Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton is a psychopathic liar. This is from Slate in 1999: Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth? From which:
Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape, though she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot) and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar). She also says that Clinton pointed to a ramshackle prison outside the hotel room window before he raped her and said he planned to renovate it. NBC News found a date when a nursing home seminar was held in the Camelot Hotel and records show that Broaddrick attended. Newspaper reports suggest that Clinton was in the area and had no official commitments in the early morning, when the rape is supposed to have occurred. There was a prison outside the hotel window.
Clinton Is Innocent: It is hard to believe that a raped woman would forget the date. The fact that Clinton was in Little Rock is hardly remarkable.
Clinton is Guilty: The detail about wanting to spruce up the prison sounds “very, very much like our Bill” (Kelly).
Meanwhile, Hillary’s level of derangement is possibly unprecedented: Hillary Clinton falsely claims Donald Trump is an ‘admitted sex assaulter’ as she compares him to Harvey Weinstein – but claims allegations against Bill are ‘clearly in the past’.
- Hillary Clinton, who received campaign funding from Weinstein, called rape and sexual assault allegations facing the movie mogul ‘heartbreaking’
- Clinton was apparently referring to the tape leaked during the campaign where Donald Trump was heard boasting about ‘grabbing women by the p****y’
- In fact he has never ‘admitted’ a sexual assault and apologized for ‘locker room talk’
- She told the BBC’s Andrew Marr: ‘I really commend the women who have been willing to step forward now and tell their stories’
- In another interview with Channel 4 she said her campaign would hand back donations from Weinstein but had still to do so
- That changed her first claim that she would give from her personal income – which would have earned her a tax break
There is a deep and repellant moral sickness across the entire Democratic Party where they will deny any evil in their pursuit of personal political power. And not only at the top, but throughout their ranks who go beyond arguing that Clinton is a flawed human being, but must deny even to themselves that he is the person he so obviously is.
To understand the problems we face with ISIS it is essential to understand the mindset of those who lead the parties of the left, and now even some parties of the conservative right. This is from The Age on September 11, 2001: Open borders to all: Clinton. Here are the relevant parts of the article but you can read the whole thing at the link:
Bill Clinton believes Australia should not shut its borders to immigrants and those genuinely seeking asylum but should open its arms to cultural diversity.
Free trade and an open-door policy would bring prosperity, the former US president told a meeting of 35 Australian business leaders in Melbourne yesterday.
“He discussed the immigration issue in Australia and he took a position on it,” said Tom Hogan, president of Vignette Corporation, host of the exclusive forum.
“The (former) president believes the world will be a better place if all borders are eliminated – from a trade perspective, from the viewpoint of economic development and in welcoming (the free movement of) people from other cultures and countries,” Mr Hogan said.
Mr Clinton showed an understanding of the political problems Australia faced, but said he supported the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world for people and for trade.
He spoke for 45 minutes on topics ranging from the urgent need to combat AIDS to global economic issues. He spent another 45 minutes answering questions.
Mr Clinton said he believed the US was a better place for having opened its borders to a diversity of peoples and cultures.
Of the global economic downturn, he said half the problem arose from real economic issues and half of it was due to self-fulfilling prophecies. If people talked gloom and doom long enough and often enough, he said, what they feared generally came to pass.
This is the progressive internationalist creed and no event in the modern world will change their views. And they have the power to cause our borders to open and remain open no matter what the rest of us think or wish.
Ironically, Bill Clinton was in Australia on 911 while at the same time John Howard was in Washington.
[Via Steve Sailer]
I went to a seminar with an American trade negotiator today and what got to me was this incessant effort to get the Japanese to open their borders to American exports. I am not up on whatever passes for modern trade theory but even so it did seem a little self-serving. I therefore asked what was on my mind: since the point of comparative advantage is to show that both sides can benefit from free trade, who then is the loser if one of the parties doesn’t want to bother? Japan says it doesn’t want to lower its protection for its agricultural produce. OK, too bad for Japan. But what’s the difference to the US or Australia if they don’t want to buy food exports from us. Your bad luck. You’re the one missing out. We’ll go and trade around you ought to be the answer but somehow it isn’t. Given that everyone has a reasonable idea of their own self-interest, and given that self-interest is much more than just being able to buy more this year than last year, if the Japanese aren’t interested in cutting protection but the Americans (and Australians) really do want them to, just from this I can see there is something wrong with trade theory, or at least at that superficial level.
At the very minimum, the Japanese see no value in disrupting its rural sector. They manage to eat, no one is starving, they’re content with how things are, so why should we make a fuss? But of course we do because we want to sell because we think that’s good for us. From the nature of the conversation, and the persistence with which this is pursued, the Japanese would be doing us a favour in cutting tariffs and would be doing themselves harm. I’m very suspicious of arguments that are premised on this is for your own good.
While no one says it, I also think the Japanese are all too aware of – but much too polite to mention – the last time they took economic advice from the Americans. That was in 1993 just after Bill Clinton took over the White House. At the time, we were all coming out of the 1991-93 recessions. Clinton, because he wanted the Japanese to help the Americans with their own dull levels of activity, virtually demanded that the Japanese provided a stimulus to their economy. And so began the twenty year lost decade. Not that these sort of things happened to me often, but I happened to be sitting next to the Japanese Minister of Finance or something, when he was in Australia and being the economist was given the seat next to him. So I said to him that I thought it would be a mistake to try a Keynesian policy, and he said, “Don’t you care about the unemployed?” An exact quote which I have never forgotten. So off they went and did what they did but their economy has never recovered.
If you ask me, self-interested advice like that is something we can all do without.