Browse > Home / Commentary, Editorials/Opinion, Hillary Clinton / Hillary Clinton’s America: A Foretaste

Hillary Clinton’s America: A Foretaste

December 31, 2007

By Gerard Jackson

Now that looks like Hillary Clinton is odds-on to be the Democrats presidential candidate it is time to take a closer look at this beacon of liberty's record. And what a dreadful record it is. This is the woman who condemned the NYPD; who stood aside while her race-baiting anti-Semitic buddies demonised the men and women in blue and smeared Giuliani by comparing him to Adolf Hitler; the woman who claimed, as the instinctive collectivist that she is, that "it takes a village to raise a child". This is the woman who revealed her authoritarian nature and contempt for the rule of law by supporting hubby’s jackbooted kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. No wonder she had the gall to write:

The pretense that children's issues are somehow above or beyond politics endures and is reinforced by the belief that families are private, nonpolitical units whose interests subsume those of children.

The woman who argued that little children should be allowed to sue their parents rationalised an assault by a swat team on a defenceless American family, and all without due process. That Rudy came out fighting for Elian and demanded hearings into this Clinton outrage should not have surprised anyone

Lacking any sense of shame or respect for the truth, Hillary had the nerve to accuse Giuliani of politicising Elian’s situation, piously declaring to adoring journalists that the case should be dealt with in court. Quite so. But this is what Bill Clinton, Reno and Castro were preventing. It was Clinton, not Reno, who politicised the issue by turning it into a federal case.

It was Reno, on Clinton’s instructions, who denied Elian due process. It was Clinton and Reno (and let’s not forget Castro) who mocked the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. It was Clinton’s appointee to the head of the INS, Doris Meissner, who instructed that a search warrant be fraudulently obtained. And Hillary Rodham Clinton had the chutzpah to accuse Rudy of playing politics with Elian.

Did the fearless reporters from the New York Post or the New York Slimes expose her hypocrisy and callousness? Of course not. They were too busy bootlicking and kowtowing to this political dowager, even though it meant rolling over for her goons, to notice little things like lying, cheating and abuse by Reno’s corrupted Justice Department.

The facts were not reported by the mainstream media because it had cheerfully turned itself into a willing extension of the Clinton political machine. Christopher Hitchens, a noted left-wing journalist, observed with alarm the passivity of journalists when it came to questioning the Clinton’s, and commented:

It is amazing that the New York press should congratulate itself on being so fierce and unappeasable and brave and searching when it has so far not asked [Mrs. Clinton] one single tough question.

Amazing wasn't the word. This is the same press that refused to report the roughing up of journalists by Hillary’s security goons during the St Patrick’s Day parade.

I think we can now gain a glimmering of understanding into why the Clinton’s fascist-like police raid on an American family was heavily supported by the media. Fascists, unlike communists, tend to be hot on the appearance of law. (The Gestapo, for example, had far fewer powers of harassment and arrest than Stalin’s secret police). The fascist mentality demands the appearance of law, of some kind of legal form. It genuinely has difficulty distinguishing between the appearance of law and the existence of law. To the fascist mind the law is whatever the state says it is. Therefore, the state is the rule of law, but only in a fascist state.

In a truly free society, which can only exist under the rule of law, Marxists are free to subvert the law and challenge its foundations. This is precisely what they have been doing for decades in the USA, and with the active cooperation of the majority of mainstream journalists who are really nothing but leftwing activists. Republicans endeavour to appoint judges who respect the rule of law and who are true to the Constitution.

Democrats have taken the road built by nineteenth century German jurists and "socialists of the chair". For these advocates of state power it was positive law that mattered: "…the doctrine that the state must not be bound by law". (Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Gateway Edition LTD, 1972. p. 239).

The rise of the pernicious doctrine of positivism and its contempt for rule of law drove von Mises to write:

On January 15, 1838, the Prussian Minister of the Interior, G. A. R. von Rochow, declared in reply to a petition of citizens of a Prussian city: “It is not seemly for a subject to apply the yardstick of his wretched intellect to the acts of the Chief of the State and to arrogate to himself, in haughty insolence, a public judgment about their fairness.” This was in the days in which German liberalism challenged absolutism, and public opinion vehemently resented this piece of overbearing bureaucratic pretension.

Half a century later German [classical] liberalism was stone dead. (Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, Arlington House, 1969, p. iv).

Electing any Democrat to the presidency — specially Hillary Clinton — who carries the kind of intellectual baggage that destroyed classical liberalism in Germany and led to the destruction of the Weimar Republic could lead America into waters so dangerous that even the Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, would have considered their existence inconceivable.

Source:  Brookes News

Posted by Hillary · Filed Under Commentary, Editorials/Opinion, Hillary Clinton 

Comments

Got something to say?





Copyright © 2007 Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News · Theme by Brian Gardner · Log in