The Second of Four Reasons Why Hillary is Unfit for the Presidency
July 20, 2015
Almost half of the voting public fervently opposes Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just under half the public is thrilled about it. Though “polarizing” is one of those terms forbidden by Hillary’s self-appointed censors, no word better describes this politician. It has never been a word associated with leadership, and it’s another reason Hillary is unfit for the presidency.
But then, this is not for those who have already made up their minds about Hillary. It’s for the small number of undecided, open-minded people who are intrigued by the prospect of America’s first woman President, yet have serious concerns about this particular woman.
Effective leaders don’t polarize – they unify. Because our current President has failed to lead, America has become a deeply divided nation, more splintered today than at any time in recent history. Hillary didn’t cause that problem, but she was an integral part of Obama’s administration, and gives every indication that, if elected, she would continue the same policies that have polarized our nation in so many ways.
Uncontrolled immigration is dividing us into ethnic enclaves. While Obama’s administration touts secure borders and record numbers of deportations, our own eyes see just another deception. His policies have enabled waves of illegal aliens, including unknown numbers of violent criminals, to flood across our border. En masse, they are contributing to the Balkanization of our country. That’s because they either cannot or will not adapt to our culture as most legal immigrants do, as our immigrant forefathers did. So now, our teachers must learn Spanish, and foreign language signs are cropping up across the country, all to accommodate hoards of unregulated immigrants who refuse to assimilate. But it’s not just about language, nor is it just about the Mexican people. It includes Muslim immigrants who want our First Amendment rights replaced by Sharia law, and those who use their religion to justify domestic violence. It is all those diverse cultures that no longer merge into America’s melting pot. Obama has taken an inefficient immigration system and made it chaotic, deeply dividing the country along ethnic lines.
Even before his election, Obama began dividing us socioeconomically by introducing the socialist concept of class envy. He talked about spreading the wealth, suggesting that wealthy Americans achieved their success on the backs of the poor and middle-class. Arguing that the disparity between rich and poor is unfair, he took a uniquely American ideal of “equal opportunity” and distorted it to mean socioeconomic equality for everyone, regardless of the individual’s contribution to society. His policies are dividing us, transforming America into a welfare state, with many citizens becoming disdainful of those who work hard for success.
And ironically, soon after our first black President was elected, with the widespread support of white voters, he began picking at old sores. He mentions, in passing, the progress we’ve made on civil rights, while at the same time seizes on isolated cases of racism, real or fabricated, to prove a false narrative of widespread racism. Though more subtle and eloquent than his longtime mentor, Jeremiah Wright, both deliver the same racially divisive message, the same self-fulfilling prophecy.
Black mobs in Ferguson and Baltimore were incited to riot by Al Sharpton and other professional agitators after two African-American suspects were killed while resisting arrest. But Obama’s words of victimization helped convince them that violence was justified. After those riots, more racial violence was delivered to Charleston by a deranged gunman who decided it was time for a race war. In response to that atrocity, a flag, offensive to some, was removed from public view. It will have absolutely no effect on racial tensions in America. But those tensions would subside if the President were to remove those racial agitators from his inner circle of advisors, and begin to address race relations more honestly and less divisively.
So what has all of this to do with Hillary Clinton?
After stoking the dying embers of racism for nearly seven years, Barack Obama is, in a very real sense, preparing to pass the torch to Hillary. She has already begun regurgitating his racial victimization rhetoric, highlighting the relatively small number of minorities killed by law enforcement, and suggesting that racism is commonplace in our nation’s police departments.
And from her lofty perch, with a straight face, this fabulously wealthy woman pontificates about toppling America’s wealthiest one percent. It’s clear that she intends to exploit and perpetuate class envy, just as Obama does. Hillary’s vow to provide illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship has also made it clear that she has no plans to restore an orderly immigration system, or to stop America’s Balkanization.
Polarizing and divisive figures like Obama and Clinton thrive on discord. They exploit wedge issues for political benefit. They look for fissures, cracks in the cement that binds us together as a nation. They break them apart, and root around in the rubble for political support. Today we are deeply, perhaps irrevocably, divided politically, ethnically, racially, and socially. There is growing distain for law enforcement, and anti-American sentiment across the board is taking root within our own borders. All of it is due to the divisive policies of this administration, the policies that Hillary promises to continue.
America desperately needs a leader who can unite this country. Hillary Clinton is not that person.
Peter Lemiska has spent more than 28 years in government service. He is a former Senior Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service and an Air Force veteran. His political commentaries have been widely published online and in print.