The Clintons — At the End of All Things

Epic greed, power, and pride: Where’s the bottom? With Bill and Hillary, there’s no telling.

VDH crushes another one……and the Clintons along the way.

What was the Clinton telos? The end point, the aim of all their lying, cheating, criminality, dishonor, and degradation?

Given the latest Weiner scandals coming on top of the latest WikiLeaks scandals, we wonder, what did the Clintons really wish to end up as — and why? Are they Goethe’s Faust or tortured souls crushed by the weight of their money bags in Dante’s Fourth Circle of Hell?

For a few criminals, remorse comes with old age; but for the Clintons, near-70 was to be the capstone, the last chance to trump all their prior shenanigans. They were artists of amorality, and the election of 2016 was to be their magnum opus.

Collate the FBI reopened investigation, WikiLeaks Podesta trove, revelations about the Clinton Foundation, the e-mail–server scandal, the DNC disclosures, and the various off-the-cuff campaign remarks of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and one then ponders what was the point of the Clinton shakedowns, the loss of reputation, the crude lawbreaking, as they neared their seventh decade. To paraphrase Barack Obama, in his progressive sermonizing on making enough money, did the two ever think they had enough money, enough honors, enough power already?

The Hillary/Bill fortune — generated by pay-for-play influence peddling on the proposition that Bill would return to the White House under Hillary’s aegis and reward friends while punishing enemies — hit a reported $150 million some time ago, a fortune built not on farming, mining, insurance, finance, high-tech, or manufacturing, but on skimming off money. The Clintons are simply grifters whose insider access to government gave them the power to make rich people richer.

Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation.

So the Clintons finally got their millions and what such millions can ensure for their separate lifestyles. They have at last beautiful gated estates, tasteful and secluded from hoi polloi, light years away from Arkansas and the Rose Law Firm. Progressive Chelsea married a multimillionaire hedge-fund operator whose father served five years in federal prison for bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Her parents’ profiteering can allow Chelsea to announce, perhaps even sincerely, that she is not interested in money. Why should she be, given her own reported $15 million net worth from maternal spin-off favors? She lives in a $10 million Manhattan residence, so her parents had no motivation to get more in order to “provide” for their offspring. Instead, was bringing Chelsea down to Bill and Hillary’s level as a Foundation fixer a way to leave her a post mortem primer on how to get even richer?

In sum, there was certainly no need for Hillary to even have considered flying to the Moroccan autocracy on the eve of announcing her presidential candida to leverage a $12 million speaking “fee” from a cut-throat Moroccan mining company, Why the drive to pile profits on top of profits on top of profits? Or, as Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, put it of the quid pro quo fee (i.e., the mining company felt that it had gotten from the Clinton-run State Department a U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank loan of $92 million):

This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request.

Translated: A President Hillary Clinton would probably have no regret that dozens of heads of state, the majority of them dictatorial and not especially friendly to the U.S., would feel that they had done business with Hillary and Bill — and she, as a recipient of their largess, would owe them commensurate attention.

Why did multimillionaire Hillary charge UCLA, in the era of thousands of indebted students, $300,000 (rather than, say, $149,999.99) for a brief, platitudinous speech? Why did multimillionaire Bill need more than $17 million for being honorary “chancellor” of the financially for-profit but tottering Laureate University (whose spin-off associate organization was a recipient of State Department largesse)? Did he think the extra millions were worth the embarrassment of being the highest-paid and least-busy college executive in U.S. history?

Apparently, the good life did not drive the Clintons so much as the quest for the supposed best life. Even though they had finally “made it” among the multimillionaire set, the Clintons always saw others (no doubt, deemed by them less deserving) with far, far more — whether Jeffery Epstein, with his ability to jet wherever and with whomever he pleased, or green half-a-billionaire Al Gore, who ran even more successful cons, such as rapidly selling a worthless cable TV station to beat impending capital-gains taxes, and selling it to none other than the anti-Semitic Al Jazeera, whose carbon-generated profits come from autocratic Qatar. (The media never audited Gore’s attempt to become a cable mogul, unlike their current concerns about a potential Trump media outlet).

The rich did not pressure the Clintons for paid favors as much as they sought out the Clintons as targets for graft. They certainly understand and smile at Hillary’s boilerplate promise of “making the rich pay their fair share” — the mantra of those who are worth over $100 million and immune from the impact of any tax hikes, or, for that matter, immune from any consequences whatsoever of their own ideology.

The Clintons suffer from greed, as defined by Aristotle: endless acquisition solely for the benefit of self. With their insatiable appetites, they resented the limits that multimillionaire status put on them, boundaries they could bypass only by accumulating ever greater riches. The billion-dollar foundation squared the circle of progressive politicians profiting from the public purse by offering a veneer of “doing good” while offering free luxury travel commensurate with the style of the global rich, by offering sinecures for their loyal but otherwise unemployable cronies, and by spinning off lobbying and speaking fees (the original font of their $100-million-plus personal fortune and the likely reason for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to put all her communications, mercantile included, on a private server safe from government scrutiny). Acquiring money to the extent that money would become superfluous was certainly a Clinton telos — and the subtext of the entire Podesta trove and the disclosures about the Clinton Foundation.

Power and pride were the other catalyst for Clinton criminality. I don’t think progressive politics mattered much to the Clintons, at least compared with what drives the more sincere Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Hillary, like Bill, has no real political beliefs — though she doesn’t hesitate to pursue a mostly opportunistic progressive political agenda. By temperament and background, the Clintons are leftists and will follow a leftist vision, sort of, but one predicated on doing so within the constraints of obtaining and keeping power.

Trade deals? Hillary is flexible given the fickle public mood. Fracking? It depends on where the money is. The Keystone Pipeline? What are the pros and cons in key swing states? Wall Street criminality? One has to distinguish a wink-and-nod political façade from a private flexibility. Gay marriage? She can reluctantly “evolve” under pressure. Immigration? It hinges on Latino demography in swing states, and how bothersome, as their aides put it, “needy” Latinos and “brown” op-ed writers become. Black Lives Matter? Had the black vote not won Obama the 2008 and 2012 elections, Hillary would probably have persisted in Bill’s 1990’s mode (when he condemned rap singer Sister Soulja for her racism and her anti-white rhetoric) and in her own critique of black “super predators,” as she called gang members in 1996.

For the Clintons, power is the narcotic of being sought out, of being surrounded by retainers, of bringing enemies to heel and enticing sycophants with benefits. Liberalism and progressivism are mere social and cultural furniture, the “correct” politics of their background that one mouths and exploits to obtain and maintain political clout — and to get really, really rich without guilt or apology.

As in the quest for lucre, the Clintons’ appetite for high-profile authority is endless. Just as $150 million seemed as nothing compared with the billions and billions raked in by their friends and associates, so too eight years in the White House, tenure as governor, senator, or secretary of state were never enough. In between such tenures, the Clintons suffered droughts when they were not on center stage and in no position to wield absolute power, as they watched less deserving folk (the Obamas perhaps in particular) gain inordinate attention. A Hillary presidency would give the Clintons unprecedented Peronist-like power, in a manner unlike any couple in American history.

Of course, the Clintons are not only corrupt but cynical as well. They accept that the progressive media, the foundations, the universities, the bureaucracies, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley honor power more than trendy left-wing politics; they well understand that their fans will, for them, make the necessary adjustments to contextualize Clinton criminality or amorality. Sexual predations, the demonization of women, graft, and unequal protection under the law are also of no consequence to the inbred, conflicted, and morally challenged media – who will always check in with the Clinton team, like errant dogs who scratch the backdoor of their master after a periodic runaway.

The Clintons have contempt for the media precisely because the media are so obsequious. They smile, that, like themselves, the media are easily manipulated and compromised — to the extent of offering their articles, before publication, for Clinton approval (as the New York Times’ Mark Leibovich did; leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign (as Donna Brazile did); or saying (as Politico’s chief political correspondent did), “I have become a hack. . . .  Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything.” The Clintons view such sycophants not with affection, but with disdain, given that they are moochers no better than the Clintons, with the same base desires, albeit better camouflaged by their pretense of objectivity.

To paraphrase Demosthenes’s warning of the impending arrival of the war-scarred and half-blind Philip II, the Clintons have devoted their lives, their health, their very bodies and souls to get where they are. And their visible scars prove it.

They have long ago lost any sense of shame — Bill is hourly caricatured as a sexual predator, and the best that can be said of Hillary’s character is that the bankrupt Left shrugs, “She may be a crook, but she’s our crook.” In Dorian Gray fashion, their sins are now imprinted on their faces and visible in their tremors. They were and are capable of any and everything.

And one wonders whether, in fleeting seconds here at the end of things, they still believe that it was all worth what they have become.

The Many Contradictions of Hillary Clinton

h/t…. VDH

Hillary Clinton recently said she would go after offshore tax “schemes” in the Caribbean. That is a worthy endeavor, given the loss of billions of dollars in U.S. tax revenue.

Yet her husband, Bill Clinton, reportedly made $10 million as an advisor and an occasional partner in the Yucaipa Global Partnership, a fund registered in the Cayman Islands.

Is Ms. Clinton’s implicit argument that she knows offshore tax dodging is unethical because her family has benefitted from it? Does she plan to return millions of dollars of her family’s offshore-generated income?

Clinton is calling for “huge campaign finance reform,” apparently to end the excessive and often pernicious role of big money in politics. But no candidate, Republican or Democrat, raised more than the $112 million that Clinton collected in 2015 for her primary campaign.

In 2013, Clinton earned nearly $1.6 million in speaking fees from Wall Street banks. She raked in $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, and $225,000 apiece from Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and UBS Wealth Management. Did that profiteering finally make Clinton sour on Wall Street’s pay-for-play ethics?

Clinton has also vowed to raise taxes on hedge fund managers. Is that a way of expressing displeasure with her son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, who operates a $400 million hedge fund?

For that matter, how did Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, who worked for a consulting firm and a hedge fund despite having no background in finance — reportedly become worth an estimated $15 million?

Hillary Clinton recently proposed a new $350 billion government plan to make college more affordable. Certainly, universities spike tuition costs, and student-loan debt has surpassed $1 trillion. Colleges spend money indiscriminately, mostly because they know that the federal government will always back student loans.

Yet, since she left office, Clinton routinely has charged universities $200,000 or more for her brief 30-minute chats. Her half-hour fee is roughly equal to the annual public-university tuition cost for eight students.

It’s been said that Clinton is trying to rekindle President Obama’s 2012 allegations of a Republican “war on women.” That charge and the war against the “1 percent” helped deliver key states to Obama. Renewing that theme, Clinton recently declared on Twitter, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

Does Clinton’s spirited advocacy of “every” survivor include the array of women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct? In other words, does Hillary now trust the testimonies of survivors such as Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, whose allegations must be “believed and supported?”

Ms. Clinton has also called for more financial transparency and greater accountability in general — something needed after scandals at government agencies such as the IRS, VA and GSA. But Clinton’s use of a private email server probably violated several federal laws. Her laxity with confidential communications was arguably more egregious than that of Gen. David Petraeus, a national icon who pleaded guilty to mishandling classified materials.

Perhaps Clinton assumes that the electorate is still in the ethical world of the 1990s. Back then, it was somewhat easier to dampen scandals — at least the ones that didn’t involve sex in the White House. But in the age of social media, 24-hour cable TV, instantaneous blogging and a different public attitude toward political corruption and sexual assault, Hillary Clinton now appears to be caught in the wrong century.

Womanizing and sexual coercion can no longer be so easily dismissed. The financial antics of the Clinton Foundation don’t past muster amid populist anger at the global profiteering of billionaires. In age of instant Google searches, railing against big money no longer squares with making and enjoying it.

Ms. Clinton at times tries to offset scandals by her pointing to her record as secretary of state. But few believe that her handling of Russia, Iran, China, Benghazi or Islamic terrorism made the world calmer or America more secure.

In debates, Clinton points to her support of Obama’s agenda. But the president currently has an approval rating of 46 percent. If the country is in dire need of Clinton’s suggested remedies, were the past eight years too short a time to see similar reforms enacted under Obama?

All this confusion raises the question of whether Hillary Clinton is running to complete Bill Clinton’s third term, running to cement Barack Obama’s legacy — or running against her prior self.

Hillary Clinton, Arms Dealer

Great article by Arnold Ahlert …..

In a scathing column Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano makes the convincing case that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to Libya in a direction violation of the U.N. arms embargo, and then lied about it under oath during her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Oct. 22.

“To pursue her goal of a ‘democratic’ government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government,” Napolitano explains. “So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming—unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.”

Memos recovered from the incinerated compound in Benghazi give great weight to the assertion. The documents were obtained by the Washington Times and they reveal the American diplomats stationed there were keeping track of numerous potential U.S.-sanctioned weapons shipments aimed at arming our allies, “one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government,” the paper reports.

A file marked “arms deal” reveals that one of those shipments was supposed to be sent by Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, CA, one of many arms sellers that work with U.S. intelligence. The file contained an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing, and Dolarian confirmed one of the licensing requests the State Department initially approved in 2011 was an authorization to send weapons to Libya via Kuwait. The certificate was inexplicably revoked before Dolarian could ship rocket and grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition originally manufactured by former Soviet-bloc nations in Eastern Europe.

“Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya,” one of the company’s attorneys said in a statement issued to the Times. “The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter. As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, federal court documents obtained by Fox News reveal arms sales to Libyan rebels that occurred during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State were ultimately transacted. “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council,” stated career CIA officer David Manners in a sworn declaration to the District Court of Arizona on May 5, 2015.

Manners’ testimony was part of a grand jury investigation into American defense contractor Marc Turi and his company Turi Defense Group, another entity licensed by State to sell and transport weapons worldwide. The investigation was focused on both the source and user of weapons defined in court documents as “end user” or “end use”  that were entering Libya in 2011 while Qaddafi’s regime was collapsing–but before any Libyan opposition groups were formally recognized by the United States.

Turi illuminated what occurred in the midst of that chaos, including the reality that poor oversight of the operation allowed America’s enemies to obtain weapons. “When this equipment landed in Libya, half went one way, and the half went the other way,”  Turi said. “The half that went the other way is the half that ended up in Syria.”

Turi admitted to Fox he had criminal past that included stealing a computer, his roommate’s car, and writing several bad checks including one for $100,000 dollars. They verified his arrest, conviction and a stint in an Arizona jail, all of which seemingly conflict with what Fox characterizes as the “painstaking compliance” required to get the “necessary approvals set by strict US government regulations” to become a licensed arms contractor.

Turi was one cog in a rather large machine of State Department-licensed contractors awarded a record number of contract during Clinton’s tenure. “More than 86-thousand licenses with a value of $44.3 billion dollars were granted in 2011… a surge of more than $10 billion dollars from the previous year,” the news site reports.

Turi, who provided documents to Fox revealing exchanges with officials inside and outside the government, including high level members of Congress, the military, and State Department employees, explains he was part of a “zero footprint” supply chain whereby one Arab nation would supply another. “If you want to  limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,” Turi explained. “The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do.” Turi claims he never sent weapons to Qatar and that such transactions are handled by the government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs headed by Clinton aide Andrew Shapiro, who oversaw State’s export control process.

On March 14, 2011, Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens met with Mustafa Jibril in Paris. Jibril was a senior member of Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC). This occurred while a $267 million contract with Turi was working its way through channels. He insists Clinton was provided a copy of the application a day later when she and aide Huma Abedin were in Cairo, meeting with Egypt’s new foreign minister Nabil el Arabi. The information was given to the TNC, who subsequently gave it to Clinton. “That’s what was told to me…and emailed, “ Turi insists. Turi also alerted Stevens in an email, and received a reply from the ambassador thanking him and stating, “I’ll keep it in mind and share it with my colleagues in Washington.

A day later, a heavily redacted email provided to the Benghazi Committee revealed Clinton’s “newfound” interest in supplying weapons to rebels via contractors. “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Clinton wrote. In May, Turi got State Department approval for supplying Qatar. Two months later, federal agents raided his home.

The feds are alleging Turi tried to arm Libyans directly by submitting false documents for weapons shipments to Qatar as a cover up. Turi insists the feds are prosecuting an innocent man to cover for Clinton.

Prior to her testimony on Oct. 22, Clinton only had to address the subject on one previous occasion, during an exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in 2013. “Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex,” Clinton answered at the time, apparently alluding to the CIA. “And, I will see what information was available.

During her Oct. 22 testimony she was equally duplicitous, stating, “I think the answer is no” when asked a direct question about supplying Libyan rebels, insisting that arming private militias may have been considered, but not “seriously considered,” and ultimately answering “no” when asked if she was aware the U.S. was shipping weapons Libyan rebels directly or indirectly.

Napolitano shreds those assertions. “How could she answer ‘no’?” he writes. “She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it…The FBI and CIA advised her —in documents that are now public—that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives.”

The documents to which Napolitano refers were obtained by Judicial Watch (JW) via court order last May. They were “the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria,” JW revealed. “Once this plot was hatched, Clinton and her fellow conspirators realized that some of these rebel groups were manned by al-Qaida operatives; and selling or providing arms to them is a felony — hence the reason for months’ worth of missing and destroyed Clinton emails,” Napolitano explains.

Based on this additional evidence, which comes on top of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s failure to secure classified information—that now includes an email released Oct. 30 by the State Department demonstrating irrefutable proof she sent classified information—her obstruction of justice arising from the wiping of her server, and her perjured testimony before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan last August, when she insisted she had turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department, Napolitano believes an FBI indictment is a virtual certainty. “When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name,” he concludes.

Perhaps. Yet nagging developments suggest otherwise. The endemic corruption of the FBI and the Justice Department, most recently manifested in the dropping of a criminal investigation against the IRS—despite documents obtained by Judicial Watch showing both entities were involved in the scandal itself—is extremely troublesome. So is the reality that two-term Vice President Joe Biden announced his intention not to run for president the day before Hillary’s testimony, suggesting he might have already known Democrats weren’t about to be saddled with the terminally-addled Bernie Sanders as their only presidential candidate. There is also the Benghazi Committee’s incomprehensible decision not to ask Clinton about a story that appeared in the Daily Mail on Oct. 17, revealing her unsecured server contained a 2002 email written by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to George W. Bush, marked “Secret/NoForn” as in confidential and not for foreign eyes. At the very least this demonstrates Clinton was extracting secure information from the State Department server. For what purpose, and why didn’t a single American mainstream media source pick up the story?

Clinton remains a virtual lock for the Democratic presidential nomination. As the National Journal’s Ron Fournier explains, “Demo­crats are eager to for­give Clin­ton’s lapses in judg­ment and honesty,” and despite the fact that Americans find her inherently untrustworthy (an NBC/WSJ poll re­veals that 53 per­cent of re­gistered voters don’t believe she is “be­ing hon­est and straight­for­ward,” while just 27 percent do), it is likely nothing short of a criminal indictment will derail her presidential ambitions. Sadly, that says as much about the American public as it does about Clinton herself.

The Clintons

Hillary has finally gotten around to condemning her husband.

Daniel Greenfield  has assembled a gem….. Remember When Bill Clinton was Putting Illegal Aliens on “Boxcars“?

Remembering President Bill Clinton:

“We won’t tolerate immigration by people whose first act is to break the law as they enter our country. We must continue to do everything we can to strengthen our borders, enforce our laws, and remove illegal aliens from our country.

As I said in my State of the Union Address, we are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws. And it is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years.

This week, I sent strong legislation to Congress to try to stop those abuses, to secure our borders in the future, and to speed up deportation of illegal immigrants.”

And listen to this Trumpe-esque position:

“Now, let me talk a little bit about increasing deportations. Our plan will triple the number of criminal and other deportable aliens deported since 1993. We want to focus on the criminal population or on those who are charged with crimes but who are here illegally. Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged. Some are guilty, and surely, some are innocent. Some go to jail, and some don’t. But they’re all illegal aliens, and whether they’re innocent or guilty of the crime they’re charged with in court, they’re still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country.

If they’re sentenced to jail, they should go to jail. But then after their term is over, they should be removed from the United States. And when there is a plea bargain, I want deportation to be part of the deal.”

The left’s mastery of “I was for it before I was against it” mantra continues on.

 

If Hillary Is Your Gal, ‘You Guys’….Read On….

And if she’s not….here’s some ammo for you.

20 Hillary Clinton Quotes You Should Read Before Voting For Her

1) “Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” – Hillary Clinton

2) “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” — Hillary Clinton

3) “You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” – Hillary Clinton

4) “I can’t worry about every undercapitalized business” — Hillary Clintontestifying before Congress on the effects of Nationalized Health Care.

5) “Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” – Hillary Clinton

6) “We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.” — Hillary Clinton per Barbara Olson’s Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton

7) “There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries…..They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally.” – Hillary Clinton

8) “No. We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.” – Hillary Clinton

9) “If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.” — Hillary Clinton to middle school students

10) “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry…” — Hillary Clinton

11) “I think again we’re way out of balance. We’ve got to rein in what has become almost an article of faith that almost anybody can have a gun anywhere at any time. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.” — Hillary Clinton

12) “We came out of the White House not only dead-broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy.” – Hillary Clinton

13) “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” — Hillary Clinton makes up a ridiculous, untrue story about her trip to Bosnia.

14) “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

15) “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” — Hillary Clinton on tyrannical maniac Bashar Assad

16) “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” — Hillary Clinton

17) “My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me.” — Hillary Clinton per Kim Eisler’s Masters of the Game: Inside the World’s Most Powerful Law Firm

18) “Put this (helicopter) on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!” — Hillary Clinton from Air Force Lt. Colonel Robert Patterson’s Dereliction of Duty.

19) “I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned (about Islam) has come from my daughter. (As) some of you who are our friends know, she took a course last year in Islamic history.” – Hillary Clinton

20) “The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996.” — Hillary Clinton

 

h/t John Hawkins:

Hillary Clinton Stood Next To The Coffins Of The Dead and Lied

 

Hillary Received Memo Describing Benghazi As Planned Terror Attack Within Hours.

Hillary avoided her 3am phone call, blamed a video, and 4 Americans were brutally killed.

(US Ambassador Chris Stevens being prodded, burned and then murdered by ‘folks’ upset at a video)

“New documents obtained by Judicial Watch and made public Monday show that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior officials under President Obama were given intelligence within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack describing how it had been planned at least 10 days in advance ‘to kill as many Americans as possible.’”

Also, they locked up a filmmaker for a year, just to support their cover story. Nice people.

Same As It Ever Was……

.

.

“Because she was a liar,” … “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Hillary Clinton’s one-time boss Jerome Zeifman, chief of staff of counsel to the US House Judiciary, Watergate Select Committee, when interviewed by Dan Calabrese in 2008 had this gem to unveil on the occasion of recalling Hillary’s staff tenure.

While Hillary Clinton’s ideology was inspired by Saul Alinsky, her tactical politics were acquired from watching Richard Nixon.

Hillary first displayed her predilection for deceit, cover-up, obstruction, and lying while on the job as a staff lawyer to counsel for the US House Judiciary, Watergate Select Committee.  She had ample opportunity to absorb the lessons of the disgraced 37^th president (Nixon).

Hillary’s conduct was apparently corroborated by Franklin Polk, Republican counsel to the Committee. According to Calabrese:

Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970. Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed. Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files”.

Calabrese concludes:

“Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time -– a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.”

Hillary’s hubris arrives from derivative power as presidential spouse, afterwards spawning an undistinguished stint as a US Senator, and then as an incompetent and baleful Secretary of State.  She has never accomplished anything historically significant, except successfully shielding her husband from charges of assault and rape. If she were to become the first woman president, it would say more about the electorate’s unserious infatuation with identity politics than her prospects as a statesman.

 

Killing Qaddafi: Hillary’s Secret Role

An outstanding article by Matthew Vadum

To justify an illegal ouster of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, Hillary Clinton falsely claimed the Libyan leader was planning genocidal attacks against his domestic enemies, an investigative report in the Washington Times suggests.

Documents and audio recordings examined by the newspaper suggest the former U.S. secretary of state had no clear plan for how to deal with the Libyan crisis she created and whether the lawlessness and chaos she spawned in that country led to the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

 

Clinton was secretary of state on that terrible day. Despite her disastrous tenure at Foggy Bottom which saw Muslim irredentist movements gain ground in North Africa and the Middle East, she continues to be the early frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. She resigned as secretary of state in early 2013, paving the way for the utterly undistinguished then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to take over as chief public cheerleader for the Obama administration’s pro-Islamist campaign.

When that fateful 3 a.m. telephone call her 2008 TV ads warned about finally came, Mrs. Clinton snoozed on through it, allowing a comedy of errors consisting in part of incompetence and arrogance to dictate the U.S. government’s bungled response to Benghazi. Clinton and her fellow Obama White House officials lied over and over again about the catalyst for the attack, refusing for weeks even to call it a terrorist attack.

Instead Clinton blamed the Benghazi attack on an obscure U.S.-based filmmaker who made an anti-Islam movie trailer just about no one saw. Officials told anyone willing to listen that a spontaneous demonstration sparked by Muslim anger over the video had magically materialized in a city blanketed by al-Qaeda flags and that within hours this supposedly organic melee had claimed the lives of four Americans, including J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Bowing to Shariah law, Clinton had the filmmaker imprisoned on a flimsy legal pretext, America’s First Amendment be damned.

U.S intelligence did not concur with Clinton’s public rationale for invading Libya, a military action that was never approved by the United States Congress, according to the newspaper report. She had claimed Qaddafi was planning to commit acts of genocide aimed at liquidating his regime’s detractors. But intelligence operatives “had come to the opposite conclusion: that [Qaddafi] would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en  masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country.”

Citing secret Libyan intelligence documents, the Washington Times reports that Libyan officials were worried back in 2011 that weapons were being directed to NATO-supported rebels with ties to al-Qaeda.

“The reports included a 16-page list of weapons that Libyans supposedly tracked to the rebels from Western sources or their allies in the region,” according to the newspaper. “The memos were corroborated by a U.S. intelligence asset familiar with the documents as well as former top [Qaddafi] regime official Mohammed Ismael.”

“NATO has given permission to a number of weapons-loaded aircraft to land at Benghazi airport and some Tunisian airports,” the intelligence report stated. Libyan officials said they were worried that the weapons and training provided to the anti-Qaddafi rebels would spread in the region and find their way to Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.

A year later, the Benghazi attack took place, leaving four Americans dead. Stevens was tortured before he died and his dead body was dragged around town by Islamist savages. In an increasingly familiar, grim ritual of Islamofascist humiliation, Stevens was reportedly sodomized by his Islamist captors, just as Qaddafi was by his Islamist captors.

 

More than a year before the Benghazi attack, several U.S. officials so distrusted then-Secretary Clinton’s judgment on the Libyan situation that they opened their own secret diplomatic channels with the Qaddafi regime, leaving the State Department out of the loop.

In mid-2011 Libyan officials and a Pentagon operative informed Ismael that they were thinking about seizing some of Qaddafi’s frozen assets and directing them to the rebels fighting against him. The report further suggests U.S. ally Qatar played a major part in shipping weapons to the Libyan rebels, a role Qatar adamantly denies.

“The Qataris have spent more than $100 million on this, and they have an agreement with the rebels that the moment you rule Libya you pay us back,” Qaddafi’s eldest son, Seif, told then Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in a conversation recorded in May 2011.

“So, it’s your position that your government has been trying to defend itself against an insurrection brought about by jihadists who were joined by gangsters, terrorists and that there’s basically about 1,000 people who were joined by NATO?” Kucinich asked.

“Yes,” Seif Qaddafi replied.

Some may, quite understandably, wish to take intelligence reports supplied by a sketchy foreign power with a grain of salt, but those who follow Libyan affairs have long known that there was no compelling U.S. national security-related justification in 2011 to remove Qaddafi as Libya’s leader.

Libya didn’t matter anymore. A decade earlier the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 led to an epiphany on Qaddafi’s part. The Libyan strongman saw the writing on the wall as Islamists launched operations on Qaddafi’s home turf and carried out attacks directed at him personally.

With Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein easily overthrown by a U.S.-led coalition, Qaddafi’s allies in the old Soviet bloc consigned to the dustbin of history, and his fair-weather friends in the Arab world unwilling to help him deal with devastating U.S. sanctions, Qaddafi recognized his growing political impotence.

He renounced terrorism and decided to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction program in 2003. Qaddafi even did the unthinkable, signing on –at least nominally– to the U.S.-led Global War on Terror. He promoted his son’s charitable foundation to augment his influence and revamp his reputation outside Libya.

Qaddafi so impressed George W. Bush’s administration that the U.S. government restored full diplomatic relations with the former pariah nation in 2006. As then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the time, Libya had provided “excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001.”

It may be a stretch to describe the post-9/11 Qaddafi as a friend of the United States but it is probably accurate to say that at worst he had become a defanged frenemy of the U.S. Rendered largely irrelevant by the events of the day, the dictator who retained the risibly grandiose official state title of Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of Libya was humiliated and emasculated.

But getting Qaddafi out of the way was long a part of President Obama’s plan to help the Islamist movement in Northern Africa and the Middle East.

Qaddafi was viewed as unsympathetic to the resurgent jihadists in his region and so he had to be eliminated.

Hillary Clinton carried out the hit and today Libya, with the assistance of the U.S. taxpayer, is well on its way to becoming a member in good standing of the Islamic Caliphate.

Pajama Boy’s Got A New Gig…

…….’cause nothing says middle America and appeals to your average Joe white-guy like a mega-wealthy, career digging lawyer, First Lady, Senator from New York, Secretary of State, liberal elitist like Hillary Clinton.

Especially when she’s the same age as your mom or grandma only makes her faux down-home appeal more grotesque.

UPDATE: Hillary explains claim businesses don’t create jobs

No need there ma’am.

Hillary explains claim businesses don’t create jobs,….yep……..it was shorthand.