This month's entry is from my latest American Thinker contribution.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/10/hillarys_deprogramming_scheme.html
The railroad cars squealed to a stop where lines of police and soldiers stood by to receive the deplorable passengers. The human cargo—nearly all middle aged to seniors—debarked with their few permitted possessions and turned where the uniformed guardians directed. Those using crutches or wheelchairs took separate routes for greater efficiency.
Some of the deplorable detritus still sported red hats rather than yellow stars.
Welcome to Hillary Clinton’s Amerika.
In a CNN interview earlier this month Clinton said, “At some point maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the (Trump) cult members.”
That sentiment is from a former Democrat presidential candidate who has been in the public eye, holding national offices, for thirty years. Perhaps she still does not realize that in 2016 by characterizing Donald Trump voters as “a basket of deplorables” she energized the GOP base and fence sitters.
A few salient points that the former first lady omitted from her deprogramming scheme:
Establishing legality (perhaps a minor concern on the left.)
Providing considerable funding (perhaps a minor concern on the left, which has run our debt north of an unrecoverable $32 trillion.)
Establishing the institutional and physical infrastructure.
Providing qualified deprogrammers for untold millions of Deplorables.
Identifying the offenders other than by their red MAGA hats or bumper stickers.
Convincing the Deplorables to board trucks and trains.
Since millions of Deplorables are not voluntarily going to board transport to deprogramming camps—Clinton is appalled that they cling to their guns—the process would immediately turn confused, messy, and loud.
As a Yale-educated lawyer, Clinton surely knows that in the American justice system, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. How to prove who were/are “cult members,” and how to square that accusation with First Amendment rights?
Obviously: you do not. But it doesn’t seem to matter. Clearly, Clinton’s political zealotry has overcome any residual trace of rule of law.
The foregoing reflects what The Wall Street Journal (October 6) properly labeled “the totalitarian heart of Hillary Clinton.” That phrase reflects upon the two-tiered justice system now institutionalized in the United States.
Nor does the matter end with Hillary Clinton.
CNN’s interviewer Christiane Amanpour could have pressed Mrs. Clinton on the subject but apparently Amanpour is more astute in such matters than her colleague. Amanpour’s husband James Rubin was an assistant secretary of state under Bill Clinton and became an advisor to Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats. Numerous viewers wonder if Amanpour was exercising de facto editorial control over her careless colleague. CNN’s star certainly was not practicing objective journalism, nor anything within telescopic range of it.
Aside from the ethical and legal problems of Deprogramming (easily overlooked by political zealots—ask Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot among others), there’s the unavoidable matter of housing and/or detention space for the Deplorables. Of the 74-some million Trump voters, assume that 10 percent are declared eligible for Deprogramming. That’s about the same number of illegal immigrants that Clinton’s party has allowed to violate U.S. sovereignty since President Biden took office.
(Sidebar: the 7 million figure comes from The Department of Homeland Security, in the same administration as the White House spokesperson who continually bleats “The border is secure.” Seven million equals or exceeds the populations of three dozen states.)
Leftists openly advocate draconian measures to advance their agendas. In 2019 teenage activist Greta Thunberg (“That Swedish truant”) famously called for climate deniers to be put “against the wall.” When pinned down, she apologized in case anyone “misunderstood.”
For more historical context, recall that in the Soviet Union, unknown thousands of dissidents were sent to mental institutions for detention or “cure.” Building on existing policies, the 1958 addition to Moscow’s criminal code was aimed at those promoting “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” There was no right of appeal.
If any Democrats condemned Clinton’s appalling suggestion, so far the statements seem to remain well hidden. No matter how phrased, my Google searches for the subject produce this:
“It looks like there aren’t any great matches for your search.”
That fact alone implies liberal tolerance for, or outright acceptance of, Hillary Clinton’s nascent American gulag.
