In a race between the last two Democrat First Ladies, which one is more politically dangerous?
On one hand, we have Michelle. She’s a real piece of work.
As a woman, she was not proud of America at any point in her life before it swung wide the gates for the single most exclusive address in the nation, and let her family in.
As a political influence, she never misses a chance to inflame racial tensions. She loves to trumpet, for example, “I live in a house built by slaves!”
What was the ’cause’ she championed? School lunches. We see how THAT worked out. Not only were they WILDLY unpopular with the kids, but they didn’t even stack up in nutrition against places like Ukraine or Brazil. And they are positively embarrassing when compared against France.
Do as I say, no as I do, right? Look at the beat-down she gets from an ACTUAL fitness expert on her ‘anti-obesity’ crusade, and how it is (nearly) as big a failure as her husband’s Presidency.
The only place she’s a greater danger is her spending habits. She demands to be treated like a pampered queen. You see it in how she dresses, the vacations she takes, the fancy parties she hosts, and the Celebrities she socializes with.
Her ‘House was built by slaves’? How about her lifestyle is upheld by slaves. What is a slave besides someone who works without getting the benefit of his own labor? Who is the beneficiary more than someone who jet-sets in the Millionaire lifestyle on the money the taxpayer is fleeced from?
Michelle and family are functionally no different than slave-holding 17th Century Aristocrats.
But what is she when measured against Hillary? She is dangerous to the culture, and to the taxpayer, sure. Hillary is dangerous to the fabric of the nation itself.
Here is a quote, which comes, incidentally, from someone not particularly thrilled with the Republican option, either.
Mrs. Clinton is a woman of “zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” She would be more dangerous to liberty and the U.S. Constitution in the White House than Trump would be. The first woman president would provoke less scrutiny and media or political opposition to her counter-constitutional convictions and actions…
…Clinton’s words and public actions for more than two decades as First Lady, United States Senator, Secretary of State, author of Hard Choices, and presidential candidate betray a conception of the presidency as an elected monarchy endowed with more unchecked authority than was exerted by King George III. It was that power that provoked the American Revolution which she purportedly celebrated.
Mrs. Clinton champions multi-trillion dollar unconstitutional presidential wars or other offensive uses of the military without congressional declarations or authorizations required under Article I, section 8, clause 11. Examples include Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) everywhere on the planet. During her 2008 presidential candidacy, Mrs. Clinton declared that if she were elected president she would unilaterally “obliterate” 80 million Iranians if Iran attacked Israel.
She salutes unconstitutional U.S. treaty commitments to fight wars on behalf of scores of other nations without required congressional declarations.
…The Constitution’s authors would have impeached Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State and removed her from office for complicity in high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution, which Lord Gladstone acclaimed as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”
Washington Times
The article goes on to elaborate all the ways in which the founders would have rejected Hillary.
Michelle is a grown woman who seems never to have grown out of the toddler’s sense of entitlement and ego.
But Hillary is not a grown infant. She has honed a malevolent cunning and a sense of opportunism that can turn any situation into personal gain … political or financial … apparently without any conscience that would reign in her worse instincts.
And all indicators show that she’s willing to put the nation itself up for sale … for the right price.
Between Hillary & Michelle - Who's MORE Politically DANGEROUS?
