Hillary’s Lies: Making Us 'Village Ready'

How the Clinton "village" cares for its citizens.

Dr. Phil Taverna has written some interesting articles stressing right brain and left brain functions.  Organizations that have been infiltrated by a large number of left-wing extremists, like the Democratic Party, know how to appeal to the right brain functions, which are more emotional, as opposed to Republicans who attempt to counter left-wing artifice with facts, which originate in left brain functions.  Hence, Republicans often may seem to be mean, nasty little “fact people.”  For the anti-fact brigade, if you care enough, you will set the facts aside, and you will “have a heart.”  

Mrs. Clinton staked herself out as a right brain person a long time ago with the sophomoric but cagey book, It Takes A Village. Updating her book, we see today that it takes a village of “soft on crime citizens” to produce the heartless murder of a Kate Steinle.  It takes a village of corrupt, Tammany Hall-style grafters and job seekers to cast aside the normal interests in family and productivity in our urban black communities.  Fifty to eighty years of Democratic Party rule in our large metropolises has led to oceans of poverty, alienation, frustration, and generational disappointment with life among African-Americans.  It takes a village to look the other way while crony capitalists in both parties oil the wheels of the state and corrupt the corrupters -- buying influence, and widening the gap between the electorate and the power elite.  Yet in Mrs. Clinton’s “village” there is no mention of the ever-widening power gap – yes, power inequality – between the political class that controls our government at all levels and the people.  

Of course, Mrs. Clinton and her ilk demagogue the very concept of “the people.” Howard Zinn, a leading communist now deceased, even before Mrs. Clinton achieved national prominence, wrote his best-selling college history textbook, A People’s History of the United States.  Zinn often proudly declared himself to be a card carrying communist, so this writer is not pinning a label on him.  This nasty, distorted, and ultimately anti-American textbook declares “the people” to be women, blacks, the disabled, workers, immigrants, Native Americans, Chicanos – you name it – who are the victims of our rapacious and insanely racist, war-mongering, sexist, uptight, and utterly unrealistic pseudo-Christian society.  We are hypocritical to the very core. At best, Mrs. Clinton falls right in line with Prof. Zinn’s assessment. In fact, she has been touting the leftist party line since her senior year at Wellesley where she wrote her senior thesis promoting the virtues of none other than that standout community organizer and communist Saul Alinsky.  However, even beginning at that time, she tried to clothe her leftist ideas and ideals with some mainstream respectability, writing, “As such, he [Alinsky] has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”  What is community organizing if not a strategy to make bourgeois society “village-ready”?  There’s a seamless connection between Alinsky’s days in Chicago and Mrs. Clinton’s “we the people,” village-ready ideology and modus operandi.

The word “village” might suggest that Mrs. Clinton is open to the downsizing of government or the decentralization of government where control and laws originate in smaller enclaves than at present; where each representative in the House represents more than 700,000 people.  But if your mind wandered in that direction, you would be corrected by her.  We need not less but even more government intervention.  We need single-payer health care (she tried to bring that about in the 1990s, i.e., fully nationalized socialized medicine).  She wants more regulation of individual lives and small businesses.  She wants to tax the rich at levels that preceded the tax cuts of 1982 early in the Reagan administration.  The fact that those tax cuts contributed in large measure to the Internet revolution in business which began to manifest by the time her husband became president totally escapes this crabby curmudgeon.

Although the village construct is portrayed in her book as a guiding vision for domestic policy, it clearly is, in her mind, a new “global understanding.”  It takes a village to kill a U.S. ambassador and three other brave representatives of the USA who were murdered with him in Libya. “What difference does it make anyway?!” she shrieked at the Senate committee investigating that heinous event in Libya.  Those stupid Senators still did not understand the village concept.  In her “village” the U.S. government is there to mobilize and support those poor Libyans whose partisan views have been squelched and oppressed for so many years.  Their free speech rights, their right of political expression, needs to be liberated by the village, encouraged by the village, and nurtured by the village. As a Maximilien Robespierre, a leading Jacobin beheader of persons of the French Revolution, once said, “You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”   

Did she, the President, and Susan Rice lie when they portrayed the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya as a spontaneous outpouring of indignation by the people of Libya against an anti-Muslim video that originated in the U.S., rather than as a concerted, premeditated terrorist attack?  Of course they did not lie.  Mrs. Clinton and our Democratic leaders at the helm understand that the same sense of insult that people in Islamic countries feel when a cartoon or movie portrays their prophet in a ludicrous or unsympathetic light is the emotion that drives terrorists who plan armed attacks on embassies or blow up skyscrapers in New York City.  Both instances of Muslim rage-expression are related and justifiable.  The global village is protecting the free speech rights of armed, terrorist attackers, whose rights are being expressed violently because they have been suppressed for so long.

When Mrs. Clinton and others on our Central Planning team lied, it was not a lie.  The so-called lie was motivated by a nurturing desire to support those who, for too long, have been oppressed by anti-democratic and anti-Islamic dictators in the Middle East.  True democracy has been suppressed in the Middle East.  And, at the same time, true Islam as represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, the ayatollahs of Iran, and the PLO have also been suppressed by pseudo-Muslim dictators like Qaddafi, Mubarak, and those who govern Afghanistan.  We love you, our Muslim brothers and sisters. We love you; we love you. Hillary’s lie and indignant congressional shriek were her ways of expressing the village’s cry of love towards the citizens of Libya.  Their aspirations must be nourished even if Chris Stevens and a few other “eggs” are broken in the process.   

Share