Share This Article with a Friend!


What’s More Depressing: Hillary’s Campaign Or The Thought Of Her As President?

If the campaign “can be downright depressing” as Hillary Clinton put it at a “rally” at Temple University attended by less than 200 people, reflect, for a minute, upon the emotions stirred by the thought of Hillary Clinton as President. 

The vision of the future offered by Mrs. Clinton is more like one of the more depressing chapters in Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged than “Morning in America.” 

Hillary ClintonIn Mrs. Clinton’s vision, Americans can’t be trusted to make their own healthcare decisions, lawful gun owners are “despicable” and those who believe in American exceptionalism and the unique heritage of Western culture must be “shamed” into thinking otherwise. 

But if you stand-up to this “shaming” or simply differ with Mrs. Clinton and support the Republican candidate, then you support a candidate “…who incites hatred and violence like we’ve never seen before in any campaign… Hate speech being normalized. The dog whistles are out in the open.” 

This strange campaign against the American people began with Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” speeches, in which she said that she put Donald Trump’s supporters into two “baskets” and that half of them were in what she called “the basket of deplorables” including, as she put it, “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” 

She also said that Trump supporters were “irredeemable.” 

So, if you think for example that our borders should be effectively enforced you can be called a racist and shunned. 

If you think there are legitimate differences between men and women that should be recognized in law, you are a sexist and can be shunned. 

If you believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, then you are homophobic and your views are unworthy of airing in the public square. 

If you think immigration to America should be limited to only those who adhere to constitutional government and will contribute to America’s cultural and economic advancement, then you are a xenophobe and your views can be dismissed. 

And most assuredly, if you wisely recognize that Islam is incompatible with constitutional government and is an existential threat to American society and cultural ideals then you are an Islamophobe and unworthy of having your views considered. 

All of these concerns are self-evidently legitimate to millions of Americans, but telling the truth about them is simply not allowed in the eyes of the establishment’s opinion-makers. 

Larry O'Connor at Hot Air makes the point that Democrats, and a complicit media, used much the same tactic against Republicans and Mitt Romney back in 2012.  

Back then, he writes, "Obama and Clinton hammered Romney about his condemnation [of the response to the Benghazi attack] and the media played along. They attacked Romney mercilessly for getting out in front of the story and using the riots to make a political point."  

And it wasn’t just Benghazi, any criticism of the Obama-Clinton failures in the Middle East, Obama’s open borders immigration policies, his “refugee” policies and his facilitation of the Islamic civilization jihad against America was racist and “hate speech.” 

The same is true now, O'Connor argues. "But here's the crux of this issue which seems lost on the media and the Democrats trying to make the case that Trump 'shoots first and aims later,'" he writes. "He was right!" 

What’s depressing is not Hillary Clinton’s lackluster campaign, that is mostly concerned with campaigning against her fellow Americans and avoiding answering for her lifetime of lies. What’s depressing is that Donald Trump and his supporters are correct about the threats facing our country, and the establishment media is so obsessed with defeating Trump that they attack him or claim he is jumping to conclusions when he is right.

Share this