Saturday, April 2, 2016

“Enraged” Clinton? Maybe we should be talking about her "stability"

In my youth I attended a Catholic grade school in which the “older” students—meaning those who might be tempted by the vices of the material world—were required to attend mass every morning to be re-indoctrinated into the spiritual world. Not that it did me any good. Some of the things I “learned,” like feeling “shame” as in being far down the list in the annual “giving” report (even children were provided with a package of envelopes to put in the collection basket every Sunday), or not joining everyone else in attending “confession” every week. “Everyone” committed at least one “sin” a week, but it was sometimes tough to think of something. In the end, I just repeated the same “sins” every week, basically lying about lying, talking back to my parents, and taking the Lord’s name in vain.

But it is one thing to “confess” to doing things you didn’t do, and just sitting on the pew in denial of the “sins” that you in fact did do. 15 people—including Bill Clinton’s successor as governor of Arkansas—were convicted and imprisoned for crimes committed in the course of the Whitewater scandal investigation. This whole operation was the brainchild of the Clintons and the McDougals, in the quest of making a quick killing in a real estate resale scam. Yet the Clintons somehow escaped unscathed. While underlings are expected to fall on their swords, the Clintons have somehow built themselves an unbreachable wall of protection, which explains the appalling level of denial from Hillary Clinton that can be described as an advanced case of her own form of ethical dementia.

I happened to be perusing a discarded Saturday edition of the Seattle Times when I discovered a story on page 4 placed where it likely wouldn’t draw attention to itself. It was a reprint of a New York Times story, which revealed that “A day after Mrs. Clinton grew enraged, telling a young climate change activist after a rally in Purchase, N.Y., that she was ‘sick of the Sanders campaign lying’ about her accepting political donations from the fossil fuel industry, Mr. Sanders doubled down on the accusation, saying on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ on Friday that Mrs. Clinton had ‘taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry.’”

In the “lying” department, Hillary Clinton is so pathological that for her and her media supporters, the line between truth and falsehood has no meaning, thus her enragement should be viewed as somewhat concerning as to her own “stability”—something that was called into question in 2008 when Clinton had more than a few moments of concerning episodes as her supposedly runaway train to the nomination was flying off the rails. Thus being scolded that we should stop fighting “each other” and “focus” on stopping Trump and Cruz merely sounds like a desperate ploy by Clinton to avoid the harsh glare of truth being focused on herself.

Now, the latest ruckus following “outrage” that many Sanders supporters will refuse to vote for Clinton, is that besides having dumpster loads of cash from Wall Street falling on her (so much for “Fighting For Us”), Clinton has been accused by Sanders’ campaign manager of allowing “Fifty-seven lobbyists from the (fossil fuel) industry to have personally given to her campaign, and 11 of those lobbyists have bundled more than $1 million to help put her in the White House. If you include money given to super PACs backing Clinton, the fossil fuel industry has given more than $4.5 million in support of Clinton’s bid.”

Clinton, being a lawyer, in fact has always been adept at concealing her methods of accumulating cash, so we should take her angst about the “lies” with a grain of salt. She was indeed in favor of building  the Keystone XL Pipeline, running from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, but after feeling pressure from environmentalists , she huffed “If it is undecided (to build it) when I become president, I will answer your question.” Besides the arrogant assumption that she will become president, what is interesting here is her evasiveness. But Clinton isn’t without her “lighter” moments; according to the Times, “She has proposed a far-reaching climate change plan that would install a half-billion solar panels in American homes by the end of her first term.” She must have come up with this half-baked idea when her brain fried during one of her periodic “enraged” moments.

Clinton, of course, has her defenders, such as “” which was a bit lazy on its “fact checking” about the matter of taking money from fossil fuel companies. While Sanders has admittedly received donations of a total of $50,000 from person associated with fossil fuel industries, this is a couple of marbles and pennies in the kid’s pocket. According to Mother Jones, “Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.”

The magazine notes a number of big oil functionaries who have “bundled” large amounts of cash for Clinton’s campaign kitty, but some have been more “prominent” than others:

Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements.

No wonder progressives want to know what exactly she “promised” for these huge sums of money. Funny how “” missed that. Remember Clinton’s wait till she becomes president to decide line?  “In October 2010 remarks, Clinton said the department was ‘inclined’ to sign off on the pipeline, a statement that enraged environmental groups working to stop it. On the campaign trail, Clinton has largely evaded questions about the pipeline.” More lies to be “enraged” at?  “In June, Clinton's campaign announced the hiring of former TransCanada lobbyist Jeff Berman as a consultant.”

Clinton refused to sign off on a pledge not to accept contributions from oil, gas or coal companies. Instead, while environmental activists demanded that she “support a ban on fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Clinton responded that she would phase out extraction over time, though not immediately. ‘We still have to run our economy, we still have to turn on the lights,’" Fair enough, but that is hardly a “strong” statement of commitment, let alone an actual position. 

Let’s face the facts: Hillary Clinton has taken money from everyone is sight and who knows, maybe even from the Koch brothers.  The fossil fuel contribution issue is just another case where Clinton has proven to be massively opportunistic and completely without principle.  When confronted with her double-dealing, she becomes “enraged” like someone swatting away annoying “pests.” And “pests” are what she regards progressives. Just another reason to reject her quest to become president.

No comments:

Post a Comment