Hillary Clinton inhabits a delusional crazyland where Putin is a bully and she is not
With the Iowa Caucus upon us, and Hillary Clinton’s predictable, if narrow, win, let us take a moment to reflect upon the U.S.’s likely next president: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I am a lifelong Democrat and I loathe HIllary Clinton. And okay, yes, she’s a woman, but neither I nor my uterus needs a female in office who represents the disastrous policies of someone like Clinton in order to validate my existence and my gender. I am willing to wait another ten years, when Tulsi Gabbard will be age-eligible. Assuming we all make it that far. Personally, I feel all of the faux outrage about Donald Trump is to serve as a distraction from our current domestic problems and to prepare people to feel relieved when they get stuck with Hillary Clinton. “At least we didn’t get Trump,” will be the unanimous refrain of the fleeced American sheeple.
I needn’t tell you that Hillary Clinton isn’t volunteering as tribute out of the goodness of her heart. She is a warmongering, corporate welfare-sponsoring member of the power elite who has taken gifts from the head-chopping Saudis. So, basically, John McCain in a pants suit. Despite that, she has somehow gotten it into her little squirrel brain that she holds moral superiority over Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Hillary Clinton is an outspoken critic of Putin, especially on the issue of LGBT rights. Her tone toward Putin softened slightly during the last Democratic debate, reaching into her litany of playground insults and deciding upon “bully.” As Clinton is the likely Democratic nominee, and is more likely than not going to be the next U.S. president, I’d like offer a few insights on her record on the “bully” front.
A lot of people have forgotten that Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act twenty years ago and that Hillary herself supported it. Indeed, Clinton’s position throughout her husband’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns was that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. She openly opposed gay marriage during her 2008 presidential bid. One of her private e-mails from 2010 revealed Clinton, while Secretary of State, opposed changing U.S. passport forms to say “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” instead of “Mother” and “Father.” Everyone fell all over themselves to praise her 2011 speech about LGBT rights at the UN, but taken in this context, her words are little more than disingenuous fluff.
Hillary Clinton actually did not change her position on gay marriage in 2013. According to a report by Politifact, Hillary Clinton’s position did not even change in accordance with changing times. There has been a major sea change in Americans’ attitudes toward the LGBT community over the last decade or so. Politifact also gave a Full Flop to Barack Obama, noting that his position on gay rights changed in a pretty direct relationship with two factors 1) running for president in 2008 and 2) shifting social attitudes. Was his turnabout because Putin wagged his finger at him and threatened to boycott an American Olympics? I think not.
In spite of the fact that it was politically expedient at one time for Hillary Clinton to think gay marriage was icky, and later finding it equally politically expedient to do a 180, Clinton has had no problems lashing out at Russia on their human rights record.
One could argue that her changing position is understandable coming from a politician, but what is Putin? A comic book villain who hunts gay people for sport? (Checking with my sources at Buzzfeed to verify if that is indeed the case.)
Critics would likely point out that Russia is still “backward” because Clinton signed DOMA seventeen years before Putin signed the propaganda law. That would be all well and good, but DOMA wasn’t even partially struck down until 2013, with section 2 being repealed in 2015. It took several legal battles brought forward by offended parties, and a deeply divided SCOTUS, to bring about DOMA’S demise.
Although Americans’ attitudes have largely shifted on homosexuality, during the 1990s and early 00s, several states held referendums to alter the state’s constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Ballot initiatives were brought forward by citizens and political action committees (PACS). The most infamous example was California’s Prop. 8, which received a massive amount of funding from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is headquartered in a different state -- Utah. Mitt Romney, 2012 presidential candidate, Russophobe, and Gazprom/Yandex investor, is a public face of the LDS Church, which has never been shy about its opposition to homosexuality. Despite this, and despite the fact that Utah, a majority LDS state, hosted the 2002 Olympics, and they were overseen by Romney himself, no nation objected to America’s mistreatment of gays.
That didn’t stop the American left’s apoplectic hissy fit over the “gay propaganda” law passed in Russia in 2013. There were lots of dire warnings about mass pogroms of gay American tourists if anyone sporting a rainbow flag stepped foot in Sochi. This was followed up by leftist caterwauling about human rights. Yet, no hand-wringing over our friend and human rights champion Qatar, where it’s actually illegal to have HIV/AIDs. Really. Got HIV? Gay or straight, you can’t live there. But what do human rights matter to Hillary when she is close personal friends of the Qatari royal family?
In their sense of superiority, Americans often forget uncomfortable realities and history of which they would rather not be reminded. Any reminder is rejoined with, “Look how far we have come,” which, again, reifies their sense of exceptionalism and, ironically, their ability to create and recreate their own domestic policies without outside interference.
Since we are so good at correcting our own problems (what up, Flint), it is incumbent upon us to spread our gifts to the unwashed masses. According to Hillary Clinton, Russia is a nation that needs to be “brought along”:
"I began to vigorously protest with governments in many parts of the world," said Clinton, who differentiated between the nations that just need to be "brought along" with the progress of gay rights and those who "are just cynical."
"Like what Putin's doing in Russia with all these laws against the LGBT community," she said, referring to the Russia's controversial "gay propaganda" law that prohibits LGBT protests, Pride events, and other public displays that may be accessible to minors. "That is just a cynical political ploy. I've gotten into shouting matches with top Russian officials. But I realized unless there was an argument made, a platform created, we wouldn't have as strong of a case."
“All these laws”? You mean just the one, right, Hill? And how is what Putin did different from what your husband did? Oh, wait. It's not.
Of course, her husband’s signing DOMA, her then-support for it, and her flip-flopping position could never have been cynical political ploys. Back in the 90s, Bill Clinton was taking a lot of heat from the American right about his not being supportive enough of “family values” ™. With 1996 being an election year, his singing of DOMA was a political act by a savvy politician who read the country’s mood and chose not to buck it. How is this different from Putin’s move?
As Dan Healey correctly points out in his article, “Irreconcilable Foes? LGBT Russians and Their Government," Vladimir Putin originally opposed the “gay propaganda” law when it was proposed in 2012:
“The Russian MPs’ crude early versions of their ban on 'propaganda for homosexualism' were rejected.”
Writes Paul Robinson of Irussianality:
"Normally, the Western press casts the blame for the 2013 law on Putin personally. What I find interesting about Healy’s description is that it shows something rather different. The Kremlin initially resisted the policy, but in the end succumbed to perceived public demand.
This reveals: first, that Russia is perhaps more democratic than people make it out to be; and second, that democracy in Russia does not necessarily equate with liberalism."
Perhaps he hasn’t lit the Kremlin up in a rainbow flag, and perhaps he doesn’t throw around buzzwords like “cisgender” and “heteronormative,” but for a man in his sixties who grew up in the extremely homophobic USSR, Putin’s own comments on the subject, especially when considered against statements made by American politicians and religious figures, seem pretty tame. Even, dare I say it, liberal. Russia’s attitudes on homosexuality are overall conservative, but they are a far cry from those of countries we consider allies. As has already been pointed out to no avail to those on the left who are still having hysterics, there are 79 countries in the world where it’s actually illegal to be gay. Seventy-nine. And yet Russia is apparently the hill they want to die on.
Maybe this is a little too easy to point this out, but it needs to be said, and said often.
I’m not disparaging LGBT rights, but what exactly is the yardstick by which Clinton is measuring a country’s record on human rights? Sure, it’s nice to make certain that all citizens are treated fairly, but isn’t all that “progress” undercut by the fact that, as a nation, we have been responsible for more death, destruction, and propping up of dictatorial regimes than any other nation on the planet?
Hillary Clinton oversaw the murder of the legitimate leader of Libya, cackled about it, and nobody in the “international community” batted an eyelash. Her policy on Russia, previously lambasted on these pages, basically advocates for war with Russia, apparently not understanding or caring that war with Russia would go nuclear very quickly.
She wouldn’t mind a war with Russia because she never saw an imperialist intervention she didn’t like. Since coming on the political scene on the arm of her husband, she has backed every neocon policy at every turn, from supporting her husband’s genocidal sanctions in Iraq, to the carpet bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo, to her own support of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is not about the lesser of two evils. This isn’t about having a female president. This isn’t about liberal or conservative. Hillary Clinton is a neocon and a danger to global stability. She uses “human rights” and “gay rights” as cynical political ploys to drum up support for military action and/or sanctions against countries that oppose the U.S.’s agenda. She is an imperialist warhawk. She has proven over and over and over again that she is unfit for the office of the president.
So please extend her a warm welcome when she is inaugurated in January of 2017.