Unethical Quote Of The Week: Hillary Clinton

“So get over it.”

Hillary Clinton, explaining why Joe Biden’s serial unconsented-to touching, hugging, sniffing, and other discriminatory, harassing conduct toward  women he encounters in the course of his professional activities shouldn’t matter to the “Party of Women” and the voting public generally.

This was prefaced by her saying , in response to a question about Biden’s #MeToo defying behavior,

“For goodness’ sake, I’m sorry, I have to jump in because I’ve heard a little bit about that. You could take any person who sticks their little head above the parapet and says, ‘I’m going to run for president,’ and find something that … a little annoying habit or other kind of behavior that people are going to pick apart and disagree with. But this man who’s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States. So get over it.”

The only remaining question, after that self-indicting outburst, is whether only Hillary Clinton among the Democratic leadership is a cynical, dishonest hypocrite who has no reliable core values or integrity, and whose utterances to the contrary are to be regarded as Machiavellian calculations to achieve power and nothing more.

The evidence suggests that she is not alone, but also that she is a bad as the rest of them could be.

To just scratch the surface of this damning admission, that the current President “poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States” is an opinion at best, and one that is remarkably without supporting documentation. That Joe Biden regards women who come within his curtilage to be tactilely exciting play-thing’s whose dignity, personal space and feelings don’t matter is a matter of photographic record. And that that exact conduct Biden engages in is the conduct that an entire feminist and social movement, supposedly backed by the Democratic Party, has tirelessly lectured men and the American public was intolerable in the workplace, and mandated permanent removal from positions of power, and societal shunning.

That anyone of good will and whole cerebrum could honestly conclude that this scheming, dishonest woman was and is in any way more admirable, trustworthy, or worthy of holding great power than Donald Trump is mind-boggling. She’s just as ethically-inert as he is; she’s just more sneaky about it. She’s not even a feminist; she just pretends to be one when it’s opportunistic.

My increasingly disillusioned Democratic sister typically responds, when i alert her to Hillary statements like this, “Oh, who cares? She’s irrelevant. She’s pathetic…what she says doesn’t matter now, any more than tweets from dead-head celebrities.” Yet a majority of people we both know were all set to vote for this awful woman to be President of the United States, and accepted the mythology and media narrative that she was qualified for the job. A major political party made such a woman its standard bearer, and with almost every utterance and action since, she has provided more evidence that it was all a massive fraud.

I’m not going to argue that Donald Trump is a more trustworthy and admirable character than Hillary Clinton. I will argue that anyone who wanted this woman to run the country has nothing to contribute to debates over his “fitness to serve.”

25 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Hillary Clinton

  1. Jack, Is this a recent pic of Hillary …or is it a photoshopped pic for a future run for president in 2024? It’s certainly not a very flattering photo of who was destined to win in 2016 and, thus, would now be running for reelection in 2020.

            • So jealous. They are wonderful dogs. There’s nothing like a giant breed. Our 165 pound English Mastiff was one of the great blessings of our lives. If only they lived longer. Dear, sweet Patience never quite made it to 7.

              • Nero just turned 1. I’m hoping he’ll be around for 6-7 more years. He has a habit of resting his chin in the lap of visitors. It’s like petting a furry basketball.

                • Nero; what a great handle!

                  I remember seeing one at the vet’s a while back, up on it’s hind legs, and actually hugging it’s large owner on a pretty much equal basis.

                  I asked the vet later how much he weighed; she said ~ 200 pounds.

                  When she saw the Holy $#!T in my eyes, she said, “you shoulda seen him before; he’s lost 50 pounds.”

              • My Winston made it to 13. I was told he did better than most. His back & hips finally gave out. I learned why one should never have a dog that you couldn’t pick up to take to the vet… That became a litmus test for future dog selections. He was a pussy-cat on the street on a walk, but a terror when protecting his own yard.
                d_d: to you issue your guests oilcloth lap covers, or agree to reimburse dry cleaning? A bullmastiff head in the lap can get messy.

                • It sure can, Mike. No, any friend of mine who comes over is VERY aware of Nero and his…proclivities. Our City Marshall loves him.

    • The photo is clearly posed, so there’s no grounds for anyone to complain. It’s not one of those inadvertently unflattering shots that people use to damage someone (a topic Jack has treated).

  2. Why are such declarative statements never required to be defended.
    It seems to me that any journalist worth his , her or their salt would be asking what leads the maker of such statements to believe that claim.

    Many can make the same claim right now about HRC. Her unwillingness to accept her loss in 2016 has caused the current administration to be mired in allegations of illegality. Much of the allegations are rooted in questionable behavior by the prior administration and the DNC which if memory serves was controlled by HRC when the campaign finacially bailed out the DNC.
    We have spent millions of dollars investigating her challenger. We have lost tremendous leverage in dealing with our enemies in the DPRK, China, Russia Iran and elsewhere as Democrats and some Republicans choose to trade away long term geopolitical stability for short term political gamesmanship.

    When it comes to giving aid and comfort to our enemy there is no doubt in my mind that the continual efforts to delegitimize the administration have done more to embolden our adversaries, lessen our bargaining strength and generally weaken America’s leadership capacity.

    So for my money, the clearest present danger to the United States future is HRC and those who are more concerned about their singular parochial issue than considering what it would be like actually living in a nation in which government tells you what you must think or else.

    So the next time someone makes an unsupported declarative statement demand that they back it up.

  3. I remain of the opinion that the Clintons are not done yet. I think she’ll run once Joe is swept aside. She’s been making one of her dreaded “listening tours.” She’s been wearing makeup and getting her hair done again. Always a new haircut. Why have a Shrew Lite (Fauxcahontas or Kamala Harris) when you can have the real thing? HRC is still the most qualified candidate ever to run for president!

  4. “But this man who’s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States.”</b?

    The only remaining question, after that self-indicting outburst, is whether only Hillary Clinton among the Democratic leadership is a cynical, dishonest hypocrite who has no reliable core values or integrity, and whose utterances to the contrary are to be regarded as Machiavellian calculations to achieve power and nothing more.

    As far as I know, there is no one in any media that I read, nor have I seen any articles on-line, nor am I aware of any published books or studies, who has outlined in clear detail the nature of the power-struggle that is going on both visibly and invisibly and behind the scenes within the halls of power to quote from the movie All the President’s Men in America right now.

    The superficial side is the display and the rehearsal — the theatrics in many senses — that one observes in the newspapers or on TeeVee (my only source for TeeVee being what comes on YouTube). But even Commander Tucker Carlson has alluded (I found this rather amazing) to profound political machinations in a recent show:

    I sort of accept Jack’s distain for Carlson, at the very least I understand it, but yet I can think of no one on the Telescreen who is making reference to the substantial issues. I find it amazing that Carlson is so condemned in the progressive media. Generally, he always has coherent and rational points. But, he is an entertainer in a newsish forum, which is suspect in itself.

    If indeed the man in the Whitehouse is a ‘clear and present danger to the future of the United States’ this implies that he must — by any means necessary — be gotten rid of. Obviously, that is dangerous and provocative lingo and the meaning, the real meaning, though unstated, must be recognized as being clear.

    But the Democrats — as is obvious, and as TC also points out — are engaged in a tremendous ‘projection’: what they see in the Other is exactly what they do and are doing. So by that definition one must ‘turn the lens of examination around’ and examine a) how they represent a clear and present threat, and b) what does ‘clear and present threat’ actually mean? That question, in my view, hinges on understanding the behind-the-scenes power-battles, and it is this that no one can see, and no one is writing about.

    What really is going on? And where does this lead?

  5. So, seriously, where among available media does one turn to even attempt to understand “what is really going on” as you say? My current “Non-MSM” reading includes: The Abbeville Institute, The Agonist, Big League Politics, Chronicles magazine, New English Review, Reckonin.com, Takimag.com, and VDare.com, What others would you suggest?

    • How about that, I also get the Abbeville Institute newsletter! That entire school of thought is very interesting. I will have to look into the others that you have mentioned. I think Counter-Currents is pretty good. The Occidental Observer has a lot of good material.

    • Here is an interesting contribution to the question What is really going on? In today’s NYT there is an opinion-piece titled: How We Went From ‘Soup Nazis’ to Real Nazis. [The author, according to his description: “Randy Laist is a professor of English at Goodwin College in East Hartford, Conn., and the author of “Cinema of Simulation: Hyperreal Hollywood in the Long 1990s” and “The Twin Towers in Film: A Cinematic History of New York’s World Trade Center.”]

      Amazingly, it is a piece the purpose of which is to analyze ‘the time we are in’ and it yet begins the analysis through reference to a situation comedy from the 1990s: Seinfeld! That in and of itself is amazing. Like referencing a cartoon to illustrate an historical situation. I know this TeeVee program from YouTube clips, so I basically get what it was about, but I guess it was for a time a big deal. So, the opinion-piece — and the front page of the (electronic) NYTs is filled, in the right side, with pure opinion, and thus the tone of the Times is one of Opinion in essence, a postmodern hysterical neo-Maoism from where I sit! begins with:

      If you watch “The Handmaid’s Tale” on basic-subscription Hulu, the fraught dystopian narrative is periodically interrupted with advertisements, one of which promotes “Seinfeld” episodes available on the company’s streaming service.

      How totally hyperreal and postmodern! That there are intrusions, if you will, into the hyperreal *world* of this viewing idiot that inserts a perversely superficial ‘narrative’ into the perceptual structure of this man! That in itself must be dismantled, exposed, decried, exclaimed against.

      Here is a brief synopsis of The Handmaid’s Tale (which I have not read nor watched but basically get the idea of):

      Offred is a Handmaid in the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America.

      Offred’s freedom, like the freedom of all women, is completely restricted. She can leave the house only on shopping trips, the door to her room cannot be completely shut, and the Eyes, Gilead’s [Republic of Gilead] secret police force, watch her every public move.

      This surreal opinion piece continues:

      The characters in “Seinfeld” occupy a sheltered, privileged outpost at the end of history. Jerry’s apartment, and the wider expanse of Manhattan that he and his friends inhabit, is a kind of satellite reality where all of the suffering and pain and tragedy of human history has been definitively put to rest — either by virtue of having been resolved, rendered irrelevant, forgotten, deemed too boring to worry about or, most typically, sublimated into performative anxieties that are essentially comic.

      Reading this, one has to admit that if this person’s notion of the Cosmos and of Existence actually is understood as revolving around the antics of these bizarre personages, and if there is little more depth to this person’s grasp of the sense of reality or the meaning of it, then it must be stated, proposed in any case, that this person’s scope of reference is well within the lunatic.

      The author, Randy Laist, spells it out in clear terms: “For me and for many of my contemporaries back in the early 1990s, Jerry’s self-consciously televisual apartment-world reflected the semantic landscape in which we were coming-of-age”.

      God help you! If there is anything that illustrates the end-result of essential and categorial ‘dumbing-down’ of a peculiar but of a common and ubiquitous sort it is declarations it is such as this:

      The end of the 20th century was coinciding with a new era of American consumerist hegemony, where the only Nazis were “soup Nazis,” where the only problems left to agonize over were “first-world problems,” and where any committed political or ideological point of view was correspondingly irrelevant, tone-deaf or simply uncool. What remained was an all-pervasive sense of irony: the sentiment that any point of view was always vulnerable to being undermined by a tragicomic reversal. In such a world, propositions are always provisional, and reality itself consists not of fixed truths, but of free-floating perspectives, modes and poses.

      Further:

      All of these texts express in one way or another the ontological situation of existing in what Jean Baudrillard called a “hyperreal” register, a style of being in which the connection to a foundational reality has been definitively severed, or demonstrated never to have existed in the first place, leaving the postmodern subjects adrift in a free-floating cloud of arbitrary, interchangeable symbols. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

      He goes on to say:

      Flash-forward several eventful decades, to Gilead. We now sing bitter songs of experience. Post-9/11, post-Charlottesville and post-El Paso, comic irony is not only tone-deaf and uncool, but also complicit with the kind of evil that flourishes outside the solipsistic bubble of Jerry’s apartment. Our millennial co-workers are correct to fault Generation X with fetishizing a worldview that is politically impotent, that represents a dead-end philosophically and aesthetically, and that is steeped in white, male, upper-class privilege. Jerry himself was aware, however indifferently, of his own self-satisfied, masturbatory, antisocial value structure, and the series itself ends by convicting the entire cast of being selfish jerks. Jerry’s psychology is far too insubstantial to bear anything as existential as true guilt. In the mode of comic irony, however, you can hold your guilt and your innocence in two hands and regard them as twin facets of a grand cosmic joke.

      He muses on how this strange mental, existential and perceptual-ideological perspective came to be for his generation — in overblown term I should add — but then he moves toward seriousness:

      All this makes me think of Yeats’s line from his poem “The Second Coming,” presaging the end of the world: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” The first part of Yeats’s line strikes me as an apt description of my friends and acquaintances back in the ’90s. If we had any conviction, it was the conviction that convictions were bogus. We were good people, but mostly devoid of any sense of social purpose. Fence-sitting, ambiguity, multi-perspectival balance seemed inherently good — empathetic, interpersonal, contextual — while “passionate intensity” always seemed, from the perspective of Jerry’s couch, like a setup for disaster.

      So, if we take all of this as a *text* that outlines a *position* in respect to The Present, we have a good deal of material to work with to understand what is going on in the mind of people like this author, and thus of a huuuuggggeeeee swath of America: America the really and truly dumbed-down.

      What this man is left with, and where his beginning in taking himself seriously seems for him to lead (I wonder if he still watches the Telescreen?) is directly to an Antifa-like opposition to these dangerous figures — conservatives, the religious, those who think and *understand* more through traditional categories — who are militating for his oppression.

      What I am trying to get at here is to introduce the notion of hermeneutics and *interpretation of the world*. It is a large part of my own developing philosophical-existential position. We have no choice but to *interpret*, and yet we must face that we live in a truly ‘dumbed-down culture’. Where intelligence, which at one time was understood to come to man through a relationship with quintessential, angelical entity, now is received through *the idiot box* and, to use a darker metaphor, the Telescreen.

      As we recover from this postmodern morass, as we climb out of it and seek *genuine air to breathe*, we are forced — we literally have no choice — to *locate ourselves* within and through a metaphysical description of ourselves, our own being, and an understanding of what our *mission* is and must be.

      I guess what I principally notice, though I do not know what to do with it our about it, is the problem of approaching the seeing of the world, of ‘reality’, through hyperreal-vision. All metaphysical views held by persons are in a similar sense *impositions*, but Good Lord consider what a strange structure-of-view this man organized his perception of the world through!

      There are a thousand things to be said about this bizarre situation we find ourselves in.

      • PS: If you subscribe to the Times (or the Slimes as some call it), it is worthwhile to read the comments on this piece. They always illustrate the *mind-set* of a section of America. It can be studied and, to some degree, understood.

  6. Hlary. Again. God Help planet earth (and all of us humans)! From now on, in my comments, “Hlary” is out, and “Hillar” is in.* No one need ask “y.”

    Oh, okay, here’s “y:” She’s got a terminal case of “ueber-alles-ing” – just like that guy who wrote that “Kampf” book had. “It’s ALL MEIN!

    (All hers, until the end, that is – whatever “end” it is that she desired but that her ruthless means didn’t achieve. When, in her hellview, anyone and everyone but herself is to blame for her disappearing – some might say illusory/delusional – “reich-ness.”)

    *(After all, I still consider her last name to be spelled “Cnton.” No – not spelled like that for the reason someone might suspect (or wish, maybe), thinking (erroneously) that I might be meaning to make my spelling of her married name into some non-clever, misogynistic proto-obscenity. I apply the same spelling to her husband’s last name – and the same “technique” to his first name, too. So, “get over [that].” “[That],” being the thoughtcrime that I mock Hlary, er, Hillar Cnton for having a vagina.

    I spell the former president’s name, and his wifey’s name,** that way out of sarcasm, because – as we are all supposed to believe – the Cntons are paragons of truthiness. There is no “li” in either Bl or Hlary – I mean, Hillar.)

    **Now, there’s some intentional misogyny for you, you pathetic, misogyny-starved trolls in pursuit of having a blog commenter banned for life from commenting anywhere besides in Ethics Alarms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.