criticism and scorn from the press.  Shouldn’t a white pretending to be black in order to dominate blacks be considered racist?  I’m just asking.

 

Liberal Black Privilege

Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson and Walter E. Williams, among many other black conservatives, are scorned for their opinions and called sell-outs, but Sharpton and Jackson are above reproach.

In Chicago and Baltimore blacks kill blacks every day and white liberals just yawn.  I guess they think these lives don’t matter.

 

Liberal Legislative Privilege

Liberal welfare legislation has destroyed many lives, both black and white, by creating endless dependence on government hand-outs, and discourages those on welfare from getting a job and being independent of government, and even when Democrat liberals are honest enough to admit that this human destruction has occurred under their guidance they will not propose getting rid of the laws that further their power hold on votes.

Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and New York City, among other cities with high crime and high murder rates and disgracefully high welfare roles are all Democrat enclaves in which Republican and conservative ideas are ignored, but Democrats are never blamed for the outrageous conditions they have created.

De Blasio: Democrats Have a Democracy Problem

New York’s far-left progressive mayor told Face the Nation that “we have a democracy problem” and they do.

Democrats have a real and growing problem – a democracy problem. If they can’t get the uninformed masses to the polls, their ability to win elections will suffer.

Bill De Blasio spent the segment blaming Republicans for lower voter turnout as if a certain voter turnout is necessary to support the ongoing function of our nation. In truth, lower, more-informed turnout would be preferable to mandated 100% voting.

De Blasio voices support for Hillary Clinton’s proposals to make voter registration madatory at age 18 and require all states to offer 20 days of early voting.

How long until progressives take the next step and tie child tax credits or welfare payments to mandatory voting?

The Republican National Committee noted that Hillary’s home state does not currently have early voting and an RNC spokesman pointed out that “Her exploitation of this issue only underscores why voters find her dishonest and untrustworthy.”

Hillary Clinton is frantically pointing at Republicans as the root of the Democrat’s new voter turnout issue. In a Thursday speech at Texas Southern University, Hillary said that “Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting. What part of democracy are they afraid of?”

Hillary’s question is one of desperation. This isn’t about what Republicans are afraid of – it’s what has Democrats in crisis mode. They are running an old, wealthy white candidate against a cadre of candidates of varying ages, ethnicities, genders and backgrounds.

Clinton looks like the epitome of the old, rich and white candidate the Democrats have demonized forever. Without Obama in the race in 2016, a large portion of the Democrat base may just stay home.

A democracy is not successful simply because a huge part of the population votes. It is successful when the largest percentage of informed and thoughtful voters participate.

As a final note, the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy – “but at this point, what difference does it make?”

How the Left Uses Racism, and Will Use Sexism, to Stifle Dissent

Ever since the junior senator from Illinois announced his candidacy for the presidency eight years ago, those who have criticized his politics and his ideology have been pummeled with a charge of “racism.” It’s been the perfunctory, knee-jerk response – devoid of intellectual integrity or factual relevance – to avoid the substantive issues, while attempting to simultaneously stifle dissent and silence critics. And it’s clear from early indications with regard to the 2016 presidential race, that the same modus operandi will be employed against those critical of Hillary Clinton. Only this time it will be gender based – the charge of sexism.

Tea-Party-RacistDuring the Obama tenure, the charge of “racist” has been unavoidable to any who were critical of the president. Whether it was criticism of Obamacare, lack of transparency, fiscal profligacy, inscrutable foreign policy, class-envy fomentation, and anti-capitalist policies, it didn’t matter. Regardless of the logic, data, facts, or strength of argument, if you opposed the administration policies and initiatives, you were a racist. At least according to the sycophants, who were either oblivious to logic, data, or facts, and had an empty logical quiver from which to fire back with anything except blanks.

And what’s pathetic, from a free speech, open discourse, and cogent political discourse perspective, is that it worked. The millions of Americans who flocked to Tea Party rallies, Glenn Beck confabs, and other conservative functions, were successfully labeled “racists” because of their opposition to the liberal, destructive policies of the administration. It didn’t matter what color, race, creed, or socio-economic status they hailed from, they were all racists.

democrats-racist-end-is-near-cartoonFor some reason, the fact that the policies propounded and foisted on the nation the past six years are not race-based seems lost on the vapid purveyors of the “racist” tactic. Big government, massive debt, onerous regulations, expansive government control, and the concomitant loss of personal liberty are naturally opposed not because they might be advanced by someone of a certain color, ethnic background, or native language. They’re opposed because they’re antithetical to the founding principles of our republic! It matters not who is foisting the destructive policies and ideology on the nation; it matters that they’re distinctly anti-American. Conservative Ben Carson’s current lead in the crowded GOP primary race underscores that fact.

racist_0What’s brilliant about the tactic, is that you don’t have to worry about any facts, data, or common sense to employ it. Just by hurling the accusation several things have been accomplished with one fell swoop. 1) The argument has been misdirected, so it’s no longer about the policies or the substance of the disagreement, it’s now whether the dissenter is truly racist or not. 2) It neutralizes and diminishes the objections of the dissenter, for now the greater issue is whether he is in fact racist, or not. And 3) it successfully stifles dissent, since no one, probably even real racists, likes to be called one, so why go out on a limb and face the probability of such an accusation?

And now it appears that Hillary Clinton supporters will use the same tactic. Just last month a pro-Hillary group, self-dubbed the HRC Super Volunteers, warned journalists that they were going to be watching vigilantly how the media reports on Hillary’s campaign. Group member and co-founder, John West, was thoughtful enough to serve as an early warning system on the words that cannot, I repeat, cannot be used to describe the probable Democrat candidate for president. According to West, “polarizing,” “calculating,” “disingenuous,” “insincere,” “ambitious,” “inevitable,” “entitled,” “over-confident,” “secretive,” “will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” and “out of touch,” are all apparently sexist code-words that the media are to not use when describing the candidate.

hillar_c_wordsAccording to West, “Already we have seen the coded language of sexism and innuendo used by major news outlets and we are not happy,” followed by a list of examples from major news sources and their egregious use of such sexist vernacular. As a student of language and etymology, I have to admit I was unaware those words and phrases were definitionally sexist.

But alas, I shouldn’t let myself fall into their misdirection and accusatory trap. It’s not that those words are sexist, it’s just that they’re so accurately descriptive of the presumptive Democrat nominee that using the terms will earn the consternation of Hillary devotees, hence justifying accusations of sexism. By couching those terms in a sexist context, they can as easily avert factual criticism of Hillary as they did in protecting Obama. Just like the accusations of “racism;” it has nothing to do with what is true or what is factual, it has everything to do with ensuring electoral success and neutralizing the opposition by attempting to shape and control the language.

UnknownThose of us who are bitter clingers to our freedom, our liberties, and the principles the nation was founded on, shouldn’t allow ourselves to be rebuffed or silenced by the non-thinking Alynski devotees who utilize these nefarious and polarizing tactics. And remember, if that’s their primary tool to fight back with, you know that logically you’ve already won, because their only defense is casting aspersions ad hominem.

There are two things even more disturbing than a group attempting to regulate political speech. One, that the liberal-biased media may well comply, and play their game; and two, that for a large segment of our unenlightened and uninformed electorate, their “sexist” tactic will work.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

How the Clinton Global Initiative Used its Funds During Hillary’s Tenure at State

In 2010, when Barack Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” he definitely wasn’t referring to the Clintons.

Because it wasn’t enough for Bill Clinton to sell sensitive missile technology to the Red Chinese for campaign donations. It wasn’t enough for Hillary Clinton to sell America’s most valuable nuclear technologies to the Russians for “contributions” to her family’s personal piggy bank.

That piggy bank, otherwise known as “The Clinton Global Graft Initiative”, had an interesting way of doling out the “contributions” it received.

The Clintons are a malignant tumor on the body politic. They have a history of doing anything for money — including selling out their own country — and when it comes to their personal bank accounts, there’s apparently never enough zeroes.

China Warns Clinton About Campaign

Secretary_Clinton_with_China's_Foreign_Minister_YangChina isn’t happy just controlling the speech of its own people, now the government-controlled media is telling Hillary to keep quiet when it comes to China.

Two Chinese Communist Party-controlled newspapers published an indirect warning to Hillary Clinton not to criticize China during her campaign for president.

 

 

“Clinton should keep in mind a warning from Henry Paulson,” the article states. “When asked … what he’d like to hear the presidential candidates say about China, the former U.S. treasury secretary quipped: ‘I’d like them to say as little as possible.’”

Between speeches that Bill Clinton gave in China or to Chinese-funded U.S. groups and the money that the Clinton Foundation received from Chinese interests, the Clintons et al raked in upwards of $3.4million. Whether or not that buys the silence of the presumptive Democrat nominee or not is yet to be seen.

Hilllary’s ‘Just Like Us’ Tour Shows How She’s Nothing Like Us

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign start was intended to portray the former First Lady as ‘one of us’, but it instead showed how wealthy and different she is from just about any of us.

Hillary Flying Coach - KindaMost recently, Hillary tried to show her ‘every person’ side by flying coach. Unfortunately, the rest of us don’t get picked up by a limo at the side of the plane. We have to go down to baggage… then wait… then get our bags… then wait… catch a rental shuttle or hotel shuttle.

Hillary tries to relate to Americans even though she hasn’t experienced everyday life in decades. Heck, the last time she drove a car “Macarena” was the #1 song on the radio and Tracy Chapman was still relevant. (That hurt just researching it.)

The Scooby Doo Mystery Machine Van tour turned out to be less grass roots and more of an overly-controlled photo-op. Heck, even in meetings with friendly operatives, phones were confiscated. She can’t even trust the loyal operatives inside the DNC.

Anyone that believes that a Clinton can run anything other than a tightly-controlled, guaranteed-result campaign, is in for a surprise.

The question is whether Democrats would rather pick their nominee or have her handed to them by the elites that control the party.

 

« Older Entries