Thursday, November 17

SECRETARY-GENERAL BILL CLINTON; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HILLARY CLINTON

My wife has been feeling poorly the past couple of days. I have just joined her. Why, you ask? What's the source of my sudden affliction? Because I just read one of my favorite top-of-the-pyramid bloggers, The Anchoress, and, frankly, wish I hadn't. You see, she's writing about a man I have absolutely no use for and his wife, who I believe as Bill Safire once cautioned, is a congenital liar.

The Anchoress' post (do read it top to bottom) reminds me of an apocalyptic political scenario I described many months back: the elevation of former president Bill Clinton to the Secretary-Generalship of the United Nations and the placement of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Oval Office of the White House.

Far-fetched? We should be so lucky! Back in early February I wrote in this post:

It's widely rumored that former president Bill Clinton has designs on succeeding the U.N.'s Secretary-General Kofi Annan, when that opportunity arises, but for now it appears he'll settle for a highly visible position as Annan's special envoy in coordinating United Nation's tsunami relief and reconstruction efforts in south and southeastern Asia, where the natural disaster late last year caused widespread devastation and over 160,000 deaths.

Clinton, in his successful bid for the White House in 1991, campaigned saying that, in himself and his wife Hillary, Americans could get two for the price of one.

Bill and Hillary Clinton could become the political tag team of the 21st century, with the former heading the United Nations and the latter becoming the chief executive of the most powerful nation on earth. If, as president, Hillary's deep-rooted liberal proclivities won the day, her husband and the United Nations could become surrogates of U.S. foreign policy and instruments of a new world order.

I followed with this post on February 5th -- BILL AND HILLARY UBER ALLES -- in which I wrote:

... a Bill and Hillary Clinton land grab down the road of epic, Friedrich Ratzel's "Lebensraum" proportions -- could be in the offing. The stars in the political galaxy may just fall into the kind of propitious alignment over the next four years necessary for a Clinton-style inevitability. After all, is there any doubt of their hellbent megalomania, or of their determination to leave the kind of legacy that historians will drool over, giving this career-minded, power-hungry pair the kind of immortality they so covet?

Ponder it: Bill Clinton, Secretary-General of the United Nations; Hillary Rodham Clinton, the 44th President of the United States. Read it again.

Do you think it was sheer happenstance that the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, just named Bill Clinton to a two-year term as the U.N.'s special envoy to the Asian tsunami relief effort? In doing so, and with Clinton's acceptance (and political complicity, I have little doubt), Annan one-upped President Bush and this one-upmanship may well set the stage for Bill Clinton to trump the Republicans in ways down the road even his wife and the party's leadership can only dream about.

Bill Clinton's ambitions combined with Hillary Clinton's ambitions are, if both are realized, a rapturous recipe for a quantum leap in international power and influence. In lockstep with each other, their impact could be far greater than the sum of its parts. Two individuals -- a married couple no less -- could possess power of unprecedented scope and authority. It could usher in a new world order.

I concluded that post with this observation:

I can think of no possible confluence of events more likely to precipitate an internecine political war in this country than Bill Clinton's ascension to the role of U.N. Secretary-General and Hillary Clinton's successful bid to become President of the United States. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. Could our Union's strategic interests withstand a Clinton-Clinton collaboration of such immense import?

I find it interesting that some arch conservatives are convinced that President Bush (and his father before him) believes more in complex multilateralism and a transborder network of the two American continents, than he does in the traditional nation-state. These right-wing critics cite the president's indifference to border security and his wholesale support of NAFTA and FTAA as signs that he forsees in the years ahead an Alaska-to-Cape Horn single government.

Even were that true (and I don't believe anything that preposterous for a minute), the real threat today and over the next several decades comes more from a Clinton/Clinton-led international, progressive-secularist hegemony of liberal star-gazers, than from any Bush Family intrigue. The Clintons are anti-military, non-patriot zealots and each suffers from a good case of megalomania. And each has an agenda -- a far-left liberal agenda -- and the respective platforms in sight required for its implementation. All they must do is to combine forces and leverage the strengths of the other to offset the weaknesses each suffers from. Theirs would truly be a world vision of ominous implications to American interests and the Conservative Movement.

Go ahead: call me an alarmist. But tell me: why does such a scenario or an allusion to such a scenario keep popping up? Better rethink your scepticism.