Free Markets, Free People

A simple question

Dr. Thomas Sowell says in reality it is a very simple question and it is questions like this one that completely undo Hillary Clinton supporters.

Question: What has Ms. Clinton ever accomplished?

<crickets> <subject change>

It is indeed a simple question.  And the answer:

For someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics, including being a Senator and then a Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has nothing to show for all those years — no significant legislation of hers that she got passed in the Senate, and only an unbroken series of international setbacks for the United States during her time as Secretary of State.

Or said another way, nothing.  Nothing of note, nothing of substance.  The fact that she’s been in the public eye longer than Barack Obama doesn’t change the fact that she’s essentially the female version of him.

Remember too:

Before Barack Obama entered the White House and appointed Mrs. Clinton Secretary of State, Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq had notified their higher ups, stationed in Pakistan, that their cause was lost in Iraq and that there was no point sending more men there.

Hosni Mubarak was in charge in Egypt. He posed no threat to American or Western interests in the Middle East or to Christians within Egypt or to Israel. But the Obama administration threw its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over and began terrorizing Christians in Egypt and promoting hostility to Israel.

In Libya next door, the Qaddafi regime had already given up its weapons of mass destruction, after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But President Obama’s foreign policy, carried out by Secretary of State Clinton, got Qaddafi removed, after which Libya became a terrorist haven where an American ambassador was killed, for the first time in decades.

The rationale for getting rid of Middle East leaders who posed no threat to American interests was that they were undemocratic and their people were restless. But there are no democracies in the Middle East, except for Israel. Moreover, the people were restless in Iran and Syria, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy did nothing to support those who were trying to overthrow these regimes.

I guess, in a way, these are “accomplishments”, but certainly not the type any presidential candidate would want to highlight.  Between she and that bumbling fool in the White House, they’ve managed to wipe out anything that remotely resembled stability in the region.  Each and every time the dynamic duo made the wrong call.  Every. Single. Time.

It would be only fair to balance this picture with foreign policy triumphs of the Obama-Clinton team. But there are none. Not in the Middle East, not in Europe, where the Russians have invaded the Crimea, and not in Asia, where both China and North Korea are building up threatening military forces, while the Obama administration has been cutting back on American military forces.

And then there is Iran … and Israel.  Yemen, the crown-jewel of validation for our “counter-terrorism” plan has imploded.  And the last great hope in the region for any progress rests with … France?

This is what Ms. Clinton, et. al. have left the American people.  And sane and reasoning people know that.

However it isn’t inclusive of all of who will be picking President 45, is it?

Hillary Clinton became an iconic figure by feeding the media and the left the kind of rhetoric they love. Barack Obama did the same and became president. Neither had any concrete accomplishments besides rhetoric beforehand, and both have had the opposite of accomplishments after taking office.

They have something else in common. They attract the votes of those people who vote for demographic symbolism — “the first black president” to be followed by “the first woman president” — and neither to be criticized, lest you be denounced for racism or sexism.

It is staggering that there are sane adults who can vote for someone to be President of the United States as if they are in school, just voting for “most popular boy” or “most popular girl” — or, worse yet, voting for someone who will give them free stuff.

Suck it up you racist and sexist neanderthals.  It is no longer about competence and accomplishment.  It is about gender, race and free stuff.  Your “free” stuff.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

33 Responses to A simple question

  • except free speech of course.

  • They attract the votes of those people who vote for demographic symbolism — “the first black president” to be followed by “the first woman president” — and neither to be criticized, lest you be denounced for racism or sexism.

    Jonah Goldberg had an excellent point about that the other day. Most all of us would be delighted to vote for a woman from president. But that is a category, and we SHOULD be voting for an individual. I’ve held for a long time that if you voted for Barracula because he would be the first “black” president, YOU are the racist.

    And until we generally agree that racism and sexism are no longer a valid issue in the U.S., we cannot vote for or appoint anyone who self-identifies in any of those categories. It has been proven that categorical identity defeats valid individual critique. And that, of course, cannot be tolerated in a republic.

    • “if you voted for Barracula because he would be the first “black” president, YOU are the racist. ”

      Imagine voting for the best person for the job!
      I know, now I’m just being silly again.

    • Back in ’08, a (black) co-worker told me I should vote for Obama just because since he was black, it would be ‘historic.’ I asked him in reply if he was saying I should vote skin color over character, and that was the end of that conversation.

  • This assumes anyone cares

  • I don’t remember if I made my prediction at Q&O yet. Hillary isn’t going to be the nominee.

    It’s going to be Michelle Obama.

    You think we’re through the looking glass now. Wait a few months.

    • Yeh. I made that prediction last summer, I think.

      It may have been earlier than that, after her speech at the DNC introducing Barracula. I thought it a very effective, if big-fat-lies-packed, speech.

      I’m a little less certain now. She is SUCH a bitch! But we’ll see.

  • The idea that it was the policies of Obama and Hillary that destabilized the Middle East is great shtick. As usual, Sowell preys on readers suffering from amnesia to push his right wing nonsense.

    • Yeah, backing the Muslim Brotherhood was a winning play in Egypt wasn’t it?
      And that khadafi thing, well, thank Allah HE’S gone huh?
      And the red line in Syria
      And the withdrawal from Iraq because they couldn’t be bothered to work out a SOFA that they didn’t want in the first place.
      And then there’s the nuclear treaty with Iran.

      Yep, the current administrations 6 years in the Middle East have been nothing but brilliant – provided one is preying on readers suffering from amnesia or dementia for the past 5 and a half.

      • How do you spell “success” for the Obamic foreign policy…?

        Y-E-M-E-N.

        Yaayyyyyy, team…!!!

      • Nothing more fiscally conservative than multi-trillion dollar excursions in the Middle East. Perhaps when Barack’s out of office we can end his fiscally responsible foreign policy and get back to wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars occupying countries halfway across the globe to placate the ‘Mureica F**k Yeah crowd.

        • I want you to know that I read your post as a concession, and that you have no argument to claim that Obama’s foreign policy was a success other than “Hypothetical other people’s foreign policy may also have been bad and expensive!”

          Because that’s what such a whiplash subject change means.

        • While we’ve got you here, and have to deal with your bullshit…

          how ’bout dealing with the subject of the root post?

          Give us a run-down of the accomplishments of Ol’ Walleyes Clinton, besides decades of submissively enabling really bad men.

          ‘K?

        • Yeah, I don’t think anyone here is particularly interested in occupying the Middle East either.

          However there is a certain amount of responsibility owing to what was done, and “What difference does it make” and “the smartest man in the room” have demonstrated the ability to NOT take responsibility for any actions of previous administrations AND any actions of their own administration.
          I’d say that’s a great big ol lose for Hillary no matter what you think of the previous policies, or the pretend versions of scarey future reality you want to conjure up for candidates that aren’t even candidates yet.

          Unless you think what they’ve done rates as genuine accomplishment of course.

        • Tu quoque. You lose. 🙂

    • Yeah, golly gee. Just because those policies and those results are so perfectly correspondent in time, and you can see them so perfectly in cause >>> effect relationship…

      it was BOOOOOOOooooooosh.

      What a moron. Seriously? Save yourself the embarrassment.

      • Compelling argument. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

        • First, I saw no “argument” you attempted. Just typical troll poo in ad hominem against a thinker you seem to hate.

          Second, yep. I have a newsletter just for people like you.

          Suck It! . I’m sure you’d find it tasty. Send your name and address in you next post, and I’ll send your first copy after I get your $100 subscription fee.

          Ya moron.

  • It is about gender, race and free stuff. Your “free” stuff.

    Civil War II – coming soon to a neighborhood near you!

  • It’s interesting that at this point the trolls don’t have any access to rationality. They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel at ANSWER et al. to come up with people who are just able to type from the laminated cards.

  • And now the current administration has decided to increase tensions by confirming absolutely what has only been long suspected.
    I mean, I guess Obama the petty irresponsible little boy has decided that if you’re going to have an arms race you might as well confirm all the entrants for certain.

    The Joooooooooooooooooooooooos have bombs!!!!! See! confirmed by the Pentagon!
    Hell, we wouldn’t want the Iranians to be behind the Jews would we? Would we?
    I mean apart from the peaceful spreading Islam jihad thing and all contrasted with known imperialist conquering policies practiced by Israel.
    Mr. Friend of Israel.

    The revelation marks a first in which the US published in a document a description of how Israel attained hydrogen bombs.
    The report also notes research laboratories in Israel “are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,” the key labs in developing America’s nuclear arsenal.
    Israel’s nuclear infrastructure is “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories,” it adds.
    “As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly where the U.S. was in the fission weapon field in about 1955 to 1960,” the report reveals, noting a time frame just after America tested its first hydrogen bomb.”

    Bet that will help ensure peace in the Middle East!

    • Don’t worry, American Jews. Barracula has Israel’s back. You can count on him.

  • What had Obama ever accomplished before being chosen for President?

    I think you expect too much from this electorate who votes on who you are and not what you can do, will do and have done. The only saving grace is a big part of ‘who you are’ is skewed towards likability. That’s where Hillary Fails and that is the weakness to exploit.

    • Then are are a lot of Americans who either

      A) can’t recognize a narcissist

      B) like narcissists

      Because it was obvious what Senator “Imeme” was from his first nationally televised appearance, and it only became more and more evident that he thought himself descended from Olympus to lead us all.

      • Narcissists and psychopaths are typically extremely charming people. It’s their stock-in-trade.

        There are typically two kinds of people in a psychopath’s world; enemies/threats and prey/opportunities. Many people around them hold them to be wonderful, talented, exciting people of a special, rare breed. Which is kinda true, and a damn good thing WRT being rare.

  • Yurch, I’d forgotten ol’ Bill is a world class narcissist too.

  • Millennials who doubt the veracity of your criticism can just go check the Wikipedia page on Hillary. That will certainly be an objective source.

    • I noted that the other day. I was deeply impressed with everything it DIDN’T contain. Which was volumes. It’s like the ReadyForHillary people had run it through an autoclave.

      Sanitized.

      • There’s an article somewhere about the Wiki Knight who has made it his voluntary (cough cough, gasp, cough cough cough) mission to keep her web page accurate.
        I’d link to it, but that would clearly be like linking to anything the Master of Moosesqueeze writes.

        • Alan, I wish I had known of that article so I could have inserted a link in my sarcastic comment above.

  • Letters of mark.

    Or perhaps more aptly, “Letters of Marx”.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/27/the-return-of-the-jolly-roger/

    It isn’t at all far-fetched to call the Clintons oligarchs.