Hillary Can’t Win Without Muzzling the New Media

(c) gps333@charter.net 2006

Call me paranoid, but expect a great muzzling of the press when Hillary starts running for president.

Hillary's rise in politics has been through a combination of lies, threats, money, coattails, and manipulation. If she has one characteristic upon which conservatives and liberals (reluctantly) agree it is her disastrous public presentation. She exhibits a combination of suppressed fury, brittleness, and regal distain for the public that cuts through any attempts at image manipulation and reaches right down to an observer's soul. The few existing recordings of her speeches run from a screechy, menacing shrillness that makes a man’s testicles shrivel and recede into his chest, to a robotic, controlled drone that can cause numbness and temporary paralysis. Rarely has so poor a public speaker been elected to national office. Her poll numbers consistently run a direct inverse relationship to her public speeches and announcements (except among the Psychotic Left, those moneyed “useful idiots” of world Marxism).

Her political career to date has been a successful if exhausting study in fine-tuning. With Bill’s money machine, unlawful help from the White House, and a droolingly worshipful Dominant Media, she was able to capture a US Senate seat from a state in which she has never lived nor, before 2000, spent any time (the Robert Kennedy scenario). She ran a senate campaign that avoided nearly all televised or taped public speeches. Her campaign avoided press conferences the way a vampire avoids ultraviolet light, something that would have sunk anyone else but which was, again, glossed over by Liberal reporters who, the few video tapes suggest, had sexual orgasms from just being in her presence. Not since Boston sent Louise Day Hicks to Congress in the 1970s has there been as successful a campaign by someone whose campaign slogan was, “You Know Where I Stand.” For Hicks, it was Boston’s forced school integration and bussing, an issue that ignited Boston’s politics, destroyed Boston public schools, pushed-back education to the city’s blacks by 30 years, and made Liberals (whose own kids went to good suburban or private schools) “feel good about themselves.” For Ms. Clinton, it was a combination of saying whatever a particular audience wanted to hear – then hidden by her press droids – and running a second, shadow, unspoken campaign that assured her Marxist following that she was their gal. It worked. She beat an unknown congressman with no money who came late to the race 58 – 42. Hillary’s history is one, huge shipping container full of events and issues she must continue to hide from the public. Her “HillaryCare” remains one of US politics largest disasters. One can only wonder what HillaryCare II will look like.

Ms. Clinton is now running for president in 2008. No one without a head injury believes she simply wants to be reelected to the US Senate this year, where she has to spend her time listening to speeches that can, like the Medusa, turn listeners to stone, while pretending to support the military (“I tried to join the Marines after college”) and is just one of 100 senators. Her job of being a ferociously driven professional liar is made more difficult as the Democratic Party splinters into a gaggle of different whiney losers, Starbucks Marxists, welfare bums, and hateful lunatics with web sites, all with their only unifying issue a blind hatred of George Bush and Israel. If she succeeds in gaining voting rights for convicted child molesters, rapists, and murderers, she will have added another valuable constituency to her base.

However, a Presidential run is not like a run for the Senate. When Hillary ran for her New York Senate seat, she was aided by a combination of press complicity and her husband’s ownership of the top stories of the day. As noted above, she was elected after running a campaign so well managed and hidden by the press that it stands as a case study in press shame and media prostitution. But with a presidential campaign looming, such coddling will be nearly impossible. The world has changed irrevocably since 2000 with the doubling every 18 months of the capabilities of both communications technology and its users. John Kerry might have been elected in 2004 if not for the ability of the Web to let everyone know about his treasonous activities while still an officer in the US Naval Reserve (which clearly resulted in his well-rumored other-than-honorable discharge from the Navy in 1972 and his continued hiding of that discharge despite his 2005 “promise to release all of my Navy records”). As we roll 2006 into 2007 and 2008, the continued increasing sophistication and reach of the non-newspaper news technology will spell the end of Ms. Clinton’s presidential ambitions unless something is done.

So… to the rescue comes a strange alliance of liberal and conservative law makers. With the relentless backing of the Dinosaur Media and select Orwellian billionaires, forces are gathering to create even more egregious limitations on political speech than the “no political speech before an election” prohibitions imposed upon PACs -- those passed by Congress, signed by George W. Bush, and then upheld by a US Supreme Court on one of its all too frequent Dumb as a Box of Hammers days. Unfriendly forces are gathering supporters and money to impose far more restrictive laws upon political speech just in time for Ms. Clinton to run for president. The cross hairs of such brutal media repression are centered upon the Web and talk radio, which are of help far more to the right than to the left. Unless these forces are stopped and sent reeling in defeat, the 2008 election may see no free political speech on the Net or on the radio – such silence being critical of Ms. Clinton in her monomaniacal pursuit of the White House. Be watchful. Be wary. Be involved. The time to stop such anti-liberty forces and individuals is now.

Return to The Nav Log