Intermixed with Hillary Clinton’s many disparate stances on illegal immigration are the occasional, very revealing statements that say far more about her character in general than about her transient and flexible beliefs. In one recent statement, she expressed her surprise at the vehemence of real America in its opposition to the massive invasion of illegals.
According to Hillary, such fiery opposition was nonexistent only seven or eight years ago which, incidentally was when she and her husband occupied the White House. So what brought about this change? Without missing a beat, she postulated that the reason is, of course, the worsening economy under President Bush, which has made Americans, when looking for jobs, feel competitive pressure from those who breached the border.
No doubt Hillary was a bit off her game, since she was unable to bring Iraq, Guantanamo, or water boarding into the discussion. Yet from what she did say, two things are glaringly evident. First, she will not hesitate to offer a completely bogus and irrelevant analysis of any situation in hopes of gaining a political point or two. And secondly, she outwardly rejects and thus disparages the real reasons offered by those who are displaying their anger over this issue.
Try this for subtlety and nuance Mrs. Clinton. Most Americans love their country, revere its heritage, and hope to pass its blessings of bounty and liberty on to their children and their children’s children. They have no intention of sitting idly by while their nation is “Balkanized,†and increasingly takes on the attributes of the third world in its everyday life. They are outraged by every incident reflective of a “banana republic†in the workings of its local, state and federal governments.
Of course such a blast of reality would never be compatible with the standard operation of the Clinton political machine. Thus, while Hillary may occasionally land on the right side of the illegals issue, as she did in the Las Vegas debate where she was finally coerced into opposition of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, her heart clearly is not, and never was, for taking sufficient action to stem the invasion. If elected, she will not abate the crisis.
Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is hardly alone, nor does her party hold a monopoly on the border issue. Some of the worst displays of arrogant disdain for real America, and detachment from its plight, have occurred on the Republican side of the aisle. Consider, as perhaps the most outrageous example, a statement made by Arizona Senator John McCain in the recent CNN/Youtube Republican debate.
For starters, McCain reiterated the falsehood that last summer’s amnesty bill, once known as “McCain/Kennedy,†did not entail amnesty. So all of those American imbeciles, who were fired up at the prospect of a fast track to legal status for possibly twenty million illegal aliens, should have been at ease since the bill offered a token “hoop†or two on the road to full citizenship. Somehow, the pathologically cynical among us refused to buy into the ruse.
Nor did Americans take the bait offered by the bill’s proponents that promised a border fence as part of the package. But McCain offered a telling explanation of why Americans refused to trust their government that says far more about his contempt for average Americans than it does about his political exploits. In his world, people did not trust the government as a result of its handling of Hurricane Katrina, corruption in Congress, and unfettered federal spending. The list was astounding by its one notable exception.
The single item absent from the list was, amazingly, the government’s abysmal handling of the border.
This subject is hardly rocket science. Is it really beyond McCain’s comprehension that Americans do not trust their government’s promises of securing the border because of their government’s abominable unwillingness to secure the border? Perhaps the better question is: Does John McCain really think Americans are that stupid, and can be so easily dazzled by his stunning oratory as to be ever after unable to connect these glaring dots?
In a perverse sense, the Arizona Senator actually did give the answer to this seemingly deep mystery. By responding with such an abject insult to the intelligence of the American people, he exhibited the unrestrained arrogance of the “ruling class†in Washington and how it views real America.
Much of the remainder of the field of presidential “wannabes†in both parties, either currently or through much of their past political careers, have openly aided and abetted the invasion. And while their explanations for having done so are varied, the end result of their actions is the same. Each has, to some degree, sacrificed the future of America on the altar of political pragmatism and service of self.
Perhaps they now regret their former stances, as some are given to express. But whether that regret is based on a real concern for the future of the country, or a realization of the political price they may pay, is anybody’s guess. Past experience says that the cynics win this one.
Clearly, among such people the desire for a permanent “underclass†of uneducated and pliable illegal immigrants is merely an extension of their belief that the rest of America is, in reality, not much different. All of us out here in the hinterlands, whether legal citizens or illegal bondservants, only exist for the empowerment and pleasure of those enlightened individuals back inside D.C.
And if America wants anything different from its leaders, it had better say so during the upcoming election cycle in no uncertain terms.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com.
