Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Political power is only temporary and ends when you die

Posted on by
Reply

Which is why so many seek political power even if it the means to taking power leads to the death of Western Civilisation. They won’t have to live through the consequences of what they do so what do they care? The rest of this post was sent to me by a colleague.

I awoke this morning still puzzled about our apparent ‘social justice leaders’ who cannot bring themselves to say ‘Christian’. Last night I read this:
Easter Worshippers or Christians? Obama, Clinton and Other Democrats Accused of Bias.

Basically, when Muslims get killed they are called Muslim, but when we Christians are killed we are called ‘worshippers’. Hillary:and Obama:

I am puzzled why they cannot admit that CHRISTIANS were killed. Here is proof they suffer from Christianophobia.

“One of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” = Hillary and the Obama “Justice” Department

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what all this means. Obama with 100% certainty knew that Hillary was using an unsecured server to send him emails which is in complete violation of the Espionage Act of the United States. Now read on.

From Ace of Spades:

The big story is, despite the Democrat-Left-Media Complex’s shrill shrieking about impeaching President Trump, the focus is at long last starting to shift towards the real culprits in the entire Russia-Gate Collusion Hoax, Coverup and Attempted Coup (still ongoing) who just happen to be heavily implicated in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal – what US District Judge Royce Lamberth’s court described as “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

“…In addition to the Executive Office of the President [Obama], [former assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, Bill] Priestap also named “Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, Jacob Sullivan, and Justin Cooper; former Clinton information technology staffer Bryan Pagliano, the State Department, Secret Service, and Washington-based law firm Williams and Connolly…”

According to [Judicial Watch], Priestap also testified that nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as a result of a search warrant for her material on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Weiner was then the wayward husband of Huma Abedin, the vice chair of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for president.

“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme…”

Or then there’s the Instapundit version:

JUDICIAL WATCH: JW announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.

Jordan Peterson would have voted for Hillary!

Posted on by
Reply

What a dunce! This is from Caroline Overington in The Oz, yesterday:

In an hour-long interview, he tackles a range of topics, including the rise of Trump, which he characterises more as the fall of Clinton. (Had Peterson been an American, he says he would have “held his nose and voted for her”.)

I did look high and low for quite a long time to see what I could discover on his attitude to the American President and nowhere could I find a thing until yesterday. This is an unforced error. He was on Q&A the day before and managed to not answer a question on whether he believed in G-d since, as I see it, he does not want to be pigeonholed as basing his arguments on a Christian platform. I understand why he is wary of such associations, since it makes him an easier target for the left. I suppose in its own way, aligning his political views with Hillary also makes him less vulnerable to attack from the left.

But all that aside, he did not have to answer. Lots of ways to have evaded the question, but he chose not to. And we are not in the middle of 2016 with the election before us, and an unknown untried potentially loose cannon is running for President. We are instead more than two years into the soundest, most sensible presidency of my lifetime, going against a wall of stupidity, that I would have thought would align Peterson with the President’s agenda. Not so, it seems. What a complete goose. Anti-Marxist but pro-Hillary. Truly disgusting and dispiriting. A reminder just how wary you have to be about everyone’s political judgement.

Some people even now would have preferred Hillary!

Posted on by
Reply

It is one of the odder parts of my life running into people who make it a point to tell me how much they don’t like Trump. I seldom even mention the name, and even among people I would expect to think of him in a positive way, not so much. An outright idiocy to me.

My post the other day on “We Want Trump” might have been in England rather than France, but the point I was making, that Trump has become a metaphor representing a last ditch effort to save ourselves from a French-Swedish-German future, should have been obvious. We have a cultural and civilisation that has worked remarkably well and brought benefits not just to ourselves but to the entire planet. You might not think all that highly of electricity or the germ theory of disease, but they originated among ourselves and spread across the globe, and everyone would be a lot worse off without them.

Looking at the two previous Democrat presidents and the one almost-president in the company of the current President of the United States ought to make everyone grateful for this reprieve, but for some reason it doesn’t. We shall see, but in the meantime, for people such as myself, I can see that things might still go well.

My airplane book on the way up to Sydney where I am now located was a book I cannot recommend too highly. It is by Giles Auty, published by Connor Court and titled,Postmodernist Australia. As once said by another Canadian, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone”, but folks it’s going.

The conspiracy to make Tim Kaine president

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve always known this to be true: Comey: I Announced The Hillary Investigation Because Polls Showed Her Ahead.

The question is why would he do it? And the answer is that Obama and Comey were trying to craft an election outcome in which Hillary would be elected but would then have to resign, or at the very minimum step aside and then resign, because of the scandal related to her email servers. When it comes to Tim Kaine, you need to bear this in mind:

In November of 2005, during Obama’s first year in the Senate, Obama campaigned for Kaine in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Just over a year later, in February of 2007—as the Los Angeles Times reports—Kaine became the first statewide elected Democrat outside of Illinois to support Obama’s presidential bid against the Democratic heir apparent, Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons are not exactly known for their short memories. So how is it that someone who was among the first to break ranks with Hillary in 2007 was rewarded with the top prize that she could grant in 2016? Could it be that Clinton decided that the largely unknown Kaine was such a big political asset that she should let bygones by bygones? Or could it be that Clinton, who has tied herself to Obama and is highly dependent on his help in turning out the Democratic base, was told whom to pick?

They needed Hillary to win but needed a reason to then be able to push her aside.

So here is the wonderful irony. Donald Trump is President because of Obama and Comey, just as Hillary has so often said. And if you think this is all new, see my post from November 1, 2016: Raisin’ Kaine to the highest office in the land. Found here as well: I’ve worked out how it ends published three days later. Both posts are found in my blog diary of the 2016 election: The Art of the Impossible.

Comey says it. Hillary says it. But no one but them, and perhaps now you, understands what went on and how it all worked out.

ADDENDUM: I have taken in the following ten points from an earlier post on this issue titled What really happened. This is what I think really happened spelled out in sequential order.

1) Obama hates Hillary.

2) Tim Kaine is not just from the Obama side of the Democratic Party but was one of the first of the Democrats to defect to Obama in 2007. She would have hated Kaine to an infinite degree. Hillary would never ever under ordinary circumstances have chosen him for her Vice President, even assuming he would be a great campaign asset which he most assuredly was not.

3) However, she can only run for president if she is not under indictment for the undoubtedly illegal use of an insecure server. Hillary was therefore compelled to choose someone who she would never have chosen as her Vice Presidential candidate.

4) Obama’s aim was to be succeeded by someone with his own agenda to carry on where he had left off.

5) Hillary wanted to be president, but not necessarily serve as president. She is a sick woman which can hardly be denied. She might not have lasted a year before her illnesses would have forced her to resign.

6) But in any case, just in case she was reluctant to give up the presidency once she had it, the evidence of illegal activity could be used to impeach her if she chose to battle on, or at the very least, force her to stand aside and allow the Vice President to take over.

7) Comey had begun the original investigation, which was extraordinary enough. But since it is necessary for Hillary to win if Kaine was to become president, Comey – under instruction – says on his own bat that she has no case to answer.

8) Hillary then moves to the front and looks set to win the election. But now there is no means to force her from office if she doesn’t want to go. So suddenly 650,000 classified emails are found on Weiner’s laptop leading Comey – under instruction from Obama – to open the investigation again.

9) But then, to everyone’s astonishment on the Democrat side of politics, Trump begins to move ahead in the last week of the election, throwing the result into doubt. The investigation against Hillary therefore needs to be shut down immediately. Comey therefore declares that they FBI has gone through the 650,000 emails and states there is nothing there to prosecute.

10) But by then it is too late and Trump gathers just enough momentum due to the various scandals that have surrounded Hillary to win the election.

 

“The biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!”

Posted on by
Reply

Is this not the most formidable scandal of our time?

Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.

Well no, it’s actually worse:

It was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”

It gets better and better:

The FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

And how deep does this scandal grow. Think of this:

The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.

So here is THE question.

Why has there been no prosecution of Clinton? Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret? Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency? Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact. Who are they?

Yes, who are they?

Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein

I.E.

“Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.”

“Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe.”

“So was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.”

“Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.”

And the punchline:

Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case. . . .

Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

And what does PDT think? POTUS Trump Fired Up Over Clinton-Uranium One Scandal: ‘Biggest Story Fake Media Doesn’t Want To Follow!’

Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!

Absolutely the biggest and you can hardly read about it anywhere else at all. It is subterfuge on such a vast scale that it is almost impossible to believe it’s true, but true it seems to be. The Obama Administration may have been the most corrupt in American history.

My goodness, a golfing tweet about Hillary by the President of the United States!

Posted on by
Reply

The vid is by Mark Dice:

A hilarious retweet by President Trump of an animated gif showing him hit Hillary Clinton with a golf ball caused the liberal media to absolutely freak out. Subscribe now for more videos every day, and I’ll see you tomorrow!

I’m sure not everyone found it hilarious. And do I have to point out that Hillary was not really hit by a golf ball hit by PDT or anyone else, but fell over by herself?

My thanks to max for sending this along.

Hiding the decline in employment

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a story I wouldn’t normally have looked at, Hillary Clinton to campaign in Hanover Friday, but seeing I will be in Hanover on Friday, am there now, it sprang off the page. More detail:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will visit Hanover this afternoon at 12:30 p.m. and speak at a “grassroots organization event,” according to Clinton’s campaign website.

This is not, need I point out, Hanover in Germany, but Hanover in New Hampshire, where may be found the campus of Dartmouth University. I am here for a small symposium on Keynes, but was all set to abandon ship, except that this “grassroots” event is more like the “tallest poppies” event, in that it would cost thousands to get in the door. Will therefore stick to Keynes.

Which brings me to the latest news on the American economy, this from Drudge – and you will not find the first part of this anywhere near the front of The New York Times, or USA Today, but you will find the second.

Record 93,626,000 Not in Labor Force…
Unemployment rate drops to 5.3%…

Rush Limbaugh did a take on this today as well, where he discussed the disastrous labour market in the US, where the stats keep showing improvement despite the vast disappearance of jobs:

Twice as many people left the workforce in May as found jobs, which cancels out the 223,000 jobs created. If 223,000 jobs are created and 432,000 jobs were lost, would somebody explain to me where all this job creation is? Now, the AP and the rest of the Obama sycophant media is not telling you about the decline in the labor force. Some are talking about the labor force participation rate, and they’re relying on the fact that most in the low information category are not going to understand it. “Labor force participation, what’s that? It doesn’t matter to me, Mabel.” All they’re going to hear is the unemployment rate is 5.3%. (laughing)

I laugh too, but it’s not funny at all. But Obama has ramped up welfare so that people do not starve to death in the street, but the numbers are shocking.

And what’s it got to do with Keynes? Everything, alas, but where are the economists to point it out. They must be working at the bureau of stats in this massive effort to hide the decline.

The moral standards of the left

Posted on by
Reply

As everyone understands, there are no actual moral standards on the left. There are moral standards observed by the conservative side of politics that can be used to discredit politicians on the right among voters on the right. On the left, however, power is all and what you do personally makes no difference at all. Watching the rise and rise of Hillary Clinton, along with Bill, would be beyond any measure difficult to understand if you thought honest and ethical behaviour actually mattered. Such behaviour simply could not happen on the conservative side of politics, not least because the left media would never let up on any of it.

So here is an interesting test case brought to us by Donna Laframboise: Will Rajendra Pachauri Be Held Accountable by Green Activists?, which comes with the subheading, “The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?” The answer is obvious and the answer is never. Being on the left means you never have to say you’re sorry.

When a 74-year-old global thinker, leader, and statesman whose very name is synonymous with climate change and the environment is declared guilty of flagrant sexual harassment of a 29-year-old female subordinate, you’d think calls for him to be held accountable would be deafening. Particularly from folks in the ‘I demand accountability’ business.

But perhaps the green movement has missed the latest developments. Here, therefore, are some current headlines to bring it up to date:

India Today: TERI panel finds RK Pachauri guilty of sexually harassing colleague
Hans India: RK Pachauri guilty of sexual harassment, finds TERI panel
New Indian Express: TERI Declares Pachauri Guilty of Harassment
One India: TERI report finds RK Pachauri guilty of sexual harassment
Deccan Chronicle: TERI’s internal panel finds RK Pachauri guilty in sexual harassment case

There are no moral standards on the left. We on the right think sexual harassment is wrong so they use even fake examples against our representatives – Clarence Thomas for example. But when the real thing is proved beyond all possible measure of doubt – Bill Clinton and the Gap dress – they stand by their man. The kinds of none issues that were used against Mitt Romney – who drove from Boston to the Canadian border with his dog in a cage on the roof of a car – would be insane except for the fact that this is exactly what was used to alienate some votes from Republicans. When Obama admitted to actually eating dog, somehow this never seemed to matter.

I actually thought that Pachauri had been taken down by this scandal. That he is still there and continues to lead the IPCC with no demands that he step down truly is astounding. He had resigned as I had thought, so I will go back to Donna’s original point which is where is all the criticism from the green side of politics for such behaviour.

FURTHER COMMENT: When I look at the ethics of the left, I am of course looking at political morality and not personal, which can be quite different. The great moral monsters of the last hundred years or so have had socialism as the basis for their power. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and etc. Personal morality is something different but is a dangerous mix with the politics of the left. Gerard Henderson’s article today on Persecutors of Pell raises many an interesting point about how this issue is being used as a political weapon. I found this particularly interesting, mostly because I did not know any of it.

The ABC, under the direction of managing director and editor-in-chief Mark Scott, has been pursuing Pell for years. In 2013 Four Corners edited its Unholy Silence program to Pell’s disadvantage by cutting out a crucial comment where he explained his role in the Catholic Church in Australia. Scott, in private correspondence, subsequently supported this act of censorship. . . .

Meanwhile Scott, who joined the board of Knox Grammar School Council in late 2007 and became deputy chairman in mid-2013, has declined to answer several questions as to what he did, or did not do, with respect to auditing child sexual abuse at the school.

As evidence to the royal commission demonstrates, there was a nest of pederast teachers at Knox Grammar and offending continued up until at least 2003 and the issue did not become public until 2009, some time after Scott joined the board. As far as I am aware, Scott’s association with Knox Grammar has not been reported on the ABC. Of course, I’m not suggesting Spigelman or Scott are responsible for biased reporting, or that they in any way condone pederasts, just that they should have stepped in or made a public statement demanding balance and admonishing rogue clergy.

Who is really surprised that this has not happened? But more to the point, who is surprised that this is such a quiet issue, left unreported at the ABC? The left weaponises morality but is far from even-handed in how these moral judgements are applied.

[My thanks to TM for passing the story along]