More Inconsistency
By Michael The Libertarian
Islamic Jihadists, when wanting to protect the prophet, the Qur'an,
or Sharia law, will lash out at soft targets.
They don't attack military posts (except from the inside, Maj.
Hasan), or police stations, or the local KKK or Neo-Nazi
headquarters. No. They attack soccer stadiums, night clubs, schools,
concert venues … soft targets.
Why wouldn't they? Places where the masses they wish to murder have
been dis-armed for them, either by law or by the venue, itself. It
makes the danger of being taken out before they've completed their
“mission” much less likely. It's a smart – if cowardly –
tactic.
Am I about to go off on another anti-Islamist screed? Not at all. I'm
setting you up for the “kill”.
Over the weekend, scores of Democratic lawmakers and pundits attacked
their own “soft target”, Bill Clinton.
To be sure, I never liked the man's politics, but I recognized his
political prowess and acumen. He was brilliant at obfuscating
damaging details and swaying public opinion, merely stating as fact:
“The American people don't want ...” His P.R. Campaigns were
effective, to say the least.
During last year's campaign season, I noticed that the former
president was not “on his game”. He made missteps that left my
jaw dangling. I believe, in his “prime”, he never would have
pulled the political boners he did in 2016.
The other side of the coin is that Bill Clinton (or as I like to call
him: “Slick Willy” or “The Commander-In-Heat”) swept into
office amidst rumors and flat-out allegations of adultery, sexual
assault and rape.
The near-entirety of the Democratic party – elected officials,
strategists, talking heads, and rank-and-file – rode in on their
white steeds to defend the “good guy” from Hope. The media was
beating up on him. The Republicans, they said, were desperately
clinging to power and using their propaganda machine, the media, as
their cudgel.
Forgetting the stranglehold the Democrats have had on the media since
the late 1970s, which makes the last claim laughable.
I remember those days well. I remember the moaning and wailing and
gnashing of teeth immediately following that now infamous “60
Minutes” interview where
Clinton admitted to having “damaged” his family. Everyone
I saw on t.v. or knew personally who were on the left, even those who
were “moderate” called for the righteously indignant to allow for
forgiveness.
All-in-all, Clinton's long and
well-rumored shenanigans became a non-issue, based, in large part,
upon the drive of the DNC and the media (Who may become known,
here-to-fore as: “The DNC Propaganda Wing”).
Later, when the Monica Lewinski
scandal exploded, the Democratic machine geared up again and kept
Clinton from being removed from office, even after being only the
second president in our history to be impeached.
I mentioned Slick Willy's missteps
in last year's election campaign and the fact that I believed he was
“off his game”. Truth be told, I believe the former president may
be suffering from something medical that is affecting his higher
functions.
The Democratic party has set itself
up, over the last half century, as the self-appointed arbiters of
decency and morality and this last weekend, they targeted and
attacked this “soft target” of a former president in the wake of
the Moore and Franken (and Weinstain … and … Spacey … and
Hoffman … and …) scandals.
I'm of two minds on this, but not
entirely.
The Dems had their chance to build
“street cred”, back in the 90s. They had the perfect opportunity
to practice what they had been preaching. They could have held their
own “guy” to the standards to which they insist upon holding the
other side of the aisle.
They abdicated (to my mind) any
authority they had along with the moral high ground on this
particular broad topic by dint of their defense of Clinton.
Now, with the power in the DNC
passing from the Clinton regime to even further left-skewing
personalities in the DNC, they've decided it is safe to attack their
old standard bearer.
To be sure, even people who
supported Hillary, publicly probably don't like her, personally and
that has some bearing on the shoveling of dirt on the Clinton family
plot.
I remember being a relatively young
man of twenty-seven years old and being staunchly against Clinton's
campaign to take the white house. I objected on moral, political, and
general principles. I was stead-fast in my opposition and I have
opposed all political aspirations by anyone named Clinton ever since.
I was also disgusted by the RNC. At
the time, they were my party. Their weak stance, the lack of desire
to throw their shoulder into and truly condemn Clinton for the (at
very least) womanizer he was disgusted me.
I just published
a piece where I lambasted foolish inconsistency. It's what we're
viewing, today. Suddenly, after there's no chance of either of the
Clinton hierarchy ever being effective in politics, again, now that
it's considered politically expedient and safe, the Democratic sharks
are circling because they smell blood in the water. Inconsistent, at
best. Criminally negligent, at worst.
In this case, consistency is easy to
identify and I offer this small snippet to the Democratic ruling
class and the “foot soldiers”:
If you're right, now, you were wrong
then. If we were right, then, you're hypocritical, now.
- Michael
Comments
Post a Comment