Two Bigots Running for US President

It’s easy to spot Donald Trump’s crude bigotry but harder to detect Hillary Clinton’s more subtle variety since it pertains mostly to Palestinians and people pressuring Israel to respect Palestinian rights, explains Lawrence Davidson.

By Lawrence Davidson

To find bigots in political office in the United States is not historically unusual. In fact, up until the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement, publicly recognizable bigots in office were the norm in many parts of the country. Even in the post-1960s era, we find presidents such as Nixon and Reagan who could be openly bigoted. However, most recent office holders have known enough to keep their prejudices off of the public airwaves.

It is a sign of the fragility of the changes in national character wrought by the Civil Rights Movement that the inhibitions holding back public expressions of bigotry are wearing thin. And that has set the scene for the current contest for the presidency in which both major parties have thrown up (no pun intended) bigoted candidates. Yes, that is right, two of them, not just one.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On the Republican side the bigot is easy to spot. That is because Donald Trump wears his bigotry on his sleeve, so to speak. He can’t help but display it because, apparently even at this late date, he doesn’t understand what the big deal is.

On the campaign trail he has insulted Mexicans, Muslims and “our African-Americans,” and gotten away with it because millions of his supporters are also bigots. A common bigotry is one of the reasons they cheer him on. However, now that he is the “presumptive” Republican candidate for president, much of that party’s leadership and their media allies have begun to call him on these problematic public expressions.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in an MSNBC interview.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in an MSNBC interview.

They want to see Trump act “presidential,” hiding away his prejudices for the sake of achieving maximum appeal. Alas, this is not easy for a man who, all of his life, said what he thought, no matter how improper. He sees it as “just being honest,” and up until the run for president, his wealth had helped forestall most public criticism.

Hillary Clinton’s Bigotry

On the Democratic side the bigot is not so easy to spot, but the problem exists in any case. Hillary Clinton may not be a bigot in the same way as Trump. She certainly isn’t going to go about insulting ethnic groups with large numbers of potential voters. Indeed, she has cultivated many minority groups and is supported by them.

But such outreach has its limits, and in one important case she is willing to act as a de facto bigot in order to cater to a politically powerful interest group. Having actively done so, the difference in ethical behavior between her and Mr. Trump starts to blur.

In what way is Hillary Clinton, now the “presumptive” presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, behaving like a de facto bigot? She does so in her open, prosecutorial hostility toward the fight to liberate Palestinians from the racist oppression of Israel and its Zionist ideology.

Clinton, having in this case traded whatever principled anti-racist feelings she has for a fistful of campaign dollars, has openly sided with the Zionists. And, as she must well know, they are among the world’s most demonstrative bigots.

Having made this alliance, she praises Israel as a democratic state upholding the highest ideals and ignores or justifies the illegal and blatantly racist treatment of its Palestinian population. In fact, she wants to reward Israel for its racist behavior and policies by pretending that to do so is to assist in the necessary self-defense of the Zionist state.

At the same time, former Secretary of State Clinton is willing to attack those who fight against Israeli bigotry, particularly in the form of the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) movement. Disregarding U.S. law, she has pledged herself to destroy the BDS movement even if she has to rip to shreds the First Amendment of the Constitution to do it.

And – here is the irony of it all – she claims she has taken this position in order to fight anti-Semitism, one of history’s most pronounced bigotries.

This rationale, that she backs a state full of infamous bigots in the name of defending against bigotry, is just so much sophistry. If there is an increase in the number of anti-Semites in today’s world, we can thank Zionist racism for that development.

However, anti-Semitism does not motivate the BDS movement, which in the U.S. is backed by a large and growing number of Jews. No, the reason Clinton has targeted BDS is because it has proved an effective weapon against Israeli racism, and therefore her Zionist allies have oriented her in that direction.

The problem for Hillary Clinton is that if you ally with bigots and actively do their bidding, you too become a de facto bigot. Unlike Trump, who may or may not understand the offensive nature of his behavior, Clinton knows exactly what she is doing. Trump is a bigot by upbringing and social conditioning. Clinton is a bigot by choice. I will leave it to the reader to decide who is worse.

Part of a Corrupt System

There are many considerations that go into choosing the candidate for whom to vote come November. If she plays her cards right, Hillary Clinton may win over enough of the Sanders supporters to defeat Trump. However, if you are inclined to vote for her, don’t kid yourself that what you’re going to get is an upright, ethical president unwilling to adopt openly bigoted policies against vulnerable and long suffering peoples. Hillary Clinton has clearly abandoned such standards of behavior.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Many will respond that, political expediency aside, she is a viable woman candidate and that as such she opens the way for greater female access to the highest offices in the land. This is true. However, taken too far, it is also a naive argument. The U.S. political system is deeply mired in corrupt ways of doing business. At this time in its history, just about any citizen willing to follow these flawed pathways can operate successfully – be they women or ethnic minorities.

But adherence to rules of the political game is the price of playing the game. Former Secretary Clinton has paid her dues, she has proven herself a reliable supporter of this corrupt system. As a consequence, having her as president will not result in any significant changes to the system or its priorities. Her gender is immaterial to that result.

The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, like her Republican opponent, has devolved into an unprincipled opportunist with a growing self-centered myopia thrown into the mix. If she becomes president, she will almost certainly be aggressive in her foreign policy, perhaps renewing the Cold War, undermining the Iran nuclear agreement, and embroiling the country in new wars.

If the Republicans maintain their hold on Congress, she will be just as stymied in her domestic policy as was President Obama. In her role as a system politician, she may not be dangerous to the nation in the same way as Donald Trump, but she will prove dangerous nonetheless.

And, as many have pointed out, choosing the alleged lesser of two evils still means choosing evil.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

47 comments for “Two Bigots Running for US President

  1. June 17, 2016 at 23:08

    There’s definately a great deal to find out about this topic.
    I love all of the points you have made.

  2. Pat Andler
    June 11, 2016 at 23:19

    I hope Sanders does not endorse Hillary. I will feel let down by him because I think the most important issue right now is the election fraud that was blatantly thrown in our face over this whole primary. It was almost like they were saying in every state Nah,Nah,Nah,Nah,Nah We will select our nominee and there is nothing you can do about it. This is not a democracy and without Sanders calling the Dems out this will not be resolved. This is a perfect opening, the fraud has been documented across the country. People need to wake up to what is happening in our country. If the DNC gets away with this they will know they can do anything they wish to do. (Like force the TPP on us, Like frack our planet, etc , etc. If we can’t have a fair election , we are doomed. Third Parties have been having an even harder time than Sanders did under the Dems. Things have to be brought into the light. Hillary and her gang need to be brought to heal.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 12, 2016 at 01:59

      Since, Comcast, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, Time Warner and CBS provide 80% of the mainstream media news, I would suggest this would be a good place to start a revolution by busting them up into a thousand tiny pieces. If news agencies were separate run businesses, and not merged inside of conglomerate concerns, then this could be a good starting point in order to educate the public in an objective way. In fact, if there were even a c-span style network without commercials, that reported the news in a true informative manner, then this would be greatly appreciated. Infotainment, and plenty of slanted cutesy propaganda is what we got, and that is what is proving to be our country’s demise. American Idol and Dancing with the Stars has a more honest voting system, than what our two party system has provided for us, and that’s acceptable for some odd reason. Sheldon Wolin described our corporate run government system as being inverted fascism, and I think he stated it well, and this is what must be changed. Globalism needs a global rebellion, but I’ll save that for another day. Stay well, don’t worry, be happy.

      • Joe B
        June 12, 2016 at 07:57

        I agree, revolt against MSM is the starting point. I don’t think that merely having activists ignore them will do anything. The first broad-based MSM bombings would focus the public on the partisan issue there. That would be the first sign in two centuries or more of taking Jefferson’s advise to “water the tree of liberty with blood of tyrants.”

        • Joe Tedesky
          June 12, 2016 at 09:23

          Joe B I didn’t mean a revolution by violence. Violence would only fuel these SOB’s on to try out their militaristic people crushers out on us. Maybe, I’m old fashioned granted, but I still think we could change things from within. Although, jail time would be required for a few of them. I also believe there are many already in office who would welcome a government run by the people for the people. (Where did I hear that saying before…hmmm). This change I’m talking about here, would need to come from the bottom up, maybe a Green Party movement nation wide would be a start. I’m talking city, state, and federal government represented by people. The hardest part would be to do this without big money, but if things keep going the way they are, I would imagine that desperation could bring this about. Also, with the rise of Bernie, the growth of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party now getting some mention, we maybe starting to see that revolution evolve…let’s hope so, because the world really needs it. Keep the faith.

          • Joe Tedesky
            June 12, 2016 at 09:30

            Oh and that thing you quoted about Jefferson, well in typical Jefferson style you didn’t see him get his hands dirty. A slave owner telling us ‘All men are created equal’ …give me a break. I’d rather quote MLK or Ghandi, or Francis Assisi. In fact Jefferson may have been the start of this country’s welcoming of hypocrites. BIll Clinton’s middle name is appropriate. Take care Joe B., and stay out of trouble, because we need people like you.

          • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
            June 12, 2016 at 19:19

            I don’t he really wants violent revolution. He was just using that statement as a metaphor.

          • Joe Tedesky
            June 12, 2016 at 21:14

            Your right Joe B is to balanced for that, but none the less I get paranoid over statements like that…sorry Joe B. & thanks Rikhard for injecting that into this dialogue.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      June 12, 2016 at 19:17

      Sanders said he’ll support Hillary if she wins the nomination – but I don’t see anything wrong with that. He’s just trying to stop Trump from being elected.

      • Joe Tedesky
        June 12, 2016 at 22:28

        Rikhard, you make a valid point. We should all appreciate how Bernie pried the lid open off the can which all of us have been trapped in for so long. His vision of how it should be I hope will last longer than just this one presidential campaign. He should be given loads of credit for his focus he provided by opening many people’s eyes too just to what is seriously wrong with our country’s corporate run government. It really shouldn’t matter who he supports, because we are all free to choose the candidate of our own choice.

  3. History Repeats
    June 11, 2016 at 20:56

    Only one of these candidates has a disastrous foreign policy record. But this candidate also has the sociopathic characteristic that risks leading us into a world war scenario. The policies of the previous presidents and the machinations of the elite have helped set up this scenario. The only hope for change is from ordinary people uniting in a conscious revolution, not these psychopaths.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 11, 2016 at 23:15

      The only hope for change is from ordinary people uniting in a conscious revolution, not these psychopaths.

      In that case, we are all up Shit Creek without a canoe. Ordinary people without the right leader are like cattle waiting to be fed before being slaughtered. The right leaders have risen willing to lead, but most people just kept their heads buried in the sand and chose not to follow.

      • Bill Bodden
        June 12, 2016 at 11:41

        PS: The “ordinary people” have spoken. A majority of them on the Democratic side chose Clinton, one of the worst three of 20 candidates at the starting gate in the race for the White House. The two other abominations are on the Republican side – Donald Trump and Ted Cruz who were favored by almost 90 percent of their ordinary people. Lots of ordinary people got it right, but they are in a distinct minority.

  4. Bill Bodden
    June 11, 2016 at 20:51

    There is much to be said for the old adage about a nation getting the government it deserves, so what does it say about the United States when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are (so far) the leading candidates?

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 12, 2016 at 01:19

      It says that all our TV’s are tuned to ESPN, and the Kardashians Reality sagas, and we are out of pretzels & chips…. Damn I hate when that happens!

  5. JWalters
    June 11, 2016 at 18:41

    Thank you for this lucid, accurate, and fearless analysis.

    Hillary’s defense –

    “You know, I was really proud to make that speech at Planned Parenthood. I meant every word, and I will fight for women’s reproductive rights with everything I have. Now I know, the same bankers financing my campaign are also financing the Republicans, who are fighting to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and close down clinics across the country. And I know, they are also financing illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, the demolition of Palestinian homes, and the slaughter of Palestinian children and parents. But there’s nothing any of us can do about those things. The bankers and Israelis are simply too powerful. I pick my battles pragmatically, so I can actually get things done.”

    Will the Democratic party go along?

    Some background history on how the politicians and press got captured.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 12, 2016 at 01:14

      JWalters, it would be great if you were hired to be one of Hillary’s speech writers. Oh wait, maybe not, because you are to truthful. Although, I liked it.

  6. Larry
    June 11, 2016 at 14:26

    No lesser of two evils I vote Bernie Sanders all positives.

  7. Joe Tedesky
    June 11, 2016 at 13:04

    DR. JILL STEIN: “Yes, exactly. I’d say putting another Clinton in the White House is only going to make that right-wing extremism greater. We will see more of these neoliberal policies, like Wall Street deregulation, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Hillary has always supported. She’s changed her tune a little bit, but Hillary has walked the walk. Look at the walk and not the talk. In fact, you know, Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate. Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things. Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing. She basically said, “No, bar the gates, send them back.” You know, so we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing.”

    Listen to the whole interview;

    • Joe L.
      June 11, 2016 at 13:59

      Joe Tedesky… I really think Jill Stein is awesome, as I believe I have pointed out to you before. If the US is going to have a first women President, I would really love it to be her. To me, Jill Stein speaks as a “human being” and not as some corporate robot who will make a bunch of promises in order to get elected but then break all of them when she is. Overall, I really, really, really dislike both Clinton and Trump but I believe that Clinton is by far the greater danger to the world. I see a Clinton Presidency as ratcheting up tensions with both China and Russia meanwhile trying to come up with excuses to start a war with Iran OR maybe North Korea. The world does not need more wars but rather the opposite. Anyway, good luck… you guys truly have an awful choice to choose from unless you vote third party.

      • Joe Tedesky
        June 11, 2016 at 15:08

        Joe L. I will bet that being a U.S. neighbor who always sides with us, that you feel possibly even more is at stake, since almost always we drag you people into our foreign wars. A lot of Canadians have died along side our own U.S. Troops, that is a fact. Let’s hope that we Americans can someday get it right.

        • Joe L.
          June 12, 2016 at 03:15

          Joe Tedesky… I mean you are right, there is no way that Canada would be involved in the Middle East if it were not for the US or Britain. This also does not excuse our government either. Overall, though I think I get more upset seeing the people on the other end of our bombs and realizing that some corporations are making obscene amounts of money by spilling their blood. It’s evil, I don’t know any better way to explain it and it is also obscene that someone who helped destroy the lives of countless
          people from Honduras to Libya is not rotting in a jail cell but rather running for the US’ highest office with many Americans’ support. I hate the direction that the world is moving in. I would just love to live in a world where there were not good guys or bad guys and we could learn to respect one another, help one another along with stopping to steal from one another. I am sure that you feel the same.

          • Joe Tedesky
            June 12, 2016 at 09:09

            Joe L your compassion for innocent people is impressive, and all to often overlooked. I’m glad you brought it up. I wish we could clone you, and put you in every elected office there is. Take care buddy, and enjoy your day. JT

          • Peter Loeb
            June 14, 2016 at 07:16


            Pipe dreams. I considered voting for Jill Stein but
            concluded it would be more honest not to say
            practical to give up the illusion that Jill Stein or
            someone like her might best organize a piece
            of a long-term crusade against weapons lobbies.

            Or drones?

            Or Israel?

            As Commander-in-Chief she would be worthless.
            Good- intentioned but worthless.

            Peter Loeb, Boston, MA. USA

          • Joe Tedesky
            June 15, 2016 at 00:58

            Peter, you are no doubt right, but I’m looking to save myself the guilt of making a selection between the worst if the two evils (Trump or Clinton). Survival of my soul, is one way to put it. This 2016 campaign is the extreme results of a country built on corporate marketing, and debt fueled consumerism. We are probably at about two minutes to doomsday, and all everyone is talking about is whether or not we are fighting Radical Islam or whatever….people dieing in nightclubs, and once again, is this a false flag or a homophobe killer on steroids. No mention of Aegis missiles being placed in Romania, and Poland….Putin is bad, that’s it. So I may even vote for you Peter, do you mind?

  8. bobzz
    June 11, 2016 at 12:55

    I fear that women will be just as reticent to criticize a fellow woman when she fails to deliver on her pseudo-domestic agenda as were blacks to criticize Obama because he was a fellow black. Her rhetorical pseudo-domestic agenda is geared to rope in the Sanders supporters. Toward the end of her campaign she was calling for some of the same things she Bernie could not achieve for reasons of cost. She will not be very aggressive in implementing her domestic promises. She can count on Republican voters to return their incumbents to Congress to keep cutting budgets for domestic needs so that, as war-monger-in-chief, she can grow the military budget.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 11, 2016 at 15:20

      bobzz I think you got it right. I give it two years tops, until there is a huge amount of buyers remorse. Although, Hillary’s second term will depend on Americans supporting our president during her time of war. Hillary will be a duplication of the “W” years, but without a Cheney. It will be interesting to see if General Petraeus plays any role in helping HRC destroy this planet, and it will be equally interesting to see how often John McCain will reach across the aisle to give aid to help promote her war crimes. It’s just a matter of time.

      • John
        June 11, 2016 at 17:57

        It may be absent Cheney in person, but with Cheney aide Victoria Nuland at Killary’s side, his physical absence is hardly relevant.

        • Joe Tedesky
          June 11, 2016 at 18:11

          John, how right you are.

        • Realist
          June 11, 2016 at 22:05

          They say Hitlery is going to name Nuland her secretary of state. What a lineup of the fair sex has held that office under the last few presidents: Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hitlery and perhaps Nuland. Warmongers all. Are there no kinder gentler diplomats with two X chromosomes?

      • dahoit
        June 12, 2016 at 10:05

        All useless speculation,Trump is the next POTUS.

        • June 12, 2016 at 19:09

          Do you really KNOW that???

        • June 12, 2016 at 19:43

          You really KNOW that Trump is the next POTUS? Are you psychic?

      • Peter Loeb
        June 14, 2016 at 07:02


        I agree with both of your comments in general.

        A column of the last few days suggests an increased
        role for Victoria Nuland and possibly,probably
        Nulan as Secretary of State under HRC.( Pepe Escobar in

        While it is not yet time for such predictions, Victoria
        Nuland certainly fits HRC’s approach to what used to be called
        “foreign policy”. (Information on Nuland is available from

        Petraeus may be influential but as an official cabinet
        member he is “damaged goods” and in the Washington
        phrase “has baggage”.. This is not a judgement from
        the perspective of readers of Consortiumnews but
        rather from a general neocon political perspective.

        In either case, be assured there will be a neocon
        administration under HRC.

        —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

        • Joe Tedesky
          June 15, 2016 at 01:36

          Peter, I value your opinion greatly. The Kagan family ‘all’ may become a big deal with a Hillary presidency. I know Petraeus is damaged goods, but we are talking about the Clinton spin machine, where any dream/nightmare may come true. I swear the Clintons thrive on controversy. I probably am giving them too much credit, but you must admit Bill & Hillary are truly spring loaded with their success at coming back at you after near catastrophe, and with rapid speed I might add. How do they do it? If I were able to agree with their selfish policies, I would be jumping up and down with joy after witnessing all of these adventures of theirs, but not. Here’s a scary speculative thought; how about Rahm coming back to work at the White House in some capacity. They will throw rose peddles at Special Place in Hell Albright’s feet, when this old dame comes in for her monthly consultation appointment and tutors student Hillary at how to cause the world more pain. Madeline’s Daddy taught them well. I have to stop, I’m losing more hair as I contemplate the vision of all of this tragedy about to unfold ….but, hey we still have the Donald. Hillary will invite Bibi over for dinner on her first day, and if it’s Trump he will negotiate a huge deal to build a casino over there in the West Bank… So the way I see it, anything insane would make perfect sense in our coming, and rushing at us American future. This is probably the moment for us all to switch to watching ESPN and become avid sports fans, but I hate sports bar food. On the other hand, I will sit here and write comments with you, and the many others who I have come to enjoy communicating with…thanks for the reply JT

  9. Bill Bodden
    June 11, 2016 at 12:45

    Victims of the Clintons are not necessarily victims of bigotry. The Clintons adopt whatever means it takes to achieve their ends and tough luck for anyone who gets in the way. If there were a Palestinian lobby with more wealth and power than the Israel lobby, then Israel’s right-wing and its supporters would be in trouble. Hillary would probably one of the biggest supporters of BDS.

    WARNING: I checked the link in the last paragraph – “many have pointed out” – and got a web attack from a stack of phony websites.

    • June 12, 2016 at 02:00

      Thanks Bill.

      No military steps will eradicate it and no boastful declarations will end it. The only way to deal with terrorism is by freeing the Palestinian people from the occupation. Until then, the (defenceless) Palestinians will continue their opposition using force, as most peoples have done throughout history.

      Haaretz Editorial
      read more:

  10. exiled off mainstreet
    June 11, 2016 at 11:52

    One bigot has a record of making politically correct racial slurs. The other one acted to foment wars in furtherance of her views, including the overthrow of Libya which resulted in an el qaeda takeover which included a mass liquidation based on race of Africans settled in that country.

    • Thomas
      June 11, 2016 at 21:35

      This whole article is nothing but Bigotry redefined as either America First or Corruption of America by the Most Corrupt. The author needs to return to his elemental english grammar teachers and sue them for Fraud.

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        June 12, 2016 at 19:12

        Can you explain what you mean?

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      June 12, 2016 at 19:12

      You mean politically INcorrect. You made a mistake.

  11. dahoit
    June 11, 2016 at 10:33

    Trump would improve the lives of all American citizens no matter their ethnicity.
    Hillaryous will kill US.
    Bigotry is a human wide condition,expressed by almost every human on this earth.
    Facts matter more than hypocrisy.

    • Peter Ehrhorn
      June 11, 2016 at 13:59

      lol, how would a person with zero political experience be able to do anything, not to mention actually improve the lives of American citizens?

    • June 12, 2016 at 19:07

      Trump would improve the lives of all American citizens no matter their ethnicity.

      I think that is an absurd statement.

      Trump seems to be impulsive, immature, and ungoverned by any principles.

      Just because the other candidates (with the probable exception of Sanders, but definitely including Hillary) are very bad, it does NOT follow that Trump is OK.

    • Peter Loeb
      June 13, 2016 at 07:08


      This is an excellent analysis by Lawrence Davidson.
      To it I should like (without permission by Consortium)
      to add a comment I made to Robert Parry’s recent
      article in Consortium, “Mr. Sanders Goes to Washington”:

      “Peter Loeb

      June 11, 2016 at 7:02 am


      If conspiratorial analyses are acceptable (which is rare), HRC being a
      weak candidate would gain by having a racist ogre as an
      opponent. This would scare liberal/progressives into supporting
      her. Minority groups are constantly reminded by the cooperative
      media that any sane person would support HRC, anything to
      oppose the ogre (Donald Trump).

      HRC is not only militaristic—a true hawk in her history
      of supporting wars.” regime change” and the like—but also
      as racist as her more crude opponent. She wants to
      bring our relationship with racist, terrorist Israel “to
      a new level”. Like Israelis, Boycott Divest and Sanction (“BDS”)
      is “antisemitic”…as is everything critical of Israel.
      For HRC, “Death to Arabs” is perfectly acceptable
      provided it comes out of the mouths of Israelis. Extermination
      and similar policies are OK too if Israeli.

      And all this is hidden from the liberal/progressives still
      caught in the webs of their dreams of a “revolution” that
      never could have been. The DNC followed perfectly
      Rahm Emannuel’s advice (when Bill Clinton wanted
      to subvert liberal proposals for universal health care
      (Emmanuel was Clintons point man then): “You don’t
      have to worry about the liberals They have nowhere else to go..”)

      So now we get comments like:

      “…Many stated they would have no problem voting for Clinton in the general election
      especially in contrast to the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
      “I will vote for Hillary in the fall as a vote against Trump but also as a vote for Clinton,”
      said one young woman from Maryland…” (in Robert Parry’s article cited)

      Sell the Palestinians down the river. And the other presumably
      inferior (darker) humans who are probably less than
      human anyway so they say…

      Of note is that in its history, Jewish Zionists argued constantly
      about Jews’ rights and obligations and entitlements to
      THEIR homeland. Almost never considered were the
      rights of the Arab residents. (just as the rights of
      Caananites were never really an issue for Israelites who
      were entitled to “the Promised land” using the sword
      and everything else.)

      As for Senator Sanders, he might begin by leading
      a crusade against the military lobby, even those
      whose contractors end up in Vermont. After all,
      Vermont could be Texas just as well. Imagine
      what the money might accomplish! And if his
      musings about Palestinians’ rights had substance
      he could join in advocating the cut off
      of tax advantages for investment in illegal settlements,
      advocate for a MidEast Nuclear Free Zone,
      with sanctions and embargo for Israel for

      How about a trip to Gaza and the West Bank by
      Sanders as well as talks with Palestinian leaders
      forcibly in exile??

      I rather suspect however that Senator Sanders
      will accept his adoration as the great savior and
      return to Vermont where he will advocate for
      more jobs in more defense industries just as
      he has always done. And, of course, for Hilary
      Clinton for President.

      “Death to the Arabs” is OK with HRC.

      —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Comments are closed.