Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 21, 2015, 08:27:45 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85777 Posts in 2268 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 66164 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #500 on: April 08, 2015, 01:00:53 PM »

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.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12371


« Reply #501 on: April 08, 2015, 07:45:54 PM »

yup. There are low level federal employees who were terminated and prosecuted for much lesser things involving classified materials.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #502 on: April 08, 2015, 08:24:00 PM »

Not to mention David Petraeus too.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #503 on: April 09, 2015, 01:00:21 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-irancontra-scandal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #504 on: April 10, 2015, 01:59:20 PM »

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.



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4439


« Reply #505 on: April 11, 2015, 09:35:53 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.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #506 on: April 12, 2015, 11:48:01 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKi1ePbpi4c
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #507 on: April 12, 2015, 09:37:31 PM »

http://stophillarypac.org/articles/top-hillary-aide-under-investigation
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #508 on: April 13, 2015, 09:38:42 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
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #509 on: April 13, 2015, 10:44:08 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/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #510 on: April 13, 2015, 12:03:41 PM »

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

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 687


« Reply #511 on: April 14, 2015, 09:59:01 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
Logged

"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: 33000


« Reply #512 on: April 14, 2015, 11:44:25 AM »

Interesting details in that one Obj.



http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/04/13/hillarys-server-its-not-just-about-her-hiding-things-from-the-american-people/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 12:20:43 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #513 on: April 14, 2015, 01:42:58 PM »

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.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #514 on: April 15, 2015, 08:27:43 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.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #515 on: April 15, 2015, 08:42:25 PM »

second post

http://www.darrellissa.com/view/?u=12165
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #516 on: April 17, 2015, 10:12:06 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, 10:13:49 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #517 on: April 17, 2015, 10:52:06 AM »


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

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4439


« Reply #518 on: April 18, 2015, 12:42:11 AM »

"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
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6413


« Reply #519 on: April 20, 2015, 02:03:15 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, 02:08:51 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #520 on: April 20, 2015, 04:15:15 PM »

Hat tip to Obj, pasting it here.

www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/video-robert-spencer-on-hillary-clintons-war-on-free-speech/

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33000


« Reply #521 on: Today at 07:22:59 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-the-bible-is-my-biggest-influence/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!