Tuesday, November 1, 2016

"Progressive" without principle equates to nothing (but lies)

OK, the excitement is over at Burger King, where I have just witnessed a black woman trash the place, dumping anything that was dumpable on the floor, apparently because she felt that one of the employees had “slighted” her because of her race and her claimed sexual orientation. The police were called, but she will be long gone by the time they show-up. The perpetrator has promised, however, that she will be back tomorrow to visit more mayhem on the establishment.

Earlier in the day Seattle mayor Ed Murray was a guest on the local ESPN affiliate’s “Brock and Salk” radio show, to talk about the Chris Hansen arena proposal—or rather, not talk about it. I didn’t expect much; after all, this strictly vanilla personality was elected because it was believed he had progressive “cred” based on his particular “orientation,” and Seattle wants to maintain its progressive “rep” by electing such a person. Isn’t that the truth, Seattle?  And isn’t it another truth that when it comes to the  nitty-gritty, many people who claim to be “progressive” are not that at all, but self-obsessed divas? Murray isn’t really “progressive” at all from what I can tell; in fact, Murray is something of a coward. When it comes right down to it, with all the power and influence of the executive, he hasn’t exactly used it to advance anything that one would mistake as “progressive.” He has been a coward in the face of NIMBY’s and developers who have either stonewalled or opposed affordable and low-income housing in Seattle, as well as on the homeless issue. The most vulnerable people in his city have no friend they can count on in Murray, who seems more interested in maintaining his favorable poll numbers among the better-off in the city.

Listening to Murray not talk about the Hansen proposal in that dull, lifeless tone of the non-believer (he called himself an “agnostic” on sports), one reads between the lines that Murray harbors a personal dislike for Hansen, and opposes any “deal” that the city doesn’t have complete control of and take all the credit for. The problem, of course, is that there is no “deal” outside of Hansen’s, and Murray’s claims that he wants to be the mayor who brings the NBA back to Seattle is as hollow as his “concern” for the poor and the homeless.

But while the mayor of Seattle barely registers on the pulse meter, the same cannot be said about the Hillary Clinton campaign’s outrage at that anyone would dare expose further the corruption of the “chosen” one. Clinton is “blasting” the “double standard” of FBI director James Comey’s re-opening the investigation into her email illegalities, while “overlooking” Russia’s “interference” on Donald Trump’s “behalf.” Comey is being accused of violating the Hatch Act, the intent of which is the prevention of undo “influence” by a government official into an election. But the only “explosive” thing about any of this is the desperation of Clinton in her attempts to shoo-away the flock of misdeeds that are coming home to roost—and no one is even talking about her even worse past indiscretions. Did the Russians brainwash Clinton into a 40-year career of corruption and perjury? Or is her “outrage” more a product of hysterical indignation that even just a tiny crumb of truth is coming out now

Meanwhile, it seems that every day WikiLeaks reveals yet more evidence of the corruption of Clinton and her disciples. I find it laughable that the Clinton News Network would be “uncomfortable” when after employing interim Democratic National Committee chairperson and close Clinton confidant Donna Brazile as a “contributor,”  it was revealed that she had passed on televised debate questions to the Clinton primary campaign back in March during a critical period for Bernie Sanders’ candidacy; no wonder Clinton responded to many questions as if she already had the answers burned to memory.
I have got to believe that many voters are becoming disillusioned with Clinton’s efforts to drown out any questions or evidence against her suitability to be president. Every time new evidence emerges about some new corruption—and this has been an ongoing “process” for some time now—we don’t get the admissions of “mistakes” from Clinton, but more lies, like this:

“I am sure a lot of you may be asking what this email business is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election without any evidence and it’s a good a question. By all mean they should look at [the emails] and I am sure they will reach the same conclusion as when they looked at my emails: there is no case.”

The statement just drips with mendacity. She said something similar before the release of the FBI report after the Democratic Convention, and many in the media noted that the report did not “exonerate” Clinton of wrong-doing as she claimed, or of making false statements. No, the FBI is not “jumping into an election without any evidence”; it just found more evidence not previously known that a close Clinton aid had potentially sensitive State Department business illegally stored on a personal computer shared with her husband. How did that happen? And no, the FBI report did not say there was “no case” against Clinton, only that there was a great deal of evidence of willful disregard with the communication of classified information, and that the FBI could not make a case against Clinton because everyone in the “know” pleaded the Fifth rather than testify against her. 

Trump’s hubris may be offensive to some people, but his inability to conceal what is on his mind is at least “different” from what we usually hear from politicians these days. From Clinton, all we hear is the hot-air of counter-accusations against those who just want voters to know the truth—and the truth has always been that bogeyman the Clintons most fear.

No comments:

Post a Comment