The national media are sulking. Hillary Clinton won’t speak to them. But what is it about this power-hungry dirigista that the media don’t already know?
Prior to taking a vow of silence, Mrs. Clinton promised to make President Obama’s legislation by executive action with respect to immigration seem like child’s play; a “DREAMers” delight, if you will.
Where’s the mystery there?
Big Media know full-well about—and have just about forgiven—Madam Secretary’s habit of conducting state affairs via private server, later scrubbed clean of unflattering or incriminating communications.
The same press corps knows that the Clinton Foundation, in which Mrs. Clinton is mired, is awash in funds from foreign governments and likely beholden to these patrons. Those so inclined can check out Charity Navigator. For all its billions, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t rate a mention by the eminent Charity rating service. “In 2013, a measly 9 percent of the money went to charity!” “Repulsive,” avers John Stossel.
Making community college “free” was another of Hillary’s brain infarcts, voiced in Monticello, Iowa, in March this year. “There’s something deeply wrong about students and their families needing to go into debt to finance a college education” were Mrs. Clinton’s semantic strokes of genius, disgorged during her first meet-and-greet, with members of the press (mainly).
What’s there to miss?
Didn’t we have The Same Talk (in the same place) back in April of 2012, about America’s next financial bubble in search of a pin, the $1 trillion student-loan debt? Campaigning in Iowa, Obama promised America’s miseducated Millennials to keep the student-loan bubble from bursting. During his State of the Union address of January 2012, Barry Soetoro Frankenstein vowed to mandate yet more loans at fixed prices.
When it comes, will the media react with wonderment at Hillary’s “fresh” take on educational central planning and price fixing?
Not content with acquiring wealth through the dishonest, predatory process of politics (to contrast with the honest, productive, economic means of earning a living)—Hillary Clinton and husband have protected their ill-gotten gains from the taxman through trusts. These are “common among multimillionaires, and help shield some of their estate from the [inheritance] tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.” “Among the tax advantages of such trusts,” attests BloombergBusiness, “is that any appreciation in the [asset’s] value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes. …”
The height of Hillary’s hypocrisy, however, is that while she shields her own fortune from it, she recommended, during her last campaign, that estate taxes be further raised on Americans who’ve managed to amass more than $3.5 million.
“… Clinton supported making wealthier people pay more estate tax by capping the per-person exemption at $3.5 million and setting the top rate at 45 percent, a policy Obama still supports. Congress decided to go in the other direction and Obama went along as part of a broader compromise. The per-person exemption is now $5.34 million.”
A “wealth tax” is how Clinton has characterized the estate tax.
Clinton’s express “inspiration” as a future president is to “ensure that granddaughter Charlotte and her generation are provided equal opportunities to live up to their potential.” She said as much in April.
How do you imagine that will be accomplished, if not by the use of every illiberal power-tool in the leftist toolbox? Taking by force from some to give to others, creating new, unelected, oppressive agencies to carry out the new potentate’s plans, raising armies to march on uncompliant nations, on and on.
Hillary Clinton and her armory of future, repressive laws should be properly dubbed illiberal (stupid, too).
“A ‘rationale’ for running,” gushed one particular tele-tart named Poppy Harlow. She was raving about Mrs. Clinton’s “brilliant” plans to weave her tangled web for Charlotte.
To say you want to be president for the good of your granddaughter’s generations is not a rationale. Rather, it’s of a piece with the standard statement made by the low-IQ beauty queen: “I want to make the world a better place.” Except that a pretty girl with no ship-of-state to steer is far more likely to spread peace and happiness than a power-hungry, illiberal, brutal battle-axe like Hillary Clinton.
If only a woman with the wicked wit of a Margot Asquith—countess of Oxford, author and socialite (1864- 1945)—were around to put slobbering Poppy Harlow in her proper place.
When asked by American actress Jean Harlow how she pronounces her first name, Mrs. Asquith quickly retorted: “The ‘t’ is silent, as in Harlow.”
For now, let us savor the silence from Hillary and her media harlots.
Ilana Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer, based in the U.S. She is a contributor to Junge Freiheit, Germany’s finest weekly, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Her latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. Follow her on Twitter. “Friend” her on Facebook.