Posted on 09/03/2015 6:21:09 AM PDT by PROCON
It would seem a tad overheated to speculate that Hillary Clinton being elected president could trigger an American civil war. Unfortunately, it’s not. If not an outright war, massive civil disobedience would likely be in the offing.
If our chief executive is assumed to be dishonest by the majority of the population — a solid plurality and possibly even a majority believing her actually to be criminal — before she takes office, what would be the natural outgrowth to society, if not a breakdown of one sort or another? Exactly how would she bring the country together on Inauguration Day with the good wishes that are normally extended an incoming president? Because she broke the “glass ceiling”? What a tawdry insult to women.
And yet this depressing scenario remains a possibility despite the almost daily revelations about the contents of her hidden/erased emails. Just today, via the invaluable Catherine Herridge, we find that email markings were changed to hide classified information and, via the Washington Post, that Hillary actually wrote classified emails on her sieve-like personal server.
Hillary Clinton is a liar not just about the absurd (that her husband’s serial infidelities were caused by the rightwing conspiracy) but about our national security. Richard Nixon never came close to that.
I can explain in two words what allows Clinton to lie about our security to the extent she has. It’s not stupidity. She is not a stupid woman, although she may be far less bright than she is given credit for. It is moral narcissism. She and her supporters think they are so correct in their views that anything they do in behalf of those views is fine, legal or not. (The Blumenthal-Clinton relationship displayed in their emails is a moral narcissist love story.)
This narcissism also justifies whatever behavior is necessary for their personal advancement to any level possible because they are the custodians of the truth. How convenient. In the case of Hillary and her personal server, this behavior has reached the level of pathology — and thus become incredibly sloppy and dangerous for the country and the world. Given what we are seeing in the exposed emails, imagine the content of the 33,000 erased “personal” ones. (I know — sixty years of yoga.)
Now I realize the chances of Hillary’s nomination are decreasing on a near-daily basis, but indulge me a moment in my premise — what America would look like under an HRC presidency. She’s still leading in the polls, despite all.
Almost no one who voted against her would be giving her the benefit of the doubt. Why should they? They would be looking for ways to reject her presidency. Tax avoidance would be endemic. Why give money to a country where the president abjures the rule of law? (Yes, that’s already happened but this would, after a political campaign, be a force multiplier.) With the national treasury under threat, all sorts of results could occur — a stock market meltdown beyond what we are experiencing now, full scale depression like the 1930s, urban riots that make Baltimore and Ferguson look like Kiddyland, nonstop demonstrations of all sorts from all sides, millions of people opting out á la John Galt (most without knowing who he is), an American decline beyond recognition (if you think things are bad now, you haven’t seen anything), little border control with giant Islamic spillover from Europe, terror attacks routine, and, yes, remote a possibility as it may be, a violent civil war between between sides in a hugely split society.
Who would believe a President Hillary Clinton — already a documented liar — to prevent or ameliorate all this?
Is this a screenwriters fantasy or the reality of, say, 2018? You decide.
Whatever the case, the Democratic candidates are ignoring all this, not even answering questions about Hillary’s emails, not that the court eunuchs in the media ask them many. Still they are uniformly cowards.
Republicans should take note of this in a serious manner at the Reagan Library on September 16 and speak out forthrightly about the present danger. The person best positioned to do this is the woman of the hour, the newly anointed top-tier candidate Carly Fiorina. She should take on Hillary in the next debate in a manner even beyond what she has already done. It worked for her before and will again. And perhaps this will encourage her fellow candidates to follow suit. That will turn the debate form an often-pointless political free-for-all to a public service.
And that has been the M.O. of the Clinton Crime Family from day one.
The last 6 1/2 years have been horrendous enough.
Can you imagine 4 or 8 years of Hillary!?
We’re not having one now. Why would electing Hillary! spark one?
She is not getting in. She is DONE.
I sense the reason why the VP Biden got his blessings from Mr. Obama to run is because Mr. Obama will be throwing under the bus Hillary.
Well you never know!
The Marxists WANT civil disobedience to escalate so they can impose martial law and resort to dictatorial command of the nation. Believe it!
I hate Hillary. But her election would be a cakewalk for conservatives compared to the current Marxist regime.
If we haven’t revolted under zer0 we ain’t gonna revolt under the Byotch.
Read the article, the author gives his reasons.
If Jeb Bush gets elected it might spark a civil war.
The only civil war we are going to have, and it’s starting right now is ‘black lives matter’ against the police officers and that’s been started by the pResident of the white hut....
Shillary for Prison............NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No.
Exactly. If what we have in there now didn’t trigger a civil war, nothing would.
The Clintons are merely part of the Left, but their views are that they are entitled to anything they want.
I’m not sure how (or why) they could enforce martial law outside of the cities.
They just don’t have the manpower.
Richard Nixon was probably defeated by voter fraud, but he conceded because he did not want to impose upon the nation the kind of crisis that exposing it would have caused. The stakes are higher today. No statesman could avoid precipitating such a crisis today.
They just don’t have the manpower.
I'm not either but remember, Obama has pretty much purged the upper level officer ranks of the military. Now only those perceived to be loyal to the Fuhrer are in command and might be able to coerce enough of their troops to kill citizens. Hitler did it. Mussolini did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Pol Pot did it, etc. etc. etc. Is it worth the risk?
To address the core of the article:
indulge me a moment in my premise — what America would look like under an HRC presidency. She’s still leading in the polls, despite all. Almost no one who voted against her would be giving her the benefit of the doubt. ... They would be looking for ways to reject her presidency. Tax avoidance would be endemic. Why give money to a country where the president abjures the rule of law? ... With the national treasury under threat, all sorts of results could occur — a stock market meltdown beyond what we are experiencing now, full scale depression like the 1930s, urban riots that make Baltimore and Ferguson look like Kiddyland, nonstop demonstrations of all sorts from all sides, millions of people opting out á la John Galt (most without knowing who he is), an American decline beyond recognition (if you think things are bad now, you haven’t seen anything), little border control with giant Islamic spillover from Europe, terror attacks routine, and, yes, remote a possibility as it may be, a violent civil war between between sides in a hugely split society.
Meh.
Those who voted against the Obama don't give him benefit of doubt, they abstractly reject his presidency but still consent to the reality that we DO have an acting President directing a massive bureaucracy which is practically unavoidable insofar as one is subjected to it. Either the personal costs of "rejection" are too high, or the objected-to behavior is not actually one's objective problem (ex.: illegal immigrants aren't crossing _your_ property).
Tax avoidance is routine. Pay what you have to, take all the deductions you can. Actually not paying taxes does have severe consequences few, even under Hillary!, are willing to risk on principle. Considering most taxation is automatic (the money is taken before you even get the money earned or product purchased), _not_ paying is quite difficult.
The Obama may be creatively straining the limit of law, but doing so with consent of Congress makes that hard to objectively oppose. Hillary! is less likely to go quite so far.
National treasury under threat? Quantitative Easing has replaced the treasury with a giant hole in the ground. What more "threat" could it be under?
Market meltdown? you might have a point there.
Urban riots? Something I noticed about Baltimore, Ferguson et al is how _small_ they were. For those of us outside those few blocks, the pictures looked scary but there was no long-range effects.
Going Galt? Those who can have, the rest are mired in the pit of mortgages & credit card payments.
I'll certainly agree Hillary! as POTUS would result in ongoing decline on all fronts, but not the riotous explosion predicted (and no different a prediction than I've seen for every possible POTUS for the last 3 decades).
If she wins, it’s a sign that the Democrats have completed their mission: they will have imported enough fresh non-white voters into enough key swing states such that they vote for goodies and racial reasons over anything else.
If she wins, the GOP establishment will notice, and they will try their damnedest to fundamentally change the party, getting even more dramatic and draconian in their attempts at party control. We will see a party splintering.
If she wins, she likely gets to replace two or three Supreme Court justices. She’d be likely to replace one or more conservatives, and in this event, even if there is a pendulum swing back to the right, these justices will hound our legislative efforts for decades. We can win all the lower-level elections we want from 2016 onward, but if all it takes is lawsuits and crooked court rulings for the liberals to undo the legislation that results from these elections, then there’s no point.
If she wins, I’m fully out. I already know that things are in God’s hands, but I’ve been following along over this Marxist’s two terms, hoping to see if good men can turn this thing around. I’m out if she wins, and I will do my best to quit caring about this country’s sad fate.
I’m not sure how they could enforce it IN the cities. The closest we’ve seen (ex.: Boston search for marathon bomber) was little more than a single sweep.
Per your examples, note that Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc had actual large-scale visionary goals for their countries ... Hillary! does not. Once in power, she will have no motivation to do anything with that power besides merely keep it.
I guess that I’d agree with that. Obama should have been enough to spark it. I do think, however, that her election would signal the factual end to those who really think out here in driveby America.
I think what you’d see is a general “giving up” attitude and a marked decrease in personal output, coupled with a race by more former producers to the entitlement side of America.
0bama was an unknown, for the most part in 2007, whereas Hillary! is a known and repeated liar.
That was what the author was getting at; if a known liar was elected, what types of civil disobedience would emerge.
Her presidency would certainly deflate us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.