President Barack Obama referred to the massive population of Americans who disagree with his progressive policies as “bitter clingers” back in 2008. Now, with the same God-fearing and gun-toting Americans threatening to sink her campaign, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has given them a new name: Deplorables.
Last week, Clinton told a crowd of supporters: “Just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.”
After public outrage erupted over the former first lady’s insult, she sort of apologized, saying: “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’—that was wrong.”
Not, “I shouldn’t call people with different views ‘deplorable.’”
Not,“I shouldn’t suggest that the only reason a person could support Trump is because they’re a bigot.”
Just, “I regret saying ‘half.’”
Maybe she regrets saying “half” because she meant to say “all,” as in, “If you’re so brazen as to publically oppose me, your rightful queen, you are a deplorable human being.”
After all, Clinton’s thirst for power and her belief that she is owed the presidency isn’t exactly a secret.
And that she is an unapologetic elitist is also well-known. Hell, she couldn’t even muster respect for the current president— a guy just as comfortable as Clinton pretending that a major chunk of the American population isn’t blue collar, redneck, God-fearing, gun toting, overtaxed, regulation-choked or otherwise opposed to big government visions— after he stole her crown in 2008.
Remember the early stages of Clinton’s email investigation? After she seriously bungled her consolation-prize appointment at the State Department by violating the public trust, Clinton demanded of the president who appointed her: “What I want for you to do is call off your f–king dogs, Barack!”
Oddly enough, looking back at what Obama said on the campaign trail in 2008 provides as much a critique of his own administration today as it does the administrations he criticized at the time.
Obama had told the crowd: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama’s thesis, that Americans should accept stronger gun control and focus less on religious beliefs and traditional values in return for economic prosperity, was as brazen as it was a quiet admission that he felt he’d be a great communist leader.
After Obama was elected and realized that his make-work programs were unsustainable, his social welfare goals overly burdensome on actual job creators and his thesis altogether flawed, he began to try to work it backwards.
The Obama White House turned its focus away from the economy and focused intensely on weakening the influence of traditional church teachings, stripping transparency from the 1st Amendment and vehemently attacking the 2nd with appeals to emotion following firearm tragedies.
Obama is often portrayed by the political right as a man with a king complex. But, nearing the end of his time in the White House, it’s probably more accurate to think of him as purely quixotic.
The current president is wrong. But he seems to truly believe that he could have made things better for all Americans if he could just shut certain folks up long enough to install unmitigated top-down control and render others powerless to threaten what some would certainly then have deemed tyranny of government.
Obama’s eight years have been a bad dream for the bitter clingers. Clinton, by comparison, will show them what a nightmare really looks like.
Rather than blame the failures of big government to show Americans that it can help them on American “bitterness” toward federal ideals, Clinton simply calls anyone who disbelieves her ability to run the country effectively “deplorable.”
“Deplorable,” by the way, is defined by Webster as “deserving censure or contempt.”
That suggests that she’s completely fine with the idea of installing tyrannical government and dealing with the detractors later. And she has a blueprint. We all saw what outright opposition to big government meddling gets you during the first Clinton administrations.
Where Obama failed to gain the respect of his subordinates, international colleagues and citizens, Clinton will take by force wherever she can. If you don’t think she will, just take a look at her rise up the political ladder and her handling of international detractors at State.
“We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton cackled just after Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi was sodomized and murdered.
It must’ve been a moment of great relief for her to finally get to openly admit her involvement in a person’s untimely demise. But, I digress.
Even the liberal Huffington Post won’t ignore the pure evil of Clinton’s foreign policy approach.
Obama has since called the Libya debacle one of his biggest mistakes. Clinton, meanwhile, maintains that the overthrow that destabilized the nation is an example of “smart power at its best.”
Obama couldn’t get Congress on board with federal gun confiscation, so he’s attempted to appease the anti-gun zealots his administration whipped into frenzy with largely powerless executive orders.
Why not go further? He doesn’t want to overstep his authority and make a mistake he’ll later regret—at least not this late in the game.
Clinton vows she can make happen what Obama didn’t where the 2nd Amendment is concerned. Don’t like it? Well, let me remind you about Ruby Ridge.
Clintons don’t know the meaning of regret.
But they are masters of leveraging power, making examples of insubordinates and creating an atmosphere where anyone who can call them out is equal parts complicit in their evil and fearful of their retaliation.
You’re either with the Clintons or you’re against them, part of the vast right wing conspiracy of deplorables on whom they’ve waited so long to take the last of their revenge.
The post When Hillary Clinton says not supporting her is ‘deplorable,’ she means it appeared first on Personal Liberty®.