Hillary And Her Bipartisan Village Idiots

Ilana Mercer

Big media are all about the angle, the spin. Look to the overarching theme that runs through each and every news story. Be hip to the meta-narrative peddled.

Recent examples:

A perfectly logical statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in February, was framed by CNN anchorette Brooke Baldwin as “controversial.” In view of rife, Islamic anti-Semitism in Europe, Mr. Netanyahu told “all of the European Jews, and all Jews wherever [they] are [that] Israel is the home of every Jew.”

To the rational individual, unburdened by the obtuse thinking of a tele-tart, Netanyahu’s statement was utterly uncontroversial. It follows from an irremediable reality: The subordinate satellite states of the European Union refuse—and no longer have the power—to properly and vigorously defend their innocent, Jewish and Christian citizens from an identifiable threat.

Another example of the meta-shaping of news came courtesy of Fredricka Witless (whose intellectual prowess I chronicled in “Joan Rivers: Antidote to PC Totalitarianism”).

Miss Witless used leading questions in an interview with a man she introduced as the “controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks.” In a free society, a painter—impressionist, realist, muralist, cubist, cartoonist—would never be considered controversial. He harms no one in the fulfillment of the requirements of his benign profession.

However, with her leading question, wittingly or unwittingly, Fredricka Whitfield was essentially asking an innocent cartoonist, who ekes out a life hiding from Muhammadans, whether he felt responsible for crimes perpetrated by his assailants. After all, the criminals were spurred by his drawings of their prophet.

Leading questions suggest a certain reality. They force defensive replies. They shift blame. They invert morality and reality.

Likewise has the logic of the debate been lost in the hyperventilating over Mrs. Clinton’s unorthodox email account. The dynamic at play: Hound Hillary Rodham Clinton for lesser, technocratic offenses, thus allowing her to gracefully evade responsibility for serious war crimes: the war on Libya, Hillary’s special project, for one. Benghazi, for another.

Clearly, the woman who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom at the time had resolved to run the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, as one would an open community center. This was meant to telegraph to the world that the war she and her she war-lords (Samantha Power and Susan Rice) launched was a success, when in fact Hillary’s gunpoint democracy in Libya has been as fruitful as Genghis Bush’s faith-based forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.

As evidence for the meta-narrative at play, consider the major, left-liberal media—the “circle jerk”—leading the charge against Mrs. Clinton. It began with the New York Times, with President Obama’s first press secretary, Robert Gibbs; with CNN groupies like Brianna Keilar and Dana Bash. And with Ron Fournier of National Journal. He chimed in, calling the former secretary of state’s habit of conducting the affairs of state via a non-governmental e-mail address a “scandal; seedy, sanctimonious, self-important, slick.” Just in case, Fournier was careful to offer these disclaimers:

“I admire [the Clintons’] intelligence and passion and empathy. They’ve been good to my family. I’ve actually long thought that she has the potential to be a better president than he was.”

Not for nothing are they called the Stupid Party. Republicans have fallen for what I suspect is not so much a deliberate tactic on the part of the liberal media, but a reflexive strategy. GOPers are implicating Mrs. Clinton in statute violations which caused barely a stir when flouted by their own.

Gwb43.com, anyone? This private, Republican National Committee domain, from which five million emails were alleged to have been expunged, in 2007, stood for “George W. Bush, 43rd.” The Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act were purported to have been violated by the likes of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, White House Deputy Director of Political Affairs Jeffery Scott Jennings, President Bush’s Senior Adviser Andrew Card. So too was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alleged to have been in-the-know. Then White House Spokesperson Dana Perino put a pretty face to the affair.

Hillary Clinton is to Benghazi as Les Aspin Jr is to “Black Hawk Down.” Aspin, Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense, marooned the American men he sent to Mogadishu, Somalia, in October of 1993. The “Black Hawk” went down. But so did Dr. Aspin, at the behest of President Bill Clinton, who fired him.

The email line of attack on Hillary is not worth a straw. It lets her go scot-free for crimes the likes of which her own husband would have sacked her.

ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer, based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, “Return to Reason.” She is a contributor to the preeminent libertarian site Economic Policy Journal and to Junge Freiheit, a German weekly of excellence. Ilana is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an award-winning, independent, non-profit, free-market economic policy think tank. Ilana’s latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com.

Into the Cannibal's Pot



  • The story of the Clintons is one of endless corruption – from cattle futures trading where Mrs Clinton just happened to always pick the winning trades (of course the trades were assigned to her after the fact – a form of disguised briber) to travelgate, to this……

    However, it (the corruption) is the one redeeming feature of the Clintons.

    Yes – redeeming.

    Someone such as Comrade Barack Obama would never dream of not obeying orders from the “movement” – he will take bribe money, but he will then attack anyway (as Comcast is discovering – and many other companies have discovered before), so there is no real point in bribing him.

    The Clintons, if you promise them more money the future, may just let you off.

    After all Hillary Clinton even disobeyed Saul Alinsky – his orders were to stay in Chicago (to be his deputy – and probable concubine), but young Hillary Rodham ran off to Yale (because she wanted to).

    Barack Obama would never have dreamt of disobeying “the movement” and following his personal desires.

    I say again – their corruption is the one redeeming feature of the Clintons – Bill and Hillary (it is probably want attracted them to each other – a knowledge that both of them would always put their personal desires and interests ahead of the movement).

    Israel ……

    It strikes me that the Prime Minister is living in the past – his whole life has been dominated by the American alliance, and that is coming to an end.

    I do say that it is a good thing that it is coming to an end – but it is.

    The young Democrats in the universities HATE Israel.

    The old Democrats who are pro Israeli are going – Senator Bob M. (friend of the Clintons) springs to mind.

    They are as “out of touch” as anti Castro Democrats – Senator Bob M. again.

    The young Democrats denounce them as “corrupt” and as “not committed to The Movement”.

    And both charges are true.

    Israel is going to have fight its own battles – including against Iran.

    Not easy – but the truth must be told (especially when it is a bitter truth).

    As for American Republicans……

    At the Federal level they are hopeless – but against ruthless President (who treats the Constitution as toilet paper) there is little they could do anyway, at least not whilst the media is under the control of the Progressive Movement.


    In many States Republicans are getting stronger and stronger – and making real reforms.

    Almost as if the Republicans, without knowing it themselves, are preparing for a future when the “United States of America” no longer exists……..

  • Julie near Chicago

    I believe this analysis of the Clintons is correct (insofar, at least, as Shrill has not yet lost ALL her marbles). That is, I don’t think either of them really wants to destroy America, which is (or was?) after all the Golden Goose.

    But everything in Obama’s background and actions and even demeanour shows that he despises America and has every wish and intent to bring her down; being too stupid to understand that he cannot be Robert Mugabe-cum-Bruce Springsteen in a fallen America. Mind you, I do not say he’s stupid in every way, although I don’t see any great brain there and never did.

    Billary is stupid in a different way: It thinks it can steal everything not nailed down, and furthermore sell the store to various foreign Capos Regime (like Deng or whomever) and somehow the country will SURVIVE the depradations.

    Billary are Marxists ideologically (or they were–they’re pretty ancient, and sometimes the Marxist fervor, like other fervors, wears off some with age, so maybe by now they’re over all that and just old Mafia Dons), but light-years ahead of that they’re Billarists, and they’re also OF the American culture, which doe indeed make a difference.

    Personally I think that while Present Bozo is Marxist in his religious philosophy, the object of his worship is himself above all. And I also think he’s a cowardly little t**t. (Is that a Bad Word in British?)

    And in no way is the incumbent OF the American culture. What he is, is a good enough actor to Pass.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s