Stop Hillary: Part 2…

As if the untouchable subjects of slavery and the Holocaust weren’t enough, Clinton had to go on to bring up Robert Kennedy, not to nod towards an admired man near the anniversary of his death, but instead to us it, as an example, for why “it’s not over ’til it’s over.”

Though her comments could be twisted (as if they aren’t already) to say that she somehow implied that something could happen to Obama, which many thought at first, the mere fact of using someone’s death as an example to say something unrelated is my real issue here. What does an assassination have to do with Hillary’s campaign? Some suggestions as to why she made this comment:

1. Like on Holocaust Remembrance day, she was merely recalling historical events.
2. She wanted to shine light onto the forgotten historical detail that Robert Kennedy was actually losing to Hubert Humphrey in June, afraid that it was overlooked.
3. She needed to explain her Sirhan Sirhan joke.
4. She wanted to remind voters of the admiration they should have for somebody young, eloquent, and supported by the Kennedys.

And yet… more comparisons to follow. Before she even uttered Robert Kennedy’s name, Clinton had this to say:

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe,” Clinton explained. “Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,” Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida.

Clinton’s words soon incited massive riots in which Clinton’s tribe, the middle aged white working class women, took to the streets with machetes.

Stop Hillary Clinton…

There are only two crimes I support the death penalty for:

1. White collar crimes involving millions of dollars in investor fraud that results in the guilty member pleading for lenience after an apology that is blamed on some personal problem, such as alcoholism. If I was a judge and you defrauded millions of people and didn’t blame it on personal problems, I’d probably let you off lightly. However, blaming it on alcoholism, gets you life imprisonment or death. Also if you give ignorance filled apologies talking about how sorry you are. Just say something like, “Totally would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for you kids!”

2. People co-opting history for their own selfish political gains. This one is definitely vague, and perhaps I could be guilty of it too, who knows. But if anything Clinton is the recent king of twisting history to her own selfish needs.

Subjects? Well, none other than The Holocaust and freedom from slavery and woman’s suffrage!

The most recent infraction:

Mrs. Clinton stumped across South Florida, scene of the 2000 election debacle, pressing her case for including delegates from Florida and Michigan in the final delegate tally. On the trail and in interviews, she raised a new battle cry of determination, likening her struggle for these delegates to the nation’s historic struggles to free the slaves and grant women the right to vote.

- The New York Times, May 22nd

The skinny: Hillary Clinton is a freedom fighter, comparable to the suffragettes in the 1910s and to everyone who had a hand in freeing slaves in the Civil War-torn country. Nice. People from Michigan and Florida are female slaves unable to vote.

The other infraction:

“At the union hall in Gary, she grew so animated in describing the plight of old-line industrial workers that she described them in language from the oft-repeated poem, attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller, about the victims of Nazism. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist,” goes the version inscribed on a wall at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. After coming for the trade unionists, it continues, “they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.”

In Mrs. Clinton’s version, she intoned: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

“So this is not just about steel,” she finished.”

- JTA Election Central, May 2nd, 2008

The skinny: Holocaust Remembrance day is the perfect time to tell voters that they are comparable to Jews, gypsies, dissidents and other undesirables, who had to hide from death in the Third Reich. Voters in Indiana share many qualities with the murdered 11 million. “They” are the US government, insidiously following through with the globalization trends, not only of 2000 on, but also during Bill Clinton’s 90s. It’s totally not just about steel.

This is terribly unethical for someone who is running for president. Terribly unethical for anyone. Stop the Shoah-business.

Dying is a Sin…

I don’t think most people have heard of Conservapedia.com, the “Trustworthy Encyclopedia.” Whether or not you agree with their point of view, I find myself particularly attracted to the rhetoric presented in one entry: Homicide Bombers.

A Homicide Bomber is a person who straps explosives to his body and detonates them in a crowded place, combining the heinous sins of suicide and mass murder. Homicide bombers are terrorists who kill innocent people by means of explosives secretly carried on their persons, knowing that they will be killed in the attack. The liberal media improperly refers to these people as “suicide bombers” although their intent is to murder others, not to commit suicide.

says the entry. This is actually an interesting turn of phrase. Why do we call suicide bombers, “suicide bombers”? Understandably it is a good way to differentiate between someone who sets off a bomb from afar and the one who is wearing his. If we look at the words, “homicide,” “suicide,” “patricide,” “genocide,” the latinate beginnings indicate the primary sin. Therefore, a “homicide” bomber’s primary sin is killing others and honestly, I think most people who do use the term “suicide bomber,” would agree.

So why do we use “suicide bomber?” “Suicide bomber” implies the extra element that “homicide bomber,” doesn’t, that oomph that portrays the sinister (or dedicated) edge. I read a very interesting book on suicide bombers two summers ago called, “Dying to Win,” by Robert A. Pape. Pape succeeds in completely breaking down the stereotypes of suicide bombers, arguing that they are first, nationalistic, and second, religiously fueled. While we in the West see a fundamentalist “brain-washed” into blowing himself up because he has no where else to go, Pape succeeds in showing that bombers are instead fueled by the community at large and see themselves as committing an “altruistic” act, one that will benefit their friends, family, and nation. Changing the way we think about “suicide bombers” may give us clues to avoid ‘producing’ the necessary environment in which they thrive…

The Conservapedia entry does lose me near the end:

The action of homicide bombers was best summed up by John Ashcroft in a 2002 interview with the LA Times: “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends His son to die for you.”

Another entry for the “Invoking God Inappropriately Tracker.”

Obscuring “Freedom”…

I saw this article in today’s New York Times: Farewell to Freedom for a While. Let’s focus on this excerpt:

“It is a little troubling to me that again there is a 1 World Trade Center, because a lot of great people and a lot of true heroes died in 1 World Trade Center,” Mr. Pataki said. “I think that name should be reserved, for those who did die on that horrible day.”

How do we approach the taboo? Interesting that Pataki insists on the label “Freedom Tower” while New Yorkers are calling it “1 World Trade Center.” A divide between the polity and the populous it seems… Government insisting on certain rhetoric…