America will be hearing quite a bit less from me regarding the imperative of defeating Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton than they heard in 2008 regarding the imperative of defeating Barack Hussein Obama. There are two chief reasons for this: One is that in light of my having broken the story nationally pertaining to Obama’s ties to radical preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the racialist doctrine of his church in Chicago on Feb. 28, 2007, some in the press were quite interested in what I had to say at the time. Since there’s no analogue for this relative to the current election cycle, there’s been less to capitalize on vis-à-vis media exposure.
The second reason has to do with the comparative track records of Obama and Clinton at the outset of their campaigns and the questionable wisdom of appealing to an electorate that may have already reached the point of no return in its ignorance and delusion.
While a few people such as myself and Sean Hannity were shouting from the rooftops in 2008 about how Obama had telegraphed his evil intentions via many questionable associations, his books and his rhetoric, he had no track record to speak of in 2008. As a result, many voters simply gave him the benefit of the doubt. To some extent, this is understandable.
It has probably become painfully obvious that Clinton is enjoying the same benefit (as did Obama in 2008) of an establishment press that is wholly invested in advancing the international socialist agenda. Recent displays of sycophantism on the part of presidential debate moderators should handily lay to rest any arguments against this conclusion.
Granted that there was more fanfare on the part of the press surrounding Obama’s ascendancy, his being America’s heralded first black president and all, whereas there is more damage control going on pertaining to Clinton’s campaign. The objective is the same, however: Get an otherwise unelectable, virulently radical leftist elected to the office of president of the United States.
As an aside: For those who may be wondering why I employ the phrase “international socialist” as opposed to the more widely used “global socialist,” it is because the methods and nature of global elites are proving to be identical to those of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (or Nazi Party), which came to power in Germany just prior to World War II. So, it’s truly ironic that prominent liberals have taken to characterizing Hillary Clinton’s Republican opponent and his surrogates as Nazis.
Unlike candidate Obama in 2008, however, Hillary Clinton has already forged a legacy of deceit, predatory opportunism and unbridled greed. Long before Ms. Clinton violated the Espionage Act in her influence peddling, lost $6 billion in State Department funds, bleached illegal email servers, or practically ordered the executions of those who perished at Benghazi, it was common knowledge to millions of Americans that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had lied, cheated, stolen and perhaps even killed their way to fortune and glory. Recent email server scandal revelations are underscoring the fact that her actions as secretary of state rivaled those of America’s most corrupt political operatives and organized-crime figures.
Hence the need for damage control. Voters – even those who are planning to vote for GOP nominee Donald Trump in a few weeks – may not be aware of the depth of evil and extent of the danger Hillary Clinton represents, or the scope of complicity on the part of most lawmakers in our government, or the fallacy of the two-party system, but they’ve known Hillary Clinton to be crooked for decades.
The 2008 sub-prime mortgage debacle, the home foreclosure epidemic, the 94 million Americans out of work, the millions of new Medicaid recipients, the explosion in the homeless population, the rising cost of living, the increase in terrorist attacks on our soil, moral ambivalence, trade imbalances and ongoing cultural Balkanization – all of this has been the work of such as Clinton, Obama and their stealth co-conspirators in the GOP. Neither the Constitution, capitalism, colonialism, the Judeo-Christian ethos, nor traditional values gave rise to these things; it has all been due to the influence of progressive-socialist policies.
Considering the foregoing, the idea that there is a very substantial contingent of the American electorate still willing to elect Clinton is sobering at best, and horrifying at worst. When we look at Hillary Clinton at rallies or debates, leering into the cameras with bug eyes and Jack Nicholson’s frozen Joker smirk, I believe we are looking into the face of sheer madness.
That aside, Clinton’s lack of comeliness is probably the least of her liabilities. Despite all the efforts of the press, at this point the empirical evidence should speak for itself. If it does not – and barring widespread election fraud – we will know the answer in November. Then it will be apparent that Americans’ capacity for self-delusion has overcome their basic instinct for self-preservation.
And that is a horrifying prospect indeed.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush