by Jeffrey A. Rendall
Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2020 on a platform of initiating civil war. If asked, say you heard it here first.
The former first lady, national single-payer healthcare promoter, #MeToo deflector, husband apologist, New York senator, intra-party Obama foil and then his Secretary of State – and losing 2016 Democrat presidential candidate – apparently isn’t much for talking sweetness and compassion for her fellow men and women these days. All the bitterness Clinton’s carried since her failed run at the world’s top job was wrapped up in an interview she gave this week where the crooked one basically stated Democrats no longer need to act civilized and peaceful around Republicans led by Donald Trump.
According to Hillary, the crisis created by the Republicans’ elevation of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court served as the final straw for the Democrats’ favorite elder stateswoman. In the course of her dialogue Clinton all-but approved of the left’s extreme tactics to block Kavanaugh and indicated more was in store to combat the effectiveness of the evil Republican majorities. Scary.
Alex Pappas reported at Fox News, “Hillary Clinton, in a television interview Tuesday, rejected the idea that Democrats should be ‘civil’ with Republicans in the age of Donald Trump, embracing a more confrontational and aggressive political approach.
“’You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,’ Clinton said.
“Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee said, ‘That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.’”
First of all, when were the contemporary crop of Democrats ever civil? Was Teddy Kennedy “civil” to Judge Robert Bork when he delivered his infamous “Robert Bork’s America” diatribe in which the Chappaquiddick perpetrator brazenly pontificated about “back alley abortions” and “no room at the inn for blacks.”
And what exactly does Hillary mean by “strength” in this context? Is it senators arm wrestling over upper chamber desks? Sword fighting? Matching the best Republican vs. best Democrat fantasy football teams? Whoever can yell the loudest? Whoever’s “activists” are the whiniest? Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Harvey Weinstein? The Koch brothers vs. George Soros? The Heritage Foundation vs. The Southern Poverty Law Center? NRA Second Amendment advocates vs. Antifa’s hand-picked and police-battle tested thug squad?
Or maybe it’s Democrat National Committee data teams versus the Republican National Committee’s? Conservative volunteer door-knockers vs. paid liberal door-breaker downers? Atheist pro-abortion freaks vs. Christian pro-lifers? Kermit Gosnel vs. a crowd of young “March for Life” demonstrators?
Clinton’s whole notion of “civility” is ludicrous. Numerous conservative commentators suggested she was openly calling for leftists to act violently, but is that really true? Aside from the obvious numerical disadvantages, liberal Democrat ninnies wouldn’t stand a chance against conservatives because, as firebrand Kurt Schlichter frequently points out, we’re the ones with all the firearms. This leaves the black hooded anarchist goons and their handmade tools to do the dueling for Democrats – and those idiots aren’t even brave enough to expose their mugs before the public.
Here’s thinking if Antifa’s people got into individual scraps they’d not only get their butts kicked — they’d scramble from the scene like grade schoolers before a ghoul at an amusement park Fright Night. Democrats would probably concede it doesn’t take a wealth of intestinal fortitude to dash around smashing others’ private property and assaulting bystanders anonymously. What a bunch of cowards!
In case you need a refresher on why Clinton lost to the impossible outsider Donald Trump two years ago it’s worth it to view the entire CNN Hillary interview. In it, Hillary repeats all the tired old themes that punched her ticket to the loser hall of fame, including more jabs at “Russian interference in the outcome” and other disproved conspiracy theories Democrats are partial to.
Clinton was especially pathetic in explaining why “civility” isn’t an option for her and her kind anymore: “I remember Republican operatives shutting down the voting in Florida in 2000,” Hillary explained. “I remember the ‘swift boating’ of John Kerry. I remember the things that even the Republican Party did to John McCain in 2000. I remember what they did to me for 25 years, the falsehoods, the lies, which unfortunately people believe because Republicans have put in a lot of time, money and effort promoting them…”
What, no “vast right-wing conspiracy” anymore Hill?
If one only listened to Hillary you’d think the Clintons were the cleanest and most ethical couple on the face of the planet and none of the numerous scandals plaguing them throughout their three-plus decades in public life were worth a bucket of spit in terms of veracity. Those things were all cooked up by scheming Republicans in a conference room at GOP headquarters, right?
This detached denial mindset isn’t confined to the Democrats you see on TV either. A liberal recently told me that “survivors should be believed” and “lots” of women held onto stories of rape and sexual assault from the same time period as Christine Blasey Ford because “it’s a lot different now than it was in the 80’s. Women were afraid back then to come forward because no one would believe them.”
Huh? I don’t remember it being like that at all. Having come of age in roughly the same timeframe as Brett Kavanaugh I recollect things quite differently than my liberal friend. Being almost exactly a generation younger than this particular liberal I don’t recall any shattered young girls or women who felt pressured to sit on stories lest they be chastised before the Ronald Reagan-intolerant public. My parents taught us (including my sister) to never be victims and to observe what today would be labeled “See something, say something.”
The 80’s was a more innocent time before social media and the internet, the modern tools of professional and amateur character assassins. Talk about “civil.” Why would anyone choose to make themselves available for public office when you’ve got kooks and dolts tweeting about hearsay and innuendo they discovered third-hand and brought to light as though it were corroborated fact?
Delusional Hillary continued, “So when you’re dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding…you can be civil but you can’t overcome what they intend to do…unless you win elections. So, the answer to everything is to get back to a balance, to get back to what is called regular order…”
What could possibly motivate Clinton to sustain this fall-on-the-sword charade? Usually there’s a certain amount of dignity involved with being the presidential runner-up, a role warmly embraced by also-rans of both parties in recent times. For example, during his concession speech in 2008 John McCain practically agreed that America had done the right thing by voting for his opponent instead of him.
But not Hillary. She was semi-gracious in her own capitulation on November 9 (2016) but shortly after joined the “resistance” and hasn’t let up since. It’s blatantly obvious she’s keeping herself in the media eye just long enough to leave options open going into next year’s start of the 2020 presidential nomination cycle. Clinton would never accept the “lesser” status of playing a supporting role to whomever the crackpot Democrat grassroots nominates.
No, for Hillary it’s all or none. Numero uno or don’t bother showing up. That’s why she’s broken out her “let’s have a civil war” platform, with campaign rallies and fundraisers coming to a big Democrat population center near you. Get your tickets now…it’s gonna get ugly.
Whether the possibility of civil war is real or not depends on who you ask but some pretty smart people aren’t convinced such a thing’s certain to happen because the bonds of union are too strong, fortified by an innate desire to enrich ourselves off of each other. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many Hillary Clintons bemoan the meanness of conservatives and Republicans, because in the end, we need other to build our own bank accounts.
Jay Cost wrote at National Review, “[Hamilton’s] brilliant theory furnishes a compelling explanation for why the American union has persisted for so long. Our mutual success depends on the union itself, such that our fates are now so intertwined that it is impossible to separate them. We can be Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, or atheist. We can be black, white, or Latino. We can be Northern or Southern. We can be liberal or conservative. We can have any number of professions. But so long as we continue to appreciate that our own personal prosperity depends on the prosperity of those with whom we may otherwise disagree, we shall remain together…
“Nothing like the South of the 1850s exists today. America is well integrated economically. So Hamilton’s old logic is fully in force: Mutual economic gain remains the keystone of the national union.
“To put matters bluntly, we do not have to like one another, so long as we continue to make money off one another. That is what will keep us together.”
Cost’s (and Hamilton’s) is an interesting theory though I doubt the purveyors of (the vast majority of) violence — aka Democrats and leftists — give a hoot they’ll end up richer if they remain logistically tied to their political opposition. While it’s true the pre-Civil War south believed it could go its own separate way because of “king cotton” and the economic power the region harvested on the backs of black slaves, there were a host of additional factors that led to the War Between the States (kicking off in April, 1861 at Fort Sumter, South Carolina).
The ability to make money independently of each other was only one reason, and as Abraham Lincoln brilliantly articulated in his Gettysburg Address, there were heavy moral factors involved too. What began primarily as a dispute over the expansion of slavery into the new territories concluded as a crusade to rid the nation of the stain of human bondage – something the Founding Fathers weren’t able to accomplish in 1787.
No such unifying factors are in evidence today. A potentially devastating war or external threat currently doesn’t exist unless you count the media puffed up panic over Russian election interference or the chance “little rocket man” Kim Jong-un’s nuclear trigger finger will get itchy. Even our greatest economic rival, China, isn’t considered a likely opponent for a largescale shooting war.
Our mutual economic interests might keep us from firing off missiles at the Chinese (and vice versa) but it wouldn’t prevent this country’s leftist forces from trying in earnest to wreck what’s left of America’s social fabric. At their core they’re funded by billionaires such as George Soros and the California tech titans (like Tom Steyer). These guys would be all too happy to join Democrats Crooked Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker and Kamala Harris (et al) in ripping up the Constitution to establish their rendition of a politically correct socialist utopia.
That way the whole of the United States would soon look and feel like San Francisco, the poop and hypodermic needle filled capital of the Democrats’ totalitarian dreamland.
Besides, rational people recognize that Donald Trump’s America really is a pretty nice place to be. The Editors of the Washington Examiner wrote, “The fact the 2016 election result caught so much of the press off-guard should have forced everyone to rethink their obsessions. What matters to political hacks is often of little concern to the public. Most of America neither knows nor cares whether Trump insulted a reporter during a news conference the other day. Most couldn’t explain the acronym CFPB, let alone explain the recent succession controversy at that agency.
“This isn’t to suggest that your fellow Americans are stupid, disengaged, or poorly educated. They don’t care about these things, which is as much to their credit as otherwise. They care more about other stuff. They live lives healthily unobsessed about Washington’s self-important political class…
“In short, take a mental health break from social media and talk to real people, and you’re likely to realize that most of them don’t think the country is in trouble or that Trump’s presidency is a disaster.”
This is true, to an extent. A lot of folks I’ve talked with are concerned about the craziness and violence they see on the evening news – or at least the networks that bother covering it. This lack of “civility” isn’t exactly new in the course of American history though the ferocity and frequency of it is of more recent vintage.
Hillary Clinton’s advocacy for “incivility” in dealing with Trump and Republicans isn’t likely to cause much of a stir on its own. No one listens to the decrepit former presidential candidate, but Clinton’s attitude is all too pervasive in the greater Democrat party. Be afraid…be very afraid.
