Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 634282 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary likely hacked by Russian, Chinese, et al
« Reply #500 on: April 08, 2015, 11:00:53 AM »
Yes.  Either she was easily hacked by all the world's hackers in this post-Snowden age, or else they all suffer from a deplorable lack of curiosity.  Wouldn't the hacks include the repeated requests for additional security from the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens?  We never hear that angle in the story.  Were the militants in Benghazi reading the pleas for help that Hillary didn't have time for?

The lie that there was no security breach because the building was guarded might be her biggest blunder ever.  That kind of buffoonery is the most persuasive evidence yet that she is not capable of holding higher trust or responsibility.

Note that she said that she SENT nothing CLASSIFIED through her private, unsecured server.  There are (at least) two big flaws in that claim.  RECEIVING classified material is an equally serious breach.  Given the way she worded it and that she is a Clinton, we can assume that happened.  Secondly, security experts use the word SENSITIVE information rather than the narrower term 'classified'.  Everything a Secretary of State sends and receives through emails that is not immediately made public is sensitive information, including her travel schedules, agenda, results of meetings and all correspondence.

Who did she correspond with?  Her department, the President, his chief of staff, the Defense Secretary, CIA, the DIA, Secret Service, foreign leaders, their staffs?  Doesn't the easy hack into her email help the hacker get into the other parties' systems too?  Including the secure system she was supposed to be using?!

The only, sad consolation is that since we know they weren't doing anything over her tenure to enhance our nation's security, more likely the hacks will expose her own wrongdoing in the Clinton money operation.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #501 on: April 08, 2015, 05:45:54 PM »
yup. There are low level federal employees who were terminated and prosecuted for much lesser things involving classified materials.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #502 on: April 08, 2015, 06:24:00 PM »
Not to mention David Petraeus too.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
HILLARY CHANGED STANCE ON TRADE DEAL AFTER DONATIONS TO CLINTON FOUNDATION
« Reply #504 on: April 10, 2015, 11:59:20 AM »
REPORT: HILLARY CHANGED STANCE ON TRADE DEAL AFTER DONATIONS TO CLINTON FOUNDATION
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/report-hillary-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to-clinton-foundation.php
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to
http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464
------------------------------------------------

No problem with another scandal to her, reports say Hillary will enter the race anyway tomorrow via twitter.  Is it steak dinner on Doug for the ccp family?  We probably should celebrate this.  If we can't find one of 16 or 20 qualified candidates who can beat this known, flawed, dishonest candidate of failed poicies and energize behind them, then I suppose we will deserve the disgusting, corrupt, socialist, dismal future that is coming to us, our children and our country.




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
The Clinton nation: a nation not of laws but of lawyers.
« Reply #505 on: April 11, 2015, 07:35:53 PM »
*****If we can't find one of 16 or 20 qualified candidates who can beat this known, flawed, dishonest candidate of failed poicies and energize behind them, then I suppose we will deserve the disgusting, corrupt, socialist, dismal future that is coming to us, our children and our country*******

Doug, I couldn't agree more.   Indeed.

That was more or less my exact thoughts when I get on the internet tonight and one of the first things I see is this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/celebrity/chelsea-clinton-stuns-on-cover-of-elle-talks-perfect-baby-daughter-and-coincidence-importance-of-having-a-female-president/ar-AAaJup6

Here we go.   Another makeover.  Getting to know you, getting to know you, people who know you say you are so nice blah blah blah.

Usually I stay away from being critical of pols' family members but if they throw up their kids and use them as props as the Clintons do, well, all I can say is this girl is just so F'ing ugly she couldn't possibly "stun" anyone.

We are supposed to live in a nation of laws.  But with the Clintons we live in a nation of lawyers.   Think about that.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
VDH, Why is Hillary running?
« Reply #508 on: April 13, 2015, 07:38:42 AM »
... Hillary will not yell out at stadium crowds, “If you liked the last eight years, I promise eight more years just like them!”

Will she amplify or ignore her own Obama administration tenure as secretary of State? Will Americans hear that the plastic reset button with Vladimir Putin was a good or bad thing?

Will Clinton replay in her campaign commercials her boast over the deposed and murdered Khadafy (“We came, we saw, he died”) or her statement about the dead at Benghazi (“What difference does it make?”)? Or will she fear that the Republicans will use her own words against her?

Will reneging on missile defense with the Poles and Czechs and ending George W. Bush’s mild ostracisms of Russia for snatching Ossetia become a neat campaign talking point? Will she brag that we got all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, or that she helped set the foundations for the current Iranian negotiations? Were her Arab Spring policies smart diplomacy as evidenced by the current state of affairs in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen? Will she say she had a hand in Obama’s “special relationship” with the Ottomanist Recep Erdogan of Turkey?

Perhaps she can point to her continual jawboning of Israel as the font for our current distancing from the Jewish state. Will she remind us that “al Qaeda is on the run”? Will she dare say radical Islam or will she stick to “overseas contingency operations,” “workplace violence,” and “man-caused disasters”?

A Domestic Record to Be Proud Of?

Of course, Mrs. Clinton will not run on her own foreign policy initiatives, such as they were, or her boss’s. Perhaps, then, she will turn to the generic Obama domestic record of 2009-16. But then will she praise or promise to reform the IRS, VA, NSA and Secret Service? Was the massive borrowing of the last administration — greater than all previous administrations’ red ink combined — a good or bad thing?

Maybe someone will object that Hillary Clinton is her own person and has no need either to support or distance herself from the administration that she so loyally served and aided.

What, then, is her agenda, in terms of economic and foreign policy? More borrowing, more social spending, more defense cuts, higher taxes still, more restrictions on fracking on public land, more promises to table the Keystone pipeline? Will she go full bore to promote cap and trade?

The point is that Mrs. Clinton has neither a past record that she is proud to run on nor support for an Obama administration tenure that she will promise to continue. She is not a good speaker and has a disturbing habit of switching accents in amateurish attempts to mimic regional or racial authenticity. She accentuates her points by screaming in shrill outbursts, and dismisses serious questions by chortling for far too long. She is deaf to human cordiality, has a bad temper, and treats subordinates with haughty disdain.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-is-hillary-clinton-even-running/#ixzz3XCTVUY5c

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #509 on: April 13, 2015, 08:44:08 AM »
Some hyperventilating in here, but a first look gives the impression that some juicy particulars are to be found:

http://stophillarypac.org/articles/top-hillary-aide-under-investigation

Note the one about the oil company in Colombia and its relations with the Clinton Foundation

http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-faces-scandal-amid-expectant-presidential-run/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Questions for Hillary
« Reply #510 on: April 13, 2015, 10:03:41 AM »
Starting a list the others aren't asking in case she comes onto the board to take questions. 

If you still needed money, why quit commodity trading?

Name one accomplishment made as Secretary of State?

Name one friend you have that is not tied to money, position or power and tell us the last time you called him or her.

How many genders are there?  (An impossible questionable to answer if you are both center and left.)

to be continued


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Hillary's Aide Huma Abedin - Questions Must Be Answered...
« Reply #511 on: April 14, 2015, 07:59:01 AM »
Clinton Campaign Kicks Off as Huma Abedin Probe Begins

Posted By Matthew Vadum On April 14, 2015

At long last the Department of State is investigating why a top Hillary Clinton aide with generational ties to Islamic terrorism was allowed to work in a sensitive government position while simultaneously working for a Clinton-connected private sector consulting firm.

Hillary Clinton and the senior aide, Huma Abedin, apparently conspired to keep the sweetheart working arrangement that the Muslim Brotherhood-linked employee had at Foggy Bottom a secret. Because it involves a Clinton, the story is, of necessity, complex and convoluted. And it’s classic Hillary as she tiptoes through a minefield of ethics violations, conflicts of interests, and potential national security-related breaches.

News of the probe came two days before the Benghazi bungler finally launched her long-awaited coronation parade campaign Sunday on YouTube [1].

“I’m running for president,” Mrs. Clinton said in the video. “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion.”

Yes, Clinton is a champion — of Islamic expansionism. She let four Americans die in 2012 so President Obama, in the midst of his reelection fight, wouldn’t have to reconcile the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya with his dishonest boast that al-Qaeda was on the run under his leadership. That she hired someone of questionable loyalty to the United States shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Until Sunday the Clinton Foundation had served as a de facto campaign headquarters and international shakedown machine for Mrs. Clinton. With her campaign now officially on, the foundation will probably continue functioning as what the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel calls “The Clinton Foundation Super PAC.”

“Most family charities exist to allow self-made Americans to disperse their good fortune to philanthropic causes,” Strassel wrote in a recent column. “The Clinton Foundation exists to allow the nation’s most powerful couple to use their not-so-subtle persuasion to exact global tribute for a fund that promotes the Clintons.”

Abedin herself is a Muslim who is married to disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). Bill and Hillary Clinton are reportedly so close to her that they have called her their surrogate daughter. Abedin, who almost certainly played some kind of a role in the Obama administration’s myriad catastrophic foreign policy failures, currently works at Mrs. Clinton’s personal office in New York City — or at least she worked there as of last week before Hillary launched her campaign.

Very few Republican lawmakers who are critical of Abedin’s working arrangement have raised the alarm about the threat she poses to national security. Some may have been scared away after the grandstanding stunt pulled three years ago by know-nothing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He bristled with indignation when then-Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and a handful of House lawmakers raised legitimate concerns about Abedin working in such a sensitive government post. McCain thundered: Abedin’s “character, reputation, and patriotism” were unjustly attacked and “these attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit, and they need to stop now.”

State Department Inspector General Steve Linick sent a letter [2] to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) Thursday advising that the inner workings of the “Special Government Employee Program” at the department are now the subject of a preliminary inquiry by Linick’s office. (The document is available here [3].)

“This program is meant to be used in a limited way to give the government special expertise it can’t get otherwise,” Grassley said in a statement Friday. “Is the program working the way it’s intended at the State Department or has it been turned on its head?”

Amazingly enough, the Obama-loving media establishment has been on this case of ethical gymnastics and the potential compromise of U.S. national security for a while.

As the New York Times [4] reported two years ago, under Clinton the Department of State “created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.”

On her mandatory financial disclosure form, Abedin failed to disclose the setup or how much she was paid. “[T]he picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider.”

In a July 2013 letter the State Department indicated Abedin was employed full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also indicated she did not disclose outside employment when ending her full-time status. The department kept her on as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of $74.51 with maximum pay of $155,500 per year.

When Abedin returned from maternity leave in mid-2012, her role as deputy chief of staff to Secretary Clinton ended and she became what’s called a special government employee, or consultant. A State Department official told the Old Gray Lady “that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.”

It goes without saying that the Clintons have long believed that rules and laws are for the little people, not them. They live by the maxim that it is better to ask for forgiveness after the fact than seek permission before doing something awful.

In the second half of 2012 while working at State as a consultant, Abedin also worked for Teneo, a high-flying consultancy established by Doug Band, who was an adviser to President Clinton. Teneo advised MF Global, the failed brokerage of Democrat Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey and former U.S. senator.

“At the same time, Ms. Abedin served as a consultant to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and worked in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton as she prepared to transition out of her job as secretary of state,” the newspaper reported. (The foundation has since changed its name to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.)

The head of the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) at the time, Melanie Sloane, engaged in Monty Pythonesque understatement when she described Abedin’s special working arrangement as merely unusual. “If she was being held out as a deputy chief of staff, it would be highly unusual for her to be a part-time employee or a consultant,” Sloane said. “Being a deputy chief of staff at the State Department is generally considered more than a full-time job.”

So Abedin was double- or even triple-dipping, working on sensitive issues in the Obama administration while at the same time working as a consultant at Teneo and the Clinton Foundation.

Political commentators might be more outraged over the Abedin affair but for the fact that the Clintons have always been shady operators. It’s scandal fatigue.

Pick a scandal, any scandal. There’s Whitewater, Juanita Broaddrick, Troopergate, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Elizabeth Gracen, Monica Lewinsky, Bill lying under oath and being disbarred for doing so, Filegate, the senseless slaughter of religious non-conformists at Waco, Texas, and many, many others.

There are so many Clinton scandals that Wikipedia had to create an index page [5] to list them all. Clinton-watching is an exhausting hobby that will turn into a full-time job for multitudes of talking heads, journalists, columnists, and activists should the Clintons take up residence in the White House again.

In the meantime we are left to wonder what role Abedin played in a long list of irregularities, mishaps, scandals, and America-weakening events while serving at the Department of State.

What role, if any, did Abedin play in:

*the Benghazi massacre and the coverup of it

*the State Department’s accountability review board failing to blame Clinton for Benghazi

*the failure of the Obama administration to disclose the cause of death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who was reportedly tortured and sodomized to death by Muslim terrorists

*the Obama’s administration’s perverse embrace of America’s longtime enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran whose leaders can’t go a day without screaming “Death to America” (and “Death to Israel”)

*Iran’s conquest of its neighbors

*the ousting of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi

*the rise of Islamic State

*the removal of longstanding ally Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt followed by the installation of Muslim Brotherhood favorite Mohamed Morsi in the position

*the conversion of NASA into a Muslim outreach agency

*the odious, lie-strewn “A New Beginning” speech President Obama gave at Cairo University in 2009

All these things that happened on then-Secretary Clinton’s watch. And they happened while the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation reportedly raked in millions of dollars in donations from the governments of Muslim countries including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Algeria.

Call them anticipatory bribes thrown over the transom in case Mrs. Clinton secures the presidency. (Statistics wiz Nate Silver says [6] Clinton is a virtual shoo-in for her party’s nomination but gives her roughly a 50/50 chance of winning the general election.)

As Hillary was screwing up America’s foreign policy, Bill was giving highly remunerative speeches in the Islamic nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey, according to Judicial Watch.

For what it’s worth, President Obama’s Cairo speech came on the heels of his worldwide apology tour in which he begged forgiveness from the countries of the world supposedly oppressed for so long by the U.S.

The oration was a major propaganda victory for Islamism that has emboldened fanatics and terrorists worldwide. It was also jam-packed with falsehoods, according to academics Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow [7].

The address, of course, is a breathtaking work of fiction [8] that whitewashes the blood-drenched history of Islam and falsely attributes accomplishments such as printing, navigation, and medicine to the Islamic world.

Obama gave Islam credit for un-Islamic things such as the Enlightenment and religious tolerance. Islam “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for European Renaissance and Enlightenment,” and “has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” Obama said.

Grabar and Birdnow counter that in fact “the intellectual Renaissance began when Byzantine scholars, mostly Greek, fled the advancing Turks in the 14th century and settled in Italy. The Enlightenment was openly anti-theistic and would have been anathema to most practicing Muslims.”

Moreover, they add, “Muslims wiped out Zoroastrianism, they battled Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries, and they levied a special tax on Christians and Jews in their domains.”

The lies in the Obama speech would no doubt be embraced by Abedin’s family. Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin’s connections [9] to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep.

Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin [10], widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 1978 Mr. Abedin was hired by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank created by Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden.

The elder Abedins both became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.

Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” Huma Abedin was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA has extensive ties to al-Qaeda. From 1996 to 2008, she was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington. Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then surreptitiously deleted their electronic correspondence.

Were Secretary Clinton’s dealings with the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton Foundation discussed in the emails that she deleted from her now-infamous private email server? We may never know.

There is, nonetheless, some reason for hope. Yes, it is depressing that even as evidence continues to accumulate that Mrs. Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.

Republican lawmakers seem for the most part unaware of Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism, or like John McCain, remain stubbornly in denial.

But with the State Department Inspector General’s investigation set in motion, there is at least a possibility something will be discovered about Abedin that will spark the interest of the party whose elected officials now dominate both chambers of Congress.

The exposure of Huma Abedin is vitally important to the national security of the United States.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here [11].

Subscribe [12] to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube [12] and LIKE [13] it on Facebook. [13]

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/clinton-campaign-kicks-off-as-huma-abedin-probe-begins/

URLs in this post:

[1] YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0uY7gLZDmn4
[2] sent a letter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/10/program-that-benefited-clinton-aide-under-review-by-inspector-general/
[3] here: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/Response%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Grassley%20Ltr%20on%20State%20Email%20-SGE%204-8-15%20Sign....pdf
[4] New York Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html?referrer=&_r=0
[5] an index page: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
[6] says: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/
[7] Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow: http://www.amazon.com/New-Beginning-Revised-Past-Barack/dp/0986018309
[8] a breathtaking work of fiction: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obamas-benghazi-propagandist/
[9] Abedin’s connections: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556
[10] Saleha Mahmood Abedin: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2557
[11] Click here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=david+horowitz&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&qid=1316459840&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&sort=daterank
[12] Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFMPMG/featured
[13] LIKE: https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Empty Suit Hillary
« Reply #513 on: April 14, 2015, 11:42:58 AM »
In the Business World, We'd Call Bill Clinton's Wife an Empty Suit

Posted by Herman Cain - 04-13-2015

Lots of talk. Not much to back it up.

If you spend much time in business, you'll meet one of them. They're not hard to spot. They may have gotten a position by way of nepotism. Or maybe they gave a very impressive interview, but once hired it became painfully clear they didn't have what it took to do the job on a day-to-day basis. They had learned how to speak some of the language of business, but actually getting things done and done well was an entirely different story.

We call them empty suits.

I suppose a lot of them might be attracted to politics because all you have to do in politics is appear to be getting things done. Like Dr. Stantz said in Ghostbusters, "In the private sector, they expect results!" And those who can't deliver tend not to last very long. They might have a resume that lists a lot of jobs that look impressive, but there's a reason they list so many. They don't stick around anywhere very long because it quickly becomes obvious that they either don't have what it takes, or they won't do the work that's required.

And that brings us to Bill Clinton's Wife, who thinks she should now get a turn as president. Democrats will point to her resume. Eight years as a U.S. senator. Four years as Secretary of State. Pretty impressive, no?

Actually, no. Because it's not just the positions you held. It's what you did in them. And in her case, it's why you had the jobs in the first place. What significant accomplishment can she point to during her years as New York's junior senator? What major piece of legislation did she sponsor and successfully push through to implementation, only to see it work well for the American people? What important problem did she help to solve?

You don't remember any? That's because there weren't any.

What have been the results of her tenure as Secretary of State? Are you kidding me? The Russian reset button gimmick was lame and naive, but not as bad as the actual results in terms of our relations with Russia, which is more hostile toward us (and fears us less) than ever. The Middle East is completely out of control. Iran is close to getting the bomb. Syria is in chaos. And relations everywhere from Great Britain to Israel to Egypt to Turkey to even Canada are worse than they were back in the days when, according to Democrats, George W. Bush was "shredding our alliances." (Remember that one? Seems pretty preposterous given the current state of affairs, doesn't it?)

Oh, and let's not forget her decision to deny extra security in Benghazi, only to tell the victims of the attack there not to worry because she'd make sure a guy who made a YouTube video was "brought to justice".

At least she knew how to make decisions about trade deals. She would just check and see who donated to the Clinton Foundation and then take a position. These Clintons do have a way of doing things, don't they?

And let's not forget: Everyone knew before she ever became a senator, and before she ever became Secretary of State, that she wanted to be president and thought she should be president. She only pursued those jobs to make herself look more qualified for the job she wished she could just move right into. This is classic empty suit stuff! And once she had those jobs, her only purpose in doing them was to make herself look more qualified for the presidency.

I'm honestly baffled as to why so many people support such an empty suit. I know why the political consultant class supports her. They think her name recognition gives her a great chance of being elected and they see her as a meal ticket for another four years. And I know that while she often infuriates the liberal media with her secrecy (you can treat everyone else badly, but not them), they will still cover for her if she wins the Democrat nomination - lying by omission as they ignore the many scandals and other storylines that demonstrate her lack of preparation and qualification for the Oval Office.

But what's with normal, everyday people who are telling pollsters they want her to be president? I guess an empty suit can pretty easily fool people who only pay very limited attention. In fact, that's what they count on. It sounds good to them when she says she wants to be their "champion," but if they were really to think that statement through, they might ask, "Champion of what?" And when have the Clintons ever been champions of anything except themselves and their own interests?

There's a reason we refer to her around here as Bill Clinton's Wife. It's because she has only ever gotten anywhere in politics because of who she's married to. She is only taken seriously as a candidate for president because of who she's married to. Anyone else with her unimpressive track record would be laughed off the stage. Not only does she have no impressive accomplishments in her career, but she hasn't even offered any compelling policy ideas, or even any serious priorities or goals.

She just commands lots of attention, without so much as a hint of why she deserves any of it. It's hard for me to believe that as she goes through the rigors of a campaign, where serious opponents will challenge her on substance, that she can continue the illusion. That's usually when empty suits, shall we say, fold like a cheap suit.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Hillary's income inequality
« Reply #514 on: April 15, 2015, 06:27:43 PM »
Hillary's Income Inequality Platform Problem

While Hillary Clinton established her campaign on reducing income inequality, she has not practiced what she preached. "Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top," Clinton said in the video announcing her presidential campaign "Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion." Sure, Clinton can talk all she wants, but her platform places her between the idealistic Left and her salary. Progressives are beginning to say a $15-an-hour wage is the only wage they will support, probably to the chagrin of Seattle small businesses that have to close because of the city's $15-an-hour wage experiment. And Hillary has acted precisely like the CEOs and one-percenters she lambasts. Her $200,000-an-hour speaking gigs place her firmly in the filthy rich category. Furthermore, she directs all her salary through her foundation, so she avoids paying taxes. The income deck is, indeed, stacked in her favor. More...

Meanwhile, she also wants "unaccountable money" out of politics. After she raises $2.5 billion, of course.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Cong. Issa requested Hillary's email accounts in 2012
« Reply #515 on: April 15, 2015, 06:42:25 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Marc Levin to the 2016 Hillary voter, Are you a Genitalian?
« Reply #516 on: April 17, 2015, 08:12:06 AM »
Yes, Levin says, you heard that right.  Are you a Genitalian?  Are you someone who makes their decision about who should be the next president based on their genitalia category?

Here's one who says she is:
Nancy Pelosi says "it is important to elect the first woman President".

Does that mean if reversed, still true?  What if it turns out to be Mark O'Malley against Carly Fiorina?  

Suddenly it is not so important.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 08:13:49 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Cong. Issa requested Hillary's email accounts in 2012
« Reply #517 on: April 17, 2015, 08:52:06 AM »
http://www.darrellissa.com/view/?u=12165

This is important.  This was an official inquiry from the Chairman of the appropriate Congressional oversight committee, and it was made long before the alleged destruction of the emails and server in question.  They received no answer to this specific question, asked in 2012:

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Issa wrote Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”

Asked but never answered.  Here is the other question, also asked in 2012:

“Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”

This is what they finally received back after she had left the department:

[Any State employee] “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”

That's the rule governing the security of State department communications at the highest level??  They "should"??!

Everyone in Washington who knew how to reach her knew she used a private email address.  We're talking about a hundred thousand pages of email to and from someone.   This no doubt included all her favorite media people and committee members.   She is running for President (?) and has, in fact, declared for all to hear that she has absolutely no intention of ever being subject to any congressional oversight whatsoever over anything that she does!  Unbelievable.

Another link, NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #518 on: April 17, 2015, 10:42:11 PM »
"She is running for President (?) and has, in fact, declared for all to hear that she has absolutely no intention of ever being subject to any congressional oversight whatsoever over anything that she does!  Unbelievable."

Yup.  "No controlling legal authority".   No one can (Republicans) or no one will (Democrats) do anything about it.  Thumb her nose at the law and move on.

Dick Morris take on why she made it official.   For legal reasons.   So she can pay her mob:

http://www.dickmorris.com/why-did-hillary-announce/#more-15393

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #519 on: April 20, 2015, 12:03:15 PM »
...
Dick Morris take on why she made it official.   For legal reasons.   So she can pay her mob:
http://www.dickmorris.com/why-did-hillary-announce/#more-15393

Yes.  She made an obligatory announcement for legal reasons, to be able to pay people and lease space.  

Cheap surrogate, Sen. Claire McCaskill just gave the other big reason.  By declaring candidacy she can now allege that the congressional subpoenas to testify are all politically motivated.

To her question, by the way,

"Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"

...the answer is that we would like to know what happened and how to keep it from happening again.  Separately, note that this congenital liar prefaces with a false choice.  It wasn't either of those, because of a protest OR because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans.  It was a terror attack, by al Qaida affiliates "on the run", against Americans.

The question that follows:  How do we keep our officials from lying to us?  (Vote for someone else.)

One more question for my 'ask Hillary list':  Do the Clintons both lie to each other constantly or just both lie to us?  Will Bob Schieffer ask her that?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/23/hillary-what-difference-does-it-make/
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 12:08:51 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #523 on: April 23, 2015, 06:49:30 AM »
The Clinton Connection to Russia’s Claims on Uranium
As Russia’s atomic energy agency gradually took charge of a company that controls one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States, a stream of cash made its way to former President Bill Clinton’s charitable organization. Whether the donations played any role in the United States government’s approval of the uranium deal is unknown, but the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?emc=edit_na_20150423



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
WHAT “CLINTON CASH” TELLS US ABOUT HILLARY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH BILL
Powerline 4/24/15
Liberal pundit Jonathan Chait concludes from the emerging “Clinton cash” scandal that, at a minimum, the Clintons have been “disorganized and greedy.” Of the greed, there can be no doubt. But whether the Clintons have been disorganized depends on what they were trying, primarily, to accomplish through their Foundation.

From Bill Clinton’s perspective, I gather, the Foundation was intended to raise huge amounts of money and to serve as a vehicle through which he would remain an important international player. Clinton plainly wanted an enormously lucrative and conspicuously consequential post-presidency. The Clinton Foundation would enable him to meet these aspirations.

And so it has. From Bill’s perspective, then, the Clinton Foundation is a raging success, brilliantly conceived and executed, and sufficiently well-organized to achieve its purposes.

This point appears to be lost on Chait. He says, with surprise, that “Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative.”

Well, yeah. Having Hillary running the State Department clearly maximized the Foundation’s ability to raise huge amounts of money and to project Bill into major deals all over the world.

As one Clintonista told Ryan Lizza, “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State; it worked out very well for him.”

But how has it worked out for Hillary Clinton? We don’t know yet. Surely, she is delighted to see her family massively enriched through the Foundation. And while a part of her may not love seeing her husband flying so high, it’s unlikely that she begrudges him a place on the world stage.

Her primary mission, though, is to become president of the United States. It remains to be seen whether the “Clinton cash” scandal will derail her quest. But she must believe that it has created more risk of derailment than is worth the incremental income Bill’s more aggressive plays has accrued. The scandal probably seem to her, as it does to Chait, like an unforced error — one that, left to her own devices, she would have avoided.

In sum, the Foundation has operated the way Bill wanted it to, but probably not quite as Hillary, with her focus on the presidency, wished.

If so, this tells us that Bill Clinton remains the dominant force in the family. When their interests diverged, Bill’s carried the day.

Lizza’s reporting tends to confirm that this was the case. He writes:

More than anyone, [Bill] pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.”

The husband’s pushy advocacy was the “tie-breaking” reason why the wife made the momentous decision to take an all-consuming job? In which version of feminism are things supposed to work like this?

I hope America’s first female president will be a woman who is not under the sway of her husband and who would not permit the family enterprise to be commandeered by a husband notorious for having no sense of proportion or propriety. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-clinton-cash-tells-us-about-hillarys-relationship-with-bill.php
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/liberal-columnist-rips-into-the-clintons-disorganized-and-greedy-a-fiasco/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
The Hillbillary Clintons, $500k speaking fee while Uranium One deal pending
« Reply #526 on: April 26, 2015, 06:46:17 AM »
I think I may have found a missing piece of the puzzle in this scandal that never seems to get mentioned.  First, this is what we know for sure.

We know that as a Senator Hillary in 2005 publicly and vehemently opposed foreign takeover of critical American assets that ended in the cancellation of the Dubai Ports deal.

In a relatively abrupt about face, we know she was critically involved in the approval of the Russian - Uranium One deal, where the State Department was one of the agencies that had the full power and responsibility to stop the transfer of US Uranium assets to the Russians, if it was not in America's best interest.

We know that more than a dozen Russian individuals and organizations associated with the Uranium One deal gave millions upon millions to the Clinton Foundation.

We know that Bill Clinton's speaking fees in Russia TRIPLED during the period that the time that deal was before the State Department.

The innocent explanation for speaking fees tripling is that the speeches, in Russia, suddenly got that much better over the time, even though the aging ex-President who was aging was drifting further and further from power.   

The opposite conclusion is that the speech income, which goes to both Clintons, was actually buying an expectation of influence with the United States Secretary of State. 

Speaking fees go directly into the power couple's pocket, like a bribe or kickback, not into the Foundation to feed the poor, etc.

Here's what I don't get about the innocent, coincidental explanation of taking a half million bucks for a short speech in Russia:

The man does not speak Russian!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #527 on: April 28, 2015, 07:37:26 AM »
A point Team Hillary is making is that State was one of some 9 agencies that reviewed and approved the deal.  While some/most may have no national security considerations as part of their evaluating criteria, others, e.g. the Pentagon clearly did.

How do we explain this?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #528 on: April 28, 2015, 08:30:17 AM »
A point Team Hillary is making is that State was one of some 9 agencies that reviewed and approved the deal.  While some/most may have no national security considerations as part of their evaluating criteria, others, e.g. the Pentagon clearly did.
How do we explain this?

a) It had to be unanimous so her vote was the decider, not just one of nine. Her Dept's approval was the most crucial.  Why would Sec of Interior see this as a threat if State did not, for example. These other Secretaries are all Obama-ites by definition and all have close ties to the Clintons. Could have been influenced also and likely were if the policy otherwise doesn't make sense. b) We don't know anything about behind the scenes communications, the pulling of other agencies or even her own, but the pattern of facts bears further investigation.  There isn't a shred of evidence maybe because evidence was withheld and destroyed.  c) The timing of these bribery payments to Bill, Hillary and the Foundation was keyed on this deal.  d) The Bill Clinton speaking fee tripled, yet his voice is shakier.  He has drifted further and further from power EXCEPT for his influence over State and other Departments.  e) She was a big opponent of this kind of security risk very recently as a Senator, very outspoken opposing foreign control of our ports.  This is similar but MUCH worse security risk/failure.  Dubai is not a threat to our security on par with Moscow.  f) If the policy decision is wrong, doesn't that disqualify her for higher office regardless of the corruption?  g) This wasn't the only occurrence of Clinton money affecting US policy and contracts.  h) Many politicians went to jail for crimes FAR smaller than this.  Didn't a Speaker of the House fall over a bunch of phony book sales that were really just disguised payments?  (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/23/opinion/what-to-call-mr-wright-s-royalties.html)  In all cases, prosecution starts an investigation following signs like we see here of wrongdoing. 

As one pundit put it earlier, people don't give to the Clinton Foundation because they didn't know about the Red Cross.  100% of the speaking fees go directly into their personal account and the vast majority of Foundation goes to pay family and friends, not to direct aid.  (I will post that separately.)

I wonder what the new Attorney General will do about this, lol.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Breitbart: 11 Clinton Cash facts confirmed accurate by the mainstream media
« Reply #529 on: April 28, 2015, 08:36:56 AM »
These are not just partisan allegations.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/11-explosive-clinton-cash-facts-mainstream-media-confirm-are-accurate/

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the forthcoming book rocking Washington right now is the number of stunning facts liberal media outlets have already confirmed and verified are accurate.

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.

“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti

The Washington Post confirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.

According to the Post, Rodham’s mining company “won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,” just as Clinton Cash reveals.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The Wall Street Journal confirms the book’s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.

“About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation’s prime minister to allow ‘open pit mining,’ including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,” reports the Journal.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.

The New York Times confirms, “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times also verifies the book’s reporting that Hillary’s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.

Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by “Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,” a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.

Bloomberg’s examination confirms that “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”

The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.

CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns

Reuters has confirmed that “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns” as “the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.”

CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors

The Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”

Of that, reports the Post, “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”

CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial Dealings

CBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s financial records and relationships.

“The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender’s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida’s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush’s private equity funds,” reports CBS News.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.

ABC News has confirmed Clinton Cash’s reporting that myriad businesses and individuals paid Bill Clinton to deliver speeches even as their companies had business on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s desk.

“Records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department,” reported ABC News.

ABC News noted it found “an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated,” but that Clinton Cash’s essential “premise” is “supported by records” ABC News independently analyzed.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York

New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker confirmed in a one-hour Fox News television special on Clinton Cash that Bill Clinton lied when questioned about whether Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the Kazakh-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom ever met in Clintons’ home.

“When I first contacted both the Clinton Foundation—Mr. Clinton’s spokesman—and Mr. Giustra, they denied any such meeting ever took place,” said Becker.

“And then when we told them, ‘Well we already talked to the head of Kazatomprom, who not only told us all about the meeting, but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home in Chappaqua, and that he proudly displayed it on his office wall.’ They then acknowledged that yes, the meeting had taken place.”

The Hillary Clinton campaign continues to struggle in its efforts to spin and distract from the growing pile of Clinton Cash facts mainstream media outlets have already confirmed and verified are correct.

As Politico concludes, “Hillary’s Clinton Cash dismissal is dead in the water.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Clinton Foundation 2013, 10% of budget went to charitable grants
« Reply #530 on: April 28, 2015, 08:44:01 AM »
You would think they're first defense would be to point to all the good they are doing around the globe.  Not so much.
-------------------------------------

In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
-------------------------------------



http://www.independentsentinel.com/holy-shnikeys-new-chart-o-the-day-how-the-clinton-foundation-spent-its-money-in-2013/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #531 on: April 28, 2015, 09:01:56 AM »
And not only this.  The Clinton machine is *boasting" how it plans to raise 2 to 2.5 BILLION more yet.

50 million immigrants in 8 years according to Drudge.  They vast majority are not going to be Republicans.  I wonder how many of them will vote.  Legal or not.

Tabloid says she had 2 strokes.  Remember I posted a picture of her cross eyed and questioned this.

Still she will run .  Still her identity politics groups will vote for her. 

   

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #532 on: April 28, 2015, 09:45:20 AM »
ccp: "The Clinton machine is *boasting" how it plans to raise 2 to 2.5 BILLION more yet."

Bozo at NYT (Dana Milbank) writes today about Republicans having big money backers.  I hope so!

"Tabloid says she had 2 strokes.  Remember I (ccp) posted a picture of her cross eyed and questioned this."

Yes, something happened. I wonder if she ever has to release medical records.  Plus I think she hides at times to cover up the healing of 'work done' on her face.  Are those in the medical records?  Maybe they can tuck in some other problem areas as well.  I lost a Carly post to a computer re-boot but it would be nice if our first woman President was at least a little bit feminine.  (Sexist I'm sure to comment on any of that.  But not when it is to comment about men, good looking, overweight, old, young, etc.)

"Still she will run."

If she bows out, a partial health disclosure would give her a face saving excuse and maybe slow down the call for investigations.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2015, 09:50:51 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #533 on: April 28, 2015, 11:03:31 AM »
"Bozo at NYT (Dana Milbank)"

Doug thanks for clarifying who you were referring to.  A lot of Bozos on that side.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #534 on: April 28, 2015, 08:00:05 PM »
"Bozo at NYT (Dana Milbank)"

Doug thanks for clarifying who you were referring to.  A lot of Bozos on that side.

Very funny ccp.  I meant to say, one clown among many over there.  Meanwhile at the NYT, the master of straw man arguments, Paul Krugman who won't argue with anyone but a straw man had a column today titled "Nobody Said That".  Really?  It took willpower to not click on his drivel.  I used to read and answer the nonsense.  But like the ratings of MSNBC, they won't go away until no one is watching or reading them anymore.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #536 on: April 30, 2015, 08:45:12 AM »
Q:What do you get when you cross a slimy lawyer and a crooked politician?

A:  Chelsea.


The Clinton Family’s Proud Tradition of Shamelessly Lying

Everybody has a particular figure in the news who drives them a little bonkers. You may recall that for some reason, media hosannas for Chelsea Clinton stick in my craw. I’m perfectly happy to see Chelsea Clinton go off and live a happy life as a mom or doing whatever she likes away from the public spotlight. But I’m tired of the media telling us she’s remarkably accomplished in her own right, her keynote addresses to conferences like SXSW, treating her like she’s an A-list celebrity and fascinating figure, the “Woman of the Year” and “Mom of the Year” awards, her widely-panned, $600,000-per-year, part-time work as an increasingly infrequent NBC News correspondent, and her assistant-vice-provost position at New York University, taken at age 30, before finishing her dissertation.

Now there’s a new angle to Chelsea Clinton’s public profile: She’s as shameless a liar as both of her parents:

“What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent,” said the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the foundation, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. “Even though Transparency International and others have said we’re among the most transparent foundations, we’ll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis.”

The problem with that, though, is Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation. It did award Hillary Clinton its 2012 TI-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for “recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy,” Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, told NPR. (The organization put out a fuller statement Monday.)

It’s a false statement, but it also looks like Freudian slip. Transparency International gives the U.S. State Department an award, and Chelsea thinks it went to the Clinton Foundation. It’s hard to shake the feeling that for the Clintons, the U.S. State Department and the Clinton Foundation were intertwined and interchangeable.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Hillary and Citizens United
« Reply #537 on: May 05, 2015, 09:21:04 PM »

By
Donald F. McGahn II
May 5, 2015 7:22 p.m. ET
123 COMMENTS

Progressivism’s ever-tightening grip on the Democratic Party is on full display in Hillary Clinton’s presidential platform. Starting with her kickoff speech in Iowa, and in subsequent venues across the country, she spoke of her campaign’s “four fights,” one of which is a constitutional amendment on campaign finance. This marks Mrs. Clinton as an adherent to one of the newest and most fervently held tenets of modern progressive teaching: Citizens United v. FEC is an evil that must be destroyed at any cost.

Yet it’s worth dwelling on that cost. Recent history demonstrates that the anti-Citizens United campaign quickly devolves into an assault on the First Amendment and a free and fair electoral system.

In a sense, it’s fitting that Mrs. Clinton supports efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that dealt with the right to buy television ads for a movie that criticized her. The constitutional amendment she wants could return American elections to where they were in 2008, when her opponents and critics were often muzzled in the public square.

Despite the hyperbole surrounding Citizens United, the justices were actually debating a simple issue: Whether a movie critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton could be aired on pay-per-view television. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, such activity was banned within 30 days of a primary election. The justices struck down this prohibition, ruling that “the First Amendment protects political speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts was even more blunt, arguing that such bans subvert “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

There was a time when most Americans agreed with this logic. The American Founding was partially triggered by the Stamp Act, which squelched speech by mandating that publications possess a stamp purchased from the British government. Following the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, the first Congress wisely passed the First Amendment to prevent politicians from banning speech that criticizes officeholders. Throughout American history, this constitutional guarantee of free speech has been the bulwark of the country’s experiment in self-government.

Yet this consensus disappeared following Citizens United. The Democratic Party’s leadership, fearing the electoral losses that ultimately came to pass, called for a crusade to undo the Supreme Court’s decision. Their holy war found its fullest expression in the demand for a constitutional amendment that would, in essence, repeal the First Amendment.

Hillary Clinton is now on board this campaign, based on her recent pledge to “fix” our political system “even if that takes a constitutional amendment.” For a hint of what her proposed amendment might look like, consider the measure then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) brought to the Senate floor last year. The so-called Udall Amendment—introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.), co-sponsored by 48 other Democratic senators, and ultimately supported by 54 senators, but no Republicans—was designed to reverse Citizens United.

The amendment—which was filibustered in the Senate in September—promises to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all” and “protect the integrity of the legislative electoral process.” In reality, it would give politicians unlimited authority to stifle the speech of their political opponents.

As with most campaign-finance reform measures, the Udall Amendment’s goal is to get money out of politics. It seeks to accomplish this by allowing Congress to regulate and limit how “candidates and others” raise and spend money.

Yet free speech is toothless without money—especially when it concerns elections and public policy. It is necessary to print campaign mailers, organize phone banks, air television and radio ads, build websites and pay for a thousand other things.

By giving legislators authority to regulate the money that finances this speech, politicians would only succeed in making it harder for Americans to make their voices heard in the political process. The American Civil Liberties Union argued in a 2014 letter to Congress that the Udall Amendment would “lead directly to government censorship of political speech.” The ACLU also warned that it would “fundamentally ‘break’ the constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”

It isn’t hard to see how. The Obama administration admitted in 2010 that its position in Citizens United would empower the government to ban books, ads and anything else that contains a political message that regulators and politicians don’t like. The only limit the Udall Amendment placed on Congress is that any campaign-finance law must be “reasonable.” This led Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) to remark in a 2014 Senate subcommittee hearing on the amendment that “I am not content to have . . . free speech rights protected by the reasonableness of members of Congress, Republicans or Democrats.”

No one, left or right, should be comfortable with giving politicians such power. When elected officials are able to handicap and silence their electoral opponents, they will rarely refrain from doing so. This is true whether it’s the man or woman in the White House, representatives and senators in Congress, state legislators and governors, or even the members of the local PTA. A constitutional amendment on campaign finance can’t change human nature.

Before she goes down in history as the first presidential candidate to make gutting the First Amendment a central part of her platform, Mrs. Clinton might want to remember the liberal heroes of yesteryear who defended free speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was right when he declared in 1919 that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Justice Louis Brandeis was also right in 1927 when he called for “more speech, not enforced silence” in America’s political debates. And so was Sen. Ted Kennedy, who 80 years later declared that “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start.”

It’s a shame that the Democratic Party’s de facto presidential candidate has abandoned this wisdom.

Mr. McGahn is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Hillary brags she would "go further" than Obama on immigration, on EPA regulation of CO2 in defiance of Congress, and more generally - in just ripping up what's left of the constitution.

Can we also assume she would go further than Obama on using the IRS power to stop political opposition?  Wars without declarations from Congress?  What else? 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-i-would-go-even-further-than-obama-on-immigration/article/2564050?custom_click=rss

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #539 on: May 06, 2015, 09:56:55 AM »
If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #540 on: May 06, 2015, 08:25:25 PM »
If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement.

Good thinking. I don't want to say it but if anyone wants to start looking at lakeshore in Canada - let me know.

It is time to put half our money into candidates like Ted Cruz and Rubio and the rest toward a backup plan.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #541 on: May 06, 2015, 09:14:25 PM »
If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement.

Good thinking. I don't want to say it but if anyone wants to start looking at lakeshore in Canada - let me know.

It is time to put half our money into candidates like Ted Cruz and Rubio and the rest toward a backup plan.



I am looking at Singapore myself. I will watch the downward spiral from a distance.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #542 on: May 07, 2015, 08:13:57 AM »
Her pandering to illegals is just one more example of how she will sell out the country and citizens of the US to pander for votes for her own personal power.  It is not about serving us, it is about her.  Always has been.

Then again some of the Republicans are pandering for votes too in a similar way.

Who would have ever dreamed that we would have a President and Presidential candidates pandering to people here ILLegally for votes?

Just outrageous.  What about us?  What about citizens?

 :x

"If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement." 

I don't blame you.  If we get another marxist you would probably get a good job working for them as a brown shirt or a red military police officer suppressing the rest of us.  :wink:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #543 on: May 07, 2015, 10:55:52 AM »
Her pandering to illegals is just one more example of how she will sell out the country and citizens of the US to pander for votes for her own personal power.  It is not about serving us, it is about her.  Always has been.

Then again some of the Republicans are pandering for votes too in a similar way.

Who would have ever dreamed that we would have a President and Presidential candidates pandering to people here ILLegally for votes?

Just outrageous.  What about us?  What about citizens?

 :x

"If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement." 

I don't blame you.  If we get another marxist you would probably get a good job working for them as a brown shirt or a red military police officer suppressing the rest of us.  :wink:


The good news, as John Podhoretz lays out, is that with Hillary going all-in on leftism and opposing the rule of law, Americans will have a clear choice on the ballot.

Strange that while she runs seemingly unopposed for the nomination, she sees the biggest threat to her as coming from the left.  But that is where she lost last time.

Elizabeth Warren and Bill deBlasio penned a piece for the Washington Post today called "How to revive the American Dream".  Funny that they are still not endorsing her; just moving ahead with their own campaign.  Odd to see Democrats opposing cronyism and a rigged game - looks like a direct attack on the Clintons.  The American Dream, in their view, is bigger and more intrusive government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-revive-the-american-dream/2015/05/06/a583c94c-f323-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #544 on: May 07, 2015, 11:49:51 AM »
"The good news, as John Podhoretz lays out, is that with Hillary going all-in on leftism and opposing the rule of law, Americans will have a clear choice on the ballot."

Doug we have been dealing with these grifters for decades now.

There is no good news with them till they are GONE once and for all.

Till then we have to suffer.

As for clear choice I have to say I don't know what you mean.  The choice is the same.  Those who want government to pay for them and those who pay.
She along with the rest of the Dems are doing everything they can to expand the first group.   Of the 50 million  new people from other countries most will vote for her irregardless of concepts about Constitution, rule of law etc.   


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #545 on: May 07, 2015, 06:04:52 PM »
CCP,

I have raised my right hand multiple times and sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. That constitution means nothing to those in power now. I believed in the inherent wisdom and goodness of the American people. I seriously question that now.

The rule of law and the constitution lie in tatters and the public seems to be more interested in Bruce Jenner's gender crisis. And what better metaphor for America than the Bruce Jenner of my childhood on a Wheaties box as an American Olympic hero and the Bruce Jenner of today preparing to have his smeckle surgically turned into a vajayjay. America today is just as unimaginable and unrecognizable.

We have alleged americans cheering for the jihadists targeting a brave American standing for core American freedoms. Our president does nothing to protect her from the enemies he has allowed to fester in our midst.

This is becoming a country not worth bleeding for, much less dying for. I am not renouncing my country, it is renouncing me and everything I have spent my adult life defending.  If we continue down this path, then I am done. I went into law enforcement because I saw it as a sacred calling. I used to encourage talented people to consider it as a career or volunteer opportunity. I no longer do so.

So, what's on TV?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #546 on: May 07, 2015, 10:48:45 PM »
I'd be lying if I didn't say there aren't days when I feel the very same thing.

On the other hand, we can fight to preserve our Republic.  Defeating Hillary, perhaps by Rubio, would be a good start.  Continuing the good fight on this forum (check out the reads/posts ratios!) has its merits too.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #547 on: May 08, 2015, 08:07:57 AM »
To clarify the clear choice comment, recall that Bill Clinton first ran as a centrist.  Once elected he started left, but by the time of his reelection his accomplishments were Republican policies, including free trade and welfare reform.  By the time he left office he was taking credit for Republican capital gains cuts, economic growth and balanced budgets.  Obama as a candidate played down far left and talked in cliches and euphemisms; he rarely spoke honestly about specific policy intentions.  

Hillary is a technocrat more than a visionary.  As she lays down leftist stands, she pins herself down.  That isn't what got the others to the White House.

(ccp) "The choice is the same.  Those who want government to pay for them and those who pay."

Among those receiving public support are the elderly, veterans, retired federal workers, disabled, etc.  It is not logical for them to want the country that supports them to collapse and implode.  It is not their dream that their children grow up forever dependent on government.  It comes down to a contest of which vision grows prosperity better.  

Yes, she will win some of these groups, but the margin and turnout will determine the outcome  A charismatic and persuasive Republican can make significant inroads and she doesn't have the skills of those who won previously.

For people who believe government is a big part of the answer, the best way to finance is to support a vibrant and dynamic private sector.  Their side can sell on emotion, but not prevail on logic.  Emotion fizzles when people see that their view leads to failure.

To support having top earners pay for all the rest is to hope top earners keep making all the money.  In a twisted sort of way, that is the Obama economy.  The Dow is up 11,000 points and the rest of us have 0.02% growth.  Her agenda so far is for more of the same.

For all the fights we have lost, we can look back and see that our side made glaring unforced political errors.  We've picked the wrong candidate with the wrong message at the wrong time plenty of times.  Even when we pick well, they often let us down.

Meanwhile, we have been winning some battles too.  Look at all these great Governors, Senators now, and the GOP controls 70% of state legislative chambers, 68 out of 98!  Conservatives are winning elsewhere too, Britain, Israel, Canada, Australia.  Even Sweden is scrambling to reform the welfare state, and the number one issue in Britain was immigration.  Socialists have backed down on some of their policies in France.

This time around Hillary and the Dems are making plenty of unforced errors and we are in the process of vetting some very good candidates.  With the electoral college the way it is and such a small percentage of the votes truly in play, our side will need to play a near perfect hand all the way through to win.  If we do, the upside potential is tremendous.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2015, 08:17:00 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #548 on: May 08, 2015, 08:24:25 AM »
YES.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #549 on: May 08, 2015, 08:32:30 AM »
"This is becoming a country not worth bleeding for, much less dying for. I am not renouncing my country, it is renouncing me and everything I have spent my adult life defending.  If we continue down this path, then I am done. I went into law enforcement because I saw it as a sacred calling. I used to encourage talented people to consider it as a career or volunteer opportunity. I no longer do so."

I too am demoralized by Obama - the first Black President and what does he do - screw us all over.

I have been demoralized by what has and still is happening with the organized crime in the entertainment business and how nearly everyone can be bought to participate in robbing us with little apparent qualm

I have been further demoralized by the politicians so many of whom are outright corrupt.  Going all the way to the top.   I was not brought up to be dishonest.  Now even all my conceptions of people and the world and our country are being shattered.

To have such liars and shameless people at the top of our government is just so sad.  I just don't know if anything can be done till the economy collapses.   Only then will people see the forest for the trees (chump change bribes).

 :cry: