Don’t miss out on our future podcasts – subscribe on iTunes here!
What’s worse, momentarily blanking on the name of a foreign city or spearheading a failed CIA-directed regime change that displaced 10 million people and left more than 250,000 dead, many from that city? Based on their coverage of Gary Johnson’s recent Morning Joe blunder, where he inquired, “what is Aleppo?” when questioned about the largest Syrian city, political strategists, pundits, and journalists seem to judge forgetfulness worse than igniting a civil war.
Simply put, the world would be a much much safer place had Hillary Clinton never heard of Aleppo. After failing to disentangle Syria from Iranian influence through secret negotiations with Israel in 2010, Hillary Clinton led the charge for her proxy war to overthrow Assad. By 2011, the US adopted her plan explicitly and used the Arab Spring to align with and arm anti-Assad efforts such as ISIS and initiate what currently stands at over 4,800 airstrikes in Syria.
Despite early attempts at ceasefire negotiations in 2012, the CIA-led insurgency and the predictably violent response by Assad has ravaged Syria. Aleppo in particular has been a focal point of the Syrian civil war for months, with hundreds of people dying on both sides of the conflict. Until America agrees to a ceasefire without regime change, Aleppo will likely continue to suffer the consequences of Hillary’s hubris.
Continue reading at The Daily Caller.
Today, presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton breathes a little easier. Two weeks ago, her husband met Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a tarmac in Phoenix. While Republicans have cried foul, and Lynch herself has acknowledged the rendezvous to be in poor judgment, it is hard to shake the icky feeling that someone’s been suborned.
Let’s credit Bill and Loretta, though, and say this isn’t a House of Cards-style intrigue. Fine. But most people aren’t let off so easy. Consider the zealots who work at the Department of Justice and the low threshold they set for prosecution. Federal prosecutors believe that tossing a red grouper off of the side of a boat is destruction of evidence, and they’re willing to defend that lunacy all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s reasonable to believe, then, that anyone besides the Baroness of Clintonia would be indicted for risking state secrets.
When people of pedigree and power receive superior treatment under a separate law structure, this is a feature of aristocracy. When the privileged few receiving this treatment are running the country, this looks more like monarchy.
Neo-monarchism favors the few over the many, federal power over local control, bureaucrats over business owners. It puts control in the hands of elites, and exempts them from the law. And when those new monarchs choose the law they do desire, which is invariably a law that the citizens reject, neo-monarchism demands complete enforcement so that free choice is eliminated. Continue Reading