Diana West: a country that could embrace Hillary Clinton as its “Most Admired Woman” has lost its mind

Diana West lists reasons Clinton should not receive honor she’s snatched up 17 times  (WND)


Americans, Gallup tells us, admire Hillary Clinton more than any other woman in the world – again. This latest accolade marks the 17th time Gallup has found Clinton to be the Most Admired Woman (MAW?) since she became first lady nearly 20 years ago. Only Eleanor Roosevelt (13 MAWs) comes close. Only Mother Teresa (1995 and 1996) and Laura Bush (2001) have interrupted Clinton’s winning streak, and even then, Clinton came in second.

And therein lies America’s cosmic flaw. A country that could time and again embrace Hillary Clinton as its MAW has lost its mind or its memory or both.“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Alinsky disciple Shrillary

Does the phrase “congenital liar” tinkle any bells? I know such non-admirable sentiments are thought to be in the worst of taste, if not also banishable offenses. Still, as conjured by the late New York Times columnist William Safire in 1996, the phrase described the then-first lady for her shameless prevarications. These included what sure looked like bribery (“cattle futures”), defrauding taxpayers (“Whitewater”), obstructing justice – or, rather, “finding” her Rose Law Firm billing records (under subpoena for two years) just days after the statute of limitations ran out – among other corrupt behaviors that must have slightly suppressed Hillary-admiration that same year. The phrase remains apt.

“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton declared on the presidential campaign trail in 2008, describing a 1996 trip to Bosnia. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down (chuckles) to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” It was a vivid but debunkable whopper, as CBS footage of the event proved. In reality, Clinton, accompanied by daughter Chelsea, made her ceremonial way into Bosnia through a warm throng marked by smiling faces and a kiss from a local girl – not bullets. Admirable?

On a more nationally significant level, Clinton recently supported President Obama’s Big Lie that a movie trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” on YouTube “resulted” (her word) in the September attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya – a concerted falsehood for which neither Clinton nor Obama nor former CIA Director David Petraeus has yet answered. Even several days after intelligence agencies determined that a planned assault, not a video-driven protest, had taken place, Clinton went so far as to promise a grieving Charles Woods, father of slain former SEAL Tyrone Woods, that “we” were going to have the video maker “arrested and prosecuted.”

Why was Clinton still perpetuating the false narrative that the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, not Islamic jihad, had resulted in the attack? Was that admirable? Clinton has lately let it be known that she will voluntarily testify about Benghazi following her hospitalization for a blood clot, but I seriously doubt whether mere House members will risk asking this crucial question of the Most Admired Woman in America, especially now that she has risen from her sickbed. If they don’t, they’re not admirable, either.

Meanwhile, the video maker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was indeed arrested and swiftly prosecuted, and is now serving one year in jail for “parole violations.” His incarceration, however, is better understood as punishment for violating the Islamic ban on free speech about Islam. To be sure, one year is nothing compared to the death penalty an Egyptian court recently slapped on Nakoula and other Americans associated with the movie in absentia – and without a peep of protest from the Obama administration, including Clinton.

The fact is, Hillary Clinton has worked assiduously with the Islamic bloc nations, known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to promote Islamically correct speech codes through the so-called Istanbul Process. The goal of this process – and the goal of transnational Islam – is to implement Shariah speech codes via U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which seeks to criminalize “defamation” – free speech – about Islam. In leading this drive against free speech, Hillary Clinton is actually leading a drive against the First Amendment.

Most Americans don’t know about the Istanbul Process, let alone how Islamic speech codes are unconstitutional, but it is this policy against free speech that may stand as Clinton’s enduring legacy as secretary of state. It is of a piece with having presided over, first, the shredding of U.S. alliances with Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi and then supporting jihadist factions and organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, now implementing Islamic law across the Middle East. This, of course, is President Obama’s policy, but Hillary Clinton has been an active team player.

Another aspect of this same foreign policy Clinton has spearheaded is the launch of the Global Counterterrorism Forum. The forum’s roster of 29 nations plus the European Union is stunning for its exclusion of Israel, a leading counterterrorism force as much as it is a leading terrorism victim. But not so, according to Islamic definitions. Knowingly or not, as a leader of this forum, one-third of whose members come from the Islamic bloc, Clinton has accepted the Arab League and OIC definitions of terrorism, which both deny the existence of Israeli victims (sometimes U.S. soldiers) and legitimize the terrorism of Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah.

How could this be? What influences have led Clinton to formulate or follow such policies? We don’t know, although it is hard not to wonder about the input of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, a young woman with well-established familial and personal ties to Muslim Brotherhood figures and front groups (including a “charity” linked to al-Qaida and a group banned in Israel for ties to Hamas). Indeed, what may be most astounding and mysterious about Clinton’s whole public tenure is how Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work so closely with the secretary of state.

Even broaching such a simple if burning national security question, as Rep. Michele Bachmann and others discovered last summer, is also a banishable offense. After all, Hillary Clinton is our MAW!

That’s life. But it isn’t admirable.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/hillary-doesnt-deserve-americans-admiration/#bQ72rljzbVvAkF9G.99

9 thoughts on “Diana West: a country that could embrace Hillary Clinton as its “Most Admired Woman” has lost its mind”

  1. America

    A country that elected an outright imposter not once but twice.

    A country that re-elected 90% of both Houses, while holding 91% of the incumbents in the Houses in contempt.

    Can a nation as a whole plead insanity?

  2. Is the Australian way any better. The two party system is a sham designed to make you think you have a choice.

  3. @DP111,

    It is suspect that the American population actually voted for the president enmasse. Especially, with numbers being at 99% in many wards/boroughs. Very dubious. Also, I have come across many, many Americans who had buyers remorse with Obama. It was the independents who contributed largely to Obama getting in the first time around and many were not going to vote for him the second time. Sooo? Besides, Blacks and Hispanics were did the numbers come from?

    Re: Clinton. Does anyone really believe that the results are reflective of public opinion?

    Polls are suspect and should be taken with caution. I was once asked, “How much do you dislike Tony Blair?” A man I am no fan of by the way. My options were did, “I disliked him” or did “I really really dislike him.”

    There were no other options and I told the pollster that I refused to answer the question based on it being a dishonest and biased sample. Not to mention unprofessional-IMHO.

    The poll was paid for by AirFrance and the EU. Why they were asking such biased questions on T. Blair? Was rather odd.

    Another post on this story said that only a 1,000+ people were asked. It would be interesting to know how were the respondents picked? What was the geographical location of those asked? In other words were the respondents largely from red states or blue states? How many were woman and what was there age. Age/ Gender and Clinton is very significant. As many woman of her generation are ProClinton-seeing a shared gender struggle, whilst many younger woman are indifferent or not a fan of Clinton at all.

    If the pollsters knew in advance or asked the respondents if they were Dem/Rep? Were more conservative respondents rejected? How were the questions formulated, etc.?

    Clinton should have been imprisoned for Whitewater and If this alleged blood clot means she is incapable speaking in front of a House Committee on Benghazi, then she sure as Hell should not being running for President.

  4. Brian,
    The system in Australia does work, but only when citizens do not abrogate their obligations as voting members of the Australian public – the ALP got into power because most of us were too lazy to do our own thinking and believed the derogatory rubbish poured on Prime Minister Howard by the left wing media brought by the ALP.

  5. Clinton is a fraud – therefore the intellect of a country that could bestow such on honor on such a cretin become questionable – but Americans are bright and this suggests a manufactured poll!!!

  6. @kaw,

    Clinton should be in prison for whitewater.

    It is definitely a manufactured poll. In another post here, it said only 1,000+ Americans were polled. Would like to see where the geographical respondents were located? Red or Blue states?

    What was the gender? And what is the age graphic? Older women, Hillary age tend to be greater fans then younger ones?

    Especially, would love to see how the pollsters formed the questions.

    If her blood clot means she is physically unable to answer questions for Benghazi, then she should never be allowed to run or serve for president…ever!

Comments are closed.