Titanic Hillary

By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

The headlines of two articles appearing simultaneously and fortuitously in today’s issue of The Wall Street Journal say it all: “Brazilian President Rousseff’s Downfall Was Years in the Making” (5/12/16) and “Emails Are Likely to Keep Complicating Hillary Clinton’s Campaign” (5/11/16).

Every Democratic primary voter today and later every general election voter should note the parallels between the recent ouster of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (“Brazilian President Rousseff’s Downfall Was Years in the Making,” 5/12/16) and current U.S. presidential candidate Secretary Hillary Clinton (“Emails Are Likely to Keep Complicating Hillary Clinton’s Campaign,” 5/11/16).

Ignore gender and rather focus on a life-time of scandal, corruption, and sleaze in both cases that finally caught up with President Rousseff and — if FBI Director James Comey does his job and does not capitulate under the crushing demands of President Obama as all before him have done — may sink Titanic Hillary.

Everyone outside of the beltway is fully aware that the focus of FBI Director James Comey’s investigation is but the tip-of-the-iceberg.  The true voter concern is with the sleaze, corruption and scandal that has surrounded Secretary Clinton for her entire life from cattle-futures and Whitewater to Benghazi-gate, Wall-Street-gate, Email-gate and on to where the really big money is — The Clinton Family Foundation.

As much as the establishment media tries to ignore and lie about these issues, the public today has access to multiple sources of information which speak to multiple convictions.

While voters have the first shot at solving the problem of the impending implosion of Secretary Clinton, one also need think what will happen should FBI Director James Comey capitulate and his investigation yields a failure-to-indict conclusion.  The end-game here would not the response of establishment insiders.  Rather, the end-game would be the reactions of the alienated, angry, and — utterly distrusting of government — supporters of both Senator Sanders and Donald Trump.

No one accurately can predict what will happen should the current investigation fail to sink Titanic Hillary.  The safest bet, however, is that it will not be pretty.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Florida International University in Miami.

Mama’s Note: I wonder just why anyone would think that Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders is any less corrupt than Mz Hillary. Or any politician. Isn’t the corruption a matter of degree?

I’d like to talk to someone who honestly EVER actually trusted the non-voluntary government, for anything. Even those who gain their wealth and power from that government don’t trust it – and in fact have even better incentive not to do so.

So, is election of the non-corrupt possible? And is trust in government a worthy goal for anyone? I’d have to say no to both.

Oh, and one last question… if any of us ordinary suckers played games with the FBI and lied so freely as Mz Hillary… don’t you think we’d be spending a lot of our future in the gray bar motel? I’m sure she is very happy to be “more equal” than other people.

This entry was posted in Friends of Liberty, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Titanic Hillary

  1. Other Richard says:

    “I wonder just why anyone would think that Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders is any less corrupt than Mz Hillary. Or any politician. Isn’t the corruption a matter of degree?”

    The meaning of “a matter of degree” is that two things can be compared as more or less for whatever quality is being considered.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      The big question for me is why anyone wants a politician of any sort to exercise power over them, steal their property and corrupt their children. What was it again they expect a “president” to do for them that they can’t much better accomplish themselves?


  2. Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 05/16/16 - Venezuela: Maduro threatens seizure of closed factories - Thomas L. Knapp - Liberty.me

  3. richard says:

    Per Mama’s 1st question: the answer is the track record. The she-beast has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of integrity, a lack of morals, a lack of ethics, an attitude of being above the law. Such record extends unbroken all the way back to the 1970s.

    Sanders, well, he is just wrong. Ideologically unsound but he hasn’t the corruption of she who’s name must not be said.

    From the earliest days of Trump gaining national attention (circa 1977 when I first became aware of him) I have held what could be called contempt for him. But very unlike the she-beast, all that he has done has been done within the confines of the law. Don’t like what he has done? Blame the law in which he has found a path to his good fortune.

    The comparison of these three, in consideration of mama’s question of the possibility of electing a ‘non-corrupt’ person, there is raised an interesting point. Namely, there are many ways which lead to corruption…as evidenced by these three candidates. So the question is which is less corrupt, ie more trustworthy? The answer is none but with an explanation. Will the person who is unfettered of all corruption please stand up? Anyone? Bueller. Bueller.

    Because if we are to judge a political candidate, let alone our friends or loved ones, by the binary corrupt/trustworthy then we shall fail to ever be wholly satisfied. While character indubitably counts, a better assay of the candidate is to consider their policies whether to avoid or solve problems I the national and international arenas. In other words, who best to govern a country most closely aligned with the US Constitution?


    • MamaLiberty says:

      Richard, you seem to have missed the point altogether. 🙂 The corruption I’m talking about is not any mere human failing, such as we all must face, but the evil of aggression, the evil of even desiring to own/control the lives and property of others. That anyone thinks some other person should and even must control them, and can watch the destruction of the economy and society at large that results… just baffles me.

      What is it that these evil politicians do that can’t honestly be done, without lies, theft or murder, by voluntary associations, in cooperation to achieve mutual goals and for mutual self defense? Just why do you want to give these politicians and their bankers ANY power over you? And if you think it is merely a matter of finding the “right people” for these offices…. I’d like to know where they are. I’ve never seen one. The only result of allowing a “lesser evil” is to allow evil. I won’t be part of that.


      • richard says:

        Recently I was thinking about the program of some national and local campsites which will give ‘free’ camping to anyone who volunteers to do some work improving the campgrounds. It seems to me such a program is a prime example of socialism; we’ll take what belongs to you then sell it back to you except you may agree to provide your labor for free.

        It’s greed and desire for control. ‘Evil’ is the correct word to describe it. In wanting to understand why politicians act as they do, we may consider that evil is by degree, there is a gradation. Politicians are the slimiest, the elected office empowers them with authority but they use that authority to their own purpose. I suspect greatly I am not gaining headway in this. Power corrupts is where I leave it. Consider it a warning of those who take power.

        I consider Mike Huckabee, Bed Carson, Adam West, maybe Herman Cain as principled enough. This system is rigged against those of good character. The system favors longevity in office not principles. Therefore it is the system which is corrupt and it then would mostly attract persons willing to violate their own conscious. Yes, we should actively avoid being a part of that.


      • MamaLiberty says:

        Whenever some people are given power to control other people who do not consent to it, regardless of the degree or their intentions, tyranny is the inevitable result. The problem with your campground example is that people have a choice whether to participate or not. That’s not part of the deal in socialism, so it can’t be a valid comparison. The whole idea that a central government controls that land, and sells the people who pay for it the lie that it is “owned” by everyone… That’s a real problem. It is not possible for anything to be “owned” by everyone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s