Skip to main content

Where is Hillary’s special place in Hell?

Written By | Feb 16, 2016

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2016 — At a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright threatened “a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”

In context, Albright’s meaning was plain: Female Democrats who vote Sanders are wicked souls not merely Hell-bound but destined for special punishment from G-d. For Albright, G-d is also a feminist who decrees that women must vote for an available female candidate regardless of their judgments of male candidates’ relative merits and demerits.

Madeline Albright: Vote for Hillary or go to hell!

Is stumping for a candidate based on gender a godly act? Is gender-shaming in Election 2016 G-d-approved?

Unlike Democratic leaders, isn’t G-d is more concerned with things like terrorists beheading Christians and what goes on in Planned Parenthood clinics?

Hell—a netherworld where eternal suffering is inflicted in divine retribution for wicked deeds committed in life—is central to many religions. Blazing fire, boiling water, frigid ice, and other torments punish, measure for measure, those who violated G-d’s will.

And, indeed, Hell’s horrors are not uniform. Some cosmologies describe levels, zones, or sections of Hell in which divine punishment corresponds to sin in nature and degree.

Albright may be right. “Special places in Hell” await the most egregious miscreants. And voting behavior may determine one’s fate in the afterlife. Yet there are special places in Hell that might await Hillary, and not just because she is a woman.

One version of Hell was mapped by 14th century Florentine poet Dante Alighieri in “The Inferno.” That work is a lyrical voyage through Hell’s Nine Circles, during which Virgil, Dante’s tour guide, narrates the crimes and punishments of the damned.

The Inferno commences with Dante approaching the Gates of Hell, where he encounters the Uncommitted, whose sole crime was doing nothing—thereby allowing the triumph of evil.

Threats by Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem backfire on Clinton

Then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright refused to call it genocide while one million Rwandans were murdered. Had she done so, the U.S. would have been obligated to intervene militarily, which her boss, President Bill Clinton, was loathe to do.

Hillary, then First Lady, also refused to pressure Bill to act. Both noncommittal former secretaries of state may find themselves outside Hell’s Gate. So too Democratic women whose failure to vote for Hillary elects Sanders, but only if he is the greater of two evils—which gender alone cannot establish.

The First Circle holds the blameless unbaptized (those born before Jesus Christ) and the virtuous pagans.  Hillary claims Methodism, so she’s clear here.

Howling winds buffet the lustful in Hell’s Second Circle.

Hillary does not seem to wallow in lust. Women voters, however, are, according to Gloria Steinem, prone to go where the boys are.

Yet within the Democratic base, a core constituency of LGBT female voters find Hillary more physically attractive and vote-worthy than Bernie. So Albright might have it backwards—the Second Circle awaits women who vote for, not against. Hillary.

The Third Circle pelts gluttons—food, drink, gambling or drug addicts—with cold, filthy rain symbolizing earthly narcissism. Hillary’s celebrity donors from Hollywood and the music industry bought a quick ticket here long ago.

But unless women vote Chicago-style—early, often, and like addicts—they’re safe, even if they feel the Bern.

The greedy are condemned to eternal jousting in the Fourth Circle.

Hillary covets the wealth of others. While shady donations from governments that hate the U.S. made Hillary wealthy, Sanders, a professional failure, must capture the state to steal from the rich. Regardless, a greed-inspired vote for government benefits might banish the Democratic female voter’s soul here, but the gender of the candidate she votes for is irrelevant.

Anger leads to the Fifth Circle, where permanently joyless souls combat in the River Styx.

Hillary, whose haggard perma-snarl, gravel-and-whisky rasp and truck-stop-waitress-on-the-graveyard-shift brusqueness might scare the Devil himself, will surely pass through the Fifth Circle. And with 72 percent of Americans angry at the direction the U.S. is heading, most may land here even if they don’t vote.

Heretics who denied religious dogma roast in the Sixth Circle’s flaming tombs.

Hillary—a radical who would change religious beliefs to accommodate abortion-on-demand and ban public prayer—may be the most godless person in D.C. She may have a date with fire. But only if feminism is a secular religion whose core doctrine is women must vote against men does a similar fate await female Sanders voters.

Madeleine Albright in hell

The Seventh Circle punishes the violent.

In its outer ring, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, robbers and batterers boil in blood.

Callous to the irony, Albright shills for the wife of a man serially and credibly accused of rape and lesser offenses against women. Under common law, enablers of rape—before and after the fact—are equally guilty co-conspirators. If Hillary suppressed evidence of Bill’s crimes, she is a rapist-by-conspiracy. Women whom Albright tries to shame into voting for Hillary might toss rapists deeper than the Seventh Circle, but female voters qua voters are not headed here.

Suicides in the shape of thorn bushes are devoured by female monsters in the middle ring.

Stumping for Hillary, Albright is silent about Vince Foster. Foster was a longtime Clinton colleague and deputy White House counsel, whose suspicious 1993 death prevented him from testifying in criminal matters involving Hillary, including the mysterious disappearance of subpoeanaed Rose Law Firm billing records. His death was officially ruled a suicide, but many doubt Foster killed himself. Does Albright believe female Sanders voters are monsters to be consigned here to devour Foster et al? Most feminists recoil from labeling women hideous beasts.

Read More: Deserts roast blasphemers and sodomites →

William Brute Bradford

Dr. William C. “Brute” Bradford, PhD (Northwestern), LLM (Harvard), is Attorney General of the Chiricahua Apache Nation, a former intelligence officer, and an academic with more than 30 published articles on strategy, national security, terrorism, the law of war, radical Islam, and Native American affairs. Dr. Bradford has presented his research worldwide to civilian and military audiences at universities, think tanks, and other public forums, and he is a frequent commentator in U.S. and foreign media. The existential threat of radical Islam, the financial instability of the U.S. political economy, and the erosion of traditional American moral values form the basis of his research, scholarship, and advocacy. He is married to his childhood sweetheart, Shoshana Bradford. He enjoys hunting, fishing, traveling, cooking, and singing.