RICHARD MOORE

AMERICAN INVESTIGATOR REPORTING THE CASE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY

Daily Constitutional

The vulgarity of Hillary Clinton

Posted by richardmoore on September 6, 2016 at 11:35 AM

Posted by Richard Moore Sept. 6, 2016

 

There are many ways to describe Donald Trump, and many people go to great and creative lengths to describe him.


I like to call him the unpredictable Trump, which in the end means he merely dares to think outside the establishment box. I have a friend who thinks he’s scary, but I think my friend’s slavish devotion to CNN is scarier.


The away-from-the-planet-for-this-lifetime liberal fringe calls Trump a racist or a fascist or both. Of course, that’s just politics, and even liberals know better.


Most by now have watched the 1999 video of Jesse Jackson introducing Trump at a Rainbow Coalition/Operation PUSH event, praising him as a friend committed to inclusiveness and diversity. Turns out, Trump’s call now to rebuild America’s inner cities using American steel and American workers parallels Jackson’s own recent urgings to rebuild those cities, and would represent a major black jobs initiative.


The fascist thing turns out to be liberal projection, too. Fascism needs at least two ingredients, a dictatorial strong man or woman, and crony alliances of big businesses.


On count one, Trump would be strong, but I haven’t seen any evidence he would be dictatorial; just the opposite. Among other things, he would bring Congress back into the loop by working and negotiating with lawmakers, you know, the art of the deal.


Barack Obama, on the other hand, has turned his back on what is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government and blazed a new — and dictatorial — trail with executive orders, daring the courts to strike him down. He’s the dictatorial strong man fascism needs.


As Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley, one of the nation’s foremost constitutional scholars and himself a liberal who voted for Obama in 2008, told Congress in 2013, in testifying about those executive orders: “When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He (Obama) is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the constitution was designed to avoid.”


Turley said he approved of many of Obama’s policies but could not stomach the president’s extraconstitutional methods to achieve them. The ends, he said, do not justify the means.


For her part, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly endorsed Obama’s use of executive orders and one-branch government, so so much for Trump as the fascist candidate. If you want to find dictatorial leaders, a key element of fascism, look no further than the Democratic Party.


The second element of fascism is the need to have a big-business crony class that serves the dictator’s needs while raking in unconscionable profits on the backs of the people.


We certainly have such a crony capitalist class today, and it is way too bloated with unconscionable profits, but this is the very class that Donald Trump (and Bernie Sanders) have run against. The Donald is very much for Main Street, not Wall Street.


And that brings us to the vulgarity of Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s anointed candidate.


There are many reasons one could call Clinton vulgar. It could be her shameless attacks on the character of women who accused Bill Clinton of sexually abusing them.


It could be her shameless pay-to-play scheme she installed at the State Department. It could be her callous response to Benghazi. It could be her pathological lies, or her past financial scandals, or her nightmare temper and abusive treatment of those who work for the Clintons.


But what really makes Hillary Clinton vulgar is her contempt for the American people. As commentator Tucker Carlson put it, Hillary’s contempt for the people is much worse than the fact that she is a criminal.


“So the argument against her (Hillary Clinton) is she’s corrupt,” Carlson said. “Everyone knows that. It’s a given. It’s baked in the cake. Here’s the real argument against Hillary. She has contempt for you. If you vote in a way she doesn’t like she’s happy to see some judge overturn it. She wants to completely change the composition of the country and she wants you to change your behavior. That means she doesn’t like you, America, and it’s true.”


People who love the Second Amendment are Clinton’s enemies, that she herself has said, but in the same breath she has called for empathizing with Islamic terrorists. She never talks about empathizing with NRA members.


At various times she has expressed contempt for transparency (not a press conference in 270 days), for the military, for law enforcement, for coal miners, for Bernie Sanders’s “young and ignorant” supporters.


The list goes on, but the accumulation of it all translates into contempt for America.


Nowhere is this contempt more evident that in Clinton’s disappearance from the campaign trail this past month. Or, more correctly, her disappearance from public events with the average Americans she is supposedly going to serve.


While Trump has been charging from boisterous campaign rallies where he mingles with the people to town halls where he takes questions to interviews where he freely opens himself to reporters, Hillary Clinton has been hard to find, even inspiring a social media hashtag, #WhereisHillary.


Well, where she is is with her own kind — the 1 percent. Over the past month she has been charging from private fundraiser to private fundraiser with the nation’s wealthy and elite, and it has gotten so bad perception-wise that even the partisan New York Times had to take notice of it.


“Mr. Trump has pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public,” The Times reported this past weekend. “But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her.”


In the last two weeks of August, The Times added, Clinton raked in $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour.


“And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley,” the newspaper stated.


And finally there was this from The Times: “If Mr. Trump appears to be waging his campaign in rallies and network interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s second presidential bid seems to amount to a series of high-dollar fund-raisers with public appearances added to the schedule when they can be fit in.”


That gets right to the heart of Hillary Clinton’s vulgarity. Public appearances with the American people are an afterthought, something to be “fit in” if they don’t get in the way of her packed schedule with the 1 percent.


That is ostentatious behavior, and it is vulgar to treat the American people as if they are her pets, worth a nickel of her time and a treat of an appearance every so often as she hustles out the door to her next meeting with the world’s global elite.


Four years ago, Democrats pilloried Mitt Romney as the candidate of the 1 percent. He was that, to be sure. But why isn’t Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 1 percent this year, being similarly pilloried?


Four years ago, in a major ad, unions talked about Romney’s out-of-touch candidacy, saying “1 Percenters Flock To Support Their Own In Mitt Romney.” The ad pointed out that Romney had 33 billionaire backers, and warned that he would listen to that elite to the detriment of the nation.


So who are the billionaires backing this year? That would be Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the 1 percent.


That group would include not just known liberals such as George Soros and Mark Cuban and Warren Buffett but many of the same billionaires who flocked to Romney in 2012, such as venture capitalist Marc Andreesen, to name just one.


Most of the hedge fund money that went to Romney is now flowing to Clinton. If the unions thought those dollars meant Romney would be listening to them and not to us — and I think the unions were right — why aren’t they concerned that Clinton will listen to her donors, too?


Fact is, and The New York Times noted, Clinton is already listening to them behind closed doors before she is even elected. If that doesn’t hurt her in the election, why would she stop in the White House?


To paraphrase The Times, and as her August fundraisers and pay-to-play meetings at the State Department show, a President Clinton’s term would amount to a series of high-dollar policy meetings with big-dollar donors, with the American public added to the agenda when they can be fit in.


That’s the essence of Hillary Clinton. That’s the essence of her vulgarity.


Clinton’s slogan is the arrogant “I’m with her.” But a vote for Clinton in November is really a vote for who she’s with — and that would be the 1 percent.

Categories: None