Top 10 Unfortunate Comments of the Clintons-

Top 10 Unfortunate Comments of the Clintons–September 5, 2007

Bill and Hillary Clinton are generally quoted in the media with well-formed comments. At times, though, they completely abandon those in exchange for gems like these… (NOTE: as we are politically unbiased, we also have a top 10 unfortunate comments of George Bush).

  1. US Chamber of Commerce

We have a lot of kids who don’t know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, May 2006

Show your radical support with THE MOUNTAIN CLINTON SHIRT at Amazon.com!

  1. Comment on subpoenaed documents

I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.

First Lady Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents in 1998

  1. To a Representative

We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.

First Lady Hillary Clinton commented to Representative Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, regarding her national health care plan and the issue of who should oversee the distribution of funds, 1993

  1. National Press Club

I have said that I’m not running and I’m having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), commenting on her presidential ambitions when speaking at the National Press Club, July 20, 2001

  1. In Court

It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.

President Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony concerning the Monica Lewinsky affair, August 17, 1998

Get to know the man from his perspective with My Life at Amazon.com!

  1. In Court

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

President Bill Clinton, denying the relationship that he later revealed to have occurred, January 26, 1998

  1. Inaugural Address

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

President Bill Clinton, during his inaugural address, January 20, 1993

  1. Philadelphia

You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.

President Bill Clinton, addressing a crowd in the Courtyard, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA, May 28, 1993

  1. USA Today

We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

10 Reasons Bill Clinton Was Secretly A Terrible President

10 Reasons Bill Clinton Was Secretly A Terrible President–February 5, 2014

William Jefferson Clinton is like the Democrat’s answer to Reagan: a highly respected two-term president who just about everyone agrees was awesome. In a 2013 poll, CNN ranked him as the third-greatest president of all time. Over three-quarters of registered voters today see his tenure as positive. He’s just about the only living Democratic figure even Republicans admire. It’s too bad he was responsible for some of the worst disasters in living memory.

10 He Had A Lot To Do With The Financial Crisis

The financial crash of 2008 was the result of so many complex, compounding factors that people still can’t agree on who, if anyone, was responsible. However, there’s one name that keeps cropping up again and again: Bill Clinton.

Although he ran on a ticket of reeling in the excesses of big business, Clinton quickly became the financial district’s best friend. During his years in office he completely failed to act on regulating derivatives, a central cause of the crash. In 1999, he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a nifty bit of legislation that effectively blocked the creation of today’s dangerously unstable super-banks. As The Guardian noted in 2009, sub-prime loans before the repeal accounted for only 5 percent of all mortgage-lending. By the time of the crash, they’d hit 30.

Clinton also toughened a 1977 act that required lenders to relax their rules for poorer borrowers. In other words, he made it a legal obligation for companies to throw money at people who couldn’t possibly repay it—a policy that, in all fairness, George W. Bush would continue. According to The Wall Street Journal, this was the biggest influence on the gigantic housing bubble that managed to knock the global economy off its axis. At least Slick Willy had the decency to apologize for it afterwards.

9 He Pioneered Extraordinary Rendition

“Extraordinary rendition” is when shady government operatives stuff a bag over your head and fly you off to some foreign country where they can legally torture you. It sounds like something Alex Jones might dream up in a paranoid frenzy, but it’s a well-documented phenomenon under both Bush, Jr. and Obama—and Bill Clinton was the guy who started it all.

Clinton and Gore signed off on the first rendition back in the ’90s, despite being aware that it breached international law. Until recently, rendered people frequently wound up in the prison cells of places like Mubarak’s Egypt or Gaddafi’s Libya, where they were tortured with electric shocks, rape, beatings, and even crucifixion. It can sometimes go hideously wrong: In 2003, the CIA snatched a terrorist off the streets and beat, tortured, and sodomized him, only to discover they’d accidentally grabbed the wrong man. The victim just happened to share a name with a wanted criminal. His suffering came care of the Clinton/Gore dream team.

8 Bombing A Pharmaceutical Factory

On August 20, 1998, an American submarine locked onto a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan and launched a barrage of missiles. The attack had been authorized by the president himself in retaliation for a US embassy bombing in Nairobi. Within seconds, the factory had been obliterated, killing one person and wounding several others. It was only then that it was discovered that the factory wasn’t used for producing WMDs at all. It was one of only three pharmaceutical factories in the whole of Sudan.

In less than a second, the airstrike had wiped out Sudan’s ability to treat devastating illnesses like tuberculosis, malaria, and meningitis at a time when the country was swept by disease and civil war. To add insult to injury, there was no money to rebuild, resulting in epidemics sweeping the land and killing thousands. Faulty intelligence was blamed at the time, but by 2000, it was obvious that the field reports were too sketchy to warrant even a second look, let alone a surgical strike. It was a simple overreaction that wound up killing thousands of sick children.

7 Giving In To Homophobia

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a piece of legislation that legally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was specifically designed to stop homosexual couples from accessing the 1,000-plus federal rights afforded to straight people, including the right to visit your long-term partner in the hospital. In short, it was a piece of paper that ensured not everyone was equal before the law—and Bill Clinton signed it.

Clinton had specifically gone out of his way to court the gay community during his campaign, but by signing off on DOMA and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act of 1993, he chose to quietly shelve his beliefs and betray those who voted for him in exchange for political capital with the GOP. To make matters worse, his campaign team used this betrayal to earn extra votes in the Southern Christian states.

The realities of the era might have meant gay marriage was totally off the cards, but that didn’t mean homosexuals needed an extra legal blockade.

6 He Knew About Rwanda—And Did Nothing

The Rwanda genocide was a 100-day killing spree by ethnic Hutus against their Tutsi neighbors. It was a mindless slaughter that killed up to 800,000 people. Corpses littered the streets and children were dismembered and raped. Then-President Clinton reacted to this senseless tragedy—arguably the worst of the 20th century—by burying any evidence of it.

In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the Clinton White House insisted they’d been unaware of the scale of suffering. In 2004, however, classified documents emerged proving that the CIA had informed Clinton, Gore, and 100 top officials that a genocide was underway within 17 days of the first killings. Had they spoken out at the UN or piled pressure on Rwanda, it’s likely that the slaughter could have been stopped before reaching such disturbing proportions. By Clinton’s own estimate, their silence cost upward of 300,000 lives.

5 Bombing The Chinese Embassy

Imagine China was conducting a military operation in, say, Syria. Now imagine some faulty intelligence led to them bombing the US embassy. There would be international outrage, right? Well, that’s essentially what happened in Kosovo in 1999. After a tip-off from US intelligence, NATO blasted a building to smithereens—only to discover that they’d just destroyed the Chinese embassy.

According to a joint investigation by British newspaper The Observer and Denmark’s Politiken, there’s a very real possibility that the US and UK governments deliberately colluded to bomb the embassy. If that’s the case—and there’s some convincing, if inconclusive, evidence that it was—then Clinton not only facilitated an attack on a friendly state, he helped cover up the fact afterwards, just as he did with his knowledge of the Rwanda genocide. To this day, China claims the attack was deliberate provocation, one that has strained international relations between the two superpowers ever since.

4 His Prisons Policy Was A Disaster

At the end of his tenure in the White House, Clinton had done more than any previous president to incarcerate ordinary Americans. His 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, for example, splurged federal money on the construction of new state prisons. That’s not a bad thing in and of itself, but the bill also forced states that took the money to cut back on paroles and change their sentencing guidelines to make sure inmates spent more time in behind bars. This meant keeping people locked up longer for doing the same crime, and since this was the ’90s, “crime” meant “drugs.”

Thanks to stuff like hideously unequal drug sentencing laws—which Clinton blocked Washington from changing—nearly 60 percent of those incarcerated in the Clinton years were in for nonviolent drug offenses. The result of this was a ballooning prison population that basically acted as a criminal conveyor belt. Kids with no inclination to do much more than smoke a bit of dope would go in and come out immersed in illegality—if they ever came out at all. Despite promising to reevaluate mandatory minimum drug sentencing, Clinton seemed content to watch young lives get flushed away over something as insignificant as 5 grams of crack. It didn’t even earn him any favors—long-term Gallup polls indicate the public felt drugs were a bigger problem in his second term than at any other point in history.

3 Supporting The Iraq Sanctions

In the aftermath of the 1990s’ Gulf War prequel, the UN Security Council imposed strong economic sanctions on a belligerent Iraq. Strongly championed by the US and UK and fully supported by Bill Clinton, the sanctions were meant to break Saddam and keep him from indulging in any more war crimes. Instead, they killed over half a million children and hundreds of thousands of adults.

The trouble was twofold. Firstly, the economic embargo was the strictest in modern history. Secondly, Saddam responded by hoarding wealth, allowing his own lifestyle to continue while his people starved. The sanctions were directly responsible for the deaths of 4,000 children a month. The UN itself linked the economic blockade to devastatingly high rates of malnutrition, starvation, and disease. Medicines were restricted, so children were left to die in agony of leukemia on cancer wards in Baghdad’s hospitals. Instead of morphine, all they had was aspirin—if they were lucky. Thousands of meningitis patients died because the country lacked basic antibiotics.

Worst of all, the sanctions patently failed. Saddam still enjoyed the high life. His party still wielded unimaginably brutal power. The only ones who suffered were the poor, the young, and the sick. We can’t imagine having to make that decision, but it can’t have seemed intelligent to call the bluff of a crazy dictator.

2 He Presided Over The NAFTA Disaster

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was supposed to be the jewel in the Clinton crown. Created to allow free trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico, it was supposed to create jobs for America, boost the Mexican economy, and generally make the world a better place. Instead, it proved an unmitigated disaster for everyone involved.

NAFTA was meant to be a shrewd economic move by the US, but after two months, it had created a combined trade deficit of $132 billion with both Canada and Mexico. Prior to NAFTA coming in, the US had been running a trade surplus with Mexico. It also screwed over workers. In 2011, the Economic Policy Institute estimated the agreement had cost America nearly 700,000 jobs.

It wasn’t just the US that suffered. Before NAFTA, Mexico’s economy had been growing at around 3 percent every decade. After joining, growth fell to a measly 1.8 percent. Meanwhile, the follow-up Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) forced poor countries to eliminate tariffs, resulting in widespread poverty and even starvation. Clinton has since expressed regret over the policy, but that probably isn’t a great comfort to those unemployed and starving people the agreements affected.

1 He Let Bin Laden Get Away

In 1996, Osama bin Laden had not yet become the universally despised figure he is today. Although he hadn’t yet graduated to planning large-scale atrocities, the State Department had good reason to believe he was starting to take a more active role in terrorist circles, which could only grow if he moved on to Afghanistan. They asked the Clinton administration whether they should deter the move—and Clinton said no.

It wasn’t the first time Clinton turned down the chance to halt Bin Laden’s progress, and it wouldn’t be the last. In the early 2000s, a litany of missed opportunities came to light. One of the most negligent was Clinton’s refusal to take steps as simple as hiring Arabic language translators for the intelligence services, significantly slowing down operations. If the White House had managed to put the brakes on Bin Laden at this time, the worst terrorist atrocity in US history may never have happened.

source- Morris M, wsj,

10 Scandalous Facts Revealed By The DNC Leaks–July 25, 2016

If 2016 has taught us anything, it’s that emails and the Democratic Party go together like nitro and glycerin. Over the weekend, yet another email-based scandal exploded, sending shockwaves through the Dems. This time, it involved a trove of over 20,000 Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to Wikileaks. They reveal a party that is hopelessly biased, riven by scandal, and excels at incompetence.

10The DNC Trash Talk Their Own Donors

One of the DNC’s primary functions is to fundraise for the Democratic Party. The party heavily relies on donations, so you might think they’d be grateful to their funders. No such luck.

One email exchange refers to major Florida donor Stephen Bittel’s seat at a DNC fundraiser. DNC national finance director Jordan Kaplan angrily declares, “He doesn’t sit next to POTUS!” His deputy, Alexandra Shapiro, responds that “Bittel will be sitting in the sh—iest corner I can find.” A separate email referred to several major DNC donors as “clowns.”

In another email, Shapiro unfavorably compared New York philanthropist Philip Munger to Maryland ophthalmologist Sreedhar Potarazu. She complained that Munger had “only” given $100,600 over the years, compared to the Potarazu family’s $332,250.

9The DNC Is Incompetent At Handling Donor Information

Most people giving big money to a party like to be assured their details will be kept private. The DNC failed spectacularly at this. Staffers emailed donors’ names, credit card numbers, contact information, and social security numbers. If this information were to be hacked—as it was—it could result in a field day for identity thieves.

Some of the screw-ups were even dumber. One staffer emailed an image of a $150,000 check. As Vox.com explains: “Emailing checks like this is a bad idea because America’s awful check payment network allows anyone to withdraw money from anyone else’s account with only the routing information printed on every check.” Thanks to the email leak, that information is now on the Internet for anyone to see.

8Bias Against Bernie Sanders

The DNC is required by its own guidelines to be neutral during presidential primaries. The emails show it failed. During the primary campaign fight between Hillary and Bernie Sanders, the DNC consistently tried to undermine Senator Sanders.

On May 21, DNC press secretary Mark Paustenbach and communications director Luis Miranda exchanged emails about creating a media narrative suggesting Sanders’s campaign was a mess. In another May email, Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed Bernie Sanders “isn’t going to be president.” In April, she wrote he had “no understanding of” the Democratic Party.

7Questioning Senator Sanders’s Religion

The dirtiest part of the DNC campaign against Sanders involved his religion. An early May email written by DNC CFO Brad Marshall floats a plan to scupper Sanders’s campaign by questioning his beliefs.

The email reads: “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

This is flagrantly unethical. It shouldn’t matter if Sanders is an atheist. Nor should his Jewish heritage matter. More to the point, the DNC’s own rules mean they shouldn’t have been targeting Sanders at all during the primary process.

For his part, Marshall denies the email is about Sanders. It’s difficult to see who else it could refer to.

6Dodgy Journalistic Ethics

Journalists typically don’t email advance copies of stories to the people they’re writing them about. To do so could be seen as breaching journalistic ethics. The leaked emails suggest the DNC encouraged at least one prominent journalist to do this.

An email from Politico’s Kenneth Vogel to the DNC has been uncovered, titled “per agreement . . . Any thoughts appreciated.” A major story he wrote in April is attached. In a separate email to the DNC communications director, DNC press secretary Mark Paustenbach confirms, “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time . . . ” He adds, “Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”

Vogel eventually published his story with no significant edits, but his feeling compelled to send it to the DNC at all is worrying.

5Aggression Toward Hostile Media

To hear that the DNC is hostile toward a Republican outlet like Fox News would be no surprise, but the emails show that DNC anger runs deeper. While the presidential primary was in full swing, the DNC defined “hostile media” as “anyone who doesn’t like Hillary.”

Reporters from left-leaning outfits deemed too pro-Bernie were denied interviews and derided as “Berniebros.” Sirius XM’s Mark Thompson lost an interview because he was thought to prefer Bernie over Hillary. When MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski slammed the DNC for its anti-Bernie bias, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz leaned heavily on the president of NBC, demanding a personal apology. A Twitter hashtag, #bernieclickbait, was set up to ridicule any outlets that tried to report the DNC’s bias toward Clinton.

Once again, the DNC was bound by its own rules to be neutral at this stage. The emails show it was anything but.

4Potentially Planting Informers In The Sanders Camp

If you should take one thing from this article, it’s that the DNC treated the Hillary-Bernie contest as a “defeat Bernie” challenge. One email that some sites have flagged appears to suggest the DNC planted informers inside the Sanders camp.

The email comes from May and refers to an Alaska “counter event.” It was organized on Facebook by the progressive Citizens for Ethical Government. The invite suggested Senator Sanders might be speaking via Skype. The DNC appear to have gotten freaked out by their lack of knowledge about this and tried to get some “intel.” The last email in the chain talks about someone with “friends inside the Bernie organization” who could pass on information.

Although the chain itself is fairly innocuous, it does suggest the DNC may have been keeping tabs on the Bernie campaign by having informers on the inside.

3A Potential FEC Violation

On May 19, Justin Klein of HillaryClinton.com emailed Jordan Kaplan, national finance director of the DNC. Klein had a check for $144,100 from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. He told Kaplan, “please note the first $100,200 should be allocated to the convention fund, while the remaining $43,900 should be allocated to the building fund.”

According to FEC (Federal Election Commission) rules, $100,200 is the campaign contribution limit for nonmulticandidate PACs in a single year. The email suggests Klein, on behalf of HillaryClinton.com, may have been trying to circumvent that limit. If true, it would constitute an offense.

Kaplan seems to recognize this. His aghast response reads “Don’t send me an email like this again . . . Don’t be a dick.”

2Identity Politics Hypocrisy

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is often seen as obsessed with identity politics. The email leak suggests the DNC isn’t as committed as it would like supporters to think. Gay jokes, clunky stereotyping, and possible racial slurs abound.

One email involves DNC national finance director Jordan Kaplan signing off with a “no homo” joke. Another by DNC communications director Luis Miranda revolves around getting the Latino vote out and is full of phrases like “Hispanics are the most brand loyal consumers in the World: Known fact” and “Once a brand loses this loyalty, Hispanics never re-engage: Unforgiving.” Gawker claimed these phrases amounted to stereotyping.

Another email possibly refers to courting Mexican voters as mopping up “some taco bowl engagement” (the context is unclear, but a small number of sites catering to Mexican-American audiences certainly took it this way).

What matters isn’t whether or not you find these statements offensive. What matters is that the DNC has often attacked the Republicans for using similar phrases. The leak shows they refuse to practice what they preach.

1The Democratic Party Doesn’t Understand Cyber Security

Perhaps the most scandalous fact about the DNC email leak is that it happened at all. After the marathon inquiry into Hillary’s unsecured emails—one that ended with a damning report on her judgment—you would think the Democrats had had enough of email scandals. Instead, they allowed hackers to infiltrate the DNC database. Once the horse had bolted, they then hired an expensive cybersecurity firm to close the door.

This goes beyond carelessness and into recklessness. Wikileaks have already announced they have more stolen material to release over the coming months.

No one should be celebrating. Those on the right should lament how much information could be lost to foreign intelligence agencies. Those on the left should be lamenting the Democratic Party’s carelessness. If the next leaks are big enough to render Hillary toxic, we could well be witnessing a Trump presidency come 2017.

source- Morris M, stephen bitter, philip munger, sreedhar potarazu, mike brzezinski,

10 Dark Secrets Of Hillary Clinton

10 Dark Secrets Of Hillary Clinton—39Gh. 47F., 43—September 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton is the least popular Democrat ever nominated for president. Say her name, and people will respond with words like “scandal,” “untrustworthy,” and “liar.” But are these accusations really fair?

Yes. Go digging through the Clinton closet, and you’ll uncover more skeletons than in your average medieval plague pit.

10Cozy Ties To Hideous Regimes

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and Algeria are disparate countries with different histories. They do have one thing in common: a callous disregard for human rights, something Clinton seemingly ignored when accepting megabucks off their despotic leaders.

Over the years, the Clinton Foundation accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries with appalling attitudes toward women, gays, and religious minorities. Often, those countries had policies directly at odds with the Foundation’s stated goals of promoting gender-equality and LGBT rights.

Clinton’s charity was receiving this money at the same time that Clinton was daily making life-or-death decisions involving these countries as Secretary of State. While this isn’t technically illegal, it was arguably a conflict of interest, especially when you consider Clinton’s policy of . . .

9Cash For Access

Crown Prince Salman is heir apparent to the throne of Bahrain and supreme commander of the country’s army. He’s also a Clinton Foundation megadonor, having thrown the charity $32 million while Clinton was Secretary of State. This just happened to coincide with the State Department approving $630 million of commercial arms sales to Bahrain’s army—a 187 percent increase from the pre-Clinton State Department.

The sales came just as Bahrain was violently suppressing pro-democracy protests. They also came just after a Clinton Foundation employee had brokered a meeting between Salman and Hillary. While Clinton denies any wrongdoing, the stench of corruption is enough to make even a Prohibition-era gangster retch.

This isn’t the only time such deals have taken place. An IBTimes investigation earlier this year suggested strong links between Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation and a multimillion State Department arms deal with the kingdom signed off by Hillary herself.

8Setting The FBI On Innocent People

At the start of 1993, Billy Dale was a respected White House veteran. He’d worked arranging presidential trips for the last 30 years and headed a seven-man department for 10. By May 19, he was jobless and under investigation by the FBI. His crime? Occupying a position Hillary Clinton wanted for her friends.

The moment the Clintons entered the White House, Hillary started spreading rumors that Dale’s department was embezzling. She forced the FBI to investigate and sacked Dale’s entire team then handed the seven newly vacated posts to staffers who had worked on Bill’s presidential campaign. When the story broke, she claimed under oath that the FBI investigation hadn’t been her idea. A memo later surfaced showing it had.

As for Dale, he was cleared by the FBI but still wound up losing the job he loved and taking early retirement.

7Diverting Funds To Friends

In September 2010, the Clinton Foundation set up a $2 million commitment to Energy Pioneer Solutions (EPS), a group that insulates homes to increase energy efficiency. Sounds kind of harmless, until you realize EPS is owned by personal friends of the Clintons. According to the Wall Street Journal, this may have been done with the express intent of enriching the Clintons’ associates.

Hillary Clinton vigorously denies any wrongdoing, saying the Foundation chose EPS on merit. But it’s not hard to see this as inappropriate. EPS is a for-profit company, so stakeholders benefit financially from such deals. Stakeholders for EPS include Bill Clinton’s personal friend Julie Tauber McMahon, plus the Democratic National Committee treasurer and Democratic operative Mark Wiener. All potentially profited from the Clinton Foundation deal.

6Mind-Blowing Incompetence

A basic requirement for Secretary of State is the ability to handle classified information. During her tenure at the State Department, Hillary not only mishandled sensitive documents—she possibly let them fall into the hands of foreign hackers.

While Secretary of State, Hillary used a private server to store emails containing classified information. She used multiple, unsecured devices to access them and sent many to other people’s private email addresses, including one later found to have been compromised by hackers possibly linked to Russia. Her staffers even lost a laptop full of confidential archived emails in the post.

Hillary later said she was “unaware” of the procedures surrounding classified information. As excuses go, that’s like saying you shouldn’t be arrested for insider trading because you were “unaware” it was illegal.

5Hypocrisy On Boycotts: Skip Foreman / AP

Clinton recently tweeted her support for a boycott of North Carolina over its transgender bathroom laws. Not six months earlier, Hillary made a speech savaging anyone taking part in the boycotts against Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

We don’t want to make a value judgment on either cause. Whether you support them is up to you. But it is hypocritical to attack a boycott as a method of protest for one of the two while allowing it for the other. The sudden delight in boycotts was perhaps Clinton cynically jumping on the progressive bandwagon to win back some wavering Sanders voters.

4Hypocrisy On Rape

On December 3, 2015, Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” There’s one rape survivor Hillary has refused to believe: Juanita Broaddrick. The man Broaddrick accuses of raping her is Bill Clinton.

The allegations have never been proven. The point here is not whether it happened or not. The point is that Broaddrick’s story is at least as consistent as that of many other assault victims. And if Clinton thinks all survivors should be believed, that entails believing Broaddrick.

Yet Hillary goes further than just not believing her. She denigrates her case, making it sound like the fantasies of a deluded woman. She does the exact things she deplores others doing to assault survivors.

3Defending A Child Rapist

In 1975, Hillary Rodham defended a 41-year-old factory worker accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. As a court-appointed lawyer, Hillary had a duty to take the case. She did have a choice in how she presented her client’s defense, and she chose to do that by putting a 12-year-old rape victim through hell.

Those are the exact words of the child whose life Hillary dragged through the mud. Still anonymous 41-years later, the victim claims Hillary went to insane lengths to discredit her. She said the child was a fantasist, that she craved sex with older men, that she came from a broken home and constantly claimed men were abusing her. These are all claims the victim says are verifiably untrue.

2Health Cover-Ups

Despite claiming to be fit and healthy, Clinton has suffered more health scandals in the past few months than you can shake a proverbial stick at.

The most obvious is Clinton’s recent bout of pneumonia, which caused her to collapse during a 9/11 memorial ceremony. There are others, too. In January, Hillary suffered a severe sinus infection that required the insertion of a myringotomy tube. In March, she underwent a brain scan. Perhaps most shockingly of all, she claimed the screw-ups with her emails were due to a 2012 concussion that scrambled her mind.

These are all potentially serious for someone pushing 70. What’s even more serious is that she lied about them.

1Slush Funds

There are strict limits on how much campaigns can raise per person. Some PACs are allowed to raise more, as they spend on more than one candidate (an Obama fund might also splash money on down-ballot Democrats, for example). Hill PAC was supposedly one such PAC. Yet the Intercept found only 11 percent of its funds went to candidates. The rest went to buying trivial stuff off Hillary’s presidential campaign for eye-watering sums—sums that, conveniently, helped pay off her ’08 campaign’s massive debts.

For example, Hill PAC paid $822,492 to “rent” a list of contact details off Hillary ’08, way above market price. That money went straight to Hillary’s flagging presidential campaign.

source-Morris M.,

Clinton campaign demanded $500 from college kids to attend ‘Conversation with Chelsea’

September 20, 2016

Clinton campaign demanded $500 from college kids to attend ‘Conversation with Chelsea’–47fh.,b43

– Friday, September 9, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has come under fire from college students for charging hundreds of dollars just to attend a “Conversation with Chelsea” event.

Penny-pinching students from Penn State University had little hope on Wednesday of engaging in a “conversation” with Mrs. Clinton’s daughter since attendance alone cost $500. A photo with the former secretary of state’s daughter could be obtained with $1,000 donation and access to a special reception required $2,700.

Progressive students interviewed by the Collegian, the school’s independent newspaper, were incredulous at prices for the State College, Pa., event.

“Although we certainly support Chelsea’s right to campaign on her mother’s behalf, we do not agree with Mrs. Clinton choosing to make this ‘conversation’ available exclusively to individuals who can afford or are willing to pay at least $500,” said Ethan Paul, vice president of College Progressives of Penn State, the newspaper reported Wednesday. “It is particularly deplorable that a $2,700 donation—the legal limit—gets a personal conversation with Mrs. Clinton.”

“Putting such an expensive price on involvement in elections really hurts college students who already feel there is no point to politics,” added College Progressive Secretary Kathryn Van Develde.

Readers with the conservative website Heat Street, which first spotted the story, had plenty of advice for the young students.

source- e headlines– Kristie McDonald, ethan paul, douglas ernst, wash times

5 takeaways from terror debate

5 takeaways from terror debate–1f,b5  – 09/19/16

Officials on Monday confirmed the Saturday bombings in New York and New Jersey were a terrorist act, elevating fears about homegrown terrorism.

The attacks have shaken up the presidential race, with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton battling over who is best equipped to protect the nation.

Here are the five biggest takeaways from the attacks and the political aftermath.

  1. Homegrown terrorism is now a fact of life in the US.

Officials are struggling to effectively identify, monitor and deter lone-wolf attackers who are inspired to engage in terrorism. Experts say that as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has lost territory, it has stepped up its calls for followers to carry out attacks wherever they are.

Ahmad Khan Rahami, the 28-year-old suspect taken into custody on Monday, was not on the FBI’s radar prior to the Saturday night bombings, the bureau said. Investigators do not yet know what his “path of radicalization” was.

Law enforcement and homeland security officials have warned that the U.S. is facing “a new environment.”

“There’s this phenomenon now of the terrorist-inspired attack, the lone wolf — that’s the thing that presents the challenge most directly for our homeland,” Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said earlier this month. “It’s frankly the thing that keeps me up at night.”

  1. The debate over refugees and immigration is only going to get bigger.

Immigrants and the children of immigrants have carried out some of the more high-profile terrorist attacks in the United States this year.

As President Obama seeks to open up the U.S. to more than 100,000 immigrants worldwide — including a “significantly higher” number of people fleeing violence in Syria — some critics have argued that he is allowing terrorists an easy pathway into the country. That debate has spilled over into Congress and the presidential campaign.

Trump, the Republican Party’s nominee, has called for “extreme vetting” of immigrants from countries that are hotbeds of terrorism, and on Monday said the terrorist attacks should be a “wake-up call” for the country.

The White House has defended its vetting process, but those assurances have not soothed opponents of the refugee program.

“We’re allowing these people to come into our country and destroy our country and make it unsafe for people. We’re allowing these people to come in,” Trump said Monday on “Fox & Friends.”

  1. Terrorism will be a huge part of the first Trump-Clinton debate.

The bombings have shifted the political spotlight back to terrorism, ensuring the issue will be front and center during the first presidential debate, on Sept. 26. 
 Trump has said repeatedly that he has a “plan” to defeat ISIS, but he has refused to say what it is because he doesn’t want to “broadcast” his intentions to the enemy.

Clinton, the Democratic nominee, on Monday scoffed at that rationale.

“He keeps saying he has a secret plan. Well, the secret is he has no plan,” she said during a news conference.

Clinton early Monday accused Trump of inspiring acts of terrorism through his rhetoric.

“We know that a lot of rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they’re looking to make this into a war against Islam rather than a war against jihadists,” the former secretary of State said.

Trump’s campaign hit back immediately, calling the accusations an effort to “distract from her horrible record on ISIS.”

“If Clinton really wants to find the real cause of ISIS, she needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror,” senior Trump adviser Jason Miller said in a statement.

  1. Social media companies are going to face even more pressure.

As the use of social media platforms to spread terrorist propaganda and recruit fighters has increased, so has pressure on companies like Twitter and Facebook to police their platforms.

The FBI is looking into Rahami’s complete social network now, looking for links to other terrorists and clues to his motives.

While both Twitter and Facebook have policies against terroristic content, tech firms have been broadly wary of collaborating with law enforcement — a dynamic brought into sharp relief by the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to unlock the encrypted iPhone of one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, Calif., attack earlier this year.

Clinton on Monday renewed her calls for Washington and Silicon Valley to work together to crack down on extremist use of social media platforms.

“We need to work more closely with Silicon Valley and other partners to counter terrorist propaganda and recruitment efforts online,” she said.

If investigators find evidence that Rahami communicated his plans for the attack using an encrypted messaging app, the bombings could also reignite the debate over government access to locked data.

  1. Muslim Americans are in the election spotlight.

    The spate of terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. has stirred debate about the degree of responsibility the Muslim American community has to denounce or combat extremist groups like ISIS.

Hate crimes against American Muslims are at their highest level since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a rise scholars have pinned both on the frequency of terror attacks in the U.S. and Europe and on Trump’s rhetoric about limiting Muslim immigration.

An arsonist set fire last week to the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Fla., the mosque that had been attended by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub in June.

source- the hill- Katie Bo Williams,

 

George Soros, refugees and terrorism

George Soros, refugees and terrorism–9/24/16—-3eh.,b49

Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily report on all things “Savage.”

In today’s issue: Savage recounted to his listeners “another story to make you feel that you have a great, great say over your government.”

“George Soros, the money changer, the nation killer, is going to invest $500 million for ‘refugees,’” he said.

“But if you look into the half a billion dollars he’s gonna spend – gotten trading against currencies, breaking nations over his knee – the money is going to be spent no so much in the refugees, but on social-impact initiatives.”

Savage continued:

Now, what does that mean?

Well, this is the same wonderful, wonderful man, George Soros, the émigré from [Hungary] who claims he fled Nazis in World War II, only to come here and try to destroy America like boll weevil from within.

This fine man who escaped the Nazis is now using a reverse form of fascism, that is capitalism, to destroy the very nation that gave him this home.

So, social-impact initiatives. What does that mean Georgie?

Well, you gave $70 million of your money to Black Lives Matter. Hmm. Really? That’s a social-impact initiative.

And he’s going to benefit migrants and host communities, said the 86-year-old George Soros.

What does he mean by that?

I’ll let you figure out what he means by that. Where are all these refugees coming from and why are they now pouring across Europe and America. Why? Where’d they come from.

This refugee crisis was caused on purpose by George Soros.

He funded it.

As far as I can tell, Hillary Clinton owns it. She created the Arab Spring.

She offed Gadhafi, who warned that Libya would descend into chaos.

We now have Africans pouring into Italy, and from Italy into Europe.

All because of Hillary Clinton’s Arab Spring policies.

It’s all connected to refugees and terrorism

source-. MICHAEL SAVAGE NEWSLETTER: