Surely Ordinary Judgment is a Prerequisite, No?

We keep hearing, from the usual suspects, how we’re not supposed to pour scorn on Hillary Clinton for . . . well, for pretty much anything.

The White House travel office debacle, in which she had most of the senior staffer fired so she could hire her buddies?  Yawn.  Her getting fired by her boss, the House Judiciary Committee chief counsel, because she hid documents and files, with the intention of denying the right to counsel and then pretended they didn’t exist?  So what?  Her doing pretty much exactly the same thing with the Rose Law Firm billing records — claiming they were “lost” for months and months, until they mysteriously surfaced . . . in her private office?  War on wymyn, obviously.  Her willing participation in the destruction of women who had the temerity to suggest that her husband (now disbarred for perjury) was a lying sack of shit who preyed on female employees?  Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.  Asking just what the billy hell she as Secretary of State was doing in the weeks and hours leading up the slaughter of a United States ambassador in Behghazi?  What difference does it make, at this point? to coin a phrase.  Her famous expression of contempt when someone pointed out to her that Hillarycare would bankrupt enormous numbers of small businesses (by the way, that snort was: “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized business in the country.”)?  You didn’t build that anyway, buddy.  Leaving out of her memoirs her time as a U.S. senatorRacism!

None of her prior behavior, in other words, is supposed to be relevant to whether she ought to become the most powerful person in the world, a position in which even tiny character flaws become of critical importance to billions of people all across the globe.  It’s grotesquely unfair that anyone would even mention these “speed bumps” on the road to Hillary’s Apotheosis.  Gentle Reader may not even have realized it, but even The New York Times has been transgressing.  Seriously.  That hard-hitting journalistic watch-dog that has well earned its reputation for shining an unblinking — an absolutely unblinking, I’ll have you know — light on the misdeeds of politicians of all stripes, has been unfairly going after Poor Hillary.  So she sends some of her goons to have a little sit-down with them, to make sure they don’t stray from The Narrative.  According to The Washington Free Beacon:  “Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper.  During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and should not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.”

So the NYT — a corporation, by the way — sits down to make sure they’ve got their story straight with a candidate for the presidency (kindly do not ask me to accept the proposition that she’s not running).  This would be the same NYT which has assured us that permitting “corporate money” in elections — unless it’s from the lamestream media or labor unions, of course (their money apparently is of a different character) — is just the harbinger of the End of the Republic dontcha know.  This would be the same corporation as to which the prohibition on coordinating outsider participants’ actions (and money) with the candidates themselves remains in effect, even after Citizens United (which was, by the way, about a film critical of . . . Hillary).

All that, however, is just the icing on the cake, so to speak.  My antennae went up when Huma Abedin was mentioned as being one of Clinton’s advisors present.  Huma is most widely known for having entered into a marriage of convenience with one of the most distasteful members of Congress, someone so egregious that, although a Democrat, he can’t get elected even in New York City any more.  She not only entered into a marriage of convenience with this ass-hat, she bore his child.  All in eery resemblance to her mentor, Hillary.  Most of the commentary about this woman is of the salacious kind, speculating that she’s actually Hillary’s homosexual companion &c. &c. &c.  You know the script.

What is much, much more bothersome than how Huma chooses to get her jollies is her politics and her family’s politics.  In fact, in many ways it’s kind of convenient that the public kerfuffle about her, her husband, and her bedroom preferences is of the potty-mouth variety.  It conveniently distracts from the serious concerns about her politics and associations.  To sum it up, both from her own actions as an adult and by her intimate family connections there is no reason to suppose that this woman is anything other than a Muslim Brotherhood operative.

Here’s a long post by Andrew McCarthy over at Ordered Liberty.  To borrow from the Blogfather, read it all.  All of it.  And follow the links.  First: the top-level summary:  “Soon, however, it was demonstrated beyond cavil that Abedin herself, like other members of her family, has a disturbingly close association with Abdullah Omar Naseef – a wealthy Saudi financier of al-Qaeda and Brotherhood eminence.  At that point, most of the craven GOP emirate stuck its head back in the sand with hopes that the issue would just go away, while the Left reverted to its knee-jerk ‘McCarthyism’ shrieks — along with the demeaning characterization of Abedin, who is actually a top policy adviser, as a flunky who merely helps Madame Secretary decide which ‘handbag’ goes best with that day’s outfit.”  I’ve pulled the links in that quoted language, but please go there and click through.  It makes for some extremely sobering reading.

The one thing which runs true through Islam is that, like other cults (Jim Jones, anyone?) and criminal conspiracies (e.g. the Mafia), once you’re in you don’t get out, or at least not out alive.  Even that poor Christian woman in the Sudan who was born Christian is considered an apostate because the Religion of Peace still considers her one of their own.  And she was condemned to death for it.  See also, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lives under armed protection for her apostasy.  I therefore refuse to consider the possibility that this Abedin woman has abandoned the politics and active associations (we’re not talking about just beer-drinking buddies, people) which she took with her for twelve years, from the time she first went to work in the Clinton White House in 1996 until she joined Hillary at State in 2009.  Please do not insult what little intelligence I enjoy by asking me to pretend that is likely or even possible.

Were Clinton to be elected, and were she to keep this Abedin woman by her side, it would not be the first time that an enemy agent has been insinuated into alarmingly senior positions.  Harry Dexter White was only one of many.  But this would be the first time that an organization actively considering itself in a shooting war with the United States has placed an operative literally at a president’s elbow, and with privileged access to that president’s ear.

Why does Clinton keep her around?  I’m not aware of any behavior from her — other than her hostility to Israel, which sets her apart from her cultural and political allies exactly not at all — to suggest an underlying sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood, in contrast to Dear Leader, who expressed “relief” when it took over in Egypt.  But let’s go ahead and ignore all the peculiarities created by her association, such as the apparent coordination of the Benghazi attacks from Egypt, Clinton’s strange lassitude in protecting American assets in Libya from known threats, and then her knowingly lying about the nature and organization of those attacks, repeatedly attributing them to some penny-ante film-maker when she had long since known the truth.

Let’s write all that off to unfortunate coincidence and look just at the appearances, for God’s sake.  The American lamestream media may be willing to fly cover for her, but does she truly think the rest of the world’s press is as supine as its American cousins?  The British press in particular has a generations-old tradition of truckling to no one, at home or abroad.  When NATO allies are struggling with organized criminal activity from the Religion of Peace, and trying desperately to keep the lid on massive unassimilated populations, does Clinton really think they’re going to turn a blind eye to a Muslim Brotherhood operator in the Oval Office?  Pray do not forget, Best Beloved, the extent to which our intelligence operations’ effectiveness depends on  the sharing of information with our allies.  Does Clinton actually think that those allies are going to share critical and sensitive information with an America that has a direct line back to the Brotherhood?

If the past thirteen years have suggested anything, it’s that no American president can go it alone for any prolonged period.  One of the larger sticks that the lamestream media and its Democrat bosses used to beat Bush 43 was that our allies weren’t with us.  Dear Leader, the Light Warrior Himself, has discovered that the rest of the world thinks he’s a joke, and that in consequence he can accomplish nothing beyond platitudes.

Granted, Hillary’s got more raw intelligence in her fingernail clippings than Dear Leader has ever suspected might exist, but our greatest presidents have not been our most intelligent.  They’ve been those with the most profound judgment.  How in the world is keeping this Abedin woman in her vest pocket evidence of any sort of good judgment, at all?

I guess we’re supposed to ignore that as well.


One thought on “Surely Ordinary Judgment is a Prerequisite, No?

  1. Pingback: Ferguson and the Department of Justice | O! the Quandary!

Leave a Reply