As I touched upon power, specifically women's power, in an earlier installment of the on-going screenwriting thread of the Gauntlet (From the Writer's Studio), I thought in light of the imminence of election day, now might be a good juncture to elaborate on another facet of power relating to women's issues: the world of politics.
Gender politics have come into hard-play in this election cycle, all the more lurid since voters lack attention span, are not inclined, nor do they understand, the more complex issues relating to the economy, international relations, and our rights as citizens of a republic. Thus, we are forced to endure two sixty-some-odd year old children hashing out school yard rhetoric that isn't really relevant, excluding the slight grains of truth that do occasionally slip by.
Face it, we had a chance for a Cruz-Sanders race where political philosophy, instead of the cult of personality, would have been front and center. But you, America, as usual, chose image over substance. Is Donald Trump a bit of a douche-bag blow-hard, with an egomania gloss-over? Sure. Is Hillary Clinton a Washington insider tethered to a corrupt system by a million points of nepotistic light? Sure.
So, who would be better for the nation? The fact remains that even the most ardent supporters of either candidates would prefer other choices. The numbers don't lie, they are not trusted. Though, admittedly, Clinton does score even more abysmally on that scale than Trump. I imagine that women will continue to be pressured to stand behind their genitalia, and minority groups will be told that the only viable choice is the "liberal" female candidate. Meanwhile, hawkish Hillary has already told us what she wants to do about Syria, and I frankly find her plans terrifying.
Aside from our government recently announcing that they are to endeavor on a slew of cyber-attacks against Russia in the coming months (we can only assume as a reprisal for the DNC incident) we have a "No-Fly-Zone package" on the table. Apparently, the Democrats believe that simply announcing a No-Fly-Zone will magically solve the Syrian Civil War. I personally think that they imagine it's like putting a sign on the lawn, and other nations will just "keep off the grass", but that's not how it works. In order to establish a No-Fly-Zone it must be enforced or it, well, isn't a No-Fly-Zone. So, what is it they think will happen the first time the U.S. military shoots down a Russian airplane over Syria? I don't know, what do you think? This isn't a trick question.
Somehow, we avoided going into a direct war with the Soviet Union from 1945 to 1989, and then the Russian Federation from 1989 to 2016, but these amazing dullards in D.C. have been instructed that Russia isn't with them in their vision of U.N. one world globalism, and they've got to be brought on line. This is why Iceland and England's leaving, or in the latter's case, not fully joining the E.U., drives the globalists mad. In fact, the U.N. recently called for U.S. citizens living abroad to vote for Clinton, since they are anti-Trump. They have no right to even propose such, nor to interfere in the domestic policy of any member nation. They should feel shame, but they have moved far past that. Their agenda is all too important. After all, they need to control the entire world. Needless to say, Russia sees no reason to embrace the Euro, or to honor the Petro-Dollar (the real cause of Saddam Hussein's fall), nor to share foreign policy with N.A.T.O., and frankly, who can blame them? They have their own agendas and strategies.
I'm very afraid that Public Enemy #1 of a Clinton regime will be Vladimir Putin. If only she can tear herself away from ordering drone strikes on Wikileaks Julian Assange long enough, which, by the way she has mentioned casually in passing, and with a smile, then we have our hands full. Even though these actions are fully hawkish, I'm sure that, like her predecessor, if elected the globalists will expedite her Nobel Peace Prize, in this case awarded by virtue of her possessing a vagina. But that's okay, because the mutual admiration society gave one to Barak Obama for "peace" when he was conducting three wars.
Perhaps the women of America should vote for Clinton, so they can learn the hard way that just because a woman is the "right" candidate doesn't mean she is the best candidate.
Post a Comment