Connect with us

Hillary Makes Shocking Statement About Border – Blindsides Dems With Big Stab In The Back

Published

on

Hillary Clinton has told so many conflicting lies over the years she tends to get confused and spouts the wrong thing at the wrong time. Her political stances go with the wind and she just stepped in it once again. Hillary actually said the right thing, that European leaders should stop offering “refuge and hope” to migrants. But her reasoning was flawed – she said it was to stem the spread of right-wing populism. Not to halt the infection of radical Islamism or encroaching communism.

Clinton is right that the invasion by foreign Islamists helped light the flame of populism, but it was growing anyway. Why? Because Europe, the UN, and leftists have a vision of an open-borders, communist one-world government and sane people want nothing to do with that. Democrats were chagrined that she even bothered to say what she did – she blindsided them and stabbed them in their progressive backs. Whenever Hillary opens her mouth, you can feel the Democratic Party cringe en masse. Fox News has more on the foot-in-mouth syndrome that is Hillary Clinton:

In this photo taken on Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018, migrants arrive at the port of San Roque, southern Spain, after being rescued by Spain’s Maritime Rescue Service in the Strait of Gibraltar. (AP Photo/Marcos Moreno)

Hillary Clinton has stepped in it again. Just recently she told an interviewer with The Guardian that European leaders must stop offering “refuge and hope” to migrants if they want to slow the spread of right-wing populism. She urged them to “send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”

Mrs. Clinton said further, “I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame.”

You could almost hear Democrats groaning.

After all, if opening your borders in Europe to asylum-seekers is a bad idea, how can it be the right thing to do in the U.S.?

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she occasionally says what she thinks, which rarely turns out well. When she called Trump supporters “deplorables” she meant it. When she wailed, “What difference at this point does it make?” during the Benghazi hearings, she showed the world her disdain for the inquiry into why four Americans died under her watch and how she lied about the cause of that tragedy for political reasons.

Here she is challenging one of the Democrats’ core tenets: that we should open our doors to migrants, no matter the economic impact or security risk because that is the noble thing to do.

Hillary is correct, of course. Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome one million migrants from Syria and other countries became wildly unpopular in Germany, especially as some studies confirmed that the surge in newcomers had caused an increase in crime and violence.  The Christmas market terror attack in Berlin in 2016 and other episodes hardened opinion against Merkel’s open door policy, undermining her coalition and eventually putting her on the path to resignation.

In countries like Greece and Italy, on the front lines of the surge of migrants into Europe, and in Poland and Hungary, resistance to EU-mandated immigration policies have bolstered populist leaders. In Britain, disapproval of open borders was an important contributor to the Brexit vote.

Liberals in the U.S., however, do not acknowledge the strains caused by the EU’s autocratic diktats on immigration. To do so might suggest that President Trump’s aversion to open borders is not only reasonable, but broadly popular around the world. It might strengthen arguments that favor restricting who gets into our country – arguments made repeatedly by the Trump administration.

Writers at the New York Times doubtless reflected their own horror when they reported Clinton’s remarks, saying they brought a “dose of surprise from an array of scholars, pro-immigration advocates…some of whom were so perplexed by the comments that they wondered aloud whether Mrs. Clinton had perhaps misspoken.”

After all, Hillary has heretofore voiced unwavering support for generous immigration policies. In a 2013 paid speech to a Brazilian bank she went further, saying, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders…,” a comment that Trump used as a cudgel during the 2016 campaign.

In the aftermath of the much-criticized Guardian interview, Hillary is playing defense, recently tweeting, “I have always been and remain a staunch advocate of comprehensive immigration reform…”

But the damage has been done, reminding Democrats how very much they wish the Clintons would simply go away, and how desperately the power couple is trying to hold onto the spotlight, even launching a speaking tour to do so.

Hillary spent the days leading up to Thanksgiving tweeting about voter suppression, pie, and exhorting her followers to “Spend an evening with Bill and me.” The latter message linked people to a site at which they could buy tickets for upcoming forums in the U.S. and Canada which will feature the former president and the former Secretary of State in conversation. The ad promises “remarkable insight into where we go from here.”

That’s a tall order, considering that Mrs. Clinton had until recently revealed almost no insight at all as to how we got to where we are today. Maybe that’s why there are still plenty of tickets available, including for a gathering in Toronto this week. Though ticket prices are modest, ranging from $53 to $174, the arena appears to be barely half sold out.

We wonder why on earth Hillary would subject herself and her husband to hustling from one city to the next and confronting the inevitable hecklers (some of whom have been vocal on Twitter, raising unpleasant topics like Bill’s alleged sexual abuse of women). What’s it all for?

The answer is: it’s for the money, and for the attention. Hillary wants to be relevant, and to be an important power broker for her party. Though the Clintons are wealthy, they can no longer count on the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to fund their political infrastructure. Donations to the Foundation plummeted 58 percent after her 2016 loss, signaling the real intent of gifts made to that organization. Support for their advisors and their public appearances will have to come from elsewhere.

Hillary and Bill have been central Democrat figures for decades; she is loathe to retire, even as so many have urged her to do just that. Bill’s alleged transgressions, and her erstwhile support of him, have embarrassed Democrats hugging the #MeToo movement. How can they rail about President Trump’s supposed misdeeds against women if they cling to the Clintons’ coattails?

Hillary may even want to run for president again, an ambition given new life recently by an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal by her long-time pollster and campaign strategist Mark Penn and Democrat politician Andrew Stein. They argue she’s determined to give it one more go, and that the third time might be the charm; they fail to note her miserable political instincts, her increasing rejection by others in her party, and her tendency to say things that get her into hot water.

The speaking tour is almost sure to be a bust, only adding to the consensus that the Clintons are old news. Unless, of course, she decides to say what she actually thinks, as she did in The Guardian interview. That could sell tickets, but will surely doom her shot at another run.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Clinton IT aide created Gmail address to forward Hillary’s emails: report

Published

on

...

* By

Continue Reading

New York Times Editor: We’re Switching From Russia Collusion To ‘Trump Is Racist’

Published

on

The New York Times and others have repeatedly tried to take down President Trump with libelous statements on the Russian collusion front and have failed spectacularly every single time. Now, New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet has accidentally admitted that for two years his far-left newspaper was “built” around spreading a hoax. Oops. But it’s never too late to shift propaganda in this political war.

He was secretly recorded saying just that and it got out. Baquet also admitted the Times’ staff is loaded with left-wingers “who cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden.” Do tell. I’m shocked I tell you. Simply shocked.

What is actually shocking is this recording comes by way of the leftist rag, Slate. They got their mitts on the recording of a company-wide meeting Baquet held with his staffers and it is an illuminating look at how leftist media utilizes and manipulates propaganda for political effect. Why Slate would let that out is puzzling, to say the least.

Baquet has now admitted that for two long years his leftist newspaper was “built” around the Russia Collusion Hoax: “It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.”

Truly well? Do you mean by lying and falsifying facts? They did that very well. There was not a shred of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia yet the NYT reported on it as fact for two years and in actuality, made stuff up to fit that narrative.

But the New York Times has seen the light, so to speak. The Russia collusion hoax hasn’t worked so now they are switching tactics… Trump is now a racist and everything will revolve around that lie: “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story. I’d love your help with that. As Audra Burch said when I talked to her this weekend, this one is a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred[.]”

The truth is that if Trump were actually a racist it would have come out decades ago. This is a last-ditch effort to besmirch a sitting president so a communist can take his place in the next election. It’s subversion and in my book… a form of treason.

You can still taste the salty leftist tears from being disappointed that Mueller did not take down Trump: “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

So, while the NYT, WaPo, and other lefty rags spewed lies and propaganda, outlets such as Breitbart, The Daily Wire, and The Daily Caller among others did real reporting and told the truth. For their efforts, a number of them have been banned on social media.

From Breitbart:

“Baquet pretty much spends the rest of the 90 minutes meeting fielding questions from individuals who are supposed to be professionals but who only want to know how they can call Trump and his supporters racists even more often.

“You see, according to the Times’ staff, everything is racist because everything really is racist.

“You probably think that whole “everything is racist” thing is me being sarcastic. Here’s a direct quote from a staffer [emphasis added]:

Hello, I have another question about racism. I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country.

“Good grief. What a dispiriting and not-at-all surprising look at the ignorant whack jobs in charge of our media — and in the case of the New York Times, not just the media, but what is considered the elite of the media elite. What are they obsessed with? What do these conspiracy-loons see everywhere in 2019 America…?

“Raaaaaaacism.

“Here we sit in the most tolerant, diverse country in the world just a few years after having twice elected a black president with the middle name “Hussein,” and the people in charge of the media are breaking down into pools of self-pity because they want to scream racist at us even more than they already have.

“And again, let’s not forget that the only way they can try to pretend America is racist is by way of massive hoaxes: the Very Fine People Hoax, the Covington Hoax, the George Zimmerman Is White Hoax, the Hands Up Don’t Shoot Hoax, the Jussie Smollett Hoax, and the countless hoax hate crimes they spread over and over and over again without scrutiny.”

Good grief is an understatement. The NYT does not cover real news anymore like the rising tide of anti-Semitism in this country. They are too busy protecting terrorists and radicals, while smearing the president and conservatives, to do their actual jobs.

The New York Times openly admits that anti-Jewish hate crimes don’t interest the Times because white supremacists are not behind them: “If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.”

But young white males are domestic terrorists according to these people. Geez. Not communist Antifa or Black Lives Matter or the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers… white boys are the ticket, y’all.

Since the media is out of Russian ammo and they detest Trump, they have to have another way of smearing him and throwing the race card is their final desperate move in this political dance. Nothing else has stuck to Teflon-Don. Look for them to cry ‘racism’ non-stop for the next two years in their latest contrived hoax against the president. But you won’t hear them cover actual racism because it does not fit their political narrative. It has to be Trump, Trump, Trump! or it’s not news.

The NYT is a peddler of hate. No wonder they had to stop publishing political cartoons because the editorial staff can’t recognize blatant anti-Semitism. These aren’t journalists anymore… they are Brown Shirts. They feel they’ll get away with calling Trump a racist. After all, they got away with the Russian crap for two years.

DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Latest Articles

[ifform list="4174" submit="Subscribe"]

Send this to a friend