Uttered at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit earlier this month, Hillary Clinton’s assertion that: “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” struck most of us on the right as pretty darn outrageous. But it was really just standard agenda advancement for progressives.
Oh sure, folks may be taken aback at first. But suggest the concept of forced indoctrination a few more times, have the main stream media regurgitate it enough, and soon the low-information crowd will be droning in agreement. Get your mind right — or else.
But, as Victor Davis Hanson asks in another excellent article, What happens when the public does not wish to live out the utopian dreams of its elite leaders? ~
(How) do politically correct planners force the people to think and act properly when they push back?
Extra-legal executive orders can help a president bypass supposed troglodytes in Congress and among the public.
Obama granted blanket amnesties, proposed rules that would lead to the closure of many coal plants, and arbitrarily chose which health or labor statutes should be enforced and at what times. A filmmaker was even jailed on a trumped-up probation charge after making a video about Islam that was deemed unhelpful to the official administration Benghazi narrative. The IRS hounded nonprofit groups considered insufficiently progressive.
In a recent rant about conservative Fox News — which has a fraction of the combined audience of the liberal mainstream networks ABC, CBS and NBC — Obama warned that the media are going to have change the very way they report news. Presumably, Obama believes that Fox tricks the unknowing masses into thinking wrong thoughts, especially about the relationship between the poor and government assistance.
As Obama put it: “We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like.”
Given the First Amendment, how can the president “change” the media? Should the Federal Communications Commission pick and choose acceptable news outlets in the same manner that Lois Lerner ran her exempt-organizations division at the IRS?
Who would judge whether the media had changed to meet Obama’s notion of correctness?
Hillary Clinton is worried that too many people have incorrect thoughts about feminist issues. For those who oppose abortion, Clinton believes that these supposedly wrong thoughts must be policed. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases,” she warned, “have to be changed.”
How, in a free society, does Clinton plan to alter the way religion and culture work? What sort of power would she need to rid us of these “deep-seated” but unhelpful “codes and beliefs”?
Other than the extra-Constitutional actions the O’Minstration continues to undertake, Hanson doesn’t suggest any definitive answers to all these unsettling questions. Maybe because the possible “solutions” are even more troubling.
Will those of us who refuse to comply with the ever-evolving progressive worldview be socially ostracized? Barred from employment in most – if not all – fields? Sent to re-education camps?
Just how far are these utopian tyrants prepared to go?
The Leftists’ totalitarian counterparts in the Middle East sometimes offer a choice: convert or die. Other times, they just behead you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related:
Hillary channels Madame Mao: ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed’ ~
So those religious beliefs protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment: sorry, they have to be changed. There are babies to be killed.
