If there’s one quality any aspiring president should have, it should be a love for America. And not just the America that supports that person’s candidacy, but the whole melting pot of people, backgrounds, cultures, and viewpoints that make up this great nation.
On the other hand, hatred for America, or any significant part of it, should be a disqualifier.
That’s just common sense.
Even by that modest standard, Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself from occupying the White House. Over this past week, we have seen and heard Clinton and her apologists slam millions upon millions of Americans in the strongest possible terms. And the condemnation comes not because of anything these people have done (the vast majority of them are indisputably law-abiding, hard-working, and family-oriented), but simply because of their personal beliefs.
We have often said that Clinton, notorious amongst Americans of all stripes for her dishonesty, feels most at home when addressing the elite who fund her political ambitions. And so last Friday night, before an adoring crowd at yet another fundraiser (this one in lower Manhattan), Hillary Clinton displayed her true colors in the most unmistakable terms.
Right from the start, Hillary’s remarks at the fundraiser attempted to drive a wedge between her audience and the supporters of her opponent, Donald Trump. “I am all that stands between you and the apocalypse,” she told them. She then went on to accuse Mr. Trump (without explanation) of “coz[ying] up to white supremacists.”
But she was far from finished. Clinton went on to say, “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” because of what she described as their “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views. “Now,” she continued, “some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
For those who are not used to being slandered by a Yale-educated lawyer, the Oxford English Dictionary online defines “deplorable” to mean “grievous, miserable, wretched.”
Clinton didn’t elaborate on when a person’s views crossed the line from simple conservatism into one of her “deplorable” categories, but based on her past comments regarding America’s gun owners, there is little doubt that she would place them in the “basket of deplorables.”
Speaking at a televised “town hall” meeting in June 2014, Clinton endorsed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines. Referring to those who opposed such measures, she said, “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”
Notably, Clinton didn’t just condemn the ownership of modern rifles and their magazines. She went further, claiming that what “terrorizes” America is a “viewpoint” that diverges from hers. This “minority” viewpoint is not just ill-advised or misinformed, in her estimation. Rather, it “cannot” be tolerated at all. It is, in short, “deplorable” and “irredeemable” to the woman who would be president of the United States.
Hillary Clinton Labels Americans “Deplorable” and “Irredeemable.”
Friday, September 16, 2016
Monday, April 22, 2024
On Friday, ATF provided the unpleasant surprise of yet another rulemaking to implement the noxious Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).
Monday, April 22, 2024
Along with “assault weapon” bans, so-called “high capacity” magazine restrictions are a cornerstone of modern gun control.
Sunday, April 21, 2024
After holding late-night votes until close to midnight on Saturday, April 20th, the Colorado House passed three anti-gun bills on their third reading, including liability insurance mandates, an 11% excise tax, and a state-level permitting systems for FFL's.
Thursday, April 18, 2024
The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has announced a legal victory in a high-profile governance matter brought by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (DCAG).
Monday, April 22, 2024
The Supreme Court of Nevada upheld Nevada’s regulations on so-called “ghost guns” in Sisolak v. Polymer80, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutionally vague.