COMMENTARY breaking news top stories world news politics headlines conservative news liberal news fox news fake news economic news socio political government news updates political blogs editorials illegal immigrant racism terrorism Trump Obama Clinton Mueller investigation dossier Russia China Congress scandal Sessions FBI NSA CIA intelligence science news election news worldwide news sociopolitical journal
theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer
Thursday, May 31, 2018
What Hillary's DESIRE to RUN FACEBOOK Really Tells Us
Tammy Bruce ANALYSIS/OPINION:
The first question that comes to mind when hearing that Hillary Clinton would like to be CEO of Facebook is: How would they fit all their servers into her bathroom?
We learned about Clinton’s desire to run the social media giant from a question posed to her during an event at Harvard University where she was receiving an award for her “leadership.” This for a woman who didn’t even have the courage to face her distraught supporters on election night 2016, own the defeat and tell them the truth. As her lackey John Podesta was lying to the confused and crying crowd at her election night party about it not being over, she was on the phone conceding to her rival Donald Trump.
“Speaking at Harvard University before receiving an award Friday, Clinton was asked a hypothetical. … If Clinton could be chief executive of any company right now, which company would she choose? ‘Facebook,’ Clinton said without hesitating,” the Los Angeles Times reported.
“Clinton said that she’d want to be in charge of the social media giant because of the immense power it has over the world’s flow of information. ‘It’s the biggest news platform in the world … but most people in our country get their news, true or not, from Facebook,” according to the newspaper.
It makes sense that the woman who set up bootlegged email servers and installed them in her bathroom while secretary of state would like to run Facebook. It’s apparent her goal, since she was guaranteed to win the race (you know there are insurance policies for that, right?), was to make sure she controlled the flow of information.
She accomplished this by resorting to those unofficial (and unprotected) servers, roping off media like cattle, refusing interviews, and trusting in her legacy media sycophants to make sure the party line was never disturbed.
Then there was that damn internet. Her media put up with being roped off, but then pictures of it hit the Web, and folks in flyover country weren’t impressed. Then, looking wobbly and unwell two months before the election, she had to leave a Sept. 11 event, collapsing into the back of a van. But that was OK because the press pool was told to not follow her, and they obeyed.
But then there was some guy with a damn phone who didn’t get the order to not see anything, and his video of her being obviously ill and apparently fainting ended up on, yes, the damn internet.
The Clinton effort during the campaign to weave an alternate reality failed, in large part because social media didn’t let her get away with it.
The Clintons understand the deleterious impact of the Internet on scoundrels. In 1998, Newsweek dutifully spiked a story about Bill Clinton having an affair with a White House intern. Then some unknown blogger named Matt Drudge had the gall to publish it. A nobody (at the time) on the internet ruined their control of information. Twenty-one years later, millions more nobodies (you can call them deplorables) continued the American tradition of speaking truth to power.
The difference in a generation was the addition of Facebook and Twitter to the equation. Her excited Facebook admission reveals her ongoing obsession with controlling what people are allowed to know. We know Hillary Clintonwell, and it’s fair to say that her interest in running the news and social media entity has nothing to do with defending and increasing the free flow of information.
The twice-failed presidential candidate was receiving “Harvard’s Radcliffe Medal for her leadership, human rights work and ‘transformative impact on society,’ ” the Daily Mail reported. The people of Libya would probably be surprised by that. As would our abandoned heroes in Benghazi, who were murdered. Fewer voices generally do make it easier for the establishment to give itself awards.
But Clinton didn’t stop at musing about CEO jobs. She had a dire warning for the crowd at Harvard: “Right now we are living through a crisis in our democracy. … I say this not as a Democrat who lost an election [um, yes, she is], but an American afraid of losing a country.”
Let’s look at what Clinton and her Democratic Party pals consider a crisis. Since the election of President Trump, we’ve accomplished:
• The destruction of ISIS.
• The release of 17 American hostages who had been held across the globe.
• The largest tax cut in history.
• Record low unemployment overall.
• Record low unemployment of women, blacks and Hispanics, specifically.
• Rising wages.
• Consumer confidence at an 18-year high.
• Household income at a 50-year high.
• 2.5 million people off food stamps.
America is blossoming again, and the fact that it’s a crisis for the establishment tells you everything you need to know.