Democrats and progressives live by the mantra of never letting a good crisis go to waste, meaning they see tragedy and chaos as a means for justifying a call for bloated government intervention, using the misfortune of others to push their agenda.
That particular idea was articulated by the infamous mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, though it’s been part of the progressive strategy for decades.
And in case you think this is all just fantasies in the minds of whackadoo conspiracy theorists, check this out.
According to The Daily Caller, Democratic strategists and Hillary Clinton campaign staff discussed using cities struck by environmental catastrophes, like lead leaching into Flint’s water, to attract young minority voters.
Democratic strategist Gina Glantz thought Clinton’s visit to Flint, Mich., in the wake of its water crisis was a “brilliant” move that could be replicated in other states to attract voters. Glantz argued finding poor communities “with high rates of asthma” or other ailments would help stand out against primary opponent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“Getting ahead of him around ‘caring’ can be repeated. I am thinking – though may be unrealistic given the shortness of time – that there must be any number of low income communities with high rates of asthma or other stuff in South Carolina sitting next to fossil fuel plants belching out toxic material or at least unhealthy fumes,” Glantz wrote in February 2016, according to emails released by WikiLeaks from the hacked email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Yes, that not-so-beloved beacon of honesty and truth — hopefully you’re picking up on the sarcasm — known as Hillary Clinton actually considered using catastrophes as a means of furthering her political career.
How deplorable is a human being who lies repeatedly, has gotten people killed, degrades sexual assault victims, and then attempts to profit off disaster?
And yet, such an individual is the Democrat Party’s choice for president.
It seems with each passing day, more evidence surfaces perfectly explaining why we shouldn’t allow Hillary to win this election.
The question is, how much more do voters need to hear, and do they even care?
[Note: This article was written by Michael Cantrell]