Tag Archives: hillary clinton

Sweet, sweet schadenfreude, Bernie Sanders style.


The “Christian” Left and the other Leftist extremists supporting Sanders can’t complain, of course. So what if Bernie worked so much harder and performed so much better than Hillary? Things have to be “fair.”

Remember, that is the core of Bernie’s message: Vote for me and you get lots of free stuff! paid for by other people who worked hard for their money.  It isn’t fair that they ended up with more than you!  That college loan you agreed to pay back for your Womyn’s Studies major that will make you unemployable by any decent company?  Yeah, you shouldn’t have to repay that!  And so on.

As wicked as Hillary is I’m glad to see the Leftists get mugged by reality this way. Unfortunately, instead of learning a valuable lesson and seeing the truth and wisdom of conservative principles, they will mostly double down on their poisonous philosophy (e.g., “Russia didn’t didn’t implement Communism properly, but we’ll get it right).  Once again, Leftists literally fail at basic economics.  They should not be in charge of the economy.  Or anything else.

Sure, Hillary is a selfish, greedy, corrupt, law-breaking ogre of a person, but she monetized her power long ago and has been using it to eliminate other candidates and to buy the Presidency.  And that’s how power works in the Leftist dreamland of Socialism and Communism.  And they will line up to vote for her once she has dispatched Bernie for good. Because deep down their real loves are abortion, LGBTQX perversions and coveting. Hillary won’t redistribute quite as much of other people’s money as Bernie, but it will have to suffice for the Left.

The 90’s were good in spite of the Clintons, not because of them

A common political mistake is to assume that everything that happened within the tenure of a political leader is solely attributable to them — for good or bad.  One of the most horrific examples of this is when people credit Bill Clinton for the 90’s economic growth.  But that happened in spite of his Presidency, not because of it.

Did Clinton pass everything he wanted to?  Of course not.  “Hillarycare” was a disaster and we are fortunate it was never implemented.  And the Republicans cleaned up in the 1994 congressional elections.  They kept Clinton from doing what he wanted, and he was forced to compromise.

More than that, the growth would have happened regardless of who was President.  Anyone remember the PC and Internet revolutions?  Yeah, those had a “little” to do with the great economy.

And the positive part of the “Internet bubble” occurred on Clinton’s watch then burst at the very end of his 2nd term (October 12, 2000).  Bush had nothing to do with the 90’s run-up in stock prices but the loss of tax revenues from all of that made for unfavorable  comparisons.

So never let Leftists get away with pretending that electing Hillary would bring back the 90’s economy.  She did nothing to make that happen, and Bill only helped by not having his initiatives put into law.

Real leadership and ethics involve not even having the appearance of conflicts of interest. Also, Hillary is corrupt.

As a leader of an Internal Audit group, I do everything possible to ensure that my team is objective and that we are perceived as such.  Example: Some people we were auditing wanted to give my employees t-shirts, but I told them they couldn’t accept anything — not a t-shirt, not a lunch, not a #2 pencil.  They weren’t happy with that at first, but they came around to my reasoning.

The law of reciprocity is a fact of human nature in all cultures.  When your neighbor drops off a Christmas gift — no matter how nominal, such as a jar of jelly — 99% of people immediately have an instinct to want to reciprocate.  So even though you have no legal obligation to do so, your human nature drives you to it.  People know that, which is why so many businesses give gifts, entertainment and vacations to customers and politicians.  It has a proven impact on human behavior.

And even if it didn’t impact behavior, I still avoid those things because of appearances.  In my example, I think my employees would still be very objective in asking their basic audit questions.  But those getting audited might have thought it was influencing their work and others getting audited might have felt that they also had to provide gifts.

This is all why most of the donations to the Clinton Foundation are doubly wrong.  Even if the “donors” weren’t buying influence, it obviously gave the appearance of it.  Bill Clinton just “happened” to get huge speaking fees from groups who just “happened” to have business impacted by Hillary’s State Department.  That appearance alone should have stopped those arrangements.  But Hillary and her family benefit mightily through their Foundation with travel, salaries and more.  It is probably the most public and glaring abuse of monetizing one’s power in American history.  She should be in jail for this alone (not to mention the email server, Benghazi, etc.).

Thankfully, it sounds like this is getting investigated.  But Obama has an interest in suppressing this so Hillary can be elected and carry on his dream nightmare.  Via FBI’s Clinton probe expands to public corruption track:

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

More here.

This was sort of inevitable. No sentient being ever saw the Clinton Foundation as anything other than a way to provide the Clintons with tax free income. No one ever thought that the Clintons and their inner circle were not enriching themselves by trading on Hillary’s position as Secretary of State. In fact, it is my contention that a significant number of the 1300+ classified emails held on Hillary Clinton’s private email server were US government information that was being used as currency to enrich Sid Blumenthal, his deceased crony Tyler Drumheller, and others.

It is clear that Bill and Hillary are wildly deceptive, greedy, vile and selfish.  The evidence for that could fill up the Interwebs.  The question is why the Leftists will vote for her anyway.  And the answer to that is simple: Abortions, LGBTQX perversions and coveting your neighbor’s money.

Hillary could probably fake a polygraph test, but could her supporters?

At first glance I’d love to see Hillary go up against the families of those killed in Benghazi regarding her claim that they are all lying.  A live polygraph exam would make great theater.  But as many law enforcement people will tell you, some people are such skilled liars that they could fake it and pass a polygraph.  Hillary has lied so thoroughly and for so long that she might be in that category.  Example: Watch Hillary lies for 3 solid minutes.  And watch the Left not care.

The guy did a modicum of actual journalism but let her go too easily. She didn’t tell Sullivan to take out classified information, she told him to take out the heading. Her email could not have been more clear.  And she said she knew to email people on their government accounts but he let her ignore the fact that she was using a personal account the entire time.

But anyone watching has to know she is lying, and in a most insulting way.  She used her personal email account to note that others should know not to use personal email accounts — and then she dismissed that as evidence against her claim!

So she is obviously lying, but what about her followers?  What is their excuse?  How can they claim to care about the truth when they are supporting a serial liar?  They are either so ignorant of facts and logic that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote or they are malicious like Hillary.

I’d love to see them take polygraphs and ask if they know that their heroine is a serial liar.  Bonus points: Do they care that Hillary helped destroy the women who dared to out her husband for his sexual misdeeds?

They broke my irony meter

UPDATE: I wrote this well before the Colorado shootings, but could have  said the same things about how PP is trying to raise funds off of it.

Child-killing ghouls like Planned Parenthood and “Christian” Leftist Hillary Clinton have no shame. While cycling your tax dollars between themselves*, they tweet things like this:
Every child deserves the opportunity to live up to their God given potential. @HillaryClinton #blacklivesmatter
— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) November 15, 2015

Yet PP is the #1 child-killer in the United States. Second place isn’t even close.


And Hillary & PP & the “Christian” Left have latched onto the “Black Lives Matter” radicalism while promoting the abortions that kill black lives at a rate five times that of whites.
*Hillary & Co. send your tax money to Planned Parenthood, who sends some to Hillary & Co., and so on.

Hillary Clinton: The most publicly cheated-on woman ever?

One of the most pathetic things about Hillary Clinton is that she continues to stay married to her serial-adulterer husband just to improve her chances at becoming President.  That’s it.

I realize that the Bible doesn’t require divorce in the case of adultery, but pro-abortion extremist / pro-LGBTQX extremist “Christian” Leftist Hillary is obviously not a Christian anyway.  How could any self-respecting person stay married with someone who mocks her and their wedding vows with such public impunity?  Because she craves power, and she will endure anything to get it.

She is a desperate, lying, greedy, corrupt, vile person who is completely unfit for public office.  Which is why the “Christian” Left will vote for her.


All about Hillary

Hillary Clinton presents herself as a Christian but shows no fruit.  From her pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQX extremism to her long list of scandals she is the prototype “Christian” Leftist.

Here’s a classic report when trusted journalist Brian Williams exposes Hillary’s fake story about being shot at in Bosnia.

Like others on the “Christian” Left, she is a pro-abortion extremist.

As if we needed any more evidence that potential 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is not a moderate, it was announced today that EMILY’s List, an extreme pro-abortion organization, will be honoring her with one of their most cherished awards:

EMILY’s List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, said Tuesday that Clinton would appear at its 30th anniversary awards gala in Washington on March 3. The former secretary of state will receive the group’s We Are EMILY Award to honor her leadership “as a fighter for women and families,” said Stephanie Schriock, the group’s president.

[…]Clinton’s pro-abortion agenda goes beyond accepting awards. In 1993, when she was attempting to transform the health care industry, she said that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” Then, in 1999, she delivered a speech to NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, in Washington, D.C., stating her goal of “keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.”

She’s just a regular person, right?  High-flying Hillary outspent Romney 9:1 on private jets in 2008 cycle.

She uses good Judgment and would never sell political favors: In 2008, Hillary offered to make Edwards attorney general if he would quit and endorse her.

Then there was the time she protected a rapist by attacking the 12 yr. old victim.  Why don’t feminists go nuts over that? It doesn’t sound like it was a “hard choice” for her to do it.  This is a thousand times more of a “war on woman” than anything the media exaggerates for Republicans.  If the media is forced to talk about this it will hurt her.

The Daily Beast’s Josh Rogoin took a break from his national-security beat and tracked down the victim in that crime, now 52, who alleges that Hillary Clinton did attack her as part of the defense, and much more. In the exclusive interview, Rogin reports the woman’s accusation that Hillary Clinton lied in court documents to portray her as a sex-crazed spoiled brat who threw herself at older men and then accused them of rape:

The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton was appointed to defend.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.

“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”

. . .

Addendum: It’s worth noting that the Free Beacon has been banned from the University of Arkansas library archives after making the audio of the interview public. That decision, Alana Goodman reports, was made by a donor to … Hillary Clinton.

Then there is this long list of serious scandals.  I actually think the Travelgate issue is one of the worst, as it shows how she would gladly destroy innocent people to make herself look better.  No one would have objected if she had just put her own people in place as a result of political spoils, but in the most hypocritical way possible she tried to make herself look nice by being vicious.