Hillary and the Left: political adversaries are the real enemies (Guest Post)



Remember learning about Venn diagrams in elementary school? Venn diagrams are the diagrams with intersecting circles. The circles represent different sets of things and the area where they intersect with each other shows where the different things are logically connected.

During Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary debate between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and three other guys who occasionally interrupted them, CNN host and moderator Anderson Cooper asked the candidates to identify which enemy they were most proud of making. That caught me off guard and it started me thinking about Venn diagrams.

I thought the Democrats were here to unite us all? Wasn’t Obama supposed to bring all races and creeds together to fix all our problems, stop the oceans rising, heal the planet, etc.? CNN shouldn’t be asking them about their enemies. We shouldn’t have any by now. Besides, I thought enemies were something only Republicans were supposed to have–you know, like anyone who isn’t a white male.

Well, if the 5 people supporting Lincoln Chafee who are not members of his family need a reason to change their allegiance in the presidential primary race, his answer to the enemies question should do the trick. Chafee responded that he was most proud of making the coal industry an enemy.

Yes, that’s right. Chafee fought for “climate change”–wait, back then I think it was called “global warming” or “global cooling” or something else–and tried to get the coal lobby to cooperate (read: cave) with what were no doubt industry killing regulations. Because if you want to make an enemy, why not shoot for one of the most important commodities in one of the most critical economic sectors.

Absurd. Chafee should have answered cancer, or human traffickers, or Beelzebub. Maybe he would have gotten a little bump (a Beelzebump?). Then again, any bump would have been ruined by his pathetic attempt to explain away a Senate vote by saying he hadn’t read the bill because, gee, give him a break, he’d just gotten there.

Hillary answered the question too and in a way that would make Richard Nixon blush. She named the NRA (piggy-backing on Martin O’Malley’s answer), “the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, [and] probably the Republicans.”

Remember Hillary’s early work as a congressional staffer? She served on the Watergate investigation under the House Judiciary Committee. She had ample opportunity to study Nixon and apparently she learned a lot.

First, like Nixon, she sees her political foes as her enemies. Nixon actually kept an “enemies list” that included numerous Democratic senators and representatives, media figures, prominent businessmen, labor leaders and celebrities. He didn’t, however, mention any terrorist organizations–though the Black Panthers could qualify. I’m not sure Hillary would think so considering, according to her husband’s former campaign manager Dick Morris, she supported two Panthers when they were on trial for murder in 1970.

To our knowledge Hillary hasn’t maintained a Nixonian-style enemies list. But we know she frequently marginalizes her attackers as part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring her and her husband down. She may not have written the names down but don’t you think she knows exactly who she believes is part of this “conspiracy”? She spearheaded the effort to stop the “bimbo eruptions,” numerous women who credibly accused her husband of various sexual infidelities before and during his presidency. And close friends have confirmed she was certainly an aggressive first lady. Maybe Hillary’s enemies list is buried somewhere in those emails she unilaterally deemed too “personal” and deleted before investigators could see them.

Second, also like Nixon, she clearly has a penchant for hiding information. Dating back to those missing, subpoenaed Rose Law Firm billing records that [shazzam!] magically appeared in the West Wing during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Hillary has a long history of hiding things. And it’s not just personal or private career stuff. Obfuscation and secrecy are at the core of the entire email and private server scandal. There are plenty of laws at all levels designed to ensure that the records of public employees are disclosable to the people. It’s called freedom of information. What better way to prevent the public from knowing what you’re doing than to set up your own home-brew server and use non-government issued email addresses. Set your closest aides up on the same server with their own private addresses so you can keep a circle of secrecy the public will never see. Then, when investigators want your emails because you may have broken various laws, don’t give them digital copies; print them off and claim you’ve provided 55,000 pages and been cooperating the whole time. Declare victory and depart the field. Not exactly the spirit of full disclosure.

The media is finally [begrudgingly] covering Hillary’s email and server scandal–you can practically hear them gritting their teeth as they report on everything digital from Huma Ambedin to Benghazi. But they love when House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, implies the Benghazi Select Committee exists to bring Hillary’s poll numbers and presidential chances. This GOP fratricide emboldens Hillary to describe Republicans as her enemy and essentially get away with it. Hey, she’s just responding to an enemy attack.

A few days ago Hillary walked back her comments about Republicans as enemies saying the answer was “a little tongue in cheek” Sure it was. Because comparing people from the other party to a terrorist regime is so droll. Remember the Left smirking it up when Wisconsin Governor and former presidential candidate Scott Walker allegedly compared labor protestors to terrorists? Me neither. They went apoplectic. Yet, Democratic representatives and Vice-President Crazy Uncle Joe Biden can compare “tea party” Republicans to terrorists in the 2011 fight to raise the debt limit and the liberal media barely flinches. President Obama’s strategic communications advisor Dan Pfeiffer compares Republican to terrorists for trying to negotiate spending cuts in the 2013 budget talks? Virtually no criticism.

It’s not even the first time Hillary has compared her “enemies” to terrorists. Remember when she compared pro-lifers to terrorists because they want to halt federal funding for Planned Parenthood over something so insignificant as, oh, dismembering babies to sell their parts for profit? Cue the crickets.

Yet coincidentally, last week, Bob Woodward claims in his latest book to have uncovered a 1972 handwritten memo from Nixon where he said the bombings in Laos and Vietnam had accomplished “zilch.” The day before the memo, Dan Rather had interviewed Nixon and he’d said the bombings had been very successful. Nixon lied to Dan Rather 43 years ago! OMG! And the liberal media runs with it as if, well, they were reporting on a current Republican politician comparing a liberal to a terrorist.

Describing your political adversaries as enemies is one of the Left’s favorite tactics. People don’t want to compromise or work with their enemies. Your enemies have nothing reasonable to say, no fair points to make, no legitimate opposition to your position. They must be destroyed.

You oppose abortion or the selling of baby parts for profit? You are engaging in a war on women. Do you compromise with those you are at “war” with? Well, if you are President Obama…I digress. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, recently urged the Justice Department in the Washington Post to bring civil lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry (i.e. “climate change deniers”) under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law. That’s something you do to enemies, not adversaries. Civil RICO penalties not enough? Then prosecute them criminally under RICO. Moveon.org has published an open petition to propose just that for the NRA. Sure, MoveOn proclaims they don’t necessarily endorse the petition 😉 but they haven’t taken it down either. Others have petitioned to declare the NRA a terrorist organization.

This brings me back to Venn diagrams. In Hillary’s Venn diagram there are two circles. One contains “Republicans and Conservatives” and the other contains “Enemies.” And rather than typical Venns that show the circles overlapping a little, these two circles for Hillary overlap each other 100%. Oh sure, Hillary also mentioned in her answer the health care and pharmaceutical industries as enemies. But they are made up of evil Republican fat cats who just want more profit at the expense of women and children. Unless, of course, they donate millions to the Clinton Global Initiative, like pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Surely she doesn’t mean them.

The Left’s world view is perfectly captured in Hillary’s Venn diagram. Islamic terrorists aren’t the enemy, climate change deniers are and they need to be sued. Iran isn’t an enemy—we can negotiate with them—but Congressional Republicans are because they disagree with us and won’t get out of our way. Mentally ill people with guns aren’t an enemy, the Second Amendment is and the NRA needs to be criminally prosecuted.

There are several more Democratic debates coming up between Hillary, Bernie, and one or more of the other guys. Remember the Venn diagram as you watch. Liberals do believe their political opponents are adversaries; they are enemies. Given the level of political discourse coming from the Left, we can expect to hear more from them on how they plan to deal with their enemies.

And more silence from the liberal media.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought the Democrats were here to unite us all? Wasn’t Obama supposed to bring all races and creeds together to fix all our problems, stop the oceans rising, heal the planet, etc.?

in a communist state that is termed “argument for public consumption”, the spravka
since your material and material has to be moved around, this is how you get material to cooperate

everything you need to know to explain their behavior and attitudes and actions was written more than 100 years ago… they follow it as surely as the catholic church follows their own catechism.

from Sergey Nechayev The Revolutionary Catechism 1869:

The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.

The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.

The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction. For this reason, but only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps medicine. But all day and all night he studies the vital science of human beings, their characteristics and circumstances, and all the phenomena of the present social order. The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.

The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.


Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. For him, there exists only one pleasure, on consolation, one reward, one satisfaction – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. Striving cold-bloodedly and indefatigably toward this end, he must be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the path of the revolution.


The revolutionary can have no friendship or attachment, except for those who have proved by their actions that they, like him, are dedicated to revolution. The degree of friendship, devotion and obligation toward such a comrade is determined solely by the degree of his usefulness to the cause of total revolutionary destruction.

yesterday someone tried to say that i was wrong in that the Russians killed their own people, and if they were running the terrorists (of islam), that would not happen.

but that doesnt fit this (from the same chatechism)

When a comrade is in danger and the question arises whether he should be saved or not saved, the decision must not be arrived at on the basis of sentiment, but solely in the interests of the revolutionary cause. Therefore, it is necessary to weigh carefully the usefulness of the comrade against the expenditure of revolutionary forces necessary to save him, and the decision must be made accordingly.

If killing your own lesser revolutionaries would yeild the end you need for the revolution, then kill them. they are just material anyway… (no souls, etc)

besides, they are in the field, and so are part of this group:

All revolutionaries should have under them second- or third-degree revolutionaries – i.e., comrades who are not completely initiated. these should be regarded as part of the common revolutionary capital placed at his disposal. This capital should, of course, be spent as economically as possible in order to derive from it the greatest possible profit. The real revolutionary should regard himself as capital consecrated to the triumph of the revolution; however, he may not personally and alone dispose of that capital without the unanimous consent of the fully initiated comrades.

Like Nixon, she sees her political foes as her enemies. Nixon actually kept an “enemies list” that included numerous Democratic senators and representatives, media figures, prominent businessmen, labor leaders and celebrities.

thats easily explained from this:

The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless toward the State and toward the educated classes; and he can expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or concealed, a relentless and irreconcilable war to the death. He must accustom himself to torture.

and this as well

The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.

[note the above also explains why hillary did not get rid of her philandering partner in communism. there is no sentement to the relationship they hold, there is just whether keeping it or not would faciliate a better outcome. while most would say she should dump him, she realized that if she did, her political career at the top would be over]

and as far as revealing their true selves and what they would actually be like, think obama, think clintons, etc..

there are lots of “instruction manuals” like this from several different socialist orders and even before there were socialist orders of the modern marxist kind. of course only leaders get this knowlege, and the plebs argue that none of this applies, as they are not educated in the ways of this. which for the game is all the better. even THAT is covered in these kinds of documents.heck it even explains why biden is stupid, and so many dems are dumber than sacks of hammers (like the one that thought an island was going to tip over, and another that could not hide her communist desires (to the point of others laughing behind her back at her stupidity))

The third category consists of a great many brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor their energy, while enjoying riches, influence, power, and high positions by virtue of their rank. These must be exploited in every possible way; they must be implicated and embroiled in our affairs, their dirty secrets must be ferreted out, and they must be transformed into slaves. Their power, influence, and connections, their wealth and their energy, will form an inexhaustible treasure and a precious help in all our undertakings.

Kind of why they hate trump even more than usual… he is not dirty, there is nothing they can ferret out and so there is no using them while protecting them from their own dirt like lots of liberals in office, clinton, bernie, etc.

and lastly

The fourth category comprises ambitious office-holders and liberals of various shades of opinion. The revolutionary must pretend to collaborate with them, blindly following them, while at the same time, prying out their secrets until they are completely in his power. They must be so compromised that there is no way out for them, and then they can be used to create disorder in the State.

this would describe what is going on when they reach across the aisles and get some dirty republican to be their b*tch because otherwise they would release the dogs on them. if a republican get in they are either a democrat running as a republican (trotskyite entryism), or they are someone with a skeleton and not squeeky clean and so that will be dragged out and used to remove them from their office and their careers.

there is tons more. but these posts end up way too large anyway.
but how can you fill in a whole library of thought that people barely know exists
that is unless they are part of the game, then they know, but they certainly wont tell others.

I doubt Nixon was not the first to consider political opponents “enemies” but at least he never went out and publicly stated such, generating the level of public animosity that the so-called “uniter in chief” has done. Likewise with Hillary.

Liberals today cannot seem to muster support merely for their ideas; like all good fascists, they have to have enemies that must be hated and punished. Hitler had the Jews and communists; Obama and Hillary have the Republicans.

“Oh, my policies are failing miserably? HEY!! Look over THERE!!”

Nixon only considered using the IRS as a weapon against his political enemies but he was rebuked by leaders of his own party. Bill Clinton actually did use the IRS as a weapon against the “Bimbo eruptions”. Obama on the other hand is using every government agency he can against political adversaries and to over step the Constitutional limitations of his office.