Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton
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.
During 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.
For 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.
What’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.
According 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.
Those 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].
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.
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.
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.
Most 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.
The people have been so informed that the future Queen of America will announce her path to succession this Sunday.
Ah, the beautiful ceremony a royal crowning is to behold.
It is the pomp: props, decorations, music and the plumage – all so that the little people can rejoice in the coronation of their next Queen – Her majesty, Queen Hillary – direct heir to the throne of His Majesty, King Barack. The announcement cements the pre-determined succession of one royal leader to the next and begins the 18 month long journey the successor must take on her journey to become America’s next monarch.
The Republican candidates headed into the 2016 primary are many and varied, but the Democrat leadership chooses its candidates for their consituents – do they not believe that the common folk can choose the best candidate for the general election on their own?
The DNC will likely push some ill-fated, no-chance alternative to Hillary like V.P. Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Saders or Gov. Martin O’Malley just to show that the chosen one had earned her crown by battling it out against serious competition… or something.
The Republicans will have a cadre of suitors battling it out in debates and the media ensuring that the survivor emerges with blood, egg and stench on them while our future Queen steps forward unblemished and victorious having won against a clearly inferior challenger.
Her Majesty’s campaign has a set of guiding principles. Every guideline seems to scream “we know we’re going to get the nomination, but we just can’t act like it.” According to Fox News, the memo states the following:
“We Are Hillary For America.”
to give every family, every small business, and every American a path to lasting prosperity by electing Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.”
“This campaign is not about Hillary Clinton and not about us — it’s about the everyday Americans who are trying to build a better life for themselves and their families,” the memo says
The memo concludes with a series of guiding principles that include:
“We are disciplined: driven every day by strategy, not tactics or one offs. We know there will be tough days, but we will bounce back and get back to work. We take risks, always measuring with empirical data to establish best practices.”
“We are humble: we take nothing for granted, we are never afraid to lose, we always out-compete and fight for every vote we can win. We know this campaign will be won on the ground, in states.”
“We are responsible: we always remember and appreciate the generosity of millions of people who invest their time and resources in Hillary Clinton and in us.”
It ends by telling recipients: “We are guided by Hillary’s bedrock values of hard work, service, fairness, and faith in the American Dream.”
The people certainly wish to understand this Royal Proclamation so we attempt some clarity:
Queen Hillary seeks to “give every family, every small business, and every American a path to lasting prosperity.”
Do most Americans look to their leadership to show them how they should make a living?
Americans used to expect the government to simply defend them, regulate inter-state trade, deal with foreign trade and resolve inter-state disagreements. Assuming that Americans want their leader to “give” them the path to prosperity assumes that the people are unable to make it on their own.
In return, Her Majesty only asks that Americans give her the crown that she so believes is rightly hers.
Possibly the one approach to getting Hillary elected no one expected… wanted .. or appreciates.