Am I a "Deplorable"? Hillary Thinks So. Are You? Here's How To Tell
And if anyone is one or more of those, what I deplore, what should be deplored by anyone, is their belief, their attitude, their behavior. Not them personally. As a Catholic Christian, I am not supposed to deplore (judge, condemn) the person. (That is what I am always being told, too, by secular society, which doesn't [want to] know the very real difference between the meaning of the words "righteousness" and "self-righteousness.") Even though I deplore the belief and actions of Nazis, for example, it is not my job to condemn them, because that is God's job. We are only to judge a person's actions and beliefs as not morally right. We personally cannot make them change or punish or condemn the person, just as they cannot make us change or punish or condemn us for our differing beliefs. A legitimate court of law can judge their behaviors, or ours, if necessary, and mete appropriate punishment according to that law.
Hillary is supposedly a Christian. She should know, then, that it isn't her place to stand in judgment of any person any more than it is mine or yours. And yet the secular media excoriates Mike Pence and Trump for not condemning David Duke. Don't they understand that Christians are actually forbidden from condemning, from judging and saying that any single person is "irredeemable" in life? I would vomit if I ever found myself stuck in the same room with Duke, but it is only God's place to judge and condemn him, to judge his inner motives and his "eternal destination."
Hillary can argue till she's as blue in the face as her seizure-preventing cobalt-blue sunglasses, that she didn't label people deplorable, but she did. She clearly said "Trump's supporters"; she clearly did not say "the beliefs and actions of Trump's supporters." She put the people in The Basket of Deplorables. She condemned them, not their beliefs and behaviors, and that is not her right nor anyone's on this Earth.
As for all the left-leaning media and pundits twisting themselves into knots saying "she's right and she's smart and lay off her", then why did she then walk it back, saying she regrets it, uh, sort of? Only because it's her very own "47% Moment" and it's costing her more and more votes.
Now do you see why she won't let the press within four football fields of her all summer and why she won't release the transcripts of her speeches to the Wall Street and other UltraRich people who paid big bucks to hear her talk? Just imagine how many laughs they all shared over the low-lifes she despises, meaning everyone who won't ever vote for her over-reaching ambition?
And despite being female, let me add I am also not a "Feminist", at least not in the modern-day sense of the word but in its original sense.
The arrogance of Hillary astounds:
The Daily Caller posted Jill Stein's tweet, probably her most memorable contribution to this campaign:
Daniel Henninger writes in The Wall Street Journal, that "les déplorables [are] our own writhing mass of unheard Americans."
— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) September 12, 2016
The Boston Herald has a bitingly true list of ways to tell if you're a "Deplorable." The writer, Howie Carr, observes astutely:
"Didn’t Barack Obama say a few months back that a candidate couldn’t insult his way to the presidency? I guess he was referring to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, apparently, can."I think I fit about 22 of his ways to tell if I'm a deplorable.
More seriously, the WSJ's Henninger continues:
There is a legitimate argument over exactly when the rising digital economy started transferring income away from blue-collar workers and toward the “creative class” of Google and Facebook employees, no few of whom are smug progressives who think the landmass seen from business class between San Francisco and New York is pocked with deplorable, phobic Americans. Naturally, they’ll vote for the status quo, which is Hillary. But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. Which Mrs. Clinton isn’t and never will be. ...Just so, indeed. Fight back against the bullies, and the Bully-In-Chief-Wannabe. Or in other words:
To repeat: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” Those are all potent words. Or once were. The racism of the Jim Crow era was ugly, physically cruel and murderous. Today, progressives output these words as reflexively as a burp. What’s more, the left enjoys calling people Islamophobic or homophobic. It’s bullying without personal risk.
Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. Nativists exist, and the sky is still blue. But the overwhelming majority of these people aren’t phobic about a modernizing America. They’re fed up with the relentless, moral superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old campus activists.
Evangelicals at last week’s Values Voter Summit said they’d look past Mr. Trump’s personal résumé. This is the reason. It’s not about him.
The moral clarity that drove the original civil-rights movement or the women’s movement has degenerated into a confused moral narcissism...It is a mistake, though, to blame Hillary alone for that derisive remark. It’s not just her. Hillary Clinton is the logical result of the Democratic Party’s new, progressive algorithm—a set of strict social rules that drives politics and the culture to one point of view. A Clinton victory would enable and entrench the forces her comment represents.
Her supporters say it’s Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is “divisive.” Just so. But it’s rich to hear them claim that their words and politics are “inclusive.” So is the town dump. They have chopped American society into so many offendable identities that only a Yale freshman can name them all. [emphasis mine]
If the Democrats lose behind Hillary Clinton, it will be in part because America’s les déplorables decided enough of this is enough.