Hillary Clinton: Racial Demagogue

Hillary ClintonHoping to keep Obama-generated racial animosity alive long enough to get her past the presidential finish line in 2016, Hillary Clinton has been bloviating about what racist election laws America supposedly has.

“In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states,” Clinton told fawning admirers at a meeting of the American Bar Association. Such laws are part of a Jim Crow-like effort to “disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters,” she said.

Hillary, of course, is a seasoned race-monger who knows when to pour it on thick.

This is the person who patronizingly stretched her syllables out in a slow drawl when she last ran for the presidency. “I don’t feel noways tired,” she said, quoting a hymn by the late Rev. James Cleveland.

Race-baiting and racial pandering have always been part of Hillary’s oeuvre. She was close to ACORN just as her husband was when he was president and Arkansas governor. She spoke at ACORN conferences and played up her ties to the group.

Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, Mrs. Clinton looked back fondly on her memories of the group’s early days in Arkansas. It was a love fest. After noting that she founded a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families that dealt with many of the same issues ACORN focused on, she hailed ACORN as a group of vision. “I thank you for being part of that great movement, that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.”

Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Clinton said, “Let’s move it forward, let’s be drum majors for justice.”

More recently, Mrs. Clinton falsely claimed that the Supreme Court was in on the supposedly racist plot because it had “struck at the heart” of the Voting Rights Act this summer in a ruling denounced by left-wingers and the misinformed.

In fact all the high court did was strike down an obsolete formula in the Voting Rights Act that gave the race-baiting ballot box stuffers of the Left a distinct advantage in federal elections. The rest of the statute remains in effect and the Department of Justice still has the legal right to ask a court to order that state and local election operations be federally monitored.

To boil it down, the court opinion in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a pronouncement by the highest court in the land that America is not the racist swamp of leftist myth. The court acknowledged at long last that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which gave the federal government a veto over changes in state election laws in places with a history of discrimination, may have been needed when the law was enacted 48 years ago, but no longer.

Congress approved the statute months after the nation witnessed Alabama state troopers attacking civil rights marchers in Selma in March 1965. Lawmakers reasoned it was needed because many state and local officials routinely discriminated against black Americans in the voting process, making it difficult for them to cast their ballots.

But the recent court ruling recognized that widespread voting discrimination is a distant memory. Today black Americans fully participate in the democratic process by voting, running for, and winning elective office at every level of government up to and including the highest office in the land.

This is bad news for the race industry which thrives on making mountains out of molehills. Leftist demagogues and community organizers across the fruited plain are now howling that a key tool they used to frustrate electoral integrity efforts has been taken away.

Outside of MSNBC hosts, Hillary is probably the most high profile of the complainers.

“Now not every obstacle is related to race but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention,” she declared.

Of course racial discrimination still exists somewhere out there, but it’s not much of a factor in modern American life.

As the Wall Street Journal opines, Mrs. Clinton “must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on ‘The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).'”

That government report showed that minority voter turnout nationwide has been surging in recent years. Black Americans, for example, had a voter turnout rate of just 53 percent in 1996. But black turnout has gone up in each of the last four presidential elections.

“In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.”

The big jump in black turnout since the days when left-wingers depicted Bill Clinton as the nation’s “first black president” undermines Hillary’s claim that new race-based obstacles to voting are on the upswing.

She claims that North Carolina’s new electoral integrity law “reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression.” All the legislation does is require the presentation of voter ID, shave a week off early voting, end same-day registration, and prevent the arbitrary extension of voting hours.

“Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered,” the newspaper notes. The paper’s editorial adds that even though Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee have “some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws,” black turnout blew past that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. states. “Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?”

Hillary seems convinced that feeding fears about make-believe government racism will get her back into the White House.

This Saul Alinsky disciple, whose senior college thesis was an ode to the master community organizer, is well aware that Democrats are going all-out to make her the nation’s first female president.

The primary purpose of the Benghazi cover-up was to help get Barack Obama reelected but the only slightly less important secondary purpose has always been to protect Mrs. Clinton as she runs for president.

Hillary may be even more thin-skinned than Obama. Look at her angry outburst during congressional hearings about the Benghazi attack in response to questions posed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.).

Displaying her signature callous indifference, she made it clear she didn’t care why Americans died on Sept. 11, 2012. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she shouted. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

And remember this is the woman who is credited with the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy,” which she uttered on national television in order to distract from her husband’s storied “bimbo eruptions,” itself a term coined by Betsey Wright, a senior Bill Clinton campaign aide.

Hillary will do whatever it takes to become America’s 45th president.

If that entails trying to make Americans of different races hate each other, she’ll do it.

Brace yourselves for three and a half years of this, America.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Hass

    I could tell from way back when her hubby was the POTUS that she was just as ruthless towards Conservatives as are the Muslimes she and Osama love so much.
    Elect her on your next election and you can kiss the good ol USA good bye. The world cannot handle another limp dick POTUS that panders to every whim of Muslimes.

  • bearmountain

    Hill is a PIG

    • iluvisrael

      insult to pigs!

      • bearmountain

        Roger that….I was momentarily off my meds.

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    So according to obama’s 2008 campaign operatives, who claimed Hillary used race-related issues for political leverage, she WAS a racist before she WASN’T.

  • http://www.facebook.com/melvin.polatnick Melvin Polatnick

    Throwing salt on the wounds of Blacks and Hispanics who feel
    they are being treated unfairly will bring them to the voting booths in 2016.
    Hillary is the salt thrower who needs their votes to become next president, but
    behind closed doors she mingles only with palefaces.

    • Pappaw

      To suggest that any minority is somehow inept at obtaining a picture ID is the biggest racial slur I’ve heard yet.

  • putthehammerdown

    Progressives do not care about Historical Truths, only what they ‘feel’ and can make-up, knowing that the numerous L. I. Vees in this country are too moronic and forgetful to think back and actually add 2+2.
    Additionally, She’s appealing to those ‘just like her’ and hoping that enough exist
    [ to make-up a needed balance] to put her in office.
    Suggestion to FPM : Construct a timeline with dates, locations, and statements by and about Hillary ,and make them linkable/downloadable. This info could be used as a handout, when- and where-ever needed.
    I know I’d be using it…….

  • John Davidson

    The Clinton’s have been exploiting race since they arrived in DC.

  • Lumpy Rutherford

    I thought BO was the first female prez…

    • nomoretraitors

      No, he’s the first Muslim president

  • Gee

    There is a lot of racism in America – it is directed at anybody that is not a protected minority by those same minorities

  • watsa46

    The far left used the race card against her and she will dutifully use it against the non-left.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    Ms. Clinton and her handlers are fully aware and understand the relative absence of racism in 2013 America, the increased participation in elections by
    Blacks and Latinos and, most importantly, the susceptibility of the poorest among these groups to the democratic rants on racism and their propensity to vote a democratic ticket. Fanning the flames of racial hatred, class envy and discrimination gets these folks to the polls and that’s the entire point. Unless and until poor minority racial and ethnic groups wise up to how they’re being manipulated and scammed this is not going to change. The modern democratic party is not about winning the war of ideas, which they’d lose. They’re about
    winning elections and consolidating their power by any means they can get away with including obfuscation, propaganda and bending or breaking laws. The 2012 election is ample proof that these tactics work. For the Left, the ends justify the means.

    Republicans need to stop whining and indulging in mental gymnastics in an attempt to create an ethical equivalent to dirty politics. The result is
    increasing frustration among republican and conservative Americans and an increasing level of disrespect from the rest as a result of the latter’s carefully maintained level of ignorance about America, its roots and its strengths, which are slowly being sapped, and the power and beauty of the Capitalist, free market system that affords the poorest American a far better life than almost anywhere else in the world and the opportunity to improve their lot if they’re willing to make the effort.

    Unfortunately, many are convinced that the Government is responsible for their lot in life, no effort required other than exercising their right to vote, and the democrats are about convincing this group that this is not only true but that the
    republicans want to take this away from them.

    Consider a few definitions.

    “Effort” – a conscious exertion of power : hard work [the average American taxpayer]

    “Dependence” – the quality or state of being influenced or determined by or subject to another [individual, group, government]

    “Sloth” – disinclination to action or labor : indolence

    “Indolence” – inclination to laziness : sloth.

    “freeload” – to impose upon another’s generosity [the taxpayer] or hospitality
    without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved; a result of dependence and sloth/indolence.

    The democrats portray the last of these as a human right. What do you think? Which one is you? If you have a choice, which in America is your right, which one would you prefer to be? Which one promotes self worth and which engenders anger and rage at “the oppressors,” those evil bastards not forking over your due?

    Hilary Clinton and her ilk imply that if you just vote the democratic ticket all your problems will be solved, no special effort required. Elect her and the Government will take from the those selfish, greedy, hard working, Capitalist, right wing, usurpers of wealth and give to the downtrodden, dependent poor until the entire system collapses or morphs into some third world status. She and her ilk know this won’t happen until sometime after she’s left the scene, and what difference will it then make.

    • nomoretraitors

      “Unless and until poor minority racial and ethnic groups wise up to how they’re being manipulated and scammed this is not going to change”
      They aren’t being scammed. They’re being bought off by all sorts of benefits (SNAP, Section 8, Medicaid etc)

      • Donald J DaCosta

        That too!

      • Seek

        You’re naive. Blacks aren’t being “bought off.” They’re gaming the system. They’re hustling us, not the other way around. They’re getting free lunches at white expense.

  • okokok

    this is what you get when Tea Party freaks have power–this time in TEXAS:

    Plan to Convert Roads to Gravel Begins Despite Pushback


    • nomoretraitors

      time to crawl out of the occupy tent and get some fresh air

      • okokok

        is that what you think all who are opposed to bagger rule are, you pathetic ignorant fool!

        • nomoretraitors

          “Bagger,” huh? Did you think that up all by yourself, or do you get all your ideas from MSNBC and Moveon?
          Keep it up, sparky. You’ll make the 3rd grade yet.

          • okokok

            that was from the baggers themselves wearing TEA BAGS on their hats, baggie…got it? is that clear? lol

          • nomoretraitors

            And where did the occupy rabble live while they were “occupying” Wall Street (as well as disrupting small businesses)? In TENTS.
            For an expose of this “grassroots” movement, check out “Occupy Wall St: The Communist Movement Reborn” available on this same website

          • okokok

            only a complete m0r0n would still be trumpeting capitalism–even the NFL is socialist, you idiot!

          • nomoretraitors

            Thank you. You’ve redefined stupidty for me, actually believing socialism and class warfare will create jobs. If you had a scintilla of intelligence you’d know the reason China has become as prosperous as they have is because they turned to capitalist principles (Our one-time communist opponent, Vietnam, is also experimenting with free-market reforms). Of the 2 remaining countries that adhere to strict Marxist principles, one is on the brink of bankruptcy (Cuba) and the other is on the brink of starvation (North Korea). Capitalism, while not perfect, is the best system to date for the harnessing of resources and labor in the service of production.
            You’ve also redefined immaturity. I give you a reading assignment and you resort to name-calling, though I should give you break since you’re only behaving as most libtards do when confronted with facts.

          • okokok

            Everyone has a mixed economy, stupid.

  • NJK

    This woman is criminal. She needs to be exposed for how evil she is. She’s no different than Obama in what she’s capable of. I hate this women so much, that I wish evil on her daughter, so she suffers like the parents of those she made suffer in Benghazi and elsewhere. I have no empathy for her family.

    I think she and her husband have been stealing from that foundation of theirs also.

  • Tchiock

    All the more reason to raise the voting age to the age when the mind becomes mature: 25

    • JoJoJams

      Well, the only problem with that is the 18 year old who volunteers to go out and fight for you and me, and possibly die or be maimed for life. I’ll be first in line to defend their right to vote, having once been one of them. But I do understand where you are coming from, even if I believe it is misguided. Ignorance has no age limit. (I mean that towards the voting public at large)

      • Tchiock

        Misguided perhaps, in the sense that “Gee, I may have been “maimed for life” when fighting” for you to be allowed the freedom to emote here-in. The point is while “ignorance has no age limit” and many young persons like your self, are certainly brilliant before their “mind age of maturity,” the majority of the potential voters are NOT. There fore by raising the voting age back to above 21 and to where science (ha) tells us the mind is mature, much of the controlled votes would be eliminated.
        Maybe the drinking and or driving age should also be increased–save for Minnesota farm kids…
        Enjoy reading your retorts–you speak well and write well and I side with most all you say. Thanks

        • JoJoJams

          I’d go along with raising the voting age to 21, as long as those in the military were exempt and allowed to vote. They should be able to vote for those that may send them off to war. The dems would never allow it though, as the vast majority of the military tends to vote repub/conservative.
          Thanks for the compliment. You may have misread my age by my last post though. When I stated I was once one of them…..that was over 30 years ago. And, while I’d like to think I’ve always been more mature compared to my age group as I’ve aged through life, most people tend to think that about themselves. :-) Still – I have been! lol
          Wish you well in life and all. JJJ

  • http://subversioninc.com Matthew Vadum

    What I want to know is: Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in prison?

  • truebearing

    Hillary is a snake. She conspired with Soros to create the vast Left wing
    conspiracy, then brazenly condemned the Right for her own sins. Vintage
    Alinsky. Classic Leftist projection. Typical Leftist evil.

    Hillary is as bad as any of them, just more devious.

    I’ve wondered many times about Soros suddenly shifting his support from
    Hillary to Obama in the 2008 election. It seemed like a risky thing for Soros
    to pull, and potentially damaging to the Gramscian coup, but maybe it was more
    planned than we would ever think.

    Consider the things Obama has brazenly done. All risky and highly
    controversial, not to mention guaranteed to eventually leave Obama with a
    failed presidency. Perhaps the Lords of the Left saw in Obama a person who could
    act as a ramrod to hammer through the essential, components of their
    neo-communist revolution, ie socialized medicine, amnesty, and a debased
    economy. Perhaps he was also used as a sacrificial anode — protected by his
    ethnic untouchability – that was intended to draw such intense outrage during
    his criminal reign that it exhausted the Right, but left embedded, socialized
    medicine and a tattered republic for the first woman president to “fix.” Hillary is then the heroine, beloved by women
    and minorities, a popular choice for multiple terms, and voila, the Clintons
    are back in the Whitehouse for the foreseeable future.

    Is it possible the Left is that Machiavellian, or would obsess over power to
    that degree? Absolutely…but what if Obama doesn’t want to give up power? Lady
    Macbeth Clinton would be thwarted once again….or will Obama’s handlers see to
    it he steps down for a more suitable long term, or should I say permanent,

    Conspiracy theories are so easy, and so much fun, when speculating on the
    machinations of the Left and their obsession with power. Anything is possible,
    but it has to be incredibly devious, dishonest, and evil.

  • Seek

    Maybe if black voter turnout went down, the GOP actually might find out once again what it’s like to win a presidential election. The problem is that attempts to limit vote fraud means BLACK vote fraud. And that means a potentially lower black turnout. That’s what Hillary means by voter “suppression” — any steps taken by a state that might result in a Democratic defeat. She’s still pure political animal.

  • Jakareh

    Maybe the election of Queen Hillary is the best thing that could happen to America. Conservatives need to wake up and realize that politics won’t work anymore because Leftists have corrupted the system too much. Like the patriots of old, we need to fight.

  • joshuasweet

    “Such laws are part of a Jim Crow-like effort to “disproportionately
    impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters,” she said.” and who was it that placed the Jim Crow laws in the books? democrats. Why is it that the democrats are so set to keep people form having to prove who they are when it comes to voting? Could it be so they can cheat again?

  • semus

    This a completely amoral person. Fanning the flames of hatred, stupidity and ignorance, the reason the left keeps doing this is it seems to work so well for them.

  • brigin

    Bob Dole says Hillary is the best Senator this nation ever had. She even helped Dole get Goldman Sachs a $5 billion a year tax subsidy. Maybe she’ll run as a Republican!

  • edgineer

    We have developed a ruling elite by allowing congress to term limit the President but not themselves. It will destroy the country unless we change that.

  • m4253y

    watch the you tube movie

    Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters – Full

    stunning the depth’s that this pos has gone and will go…pass this around to as many people as you can.