With the 2018 midterms right around the corner, Hillary Clinton is still salty that she lost the 2016 election, and in a new afterword for her book she writes that “it’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” presumably for no other reason than to ensure that the votes of the largely Republican “flyover states” that got Donald Trump elected no longer count.
In the afterword, which was published by The Atlantic Sunday evening, Clinton makes it clear that she expects Democrats to retake control of Congress in November; and, “When the dust settles,” she writes, “we have to do some serious housecleaning.” The items on Clinton’s to-do list include giving illegal aliens all the voting loopholes in the world, while simultaneously making sure that the votes of rural America are drowned out by larger liberal states like California and New York:
Congress should also repair the damage the Supreme Court did to the Voting Rights Act by restoring the full protections that voters need and deserve, as well as the voting rights of Americans who have served time in prison and paid their debt to society. We need early voting and voting by mail in every state in America, and automatic, universal voter registration so every citizen who is eligible to vote is able to vote. We need to overturn Citizens United and get secret money out of our politics. And you won’t be surprised to hear that I passionately believe it’s time to abolish the Electoral College.
Much has been written on why abolishing the Electoral College is a terrible idea, but while the reasons to keep it are many, Clinton’s desire to end it is singular: doing so would all but guarantee liberals a vice-like grip on the government, and they’d never have to worry about “deplorable” voters getting in the way ever again.
But ending the Electoral College isn’t the only asinine thing Clinton says in her afterword.
Three paragraphs in, Clinton writes, “Then there’s the president’s monstrous neglect of Puerto Rico: After Hurricane Maria ravaged the island, his administration barely responded. Some 3,000 Americans died.” However, Trump’s administration did not “barely” respond to the damage caused by Hurricane Maria – and 3,000 people did not die. In reality, the Puerto Rican government allowed FEMA supplies to rot and go to waste, and the 3,000 deaths being reported by the liberal media was based on a computer algorithm, not an actual body count.
But liberals deal in hyperbole, not hard facts and data.
Clinton then goes on to flat-out accuse Trump of being a tyrant, writing, “The Founders knew that a leader who refuses to be subject to the law or who politicizes or obstructs its enforcement is a tyrant, plain and simple.” Bold words coming from a politician who got the Federal Bureau of Investigation to hold her above the law.
But perhaps the most glaring example of Clinton’s hypocrisy comes in her rebuke of “predatory capitalism.” She writes:
Over many years, our defenses were worn down by a small group of right-wing billionaires—people like the Mercer family and Charles and David Koch—who spent a lot of time and money building an alternative reality where science is denied, lies masquerade as truth, and paranoia flourishes. By undermining the common factual framework that allows a free people to deliberate together and make the important decisions of self-governance, they opened the way for the infection of Russian propaganda and Trumpian lies to take hold. They’ve used their money and influence to capture our political system, impose a right-wing agenda, and disenfranchise millions of Americans.
Is Hillary Clinton really accusing Republicans of utilizing dark money in politics? Is she honestly attempting to pretend that her own political group, Onward Together, is nothing more than a front to collect millions in dark money to push the left-wing agenda?
Clinton lost the 2016 election because she shouted down at Americans from her ivory tower. Nearly two years later, she’s mounted her high horse seeking revenge against the voters who destroyed her assumedly impenetrable fortress. She doesn’t want to save our “democracy in crisis,” as she self-righteously claims; she wants to silence the people who disagree with the liberal agenda.
