In last night’s presidential debate, Hillary Clinton charged GOP nominee Donald Trump’s campaign has generated a “Trump Effect” on the nation’s children that has increased their fears and sparked a rise in bullying.
“Children listen,” Clinton said. “There is a lot of fear. In fact, teachers and parents are calling it the Trump Effect. Bullying is up and a lot of people are feeling uneasy and kids are expressing concerns.”
My, how interesting. Government teachers on government salaries tell the government’s next overseer that opposition is a bad thing. Nazi and Communist government teachers said fawning things to the Fuhrer and Party Leader as well. What kind of credibility do we give them?
Is it plausible that children are so worried that Donald Trump might become president that they’re turning into bullies? What evidence is there for this? Bullying has always existed in group settings with children. Bullying was elevated to a national issue in public schools years before Donald Trump entertained a presidential candidacy. Clinton accuses Trump and his supporters of living in an “alternate reality.” From what reality does Hillary Clinton — never questioned, challenged or held accountable by anyone — draw her evidence?
Hillary is basically saying: “Trump is scaring the children. Children are getting beat up, and it’s all Trump’s fault.”
Elsewhere in the debate, Clinton repeated her earlier claim that Trump’s words are used in ISIS calls to fight infidels, suggesting that Muslim-inspired attacks on American citizens are likewise Trump’s fault. I suppose these calls to kill non-Muslim infidels have nothing to do with, you know…Islam.
The unmistakable premise here is one that Clinton’s friends in the media will never require her to name: Dissenting speech causes violence.
Now everyone, outside of an anarchist, agrees the initiation of violence should be against the law. If it’s true that Trump’s strong dissenting opinions cause violence, then shouldn’t these dissenting opinions be against the law? How far until the First Amendment goes, along with the Second Amendment. Sure, people like Hillary Clinton will claim, “I support the First Amendment, but…”
If you’re at the other end of that “but,” then your right to freedom of speech, and to choose the candidates who best express your opinions, will go the way of the Second Amendment once Hillary makes her first Supreme Court appointment, should she win.
“I think when you look at the letters that I get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn’t have a place in Donald Trump’s America,” she said.
“They write me and one woman wrote me about her son, Felix,” an adopted child from Ethiopia, she continued. “He said ‘Will he send me back to Ethiopia if he gets elected?'”
Do these people who live in the United States obtain Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, public schools and other federal benefits paid for by others? If so, why don’t people forced to pay for these programs get to complain? And if they do complain, whether it’s through Donald Trump or anyone else, why do they get the blame because it upsets children?
By the way, immigration is not a threat in an economically and politically free country. In a free market, businesses are free to function without government interference or high taxation. In a free market, businesses are unencumbered by subsidies and/or special favors to competitors who contribute to the Clinton Foundation. In a free market, there are almost limitless employment opportunities. The problem with immigration only exists because our economy is stagnating and the middle class is shrinking. When this happens, people understandably become afraid. But it’s not racism to call attention to it.
Hillary’s comments are chilling. Not just because she might be president in a few months. But because she speaks for all of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement that dominates nearly all of the government and media. Their premise is that dissenting opinion is “hate speech,” and hate speech causes violence.
How long will it take before Hillary and her allies use the legislative process, or executive orders, to prove she means what she says?
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1