Liddick: If you think Trump’s bad, take a look at Clinton’s track record (column)
What does one call a presidential candidate who rails against an opponent’s so-called misogyny, with no breath of a question about her descriptions of her husband’s many victims: terms like “stalker,” “bimbo,” “narcissistic loony tune,” and my favorite, “trash” – to use a few adjectives printable in a family newspaper? Or her ugly behavior toward her husband’s victims, like Juanita Broaddrick? Answer: Hillary Clinton. Alternatively, very lucky to be covered by a stenographic pool of fawning sycophants, instead of real reporters.
Which may also explain why none of her other outré positions have received more than eager nodding from those pretending to be journalists.
Immigration? According to Hillary, the only solution to the problem of 11 – or 12, or who-knows-how-many — million illegal immigrants to the US is “comprehensive immigration reform,” in which amnesty will be extended to most in return for a promise of tighter restrictions on future immigration and better controls on the entry process. It’s the same empty promise that we heard in 1986 with Simpson-Mazzoli, and in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Both times there were “adjustments” to those without legal status; both times, the promised toughening of entry requirements and border security did not materialize. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I’m a Progressive: no one else is dull enough to swallow that tripe yet again. No, Hillary will not secure our borders.
Economics? Hillary calls for “the rich” to “pay their fair share,” advocating higher taxes. What she won’t admit is that according to a recent study by the University of California, the top ten percent of American income earners own about 64% of all household assets. But they pay almost 70% of Federal income taxes, according to the Treasury Department, which seems more than “fair,” especially considering the lowest 47% of asset holders pay none. The “fair share” argument isn’t exactly a lie, but it’s certainly less than the truth.
She also says that plans to cut tax rates will not incentivize businesses to open or expand instead of remaining static, shrinking or packing up and leaving the country. She says this despite historical evidence to the contrary from both Republican and Democrat administrations. She says tax rate cuts will increase the deficit, without remembering that it takes Congress to rein in spending. Maybe these misrepresentations are another effect of the blow to the head that made her forget her briefings about handling classified material. Maybe not. But misrepresentations they are. No, her policies will not make us more prosperous.
National Security? There’s been enough time spent talking about felonious mishandling of classified material. How about thinking bigger? Hillary says security means “…maintaining a cutting-edge military and standing up to our rivals,” but as Secretary of State she had little regard for the former and was a dismal failure at the latter. From Rostov-on-Don to Douma to Aleppo and beyond, the victims of her foreign policy failures and those of the President she served cry out against that empty statement.
In the September 26 debate, she proudly pointed to the wasteland her policies had created in Libya, proclaiming “no American died from our actions there,” which is a lie and a monstrous insult to the four Americans who did. I know their names, and so does everyone who pays attention to the news. Add to that her history of catering to the whims of tyrants, from Moscow to Pyongyang, Tehran to Beijing; understand that to an aggressive rogue, acquiescence is an invitation, not a deterrent. No, she will not keep us safe.
Know that she is no friend of the common citizen, no matter how she might prattle about him in theory. In her egoism and condescension, she could care less about those who cannot advance her wealth or power, or who cannot pay her for an audience. Those worthless types can join their compatriots in the “basket of deplorables.” Not only is she unable to unite a badly-riven country, she hasn’t the slightest interest in doing so. No one has made it worth her while.
While we’re at it, no, Hillary wasn’t named after the conqueror of Mt. Everest, although she insisted she was. She didn’t land under sniper fire in Bosnia, although she said she did. “All her grandparents” were not immigrants, as she claimed. They were born here. There was classified information on her private e-mail server, which was not approved by anyone but her. These and a thousand other untruths over decades give a clear picture of the Democrat candidate for president: a person who, to quote Barack Obama, “Will say anything to be elected president.”
Food for thought, as November 8 approaches.
Morgan Liddick writes a weekly column for the Summit Daily.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.