► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Greenfield’

The phantom anti-Jewish establishment

by Mojambo ( 105 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, History, Israel, Judaism, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at March 11th, 2014 - 7:00 am

As someone wrote “these people are not Jews, they are Marxists whose ancestors happened to be Jewish”. They will be as forgotten as all the  other “Jews:” who worked to destroy the Jewish State.

by Daniel Greenfield

Alan Alda’s wife signed a letter denouncing the newly elected left-wing mayor of New York for doing AIPAC’s bidding. The Sandinista supporter had been accused of many things until then, but being an Israeli stooge wasn’t one of them. Signing the letter, along with the spouse of that guy from MASH, were Martha Weinman Lear, the wife of the cousin of liberal producer Norman Lear,  Eve Ensler of the Vagina Monologues and diet guru Jane Hirschmann author of Overcoming Overeating who took a break from obsessing over food to sail on a Jihad cruise to Gaza.

Signing on to the attack on Bill de Blasio for being a dirty Zionist were such faded celebrities of the literary left as Erica Jong, who hasn’t written a single book that anyone can name in the forty years since Fear of Flying first came out and Gloria Steinem, who peaked around that same time.

These familiar names of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit who grind their teeth every time they hear Netanyahu’s name, give way to the professional activists, the board members of the toxic American Jewish World Service, the Nathan Cummings Foundation and Dorot, the Rabbis for Gaza and Rabbis for Obama and the men and women like Peter Beinart of Open Zion and Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace who have built their lives around the war on Israel as much as any Islamic Jihadist tinkering with a Kassam rocket in Gaza.

Joining them was Kathleen Peratis who, according to her Nation bio is a “longtime peace activist” who repeatedly calls for boycotting Israel despite traveling there “at least twice a year for the past twenty years.” It’s unclear how she combined the two, perhaps she made sure not to buy anything from Jews while she was in Israel.

Their names are equally familiar to a smaller circle of those who fight for and against Israel and their signatures are as predictable as snowstorms in winter.

The radical clergy sign on; Rachel Brown Cowan, a Unitarian who married a Jewish writer for the Village Voice, added “Rabbi” to her name and has been attacking the Jewish State non-stop after her husband’s death, Rolando Matalon, who has yet to find a Latin American Marxist group he wouldn’t embrace,  Ellen Lippmann, a BDS supporter and Sharon Kleinbaum, a lesbian supporter of the Fast for Gaza that aids and abets the not particularly pro-lesbian Hamas.

Reading these names feels like reviewing the membership of a small familiar club. Everyone knows everyone else and everyone in the club hates Israel.

Between Erica Jong and Alice Kessler-Harris (the biographer of Anti-Israel Communist playwright Lillian Hellman, whom Kessler described as having a “streak of Jewish anti-Semitism”) is Peter A. Joseph who pays for this whole dance, funding everything from Peter Beinart’s Open Zion to the Manhattan JCC whose anti-Israel turn has led to a pitched battle among members.

[……]

The Israel Policy Forum put out a letter in support of Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, despite his ties to the Iran Lobby, signed by Peter A. Joseph, hedge fund manager Neil Barsky, Marcia Riklis, the daughter of corporate raider Meshulam Riklis (not by his second wife Pia Zadora), Jack C. Bendheim, the president of a company that once dumped toxic waste in a Connecticut town, and Risa A. Levine, apparently a real estate lawyer from New York.

[……..]

Hating Israel has become a small petty club for the wealthy left and the Israel Policy Forum allows assorted obscure figures to assert their status by denouncing things or demanding things under the banner of an organization whose only asset is the wealth of a few private equity backers.

The Jewish Anti-Israel left likes to pretend that it’s a grassroots movement whose voice is being squelched by some nebulous Jewish establishment when in reality it is an unelected establishment using its wealth and lingering fame to shout over the majority of American Jews who support Israel.

These sons, daughters, stepdaughters, wives and nieces of famous people, fading Feminist writers, Wall Street millionaires trying to buy social relevance, hippie social scientists who hit it big with books about food, sex or childrearing, radical rabbis holding forth to congregations who believe in religion as little as their preachers, are a phantom establishment, community leaders without a community except their own mutual approbation.

The Jewish Anti-Israel left is a phantom establishment of family foundations that direct money to networks of organizations that use the money to hire personnel and send out press releases to their own former staffers working for newspapers who then write about them maintaining the illusion of churning activity, when in reality all that is happening is that money is being moved around.

Anti-Israel Wall Street figures hire Anti-Israel activists to denounce the Jewish establishment for not paying enough attention to them. Family foundations run by privileged leftists send American activists to Israel to set up front groups to protest against something or other. They hold dinners where the nieces and nephews, the boycotters and the faded stars of the left listen to the activists that they pay tell them that any day now, American Jews will finally come around to their point of view.

[…….]
Every few weeks the Israel Policy Forum churns out another letter headlined “Prominent Jews Urge Someone or Other To Do Something” signed by the guy who made a Koch documentary, Pia Zadora’s stepdaughter, a hedge funder, another hedge funder, the guy whose company left drums of toxic waste in Connecticut, the Rabbi who loves the Sandinistas even more than Bill de Blasio and a retired Democratic congressman who attends the same cocktail parties.

The phantom establishment floats on a bubble of its own manufactured prominence. Its letter signers are important because they fund organizations that put out letters which they then sign. These antics are not limited to the Israel Policy Forum or even the United States.

A year after British comedian Stephen Fry appeared on a genealogy television show to trace his mother’s Jewish roots, he signed on to a letter by British Jews, a group that he had never considered himself a member of, declaring its “independence” from the British Jewish establishment. The list included the expected collection of fading feminist authors, Marxist playwrights, historians and philosophers, as well as radical sociologists, pop psychologists and professional activists.

The “coming out party” of Independent Jewish Voices consisted of non-practicing Marxist Jews who were notorious for hating Israel, the UK, industry, facts, mirrors and human civilization announcing that loudly in a letter that was covered by their media friends.

There is a long history of such letters going back to the founding of Israel, the names of forgotten self-proclaimed leaders mixing with a few more notorious figures whose unfortunate legacy has survived into this time. None of these letters however have counted as much as a bullet in the rifle of an Israeli soldier standing watch in the night.

American Jews who worry over these letters from the phantom establishment of the cocktail party ought to look back and see how futile the rantings of I.F. Stone, New Dealer Joseph Proskauer, the rabid Elmer Berger and FDR speechwriter Samuel Rosenman proved to be.

Before J Street or the Israel Policy Forum, there was Jewish Alternatives to Zionism  headed by “Rabbi” Elmer Berger who had claimed that the Communist revolution in the Soviet Union meant that Jews no longer needed “Palestine”.

Does anyone remember Lewis Affelder or Mr. and Mrs. Noel A. Buckner whose names appeared as sponsors on Jewish Alternatives to Zionism’s stationary? How many remember Mary Louise `Wheezie’ Gutman who collected English ceramics and owned a distillery? The wind of history has blown past their graves. Their names are smeared ink on yellowed paper while children play in the streets of Jerusalem.

The phantom establishment is rootless; it has no links to a people or to a religion. Its aims are destructive and like all destructive forces, it carries its own futility with it.

American Jews should contend with them, but should not be too impressed by them. Their kind has been at it for generations and, despite all the venom and fury, the boycotts and screeds, have made less of an impression on Israel than a single Jewish family in the hills of Shomron.

The phantom establishment is money and words. There is no blood in its veins or heart in its chest. It does not go on the way that the Jewish people do because it is not of them, only against them. When its anger is spent and its letters are signed, the children will play on in the streets and roads, the hills and fields of Israel, neither knowing nor caring that there was once a Jane Hirschmann, a Mrs. Noel A. Buckner, a Rachel Brown Cowan or a Rebecca Vilkomerson that sought to do them harm.

Read the rest – Letters from the Phantom anti-Jewish establishment

 

In Hollywood there are no Muslim terrorists

by Mojambo ( 156 Comments › )
Filed under Islam, Movies, Political Correctness, Progressives, Serbia at January 28th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Hollywood twists itself into pretzels trying to avoid facing the fact that the physical threat to ordinary citizens of America and Europe does not  come from Christian fundamentalists, Serbian nationalists, Communist thugocracies such as Cuba, North Korea or the People’s Republic of China, or greedy capitalists, but the only religion that the Left Coast smiles upon, The Religion of Peace. When they recast the villains of  the Tom Clancy movie “The Sum of All Fears” from Arabs to “neo-Nazis” I thought maybe Charles F. Johnson was producing the film. As  the Knish points out, these movies do not make money, but as I have always maintained that is not what the industry is interested in (although of course they want to make money), they make these films in order to feel good about themselves, to get awards from each other, and to tap into the anti-American film market overseas.

by Daniel Greenfield

In real life, terrorists are almost always Muslim. In the movie theater, they are anything but. America’s fictional secret agents, covert operatives and rogue cops who play by their own rules have spent more time battling Serbian terrorists than Muslim terrorists.

Before September 11, 24′s Jack Bauer was fighting the international menace of Serbian terrorism. Serbian terrorists also showed up in 1999′s Diplomatic Siege when their “Serbian Liberation Front” took over a US embassy and in 1997′s The Peacemaker with George Clooney rushing to stop a Serb from detonating a nuke in New York City.

The United States has remained unscathed by Serbian terrorism, though the same can’t be said for Peter Weller, the star of Diplomatic Siege, and Mimi Leder, the director of The Peacemaker, but not by Muslim terrorist attacks. Despite September 11, the Fort Hood Massacre and the Boston Marathon bombings, Hollywood has resolutely kept its eye on the real threat.

Serbian terrorism.

This weekend, Ride Along, which features Ice “F___ the Police” Cube playing a cop, knocked Lone Survivor out of the top spot at the box office, and once again takes on the terrible threat of… Serbian terrorism.

When the Serbs aren’t available, the Russians have to step in. The Russians are more likely to appear as villains after the fall of the Soviet Union than during the Communist era. It’s as if the end of Soviet Communism finally set Hollywood free to join in the fun of Boris and Natasha villains without any of the guilt about red-baiting.

When Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit featured a terrorist cell in Dearborn, even though Muslims  dominate the area, the villains were shown operating out of a Russian Orthodox church and getting their cues from a priest reading the bible while the terrorists cried out, “Slava Bogu” or “Praise God.”

It would have been unrealistic to show them praising Allah instead.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit is the latest attempt at making a Tom Clancy movie without the Tom Clancy part. Sum of All Fears, one of the first movies about terrorism to come out after September 11, jettisoned Clancy’s Muslim villains.

Its writer Dan Pyne dismissed Islamic terrorism as a “cliche”; even though a plot can’t be a cliche when it never appears in movies, only in real life. Pyne however found a more realistic villain. “I think, there was some neo-nationalist activity in Holland, and there was stuff going on in Spain and in Italy. So it seemed like a logical and lasting idea that would be universal.”

Nothing is more universal than the threat of neo-nationalists in Holland. Dutch neo-nationalism is an enduring world menace that everyone can relate to.

The neo-nationalists of the Netherlands that Pyne had discovered were probably Pim Fortuyn’s party. Fortuyn was a Sociology professor who favored drug legalization, gay marriage and less Muslim immigration. The neo-nationalist threat of the Netherlands did not prove lasting when around the time that Sum of All Fears was playing in theaters; Fortuyn was murdered by a leftist who, like Pyne, worried about the plight of the Muslims.

In an even bigger cliche, Theo van Gogh, who had just finished directing May 6th, a movie about the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim immigrant from Morocco who told the victim’s mother that he could have no empathy for her because she was a non-Muslim.

It was the sort of ridiculous cliche that Dan Pyne would never have put into a script.

Instead Dan Pyne went on to write a remake of the Manchurian Candidate in which Communist China was replaced by the “Manchurian Corporation”. He’s currently working on a movie featuring a Syrian rescue worker who gets mistaken for a terrorist while trying to save lives during Hurricane Katrina.

It’s a cliche, but it’s the kind of cliche that Hollywood likes.

If a movie is made about September 11 a decade from, now, the villains will probably be Serbian nationalists. It would be a cliche to have 19 Muslim hijackers murder 3,000 people. And then the camera will linger meaningfully on a Muslim rescuer wrongly taken into custody by a bigoted NYPD cop who is overlooking the real Serbian/Dutch neo-nationalist corporate villains.

The Serbians, Russians and Netherlands neo-nationalists are only the understudies who get called in when the usual villains, right-wing extremists who want to false flag America into a war with the Muslims, are on vacation.

After 24 got done with the Serbian terror threat, it defaulted to the real threat of government warmongers trying to fake a Muslim terror threat. After 9/11, 24′s second season’s story was about an evil government conspiracy to fake a Muslim terrorist attack.  […..]

When the Serbs went on strike last year, White House Down brought in a villainous Speaker of the House with a Jewish last name to assassinate a black president in order to sabotage his treaty with Iran. The movie lost so much money that Sony blamed its quarterly $197 million loss on it.

Serbian terrorism had struck again.

When a straightforward presentation flops, Hollywood finds ways of embedding the same old message into more fantastic fare. Last summer, Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and the Lone Ranger all had minor variations of the same story about false flag attacks that were orchestrated by governments or powerful interests connected to them.  […..]

Nowhere in all these tales of evil corporations and governments is there a movie about an entertainment industry so intertwined with government that it not only helped pick the country’s current leader, but it constantly releases propaganda films attempting to revise reality according to his worldview. That would be a cliché; much like the idea of that industry filming false flag movies depicting the favorite villains of the Clinton Administration carrying out ridiculously implausible acts of terror to retroactively justify its focus on the Serbs instead of Al Qaeda.

Hollywood stands as firmly against depicting Muslim terrorism as Hollywood Communists after the Hitler-Stalin pact did against anti-Nazi films. If they had been positioned further up the ladder back then, instead of mainly being relegated to writing scripts, we would no doubt have a catalog of movies featuring Yankee warmongers plotting to stage fake Nazi attacks on America.

Hollywood’s ideological hostility to reality however has not proven to be very profitable.

The Peacemaker, a movie written and co-produced by the Cockburns, whose politics are slightly to the left of Stalin, was the inaugural feature from the failed Spielberg-Geffen-Katzenberg Dreamworks studio and disappointed critics and audiences.  […..]

Sum of All Fears, the movie inspired by the Netherlands neo-nationalist threat, was the weakest performer of the Tom Clancy movies when accounting for ticket price inflation and full budget. And it still had a much better opening weekend than Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.

Failure however won’t stop Hollywood from alerting the nation to the terrorist threat lurking in Orthodox Churches or the Dutch neo-nationalists trying to nuke our cities. Hollywood’s handpicked leaders were the ones who made the country vulnerable to Islamic terrorism and their industry has gone on covering up for them with movies in which the villains can be anyone and everyone except the real killers.

Read the rest –  Hollywood’s Muslim lies

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

by Mojambo ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, September 11 at January 3rd, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Can you imagine any time between 1937 and 1945 a Japanese flag flying over any site in America?  An Islamic flag in front of the World Trade Center in 1997 (four years after Muslims tried to bring down  the WTC down) presaged the Ramadan dinners, the “Islam is a religion of peace” pablum that is a part of the staple of American political culture. The sycophancy of the American presidency and the political elites regarding Islam is nauseating. I do recall Mohammad T. Mehdi from the 1970’s and 80’sm he was a loudmouthed rabble rouser.

by Daniel Greenfield

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”—New York Times, 1997

In 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of a violent ex-waiter and aslumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism”.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.

[…..]

No one who understood what had happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, would have permitted a banner associated with its attackers to be flown there. But while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, let Mehdi have his way with the World Trade Center, other Muslims were working to carry out Sheikh Abdel-Rahman’s agenda for a war on America and the free world.

[……]

While the Star and Crescent was blowing in the cold December wind coming off the Hudson River, an even colder wind was blowing out of Hamburg, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A year earlier Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had come up with the idea and presented it to Osama bin Laden. A year later the operation began to move forward.

While Secretary of State Albright was holding her Ramadan dinners, other Ramadan dinners were being held out of sight at which more substantive events were being discussed.

While the US was busy bombing Yugoslavian civilians in order to create a separatist Muslim state for KLA terrorists; Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were recruiting the first of the 9/11 hijackers. While the United States tried to appease Muslims, Muslims plotted to murder Americans.

In 1997, the New York Daily News wrote an upbeat story about Mehdi’s Star and Crescent, which envisioned Islam blending merrily into the holiday season.

New York may seem a little brighter this holiday season as the glowing Muslim crescent and star symbol nudges its way onto a seasonal landscape of Christmas trees, menorahs and Kwanzaa candles.

Watch out, ho, ho, ho-ing Santas you might get drowned out by cheery folks yelling, “Allahu akbar!”

Four years later, cheery folks yelling “Allahu Akbar” had filled downtown Manhattan with ashen snow and brightened it with the flames of the burning towers of the World Trade Center.

The 9/11 hijackers left behind notes which said among other things, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers”.

If there were any Santas on those planes, they were certainly drowned out by the cries of “Allah Akbar”. And if that didn’t drown them out, having their throats being slit by the cheery folks with box cutters surely did.

[…….]

“It would be like a gift for somebody,” a police officer said, who was spending his holiday searching through the debris. A gift for the infidels from Islam.

While Muslims were stuffing their faces in November of 2001, Americans were mourning their dead. While Abdul, Mohammed and Raisa were picking through their lamb stew, Americans were picking up the pieces of their loved ones. But it was they who were told to be sensitive to Muslim concerns.

From Pakistan, Musharraf urged the US to suspend bombing his Taliban allies during Ramadan. In the name of sensitivity. New York City schools were making arrangements for Muslim prayers out of “heightened sensitivity to Muslim concerns after the Sept. 11 attack”. Instead of Americans being on the receiving end of “heightened sensitivity”, the ideology that had conspired to murder them was.

On the 9th anniversary of 9/11, Islam had another gift for New Yorkers. Having bought up a building damaged in their own attack, they plotted to set up a grand mosque near Ground Zero. Another gift to New Yorkers from the religion that kept on giving. Another Crescent and Star.

The same people who did not learn the lesson in 1997, and allowed the Crescent and Star to fly at the World Trade Center, were eager to let the Ground Zero Mosque go forward in the name of tolerance. But despite the Crescent and Star, appeasement proved to be no defense.

3,000 died on 9/11 because American leaders preferred to appease, rather than confront. And we are still busy appeasing, like never before.

Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho.

Read the rest – Allah Akbar and Ho, Ho, Ho

 

The inevitable Hillary Clinton

by Mojambo ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politics at December 11th, 2013 - 7:00 am

As one reads the Knish, one realizes that Hillary Cinton is nearly as vapid as Barack Obama. had she not married Bill she would have been an unspectacular but steadily employed lawyer and nobody would ever have herd of her. She owes every thing to her husband. Someone recently said that the best thing that happened to Hillary was that HillaryCare never went through otherwise there would be no talk about President Hillary Clinton.

by Daniel Greenfield

Hardly a week goes by without Hillary Clinton receiving another award.

Last month she was named a “Global Champion” by the International Medical Corps at a gala Beverly Hills event crowded with celebrities, received the American Patriot Award at the National Defense University Foundation in the Ronald Reagan Building and the Hermandad Award from the Mexican American Leadership Initiative.

Considering that Hillary Clinton is as much of an American patriot as is she is a Mexican-American leader… both awards seem equally deserved.

Hillary was honored by Malaria No More for taking the controversial position of being against malaria and by the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice for supporting internet freedom. Because nothing says a deep commitment to internet freedom like sending a man to jail for a year over a YouTube video that offended Muslims.

The President of Georgia (the one in the Caucasus) honored her with the Order of the Golden Fleece. That’s considered a high honor in Georgia, but back in the United States it just reminds everyone of Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm.

[…..]

The American Bar Association had already given Hillary its highest honor for “her immense accomplishments as a lawyer”. The National Constitution Center awarded her the Liberty Medal (an honor she shares with such Constitutional scholars as Bono, Hamid Karzai and her husband) and Elton John gave her an award for fighting AIDS declaring himself “honoured to honour her”.

(If you’re keeping track, Hillary has come out against malaria, epilepsy and AIDS. No word on her position on shingles—but reportedly she’s against it.)

At this rate, if a bunch of elderly left-wing Norwegians toss her the Nobel Peace Prize early on, the way they did to Obama, it will barely rate mention among all the other glittering trophies that have been bestowed on a woman whose only actual accomplishment was being married to a crooked governor with good political instincts and sharp elbows.

Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as a lawyer, like her accomplishments as a senator and a secretary of state, don’t actually exist. The more awards Hillary gets, the fewer people will wonder about her qualifications. Like the fake doctor with 200 equally fake diplomas on the wall; the award blitz is a pathetic case of overcompensation.  […….]

It’s been a while since there was an inevitable candidate in American politics four years before an actual presidential election. It’s been even longer since there was a candidate so barren of actual accomplishments and so devoid of anything resembling content.

Hillary traipses around the country and the world picking up awards and delivering speeches for six figures a pop; but the only words that come out of her mouth are boring cliches.

Receiving an AIDS award from Elton John’s foundation, she announced insightfully, “We still have a long way to go.” Strangely enough this is what people who have never had AIDS or treated AIDS have been saying while receiving AIDS awards since the disease first became a celebrity cause.

At Oceana, Hillary declared, “More and more people appreciate what oceans mean to them.” At the University of Buffalo, she expressed the hope that we could “move away from the slash and burn politics, the name calling, the excessive partisanship” and at the Women of the World summit declared that the United States had “come so far, but there is still work to be done.”

[……]

The more you listen to Hillary, the more you realize that she doesn’t have ideas, she has cliches. String together a bunch of cliches and you have a Hillary speech. String together a bunch of Hillary speeches and you have a candidacy that is as empty as it is inevitable. Hillary isn’t even Chauncey Gardiner. Her cliches lack even accidental poetry. Instead they’re as empty as she is.

What does Hillary stand for? A casual observer would be forgiven for assuming that she stands for nothing. After eight years in the senate, the only thing about her time there that anyone bothers to mention is her vote on the Iraq War. That’s because there isn’t anything to mention.

If Hillary had not accidentally taken what would become a controversial position, while trying to cast a safe vote, all that anyone would remember about her time in the Senate is that she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame for “opening new pathways for women in leadership”.

That was quite an accomplishment considering that she was the 32nd female senator.

[…….]

But Hillary is always being honored as a revolutionary leader for just showing up. If she has something positive to say about the oceans, teaching little girls or fighting AIDS; there’s an award in it for her. If Hillary daringly says that reading is good today; tomorrow she wins a Pulitzer. That’s how low the Hillary bar has been set.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled a lot. The National Constitution Center honored her because, in their words, “she traveled to more countries than any other Secretary of State”. Also because she “used social media to engage citizens”. It certainly sounds better than honoring her for abusing the State Department to prep for a presidential run with a non-stop world tour while neglecting desperate pleas for help from the Benghazi mission which had been under siege for months.

And that’s the best that can be said about a term that wrapped up with that election shakedown that had been her endgame all along, the murder of four Americans and Hillary pounding the table and demanding to know what difference it made. As every foundation, think-tank, university, charity and non-profit that has rushed to cover her in golden medals, orders and awards will tell you… none at all.

But despite the awards, there is very little enthusiasm even among Democrats for President Hillary. Jeffrey Katzenberg, Hollywood’s leading liberal, came out for her saying, “I think she’s the best candidate currently available for either party.” Considering that Hillary is really the only Democrat semi-officially running now, not counting Joe Biden, that’s damning with faint praise.

There’s a reason that liberals are fantasizing about an Elizabeth Warren run. Warren is even less charismatic, more off-putting and more cliche-prone than Hillary, but you do know what she stands for. “Socialism today, Socialism tomorrow, Socialism forever.” Hillary Clinton stands for the same thing; but she has spent decades trying to be discreet about it.

Instead of letting her “You didn’t build that” freak flag fly in a safe blue state like Warren did, Hillary Clinton has carefully crafted a completely safe image. That was what undid her candidacy in 2008. Given a choice between a candidate who stood for a whole range of things and one who stood for being president; they chose Obama. Eight years later; no one still has any idea what she stands for.

Hillary’s calculated vacuousness smacks of paranoia. At a time when Democrats want some red meat, she tries to be less partisan than Obama. At all her award ceremonies, she speaks in cliches and stays away from anything that anyone could find controversial or memorable. There’s no way that she can offend anyone if she spends all her time emitting contentless cliches.

Beneath the bland rhetoric is a paranoid control freak obsessed with controlling and shaping every aspect of her image. Her partner in this endeavor is Media Matters’ David Brock; a man whose legendary paranoia rivals her own, who had been hospitalized for a mental breakdown after believing that people were trying to kill him and who allegedly used an illegally armed security team to protect him from “right-wing assassins”.

Together Brock and Clinton have already shut down a number of friendly film and television projects about Hillary while Brock peddles “The Benghazi Hoax”; a book that smacks of Hillary Clinton’s old obsession with a vast right-wing conspiracy. A Hillary biopic in which the former first lady is played by an actress capable of conveying actual human emotion would do her image a lot more good than Brock’s paranoid rantings. But it would appear that Brock’s paranoid mindset mirrors her own.

Hillary Clinton has played the long game, moving slowly from one position to another, with her eyes on the White House. But in her calculating chess game, she has neglected the details of the present. Hillary lost in 2008 because she was too busy building an inevitable candidacy to give people an actual reason to vote for her. And now she’s making the same mistake all over again.

It’s easy to be the inevitable candidate when no one is actually running against you. The hypothetical inevitable candidate is rarely someone that people actually want to vote for. Like Mitt Romney, they seem like the sort of man or woman who is probably going to win because everyone says so. When the race heats up, the inevitable candidate collapses and is left behind.

America hasn’t had inevitable presidents in a while. The men who have actually managed to score two terms were absurdly unlikely candidates with obvious flaws whose very prospects were met with ridicule. There was nothing inevitable about Ronald Reagan, a former actor, Bill Clinton, a sleazy draft dodger with infidelity issues, George W. Bush, the son of a one-term president prone to mispronounce important words, and Barack Obama, a political amateur and left-wing radical who defended his racist pastor after the latter was caught screaming “God Damn America” after 9/11.

Hillary Clinton’s inevitable status is her weakness. Inevitable candidates don’t win elections. Just ask John McCain, an American hero and liberal Republican, and Mitt Romney, a man who was born to play the president on television. Or ask Michael Dukakis, the architect of the Massachusetts Miracle, or John Kerry, a man who was not only born to play the president, but who could run on his Vietnam service during wartime.

There will come a time when the awards will stop, when the empty quotes about how she is running because she cares about girls will run out and when she will actually have to give real answers to difficult questions. And that isn’t Hillary’s strong suit. […….]

As a debater, Hillary is rigidly unimaginative. As a politician, she’s vacant. And her charisma doesn’t exist. The only way that she can get through her own party’s primaries and a national election is by scaring away every potential rival by being the inevitable candidate. And that is what the endless Hillary award season is really about.

Hillary Clinton’s awards parade isn’t meant to impress the voters; but to scare away any opponents who might think that they can do to her in 2016 what Obama did to her in 2008. At galas and dinners, she dons an armor made out of awards, prizes and trophies to manufacture the consensus that she is an accomplished everything and that this will be her election because her victory is inevitable.

But Hillary doesn’t really believe that she is the inevitable candidate. If she believed that, she would be less paranoid and controlling… and more capable of relaxing and being herself; whoever that might be. A Hillary with self-confidence wouldn’t need David Brock whispering in her ear and would be able to cut loose problematic figures like Huma Abedin and Sidney Blumenthal whose presence is already harming her premature campaign.

Hillary is obsessed with winning and certain that she will lose. Everything she has done throughout the years was calculated to make defeat as unlikely as possible… including taking the position of Secretary of State while doing as little as possible in that role. Instead of inspiring people, she has built up a bulletproof resume while taking as few risks as possible. And that insecurity may be her undoing.

For 13 years, Hillary has done little except abuse public office to map out her future presidential run. By the time the election actually takes place, she will have spent nearly two decades or a third of her adult life focused on running for president.

At the Benghazi hearings, Hillary famously demanded to know what difference it made. The same can be said of her life.

Read the rest – The Inevitable Hillary