She’s a libertarian all of a sudden

Seen at Tam’s;

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in turn urged China and its Southeast Asian neighbors to resolve disputes “without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and certainly without the use of force”.

I wish she’d seen the light 40 years or so ago.  I wish the U.S. government would treat our citizens the same way.  I was at a press conference Monday to say the same thing for Gresham Bouma, but we got thrown off the front porch of the Idaho Department of Labor (which will cease to exist if Hillary gets her way with her new-found policy of eschewing all coercion, intimidation and threats).

Hillary is of course a die-hard Progressive (incremental comminust) and so she is all about using coercion, intimidation and threats.  Her quote above does prove that she at least understands coercion, intimidation and threats to be bad things, even if she’s been advocating them all her adult life.  There wouldn’t be a Democrat Party without coercion or threats, and only about 3 or 4% of Republicans could exist in their current iterations.  It could be said that the main purpose of today’s Democrat Party (together with their media allies and the government education complex) is to rationalize the increased use of coercion, intimidation and threats, and I suppose the purpose of the Republican Party has been to make it possible for the Democrats.

But talk about brass.  She’s made a career calling for coercion and threats in nearly every aspect of American life, and now it’s not to be tolerated from communist China.  Wow.  They must be laughing pretty hard at her right now.  You’d think she would lay awake nights thinking of her wild contradictions.  That is if she had a conscience.  Even if she were only concerned about her reputation for the sake of her position and power, caring nothing for the truth, maybe she’d want to think a little bit before opening her mouth.

3 thoughts on “She’s a libertarian all of a sudden

  1. C’mon, Lyle, you should know by now that consistency is NOT the hallmark of politicians anywhere. At least, not the (politically) successful ones.

  2. If there’s any conflict between Hillary and the Chicoms, it’s kinda like the difference between a Maoist and a Trotskyite.

  3. Rolf; I don’t know if it’s been tried, at least by a significant number of the rascals.

    “All we are say…ing…is give consistency a chance…” OK, the rhythm doesn’t fit with the song. Substitute “consistency” with “truth” and you pretty much have it.

    Bubble; Good point. I’ve heard people try to say Hitler was “Right Wing” (Not a Marxist) because, well look…he fought the Russian Communists. My response is that the Crips may fight the Bloods, but that doesn’t make them anti-gang. It makes them, in this case, competitors for the same niche, and that seems to be your point as well.

    The over-arching advocacy of “peace” and of “tolerance” by the left is never explained of course. Peace and tolerance are nice words, but Peace with what? Tolerance of what? When you look at their history it becomes sickeningly clear that they want peace with communist (and now Islamist) expansionism and tolerance of just about anything except the American Ideal of Liberty.

Comments are closed.