Let’s just say that likes attract and opposites repel. How else to explain the fact that Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan’s California chapter, pictured here, has thrown his support behind Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
According to The Telegraph:
[D]emagogic Republican frontrunner [Donald Trump] has come under fire for failing to adequately disavow the support of David Duke, a former KKK grand wizard who told listeners to his radio programme that voting against Mr Trump would be “treason against your heritage”.
Will Quigg, … responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
“Border policies are going to be put in place. Our second amendment rights [favouring gun ownership] that she’s saying she’s against now, she’s not against. She’s just our choice for the presidency.”
There could be some validity to Quigg’s argument. Candidate Clinton has flip-flopped on a number of issues, demonstrating that political expedience — not personal conviction — determines which side she comes down on.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
For example, in October 2015, Clinton came out in favor of allowing illegals to sign up for Obamacare, undercutting her earlier stance on illegal immigration articulated in a 2003 radio interview:
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.
Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country. And one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry and exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them.
Similarly, last September, she made the blanket statement that women who cry “Rape!” have a right to be believed. Contrast that rather extreme — and frankly extralegal — position with her stance on the same issue in 1975 when Clinton, still practicing law, was the court-appointed attorney for a 40-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. Her approach was to target the girl’s credibility, writing in an affidavit that the child was “emotionally unstable” and had the “tendency to seek out older men.”
